(Download) "Donald Ray Evans v. State Tennessee" by Supreme Court of Tennessee * Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Donald Ray Evans v. State Tennessee
- Author : Supreme Court of Tennessee
- Release Date : January 11, 1978
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 74 KB
Description
COOPER, Justice. OPINION Petitioner, Donald Ray Evans, was convicted of first degree burglary, with the punishment for that
crime being fixed by the jury at five to ten years in the penitentiary. The punishment was enhanced to life imprisonment under
the provisions of T.C.A. § 40-2801 et seq. upon the jury's finding that the petitioner was an habitual criminal.
On appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the judgment. We granted certiorari to clarify certain language in the principal
opinion of that court concerning the number of convictions required to bring the habitual criminal statutes into play, and
also to determine if the petitioner's prior felony convictions were such as to support his sentencing as an habitual criminal.
While the petitioner has raised several other issues in his assignments, we believe that these were disposed of correctly
by the Court of Criminal Appeals, and do not merit further consideration by this court. The habitual criminal act, T.C.A. § 40-2801 et seq., does not create an independent offense, but merely serves
to enhance the punishment for a crime committed by a person who is an "habitual criminal." Harrison v. State, 217 Tenn. 31,
394 S.W.2d 713 (1965). An habitual criminal is defined in T.C.A. § 40-2801 as person who has either been three (3)
times convicted within this state of felonies, not less than two (2) of which are among those specified in §§
39-604, 39-605, 39-609, 39-610, 39-3708, 40-2712, 52-1432(a)(1)(A) or were for a crime punishable by death under existing
law.. or who has been three (3) times convicted under the laws of any other state, government, or country of crimes, not less
than two (2) of which, if they had been committed in this state, would have been among those specified in said §§
39-604, 39-605, 39-609, 39-610, 39-3708, 40-2712, 52-1432(a)(1)(A) or would have been punishable by death under existing laws....
[,]