State of Tennessee v. Lemonderius Antwan Goodner

                                                                                          12/19/2023
        IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
                         AT NASHVILLE
                        Assigned on Briefs December 12, 2023

    STATE OF TENNESSEE v. LEMONDERIUS ANTWAN GOODNER

                Appeal from the Criminal Court for Davidson County
                     No. 2017-C-1807 Steve R. Dozier, Judge
                     ___________________________________

                           No. M2022-01361-CCA-R3-CD
                       ___________________________________


The defendant, Lemonderius Antwan Goodner, was convicted by a Davidson County
Criminal Court jury of premeditated first-degree murder, felony murder, and attempted
especially aggravated robbery, for which he received an effective sentence of life
imprisonment plus ten years. On appeal, the defendant argues that the evidence is
insufficient to sustain his convictions. After reviewing the record and considering the
applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

 Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgments of the Criminal Court Affirmed

J. ROSS DYER, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which ROBERT L. HOLLOWAY, JR.,
and ROBERT H. MONTGOMERY, JR., JJ., joined.

Leah R. Wilson, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Lemonderius Antwan Goodner.

Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General and Reporter; Caroline Weldon, Assistant Attorney
General; Glenn Funk, District Attorney General; and Jennifer Charles, David Jones, and
Wesley King, Assistant District Attorneys General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.


                                        OPINION

                              Facts and Procedural History

       This case arises out of the defendant’s attempted robbery and shooting of the victim,
Carlos Moran, on May 29, 2017, for which he was indicted for premeditated first-degree
murder, felony murder, and attempted especially aggravated robbery. Surveillance
cameras around the Tony Sudekum or “University Court” public housing development
where the incident took place captured the defendant’s activities on the premises, including
his interactions with the victim and shooting the victim in the back.

        Detective William Mathis with the Metropolitan Nashville Police Department
(“MNPD”) received a call concerning a shooting at the University Court housing
development on May 29, 2017. Learning that the victim had already been transported to
the hospital, Detective Mathis went to the hospital but was unable to interview the victim
due to his condition. The victim had sustained one gunshot wound to his lower right back
that exited his body through the front left thigh. Detective Mathis obtained items of the
victim’s clothing and turned those items over to Courtney Bouchie, a crime scene
investigator with the MNPD. At the scene of the shooting, Investigator Bouchie found
three .40-caliber cartridge casings and also collected items of clothing with blood stains.

       Detective Mathis obtained video surveillance footage from the Metropolitan
Development and Housing Authority from the day of the shooting. Detective Mathis
explained that the cameras were motion activated and began recording when movement
triggered the sensor. Detective Mathis also used the footage to create still images of the
sequence of events leading up to, and including, the shooting.

       The surveillance footage showed the defendant and his girlfriend, Sheba Drake,
arrive at University Court in Ms. Drake’s black, two-door Pontiac G6. Ms. Drake can be
seen leaving University Court as the defendant joined in a dice game with other men. A
while later, the victim is seen walking down the sidewalk. As the victim got closer to the
defendant, the defendant left the dice game and met the victim on the other side of the
building. The defendant returned to the area near the dice game and appeared to search for
something in the bushes. The defendant then approached the victim again, and the victim
handed the defendant some money. Upon receiving the victim’s money, the defendant
produced and pointed a gun at the victim. Two men, who were with the defendant, then
searched the victim’s pockets while the defendant held him at gunpoint. When the victim
attempted to flee, the defendant shot him in the back. The video then shows that Ms. Drake
returned to University Court, picked up the defendant, and they drove away.

       The day after the shooting, Detective Mathis learned that the victim’s condition had
deteriorated and his injuries were life-threatening. The victim was intubated and placed in
a medically-induced coma before succumbing to his injuries on June 1, 2017. Following
an autopsy, the victim’s cause of death was confirmed as a gunshot wound and manner of
death was homicide.

       Detective Mathis distributed the still images that he had created from the
surveillance footage to officers who routinely worked the University Court area. Sergeant
Andrew Grega of the MNPD was one such officer, and Sergeant Grega reviewed the
                                           -2-
photographs and identified the defendant as the suspect. Based on information received
from Sergeant Grega, Detective Mathis investigated the Facebook account of “BG
Lildoodie.” Detective Mathis saw that the owner of the Facebook profile had posted a
photograph of himself on May 29, 2017, approximately two hours after the shooting. In
the photograph, the grip of a pistol can be seen protruding from the individual’s pants
pocket, and the caption for the photo read: “I’m Death To All Da Threats And Brought
Aye Weapon For The Arguments.” The caption was followed by a string of emojis,
including a 100 percent, a flexing bicep, and a gun.

      Detective Mathis obtained a search warrant for BG Lildoodie’s Facebook account
and learned there were two email addresses associated with the account:
Lemonderious.G.Goodner@Facebook.com and Goodner45@yahoo.com.                     Detective
Mathis also received all of the photographs, posts, and private messages for the account.

       In one private message that occurred about two hours after the shooting, a Facebook
user named Da Finessa Finessa asked the defendant why he “hit” the victim and the
defendant answered, “Ion Kno I slicc Was Bsn,” which is slang for “bustin” or
“bullsh***ing.” Later in the exchange, the defendant expressed concern that someone was
going to “snitch,” to which Da Finessa Finessa agreed and also noted the defendant was
“on camera.” Da Finessa Finessa instructed the defendant to “[s]tay low.” The defendant
asked, “Wea I hit em at N da bacc”? Da Finessa Finessa replied, “Bak and hip.” When
the defendant asked if the victim had died, Da Finessa Finessa responded, “Ion think so.”
The defendant replied, “Awwww.” In a message the next day, Da Finessa Finessa
informed the defendant that the police were “hot,” i.e., in the area, and to stay indoors.

       On June 1, 2017, the defendant exchanged private messages with a Facebook user
named ShaDaisha Danielle Martin in which the defendant asked Ms. Martin if she knew
that he was on the run for attempted murder. When Ms. Martin told the defendant that she
had not heard that information, the defendant queried, “You didn’t hear about me shooting
dude?”

       Based on his investigation, Detective Mathis obtained a warrant for the defendant’s
arrest on June 1, 2017, and attempted to determine the defendant’s location based on his
Facebook activity. The defendant posted videos on his Facebook account and based on the
features of the buildings in the background, the defendant was tracked to Ms. Drake’s
apartment at the Burning Tree apartment complex in Hermitage where he was arrested on
June 2, 2017.

        Detective Mathis affirmed that during the course of his investigation, he did not find
any evidence to suggest the victim had posed a physical threat to the defendant on the day
of the shooting. No weapons were found on or near the victim’s body, and the surveillance
                                            -3-
footage did not show the victim with any weapon. The surveillance footage also showed
that the victim did not get physical or attempt to get physical with the defendant prior to
the shooting. The footage revealed that the victim’s back was to the defendant and that he
appeared to be running away when he was shot. The defendant did not render aid to the
victim.

       After the defendant was arrested, he called Ms. Drake from jail and their
conversation was recorded. Investigator Linda Griffin of the Davidson County Sheriff’s
Office explained the process for tracking inmate phone calls and how she found a recording
of the conversation between the defendant and Ms. Drake. During the call, the defendant
accused Ms. Drake of reporting him to law enforcement, and Ms. Drake told the defendant
that law enforcement found him because of his Facebook posts.

       The murder weapon, a .40-caliber Smith & Wesson pistol, was recovered on
September 27, 2017, during an investigative stop of a man named Keith Puckett at the
University Court development. Mr. Puckett was incarcerated on the day of the shooting in
this case, but Detective Mathis explained it was not uncommon for a gun to be used in
multiple crimes committed by different people.

       Rhonda Evans, a firearms examiner with the MNPD, test fired the recovered
weapon and entered the ejected cartridge casings into a national ballistics database. The
database linked the test firings to the three .40-caliber cartridge casings recovered from the
crime scene. The pistol was also linked to an unrelated shooting that occurred on August
14, 2017.

        Based on this proof, the jury convicted the defendant as charged of premeditated
first-degree murder, felony murder, and attempted especially aggravated robbery. The
defendant was subsequently sentenced to life imprisonment plus ten years. This appeal
followed.

                                          Analysis

       The defendant argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions. The
defendant asserts there is “no proof” he intended to kill the victim or that he acted with
premeditation. The defendant also asserts that he did not attempt to rob the victim,
claiming he was only trying to reclaim something he believed the victim had taken from
him. He extrapolates that because he did not attempt to rob the victim, then he could not
be guilty of felony murder. The State responds that viewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to the State, the evidence established all essential elements of the charged
offenses. We agree with the State.

                                            -4-
        When the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged, the relevant question of the
reviewing court is “whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime
beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 

 (1979); see also Tenn.
R. App. P. 13(e) (“Findings of guilt in criminal actions whether by the trial court or jury
shall be set aside if the evidence is insufficient to support the findings by the trier of fact
of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”); State v. Evans, 

 (Tenn.
1992); State v. Anderson, 

 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1992). All questions
involving the credibility of witnesses, the weight and value to be given the evidence, and
all factual issues are resolved by the trier of fact. See State v. Pappas, 

 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987). “A guilty verdict by the jury, approved by the trial judge,
accredits the testimony of the witnesses for the State and resolves all conflicts in favor of
the theory of the State.” State v. Grace, 

 (Tenn. 1973). Our supreme
court has stated the rationale for this rule:

       This well-settled rule rests on a sound foundation. The trial judge and the
       jury see the witnesses face to face, hear their testimony and observe their
       demeanor on the stand. Thus, the trial judge and jury are the primary
       instrumentality of justice to determine the weight and credibility to be given
       to the testimony of witnesses. In the trial forum alone is there human
       atmosphere and the totality of the evidence cannot be reproduced with a
       written record in this Court.

Bolin v. State, 

 (Tenn. 1966) (citing Carroll v. State, 

,

 (1963)). “A jury conviction removes the presumption of innocence with
which a defendant is initially cloaked and replaces it with one of guilt, so that on appeal a
convicted defendant has the burden of demonstrating that the evidence is insufficient.”
State v. Tuggle, 

 (Tenn. 1982).

I. First-degree Murder

       First-degree murder is the premeditated and intentional killing of another. 

(a)(1). Premeditation is “an act done after the exercise of reflection
and judgment.” 

 § 39-13-202(d). Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-202(d)
further states:

       “Premeditation” means that the intent to kill must have been formed prior to
       the act itself. It is not necessary that the purpose to kill preexist in the mind
       of the accused for any definite period of time. The mental state of the accused
       at the time the accused allegedly decided to kill must be carefully considered

                                             -5-
       in order to determine whether the accused was sufficiently free from
       excitement and passion as to be capable of premeditation.

Id. “The element of premeditation is a question for the jury which may be established by
proof of the circumstances surrounding the killing.” State v. Young, 

(Tenn. 2006) (citing State v. Bland, 

 (Tenn. 1997)). Some facts which
may be indicative of the existence of premeditation include the use of a deadly weapon on
an unarmed victim, the shooting of the victim after he had turned to retreat or escape, the
lack of provocation on the part of the victim, the defendant’s declarations of his intent to
kill, and the defendant’s failure to render aid to the victim. See, e.g., Bland, 

; State v. Martin, 

 (Tenn. 1985), overruled on other grounds
by State v. Brown, 

 (Tenn. 1992); State v. Lewis, 

(Tenn. Crim. App. 2000).

       In the light most favorable to the State, there was sufficient evidence from which
the jury could determine that the defendant intended to kill the victim and acted with
premeditation. According to the proof presented, the defendant, armed with a pistol,
confronted the unarmed victim. The defendant held the victim at gunpoint while his two
associates searched the victim’s pockets. Then, when the victim turned to flee, the
defendant shot the victim in the back as he was running away. The defendant did not
attempt to render aid to the victim. Instead, the defendant ran from the scene and hid for
four days until he was captured. Upon reviewing the surveillance footage or evidence
found at the scene, officers discovered no indication of provocation by the victim.

       In addition, the defendant’s intent can be inferred from his activity on Facebook in
the hours and days after the shooting. Approximately two hours after the shooting, the
defendant posted a photograph of himself on Facebook with the apparent murder weapon
protruding from his pocket and a caption that read: “I’m Death To All Da Threats And
Brought Aye Weapon For The Arguments.” The caption was followed by a string of
emojis, including a 100 percent, a flexing bicep, and a gun. In private messages with two
different Facebook users, the defendant seemingly bragged about the shooting and acted
disappointed when he learned that the victim had not yet died. Viewed in a light most
favorable to the State, the evidence is sufficient to sustain the defendant’s conviction for
premeditated first-degree murder. Accordingly, the defendant is not entitled to relief.

II. Felony Murder and Attempted Especially Aggravated Robbery

       First-degree felony murder is “[a] killing of another committed in the perpetration
of or attempt to perpetrate any . . . robbery[.]” 

(a)(2).
Robbery is “the intentional or knowing theft of property from the person of another by
violence or putting the person in fear.” 

 § 39-13-401. An aggravated robbery occurs
                                            -6-
when a robbery is “[a]ccomplished with a deadly weapon . . . or [w]here the victim suffers
serious bodily injury.” Id. § 39-13-402. When “accomplished with a deadly weapon” and
when “the victim suffers serious bodily injury,” a robbery is elevated to especially
aggravated robbery. Id. § 39-13-403. “A person commits criminal attempt who, acting
with the kind of culpability otherwise required for the offense” either “[a]cts with intent to
cause a result that is an element of the offense, and believes the conduct will cause the
result without further conduct on the person’s part” or “[a]cts with intent to complete a
course of action or cause a result that would constitute the offense, under the circumstances
surrounding the conduct as the person believes them to be, and the conduct constitutes a
substantial step toward the commission of the offense.” Id. § 39-12-101(2), (3).

       In the light most favorable to the State, there was sufficient evidence from which
the jury could determine that the defendant attempted to rob the victim and then killed the
victim during the attempt. The surveillance footage showed that the defendant, armed with
a pistol, walked across the parking lot toward the victim, and the victim handed the
defendant some money. The defendant then pointed his gun at the victim and held him at
gunpoint while his associates pilfered through the victim’s pockets. When the victim
attempted to flee from the encounter, the defendant shot the victim in the back. The
defendant’s assertion that he was only trying to reclaim something he believed the victim
to have taken from him, not to rob the victim, is without any support in the record. The
evidence is sufficient to sustain the defendant’s convictions for felony murder and
attempted especially aggravated robbery, and we, therefore, affirm the defendant’s
convictions.

                                        Conclusion

        Based on the foregoing authorities and reasoning, we affirm the judgments of the
trial court.



                                              ____________________________________
                                              J. ROSS DYER, JUDGE




                                            -7-