The following Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals Opinions are
available for download:
Cases Posted the week of 06/25/2001
State vs. Aaron James -
M2000-0495-CCA-R3-CD View
State vs. Aaron James - M2000-0495-CCA-R3-CD (
Concur) View
The
Appellant, an inmate at Riverbend Maximum Security Institution in Nashville,
was convicted by a jury of attempted felony escape, aggravated robbery and
especially aggravated kidnapping stemming from a failed prison escape. The
Appellant was incarcerated at the Riverbend facility as a result of his prior
convictions for especially aggravated robbery, especially aggravated kidnapping
and second degree murder. The Appellant challenges on appeal his convictions
for aggravated robbery and especially aggravated kidnapping, arguing (1)
sufficiency of the convicting evidence, (2) systematic removal of
African-Americans from the petit jury in violation of Batson v. Kentucky, and
(3) the prejudicial admission into evidence of the Appellant's prior
convictions for especially aggravated robbery, especially aggravated
kidnapping, and second degree murder. The State argues that proof of the
Appellant's prior convictions was an essential element of the felony escape
charge and, therefore, admissible. After review, we find reversible error in
the admission in the instant case of the Appellant's prior convictions for
especially aggravated robbery, especially aggravated kidnapping and second
degree murder. As such, the judgments of convictions are reversed and remanded
for a new trial.
State vs. William Greer
- M2001-00244-CCA-R3-CD View
The
Appellant, William Greer, was indicted on one count of theft of property under
$500, one count of fraudulent use of a debit card, and one count of misdemeanor
assault. Prior to trial, the assault charge was severed. A Coffee County jury
found the Appellant guilty of one count of fraudulent use of a debit card, a
class A misdemeanor. The Appellant was sentenced to ninety (90) days in the
Coffee County jail. Greer appeals his conviction contending that (1) the
evidence is insufficient to support his conviction and (2) the unsolicited
comments of the victim relating to the Appellant's severed charge of assault
resulted in reversible error. After review of the record and the applicable
law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
State vs. Antonio Johnson -
M2000-01505-CCA-R3-CD View
The
Appellant, Antonio Dwayne Johnson, appeals, pro se, the sentencing decision of
the Montgomery County Circuit Court revoking his Community Corrections sentence
and ordering service of the sentence in the Department of Correction. On March
12, 1998, the Appellant entered an "open" guilty plea to the charge of
aggravated robbery by use of a deadly weapon, a class B felony. The trial court
subsequently ordered that the Appellant serve his eight year sentence in the
Community Corrections program. On March 24, 1999, a violation warrant issued.
On appeal, the Appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in
revoking the Appellant's non-incarcerative status and placing him in the
custody of the Department of Correction. We affirm the judgment of the trial
court pursuant to Rule 20, Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. R.
Ronald Paul vs. State - M2000-1653-CCA-R3-PC
View
The Appellant, Ronald
Paul, appeals the dismissal of his pro se petition for post-conviction relief
by the Robertson County Circuit Court. Paul, a correctional inmate, timely
delivered his petition to the proper prison authorities; however, he
inadvertently addressed the envelope containing his petition to the wrong city.
The petition was returned to Paul, who, on the same day, corrected his mistake
and re-delivered to prison authorities for mailing. These events occurred one
day after the one year period for filing had expired. On appeal, Paul argues
that the trial court erred in finding his post-conviction petition
timed-barred. After review, we hold that Paul's petition was deemed "filed" for
purposes of Supreme Court Rule 28 when it was first delivered to prison
authorities and, as such, was timely.
State vs. Steve Jackson - E1999-02013-CCA-R3-CD
View
A Knox County jury
convicted the defendant of aggravated burglary. For this offense the trial
court sentenced him to twelve years as a Range III, persistent offender.
Through the instant appeal the defendant challenges both the validity of his
convictions and his sentence. More specifically, he alleges that the evidence
is insufficient to support the jury's verdict of guilty; that the trial court
did not appropriately carry out its role as the thirteenth juror; that the
copies of prior convictions used to enhance his sentence were not properly
certified; and that one of these prior convictions from another state should
not have been utilized in sentencing because the State failed to prove that the
offense would have been a crime in Tennessee. After reviewing the record, we
find that these claims lack merit and, therefore, affirm the lower court's
actions.
William Singleton vs.
State - E2000-0282-CCA-R3-PC View
On December 16, 1993,
William Singleton, the Defendant and Appellant, was convicted by a Claiborne
County jury of first-degree murder. This Court affirmed the Defendant's
conviction following direct appeal. Subsequently, the Defendant filed a
petition for post-conviction relief alleging, inter alia that he was denied the
effective assistance of counsel at trial. Following a hearing, the trial court
dismissed the petition. The Defendant appeals here, arguing that the trial
court erroneously dismissed the petition. After a review of the record, we
affirm the judgment of the trial court.
State
vs. Christopher Vigil - E1999-02740-CCA-R3-CD View
The defendant appeals two
convictions for stalking, contesting the sufficiency of the evidence and the
admissibility of photographs. We affirm one of the defendant's convictions for
stalking, but we vacate the judgment of conviction for the other because the
evidence reflects the existence of only one stalking offense.
State vs. William Makransky -
E2000-00048-CCA-R3-CD View
The defendant, William Makransky, appeals his convictions for aggravated
sexual battery, sexual battery, and two counts of contributing to the
delinquency of a minor. He contends that he received the ineffective assistance
of counsel at trial and that the trial court applied the incorrect standard for
the prejudice prong in denying him relief on this issue in his motion for a new
trial. Although we determine that the trial court did apply the incorrect
standard for prejudice, our de novo review reveals that the defendant's trial
attorney was not ineffective. Because of an error in the judgments, the
sentences for contributing to the delinquency of a minor are modified.
State vs. Bobby Wells - E2000-01496-CCA-R3-CD
View
A Monroe County jury
convicted the defendant of the sale of .5 grams or more of cocaine and of a
separate offense involving the sale of less than .5 grams of cocaine. For these
crimes the trial court sentenced him to nine years and four years respectively
as a Range I, standard offender. These sentences were ordered to run
concurrently with one another. Furthermore, the jury assessed the defendant a
fifteen thousand dollar fine on each conviction. At a subsequent hearing the
trial court denied his new trial motion and revoked his probation from previous
offenses. Appealing these decisions, the defendant raises the following six
issues: 1) whether the trial court erred by permitting the State to introduce
transcripts of taped conversations allegedly transpiring between the defendant
and informant when such transcripts were admitted through a police officer who
neither heard nor electronically monitored the involved conversations; 2)
whether the trial court erred by permitting the prosecution to play and
introduce the aforementioned tapes through the same officer; 3) whether the
State failed to prove chain of custody because it neither called the lab
technician who placed the evidence in the vault at the crime laboratory nor
complied with Tennessee Rule of Evidence 803(6); 4) whether the trial court
erred in refusing to grant the defendant a new trial based on newly discovered
evidence involving the informant's motive for testifying against the defendant;
5) whether sufficient evidence existed to support the conviction; and 6)
whether the defendant's probation revocation should stand when such was based
upon the above-outlined new convictions and not the defendant's failure to
report as was alleged in the probation violation warrant and when the
convictions forming the basis for the revocation are allegedly not supported by
sufficient evidence. After a review of the record, we find these claims to lack
merit and, therefore, affirm the lower court's actions.
State vs. Thomas J. Tackett -
M1999-02541-CCA-R3-CD View
Thomas J. Tackett appeals from his Warren County especially aggravated
robbery conviction, for which he received a 25-year incarcerative sentence. He
urges us to find error based upon insufficiency of the convicting evidence,
admission of certain evidence at trial, jury instructions not given, and
sentencing. Although there is no merit in the issues advanced by the defendant,
we notice as plain error that the defendant's conviction is for a greater crime
than that which is charged in the indictment. We therefore modify his
especially aggravated robbery conviction to aggravated robbery and remand for
sentencing for that crime.
State vs. Jerry
Anderson - W2000-03141-CCA-R3-CO View
Petitioner appeals the
denial by the trial court of his writ of habeas corpus and writ of certiorari.
Petitioner contended in his petition that he previously pled guilty in the
Criminal Court of Madison County to the offenses of facilitation of first
degree murder, conspiracy to commit especially aggravated robbery, and arson,
and received an effective sentence of 60 years. He further contended that court
did not have jurisdiction to try him as an adult; his rights to double jeopardy
were violated as a result of his transfer to the Criminal Court; and he
received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. On appeal, he claims the
trial court erred in dismissing his petition without appointing counsel,
without conducting a hearing, and by failing to make findings of fact and
conclusions of law. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
State vs. Michael Healy -
W1999-01510-CCA-R3-CD View
After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of theft of property less than
$500. He was subsequently sentenced to eleven (11) months and twenty-nine (29)
days in the Lauderdale County jail. In this pro se appeal, Defendant argues
that the State failed to provide him with discoverable material or information
under Rule 16 of Tenn. R. Crim. P. After a review of the record, briefs of the
parties and applicable law, we conclude that the State complied with the
mandates of Rule 16. Thus, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
State vs. Frank Johnson - W2000-00386-CCA-R3-CD
View
The defendant was indicted
by a Shelby County Grand Jury for driving while an habitual motor vehicle
offender, felony evading arrest, and driving under the influence of an
intoxicant, fourth offense (felony DUI), all charges arising from a single
incident. The defendant pled guilty to driving while an habitual motor vehicle
offender, a Class E felony, with punishment reserved until after trial of the
other offenses. Following a jury trial, the defendant was found guilty of
felony evading arrest, a Class E felony, not guilty of felony DUI, and
sentenced to consecutive, six-year terms as a career offender for driving while
an habitual motor vehicle offender and for felony evading arrest, resulting in
an effective sentence of twelve years. The trial court also assessed fines of
$2000 on each conviction. In this appeal as of right, the defendant argues that
the evidence was insufficient as to the felony evading arrest conviction, that
the jury should have been instructed as to lesser-included offenses, and that
the sentences should not be served consecutively. Based upon our review, we
affirm the judgments of the trial court.
State vs. Jerry Luster - W2000-02217-CCA-R3-CD
View
The petitioner, Jerry L.
Luster, appeals pro se the summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas
corpus. Because the petition was filed in the wrong county, we affirm the trial
court's dismissal of the request for habeas corpus relief.
State vs. Eric Phillips - W1999-01800-CCA-R3-CD
View
The defendant appeals and
asserts that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for first
degree premeditated murder. After review, we hold that the evidence is
sufficient; therefore, we affirm the defendant's conviction.
State vs. Joyce Rice - W2000-01766-CCA-R3-CD
View
The defendant, a
construction company payroll clerk, was convicted of fourteen counts of
forgery, Class E felonies, and one count of theft of property over $1000, a
Class D felony, for utilizing her position at the company to write and cash
invalid checks on her employer's account. She was sentenced as a Range II,
multiple offender to three years on each forgery conviction, and six years on
the theft conviction, to be served concurrently for an effective sentence of
six years. In this appeal as of right, the defendant argues that the trial
court erred in allowing evidence of her prior crimes to be admitted at trial,
and that the evidence was not sufficient to support her convictions. After a
careful review, we conclude that the trial court did not err in allowing the
State to impeach the defendant's credibility by questioning her about her prior
convictions, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's
verdict. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
State vs. Marcia Robinson/Sammy Wilson -
W2000-02085-CCA-R3-CD View
After a jury trial, Defendants were convicted of one count of attempt to
manufacture methamphetamine and two counts of possession of methamphetamine.
The trial court sentenced each Defendant to three (3) years in the Department
of Correction for attempt to manufacture methamphetamine and eleven (11) months
and twenty-nine (29) days for possession of methamphetamine. In this appeal as
of right, Defendants assert that the trial court erred as to whether Defendant,
Sammy Wilson, gave Investigator Markin consent to search his truck. From our
review of the transcript of the motion to suppress, the trial record, briefs of
the parties and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
State vs. Mario Rogers -
W1999-01454-CCA-R3-CD View
In
1999, a Shelby County jury found the Defendant guilty of aggravated robbery,
and the trial court sentenced him as a Range I, standard offender to eight
years incarceration. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant presents the
following issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence presented at trial
was sufficient to support his conviction; (2) whether the trial court erred by
admitting into evidence the gun alleged to have been used in the robbery; (3)
whether the trial court erred by allowing testimony by the victim concerning
the death of the victim's mother; (4) whether the trial court improperly
instructed the jury; and (5) whether the cumulative effect of errors at trial
warrants a new trial. Having reviewed the record, we find no error and
accordingly affirm the judgment of the trial court.
State vs. Russell Snider - W2000-01240-CCA-R3-CD
View
The Defendant, Russell
Snider, was convicted by a jury of third offense driving under the influence
(DUI). He was sentenced to eleven months, twenty-nine days, with four months
and twenty-nine days suspended. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant
asserts (1) that he was prejudiced by the video recording of his performance of
field sobriety tests because the video recording depicts an unqualified officer
performing the horizontal gaze nystagmus test and (2) that the DUI sentencing
statute is void for vagueness because it fails to give a person of ordinary
intelligence fair notice that his or her conduct is forbidden by the statute.
We hold that the Defendant was not prejudiced by the admission of the video and
that the DUI sentencing statute is not void for vagueness. Therefore, we affirm
the judgment of the trial court.
State vs.
Reginald Terry - W2000-00090-CCA-R3-CD View
The Defendant was convicted by
a Shelby County jury of attempted aggravated burglary. The Defendant was
sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to three years incarceration. The
Defendant now appeals, arguing that (1) in spite of his untimely motion for a
new trial, this Court should consider each issue he has presented on appeal,
(2) there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction against the
Defendant for attempted aggravated burglary, (3) the trial court erred in
refusing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offenses of aggravated
criminal trespass and criminal trespass, (4) the trial court made an improper
comment on the evidence in violation of the Tennessee Constitution, and (5) the
trial court erred in allowing in rebuttal proof of other crimes committed by
the Defendant. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
State vs. Eric Thomas - W1999-00337-CCA-R3-CD
View
The Defendant, Eric D.
Thomas, pled guilty to four counts of robbery and was sentenced to six years
for each conviction. The sentences were ordered to run consecutively, which
ruling the Defendant now appeals. The judgment of the trial court ordering the
Defendant's sentences to run consecutively is reversed, and this matter is
remanded for resentencing on the issue of consecutive sentences.
State vs. Orlando Crayton -
W2000-00213-CCA-R3-CD View
The
defendant, Orlando Crayton, was convicted of aggravated assault, reckless
endangerment, unlawful carrying or possession of a weapon, and two counts of
vandalism under $500.00. The trial court sentenced the defendant to 11 months,
29 days for each vandalism count, six years for aggravated assault, two years
for reckless endangerment and 11 months, 29 days for unlawful possession of a
weapon. Because the sentences were ordered to be served concurrently, the
effective sentence is six years. In this appeal of right, the defendant
challenges (1) the admissibility of evidence indicating the defendant's gang
affiliation; (2) the admission of an estimate regarding the damage to a
vehicle; and (3) the admission of a hearsay statement. The judgment is
affirmed.
State vs. Jessie Hodges -
W2000-00742-CCA-R3-CD View
After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of theft of property less than
$500. He was subsequently sentenced to eleven (11) months and twenty-nine (29)
days in the Lauderdale County jail. In this pro se appeal, Defendant argues
that the State failed to provide him with discoverable material or information
under Rule 16 of Tenn. R. Crim. P. After a review of the record, briefs of the
parties and applicable law, we conclude that the State complied with the
mandates of Rule 16. Thus, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
State vs. Jennifer McClure -
W2000-01822-CCA-R3-CD View
This is an appeal by permission pursuant to Rule 9 of the Tennessee Rules
of Appellate Procedure. The Defendant, Jennifer McClure, was indicted by the
Haywood County Grand Jury for various charges arising out of the seizure and
subsequent search of the commercial motor carrier in which she and her husband
were traveling. The trial court suppressed the evidence obtained as a result of
that seizure and search, ruling that the seizure of the motor carrier was
unconstitutional. The State then filed a motion for an interlocutory appeal,
which was granted by the trial court. This Court likewise granted the State's
application for permission to appeal. On appeal, the State asserts: (1) that
the trial court abused its discretion by refusing the State's request to either
reopen the proof or be allowed to file with the court the rules and regulations
governing Department of Safety inspections; and (2) that if these rules and
regulations are considered, the trial court erred by granting the Defendant's
motion to suppress. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its
discretion by refusing the State's request to reopen the proof or to file the
applicable rules and regulations because the trial court did permit the State
to file with the court the rules and regulations regarding Department of Safety
inspections. In addition, we hold that the trial court did not err by granting
the motion to suppress because the seizure of the Defendant's commercial motor
carrier was conducted in violation of the Fourth Amendment's protections
against unreasonable searches and seizures.
State vs. Joshua Williams/Maurice Teague -
W2000-01435-CCA-R3-CD View
The defendants, Joshua Lee Williams and Maurice Miguel Teague, encountered
each other on the street where Teague produced a pistol and attempted to shoot
Williams. When the gun did not fire, Williams knocked it from Teague's hands,
picked it up, and fired in turn at Teague, in the process fatally wounding a
neighborhood resident. Williams was indicted for first degree murder for the
shooting death of the deceased, and criminal attempt to commit first degree
murder of Teague, who was indicted for criminal attempt to commit first degree
murder of Williams. At the conclusion of their joint trial, Williams was found
guilty of second degree murder and criminal attempt to commit second degree
murder, and Teague guilty of criminal attempt to commit second degree murder.
Williams received an effective sentence of twenty years at 100% as a violent
offender. Teague was sentenced as a standard, Range I offender to ten years.
Teague raises essentially three issues on appeal: (1) sufficiency of the
evidence; (2) not instructing the jury on aggravated assault as a
lesser-included offense; and (3) the propriety of his sentence. Williams
challenges the sufficiency of the evidence in support of his conviction for
second degree murder. After a careful review of the record, we affirm the
judgments of the trial court.
State vs.
Kelvin Wilson - W2000-02704-CCA-R3-PC View
The Petitioner was convicted
of aggravated kidnapping and sentenced to ten years incarceration. Following
direct appeal to this Court, which affirmed the Petitioner's conviction and
sentence, and to the Tennessee Supreme Court, which denied permission to
appeal, the Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging
that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. The
post-conviction court conducted a hearing and denied relief. The Petitioner now
appeals the post-conviction court's decision. Having reviewed the record, we
conclude that the Petitioner's representation at trial was adequate and
therefore affirm the post-conviction court's denial of post-conviction
relief.
Leon Phillips vs. State -
M2000-02383-CCA-R3-PC View
The petitioner appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction
relief from his 1999 guilty plea to and resulting conviction for the attempt to
commit first degree murder. He contends that his plea resulted from the
ineffective assistance of counsel in that he was not advised that a jury could
consider lesser included offenses to the offense charged in the indictment. He
also contends that the trial court based the dismissal of his case upon an
improper standard. We reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the
case for further proceedings.
State vs.
Marty Slatten - M2000-01155-CCA-R3-CD View
The defendant was convicted
by a jury of theft of a vehicle worth more than $10,000, a Class C felony, for
which he received a fifteen-year sentence as a career offender. He contends
that the evidence is insufficient to convict him of theft and that the trial
court erred in allowing evidence of his attempt to steal gasoline that led to
his arrest. We affirm the trial court.
State
vs. William Pate - M2000-02442-CCA-R3-CD View
The Defendant, William Cash
Pate, was convicted by a jury of second offense driving under the influence
(DUI). In this appeal as of right, he argues that the trial court erred by
failing to suppress the evidence obtained against him because that evidence was
the fruit of his unlawful seizure at a roadblock. We agree. Accordingly, we
reverse the Defendant's conviction and the trial court's order denying the
Defendant's motion to suppress.
State vs.
Donnell Booker - E2000-02137-CCA-R3-CD View
The Defendant was convicted by
a Knox County jury of aggravated assault, a Class C felony. The Defendant was
sentenced as a Range II multiple offender to nine years incarceration in the
state penitentiary. The Defendant now appeals, arguing that insufficient
evidence was presented at trial to convict him of aggravated assault. Finding
no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
State vs. Rhonda Grills -
E2000-01031-CCA-R3-CD View
The defendant, Rhonda Grills, was convicted of facilitation of the felony rape
of a child less than 13 years of age. The trial court imposed a Range I
sentence of 10 years. The defendant was fined $25,000.00. In this appeal of
right, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. Because the
evidence is adequate to support the facilitation of the rape of a child, the
judgment is affirmed.
State vs. Larry
Wilkins - M2000-01225-CCA-R3-CD View
The appellant, Larry
Wilkins, pled guilty in the Williamson County Circuit Court to two counts of
the class D felony of causing a computer system to be accessed for the purpose
of obtaining $1,000 or more for himself or another by means of false or
fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises. For these offenses, the
trial court imposed concurrent sentences of three years incarceration in the
Tennessee Department of Correction, suspending all but one year of the
appellant's sentences and placing him on supervised probation for four years.
Additionally, the trial court imposed fines amounting to $1,500 and ordered
restitution amounting to $4,500. The appellant now appeals the trial court's
sentencing determinations. Specifically, notwithstanding the trial court's
imposition of alternative sentences of split confinement, the appellant
contends that the trial court should have granted him either total probation or
placement in a community corrections program. Following a review of the record
and the parties' briefs, we affirm in part and reverse in part the judgments of
the trial court, and we remand this case to the trial court for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion.
State vs. Larry Coulter - M1999-00784-CCA-R3-CD
View
The appellant, Larry
Coulter, appeals his conviction by a jury in the Rutherford County Circuit
Court of one count of first degree premeditated murder. For his offense, the
appellant received a sentence of life imprisonment in the Tennessee Department
of Correction. In this appeal, the appellant presents the following issues for
our review: (1) whether the trial court erred in failing to disqualify the
office of the District Attorney General for the Sixteenth Judicial District
from participating in the appellant's case; (2) whether the trial court erred
in denying the appellant's pre-trial motion to suppress a statement that he
made to officers of the La Vergne Police Department following his offense; (3)
whether the trial court erred in denying the appellant's pre-trial motion to
suppress the fruits of a warrantless search of his home by officers of the La
Vergne Police Department; (4) whether the trial court erred in denying the
appellant's pre-trial motion to exclude from evidence notes and letters written
by the appellant to the victim prior to this offense; (5) whether the trial
court erred in denying the appellant's pre-trial motion to exclude from
evidence any proof of the victim's plans to move away from the Coulters' mobile
home; (6) whether the trial court erred in overruling the appellant's objection
to testimony by Sybil Victory concerning a telephone conversation; (7) whether
the trial court erred in overruling the appellant's Tenn. R. Evid. 615
objection to testimony by Fawn Jones; (8) whether the trial court erred in
overruling the appellant's objection to testimony by the State's firearms
identification expert concerning a bullet recovered from the victim's body; (9)
whether the trial court erred in permitting each member of the jury to
"dry-fire" the murder weapon during the State's case-in-chief; (10) whether the
trial court erred in permitting a State's witness to testify by deposition
pursuant to Tenn. R. Crim. P. 15; (11) whether the trial court erred in
permitting the State to impeach the appellant's psychologist with a "learned
treatise" without satisfying the requirements of Tenn. R. Evid. 618; (12)
whether the trial court erred in overruling the appellant's objection to
rebuttal testimony by the State's psychologist that violated Tenn. R. Crim. P.
12.2(c); (13) whether the trial court erred in failing to charge the jury with
certain special instructions requested by the appellant; (14) whether the trial
court erred in permitting the State to alter or amend an exhibit immediately
prior to the jury's deliberations; (15) whether the evidence adduced at trial
is sufficient to support the jury's verdict; and (16) whether the cumulative
effect of any errors requires the reversal of the appellant's conviction and
the remand of this case for a new trial. Following a review of the record and
the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
State vs. Takeita Locke - E2000-00923-CCA-R3-CD
View
The defendant was convicted
in the Knox County Criminal Court of especially aggravated robbery and felony
murder. She timely appealed, arguing that the State had failed to show that
statements she gave while a juvenile were admissible, that the trial court
erred in not instructing as to lesser-included offenses or that the jury must
find whether felony murder was a "natural and probable consequence" of
especially aggravated robbery, and that the evidence was insufficient to
sustain the convictions. Based upon our review, we affirm the judgments of the
trial court.
Franklin Parton vs. State -
E2000-01511-CCA-R3-CD View
The
petitioner/appellant, Franklin Parton, filed a pro se "Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus" in the Knox County Criminal Court, which was dismissed by the
trial court without an evidentiary hearing. Petitioner filed a motion for
reconsideration and for treatment of the petition as a petition for writ of
error coram nobis. This motion was also summarily denied by the trial court. We
affirm the judgment of the trial court.
State vs. Kenneth Griffin - E2000-02471-CCA-R3-CD
View
Defendant, Kenneth
Griffin, was found guilty of burglary (Class D) and theft (Class D) following a
bench trial. He was sentenced as a career offender on each conviction to twelve
(12) years incarceration, and the sentences were ordered to be served
consecutively. The Defendant, with counsel, appealed the conviction raising the
sole issue of the sufficiency of the evidence. This court affirmed. State v.
Kenneth S. Griffin, C.C.A. No. 03C01-9811-CR-00406, 1999 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS
1316, Knox County (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, Dec. 27, 1999). Subsequently,
Defendant timely filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging,
apparently among other issues, that he received ineffective assistance of
counsel on appeal because appellate counsel did not raise as an issue the
consecutive sentencing ordered by the trial court. The post-conviction court,
in a written order, granted Defendant a "delayed appeal" as "authorized under
TENNESSEE CODE ANNOTATED SECTION. 40-30-213." The post-conviction court's order
limited the delayed appeal to the sole issue "of the correctness of
[defendant's] sentence." However, the post-conviction court, while impliedly
finding ineffective assistance of counsel for not raising the sentencing issue
on direct appeal, made no finding that the Petitioner was prejudiced by the
deficient representation. In any event, we find that the granting of a delayed
appeal from the original conviction is not authorized by statute, and
accordingly, this appeal from the sentence imposed in the original convictions
is dismissed.
State vs. Ricky Cofer -
E2000-01499-CCA-R3-CD View
The defendant, Ricky Eugene Cofer, was convicted of aggravated robbery. The
trial court imposed a Range II sentence of 15 years. In this appeal of right,
the defendant contends that his indictment for aggravated robbery was legally
insufficient; that the evidence was insufficient to convict; and that his trial
counsel was ineffective. The judgment is affirmed.
Cases Posted the week of 06/18/2001
State vs. Earl Jefferson -
W2000-00608-CCA-R3-CD View
The defendant was convicted by a Shelby County jury of premeditated first
degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of
parole. In this appeal, the defendant challenges the admission of three alleged
hearsay statements and the sufficiency of the evidence. We affirm the judgment
of the trial court.
State vs. Shawn
Tolliver - W2000-00834-CCA-R3-CD View
The petitioner appeals his
denial of post-conviction relief and asserts that the post-conviction court
incorrectly found that he received effective assistance of counsel and, thus,
knowingly and voluntarily pled guilty. After review, we affirm the judgment of
the post-conviction court.
Gary Leon Cureton vs. State -
E2000-01638-CCA-R3-PC View
On May 21, 1999, Gary Leon Cureton, the Petitioner and Appellant, pled
guilty in the Greene County Criminal Court to two counts of rape and two counts
of sexual battery and waived his right to appeal. Following the guilty plea,
the trial court sentenced the Petitioner to serve seventeen years
incarceration. On May 25, 2000, the Greene County Court Clerk received a
post-conviction petition from the incarcerated pro se Petitioner and stamped
the document to indicate that it had been filed on that date. On June 2, 2000
the trial court issued a preliminary order dismissing the petition on the
ground that it was not timely filed. On June 12, the trial court received a pro
se motion to reconsider the dismissal of the petition, but the trial court
denied the motion on June 19, 2000. On August 2, 2000, this Court ordered the
trial court to address the Petitioner's request for the appointment of counsel,
and the trial court subsequently appointed counsel to assist with the
Petitioner's appeal. The Petitioner appeals the trial court's dismissal of his
petition and subsequent denial of his motion to reconsider, arguing that he
carried his burden of proving that the petition was timely filed. Because the
Petitioner was never afforded an opportunity to prove that he timely filed his
petition, we remand for a hearing to determine whether the Petitioner's
petition was timely filed.
State vs.
Christopher Kelso - E2000-01602-CCA-R3-CD View
The grand jury for Monroe
County charged the defendant with one count of possession of cocaine with
intent to resell and one count of felony evading arrest. The defendant went to
trial, and the jury acquitted him of the narcotics offense but found him guilty
of Class D evading arrest. The trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range
II, multiple offender, to five years incarceration in the Department of
Correction. In this direct appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of
the convicting evidence, the state's misuse of his post-arrest silence, the
flight instruction given to the jury, and his classification as a Range II
offender. Unpersuaded by the defendant's contentions, we affirm the trial
court's judgment and sentence.
State vs.
Oneal Sanford - E1999-02089-CCAQ-R3-CD View
The appellant, Oneal Sanford,
was convicted by a jury in the Bradley County Criminal Court of one count of
criminally negligent homicide, one count of especially aggravated robbery, one
count of facilitation of attempt to commit especially aggravated robbery, one
count of facilitation of aggravated assault, and one count of evading arrest.
The appellant received a total effective sentence of twenty-six years
incarceration. On appeal, the appellant raises the following issues for our
review: (1) whether the evidence is legally sufficient to support all of the
appellant's convictions, (2) whether the trial court erred by admitting hearsay
testimony, 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 and remand this case for a correction of the judgments.
Cases Posted the week of 06/11/2001
Herschel Leon Coffelt, Jr. vs. State -
M2000-01504-CCA-R3-CD View
The
petitioner, Herschel Leon Coffelt, Jr., appeals the Franklin County Circuit
Court's denial of his motion to re-open his post-conviction relief proceeding.
His March 19, 1996 post-conviction petition challenged his guilty-plea
based,1987 Franklin County conviction of selling marijuana. He received an
incarcerative sentence of three years and a fine of $10,000 and did not appeal.
On October 30, 1997, the lower court determined that the post-conviction
petition was barred by the statute of limitations and dismissed it. See Tenn.
Code Ann. § 40-30-202(a) (1997). The petitioner then filed affidavits of
two persons who claimed to have been present during the drug transaction that
resulted in the 1987 case. The affiants stated that the petitioner was not
present when the offense was committed. Based upon their affidavits, the
petitioner moved the lower court to reconsider its denial of the petition, but
when his counsel appeared before the court to argue his motion, counsel asked
the court to treat the motion as one to reopen the post-conviction proceeding.
See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-217 (1997). The lower court denied the motion,
and the petitioner appealed. We conclude that the record supports the trial
court's action, and accordingly, we affirm.
State vs. James Wesley Osborne -
E1999-010710CCA-R3-CD View
The
Defendant, James Wesley Osborne, was convicted by a Jefferson County jury of
first degree murder. The Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment. The
Defendant appeals, arguing the following: (1) that there was insufficient
evidence to convict him of first degree premeditated murder, (2) that the trial
court's manner of jury selection was in violation of Rule 24(c) of the
Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure, (3) that the trial court erred by
admitting into evidence photographs of a serrated knife found in the victim's
home and photographs of two bayonets found in the Defendant's vehicle, (4) that
the trial court erred by admitting into evidence an order of protection
obtained by the victim against the Defendant and previous threats made by the
Defendant to the victim and members of her family, (5) that the trial court
erred by admitting into evidence testimony that the victim hid the Defendant's
gun collection shortly before she was killed; (6) that the trial court erred by
allowing autopsy photographs of the victim to be admitted into evidence, and
(7) that the trial court erred in denying the Defendant's request for a
voluntary manslaughter jury instruction. Finding no reversible error, we affirm
the judgment of the trial court.
State vs.
Danny Lacy - W2000-01898-CCA-R3-PC View
The petitioner appeals the
post-conviction court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief.
After review, we hold that the record supports the post-conviction court's
finding that trial counsel was not ineffective in failing to obtain the 911
tape; was not ineffective in preparing a defense; was not ineffective for
failing to introduce fingernail samples taken from the petitioner; and was not
ineffective for failing to adequately develop the victim's mother as a suspect.
State vs. Jerry Maxwell -
W2000-01947-CCA-R3-CD View
Defendant, the attorney for the Dyer Industrial Development Board, was
convicted by a Gibson County jury of theft over $60,000 and theft over $1,000.
On appeal, he contends the evidence was insufficient to establish guilt. We
affirm the judgment of the trial court.
State vs. Charles Taylor - W2000-02167-CCA-R3-PC
View
The petitioner appeals the
post-conviction court's dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief.
Following his jury conviction of aggravated robbery, the petitioner filed a
petition for post-conviction relief, alleging, among other things, that he
received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. At the conclusion of an
evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court dismissed the petition, finding
that the petitioner failed to meet his burden of showing ineffective assistance
of trial counsel. After a careful review, we affirm the post-conviction court's
dismissal of the petition.
State vs. Roderick
Cobb - W1999-00655-CCA-R3-CD View
The issue raised in this appeal is whether the trial court properly denied
the Appellant/Petitioner's post-conviction petition? After a review of the
record in this cause, the briefs of the parties and applicable law, we affirm
the trial court's judgment.
State vs. Thomas
Johnson - W2000-00611-CCA-R3-CD View
The issue on direct appeal is
whether the trial court erred in not sentencing the Defendant under the
Tennessee Community Correction Act. After a review of the entire record on
appeal, the briefs of the parties and applicable law, we affirm the trial
court's judgment.
State vs. Andre L.
Mayfield - M1999-02415-CCA-R3-CD View
In 1999, the Defendant was
tried by a Davidson County jury and found guilty of aggravated robbery,
aggravated rape, rape, and two counts of aggravated kidnapping for crimes
perpetrated on two victims. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court
sentenced the Defendant to an effective sentence of fifty years. In this appeal
as of right, the Defendant argues that (1) the trial court erred by failing to
sever the offenses against one victim from those against the second victim; (2)
the trial court erred by failing to admonish the jury not to view, listen to,
or read any news coverage of the case during trial; (3) the trial court erred
by failing to grant his two motions for a mistrial; (4) the evidence presented
at trial was insufficient to support his convictions; (5) the trial court erred
by allowing the State to introduce evidence of the age of one victim; (6) the
trial court erred by allowing into evidence altered documents and by
instructing the jury that the documents were altered to remove inadmissible
evidence; (7) the trial court erred by allowing into evidence inadmissible
hearsay statements; (8) the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury
on lesser-included offenses requested by the defense; and (9) the trial court
sentenced him improperly. Having thoroughly reviewed the record in this case,
we affirm the judgment of the trial court, as modified to indicate that the
Defendant was sentenced as a Range II Multiple Rapist for the rape
conviction.
State vs. Nathaniel
Williams - M1999-00790-CCA-R3-CD View
The defendant was convicted
by a Davidson County Criminal Court jury of second degree murder and the
possession of a weapon by a convicted felon for shooting a man to death in an
automobile shop. The sole issue on appeal is whether the evidence was
sufficient to support his conviction of second degree murder. Specifically, the
defendant contends that the State failed to offer sufficient proof of the
victim's cause of death. In support of his claim, he argues that the autopsy
report, which states the cause of death as multiple gunshot wounds, was
improperly admitted into evidence, that the medical examiner never directly
testified that the victim died of gunshot wounds, and that no other evidence
was presented to prove cause of death. After a thorough review, we conclude
that the defendant waived any objection to the admission of the autopsy report
by his failure to object at trial, and further, that sufficient evidence, other
than the autopsy report, was presented to show that the victim died as the
result of gunshot wounds. Consequently, the evidence at trial was sufficient to
establish the defendant's guilt of second degree murder beyond a reasonable
doubt. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
State vs. Sharon Leming - M1999-01424-CCA-R3-CD
View
This is Defendant, Sharon
Leming's, second appeal as of right to this Court. See State v. Leming, 3
S.W.3d 7 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998). In both Defendant's first and second trial, a
Humphreys County jury convicted her of premeditated first degree murder. After
the Defendant's initial appeal, this Court reversed and remanded the case for a
new trial due to the erroneous admission of testimony regarding statements made
by the victim as to his fear of the Defendant. Following a second trial, the
Defendant received a sentence of life imprisonment to be served in the
Tennessee Department of Correction. In this second appeal as of right, the
Defendant presents the following issues for our review:1) whether the trial
court erred in ruling that the Defendant was mentally competent to stand trial;
2) whether the evidence was sufficient to convict the Defendant of first degree
murder; 3) whether the trial court erroneously admitted statements by the
Defendant that she would kill her husband before she would allow him to leave
her; 4) whether the trial court erred in excluding testimony that the Defendant
had stated that she needed a gun to protect herself from friends of the
deceased; and 5) whether the trial court erred in denying Defendant's request
for a mistrial, when the trial court declined to instruct the jury that a
sentence of life with the possibility of parole would require that the
Defendant serve a minimum of fifty-one years. Based upon our review of the
record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Cases Posted the week of 06/04/2001
State vs. Terrance Burnett -
W2000-01954-CCA-R3-CD View
The
petitioner appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief,
arguing that it was error for the post-conviction court to dismiss his petition
without holding an evidentiary hearing. The petitioner pled guilty to two
counts of felony murder, two counts of attempted first degree murder, and one
count of especially aggravated burglary. In a pro se petition for
post-conviction relief, the petitioner alleged that his trial counsel induced
him to plead guilty just prior to the start of trial by showing him a videotape
of a television show chronicling the final hours of a death row inmate's life.
After appointing counsel, the post-conviction court dismissed the petition
without an evidentiary hearing, ruling that the petition failed to present a
colorable claim for relief. Based upon our review, we affirm the judgment of
the post-conviction court.
State vs. James
Roberson - W2000-02591-CCA-R3-CD View
The defendant, James L.
Roberson, was charged with attempted second degree murder for the repeated
stabbing of a female acquaintance and was convicted of the offense, following a
bench trial. He testified that he was under the influence of drugs at the time
of the offense and could not remember what had happened. He appealed the
conviction, arguing that, as the result of his mental state, the proof was
insufficient to sustain the conviction. We affirm the judgment of the trial
court.
State vs. Lonnie Turner -
M1999-01127-CCA-R3-CD View
The
defendant appeals from his convictions for first degree felony murder and
aggravated rape, for which he received consecutive sentences of life and
twenty-two years, respectively. The defendant contests the sufficiency of the
evidence, whether certain statements which he made to investigators were taken
in violation of his rights, the validity of the search warrant for samples of
his hair and blood, certain evidentiary and procedural rulings of the trial
court, the ordering of consecutive sentences, and the denial of his motion for
a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence. We affirm the judgments of
conviction.
Michael Russo vs. State -
M2000-00919-CCA-R3-PC View
The
petitioner appeals the post-conviction court's denial of his petition for
post-conviction relief, raising the sole issue of whether the post-conviction
court erred in finding that he had effective assistance of counsel at trial.
The petitioner was convicted by a jury of first degree murder for shooting his
wife to death, and sentenced to life imprisonment. In his post-conviction
petition, the petitioner asserted a number of grounds for relief, including
ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court denied the
petition, finding, with regards to the ineffective assistance of counsel claim,
that many of the petitioner's allegations did not constitute a deficiency in
counsel's performance, and further, that the petitioner had failed to meet his
burden of showing that any of the alleged deficiencies of counsel prejudiced
the outcome of his case. After a thorough review of the record, we reverse the
judgment of the post-conviction court as to the effect of trial counsel's
misplacing of photographs which were not located until after the trial and the
post-conviction hearing and remand for an additional hearing. As to the other
issues, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
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 v. Leonard Baugh, Jr., Damian
Owes & Marquez Crenshaw - M2000-00477-CCA-R3-CD
View
The co-defendants, Leonard
Edward Baugh, Jr., Damian Lamar Owes, and Marquez Donnell Crenshaw, were
indicted by the Davidson County Grand Jury on one count of especially
aggravated robbery, five counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, one count
of aggravated burglary, and one count of aggravated assault. Baugh was
additionally indicted on one count of resisting arrest and one count of
unlawful possession of a weapon by a convicted felon. The counts of aggravated
assault were later dismissed. Following their joint trial, all co-defendants
were found guilty of especially aggravated robbery, five counts of especially
aggravated kidnapping, and aggravated burglary. Baugh was also convicted of
unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon. On appeal, each of the
co-defendants challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence, arguing
that the State failed to offer sufficient proof of identity. After a thorough
review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. The matter is
remanded to the trial court for correction of clerical errors in the
judgments.
State vs. Orlando Crenshaw -
M2000-01459-CCA-R3-CD View
The
defendant challenges his conviction for attempted first degree murder,
contending that the evidence was insufficient, the trial court should have
granted a change of venue due to pervasive pretrial publicity, the trial court
should have accepted the jury's statement that it could not return a unanimous
verdict after it revealed its numerical division, and the jury was tainted by
extraneous information. We affirm the judgment of conviction.
State vs. Ronald Haynes - M2000-00204-CCA-R3-CD
View
The defendant was indicted
by a Davidson County Grand Jury for especially aggravated robbery and attempted
first degree murder. Following a two-day jury trial, the defendant was found
guilty of especially aggravated robbery, a Class A felony, and attempted second
degree murder, a Class B felony. A sentencing hearing was held on September 29,
1999, at the conclusion of which the trial court sentenced the defendant as a
Range I offender to twenty-one years at 100% for the especially aggravated
robbery conviction and ten years for the attempted second degree murder
conviction. The sentences were ordered served concurrently in the Tennessee
Department of Correction. In this appeal as of right, the defendant presents
three issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to support
his convictions for especially aggravated robbery and attempted second degree
murder; (2) whether the trial court erred in failing to charge the jury on
certain lesser-included offenses; and (3) whether the sentence is excessive.
Having reviewed the entire record on appeal, we affirm the judgment of the
trial court.
Michael Waldron v. State
- M2000-00772-CCA-R3-PC View
The petitioner appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction
relief. Having been indicted by a Davidson County Grand Jury on three counts of
rape of a child and one count of aggravated sexual battery, the petitioner pled
guilty to two counts of rape of a child, a Class A felony, and the remaining
counts were dismissed. In this appeal, petitioner raises three issues: (1)
whether he received effective assistance of counsel; (2) whether the State and
the trial court should have requested forensic psychological evaluation of the
petitioner and a competency hearing; and (3) whether his plea was
constitutionally valid. The judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed.
Cases Posted the week of 05/28/2001
State vs. Marlon Jackson -
W2000-01887-CCA-R3-PC View
The
petitioner filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief, later amended by
appointed counsel, claiming that his 1999 pleas of guilty in the Shelby County
Criminal Court were involuntary and that he received ineffective assistance of
counsel. Following a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief, and the
petitioner timely appealed, raising the same two issues. We affirm the
judgments of the trial court dismissing the petition.
State vs. Michael Pittman -
W2000-01027-CCA-R3-CD View
After a jury trial, the Defendant, Michael Pittman, was convicted of
aggravated robbery. He was subsequently sentenced to twenty years incarceration
as a Range II, multiple offender. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant
argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and that
the trial court abused its discretion by ruling that his prior convictions for
robbery and theft were admissible to impeach his credibility should he elect to
testify. We conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support the
Defendant's conviction and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by
ruling that the Defendant's prior convictions were admissible. Thus, we affirm
the judgment of the trial court.
State vs.
Ernest Soloman - W2000-01176-CCA-R3-CD View
The defendant was convicted
in the Shelby County Criminal Court of two counts of aggravated robbery, one
count of attempted aggravated robbery, and one count of aggravated assault. He
appealed the aggravated robbery convictions, arguing that the proof was
insufficient to sustain the convictions. We affirm the judgments of the trial
court but remand for resentencing as to the conviction for attempted aggravated
robbery.
State vs. Susan Renee Whited
- E1999-00493-CCA-R3-CD View
The Defendant pled guilty to eight counts of theft in Bradley and McMinn
Counties. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the Defendant agreed to serve a total
of seventeen years in prison and pay restitution in the aggregate amount of
$212,284.00. Although the record is silent on the matter, the Defendant was
apparently granted parole in 1997 and released. Although not apparent from the
record, statements of counsel indicate that the Board of Parolees ordered the
Defendant to pay $50.00 per month toward her restitution upon release. On July
30, 1999, the District Attorney General filed an application for garnishment in
both counties in order to satisfy the restitution. The trial court temporarily
stayed the garnishments pending briefing by both parties, but ultimately issued
an order removing the stays in both counties on October 4, 1999. The Defendant
appeals that order here. After a careful review of the record, we find that (1)
the Defendant has failed to provide an adequate record for our review, (2) Rule
3 of the Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure does not authorize an appeal as
of right from an order removing a stay of garnishment, and, (3) the court is
without jurisdiction to consider the Defendant's claim that her sentence of
restitution was void. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
State vs. David D. Bottoms -
M2000-02080-CCA-R3-CD View
The
defendant pled guilty in Davidson County Criminal Court to one count of arson,
a Class C felony, based on his setting fire to a rental house. According to a
plea agreement with the State, he received a four-year sentence as a Range I,
standard offender. A sentencing hearing was held to determine the manner of
service of his sentence and the amount and manner of payment of any
restitution. The trial court ordered that the defendant serve his entire
sentence in confinement in the workhouse and that he pay $10,000 in restitution
to the victim. In this appeal as of right, the defendant argues that the trial
court erred in denying any alternative sentence and in ordering restitution in
the amount of $10,000. Having reviewed the record on appeal, we affirm the
judgment of the trial court as to the manner of service. As to restitution, we
reverse and remand to the trial court.
State vs. Kenneth Anderson - M2000-00754-CCA-R3-CD
View
The Defendant, Kenneth
Anderson, appeals as of right from the revocation of his probation by the trial
court. On appeal, he asserts that the trial court erred by ordering him to
serve the balance of his sentence in incarceration after finding that he had
violated his probation. We find no error; thus, we affirm the judgment of the
trial court.
State vs. Frankie L.
Richardson - M2000-02518-CCA-R3-PC View
The Defendant, Frankie L.
Richardson, appeals as of right from the revocation of his probation. He argues
that the trial judge abused his discretion by revoking probation. We find no
abuse of discretion; thus, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
State vs. Alkita M. Odom - M2000-02676-CCA-R9-CD
View
This is an interlocutory
appeal by the State pursuant to Rule 9 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate
Procedure. The Defendant, Alkita M. Odom, was indicted for the offenses of
forgery and criminal simulation, each in the amount of $250,000. The indictment
reflected that each offense was a Class B felony. Upon the Defendant's motion,
the trial court dismissed the indictment to the extent that it reflected Class
B felonies because the court found that for the crime to be anything other than
Class E felonies, the Defendant would have had to have actually obtained goods
or services. The court then granted the State's motion to amend the indictment
to reflect Class E felonies for the purposes of appeal. The State argues on
appeal that the trial court improperly dismissed the indictment based on the
grade of the offense charged. We agree. Accordingly, we reverse the dismissal
of the indictment and reinstate it as originally returned by the Grand
Jury.
State vs. Paul Dennis Reid, Jr. -
M1999-00803-CCA-R3-DD View
State vs. Paul Dennis Reid, Jr. -
M1999-00803-CCA-R3-DD ( Concur) View
Paul Dennis Reid, Jr. was
found guilty by a jury of two counts of first-degree murder and one count of
especially aggravated robbery. Reid's convictions stem from the execution style
murders of two Captain D's employees and the especially aggravated robbery of
one of the employees. The jury returned a sentence of death for each of the
homicides based upon its finding of three aggravating factors, i.e., (i)(2),
prior violent felony; (i)(6), murder committed for the purpose of avoiding
prosecution; and (i)(7), murder committed during commission of robbery. The
Davidson County Criminal Court subsequently imposed a twenty-five-year sentence
for the especially aggravated robbery conviction and ordered this sentence to
be served consecutively to the two death sentences. In this appeal as of right,
Reid presents numerous issues for our review, including (1) issues arising from
suppressed evidence; (2) challenges to the selection of jurors; (3) the
sufficiency of the convicting evidence; (4) the admission and exclusion of
evidence at both the guilt and penalty phases; (5) the propriety of the
prosecution's closing argument during the guilt phase; (6) the failure to
instruct on lesser-included offenses; (7) the trial court's act of holding
court into late hours of the evening without cause; (8) the admissibility in
general and the introduction of specific victim impact evidence; (9)
prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument; (10) the propriety of the
jury instructions; (11) whether application of the (i)(7) aggravator violates
State v. Middlebrooks; (12) the propriety of a twenty-five-year sentence for
especially aggravated robbery; (13) the constitutionality of Tennessee's death
penalty statutes; and (14) whether the sentences of death imposed by the jury
are proportionate sentences. After a careful review of the record, we affirm
Reid's convictions for two counts of first-degree murder and one count of
especially aggravated robbery. Additionally, we affirm the imposition of the
sentences of death and the accompanying sentence for especially aggravated
robbery.
State vs. Joseph Darryl Taylor
- M2000-00525-CCA-R3-CD View
Defendant, Joseph Darryl Taylor, was convicted of attempt to commit sexual
battery, attempt to commit rape, and aggravated kidnapping. In this appeal as
of right, Defendant contends that the evidence adduced at trial concerning all
three offenses was insufficient to find him guilty and that the trial court
erred when it sentenced Defendant. Following a review of the record, we affirm
the judgment of the trial court in part and reverse in part.
Richard Lee Franklin vs. State -
E2000-01398-CCA-R3-PC View
In
his original trial, the Petitioner, Richard Lee Franklin, was convicted of
first degree murder by a Cumberland County jury for the death of David
Kirkland. Due to procedural errors at Petitioner's first trial, the trial court
granted Petitioner's motion for a new trial. Petitioner was retried and the
jury convicted him of second degree murder. The trial court sentenced the
Petitioner to twenty-two years of incarceration. State v. Richard Lee Franklin,
No. 03C01-9706-CR-00219, 1998 WL 458580, at *1, Cumberland County (Tenn. Crim.
App., Knoxville, August 10, 1998), perm. to appeal denied (Tenn. 1999).
Subsequently, Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief which was
denied. In this appeal as of right, he asserts that the post-conviction court
erred in finding his trial counsel's performance to be effective. Specifically,
the appellant contends that trial counsel was ineffective for (1) failing to
investigate and present witnesses that would support a defense of self-defense;
(2) for failing to discuss trial strategies and defenses with the Petitioner;
and (3) for failing to request an instruction on self-defense. After review, we
affirm the judgment of the trial court.
State
vs. Marlo Jones - W2000-01565-CCA-R3-CD View
The defendant was convicted by
a jury of aggravated criminal trespass, attempted aggravated assault, and two
counts of felony reckless endangerment. The trial court sentenced the defendant
to concurrent sentences of eleven months and twenty-nine days for aggravated
criminal trespass, two years for attempted aggravated assault, and one year
each for both counts of felony reckless endangerment. The defendant was granted
probation after service of 120 days. In this appeal, the defendant challenges
the trial court's denial of full probation. After a thorough review of the
record, we affirm the sentence imposed by the trial court.
State vs. Danny Wilson - W2000-03066-CCA-R3-CV
View
The petitioner was
sentenced to an effective ten-year sentence on December 13, 1990, and on
December 20, 1991, he received an additional two-year sentence for felony
escape, to be served consecutively to his original sentences. He filed a
petition for writ of habeas corpus claiming that he was being illegally
restrained because, by his calculations, his sentence had expired. The
post-conviction court denied the petition, as well as a subsequent petition to
rehear, and the petitioner timely appealed. We affirm the judgment of the trial
court denying the petition.
State v.
William R. Stevens - M1999-02067-CCA-R3-DD View
The Defendant, William R. Stevens,
was convicted of two counts of first degree premeditated murder and one count
of especially aggravated robbery, arising out of the deaths of his wife and
mother-in-law. For each of his murder convictions, he was sentenced to death.
He now appeals as of right, raising the following eleven issues for our review:
(1) whether it was error to limit the testimony of crime-scene expert Gregg
McCrary; (2) whether it was error to exclude evidence which tended to show that
Corey Milliken had an independent motive to commit the murders; (3) whether it
was error to admit a redacted version of Sandi Stevens' diary; (4) whether the
trial court failed to apply the hearsay and other evidentiary rules in an
evenhanded manner; (5) whether the hearsay statements of Corey Milliken to
Sarah Suttle should have been excluded as not being "in furtherance of the
conspiracy"; (6) whether the cumulative effect of all errors at trial violated
the Defendant's right to due process of law; (7) whether instructing the jury
that it must agree unanimously in order to impose a life sentence and
prohibiting it from being told the effect of a non-unanimous verdict violates
the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments; (8) whether the Tennessee Code Annotated
section 39-13-204(i)(4) aggravating circumstance fails to narrow the class of
death-eligible defendants in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments;
(9) whether the failure to articulate meaningful standards for proportionality
review mandated by Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-206 violates the
Defendant's right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment; (10) whether
the unlimited discretion vested in the prosecutor as to whether or not to seek
the death penalty violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments; and (11)
whether the death penalty is imposed in a discriminatory manner in violation of
the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. After a thorough review of the record and
the relevant legal authorities, we find no reversible error on the part of the
trial court. Accordingly, we affirm the Defendant's convictions and his
sentences of death.
Johnny Wayne Garner and
Richard Darrell Miller vs. State - M2000-01258-CCA-R3-PC
View
Both Petitioners
appeal from the post-conviction court's denial of their post-conviction relief
petitions. The Petitioners claim ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and
on appeal for failing to object to an erroneous jury instruction and failing to
raise the erroneous jury instruction in their direct appeal. The
post-conviction court found the jury instruction to be erroneous; however, it
denied relief. After a thorough review, we conclude that the jury instruction
was erroneous and prejudicial to the Petitioners and find that trial and
appellate counsel were ineffective for failing to object to the erroneous jury
instruction at trial and for failing to raise it on direct appeal. Accordingly,
we reverse the post-conviction court's denial of relief and remand the
Petitioners' cases to the trial court for new trials on the issues of
aggravated arson.
State vs. Charles Arthur
Reeves - M2000-01201-CCA-R3-CD View
The defendant appealed the
trial court's loss of jurisdiction when he was transferred into the custody of
the Department of Correction. The issue is now moot. Accordingly, this appeal
is dismissed.
State vs. Brenda Redwine
- E2000-01824-CCA-R3-CD View
The defendant, Brenda Redwine, after pleading guilty to possession of Schedule
II drugs and simple possession of marijuana, properly reserved a certified
question of law for our review. The Johnson County Criminal Court denied her
motion to suppress a search warrant that was issued on January 6, 1999. The
defendant asserts, by certified question of law, that the search warrant was
not properly issued because the affidavit that was the basis for the warrant
contained material misrepresentation by the officer. After review, we affirm
the trial court's denial of the defendant's motion to suppress.
State vs. Vernon Love W2000-02808-CCA-R3-PC
View
The petitioner was
originally convicted by a Carroll County jury of the sale of a controlled
substance. The conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. The petitioner sought
post-conviction relief, which was denied by the post-conviction court. In this
appeal as a matter of right, the petitioner contends that his trial counsel
provided ineffective assistance of counsel. After a thorough review of the
record, we conclude that the trial court correctly denied post-conviction
relief.
State vs. Michael Rimmer -
W1999-00637-CCA-R3-DD (Part I) View
State vs. Michael Rimmer -
W1999-00637-CCA-R3-DD (Part II) View
The Defendant appeals his
conviction for murder in the first degree and the sentence of death imposed by
the jury. This opinion is delivered in two parts, with a separate opinion
addressing Part II. In Part I of this opinion we address the following issues:
(1) Admission of evidence regarding his escape attempts; (2) Shackling of his
feet and hands; (3) Prohibition of mitigation evidence at sentencing; (4)
Admission of his statement to police; (5) Propriety of the prosecutor's closing
argument; (6) Unconstitutionality of the death penalty; and (7) Proportionality
of sentence of death. After careful review, we affirm the conviction for murder
in the first degree. In Part II of this opinion, Judge Williams sets forth his
minority position on the following issues: (1) Application of the (i)(2)
aggravating factor in the imposition of the death penalty; and (2) Cumulative
effect of errors. The position of the majority on the issues addressed in Part
II is set forth in the separate opinion filed by Judge Witt, in which Judge
Hayes has joined. The majority concludes that the verdict is enigmatic and
uncertain, requiring reversal of the sentence of death and re-sentencing.
State vs. James Transou -
W2000-01060-CCA-R3-PC View
The petitioner, James Byron Transou, appeals the trial court's denial of
his petition for post-conviction relief. The issues presented for review are
(1) whether the petitioner was denied his constitutional right to
self-representation; (2) whether the denial of a motion for continuance is a
basis for relief; (3) whether the election on the charge made by the state is a
basis for relief; and (4) whether the petitioner was denied the effective
assistance of counsel. The judgment is affirmed.
Cases Posted the week of
05/21/2001
State vs. Ricky A.
Burks - M2000-00345-CCA-R3-CD View
Ricky A. Burks was convicted by a Davidson County jury of the
first-degree murder of his wife. The trial court granted Burks' motion for
judgment of acquittal and entered a judgment for second-degree murder.
Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Burks, as a range II
offender, to forty years confinement in the Department of Correction. Burks now
appeals both the judgment of conviction and the sentence entered by the
Davidson County Criminal Court, challenging the trial court's (1) denial of his
motions to suppress; (2) admission of prior bad acts of the defendant; (3) jury
instructions regarding prior bad acts; (4) admission of autopsy photographs of
the victim; (5) refusal to instruct on the lesser-included offense of reckless
homicide; (6) finding that the evidence is sufficient to support a conviction
of second-degree murder; and (7) imposition of the maximum sentence of forty
years. The State cross-appeals challenging the trial court's ruling in reducing
the jury's verdict of first-degree murder to that of second-degree murder.
Finding no error, we affirm.
Gregory Hatton
vs. State - M2000-00756-CCA-R3-PC View
The petitioner, Gregory Hatton,
sought post-conviction relief on the grounds that his trial counsel was
ineffective, that his guilty pleas were not knowing and voluntary, and that his
sentence is illegal. The trial court concluded that the petition was barred by
the statute of limitations. Insofar as an illegal sentence is subject to
correction at any time, the trial court's dismissal of the petitioner's illegal
sentence claim was erroneous. Because, however, the petitioner is not entitled
to relief on that claim, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
State vs. Robert A. Hayden -
M2000-00901-CCA-MR3-CD View
Indicted for aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery, aggravated sexual
battery, two counts of aggravated rape, and especially aggravated kidnapping,
the defendant entered negotiated pleas of guilt to aggravated robbery, two
counts of aggravated rape, and especially aggravated kidnapping. The remaining
charges were dismissed. After a hearing, the trial court sentenced the
defendant as a Range I offender to 12 years for the robbery, 25 years for each
of the rapes, and 25 years for the kidnapping. The rape sentences were ordered
to be served consecutively to one another and to the robbery sentence, for an
effective sentence of 62 years. In this appeal of right, the defendant claims
that one of the aggravated rape convictions and the especially aggravated
kidnapping conviction violate due process. He asserts that his sentences are
excessive and should not have been ordered to be served consecutively. The
judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Curtis Majors vs. State - M1999-02138-CCA-R3-PC
View
The Petitioner was indicted
for three counts of aggravated robbery and convicted by a Davidson County jury
of one count of aggravated robbery and two counts of aggravated assault. The
trial court sentenced him as a Range II, multiple offender to an effective
sentence of seventeen years, and on direct appeal, this Court modified his
sentence to an effective sentence of fifteen years. The Tennessee Supreme Court
denied permission to appeal. The Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for
post-conviction relief, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of
counsel at trial because his attorneys failed to challenge two of his
indictments prior to trial. Following a hearing, the trial court denied
post-conviction relief, and the Petitioner now appeals the trial court's denial
of relief. We hold that the Petitioner received effective assistance of counsel
at trial and therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court.
State vs. Darryl A. Larkins -
M2000-00249-CCA-MR3-CD View
A Davidson County jury convicted the defendant, Darryl A. Larkins, of two
counts of aggravated rape, two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, one
count of attempted aggravated rape, and one count of aggravated burglary. The
trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I offender to serve an effective
sentence of fifty-years of incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant raises the
following issues for our review: 1) whether the evidence was sufficient to
convict the Defendant of aggravated rape and attempted aggravated rape; 2)
whether the especially aggravated kidnapping convictions were obtained contrary
to Tennessee law in State v. Anthony, 817 S.W.2d 299 (Tenn. 1991); and 3)
whether the Defendant was denied his constitutional rights to a fair trial and
a fair and impartial jury, regarding the aggravated burglary conviction. The
judgment of the trial court is hereby affirmed in part and reversed in part,
and remanded to the trial court for re-sentencing on the offense of attempted
aggravated rape.
State vs. Jake
Christopher Reynolds - M2000-00210-CCA-R3-CD
View
The defendant appeals his
convictions and sentences for attempted voluntary manslaughter and reckless
endangerment. After review, we hold that sufficient evidence supports his
convictions. However, we hold that an adjudication of guilt must precede the
date of the instant offenses to qualify as a ‘prior conviction' for
sentencing purposes. Therefore, we reverse the defendant's sentence and remand
the case to the trial court for imposition of a new sentence.
Alan Hall vs. State of Tennessee -
E2000-01522-CCA-R3-PC View
On
April 30, 1996, the petitioner, Alan Hall, pled guilty in the Sullivan County
Criminal Court to first degree murder, especially aggravated robbery,
especially aggravated burglary, aggravated burglary, theft over $1000, and
possession of burglary tools. The petitioner received a total effective
sentence of life plus twelve years. Subsequently, on September 15, 1999, the
trial court entered an order correcting the petitioner's judgment of conviction
for especially aggravated robbery to reflect that the petitioner would serve
one hundred percent (100%) of his sentence in confinement instead of thirty
percent (30%) as was erroneously reflected on the original judgment. Within a
year after the entry of the corrected judgment, the petitioner filed a pro se
petition for post-conviction relief. The post-conviction court dismissed the
petition as being barred by the statute of limitations. On appeal, the
petitioner contests the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief.
Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of
the post-conviction court.
State vs.
Judy K. Caruso - M2000-01265-CCA-R3-CD View
The defendant, Judy K.
Caruso, entered pleas of guilt to two counts of aggravated burglary and two
counts of theft of property over $1,000. As a part of the plea agreement, the
state agreed to dismiss two charges of possession of stolen property and one
charge of misdemeanor vandalism. The defendant negotiated concurrent sentences
of four years on the burglary convictions and two years on the theft
convictions. The trial court denied a request for probation, ordered a 200-day
jail sentence to be served day for day, and required the balance of the
four-year sentence to be served in a Community Corrections program. In this
appeal of right, the defendant claims that she should have been granted an
alternative sentence involving immediate release. The judgment is affirmed.
State vs. Noah Hamilton
- E2000-01018-CCA-R3-CD View
The defendant appeals and asserts that the evidence was insufficient to
support his conviction of vandalism. Specifically, he contends that the State's
evidence failed to prove the amount of damage beyond a reasonable doubt to
establish a felony. After review, we hold that the trial court properly
calculated the value of the amount of damages done by the defendant and that
the evidence was sufficient to support the defendant's conviction for felony
vandalism.
Antwan Lamar Patton vs.
State - M2000-00370-CCA-R3-PC View
A Davidson County jury
convicted the petitioner of two counts of child rape. For each of these
offenses, he received a sentence of eighteen years, and the trial court ordered
the sentences to be run consecutively. On direct appeal this Court modified the
petitioner's sentences to sixteen and one half years each, resulting in an
effective sentence of thirty-three years, but otherwise found the petitioner's
claims merited no relief. Subsequently the petitioner filed a pro se
post-conviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.
Determining that the petitioner had raised a colorable claim, the trial court
appointed counsel to represent him and later conducted an evidentiary hearing
on the petition. After taking the matter under advisement, the trial court
filed an opinion denying the petition. From this denial the petitioner brings
the instant appeal alleging that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance
by inadequately advising the petitioner of the potential sentence he could
receive should he elect to go to trial. However, following our review of the
record, we find that the trial court correctly denied the petition, and we,
therefore, affirm the lower court's decision.
Leland Ray Reeves vs. State -
M2000-01896-CCA-R3-PC View
The
petitioner's conviction for rape was affirmed on direct appeal. He filed a
petition for post-conviction relief in which he claimed that he received
inadequate assistance of counsel at his trial. Following a hearing, the
post-conviction court dismissed the petition. We affirm the judgment of the
post-conviction court.
State vs. Henry
Ford Williams, Jr . - M2000-01495-CCA-R3-CD
View
The defendant, Henry
Ford Williams, appeals the Robertson County Circuit Court's revocation of his
community corrections sentence. The trial court accepted the defendant's guilty
pleas to Class B felony possession of cocaine for resale and to Class C felony
possession of cocaine. On September 16, 1993, the trial court imposed an
effective sentence of ten years, with eleven months and 29 days to be served in
local confinement and the balance to be served in community corrections. On
February 18, 2000, the state filed a community corrections revocation warrant.
The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing and revoked the defendant's
community corrections placement. From that order, the defendant has appealed to
this court. Upon our review of the record, the briefs of the parties, and the
applicable law, we affirm the action of the trial court..
Cases Posted the week of
05/14/2001
State vs. Rain
Chesher - W2000-01701-CCA-R3-CD View
A jury convicted the
Defendant of first degree premeditated murder, and he was sentenced to life
imprisonment. In this direct appeal, the Defendant contends that he received
ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and challenges the sufficiency of
the evidence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
State vs. William Melton - W2000-01742-CCA-R3-CD
View
The Defendant pleaded
guilty to manufacturing methamphetamine, a Schedule II controlled substance.
The Defendant was sentenced as a Range I standard offender to five years in the
Tennessee Department of Correction. The Defendant now appeals, arguing that the
trial court erred in denying him alternative sentencing. Finding no error, we
affirm the judgment of the trial court.
State vs. Jerry Sanders - W2000-01163-CCA-R3-CD
View
The Defendant, Jerry
Lynn Sanders, appeals from his convictions of aggravated burglary, theft of
property less than $500.00, and possession of a Schedule VI controlled
substance. He asserts that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to
support his convictions and that the trial court erred by denying his request
to admit into evidence a notarized statement wherein the alleged victim stated
that he wanted to dismiss the charges in this matter. We find no error; thus,
we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
State vs. Calvin Barham - W2000-00871-CCA-R3-CD
View
Defendant entered a best
interest plea of guilty to possession of cocaine with the intent to sell and
was sentenced to four years on community corrections. The plea attempted to
reserve a certified question of law relating to the suppression of evidence.
Upon our review of the record, we conclude that we do not have jurisdiction to
address the certified question of law. The appeal is dismissed.
State vs. Timothy Jewell Jr. -
W2000-00998-CCA-R3-CD View
The Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated burglary, a Class C
felony, and two counts of theft over one thousand dollars, Class D felonies.
The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective sentence of three years
incarceration in the local workhouse. The Defendant now appeals, arguing that
the trial court erred in denying him alternative sentencing. Finding no error,
we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
State vs. Shannon Smith, et al -
W1999-01708-CCA-R3-PC View
Pursuant to a plea agreement, the Petitioners in the instant case each pled
guilty to one count of murder in the perpetration of a robbery under Tennessee
Code Annotated section 39-13-202, one count of especially aggravated robbery
under Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-403, and one count of aggravated
assault under Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-102. The Petitioners were
sentenced to concurrent sentences of life, twenty-five years, and six years,
respectively. On April 20, 1995, the Petitioners filed a petition for
post-conviction relief. Special Judge Bobby Capers was appointed to hear the
post-conviction petition. The trial court heard the Petitioners' petition
between August 9, 1999 and August 19, 1999, and granted post-conviction relief
to Petitioners Smith and Versie. On December 3, 1999, the State filed a notice
of appeal, challenging the post-conviction court's findings that neither of the
Petitioners received effective assistance of counsel. After a thorough review
of the record, we conclude that the trial court was correct in granting
post-conviction relief to the Petitioners. The judgment of the post-conviction
court is affirmed.
Ralph Claypole, Jr.
vs. State - M1999-02591-CCA-R3-PC View
The petitioner filed a
petition for writ of habeas corpus, claiming that the constitutional
prohibition against double jeopardy was violated by his multiple sentences. The
post-conviction court denied the petition, finding that the judgments of
conviction were facially valid. We affirm the order of the post-conviction
court dismissing the petition.
State vs.
Joshua Pugh - M2000-02205-CCA-R3-CD View
The defendant appeals his
conviction of the sale of less than .5 grams of a Schedule II controlled
substance, cocaine, a Class C felony. The trial court sentenced him as a Range
II, multiple offender to nine years, three months in the Tennessee Department
of Correction, and imposed a $2000 fine. On appeal, the defendant argues that
the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction, and that his sentence
is excessive and contrary to law. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
State vs. Randy Wilson -
M2000-01537-CCA-R3-CD View
The defendant contends that the State should be barred from revoking his
Community Corrections sentence because no detainer was placed on him while he
served a six-year prison sentence in North Carolina while his revocation
warrant was pending in Tennessee and the State knew of his location. We
conclude that the State was under no obligation to file a detainer against the
defendant, and that the State was not time barred from proceeding with the
Community Corrections revocation after the defendant's return to this state. We
affirm the judgment of the trial court.
State vs. Linda Philpot - M2000-01999-CCA-R3-CD
View
State vs. Linda Philpot - M2000-01999-CCA-R3-CD
( Concur/Dissent) View
Linda Gail Philpot entered "best interest" pleas to forty-one counts of
forgery. Pursuant to the negotiated plea agreement, Philpot received an
effective sentence of fourteen years. The manner of service, including
entitlement to probation, was submitted to the trial court. The trial court
denied all forms of alternative sentencing based upon its finding of lack of
remorse and poor prospects for rehabilitation. On appeal, Philpot argues that
the trial court erred in denying an alternative sentence. After review, we
conclude that a sentence of split confinement will best serve the interests of
the public and the Appellant. The judgment, accordingly, is reversed and
remanded for entry of a sentence of split confinement reflecting a period of
thirty-five days confinement in the local jail or workhouse with the remainder
of the effective fourteen-year sentence to be served on supervised probation.
State vs. Noah J. Love -
E2000-00254-CCA-R3-CD View
The defendant, Noah J. Love, appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to
correct his sentence. The single issue presented for review is whether the
trial court properly denied relief. Because the trial court had no jurisdiction
to amend the sentence four years after the defendant had been transferred to
the Department of Correction, the judgment is reversed.
State vs. Jashua Shannon Sides -
E2000-01422-CCA-R3-CD View
State vs. Jashua Shannon Sides -
E2000-01422-CCA-R3-CD ( Dissent) View
This is a state appeal from
the suppression of evidence. The defendant was indicted for driving under the
influence (DUI), second offense, and leaving the scene of an accident. The
defendant filed a motion to suppress which the trial court granted. In this
appeal, the state alleges that the trial court erroneously concluded the
defendant was unlawfully arrested, or, in the alternative, the order of
suppression was overbroad. Upon review of the record, we modify the order of
suppression to allow evidence gathered prior to the unlawful arrest. We remand
for further proceedings.
State vs. Antonio
Seay - M2000-01696-CCA-R3-CD View
Upon his guilty plea, the Defendant was sentenced to two concurrent ten
year sentences to be served on community corrections. Several months into
service of his sentences, the Defendant was arrested and his community
corrections sentences were revoked. The trial court subsequently resentenced
the Defendant to two consecutive ten year sentences. The Defendant now appeals,
contending that the trial court was without authority to impose consecutive
sentences and that consecutive sentences are improper. We affirm the trial
court's judgment.
Cyrus Wilson vs.
State - M2000-01237-CCA-R3-CD View
The Defendant, Cyrus D.
Wilson, was convicted by a jury of first degree murder and sentenced to life in
prison. His conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. The Defendant
subsequently filed for post-conviction relief alleging that he had received
ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and that his trial was tainted by
due process violations. After an evidentiary hearing the post-conviction court
denied relief. The Defendant now appeals as of right. The judgment of the
post-conviction court is affirmed.
State vs. Thomas
Richardson - M2000-01976-CCA-R3-CD View
The defendant, Thomas
Jared Richardson, pled guilty to two counts of possession of less than .5 grams
of cocaine with the intent to manufacture, deliver, or sell, a Class C felony.
See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-417. The trial court imposed concurrent
sentences of six years for each count, to be served in the Davidson County
Workhouse. The trial court also assessed a fine of $3,500 and ordered the
defendant to forfeit his weapon. In this appeal of right, the defendant argues
that the trial court should have imposed probation or some other alternative
sentence. The judgment is affirmed.
State
vs. Dwayne Simmons - M2000-01199-CCA-R3-CD View
The defendant, indicted for
the false reporting of a bomb threat at an elementary school, was convicted of
the offense of harassment, and fined $1000. No motion for a new trial was
filed. In a pro se appeal to this court, the defendant raises essentially four
issues: (1) whether he was denied effective assistance of counsel; (2) whether
he was denied the right to testify at trial; (3) whether the State withheld
exculpatory evidence; and (4) whether the evidence was sufficient to support
his conviction of harassment. After a careful review of the record and
applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Laverne Lain, Jr. vs. State -
M2000-00605-CCA-R3-PC View
The
petitioner appeals from the denial of his post-conviction petition, contending
that his guilty plea was not entered voluntarily and intelligently and that he
received the ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the trial court's
denial of the petition.
State vs. Ronald
Stanley - M2000-00790-CCA-R3-CD View
The Defendant pled guilty to
selling over twenty-six grams of cocaine, possession with intent to sell over
300 grams of cocaine, and possession with intent to sell between ten and
seventy pounds of marijuana. As to his conviction for possession with intent to
sell over 300 grams of cocaine, the Defendant reserved the following certified
question of law: whether the search warrant was void for execution more than
120 hours after issuance. We hold that the five-day period in which a search
warrant must be executed is to be computed using calendar days rather than
hours. Thus, a search warrant is valid if executed by midnight of the fifth day
after its issuance, with the calculation of days to exclude the day of
issuance. We further hold that the search warrant in this case was properly
executed within the five-day period and therefore affirm the judgment of the
trial court.
Cases Posted the week of
05/07/2001
State vs. Ronnie
Evans - E2000-00327-CCA-R9-CD View
The appellant, State of
Tennessee, charged the defendant, Ronnie Lamar Evans, with driving under the
influence (DUI), fourth offense. Prior to trial, a dispute arose about whether
the defendant's prior DUI convictions are elements of the charged offense that
should be proven during the State's case-in-chief or whether evidence of the
defendant's prior DUI convictions should only be brought before the jury during
the second, or enhancement, phase of a bifurcated trial. This court granted the
State's application for an interlocutory appeal on this issue. The State now
raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether prior DUI convictions
are to be used only to enhance a sentence and are not elements of DUI, fourth
offense; (2) whether a felony DUI trial should be bifurcated into separate
phases as required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-203 (1997); and (3) whether
the trial court should make a finding prior to trial as to the number of
applicable prior offenses in order to determine the number of jury challenges
each side may exercise and how the jury should be instructed. Upon review of
the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
State vs. Billy Joe Phillips,a.k.a.
Billy Joe West, a.k.a Joseph L. Phillips - E1999-00542-CCA-R3-CD
View
The defendant was
convicted by a jury of one count of driving while his driver's license was
revoked, one count of criminal impersonation, and was found guilty of violating
the implied consent law. The defendant claims there was insufficient evidence
introduced to support his convictions. After a careful review, we affirm the
defendant's conviction of criminal impersonation and reverse and dismiss the
defendant's conviction for driving on a revoked driver's license.
State vs. Terry Dominy - M2000-01137-CCA-R3-CD
View
The State of Tennessee
appeals the Lawrence County Circuit Court's dismissal of the indictment that
charged the defendant, Terry A. Dominy, with three counts of rape of a spouse.
See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-507(b) (1991). The trial court based the
dismissal upon the state's failure to join the charges with aggravated rape
charges contained in a previous indictment. See Tenn. R. Crim. P. 8(a). The
defendant had been convicted on the previous aggravated rape charges, but
ultimately our supreme court reversed these convictions and dismissed the
charges, after which the state then brought the spousal rape charges. See State
v. Dominy, 6 S.W.3d 472 (Tenn. 1999). On appeal, the state argues that the
mandatory joinder provisions of Rule 8 are inapplicable when the prosecutor was
guilty of no willful or deliberate misconduct in not joining the charges in the
earlier indictment. We agree with the trial court and affirm the dismissal of
the spousal rape indictment.
State vs.
Charles Cole - W2000-01129-CCA-R3-CD View
The defendant, Charles
Roy Cole, was charged with aggravated assault and rape of a child. He was
acquitted on the first charge and convicted on the second. The trial court
imposed a sentence of 20 years. In this appeal of right, the defendant
challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and argues that the trial court
erred in its jury instructions regarding admissions against interest. The
judgment is affirmed.
State vs. Shirley
Davis - W2000-00084-CCA-R3-CD View
On December 3, 1998, a Shelby County Grand Jury indicted Shirley
Davis, the Defendant and Appellant, for aggravated robbery. Following a jury
trial, the Defendant was convicted as charged. After a subsequent sentencing
hearing, the trial court sentenced the Defendant to serve nine years
incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant claims that the trial court erroneously
enhanced her sentence. Although we find that the trial court erroneously
applied a statutory enhancing factor, our de novo review reveals the existence
of an applicable enhancing factor that was not applied by the trial court. This
enhancement factor amply justifies the sentence imposed. Accordingly, we affirm
the trial court's judgment.
State vs.
William Fahr - W2000-00973-CCA-R3-CD View
Defendant was indicted by a Shelby County grand jury on the
charge of rape of a child. Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, defendant
entered a plea of nolo contendere to sexual battery and received a two-year
sentence. The issue of how his sentence should be served was submitted to the
trial court. Upon our review of the record, we conclude that it is necessary to
remand for a new sentencing hearing since the trial court relied upon the
defendant's failure to make a public confession at a church in determining the
sentence.
State vs. Freddie King -
W2000-01256-CCA-R3-PC View
The
Defendant pled guilty to several offenses in 1992, receiving an agreed
effective sentence of twenty-four years. He subsequently filed for
post-conviction relief, which was denied after a hearing. The Defendant filed a
second post-conviction petition which the trial court summarily dismissed. The
Defendant now appeals; we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
State vs. Thomas Lewis II -
W2000-01740-CCA-R3-CD View
Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, the defendant pled guilty to
contributing to the delinquency of a minor, a Class A misdemeanor, and unlawful
use of an altered vehicle registration plate, a Class E felony. He received
concurrent sentences of eleven months, twenty-nine days and two years,
respectively, to be served on probation. The defendant appeals the trial
court's denial of his request for judicial diversion. Upon our review of the
record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
State vs. Winslow Roberts -
W2000-00141-CCA-R3-CD View
The Defendant, Winslow B. Roberts, was found guilty by a Shelby County jury of
two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping and two counts of aggravated
robbery. The Defendant was sentenced to twenty years on each count of
especially aggravated kidnapping, with the terms to be served concurrently, and
ten years on each count of aggravated robbery, with the terms to be served
concurrently. The trial court ordered that the Defendant's sentences for
especially aggravated kidnapping be served consecutively to his sentences for
aggravated robbery, for an effective sentence of thirty years. The Defendant
now appeals, arguing that there was insufficient evidence presented at trial to
convict him of especially aggravated kidnapping and aggravated robbery. Finding
no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
State vs. Anthony Robinson -
W2000-02248-CCA-R3-CO View
Petitioner was originally convicted by a Shelby County jury of aggravated rape,
a Class A felony, and sentenced to thirty-seven years as a Range II offender.
Petitioner now appeals the denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus in
which he alleged his indictment was void. Upon our review of the record, we
affirm the judgment of the trial court.
State vs. Mark Stacy - E2000-02906-CCA-R3-CD
View
The defendant was indicted
by a Polk County Grand Jury for first degree murder. Following a two-day trial,
he was found guilty of second degree murder, a Class A felony. The trial court
sentenced the defendant to twenty-three years as a Range I, violent offender in
the Tennessee Department of Correction. In this appeal as of right, the
defendant does not challenge his conviction but contends only that his sentence
is excessive. Having reviewed the entire record, including the transcript of
the sentencing hearing, we conclude that the defendant's issues concerning the
length of his sentence are without merit. We affirm the judgment of the trial
court.
David Pearson vs. State -
E2000-00438-CCA-R3-CD View
The petitioner appeals from the Knox County Criminal Court's dismissal of his
petition for post-conviction relief, by which he sought to set aside his
earlier guilty pleas. On appeal, the petitioner presses his claim that because
he received ineffective assistance of counsel, his guilty pleas were not
voluntary and knowing. Finding that the services of the petitioner's trial
counsel were below the range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal
cases and that the petitioner was thereby prejudiced, we reverse the judgment
of the post-conviction court, vacate the petitioner's convictions, and set
aside the petitioner's guilty pleas without prejudice to further proceedings on
the underlying charges.
State vs. Dennis
Jacks - E2000-00643-CCA-R3-CD View
The defendant appeals from
the revocation of his probation, contesting the trial court's jurisdiction. We
affirm the judgment of the trial court.
State vs. David Walter Troxell -
M2000-01100-CCA-R3-CD View
Defendant, charged with possession with intent to sell and/or deliver a
controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia, filed a motion to
suppress over 300 grams of cocaine, paraphernalia, and U.S. currency discovered
during a search of his vehicle. The trial court, Dickson County, granted
Defendant's motion to suppress the evidence on the ground that the search
impermissibly exceeded the scope of Defendant's consent. The State appealed.
After a review of the record, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.
State vs. Sean Conway -
M2000-01263-CCA-R3-CD View
The
defendant was indicted for driving under the influence (DUI), driving while his
alcohol concentration was .10% or more (DUI per se), and DUI, second offense.
After a jury trial on DUI and DUI per se, the jury acquitted the defendant of
DUI and was unable to reach a verdict on DUI per se. A second trial was held,
and the jury convicted the defendant of DUI per se. The trial judge then found
this conviction to be a second offense. In this appeal, the defendant alleges
(1) the defendant's retrial for DUI per se violated the principles of double
jeopardy; (2) the trial court erroneously admitted the results of the breath
test and related evidence; (3) the trial court erroneously admitted testimony
of the arresting officer concerning his encounters with other motorists charged
with DUI; (4) the trial court improperly considered a prior conviction for
enhancement of the defendant's sentence; and (5) the trial judge erroneously
failed to recuse himself. Upon review of the record, we reduce the defendant's
conviction to DUI, first offense, remand for resentencing, and affirm the trial
court in all other respects.
State vs.
Jacob Davis - M1999-02496-CCA-R3-CD View
Following a jury trial,
Defendant, Jacob Lee Davis, was convicted of premeditated first degree murder,
reckless endangerment, and carrying a weapon on school property. The trial
court sentenced him to life imprisonment for the first degree murder conviction
and one year each for the reckless endangerment and carrying a weapon on school
property convictions. The trial court ordered that the latter sentences be
served concurrent to the sentence for life imprisonment. On appeal, the
Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain each of the
convictions and argues that the trial court erred in failing to strike six
potential jurors for cause. After a review of the record, we affirm the
judgment of the trial court.
Billy Saleem
El-Amin aka Billy Noble Forrest vs. Jack Morgan & State -
M1999-02172-CCA-R3-PC View
The petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, contending that the
two sentences for which he was incarcerated were being served concurrently and
that both had expired, resulting in his being held illegally by the Tennessee
Department of Correction for the second sentence. However, the Court of
Appeals, presented previously with this same issue by the petitioner,
determined that the sentences were to be served consecutively. Thus, the second
sentence has not expired. We reverse the order of the post-conviction court
that the two sentences were served concurrently and that the second sentence
has expired. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed.
State vs. Cynthia Mann - M1999-01390-CCA-R3-CD
View
The Defendant pleaded
guilty to theft of property valued over sixty-thousand dollars, a Class B
felony. The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I, standard offender
to the minimum eight-year sentence, to be served in the Tennessee Department of
Correction. The Defendant now appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in
denying her alternative sentencing. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
State vs . Victor Neuenschwander
- M2000-01334-CCA-R3-CD View
The Defendant pleaded guilty to sexual battery by an authority figure, a
Class C felony. The Defendant was sentenced as an especially mitigated offender
to two years and seven months in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The
Defendant now appeals, arguing that the trial c