Court of Criminal Appeals Opinions - 1^st Quarter 2001

The following Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals Opinions are available for download:

---

Cases Posted the week of 03/26/2001
State vs. Shunna Hilliard - W1999-00483-CCA-R3-CD ( Filed 03/01/2001) View
Defendant appeals her conviction of two counts of sale of cocaine, both Class C felonies. She received sentences of four (4) years on each count, running concurrent to one another, and was ordered to pay a $100,000.00 fine on each count. Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions, and that the trial court erred in failing to sentence her to the minimum sentence and failing to grant alternative sentencing. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

State vs. Deborah Graham & Denice Smith - E1999-02248-CCA-R3-CD View
After a jury trial, a Cocke County jury found the Defendants, Deborah Graham and Denice Smith, guilty of the first degree murder of Aaron Smith. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced both Defendants to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. In this appeal as of right, the Defendants raise the following issues: 1) whether the trial court erred in not dismissing the indictments because of the State's failure to provide the Defendants with a speedy trial; 2) whether the trial court erred by allowing the State to decide not to consolidate Alexandro Rivera's case with the Defendants' case, because of a potential Bruton problem, without first granting the Defendants an opportunity to be heard on the issue; 3) whether the trial court erred in failing to sever Defendant Smith's case from Defendant Graham's case; 4) whether the trial court erred in consolidating Defendant Graham's case with Defendant Smith's case; and 5) whether the evidence was sufficient to convict each of the Defendants of first degree murder. After a thorough review of the evidence and the applicable law, we affirm the decision of the trial court.

State vs. Danielle Walker - E2000-00578-CCA-R3-CD View
The appellant, Danielle L. Walker, pled guilty in the Blount County Circuit Court to one count of theft of property over $1000, a class D felony. The trial court sentenced the appellant as a standard Range I offender to two years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The trial court ordered the appellant to serve twenty days of her sentence in periodic confinement and to serve the balance of her sentence on supervised probation. The trial court also ordered the appellant to make restitution to the victim in the amount of $2,928.56. On appeal, the appellant raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether the trial court erred by refusing to grant the appellant judicial diversion; and (2) whether the trial court erred by refusing to grant the appellant full probation. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Thomas Williams vs. State - M2000-00506-CCA-R3-PC (Originally filed 09/22/2001) View
Thomas J. Williams appeals from the Hickman County Circuit Court's denial of his pro se petition for post-conviction relief. After review, we find the trial court's summary dismissal proper because the petition (1) is time barred; (2) fails to state a colorable claim; and (3) raises claims which are waived as they were not raised in previous petitions. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's denial of the petition.

State vs. Charlie Gardner - M1999-02214-CCA-R3-CD View
The Defendant, Charlie M. Gardner, was found guilty by a Davidson County jury of one count of first degree premeditated murder and two counts of reckless aggravated assault. The jury sentenced the Defendant to life without the possibility of parole for the first degree murder conviction, and the trial court sentenced the Defendant to four years for each reckless aggravated assault conviction, all sentences to be served consecutively. In this appeal, the Defendant challenges (1) the admissibility of hearsay statements as falling within the excited utterance exception, (2) the sufficiency of the evidence as to all three convictions and (3) the fatal variance between the allegations in count two of the indictment and the proof offered at trial. Based upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State vs. Anthony E. Collier - M1999-01408-CCA-R3-CD View
On March 31, 1998, Metropolitan Nashville Police Officers executed a search warrant on the residence and person of Anthony E. Collier, the defendant and appellee. Police searched the defendant, his vehicle and his residence and seized drugs, drug paraphernalia and weapons. The defendant moved to suppress the evidence, and, following a suppression hearing, the trial court granted the defendant's motion. On appeal, the State claims that the trial court erred. We hold that the search of the defendant was not supported by probable cause and any evidence seized from the defendant's person was thus properly suppressed. However, we also find that the failure of the trial court to make findings of fact with respect to the question of whether the contraband was in plain view and thus subject to seizure requires us to remand this case for entry of such findings pursuant to Tenn. R. Crim. P. 12(e). Finally, the search of the defendant's residence was supported by the warrant; thus any evidence seized from the defendant's vehicle or residence should not have been suppressed. Accordingly, we reverse in part and affirm in part the judgment of the trial court, and we remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

Tyrone V. Turner vs. State - M2000-01949-CCA-R3-PC View
The petitioner, Tyrone V. Turner, appeals the trial court's denial of post-conviction relief. The issue presented for review is whether the petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel on direct appeal. The judgment is affirmed.

Ray Charles Gasaway vs. State - M2000-00991-CCA-R3-PC View
Petitioner, Ray Charles Gasaway, filed a Petition for Post-Conviction Relief in the Davidson County Criminal Court, which the post-conviction court subsequently denied. Petitioner challenges the denial of his petition, raising the following issue: whether the trial court erred in ruling that the Petitioner was provided effective assistance of counsel. Specifically, Petitioner argues that his trial counsel failed to investigate, failed to raise the fatal variance between the indictment and the proof at trial and failed to raise as an issue the violation of Petitioner's right to due process because of the delay between the commission of the crimes and commencement of adversarial proceedings. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the trial court's denial of the Petitioner's post-conviction petition.

Mathis T. Vaughn vs. State- M2000-00755-CCA-R3-PC View
Petitioner, Mathis T. Vaughn, filed a Petition for Post-Conviction Relief in the Montgomery County Circuit Court, which the post-conviction court subsequently denied. Petitioner challenges the denial of his petition, raising the following issue: whether the trial court erred in dismissing his Petition for Post-Conviction Relief, based upon a ruling that Petitioner's allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel were without merit. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the trial court's denial of the Petitioner's Petition for Post-Conviction Relief.

Robert Sneed vs. State - E2000-02213-CCA-R3-PC View
The Defendant was convicted of DUI, second offense, and driving on a revoked license, second offense. His convictions were affirmed on direct appeal, and he subsequently filed for post-conviction relief, which was denied. In this appeal, the Defendant contends that the post-conviction court erred in denying his request for post-conviction relief, arguing that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial; that he was denied a fair trial because the trial judge refused to recuse himself; and that the post-conviction court erred in refusing to admit certain evidence. We affirm the denial of the Defendant's request for post-conviction relief.

State vs. Norman Thompson - E2000-00107-CCA-R3-PC View
The Defendant, Norman B. Thompson, appeals as of right from the revocation of his probation. We find no abuse of discretion in the revocation; thus, we affirm the judgment of the trial court revoking the Defendant's probation.

State vs. Donald Johnson Jr. - W2000-00875-CCA-R3-CD View
Defendant was convicted by a Shelby County jury of felony murder and received a life sentence. In this appeal, defendant alleges: (1) the trial court erred in failing to suppress both his oral and written statements given to authorities; and (2) the state improperly exercised its peremptory challenges based upon race and gender. Upon our review, we are unable to resolve the suppression issue due to inadequate findings of fact and, therefore, remand for further findings regarding the oral and written statements. We conclude the trial court correctly ruled that there were legitimate race and gender-neutral reasons for the peremptory challenges. The judgment of the trial court is vacated, and the case is remanded for further findings and/or proceedings.

State vs. Timothy McKinney - W1998-00844-CCA-R3-DD View
We affirm the defendant's convictions of first degree murder and attempted second degree murder and the death sentence imposed on the murder charge, despite the defendant's claims that: (1) the trial court erroneously disallowed expert testimony on the reliability of eyewitness identification; (2) the jury's capital sentencing verdict was infirm; (3) the trial court erroneously allowed the impeachment of a defense character witness during the penalty phase of the trial; (4) the trial court erred in allowing victim impact evidence that related to the impact of the victim's death on persons or institutions other than the victim's family; (5) the trial court erroneously limited the defendant's argument to the jury during the penalty phase; (6) cumulative errors require reversal of the death sentence; (7) the Tennessee death penalty statute is, for various reasons, unconstitutional. We find no error and hold that the death penalty in this case was proportionate to the death penalty imposed in similar cases, the sentence was not arbitrarily imposed, and the evidence supports the jury's finding of a statutory aggravating circumstance and its finding that the aggravating circumstance outweighs any mitigating circumstances. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206(c)(1) (1997).

---

Cases Posted the week of 03/19/2001
State vs. Milburn Edwards - W2000-00043-CCA-R3-PC View
In 1982, the Petitioner pled guilty in Shelby County to two counts of rape, three counts of robbery, one count of robbery with a deadly weapon, four counts of burglary, one count of attempted burglary, one count of first degree criminal sexual conduct, one count of assault with intent to commit criminal sexual conduct, and one count of a crime against nature. The Petitioner received an effective sentence of ten years. In 1991, the Petitioner was convicted in Davidson County of twenty-one counts of rape, one count of aggravated rape, two counts of first-degree burglary, one count of second-degree burglary, two counts of aggravated burglary, one count of robbery, and one count of assault with intent to commit rape. In 1997, the Petitioner filed a post-conviction petition challenging his 1982 convictions and sentence. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court concluded that the Petitioner's petition for post-conviction relief was barred by the statute of limitations. The Petitioner now appeals the trial court's ruling. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State vs. Tyrone Pierce - W2000-00571-CCA-R3-CD View
The defendant pled guilty to criminal attempt to commit aggravated sexual battery, a Class C felony. Pursuant to a plea agreement he agreed to a three-year sentence as a Range I Standard Offender, with the manner of service to be determined after a hearing by the trial court. The trial court sentenced the defendant to serve 270 days in the workhouse on weekends ("day for day") from 7:00 p.m. on Fridays to 7:00 p.m. on Sundays and five years probation with a 10:00 p.m. curfew on weekdays. The defendant contends he should have received full probation or some other less restrictive form of alternative sentencing. We affirm the trial court's denial of full probation but modify the time of service in the workhouse on weekends to 104 days.

State vs. George Brooks - W2000-00214-CCA-R3-PC View
The petitioner, George Milton Brooks, appeals as of right from the Dyer County Circuit Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. Petitioner contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel during his pre-trial proceedings when counsel: (1) failed to investigate all apparent substantial defenses on Petitioner's behalf; (2) failed to assert certain Fourth Amendment violations during the hearing on Petitioner's motion to suppress; and (3) incorrectly advised Petitioner whether he could properly reserve two questions of law for appellate review. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

State vs. James Hankins - W1999-00529-CCA-R3-PC View
James R. Hankins appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. All of his allegations are without merit, save one. Hankins has established by clear and convincing evidence that his counsel on direct appeal failed to follow the required procedures for withdrawal of counsel under Supreme Court Rule 14. Accordingly, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and vacate and reinstate our judgment in Hankins' direct appeal.

State vs. John Johnson - W2000-01986-CCA-R3-CD View
State vs. John Johnson - W2000-01986-CCA-R3-CD (Dissent) View
The defendant pled guilty to felonious possession of a handgun for an agreed sentence of one year. The parties reserved a certified question of law; namely, whether an individual, who was previously convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon but subsequently had his full citizenship rights restored pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-29-101--105, can lawfully possess a handgun. We conclude that a convicted felon, otherwise prohibited from possessing a handgun under Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1307(b)(1)(A), may lawfully possess a handgun in his residence after his "full citizenship rights" have been restored.

George Todd vs. Fred Raney, Warden - W2000-02347-CCA-R3-CO View
The Petitioner, George Todd, appeals from the Lake County Circuit Court's denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. In 1985, the Petitioner entered into a negotiated plea agreement and pled guilty to second degree murder. As part of the plea agreement the Petitioner received a forty-five year sentence as a Range II offender. The Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The petition was denied and the Petitioner appealed the denial of his petition to this Court. On December 21, 1989, this Court affirmed the lower court's denial of the Petitioner's petition for post-conviction relief. On August 24, 2000, the Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Lake County Circuit Court, alleging that the passage of the Criminal Sentencing Reform Act of 1989 served to void his sentence and all other sentences in the State of Tennessee, and was the equivalent of a pardon. The Lake County Circuit Court denied the Petitioner's petition.

Claude Garrett vs. State - M1999-00786-CCA-R3-PC View
The defendant, after being convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment, was denied post-conviction relief by the Criminal Court of Davidson County. Defendant now appeals that denial and asserts that (1) the State withheld exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, thereby undermining the confidence of the outcome of the trial; (2) the trial court erred by unconstitutionally instructing the jury; (3) the defendant was not afforded effective assistance of counsel; and (4) juror misconduct and bias violated the defendant's constitutional rights. The issue of juror misconduct was addressed by this court on direct appeal and, therefore, is not properly before this court. After review, we affirm the trial court's finding that the defendant received effective assistance of counsel; however, we reverse and remand the case for a new trial because the prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, thereby undermining the confidence in the outcome of the trial.

Phyllis McBride vs. State - M2000-00034-CCA-R3-PC View
The Petitioner, Phyllis McBride, was convicted by a Rutherford County jury of first degree murder. On appeal, this Court affirmed the conviction. The Petitioner filed an application for permission to appeal to the Tennessee Supreme Court which was denied. The Petitioner then filed a petition for post-conviction relief. Following a hearing, the petition was dismissed. The Petitioner now appeals the trial court's denial of post-conviction relief. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State vs. Pharez N. Price - M2000-01227-CCA-R3-CD View
The defendant was convicted by a Lewis County jury of criminal responsibility for facilitation of a felony and possession of drug paraphernalia. The underlying felony conviction was for possession of cocaine in an amount of .5 gram or more with intent to sell or deliver. The defendant's brother pled guilty to this felony, a Class B felony. The defendant was sentenced as a Range II, multiple offender to nine years in continuous confinement on the facilitation conviction and eleven months and twenty-nine days in the workhouse on the drug paraphernalia conviction, with the sentences to be served concurrently for an effective sentence of nine years. In this appeal as of right, the defendant contends that his sentence on the facilitation conviction was inappropriate both as to length and manner of service. Having reviewed the limited record, we conclude that the sentence is appropriate and therefore affirm the decision of the trial court.

State vs. Stephen Thomas - M2000-02440-CCA-R3-CD View
The defendant was charged in the Williamson County Circuit Court with DUI, first offense, after a police officer observed him operating his vehicle in an erratic fashion. A videotape was made and admitted into evidence of the defendant's taking field sobriety tests, upon which the officer testified that he did poorly. Following his conviction for this offense, the defendant timely appealed. In his appeal, he raised several issues, including the refusal of the trial court to instruct as to a lesser-included offense, complaints about the admission of evidence, the conduct of the trial, and rulings of the trial court. Based upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Donnie Wheeler, et al vs. State - M1999-02453-CCA-R3-PC View
Donnie Wheeler, et al vs. State - M1999-02453-CCA-R3-PC (Concur) View
Donnie Wheeler, et al vs. State - M1999-02453-CCA-R3-PC (Concur) View
The Petitioners filed pro-se petitions for post-conviction relief on September 25, 1997, in accordance with the Post Conviction Relief Act. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-101. Amended petitions were subsequently filed by court appointed counsel on November 14, 1997. The Petitioners' petitions were later dismissed and this appeal followed. In this appeal, the Petitioners set forth several grounds upon which they claim that post-conviction relief should have been granted. Specifically, the Petitioners allege ineffective assistance of counsel, claiming that counsel: failed to file a motion for judgment of acquittal; failed to appeal the judgment of conviction for second degree murder; failed to dismiss two jurors who were alleged to be biased against the Petitioners, which resulted in a denial of their right to a fair and impartial jury; failed to interview and cross-examine a witness of the State's; and failed to file a motion to suppress photographs that were entered into evidence. Petitioner Donnie Wheeler also contends that post-conviction relief should have been granted because counsel failed to request an instruction on the lesser-included offense of criminal responsibility for the facilitation of a felony, and because the trial court failed to charge the jury with the same lesser-included offense. After careful examination of the issues set forth herein, we affirm the post-conviction court's denial of post-conviction relief to the Petitioners.

State vs. Tracy L. Fry - E1999-02758-CCA-R3-CD View
Tracy Fry, the Defendant and Appellant, pled guilty to driving under the influence, second offense. With the State's and trial court's agreement, however, she specifically reserved the right to appeal a dispositive question of law pursuant to Tenn. R. Crim. P. 37(b)(2)(1). The issue reserved for review is whether Officer Kyte "had reasonable suspicion based on specific and articulable facts, to approach and subsequently seize the defendant leading to the arrest of the defendant." We conclude that the initial encounter between Officer Kyte and the Defendant was not a seizure, that the encounter provided reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify an investigatory detention of the Defendant, and that sufficient probable cause to arrest the Defendant developed during the course of the brief investigatory detention. Thus, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

State vs. William P. Brooks - E2000-00555-CCA-R3-CD View
The defendant, William P. Brooks, was convicted of driving on a revoked license, third offense, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court imposed a sentence of 11 months and 29 days, requiring 90 days to be served in jail and the balance to be served on supervised probation. In this appeal of right, the defendant argues that the trial court erred by refusing to suppress evidence and by imposing an excessive sentence. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

State vs. James Hyde - E2000-00806-CCA-R3-PC View
The petitioner, James Perry Hyde, appeals the trial court's denial of post-conviction relief. The issue presented for review is whether the petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial. The judgment is affirmed.

State vs. C. Curtis Brown - W1999-01933-CCA-R3-CD View
The defendant, after having his authority to write bonds in the 30th Judicial District revoked, appeals the trial court's decision and asserts that there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court's findings. Furthermore, the defendant asserts that the trial court's action was excessive. After review, we affirm the trial court in all respects.

State vs. Richard Crawford - W2000-00335-CCA-R3-CD View
State vs. Richard Crawford - W2000-00335-CCA-R3-CD (Dissent) View
Defendant, Richard Crawford, was convicted at a bench trial of theft of a motor vehicle valued over $10,000. On appeal, the defendant raises the following two issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction for theft; and (2) whether the value of the vehicle was properly established. The judgment of the Shelby County Criminal Court is affirmed.

State vs. David Johnson - W1998-00687-CCA-R3-CD View
The defendant appeals from his Shelby County Criminal Court conviction and sentence for second degree murder. The trial court sentenced the defendant to 37 years in the Department of Correction as a Range II multiple offender. In this direct appeal, the defendant complains that the evidence is insufficient; that double jeopardy barred his retrial following the grant of a mistrial; that Jencks Act material, police reports, and arrest histories of state witnesses were improperly withheld; that he was not allowed to impeach a key witness in violation of his confrontation rights; that the trial court erred in ruling that his prior convictions could be used to impeach him if he testified; that the jury was improperly instructed; and that his sentence is excessive. We are unpersuaded that reversible error occurred and therefore affirm the judgment and sentence of the trial court.

State vs. LaKreasha Kimble - W2000-00715-CCA-R3-PC View
This is an appeal of a denial of post-conviction relief. The petitioner and two codefendants were each convicted of murder in the perpetration of robbery and of especially aggravated robbery for the robbery and killing of a man who had given them a ride in his car. The petitioner appealed her convictions to the post-conviction court, arguing, inter alia, that her counsel provided ineffective assistance by his failure to petition for a severance of trial from her codefendants. The post-conviction court denied relief, finding the petitioner's claims to be without merit. Based upon a thorough review, we affirm the post-conviction court's denial of relief.

State vs. Sherman Shaw - W2000-00384-CCA-R3-CD View
A Shelby County jury convicted the defendant of aggravated robbery. The trial court sentenced him to 15 years as a Range II multiple offender. In this appeal, the defendant alleges (1) the trial court erroneously admitted the defendant's custodial statement; (2) the evidence was insufficient to sustain the defendant's conviction; (3) the cumulative effect of the trial court's errors requires a new trial; and (4) the defendant's sentence is excessive. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment and sentence imposed by the trial court.

State vs. Earnest White - W2000-01908-CCA-R3-PC View
The petitioner, Earnest L. White, appeals the order of the Shelby County Criminal Court summarily dismissing his habeas corpus/post-conviction petition without conducting an evidentiary hearing or appointing counsel. Though styled as a petition for habeas corpus relief, White asserts therein that ten of his 1984 convictions should be set aside because of constitutional infirmities in the process surrounding the entry of his guilty pleas for these offenses. As the issues raised provide no basis for habeas corpus relief but rather set out traditional post-conviction concerns, the trial court considered this pro se petition as one for post-conviction relief. However, the trial court thereafter found that the petition had been filed past the applicable statute of limitations and, therefore, dismissed the petition. After a review of the record before this Court, we find that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals.

State vs. William Boggs - W1999-01874-CCA-R3-CD View
Defendant William Charles Boggs was convicted by a Madison County jury of aggravated child abuse, Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-15-402, a Class A felony. The trial court sentenced Defendant as a violent 100% offender to a term of twenty-one years. Defendant's sole issue in this appeal is whether the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State vs. Frederick Dixon - W2000-00577-CCA-R3-CD View
The Defendant, after a jury trial for aggravated robbery, was found guilty of the lesser included offense of robbery. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-401. The Defendant challenges his robbery conviction relying upon the recent Supreme Court holding in State v. Owens, 20 S.W.3d 634 (Tenn. 2000). We agree with the Defendant that Owens is controlling and hold that the violence or intimidation by the Defendant occurred subsequent to the theft he committed, such that the facts in Owens are indistinguishable from the facts in the instant case. Therefore, the Defendant's conviction of robbery is reversed; however, we modify the trial court's judgment to show a conviction of theft of merchandise, a Class A misdemeanor. See Tenn. Code. Ann. § 39-14-103 & 105(1). Further, the case is remanded for re-sentencing consistent with the theft of merchandise conviction.

State vs. Lawrence Wyatt - W2000-01672-CCA-R3-CD View
The defendant appeals from his convictions for conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery and facilitation of aggravated robbery. He contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions and that his sentences are excessive. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

State vs. Sonya Gosnell & Bronzo Gosnell, Jr . - E1999-00603-CCA-R3-CD View
A jury convicted both defendants of second degree murder. Bronzo Gosnell and Sonya Gosnell were sentenced to 25 years and 20 years, respectively. In this appeal as a matter of right, both defendants challenge the introduction of recorded conversations made while detained in a police cruiser. Sonya Gosnell further challenges the introduction of certain pretrial statements, the administration of a polygraph examination, the denial of her motion for severance, and the denial of expert assistance. Bronzo Gosnell further challenges the trial court's limitation of his cross-examination of a witness and his maximum sentence of 25 years. Our review of the issues presented by the defendants reflects no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Michael Wayne Dean vs. State - E2000-01452-CCA-R3-PC View
The petitioner challenges the trial court's dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief. He contends that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter a judgment for second degree murder because that offense is not a lesser included offense of felony murder with which he was indicted. We affirm the trial court's dismissal of the habeas corpus petition.

State vs. James E. Harman, Jr. - E2000-00437-CCA-R3-CD View
In October of 1999, the defendant pled guilty to one count of theft over one-thousand dollars ($1,000.00) and one count of possession of less than .5 ounces of marijuana. His plea form indicated that he agreed to receive concurrent sentences of five and one-half years as a Range II, multiple offender for the former offense and eleven months and twenty-nine days for the latter. Subsequently, the trial court conducted a hearing to determine the manner in which these sentences were to be served. At the conclusion of such hearing, the trial court denied the defendant any form of alternative sentencing, and it is this denial that the defendant contests through his appeal. However, after having reviewed the record and applicable authorities, we find this contention to be without merit and, therefore, affirm the trial court's sentence.

State vs. Gary Russell - E1999-01511-CCA-R3-CD View
The appellant pled guilty in the Anderson County Criminal Court to three counts of selling over .5 grams of cocaine. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the trial court imposed concurrent sentences of eight years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction for each conviction. The trial court denied the appellant any form of non-incarcerative alternative sentencing, including probation. On appeal, the appellant challenges the trial court's denial of alternative sentencing. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

State vs. Ali Mohsenzadeh - M2000-01226-CCA-R3-CD View
The Defendant was convicted by a jury of DUI and sentenced to thirty days, suspended upon the service of five days, and eleven-months, twenty-nine days probation. The Defendant now appeals, contending that the arresting officer had no reasonable suspicion to pull him over or probable cause to arrest him; that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction; that the State failed to prove venue; and that his sentence is excessive. We affirm the defendant's conviction and modify his sentence.

State vs. Homer L. Evans - E2000-00069-CCA-R3-CD View
The defendant appeals from the trial court's denial of alternative sentencing. We affirm the trial court.

State vs. Robert N. Rogers - E2000-00866-CCA-R3-CD View
The defendant contends that the trial court erroneously ordered service of his original sentences upon the revocation of his probation. We affirm the trial court's judgment.

---

Cases Posted the week of 03/12/2001
State vs. Juliann Whitehead - E2000-00031-CCA-R3-CD View
The appellant, Juliann Lynn Whitehead, pled guilty in the Blount County Circuit Court to one count of burglary, a class D felony, and one count of theft under $500, a class A misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced the appellant to four years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction for the burglary conviction and to eleven months and twenty-nine days incarceration in the Blount County Jail for the theft conviction. The trial court ordered that these sentences run concurrently, and allowed the appellant to serve her sentences on intensive probation. During a random drug screen conducted by the appellant's probation officer approximately three months after sentencing, the appellant tested positive for cocaine. Additionally, the appellant admitted to her probation officer that she had left the state without permission. Pursuant to a probation revocation hearing, the trial court revoked the appellant's probation and ordered her to serve the balance of her sentences in the Tennessee Department of Correction and recommended that she be placed into a Special Needs Facility to assist with her substance abuse and mental health problems. On appeal, the appellant raises the following issue for our review: whether the trial court erred in sentencing the appellant to serve the balance of her sentences in the Tennessee Department of Correction after revoking her probation. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State vs. David Mitchell - E1999-02761-CCA-R3-CD View
The defendant, David Calvin Mitchell, appeals the manner of service of his sentence for second offense DUI. Notwithstanding Anderson County's lack of a work release program for jail inmates, he claims that he is statutorily and constitutionally entitled to work release during the mandatory, 45-day period of jail confinement for his crime. Because we hold that the defendant was not statutorily entitled to work release consideration and that there was no equal protection violation, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State vs. Deandrade Phillips - E2000-00153-CCA-R3-CD View
The defendant appeals from his conviction for selling less than one-half gram of cocaine, contesting the sufficiency of the evidence, the trial court's restrictions of his examinations of witnesses, the trial court's failure to require the state to elect the offense for which it sought a conviction, and the jury instructions. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State vs. Suzanne C. Douglas - M2000-01646-CCA-R3-CD View
The defendant appeals from her conviction for driving under the influence, contesting the sufficiency of the indictment. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Billy J. Grooms vs. State - E2000-00958-CCA-R3-PC View
The petitioner, Billy J. Grooms, appeals the trial court's denial of a pro se petition to correct an illegal judgment/sentence. The trial court's order of dismissal is affirmed.

State vs. Jimmy Wayne Baker - M1999-00454-CCA-R3-CD View
The Defendant, Jimmy Wayne Baker, was convicted by a Bedford County jury of first degree felony murder during the perpetration of or the attempt to perpetrate theft of property, first degree premeditated murder, and aggravated arson. The trial court merged the felony murder conviction with the premeditated murder conviction. The Defendant was sentenced as a Range I standard offender to life imprisonment for the first degree murder conviction and to twenty-one years and nine months incarceration for the aggravated arson conviction, to be served concurrently. The Defendant now appeals, arguing the following: (1) that the trial court erred in instructing the jury to determine whether one of the witnesses was an accomplice; (2) that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to convict the Defendant of premeditated murder, felony murder, or aggravated arson; (3) that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that they must agree unanimously on a particular set of facts to support a finding of first degree felony murder; (4) that his convictions of both premeditated murder and felony murder violated the Double Jeopardy Clause and the Supremacy Clause; (5) that the Defendant was not properly informed of the elements of and facts necessary to constitute the offense of theft of property as the underlying felony in the felony murder conviction; (6) that the Defendant's sentence for aggravated arson was excessive; and (7) that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on all elements of the offenses charged. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State vs. Curtis Emery Duke - M2000-00350-CCA-R3-CD View
The appellant, Curtis Emery Duke, was convicted in the Marshall County Circuit Court of two counts of the sale of crack cocaine, one count of possession of crack cocaine with the intent to sell, two counts of criminal impersonation, and one count of failure to appear. The trial court sentenced the appellant to a total effective sentence of thirty-nine years. On appeal, the appellant raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to sustain the appellant's convictions; (2) whether the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of simple possession; and (3) whether the trial court erred in sentencing the appellant. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court as modified.

State vs. Christopher Osborne - M2000-00802-CCA-R8-CD View
A Williamson County jury convicted the defendant of attempted first degree murder and felony reckless endangerment. The trial court sentenced him to concurrent sentences of twenty-four years and two years, respectively, as a Range I standard offender. In this appeal, the defendant alleges (1) the attempted first degree murder presentment was defective; (2) the proof was insufficient to sustain his attempted first degree murder conviction; (3) the trial judge erroneously failed to satisfy his "thirteenth juror" role; and (4) his sentence is excessive. Upon review of the record, we find no reversible error and affirm the judgments and sentences imposed by the trial court.

State vs. Ronnie Bradfield - W1999-02344-CCA-R3-PC View
Petitioner, Ronnie Bradfield, was convicted by a jury in the Shelby County Criminal Court of three counts of attempt to commit second degree murder, which this Court affirmed on direct appeal. Petitioner subsequently filed a pro se petition together with an amended and supplemental petition for post-conviction relief alleging, primarily, ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction judge denied relief following an evidentiary hearing which took place over numerous days. Petitioner now appeals the judgment of the post-conviction court denying his petition. We affirm.

State vs. Marvin Matthews - W2000-01346-CCA-R3-CD View
The defendant appeals asserting that the trial court improperly denied his motion for expungement of records. After review, we conclude that the defendant failed to properly effectuate an adequate record for our review. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State vs. Prentiss Phillips - W2000-00245-CCA-R3-CD View
The defendant was convicted by a Shelby County jury of first degree murder and especially aggravated kidnapping. He was sentenced by the jury to life without the possibility of parole for the murder conviction. He also received a sentence of twenty-five years for the especially aggravated kidnapping conviction, to be served consecutively to his life sentence. The events of this case arose out of a confrontation between rival gangs living in the Hurt Village Apartments in Memphis. The defendant, a high-ranking member of the Gangster Disciples, was prosecuted for the crimes on a theory of criminal responsibility. In this appeal as of right, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions. After a thorough review of the extensive record in this case, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient to show that the defendant, acting with the intent to promote the commission of the charged offenses, directed and aided other members of the Gangster Disciples in the commission of the offenses. His convictions for first degree murder and especially aggravated kidnapping are, therefore, affirmed.

State vs. Criss Williams - W1999-00823-CCA-R3-CD View
A Shelby County jury convicted the Defendant, Criss Williams, of the second degree murder of Jerry Washington. Subsequently, the trial court sentenced the Defendant to twenty-five years of incarceration. The Defendant challenges his conviction arguing that (1) the evidence was insufficient to convict him, because the state failed to prove his identity as the shooter, and (2) that the trial court erred in not granting his Motion for Judgment of Acquittal. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State v. William Pierre Torres - E1999-00866-CCA-R3-DD View
The appellant, William Pierre Torres, was convicted by a jury in the Knox County Criminal Court of one count of first degree murder by aggravated child abuse and was sentenced by the jury to death by electrocution. In this appeal as of right, the appellant challenges both his conviction and his sentence, raising the following issues for our consideration: (1) whether the 1993 version of Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-202(a)(4) violates the United States and Tennessee constitutions; (2) whether the indictment in this case is defective due to the State's failure to charge a separate count of aggravated child abuse; (3) whether, during a competency hearing conducted prior to the appellant's trial, the trial court erred in ruling that a licensed clinical social worker was qualified to render an opinion concerning the appellant's competence to stand trial; (4) whether, during the guilt/innocence phase of the appellant's trial, the trial court erred by declining to admit into evidence a redacted video cassette recording of an interview of the appellant by police investigators; (5) whether, during the guilt/innocence phase, the trial court erred in admitting testimony concerning the appellant's demeanor at East Tennessee Baptist Hospital following his offense; (6) whether, during the guilt/innocence phase, the trial court erred in admitting evidence concerning healed scars and old bruises found on the victim's body; (7) whether Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-204 (1993) and Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206 (1993), Tennessee's death penalty statutes, violate the United States and Tennessee constitutions; (8) whether, under the United States and Tennessee constitutions, the application of the aggravating circumstance set forth in Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-204(i)(l) to the offense of first degree murder by aggravated child abuse fails to adequately narrow the class of death-eligible defendants; (9) whether, during the sentencing phase of the appellant's trial, the trial court erred in providing a Kersey instruction to the jury; and (10) whether, under the United States and Tennessee Constitutions, the appellant's sentence of death is disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases. Following a thorough review of the entire record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Timothy V. Bowling vs. State - E2000-02247-CCA-R3-PC View
The petitioner, Timothy V. Bowling, appeals the trial court's dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. In this appeal of right, the petitioner contends that the trial court erred by ordering a dismissal without an evidentiary hearing. The judgment is reversed and remanded to the trial court for the appointment of counsel and an evidentiary hearing.

State vs. Spike Hedgecoth - E2000-02247-CCA-R3-PC View
The defendant, Spike William Hedgecoth, was convicted by a Cumberland County jury of hindering a secured creditor, Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-116, a Class E felony. The trial court sentenced Defendant to two years and a fine of two thousand dollars. Defendant's sole issue on appeal is whether the evidence adduced at trial was sufficient to support his conviction. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State vs. Joseph Vella - E2000-00148-CCA-R3-CD View
The Defendant, Joseph Vella, appeals as of right from his criminal trespass conviction. He asserts that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his conviction. We disagree; accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

---

Cases Posted the week of 03/05/2001
State vs. Harold Bayuk - M2000-01654-CCA-R3-CD View
The Appellant, Harold M. Bayuk, was convicted by a Hickman County Circuit Court jury of one count of driving under the influence of an intoxicant and one count of driving on a revoked license. Following his conviction for DUI, the Appellant waived his right to jury sentencing and agreed to submit the issue of enhanced punishment to the trial court. The trial court found the Appellant guilty of DUI, third offense, and sentenced him to eleven months twenty-nine days, with 150 days to be served in confinement. On appeal, the Appellant argues that the trial court erred in sentencing him to serve 150 days instead of the statutory minimum of 120 days. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court in part, vacate in part, and remand this case to the trial court for entry of an amended judgment of conviction.

State vs. Brad Luckett - M2000-00528-CCA-R3-CD View
The Defendant was convicted by a jury of driving under the influence of an intoxicant, second offense. In this direct appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred by admitting the results of his breath-alcohol test. The Defendant argues that the State failed to prove that he was continuously observed for twenty minutes prior to taking the test, and that one of the requirements for the admissibility of the test results was therefore not satisfied. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State vs. Joey Salcido - M1999-00501-CCA-R3-CD View
Defendant Joey L. Salcido was indicted by the Giles County Grand Jury for three counts of incest and three counts of rape of a child. Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of three counts of aggravated sexual battery as a lesser-included offense of child rape and acquitted of the charges of incest. On March 15, 1999, the trial court sentenced Defendant as a violent 100% offender to a term of twelve years for each of his three convictions and ordered that all sentences be served consecutively. On April 15, 1999, thirty-one days after Defendant's judgment was entered, Defendant filed an untimely motion for new trial. The motion was nevertheless heard on April 19, 1999 and denied on April 20, 1999. On April 23, 1999, Defendant filed a notice of appeal which was also untimely due to the late filing of Defendant's motion for new trial. On May 25, 2000, Defendant filed a motion to waive the timely filing of his notice to appeal and on June 7, 2000, this Court granted Defendant's motion. In this appeal Defendant raises the following issues: (1) whether the Defendant's conviction of aggravated sexual battery, an offense which was neither charged in the indictment nor a lesser-included offense of the offenses charged, was error; (2) whether, assuming aggravated sexual battery is determined to be a lesser-included offense of child rape, the trial court erred in its jury instruction regarding the mental state necessary to convict him; (3) whether the trial court erred when it admitted certain evidence over Defendant's objections; (4) whether the cumulative effect of the trial court's errors renders the trial fundamentally unfair so as to offend Defendant's due process guarantees; and (5) whether the trial court erred when it imposed consecutive sentences. Defendant asserts that his first issue concerns subject matter jurisdiction and, therefore, must be heard by this Court pursuant to Tenn. R. App. P. 13(b). Defendant also urges this Court to exercise its discretion under Tenn. R. Crim. P. 52(b) or Tenn. R. App. P. 13(b) and consider the remaining four issues. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we find no errors requiring reversal and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State vs. Charles Swaffer - M2000-00058-CCA-R3-CD View
Defendant Charles E. Swaffer was convicted by a Macon County jury of one count of Class C theft of property over $10,000 and one count of Class D vandalism over $1,000. The trial court subsequently imposed concurrent sentences of five years and three years, with Defendant to serve one year of incarceration followed by supervised probation. Defendant challenges his convictions, raising the following issues: (1) whether the trial court erred when it failed to grant a motion for a mistrial; (2) whether the evidence was sufficient to support his convictions; and (3) whether the trial court erred in applying improper enhancing factors and rejecting his mitigating factors. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

State vs. Srirasack Srisavath - M2000-02159-CCA-R3-CD View
The defendant, Srirasack Srisavath, was convicted of possession of marijuana with intent to sell. The trial court imposed a sentence of one and one-half years and assessed a fine of $2,000.00. In this appeal of right, the defendant challenges the propriety for the investigatory stop which led to the discovery of the marijuana. Because the stop was not adequately supported by articulable facts, the trial court erred by overruling the motion to suppress evidence. The judgment is, therefore, reversed and the cause dismissed.

State vs. DeWayne Greene - E1999-01288-CCA-R3-CD View
Defendant, Dewayne Greene, was convicted by a guilty plea of simple assault, resisting arrest, evading arrest, and reckless endangerment in Hamblen County Circuit Court. The trial court sentenced Defendant to eleven months and twenty-nine days, with three-hundred days to be served in confinement. Defendant was also indicted by the Jefferson County Grand Jury for two counts of aggravated assault arising from incidents involving the same victim as those which generated the Hamblen County indictments. Defendant pled guilty in the Jefferson County Circuit Court with the condition that the trial court "reserve an entry of conviction" until the court heard Defendant's motion to dismiss on grounds of double jeopardy. After the trial court heard and denied Defendant's motion, it sentenced Defendant as a Range I offender to concurrent terms of six years for each count of aggravated assault. In this appeal, Defendant argues that (1) double jeopardy bars the Jefferson County convictions because Defendant's previous Hamblen County convictions were based upon the same conduct, and (2) Defendant's sentence for the aggravated assault convictions is excessive. After a thorough review of the record, we find that only Defendant's sentencing issue is properly before this Court. Defendant failed to properly reserve the double jeopardy issue as a certified question of law for appellate review. We affirm the sentence of six years for count 1 and reduce the sentence for count 2 to five years; the total effective sentence remains at six years.

State vs. James Dellinger & Gary Sutton - E1997-00196-CCA-R3-CD View
On April 6, 1992, the Blount County Grand Jury indicted Appellants James Henderson Dellinger and Gary Wayne Sutton for one count each of first-degree murder in the death of Tommy Griffin. Following a jury trial, the Appellants were convicted of first degree murder. After a subsequent sentencing hearing the jury imposed the death penalty on both appellants. They raise thirty five alleged errors concerning both the guilt and sentencing phase of their trial. After a review of the entire record we have concluded there is no reversible error and we therefore AFFIRM the verdict.

State vs. Richard Austin - W1999-00281-CCA-R3-DD View
In 1977, Richard Hale Austin was found guilty by a Shelby County jury of accessory before the fact to the first degree murder of Julian Watkins. Austin's conviction stemmed from his role in commissioning the murder of Watkins, a reserve deputy sheriff. The jury subsequently found the presence of aggravating factor (i)(4), murder for remuneration, and imposed a sentence of death. In 1997, Austin was granted habeas corpus relief in the form of a new sentencing hearing by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. At the re-sentencing hearing, twenty-two years after his original trial, a jury again found the presence of the (i)(4) aggravating factor and again imposed a sentence of death. It is from this sentencing decision that Austin appeals. In this appeal, Austin presents numerous issues for our review, including (1) the disqualification of the Tennessee Supreme Court; (2) challenges to the selection of various jurors; (3) the admission and exclusion of evidence; (4) the introduction of victim impact evidence; (5) prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument; (6) the propriety of the jury instructions; (7) whether application of the (i)(4) aggravator violates State v. Middlebrooks; (8) prejudice due to the delay in imposing a sentence of death; (9) the constitutionality of Tennessee's death penalty statutes; and (10) whether the jury imposed a proportionate sentence. After a careful review of the record, we affirm the imposition of the sentence of death.

State vs. Reginald Merriweather - W1999-02050-CCA-R3-CD View
The defendant appeals his jury convictions of attempted second degree murder, aggravated assault, and especially aggravated robbery. He raises the following issues: (1) whether the trial judge erred in denying defendant's request for a mistrial based on a juror's response during voir dire; (2) whether the trial court erred in directing a witness to answer questions on cross-examination; (3) whether the evidence was sufficient to support his convictions; and (4) whether the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury as to certain lesser-included offenses. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part and reversed in part.

State vs. Josh Moon - E2000-00690-CCA-R3-CD View
The defendant appeals from his Sevier County Circuit Court sentence for simple assault, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced the defendant to eleven months and 29 days, with six months of the sentence to be served incarcerated in jail and the balance on supervised probation. The trial court ordered restitution to the victim in the amount of $18,700 for medical expenses. In this direct appeal, the defendant complains that he should have received full probation. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Jimmy Greene vs. State - E2000-00426-CCA-R3-PC View
A Blount County jury convicted the Petitioner of the aggravated rape of a person less than thirteen years of age, and the trial court sentenced him to twenty-two years incarceration. His conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. The Petitioner petitioned for post-conviction relief, and the trial court denied his request. He now appeals the trial court's denial of post-conviction relief, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal. We conclude that the Petitioner was not denied the effective assistance of counsel and accordingly affirm the judgment of the court below.

State vs. David Lunsford - E2000-01572-CCA-R3-CD View
The Defendant, David Lunsford, was convicted by a jury of aggravated burglary. In this appeal as of right, he asserts that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. We respectfully disagree; thus, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State vs. Christopher Allen McBryar - E2000-00417-CCA-R3-CD View
A Hamilton County jury convicted the Defendant of violating the Sexual Offender Registration and Monitoring Act. The trial court subsequently sentenced him to 180 days incarceration. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant argues (1) that the evidence presented at trial is insufficient to support his conviction; (2) that the trial court improperly instructed the jury; (3) that the trial court erred by concluding that his sentence could not be suspended; and (4) that Tennessee Code Annotated § 40-39-108(b) violates his right to confrontation. Finding no error, we affirm the Defendant's conviction and sentence.

State vs. Connie Easterly - M2000-00077-CCA-R10-CO View
In this case, we granted the State's application for extraordinary appeal to determine whether the Sequatchie County Circuit Court erred in denying the State's motion to quash subpoenas issued by the appellee, Connie Easterly, in defense of an indictment charging her with five counts of official misconduct and five counts of forgery. The disputed subpoenas require the attendance and testimony of Michael C. Greene, the Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Safety, and John Morgan, the Comptroller of the Treasury, at the appellee's trial. Following a thorough review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm and modify in part and reverse in part the trial court's order.

State vs. Richard M. Far, Jr. - M1999-01998-CCA-R3-CD View
Defendant, Richard M. Far, Jr., was convicted by a Rutherford County jury of Class D forgery of a document valued at more than $1,000. Subsequently, the trial court sentenced Defendant as a Range III persistent offender to ten (10) years to be served consecutively to Defendant's sentence in an arson case (F-45893). Defendant raises two issues on appeal: 1) whether the trial court erred in excluding Defendant from his trial and sentencing hearing and 2) whether the trial court properly considered the sentencing guidelines in sentencing Defendant. After a review of the record, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this matter for a new trial.

State vs. John Charles Johnson - M2000-00529-CCA-R3-CD View
Defendant John Charles Johnson was convicted by a Davidson County jury of second degree murder, facilitation of aggravated kidnapping, and especially aggravated robbery. The trial court sentenced Defendant to twenty-five years for second degree murder, five years for facilitation of aggravated kidnapping, and twenty years for especially aggravated robbery. The trial court further ordered that Defendant's sentences for second degree murder and facilitation of aggravated kidnapping be served consecutive to each other and concurrent with Defendant's sentence for especially aggravated robbery, resulting in an effective sentence of thirty years. Defendant raises the following issues in this appeal: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support his three convictions; (2) whether the trial court erred in not granting Defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal on the ground that the testimony of a co-defendant was uncorroborated; (3) whether the trial court erred in not allowing Defendant to play a tape containing exculpatory statements; (4) whether the trial court erred by failing to charge the lesser-included offenses of voluntary manslaughter and facilitation to commit voluntary manslaughter; and (5) whether the length of the sentences imposed by the trial court were proper. Following a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court concerning Defendant's convictions and the lengths of Defendant's sentences. We reverse the trial court's order of consecutive sentencing and remand for a new hearing solely on the issue of concurrent or consecutive sentencing.

State vs. Tammy Yvonne Knight - M1999-02540-CCA-R3-CD View
The defendant pled guilty to four counts of obtaining prescription drugs by use of a forged prescription, and the trial court sentenced her to an effective sentence of fourteen years incarceration. The defendant contests the sentences imposed. We affirm the trial court.

State vs. Michael E. Wallace - M1999-02187-CCA-R3-CD View
On August 25, 1998, a Davidson County Grand Jury indicted Michael E. Wallace, the defendant and appellant, of one count each of the following: possession of cocaine with intent to sell more than .5 grams of cocaine, simple possession of marijuana, possession of a weapon, possession of drug paraphernalia and evading arrest. Following a jury trial, the defendant was convicted for possession with intent to sell less than .5 grams of cocaine, a lesser included offense of count one. The defendant was also convicted of all other counts as charged. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range II, multiple offender, to serve ten years for possession of cocaine with intent to sell consecutively to two years for possession of a weapon. For the remaining counts, the court ordered the defendant to serve two eleven month and twenty-nine day sentences concurrently to each other and the other counts. On appeal, the defendant claims (1) that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction; (2) that the trial court erroneously allowed a police officer to offer expert opinion testimony; (3) that the trial court erroneously denied the defendant's motion for a mistrial after a witness testified to prior bad acts of the defendant; (4) that the court erroneously refused to instruct the jury to consider lesser-included offenses; and (5) that the court erroneously ordered consecutive sentences. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Raymond Hardie Cox vs. State - M1999-00447-CCA-R3-PC View
The Defendant, Raymond Hardie Cox, appeals as of right from the dismissal of his post-conviction petition. He asserts that the trial court erred by dismissing his petition as barred by the statute of limitations. We find no error; thus, we affirm the trial court's dismissal of the petition.

State vs. Richard E. McCullough - M2000-01154-CCA-R3-CD View
Defendant pled guilty to one count of violating the Habitual Motor Vehicle Offender Act and one count of driving under the influence, eighth offense, both Class E felonies. He was sentenced to consecutive terms of one year and six months for each offense. In this appeal, defendant challenges the trial court's denial of alternative sentencing. Upon our review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State vs. Richard C. Silk - M1999-02526-CCA-R3-CD View
The appellant, Richard C. Silk, was convicted by a jury in the Rutherford County Circuit Court of one count of resisting arrest, a class B misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced him to six (6) months incarceration in the Rutherford County Jail, assigning a service percentage of seventy-five percent (75%). The appellant now presents the following issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence adduced at trial is sufficient to support the appellant's conviction of resisting arrest; (2) whether the trial court erred in sustaining certain objections by the State to the appellant's testimony concerning a statement made to him by an arresting officer; and (3) whether the trial court erred in sentencing the appellant. Following a thorough review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

---

Cases Posted the week of 02/26/2001
State vs. Curtis Cleggins - W1999-00657-CCA-R3-CD View
The defendant, indicted for aggravated sexual battery for intentionally engaging in sexual contact with a child under the age of thirteen, pled guilty to one count of sexual battery, a Class E felony, and received a two-year sentence. The trial court ordered that the defendant serve ninety consecutive days in jail, with the remainder of the sentence suspended, and the defendant placed on three years' probation. Counseling was ordered as a condition of probation. The defendant challenges the sentencing imposed, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his requests for full probation, service of his sentence of incarceration on weekends, or judicial diversion. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State vs. Anthony Lankford & Christopher McKeon - W2000-00708-CCA-R3-CD View
This case raises issues of first impression in Tennessee. The defendants are convicted felons from Montana who were sent to serve portions of their Montana sentences at a private, for-profit prison facility in Tennessee. Following their escape from the Tennessee facility, the defendants were each convicted of one count of escape, in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated Section 39-16-605. The defendants now appeal their convictions, raising two interrelated issues: 1) whether Tennessee's escape statute makes it a crime for a prisoner who has not been convicted under Tennessee law to escape from a private prison in this state; and 2) whether they were unlawfully imprisoned in Tennessee. After a thorough review of applicable law, we conclude that Tennessee Code Annotated Section 39-16-605, by its plain language, applies to the escape of an out-of-state prisoner from a private prison facility in this state. We further conclude that the defendants, duly convicted of crimes in Montana and incarcerated at the private prison pursuant to a contract between the Montana Department of Corrections and a private prison company, were not unlawfully imprisoned in Tennessee. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State vs. Michael Malley - W2000-00041-CCA-R3-CD View
The defendant was convicted by a Shelby County jury of assault, a Class A misdemeanor. He was sentenced to the maximum term of eleven months and twenty-nine days, to be served as a split sentence with five months and twenty-nine days served in confinement at the workhouse, and the balance served on probation. In this appeal as of right, the defendant asserts that the trial court erred in allowing the victim, his former wife, to testify as to two other bad acts committed by the defendant, one a prior beating incident and the other an act of vandalism of the victim's car. Having reviewed the entire record, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the testimony. Judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

State vs. Cedric Terry - W1999-01568-CCA-R3-CD View
A Shelby County jury convicted defendant of one count of premeditated first degree murder and two counts of attempted first degree murder. Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment for first degree murder and twenty years for each attempted first degree murder conviction. The two twenty-year sentences run concurrently with each other but consecutively to the defendant's life sentence. In this appeal as of right, defendant challenges: (1) the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress his identification by the two surviving victims, (2) the sufficiency of the evidence, and (3) the length and consecutive nature of his sentences. Upon our review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State vs. Anthony Freeman - W2000-02001-CCA-R3-CO View
Petitioner, Anthony M. Freeman, appeals the dismissal of his petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus and/or post-conviction relief. We conclude the petition does not state a cognizable claim for habeas corpus relief, and the petition was filed beyond the statute of limitations for post-conviction relief. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State vs. David Plunk - W2000-00526-CCA-R3-CD View
A Crockett County jury convicted the defendant of premeditated first degree murder, and the trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment. In this appeal as a matter of right, the defendant challenges (1) the introduction of statements he made to officers, and (2) the sufficiency of the evidence. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State vs. Jeffery Shands - W2000-00006-CCA-R9-CD View
The defendant, Jeffery S. Shands, challenges the trial court's order upholding the District Attorney General's denial of pretrial diversion for the charges of criminally negligent homicide and reckless driving. He contends that the District Attorney abused his discretion in failing to consider and weigh all of the relevant factors presented in the evidence. After a review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the trial court's order denying pretrial diversion.

State vs. Michael Floyd - W1999-01018-CCA-R3-CD View
The defendant Michael R. Floyd pled guilty to possession with intent to sell over .5 grams of cocaine and over one half ounce of marijuana. For these offenses he received agreed upon sentences of eight (8) years and one (1) year, respectively, as a Range I, standard offender. In addition, his plea agreement included two-thousand dollar ($2,000.00) fines for each offense. Following a subsequent sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered the sentences to run concurrently to one another and the defendant to serve six months of this period in the county jail with the remainder to be served on supervised probation. The defendant thereafter brought this appeal contending that the trial court erred by ordering him to serve a period of incarceration. However, we are unable to determine whether error occurred because of the insufficiency of the record on appeal. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the trial court pursuant to Rule 20 of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

State vs. Antonio Jackson - W1999-00712-CCA-R3-CD View
The defendant appeals his convictions for facilitation of first degree murder and especially aggravated kidnapping. He raises issues regarding the sufficiency of the evidence relative to accomplice testimony, the competency of a witness, the exhibition of the victim's skull to the jury, and the failure to merge the convictions for due process and double jeopardy purposes. We affirm the trial court.

State vs. Edward Mitchell - W1999-01314-CCA-R3-CD View
The defendant, Edward Mitchell, appeals as of right from his conviction by a jury in the Shelby County Criminal Court for two counts of aggravated assault, a Class C felony. His sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred by denying him a continuance because of the unavailability of a witness. After a review of the record, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for a new trial.

State vs. David Howard Proffitt - E2000-00171-CCA-R3-CD View
The defendant, David Howard Proffitt, was convicted of theft of property over $10,000 and less than $60,000 in value, a Class C felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-105. The trial court imposed a Range I sentence of five years, to be served consecutively to a prior sentence for aggravated assault. In this appeal of right, the defendant claims that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and that the sentence was excessive. The judgment is affirmed.

State vs. Robert D. Ring - E1999-02088-CCA-R3-CD View
After pleading guilty to vehicular homicide by intoxication, a Class B felony, the trial court ordered the defendant to serve his eight-year sentence on intensive probation, in-house arrest circumstances, subject further to the following conditions: (a) zero use of alcohol; (b) not own or drive an automobile; (c) alcohol counseling after evaluation; (d) payment of liquidated restitution to the victim's family within twenty-four (24) months; (e) any other conditions deemed prudent after intake of the Probation Department. The State appeals and asserts that the trial court erred in placing this defendant on probation because the trial court failed to consider the victim's impact testimony at the sentencing hearing. We agree that the trial court misapplied the applicable law characterizing the victim's impact testimony as a "victim's impact statement" and unduly limited the consideration of such statement to enhancing and mitigating factors. However, after de novo review of the record, we affirm the trial court's judgment, after considering all evidence presented, including the victim's impact testimony, concluding that the factors favoring an alternative sentence, specifically intensive probation, clearly outweigh any factors favoring incarceration.

State vs. Howard W. Weaver - E2000-00066-CCA-R3-CD View
The defendant appeals his convictions of two counts of aggravated sexual battery. He claims that the trial court erred (1) in denying his motion to suppress his statement given to investigators from the Department of Children's Services and sheriff's department, and (2) in failing to require the state to elect the particular offenses upon which it sought convictions. He also claims that the evidence presented at trial is insufficient to support his convictions. Upon review, we accept the state's concession of error in the failure to elect, but we are unpersuaded of merit in the defendant's suppression and sufficiency issues. We reverse the defendant's convictions and remand for a new trial.

State vs. Sean Imfeld - E2000-00094-CCA-R3-CD View
State vs. Sean Imfeld - E2000-00094-CCA-R3-CD ( Concur) View
The defendant, Sean Imfeld, pled guilty to one count of driving under the influence and five counts of aggravated assault by recklessness, a Class D felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-102(d). The trial court originally imposed an effective sentence of 12 years but later, following a motion to modify the sentence, reduced the term to nine years. In this appeal of right, the defendant presents the following issues for review, all of which relate to sentencing: (1) whether the trial court misapplied statutory enhancement factors; (2) whether the trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences; and (3) whether the sentence imposed violated the purposes and intent of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1989. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Henry J. White, Jr. vs. Howard Carlton, Warden - E2000-02246-CCA-R3-CD View
The petitioner challenges the trial court's denial of his habeas corpus petition for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. We affirm the denial of the petition.

State vs. Christopher Johnson - E2000-00300-CCA-R3-CD View
The defendant appeals the trial court's dismissal of his motions seeking relief from the collection of litigation taxes and trial court costs. Because we have no jurisdiction to entertain a Rule 3 appeal, we dismiss the appeal.

Luther Brown, III vs. State - E1999-02290-CCA-R3-CD View
The petitioner, Luther Robert Brown, III, appeals from the Sullivan County Criminal Court's summary dismissal of his petition for the writ of habeas corpus. Brown seeks relief from a "parole hold" that Tennessee officials have caused to be placed upon him within the Virginia prison system. According to the allegations of his petition, the parole hold has resulted in the Virginia prison system denying him inmate privileges to which he would otherwise be entitled. Additionally, he complains that he has not been granted a Tennessee parole hearing even though he has served his Tennessee sentence past the release eligibility date. Because we agree with the lower court that these complaints are not cognizable in a habeas corpus proceeding, we affirm the lower court's dismissal of the petition.

State vs. William Britt - E2000-01107-CCA-R3-CD View
The defendant appeals from his Sullivan County Criminal Court sentence for Class C felony theft over $10,000 but less than $60,000. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-14-103, -14-105(4) (1997). The trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range I standard offender to three years in the Department of Correction and ordered restitution to the victim of the theft in the amount of $7,000. On direct appeal, the defendant presses his claim that the trial court incorrectly imposed an incarcerative sentence rather than some form of alternative sentencing. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State vs. Jeffrey Coffey - M2000-00770-CCA-R3-CD View
The defendant was convicted by a Maury County jury of aggravated child abuse of a child six years of age or less, a Class A felony, and was sentenced to twenty-five years in confinement, the maximum sentence for a Range I, standard offender. In this appeal as of right, the defendant presents two issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction; and (2) whether the sentence was excessive. We conclude that the convicting evidence was sufficient. We further conclude that, although the trial court erred in applying enhancement factors (5) and (6), two other statutory enhancement factors were appropriately applied. Additionally, we conclude that, although the trial court erred in not applying mitigating factors (6) and (13), the defendant was appropriately sentenced. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

State vs. Robert Mallard - M2000-00351-CCA-R3-CD View
In a two count indictment, Defendant was charged in Rutherford County Circuit Court with attempting to tamper with or fabricate evidence, and with resisting arrest. Following a jury trial, he was convicted of both offenses. In this appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence and he further asserts that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction for attempting to tamper with or fabricate evidence. After a review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Joseph Whitwell vs. State - M1999-02493-CCA-R3-PC View
Petitioner, Joseph Whitwell, filed a Petition for Post-Conviction Relief in the Davidson County Criminal Court, which the post-conviction court subsequently denied. Petitioner challenges the denial of his petition, raising the following issue: whether the trial court erred in dismissing his Petition for Post-Conviction Relief, based upon a ruling that Petitioner's allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel were without merit. After a thorough review of the record, we find that the Petitioner did not receive the ineffective assistance of counsel. We therefore affirm the trial court's denial of the Petitioner's Petition for Post-Conviction Relief.

---

Cases Posted the week of 02/19/2001
State vs. Abebreellis Bond - W1999-02593-CCA-R3-CD View
Abebreellis Bond was convicted by a Carroll County jury of two counts of sale of cocaine. Based upon trial counsel's failure to perfect a direct appeal, Bond sought post-conviction relief in the Carroll County Circuit Court asserting ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court granted Bond's request for a delayed appeal. Additionally, the post-conviction court ordered that all remaining ineffective assistance of counsel issues raised in the post-conviction petition be consolidated with the delayed appeal. Bond now perfects his delayed appeal before this court, raising the following issues for our review: (1) whether trial counsel was ineffective; and (2) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict. After review, we find the post-conviction court's procedural ruling, wherein the court refused to dismiss the remaining ineffective assistance of counsel claims after granting the delayed appeal, conflicts with our previous holding in Gibson v. State, 7 S.W.3d 47 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998). Thus, we remand for entry of an order consistent with this opinion.

State vs. Paul Freeman - W2000-00943-CCA-R3-PC View
State vs. Paul Freeman - W2000-00943-CCA-R3-PC ( Dissent) View
Paul Freeman appeals from the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. In this appeal, Freeman collaterally attacks his DUI conviction in the City Court of Jackson upon grounds that his uncounseled guilty plea was not knowingly and intelligently entered. Freeman asserts that at the time he entered his guilty plea, he was still under the influence of alcohol from his arrest approximately eight hours earlier that same morning. After review, we find that the proof does not support a knowing and voluntary plea. Accordingly, we reverse the ruling of the trial court, vacate Freeman's judgment of conviction, and remand the case to the City Court of Jackson for further proceedings.

John E. Carter vs. Howard Carlton - E2000-00406-CCA-R3-PC View
John E. Carter seeks the writ of habeas corpus. He claims that he is entitled to immediate release from his two 1981 convictions for the first degree murder of his grandparents. Carter alleges that he is being illegally restrained because he had inadequate notice of the charges against him, because the trial court excluded relevant evidence at his trial, and because the jury instructions given at his trial were flawed. We agree with the court below that these issues do not entitle Carter to issuance of the writ of habeas corpus. Accordingly, we affirm the lower court's dismissal of the petition.

State vs. Kevin Wayne Brim - M1999-01925-CCA-R3-CD View
The defendant appeals from the revocation of his probation, contending that the trial court erred in ordering consecutive sentences. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Danny S. Cosby vs State - M1999-01861-CCA-R3-CD View
The Appellant, Danny S. Cosby, pleaded guilty to two counts of attempted first degree murder and to two counts of aggravated assault. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the Davidson County Criminal Court sentenced the Appellant to an effective sentence of thirty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The Appellant subsequently filed for post-conviction relief, claiming that his plea was constitutionally defective because he was inadequately represented. The trial court denied relief. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State vs.Robert Lewis Herrin - M1999-00856-CCA-R3-CD View
The appellant, Robert Lewis Herrin, pled guilty in the Marshall County Circuit Court to one count of theft of property worth one thousand dollars ($1,000) or more but less than ten thousand dollars ($10,000), a class D felony. The trial court sentenced the appellant as a Range I offender to three years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction, suspending all but 120 days of the appellant's sentence and granting him supervised probation for a term of ten years. As a special condition of probation, the trial court prohibited the appellant from engaging in "any type [of] construction business or solicitation for business." In this appeal, the appellant argues that the trial court erred in imposing this special condition of probation. Following a review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court as modified.

State vs. Graylin Burton - M1999-01997-CCA-R3-PC View
The Defendant pleaded guilty to rape. After a hearing, he was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to eleven years and six months in confinement. The Defendant appealed and asks this Court to shorten his sentence. He contends that the trial court misapplied an enhancement factor and failed to apply at least two mitigating factors. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State vs. Shannon Hagewood - M2000-00972-CCA-R3-CD View
On November 16, 1999, Shannon Hagewood, the defendant and appellant, pled guilty to three counts of aggravated burglary in a Dickson County Criminal Court. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the defendant as a multiple, Range II offender to six years for the first count, six years for the second count, and eight years for the third count. The court also ordered the defendant to serve the eight-year sentence consecutively to the two six-year sentences, which were to be served concurrently to each other. On appeal, the defendant claims (1) that he did not receive notice, as required by statute, that he would be sentenced as a multiple offender, (2) that the trial court's imposition of an eight-year sentence was erroneous; and (3) that the trial court's imposition of consecutive sentences was erroneous. After a thorough review of the record, we find that, although the trial court did not place its findings in the record, this court's de novo review supports the sentence imposed. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State vs. Michael Herndon -M2000-01080-CCA-R3-CD View
The appellee, Michael Herndon, was found guilty by a jury in the Montgomery County Circuit Court of one count of burglary of an automobile, a class E felony, one count of theft of property under $500, a class A misdemeanor, and one count of public drunkenness, a class C misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced the appellee as a Range I offender to the following terms of probation: two years for the burglary conviction, eleven months and twenty-nine days for the theft conviction, and thirty days for the public drunkenness conviction. The trial court further ordered the appellee to serve his sentences for the theft and public drunkenness convictions concurrently with each other but consecutively to the sentence for the burglary conviction. On appeal, the State raises the following issue for our review: whether the trial court incorrectly sentenced the appellee to probation. Based upon our review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Steven Leach vs. State - M1999-00774-CCA-R3-PC View
On November 19, 1995, a Smith County Grand Jury indicted Steven Edward Leach, the defendant and appellant, for first-degree murder, felony murder, two counts of rape of a child, and attempted rape of a child. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the defendant pled guilty to first-degree murder and rape of a child and the trial court sentenced him to serve life without parole for the murder consecutively to twenty-five years for the rape. The defendant filed a post-conviction petition, and, following a hearing, the trial court denied the petition. On appeal, the defendant claims (1) that he was denied his right to counsel of his choice; (2) that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel; (3) that he was denied his due process right to be present at a hearing; and (4) that the cumulative effect of the trial court's errors violated his due process rights. Because the evidence does not preponderate against the findings of the trial court, we affirm its judgment.

State vs. Joseph Miles - M1998-00682-CCA-R3-PC View
Defendant Joseph Miles was convicted by a Robertson County jury of second degree murder. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Defendant as a Range II violent offender to forty years. On appeal, Defendant raises the following issues: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to support his conviction for second degree murder, (2) whether the sentence imposed by the trial court is excessive, and (3) whether a finding of plain error pursuant to Tenn. R. Crim. P. 52(b) justifies a dismissal of charges on the ground that the State participated in a conspiracy to kill Defendant. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In Re: Paul's Bonding Company, Inc. - M1999-02528-CCA-R3-CD View
The appellant, Paul's Bonding Company, Inc., appeals the judgments of the Davidson County Criminal Court ordering complete forfeiture of bail bonds in the cases of criminal defendants Carlos Ramon Ruiz and Castulo Morales Vasquez and partial forfeiture of the bail bond in the case of criminal defendant Reyes Castro. Following a review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

State vs. Robert Earl Syler - M2000-00735-CCA-R3-CD View
The Defendant was charged with rape and convicted of that offense after a jury trial. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends that the trial court committed reversible error in refusing to instruct the jury on the offense of statutory rape. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

---

Cases Posted the week of 02/12/2001
State vs. Mabel Longmire - W1999-00216-CCA-R3-CD View
Defendant Mabel J. Longmire was convicted by a Shelby County jury of first degree murder, Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-202, and sentenced to life imprisonment. Her sole issue on appeal is whether the evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she acted with premeditation when she committed the offense. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State vs. Colico Walls - W2000-00637-CCA-MR3-CD View
A Shelby County jury convicted the defendant of felony escape and theft of property over $1,000. The trial court sentenced the defendant to consecutive sentences of four years for escape and seven years for theft, for an effective sentence of eleven years. In this appeal, the defendant alleges (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain the defendant's conviction for escape; (2) the escape statute is unconstitutionally vague; and (3) the trial court erroneously failed to instruct the jury on attempted escape. The defendant does not challenge his theft conviction. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State vs. Rickey Williams - W1999-01701-CCA-R3-CD View
Defendant challenges his conviction for premeditated first degree murder for which he received a sentence of life imprisonment. He presents the following issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict; (2) whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence of a prior bad act; and (3) whether the trial court erred in admitting hearsay. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State vs. Teresa Everett - E1999-02647-CCA-R3-CD View
Following a trial on September 28, 1998, a Loudon County jury convicted Teresa Everett, the defendant and appellant, of attempt to commit second-degree murder. The trial court subsequently sentenced her to serve fifteen (15) years in the Tennessee Department of Corrections. The defendant presents the following issues on appeal (1) Whether the evidence was sufficient to convict her; (2)Whether the trial court erred by allowing improper impeachment; (3) Whether the trial court erred by allowing a lay-witness to testify to his opinion; (4) Whether the trial court erred by allowing the state to introduce character evidence; (5) Whether the state's closing arguments were improper; and (6) Whether the defendant should be granted a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. Although the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict, we find the cumulative effect of all the remaining errors deprived the defendant of a fair trial. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for a new trial.

State vs. Christopher Knighton - E2000-00746-CCA-R3-CD View
The defendant was convicted by a jury of aggravated rape, aggravated burglary and theft. In his direct appeal, he presents six issues for review. Three of those issues concern the jury selection process, one issue is an evidentiary issue, and the other issues concern the sufficiency of the indictment and the sufficiency of the evidence. With respect to the jury selection process, we hold: the failure to raise the issue of a "Batson violation" during jury selection constitutes a waiver of that issue; the failure to swear the jury before voir dire is not reversible error unless it is shown that a juror did not truthfully answer the questions as the result of not being sworn; and the trial court did not abuse his discretion in refusing to dismiss two jurors for cause. Additionally, we hold that felony drug crimes are relevant to the issue of credibility under Tenn.R Evid. 609, and that under the facts of this case, the unfair prejudicial effect did not outweigh the probative value of the impeaching convictions. Finally, we hold that the indictment charging the defendant with aggravated rape was legally sufficient, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict of the jury for that offense.

State vs. Ernest B. Eady - E2000-00722-CCA-R3-CD View
The defendant appeals from his conviction for second degree murder, contesting the sufficiency of the evidence, the timeliness of the state's disclosure of a potentially exculpatory witness, and the trial court's failure to declare a mistrial. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State vs. Patty Pace Purkey - E2000-00308-CCA-R3-CD View
The appellant, Patty Pace Purkey, pled guilty in the Grainger County Criminal Court to one count of vehicular assault, a class D felony, one count of reckless endangerment, a class E felony, three counts of simple possession of a controlled substance, a class A misdemeanor, and one count of driving on a revoked license, a class B misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced the appellant to the following terms of incarceration: three years in the Tennessee Department of Correction for vehicular assault; two years in the Tennessee Department of Correction for reckless endangerment; eleven months and twenty-nine days in the county jail for each of the simple possession convictions; and six months in the county jail for driving on a revoked license. The trial court further ordered that all of the appellant's sentences be served concurrently and assessed a total of $750 in fines. The trial court denied the appellant any form of alternative sentencing. On appeal, the appellant raises the following issue for our review: whether the trial court erred in failing to order probation or another alternative sentence. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

State vs. Carlos L. Batey - M2000-00759-CCA-R3-CD View
The defendant appeals a certified question from the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress cocaine seized incident to his warrantless arrest. He contends that the police lacked probable cause to arrest him because the state failed to prove the basis of knowledge and the reliability of the informant who arranged the drug transaction which led to his arrest. We affirm the trial court's denial of the motion to suppress.

State vs. Billy J. Coffelt - M1998-00337-CCA-R3-CD View
The petitioner appeals the trial court's denial of his motion for delayed appeal regarding his petition for post-conviction relief. We remand the case to the trial court.

James Dubose vs. State - M2000-00478-CCA-R3-CD View
The petitioner, James DuBose, was convicted by a jury in the Williamson County Circuit Court of one count of first degree felony murder with the underlying felony being aggravated child abuse. The trial court sentenced the petitioner to life imprisonment in the Tennessee Department of Correction. This court and the Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the petitioner's conviction. The petitioner subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied the petitioner's request for relief. On appeal, the petitioner raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether the State engaged in prosecutorial misconduct during the course of the petitioner's trial; (2) whether petitioner's trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel; (3) whether the trial court erred in failing to give curative jury instructions; and (4) whether the petitioner was charged pursuant to a faulty indictment. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Issac Earl Edgin vs. State - M1999-01620-CCA-R3-PC View
The petitioner appeals from a Montgomery County trial court's order dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief. He argues that he is entitled to a new trial because, among other things, his trial counsel provided him ineffective assistance of counsel. Because the judgment fails to contain findings of fact and conclusions of law, the order dismissing this cause is reversed and the case is remanded to the trial court for a new post-conviction proceeding.

State vs. Marcus Morrow - M1999-00769-CCA-R3-CD View
The appellant, the State of Tennessee, appeals the order of the Maury County Circuit Court permitting the appellee, Marcus Morrow, to participate in a work release program during his forty-five-day incarceration for driving under the influence of an intoxicant (DUI), second offense. Following a review of the record and the parties' briefs, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.

State vs. William "Butch" Osepczuk - M1999-00846-CCA-R3-CD View
William Osepczuk was convicted of criminal attempt to commit first degree murder and was sentenced to twenty-five years in the Department of Correction. He now appeals his conviction challenging the sufficiency of the convicting evidence based upon the non credible testimony of the victim and the erroneous admission of non relevant physical evidence. Finding the proof more than sufficient to support his conviction, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State vs. Charles A. Reynolds -M2000-00087-CCA-R3-CD View
The appellant, Charles A. Reynolds, was convicted by a jury in the Marion County Circuit Court of one count of first degree felony murder committed during the perpetration of a kidnapping or robbery and one count of especially aggravated kidnapping. The trial court imposed concurrent sentences of life imprisonment in the Tennessee Department of Correction for the felony murder conviction and fifteen years incarceration in the Department for the especially aggravated kidnapping conviction. On appeal, the appellant raises the following issues for our consideration: (1) whether the trial court erred in denying the appellant's motion for judgments of acquittal at the close of the State's case-in-chief; (2) whether the trial court erred in denying his motion for new trial in which he challenged the sufficiency of all the evidence underlying the jury's verdicts; and (3) whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence of another crime committed by the appellant on the night of the murder. Following a thorough review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

State vs. Lee Anderson - W2000-00671-CCA-R3-CD View
The defendant was found guilty by a Fayette County jury of simple possession of a controlled substance, a Class A misdemeanor; delivery of a controlled substance in an amount of .5 grams, to wit cocaine, a Class B felony; and delivery of a controlled substance in an amount less than .5 grams, to wit cocaine, a Class C felony. Tenn Code Ann. § 39-17-417(a) & (c). The defendant was sentenced to concurrent sentences of eleven months and twenty-nine days, thirty years, and fifteen years, respectively, with fines totaling $4250. The defendant now brings this appeal claiming that: 1) the trial court erred by denying his motion in limine that sought to preclude the State from introducing evidence regarding proof of the defendant's sale of a controlled substance as applied to this case, 2) that the trial court erred because it denied the defendant's requests to charge the jury with special instructions regarding the delivery of a controlled substance and simple possession or casual exchange, and 3) the trial court erred by not granting the defendant's motion for a mistrial because the State indicated during opening statements that it would prove that the defendant had sold cocaine, and made repeated references during trial to the offense of sale of cocaine. After a review of the record, we conclude that the issues raised by the defendant in this appeal are without merit. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

David Cross vs. James Dukes - W2000-02197-CCA-R3-CO View
Petitioner appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The trial court determined that petitioner did not receive an illegal sentence, and petitioner now appeals this ruling. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State vs. Mirack Smith - W1999-01566-CCA-R3-PC View
State vs. Mirack Smith - W1999-01566-CCA-R3-PC ( Concur) View
The Petitioner pled guilty to one count of second degree murder and one count of especially aggravated robbery, both Class A felonies. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-202 and - 403. The Petitioner received concurrent sentences of thirty years, as a Range II offender, and fifteen years, as a Range I offender, respectively. The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief; however, the petition was ultimately dismissed. The Petitioner now appeals the post-conviction court's denial of relief. The Petitioner contends: 1) that trial counsel was ineffective because counsel knew that the Petitioner had a history of mental illness but failed to investigate it, and 2) that he did not voluntarily and knowingly enter into the plea agreement because he did not know that he was to be sentenced to the thirty-year sentence as a Range II offender. Our review of the record has failed to yield any evidence that weighs against the post-conviction court's dismissal of the Petitioner's petition. Accordingly, the post-conviction court's dismissal of the Petitioner's petition is affirmed.

State vs. Stacey Baldon - W2000-00524-CCA-R3-CD View
Defendant was convicted by a Lauderdale County jury of possession of 0.5 grams or more of cocaine with intent to deliver, a Class B felony, and possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor. In addition, defendant entered a guilty plea to felony possession of a firearm, a Class E felony. He was sentenced as a Range II, multiple offender, and received concurrent sentences of twelve years, eleven months and twenty-nine days, and two years respectively. Defendant raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to the search warrant; (2) whether the trial court erred by denying his request for a severance of defendants; (3) whether the trial court erred in excluding the prior recorded testimony of his co-defendant; (4) whether the trial court improperly allowed the arresting officer to testify as to his opinion regarding the veracity of co-defendant's admission; (5) whether the jury pool was tainted by statements of a potential juror; and (6) whether the state improperly exercised its peremptory challenges. Upon our review of the record, we find defendant's allegations to be without merit; thus, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

State vs. Vernon West - W1999-01604-CCA-R3-PC View
Vernon West appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court's dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. West collaterally attacks his conviction for second degree murder upon the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, he contends that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to sever, for failing to investigate the case and for failing to call two witnesses to testify at trial. After review of the record, we affirm the trial court's denial of post-conviction relief.

State vs. Corrie Johnson - W2000-01216-CCA-R3-CD View
The defendant was convicted by a Hardin County jury of driving under the influence (DUI), possession of marijuana, and possession with the intent to sell or deliver 0.5 grams or more of cocaine. The trial court sentenced the defendant to two 11 month and 29 day sentences for the DUI and possession of marijuana convictions, suspended after serving 30 days in jail. The trial court sentenced the defendant to 9 years incarceration, as a Range I standard offender, for possession with intent to sell or deliver 0.5 grams or more of cocaine. All sentences were to be served concurrently. In this appeal as a matter of right, the defendant alleges the trial court erred by denying (1) his motion to suppress evidence discovered as a result of the vehicle stop and (2) his request for alternative sentencing. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State vs. James McArthur - W2000-00396-CCA-R3-CD View
Defendant, James McArthur, appeals his two jury convictions for aggravated robbery for which he received concurrent eight-year sentences. He contends on appeal that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts, and he was deprived of a fair and impartial jury. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

---

Cases Posted the week of 02/05/2001
State vs. Teresa R. Hodge - E2000-00040-CCA-R3-CD View
The defendant appeals the Blount County Circuit Court's determination that her plea-bargained, eleven-month and 29-day effective sentence for theft and possession of cocaine shall be served in confinement, subject to 75 percent of service before the defendant is eligible for rehabilitative programs. The record supports the trial court's determination, and we affirm.

State vs. Kimberly Greene - E1999-02200-CCA-R3-CD View
The defendant appeals from her Blount County Circuit Court conviction and sentence for criminal responsibility for rape of a child, a Class A felony. The trial court sentenced the defendant as a child rapist to 25 years incarceration in the Department of Correction. In this direct appeal, the defendant complains that the videotaped statement she made in response to questioning at the police station should have been suppressed; that the videotaped statement contained inadmissible references to uncharged misconduct; that the cautionary instruction about the evidentiary value of the videotaped statement was inadequate; that her sentence is excessive; and that she should have been sentenced as a Range I, standard offender with a 30 percent release eligibility date. We affirm the defendant's conviction and sentence.

State vs. James M. Loveday - E1999-02072-CCA-R3-CD View
Following a jury trial, Defendant, James M. Loveday, was convicted of one count of attempted first degree murder, four counts of aggravated assault, and two counts of reckless endangerment. The trial court sentenced him to twenty-five (25) years for the attempted first degree murder conviction, six (6