January 10, 2023
By: Dwayne Page
A DeKalb County mother is speaking out against parole for the man convicted of murdering her son almost thirty years ago.
Sharon George told WJLE this week that 30 years in prison is not long enough for Archie Lee Roberts who shot and killed her 18-year-old son Eric D. Graham and seriously wounded another teen, 17-year-old Shane Orlando in a knife attack on April 28, 1993. Roberts was age 17 at the time of the crimes which occurred outside his home on Bright Hill Road in DeKalb County. All three teens were students at DeKalb County High School.
Roberts, now 47 years old, has served almost 30 years of a life prison sentence for first degree murder and attempted murder and is up for his first parole hearing next Wednesday January 18 at the Hardeman County Correctional Facility in Whiteville, Tennessee where he is incarcerated.
Ms. George, who plans to address the parole board via video conference next week, said Roberts does not deserve to be released from prison.
“On April 28, 1993, I, along with all Eric’s family and friends, were sentenced to a life sentence until the day we die,” said Ms. George. “We have no chance for parole! Archie Roberts gave us this sentence by taking Eric’s life. He was sentenced a year later to “life” for 1st Degree Murder! Why should he be paroled? He also received a sentence of 20 years for Attempted 1st Degree murder of Shane Orlando, and an additional year for escaping from the DeKalb County Jail. These 3 sentences were to be served Consecutively! We fought hard to get this sentence and it should be carried out. My son’s life was worth more than 30 years,” said Ms. George.
According to the court records, “On April 28, 1993, while riding around and drinking together, Roberts got into an argument with Graham and Orlando. Roberts pulled a knife on Orlando, but Orlando was able to take the knife from Roberts. Upon arriving at his home, Roberts requested the return of his knife. Immediately after Orlando returned the knife, Roberts stabbed Orlando in the stomach causing a severe wound”.
(Click the link below to read a narrative about the Archie Roberts’ case and the judgment affirming his conviction by the Tennessee Criminal Court of Appeals in an opinion delivered by Judge Norma McGee Ogle in which Judges David G, Hayes and Jerry L. Smith joined)
“Roberts then entered his house and kicked in his mother’s locked bedroom door. He obtained a 12-gauge shotgun and shotgun shells, and he loaded the gun. Once outside, Roberts resisted his stepbrother’s attempts to restrain him, and he shot Graham in the head and in the shoulder. Roberts then shot at Orlando but did not hit him. After Orlando begged to get medical help for Graham, Roberts allowed Orlando to leave with Graham (in a pickup truck which crashed a short distance from the scene due to the severity of the wounds inflicted by Roberts to both Graham and Orlando). Roberts subsequently called 911 and made a coherent request for assistance. He also bragged to the neighbors about “killing a boy that was in the yard.” Graham died as a result of his head wound and Orlando was hospitalized for nine days”.
“Roberts was found guilty by a DeKalb County Criminal Court jury in 1994 of one count of first-degree murder in the death of Graham, for which he received a life sentence, and one count of attempted first degree murder in the stabbing of Orlando, for which he received a sentence of twenty years incarceration. Due to his youth, the State was unable to seek the death penalty for Roberts’ first-degree murder conviction. Accordingly, the trial court sentenced Roberts to life imprisonment for the first-degree murder conviction and to twenty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction for the attempted first-degree murder conviction and ordered that the sentences be served consecutively”.
While incarcerated at the DeKalb County Jail, Roberts escaped but was captured a short time later and charged with felony escape for which he received a one-year sentence.
“Roberts appealed his case to the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals on direct appeal, and his convictions were affirmed. Subsequently, Roberts filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.
Specifically, Roberts alleged that his counsel was ineffective for failing to introduce any mitigating evidence at his sentencing hearing. Roberts contends that his trial counsel should have introduced evidence of his “horrific childhood and emotional problems” through the testimony of his sister and a psychiatrist.
Roberts claimed that if the psychiatrist testified at the sentencing hearing concerning his difficult childhood, the trial court would have had a basis for further mitigation of the sentences. However, Roberts’ trial counsel testified at the post-conviction hearing that there were strategic problems with calling the psychiatrist because of the doctor’s credibility.
As for his sister, Roberts contends she should have been allowed to testify during the trial regarding his difficult childhood. She testified at the post-conviction hearing that, as a youth, Roberts was kidnapped by his father, witnessed his father shoot at his mother, and watched his father abuse his mother. She testified that Roberts became withdrawn and developed an explosive temper as a result of his difficult childhood. Roberts contends that the trial court would have further mitigated his sentences if this evidence had been introduced at the sentencing hearing.
According to the appellate court’s analysis of the case, the trial judge had no discretion as to the first-degree murder conviction as life imprisonment was the only possible punishment due Roberts’ age. The range of punishment for attempted first degree murder as a Standard Offender is a minimum of fifteen (15) years and a maximum of twenty-five (25) years. The trial judge sentenced Roberts in the middle of the range at 20 years.
The post-conviction court denied the claim for relief, finding that Roberts had not established that his trial counsel had been ineffective or that he had been prejudiced by counsel’s actions. On appeal, Roberts raised the following issue for the court’s review: whether the post-conviction court erred in denying the petitioner’s claim for relief. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, the judgment of the post-conviction court was affirmed by the criminal court of appeals.
“Given the extremely violent nature of Roberts’ crimes and the fact that he did not dispute his guilt of those crimes, Roberts has failed to show how additional information regarding his childhood would have provided a basis for further mitigation. The trial court considered Roberts’ youth, his lack of judgment, and a mental condition that significantly reduced his culpability. There is no evidence that, had additional testimony been presented, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Accordingly, we find that Roberts has failed to establish that his trial counsel was ineffective. Even if trial counsel was ineffective at the sentencing phase, Roberts has nevertheless failed to demonstrate how this failure prejudiced him. Based upon the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court,” the appellate court concluded.
According to Dustin Krugel, Communications Director for the Tennessee Board of Parole, four parole board members must concur on whether to grant Roberts’ petition for parole.
“Mr. Roberts has been scheduled for his initial parole hearing on January 18 at Hardeman County Correctional Complex in Whiteville. The Board of Parole schedules parole hearings for offenders upon receiving notification from the Tennessee Department of Correction (TDOC) that an offender is eligible for parole. Parole eligibility is determined by the applicable statute and law under which the offender was convicted. The law mandates that a certain percentage of the sentence must be served before the offender is eligible for parole,” said Krugel.
“The Board’s enabling statute provides the requisite number of votes required for a decision in a particular case. For this case, there needs to be four concurring votes before a final decision is reached. Following the hearing, Board members will independently review the parole case and cast their vote. It does not have to be a unanimous vote,” Krugel added.