State of Tennessee v. Martin Boyce

Defendant, Martin Boyce, was indicted in a seven-count indictment alleging one count of second degree murder, two counts of attempted second degree murder; two counts of aggravated assault; one count of employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, and one count of possession of a handgun by a convicted felon. Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of the lesser-included offenses of criminally negligent homicide and reckless endangerment in counts 1 and 2, attempted second degree murder in count 3, aggravated assault in count 5, employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony in count 6, and possession of a handgun by a convicted felon in count 7. Defendant was acquitted of one count of aggravated assault in count 4. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Defendant to serve four years for each conviction in counts 1 and 2, 17 years for his conviction in count 3, eight years for his conviction in count 5, and six and four years respectively for his convictions in counts 6 and 7. Defendant’s sentences in counts 1, 2, 3, and 5 were ordered to run concurrently with each other and consecutively to his sentences in counts 6 and 7, which were ordered to run consecutively with each other and his other sentences, for a total effective sentence of 27 years. On appeal, Defendant asserts that: 1) the evidence at trial was insufficient to support his conviction for attempted second degree murder; 2) the trial court erred by failing to sever count 7; 3) the trial court erred by not requiring the State to elect a dangerous felony underlying the offense in count 6 and by failing to instruct the jury as to the dangerous felony underlying the offense in count 6; 4) Defendant’s dual convictions for employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony and being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm violate double jeopardy, and 5) the trial court should not have ordered Defendant’s sentence in count 7 to run consecutively to his other sentences. The State asserts that Defendant has waived all issues except sufficiency of the evidence and consecutive sentencing because the motion for new trial was untimely filed. We reject the State’s argument concerning the timeliness of the motion for new trial. The judgment of conviction was not stamp-filed by the clerk, and thus there is nothing in the record to show that the motion for new trial was filed late. After reviewing the issues on the merits, we reverse Defendant’s conviction in count 6 and remand for a new trial. We also remand count 3 for entry of a corrected judgment which indicates the disposition of the charge as guilty by jury verdict. The remaining convictions and sentences are affirmed.