State v. Gentry
538 S.W.3d 413 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Tennessee's consolidated theft statute, Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-103, encompasses the theft of real property when a defendant obtains or exercises control over the property without the owner's effective consent and with the intent to deprive the owner, through actions such as physical occupation, seizure, and the filing of a fraudulent deed.
Facts:
- On August 26, 2011, Renasant Bank foreclosed on a large, vacant East Memphis home valued at over $2 million, situated on a three-and-a-half-acre gated property.
- Gregory Hadaway, an executive vice president at Renasant Bank, assigned Greg Paule to manage the foreclosed home, and Mr. Paule contracted with real estate agent John Dickens to sell it.
- By February 2013, Mr. Dickens had found a buyer for $2.4 million, and the closing was rescheduled for March 29, 2013, to allow for home inspection repairs.
- On February 25, 2013, Tabitha Gentry filed twelve pages of documents, including a "quitclaim deed" purporting to transfer title of the East Memphis home to herself under the alias Abka Re Bay, with the Shelby County Register of Deeds Office.
- By March 4, 2013, Gentry had entered and occupied the East Memphis home without the Bank's consent, changed the locks, placed a large chain and padlock on the front gate, and posted "No Trespassing" signs stating, "I Abka Re Bay, seize this land."
- On March 4, 2013, Mr. Dickens discovered Gentry's actions and, along with Mr. Paule and later the Memphis City police, observed Gentry and two younger people inside the house.
- On March 5, 2013, the Bank, through its president Mr. Hudson, Mr. Dickens, and Mr. Paule, posted a 24-hour written notice to vacate on the property's gate.
- On March 7, 2013, Gentry was arrested by the Shelby County Sheriff's Office a quarter mile from the property; a SWAT team subsequently entered the house, finding it empty, and Sergeant Brad Less later searched the property, finding Gentry's personal and "Moorish sovereign" documents.
Procedural Posture:
- Tabitha Gentry was indicted by a Shelby County Grand Jury for theft of property valued at over $250,000 and aggravated burglary.
- A jury in the trial court convicted Gentry of theft of property valued at $250,000 or more (a Class A felony) and aggravated burglary (a Class C felony).
- The trial judge imposed a twenty-year sentence for the theft conviction and a three-year sentence for the aggravated burglary conviction, ordering them served concurrently to each other but consecutively to Gentry's sentence in another case.
- Gentry appealed her convictions and sentences to the Court of Criminal Appeals, alleging insufficient evidence, improper limitation of cross-examination, improper limitation of closing argument, and error in ordering consecutive sentencing.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Gentry's convictions and sentences, reversed the trial court's ruling ordering consecutive sentences to another case, and remanded the case for resentencing (Gentry was the appellant, the State was the appellee).
- Gentry then filed an application for permission to appeal pursuant to Rule 11 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure to the Supreme Court of Tennessee, which was granted (Gentry is the appellant, the State is the appellee).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Tennessee's consolidated theft statute, Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-103, apply to the theft of real property through actions such as physical occupation, seizure, and the filing of a fraudulent deed, rather than being limited to tangible, movable property or only fraudulent title transfers?
Opinions:
Majority - Cornelia A. Clark, J.
Yes, Tennessee's consolidated theft statute applies to the theft of real property, including through occupation, seizure, and the filing of a deed, and the evidence in this case was sufficient to support Tabitha Gentry's convictions. The court explained that Tennessee's 1989 Criminal Sentencing Reform Act created a "generic" consolidated theft offense (Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-103), replacing a myriad of fragmented common-law offenses like larceny, embezzlement, and false pretenses. This consolidation was designed to eliminate arbitrary distinctions and broaden the statute's scope, as evidenced by the statutory definition of "obtain," which explicitly states it "includes, but is not limited to" such traditional acts and "other similar offenses." Furthermore, the term "property" is broadly defined in Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-106(a)(28) as "anything of value, including, but not limited to, money, real estate, tangible or intangible personal property." The General Assembly, unlike the Model Penal Code and some other states, chose not to create a distinction or limitation between movable and immovable property for theft by unlawful taking, thereby indicating an intent for the statute to apply universally. The court found that Gentry's actions—physically occupying the property, changing locks, posting notices of seizure, and critically, filing a fraudulent quitclaim deed—constituted sufficient evidence that she knowingly obtained or exercised control over the real property without the owner's effective consent and with the intent to permanently deprive the Bank of its ownership. For sentencing purposes, the court determined that the fair market value of the property was the appropriate measure of value, given Gentry's intent to take full ownership, not merely temporary use, which supported her conviction for theft of property valued at over $250,000. Finally, because the theft conviction was supported, Gentry's aggravated burglary conviction was also affirmed, as it relied on the intent to commit a felony (theft) upon entering the habitation. The court also rejected Gentry's arguments regarding the trial court's limitations on cross-examination and closing arguments concerning adverse possession, noting the brief duration of her occupation compared to the years required for adverse possession.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies and broadens the application of Tennessee's consolidated theft statute, establishing that real property can be the subject of criminal theft. By affirming convictions based on physical occupation combined with fraudulent claims of ownership (e.g., filing a deed), the ruling moves beyond traditional common-law distinctions that often limited real property offenses to civil matters or lesser crimes like trespass. This decision grants prosecutors substantial discretion to pursue serious felony charges in cases involving sophisticated attempts to seize real estate, including those driven by "sovereign citizen" ideologies or similar fraudulent schemes. The emphasis on the full fair market value for sentencing purposes means defendants face severe penalties, underscoring the legal system's robust protection of property rights even in novel circumstances.
