Skip to main content
· 11/7/2018

State of Tennessee v. Demetrius Grimes

Syllabus

The Defendant, Demetrius Grimes, was convicted of two counts of attempted first-degree murder five counts of employing a firearm during a dangerous felony four counts of employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony with a prior dangerous felony conviction two counts of attempted especially aggravated robbery two counts of attempted carjacking one count of attempted first-degree murder with serious bodily injury two counts of assault and one count of simple possession of a controlled substance, third offense. The sentences for the attempted first-degree murders of Michael Dixon and Carl Chesney were ordered to be served consecutively to each other, as well as to both of the 10-year sentences for employing a firearm during a dangerous felony, which were, in turn, to be served consecutively to each other, resulting in a total effective sentence of sixty years. Further, all the sentences were to be served consecutively to a sentence for a prior conviction. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that, since the State argued at trial that Michael Dixon was the intended target of the shots, the attempted first-degree murder conviction for the shooting of Carl Chesney could not stand. Further, the Defendant argues on appeal that the multiple convictions for employment of a firearm during the commission of multiple dangerous felonies cannot stand, for the evidence showed that the Defendant used only one weapon, thus supporting only a single firearm conviction and that the trial court erred in ordering consecutive sentencing. The State agrees on appeal that the court erred as to sentencing in Counts 15 through 18, which enhanced the Defendant's sentences for employing a firearm during the commission of four attempted dangerous felonies, for the prior felonies upon which the enhancement was based, were not \dangerous\ felonies, as required by statute, but, rather, were simple drug possession convictions. Accordingly, we reverse the convictions as to Counts 15 thro

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding a 17 complaint satisfied Rule 9(b) in alleging “‘what is false or misleading about a statement, and why 18 it is false.’”
  • noting that a Rule 9(b) analysis “may not even 12 be necessary” but proceeding under the assumption that Rule 9(b) applies because the 13 plaintiffs “did not raise this argument in their briefing”
  • noting that the plaintiffs' “state law claims are based in part on a 14 theory of fraud: that prescription pet food is not materially different from non-prescription 15 pet food and therefore does not justify the higher cost”
  • analyzing claseime sa lsbor oMuagnhtti kuans dve. rK etlhloe ggU CCLo, FAL, and CLRA for false and misleading advertising
  • noting “[l]iteral truth can sometimes protect a 24 product manufacturer from a misleading claim, but it is no guarantee”
  • finding plaintiffs sufficiently alleged actual reliance under UCL, FAL, and CLRA based on allegation that because of defendants’ misrepresentation, they purchased, and paid 28 more for, defendants’ product than they would have absent the misrepresentation

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Judge Alan E. Glenn

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.