The Tennessee Criminal Court of Appeals has affirmed a 2022 ruling from a local judge, allowing former death row inmate Pervis Payne to serve his two life sentences concurrently, making him eligible for parole in four years. 

Had the sentences been served consecutively, Payne, 56, would not have been eligible for parole until he was 85.

Pervis Payne could be eligible for parole in five years

Payne was convicted in 1988 for the 1987 stabbing deaths of Charisse Christopher, 28, and her 2-year-old daughter, Lacie. Christopher’s 3-year-old son Nicholas, who was stabbed multiple times, survived the attack. 

Payne was charged with two counts of first-degree murder and one count of assault with intent to commit murder. Shelby County Criminal Court Division 1 Judge Paula Skahan ruled on Jan. 31, 2022, that Payne could serve his two life sentences concurrently but consecutive to his assault sentence.

He has maintained his innocence since being convicted.

He was originally given the death penalty but Skahan vacated the sentence and replaced it with two life sentences after an amendment to a state law passed on May 11, 2021.

That amendment allows defendants who were sentenced to death – and whose sentences are final on direct review prior to its passage – the ability to petition the court to rule them ineligible for that sentence on the basis that they have an intellectual disability. 

Skahan weighs new sentence in Pervis Payne case

Evaluations by experts determined that Payne has an intellectual disability and therefore was able to escape the death penalty conviction. Instead he was given the two life sentences with the possibility of parole as well as the assault charge, on which the disability was ruled to not have an effect. 

Payne was given the possibility of parole because life without the possibility of parole was not an available sentence at the time he was convicted.

After a sentencing hearing in December 2021, according to the appeals court, Skahan issued her January 2022 ruling that Payne could serve his life sentences concurrently. The state then filed an appeal.

In its appeal, the state argued that under the amended state law, Skahan did not have the authority to consider the manner in which Payne served his sentence. The state argued that the statute only concerned whether a defendant is ineligible for the death penalty because of an intellectual disability and what sentence to replace it with.

“Because the consecutive alignment of the defendant’s sentences ‘was not constitutionally forbidden by the finding of the intellectual disability,’ the state contends that portion of the defendant’s sentence remained final and could not be amended,” the court wrote.

Resentencing for 1987 killings hinges on conflicting views of Pervis Payne

The state also argued that because first-degree murder sentencing statutes in Tennessee don’t speak to how multiple sentences should be served, Skahan lacked standing with her ruling on Payne.

The appeals court disagreed.

“The state argues that the silence of these statutes with regard to manner of service indicates a trial court’s lack of jurisdiction to consider the issue. However, if this argument were taken to its logical extension, it would lead to the absurd result that all previously imposed consecutive first-degree murder sentences are invalid,” the court wrote. “We will not presume from silence that the legislature intended to divest a trial court of jurisdiction it would otherwise have.”