Current Pending Cases – Criminal
Style: State of Tennessee v. William Rimmel, III
TSC Docket Number: M2022-00794-SC-R11-CD
Court of Criminal Appeals Opinion: https://tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/OpinionsPDFVersion/Majority%20Opinion%202022-794-CCA.pdf
Summary by the Court of Criminal Appeals:
Defendant, William Rimmel, III, was indicted by the Marion County Grand Jury for one count of aggravated assault, two counts of reckless endangerment, one count of false imprisonment, one count of vandalism over $2,500, and one count of burglary of an automobile. The charge of false imprisonment was dismissed prior to trial. A jury found Defendant guilty of attempted aggravated assault, reckless endangerment, attempted reckless endangerment, vandalism under $1,000, and attempted burglary of an automobile. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court denied Defendant’s request for judicial diversion and imposed an effective sentence of two years on probation following service of 11 months and 29 days in confinement. On appeal, Defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions, that the trial court abused its discretion in denying Defendant’s request for an alternative sentence and in ordering consecutive sentencing, that his convictions should be vacated due to the State’s failure to preserve evidence, and that the trial court gave confusing jury instructions. Based on the record, the briefs, and oral arguments, we affirm the judgments of the trial court but remand for entry of a judgment in Count 4 and amended judgment in Count 3, reflecting that those counts were dismissed, and for entry of corrected judgments in Counts 5 and 6.
Permission to Appeal Granted: November 20, 2023. ” Upon consideration of the application for permission to appeal of William Rimmel, III, and the record before us, the application is granted on the following issue:
Whether the convictions for attempted aggravated assault with a handgun and reckless endangerment with a handgun where the victim is unaware of the handgun conflict with the Supreme Court’s opinion and other opinions of the Court of Criminal Appeals that the victim must be reasonably in fear of imminent bodily injury?
Within this sufficiency inquiry, the Court is particularly interested in whether the evidence satisfied the “[i]nvolved the use or display of a deadly weapon” element of attempted aggravated assault and the “committed with a deadly weapon” element of felony reckless endangerment.
Appellants’ Briefs Filed: January 19, 2024
Appellees’ Briefs Filed:
Appellants’ Reply Brief Filed:
Appellees’ Reply Brief Filed:
Amicus Briefs Permitted:
Oral Argument Date:
Link to Oral Argument Video:
Date of TSC Opinion:
Opinion of the TSC:
TSC Summary of the Opinion: