The following Opinions are available for download:
Cases posted the week of 06/26/2006
State vs. Fred Johnson - E2005-00877-CCA-R3-CD View
Campbell County - The defendant, Fred Johnson, was convicted by a Campbell County jury of five counts of sexual battery, a Class E felony, and five counts of aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony. He was sentenced to one year for each sexual battery and eight years for each aggravated sexual battery. He received a total effective sentence of twenty-seven years, twenty-four years at 100% as a violent offender for the aggravated sexual battery counts and three years at 30% as a Range I, standard offender for the sexual battery counts. On appeal, he argues: (1) the trial court erred in failing to charge lesser-included offenses; (2) the jury did not understand or follow the charge of the trial court; and (3) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions for aggravated sexual battery. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court but remand for entry of corrected judgments to reflect that Counts 3 and 5 are consecutive to Counts 1 and 2.
Guadalupe S. Mendez vs. State - E2005-02198-CCA-R3-PC View
Cumberland County - The Petitioner, Guadalupe S. Mendez, appeals from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The Petitioner was convicted of aggravated rape and especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. After a review of the record, we affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of post-conviction relief.
Michael Salvatore Morani vs. State - E2005-01897-CCA-R3-PC View
Cumberland County - The petitioner, Michael Salvatore Morani, was convicted by a jury of attempted first degree murder and theft of property over $10,000 in 2002. Trial counsel filed an untimely motion for new trial that was denied by the trial court after a hearing. The petitioner appealed to this Court. On direct appeal, the petitioner raised challenges to his sentence and the fines imposed by the trial court. The timeliness of the motion for new trial and subsequent notice of appeal were not addressed on appeal. This Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. State v. Michael Salvatore Morani, No. E2002-02394-CCA-R3-CD, 2003 WL 21946736 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxville, Aug. 14, 2003), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Dec. 15, 2003). The petitioner subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief requesting a delayed appeal in which he alleged ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to file a timely motion for new trial. The post-conviction court granted the delayed appeal. The petitioner presents the following issues for our review: (1) whether the trial court improperly admitted statements made by the petitioner to the victim; (2) whether the trial court improperly allowed Investigator Potter to testify that the petitioner commented he had been “Mirandized before;” (3) whether the trial court improperly denied the petitioner’s request for a continuance; (4) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict; and (5) whether the cumulative effect of the trial court’s errors entitles the petitioner to a new trial. After a review of the record and the issues, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
State vs. William Arrowood - E2005-01532-CCA-R3-CD View
Cocke County - The Defendant was convicted for driving under the influence of an intoxicant (“DUI”), fourth offense, driving after having been declared a habitual motor offender, driving on a revoked license, and violation of the implied consent law. The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I offender to four years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his DUI conviction. Finding that there exists no reversible error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.
Michael Hill vs. State - E2006-00214-CCA-R3-PC View
Bradley County - The petitioner, Michael Hill, appeals the Bradley County Criminal Court’s dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for three counts of rape, a Class B felony, and effective sentence of twelve years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the petitioner contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel, rendering his guilty pleas unknowing and involuntary. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Brian Knight, Chance, Kristy, & Chad Dudley v. Flanary & Sons Trucking, Patrick Sturm, J. B. Hunt Transport, & Sean Hansen - W2005-01412-COA-R3-CV View
Madison County - This is an automobile accident
case. The plaintiffs were traveling on the interstate in
a pickup truck pulling a U-Haul trailer. The individual defendants
were each driving a commercial eighteen-wheeler truck and
were following the plaintiffs, one behind the other. The
plaintiffs came upon road construction and slowed to a stop.
The defendant driving the truck immediately behind the plaintiffs
could not stop; he swerved to the right and hit the plaintiffs’ U-Haul. The defendant driving the second truck behind the plaintiffs was also unable to stop. He struck both the U-Haul and the pickup truck, causing both vehicles to catch fire and resulting in serious personal injuries to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs sued the drivers of both of the eighteen-wheeler trucks and their employers for damages resulting from the accident. The plaintiffs’ claim against the driver of the second truck and his employer was settled. The plaintiffs then proceeded to trial against the driver of the first truck and his employer. After a jury trial, the jury returned a verdict finding in favor of the plaintiffs, concluding that the defendant driving the first truck was 25% at fault for the accident. The defendants appeal, arguing that no material evidence supports the jury’s finding that their negligence caused the plaintiffs’ damages.
We affirm.
BancorpSouth Bank, Inc. v. Billy J. Hatchel - W2005-01848-COA-R3-CV View
Weakley County - In this appeal, we are
asked to review the trial court’s decision regarding the damages incurred by the plaintiff in a breach of contract action. The plaintiff, a bank, attempted to sell a parcel of distressed real estate containing residential dwelling units at a foreclosure sale. The defendant placed the highest bid for the property, but he subsequently refused to consummate the transaction. After the sale, a dispute arose over who would be responsible for certain repairs, and the defendant, who did not inspect the property prior to placing a bid, apparently felt that the property was not worth the amount he bid for it. The bank brought suit for breach of contract, but it failed to present any evidence of the property’s fair market value on the date of breach. After a bench trial in the matter, but before the trial court entered its final judgment, the bank sought to introduce additional evidence in the form of a second foreclosure sale conducted post-trial. The bank asserted that the amount it received at the second foreclosure sale represented the fair market value of the property. After considering this additional evidence, the trial court entered a judgment finding that the bank failed to present evidence of the property’s
fair market value on the date of the breach. Accordingly,
the trial court concluded that the bank was not entitled
to the damages it sought as a result of the breach. The bank
appealed that decision to this Court. We affirm.
State vs. Robin Davis - W2005-02212-CCA-R3-PC View
Shelby County - The petitioner, Robin Davis, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. In this appeal, he asserts that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial. The judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed.
State vs. Donald Fowlkes - W2005-02530-CCA-R3-CD View
Madison County - The Defendant, Donald Eugene Fowlkes, appeals from the order of the trial court revoking his probation and ordering that his eight-year sentence be served in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his probation and ordering that his sentence be served in confinement. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
State vs. Calvin Caruthers, In Re: Wheeler Bonding - M2005-00953-CCA-R3-CD View
Davidson County - The appellant, Wheeler
Bonding Company, Inc. (hereinafter “Wheeler”), appeals the order of the Davidson County Criminal Court requiring Wheeler to pay a portion of Defendant Calvin Wayne Caruthers’ bond premium to the criminal court clerk in satisfaction of the defendant’s restitution obligation from a 1992 theft conviction. The state concedes Wheeler’s claim, and we reverse and vacate the criminal court’s
order.
Cases posted the week of 06/19/2006
State vs. Kenneth Davis - W2005-02147-CCA-R3-CD View
Madison County - The defendant, Kenneth Lyle Davis, appeals from the trial court’s order revoking his probation and reinstating his original sentence of two years. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
State vs. Sedley Alley - W2006-01179-CCA-R3-PD View
Shelby County - In 1985, the Petitioner, Sedley Alley, was convicted of aggravated rape, kidnapping, and first degree murder. For the capital crime of first degree murder, the jury imposed the sentence of death. Petitioner Alley’s execution was scheduled for May 17, 2006; however, on May 16, 2006, the Governor, upon recommendation of the Tennessee Board of Probation and Parole, granted a fifteen-day reprieve to allow the Petitioner the opportunity to petition the trial court for DNA testing of “those additional items that were not included in his 2004 petition.” On May 19, 2006, Petitioner Alley filed a petition to compel testing of evidence under the Post-Conviction DNA Analysis Act of 2001. The post-conviction court denied the petition on May 31, 2006. Our supreme court, on June 2, 2006, rescheduled Petitioner Alley’s execution for June 28, 2006. See State v. Sedley Alley, No. M1991-00019-SC-DPE-DD (Tenn., at Nashville, June 2, 2006) (order). The Petitioner sought and was granted expedited review by this Court. Upon review of the record and the responses by both parties, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.
State vs. Rita Lynn Neff - E2005-01622-CCA-R3-CD View
Sullivan County - The Defendant, Rita Lynn Neff, appeals from the order of the trial court revoking her probation and ordering that her effective eight-year sentence be served in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking her probation and ordering that her sentences be served in confinement. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
James Dellinger & Gary Sutton vs. State - E2004-01068-CCA-R3-PC View
Sevier County - Following a joint trial, Petitioners, James Dellinger and Gary Wayne Sutton, were each convicted in Sevier County Circuit Court of the premeditated first degree murder of Connie Branum and the burning of personal property. Each Petitioner received a life sentence for the murder conviction and a consecutive two-year sentence for the burning of personal property conviction. Their convictions and sentences were upheld on appeal. State v. Gary Wayne Sutton and James Anderson [sic] Dellinger, No. 03C01-9403-CR-0090, 1995 WL 406953 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxville, July 11, 1995). Petitioners filed separate petitions for post-conviction relief. After a combined evidentiary hearing conducted on two separate days, the trial court denied post-conviction relief to Petitioners. By order of this Court, Petitioners’ appeals of the dismissal of their petitions for post-conviction relief were consolidated for purposes of appeal. On appeal, Petitioners argue that their respective trial and appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel because they (1) inadequately investigated the case against them in Sevier County; (2) failed to adequately investigate the death of Tommy Griffin in Blount County; (3) failed to appeal the trial court’s denial of Petitioners’ motion for a change of venue; and (4) failed to challenge on appeal the search warrant issued against Petitioner Dellinger’s residence. Both Petitioners argue that they were denied their constitutional right to a fair trial because (1) the State failed to disclose exculpatory evidence as required by Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963); (2) the jury was improperly exposed to extraneous information during deliberations; and (3) the sequestered jury was separated from the attendance and control of the court officer at a function held during Petitioners’ trial. In a separate issue, Petitioner Dellinger argues that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel because he failed to advise him of his right to testify at trial. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the post-conviction court.
Charles Manning vs. Jack Morgan, Warden - E2005-00701-CCA-R3-HC View
Morgan County - Petitioner, Charles Manning, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, attacking his two convictions for second degree murder. Following a hearing, the trial court denied any relief to Petitioner. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Kimberly Greene vs. State - E2005-01556-CCA-R3-HC View
Blounty County- Petitioner, Kimberly Greene, filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus on March 1, 2005, and counsel was subsequently appointed to assist Petitioner. A hearing was held on June 1, 2005, and, after consulting with her counsel, Petitioner voluntarily withdrew her petition. Thereafter Petitioner filed a pro se notice of appeal. Upon a review of the record in this case, we conclude that the trial court was correct in summarily dismissing the habeas corpus petition. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Cases posted the week of 06/12/2006
State vs. Jonathan B. Dunn - M2005-01268-CCA-R3-CD View
After the Bedford County Juvenile Court transferred the defendant to the Bedford County Circuit Court for trial, the defendant pled guilty to one count of aggravated assault, a Class C felony, and one count of reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon, a Class E felony. The trial court sentenced the defendant to concurrent terms of four years for the assault and one year for the reckless endangerment, ordering the defendant to serve one year in confinement before being released on supervised probation. On appeal, the defendant contends the trial court erred (1) in applying enhancement factors to increase the length of his assault sentence, (2) in denying full probation, and (3) in denying judicial diversion. Concluding the trial court erred in sentencing, upon de novo review, we sentence the defendant to three years incarceration with nine months to be served in confinement before release on supervised probation. We affirm the trial court’s denial of judicial diversion.
State vs. Terry V. Johnson - M2005-01858-CCA-R3-CD View
Rutherford County - The defendant, Terry V. Johnson, was convicted of the sale of less than .5 grams of cocaine. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-417(a)(3) (2003). The trial court sentenced the defendant, a career offender, to fifteen years in the Department of Correction. In this appeal, the defendant asserts that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
State vs. Kelly Humphrey - E2005-01624-CCA-R3-CD View
Knox County - The appellant, Kelly Humphrey, pled guilty in the Knox County Criminal Court to sexual battery by an authority figure and statutory rape, and he received a total effective sentence of three years with the trial court to determine the manner of service. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court denied the appellant’s request for alternative sentencing, which denial the appellant appeals. Upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.
State vs. James Wesley Nuchols, IV - E2005-00815-CCA-R3-CD View
Sevier County - The appellant, James Wesley Nuchols, IV, pled guilty in the Sevier County Circuit Court to aggravated robbery and contributing to the delinquency of a minor, with the length of the sentences and the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the appellant to concurrent sentences of eight years for aggravated robbery and eleven months, twenty-nine days for contributing to the delinquency of a minor. On appeal, the appellant claims that the trial court erred by refusing to impose an alternative sentence such as split confinement or probation. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.
Cases posted the week of 06/05/2006
State vs. Carlos Eddings - W2005-01173-CCA-RM-CD View
Shelby County - The Defendant, Carlos Eddings, was tried and convicted for aggravated robbery, and the trial court sentenced the Defendant to ten years in prison. The Defendant appealed, and a majority of this Court concluded that his sentence must be modified to eight years pursuant to the United States Supreme Court case Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004). State v. Carlos Eddings, No. W2003-02255-CCA-R3-CD, 2004 WL 2266794, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, Oct. 8, 2004). The State filed an application for permission to appeal with the Tennessee Supreme Court pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. On May 23, 2005, the Tennessee Supreme Court granted the State’s application for the purpose of remanding the case to this Court for reconsideration in light of State v. Gomez, 163 S.W.3d 632 (Tenn. 2005). On remand, we affirm the Defendant’s ten-year sentence.
Ashad Muhammad Ali vs. State - M2005-01137-CCA-R3-PC View
Lincoln County - The defendant, Ashad R.A. Muhammad Ali, a/k/a Louis Webb, appeals pro se the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction DNA analysis. The defendant presents two issues: (1) whether the post-conviction court properly dismissed the petition, and (2) whether the post-conviction court erred in denying relief or sanctions for the failure of the State to preserve all testable evidence. We conclude that the petition was properly dismissed and that no relief or sanctions for failure to preserve all testable evidence should be afforded the defendant. We affirm the post-conviction court’s dismissal of the defendant’s petition.
James McClennon vs. State - M2005-01123-CCA-R3-PC View
Davidson County - The petitioner, James McClennon, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief in which he asserted various instances of ineffective assistance of counsel. A review of the record reveals support for the findings of the post-conviction court. We affirm.
State vs. Ernest Cunningham, Jr. - M2005-01718-CCA-R3-CD View
Davidson County - The defendant, Ernest Cunningham, Jr., appeals his convictions for facilitation of sale of cocaine under .5 grams (Class D felony) and possession of .5 grams or more of cocaine with the intent to sell (Class B felony). The defendant received concurrent sentences of twelve years for the facilitation offense and thirty years for possession with intent to sell, as a career offender with a 60% release eligibility date. The sole issue on appeal is whether the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions. Our review reveals that the evidence was sufficient. The judgments of conviction are hereby affirmed.
State vs. Edward Jankowski, Sr. - M2005-01251-CCA-R3-CD View
Sequatchie County - The Defendant, Edward Jankowski, Sr., appeals from the sentencing decision of the Sequatchie County Circuit Court. The Defendant pled guilty to one count of incest. The victim was his eighteen-year-old daughter. Pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, he received a six-year sentence as a Range I, standard offender, and the manner of service was to be determined by the trial court. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered the sentence to be served in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred by ordering a sentence of total confinement rather than a less restrictive alternative. After review, the sentencing decision is affirmed.
State vs. Walfrido L. Rodriguez - M2005-01351-CCA-R3-CD View
Davidson County- The defendant, Walfrido L. Rodriguez, appeals from his Davidson County Criminal Court jury convictions of second degree murder and aggravated assault, claiming that the trial court erred by instructing the jury to consider the charges sequentially, that the convicting evidence is insufficient, and that the trial court erred in rejecting a request for a special jury instruction. We discern no reversible error and affirm the convictions.
Andrew Rochester vs. State - M2005-01468-CCA-R3-PC View
Wayne County - In this post-conviction action, the petitioner, Andrew Rochester, contends that trial counsel was ineffective by: (1) failing to file a motion to suppress evidence taken from his vehicle after his arrest; (2) failing to object to testimony elicited from two witnesses not qualified as experts; and (3) failing to comply with the requirements of Momon v. State on the record at trial. Following our review, we conclude that counsel was not ineffective in his representation; therefore, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.
Arthur L. Armstrong vs. State - M2005-01325-CCA-R3-CD View
Davidson County - The Petitioner, Arthur L. Armstrong, filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis alleging newly discovered evidence in the context of a Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), violation and, alternatively, that counsel was ineffective by failing to use the evidence for impeachment purposes. The trial court summarily denied relief on the basis that the petition was time-barred. We conclude that, with respect to the Petitioner’s claim of newly discovered evidence, an evidentiary hearing is required. As to the allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel, this issue is not appropriately addressed in a petition for writ of error coram nobis and, insofar as the pleading may be considered a petition for post-conviction relief, the trial court properly dismissed the claim without a hearing. Thus, we affirm the summary dismissal of the ineffective assistance claim. The judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
State vs. Charles Hanner - M2005-01944-CCA-R3-CD View
Robertson County- Indicted for rape of a child, the defendant, Brandon Hanner, was convicted by a jury of aggravated sexual battery. He appeals and challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. Because the record supports the jury’s verdict, we affirm the conviction.
Kevin Mercer vs. State - M005-01293-CCA-R3-PC View
Marshall County - In this post-conviction action, the petitioner, Kevin Frank Mercer, contends that: (1) his plea was involuntary and unknowing; and (2) trial counsel was ineffective by providing little meaningful advice as to whether to enter a plea or proceed to trial. Following our review, we conclude that his plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered and that counsel was effective in his representation of the petitioner. Therefore, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.
State vs. Danny Strode - M2005-00906-CCA-R9-DD View
Marion County - The defendant, Danny Strode, was indicted by the Bledsoe County Grand Jury for one count of premeditated murder, one count of felony murder and one count of especially aggravated robbery. The State sought the death penalty. The defendant asserted he could not be put to death because he was mentally retarded within the meaning of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-203(a). The trial court held a hearing and determined that the defendant was indeed mentally retarded under the definition provided in the statute and therefore could not be sentenced to death. The State requested permission to pursue an interlocutory appeal which was granted by the trial court. On appeal, we determine that the defendant is not mentally retarded under the definition of the statute and, therefore, reverse the judgment of the trial court.
Jesse Dabbs vs. State - M2005-01727-CCA-R3-PC View
Davidson County - The Petitioner, Jesse Lane Dabbs, appeals the trial court’s summary dismissal of his petition for post- conviction relief. The trial court determined that the petition was filed outside the statute of limitations and was time-barred. After a review of the record, the judgment of the Davidson County Criminal Court summarily dismissing the petition is affirmed.
Jonathon Hood vs. State - M2005-01310-CCA-R3-PC View
Franklin County - This is an appeal from the denial of post-conviction relief. The Petitioner, Jonathon Christopher Hood, entered a best-interest guilty plea to felony reckless endangerment and, pursuant to a plea agreement, was sentenced to one year imprisonment with a release eligibility date of 30%. The Petitioner filed for and was denied post-conviction relief. The Petitioner now appeals the denial of post-conviction relief, claiming his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel which resulted in an involuntary guilty plea. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Randy L. Jones vs. State - M2005-00765-CCA-R3-PC View
Grundy County - The Petitioner, Randy L. Jones, pro se, appeals as of right from the Grundy County Circuit Court’s denial of post-conviction relief. In 1997, the Petitioner was convicted of two counts of first degree, premeditated murder, and he received consecutive life sentences for these convictions. Subsequently, the Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief and, after several amendments by the Petitioner and appointed counsel, received an evidentiary hearing. The post-conviction court dismissed the petition, and he now appeals to this Court. In this appeal, he raises seven issues which, in substance, relate to the following claims: denial of his right to self-representation, ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, and improper jury instructions. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court denying relief.
State vs. Lamont Rutland - M2005-01395-CCA-R3-CD View
Davdison County - Defendant, Lamont Deshawn Rutland, appeals the trial court’s revocation of his probation. After a review of this matter, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Almeer Nance vs. State - E2005-02265-CCA-R3-PC View
A Knox County jury convicted the petitioner, Almeer Nance, of felony murder, especially aggravated robbery, especially aggravated kidnapping, and aggravated robbery. The trial court sentenced the petitioner to an effective sentence of life with an additional twenty-five years. The petitioner was unsuccessful in his direct appeal to this Court. State v. Almeer Nance, No E2000-00170-CCA-R3-CD, 2001 WL 1268499 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxville, Oct. 23, 2001), perm. app. denied (Tenn. March 11, 2002). On November 6, 2002, the petitioner filed a pro se Petition for Post-conviction relief. After appointment of counsel, the post-conviction court held a cursory hearing on September 16, 2005. At the conclusion of that hearing, the post-conviction court dismissed the petition for failure to prosecute. The petitioner appeals the dismissal of his petition. We reverse and remand the post-conviction court’s dismissal of the petition.
Billie Joe Henderson vs. State - E2005-00806-CCA-R3-PC View
Knox County - The petitioner, Billie Joe Henderson, was convicted of first degree murder in 1998. This Court affirmed the conviction on appeal. See State v. Billy Joe Henderson, No. 03C01-9804-CR-00139, 1999 WL 398087, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxville, June 18, 1999), perm. app. denied, (Tenn. Nov. 22, 1999). Subsequently, the petitioner filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief. The petition was dismissed without a hearing and the petitioner appealed. On appeal, this Court affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded the matter to the post-conviction court for an evidentiary hearing based on the determination that the petitioner had stated a “colorable claim” for relief. See Billy Joe Henderson v. State, No. E2001-00438-CCA-R3-PC, 2001 WL 1464544, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxville, Nov. 19, 2001). On remand, the post-conviction court held an evidentiary hearing on the petition. After the hearing, the petition was denied. The petitioner appeals, arguing that the post-conviction court incorrectly denied the petition for post-conviction relief.
State vs. Mark Anthony Hill - E2005-01550-CCA-R3-CD View
Hamilton County - The appellant, Mark Anthony Hill, was convicted by a Hamilton County jury of robbery. He was sentenced to fifteen years as a career offender. After the denial of a motion for new trial, this appeal followed. On appeal, the following issues are presented for our review: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction; (2) whether the trial court erred by allowing a police officer to testify regarding the victim’s identification of the appellant from a photo lineup; and (3) whether the trial court erred in refusing to grant a judgment of acquittal on the robbery charge. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
State vs. Daniel Decker - E2005-01241-CCA-R3-CD View
Hamilton County - The appellant, Daniel Decker, was indicted by the Hamilton County Grand Jury for the first degree murder of his grandmother. The appellant was convicted by a petit jury and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. After the denial of a motion for new trial, the appellant filed an untimely notice of appeal. This Court granted the appellant’s motion to waive the untimely filing of the notice of appeal. On appeal, the appellant challenges the introduction of photographs of the victim’s injuries and videotape of the crime scene as well as the sufficiency of the evidence. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
State vs. Daniel Potin - W2005-01100-CCA-R3-CD View
Shelby County - The appellant, Daniel Potin, was found guilty by a jury in the Shelby County Criminal Court of possession of .5 grams or more of cocaine with the intent to sell. The trial court sentenced the appellant to nine years in the Tennessee Department of Correction and imposed a fine of $20,000. On appeal, the appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, the trial court’s designation of a witness as an expert, and the fine imposed. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
State vs. Thomas Alvin Carter - E2005-01163-CCA-R3-CD View
Knox County - In this case appealed by Defendant Thomas Alvin Carter from the Knox County Criminal Court, we review the sufficiency of the evidence convicting the defendant of theft of property valued between $10,000 and $60,000 and the defendant’s claim that the trial court erred in denying his motion for mistrial. We perceive no reversible error and affirm the judgment.
State vs. Earl Lee - W2005-01601-CCA-R3-HC View
Hardeman County - The petitioner, Earl Jerome Lee, pled guilty to aggravated kidnapping, attempted felony escape, concealing stolen property, and fraudulent use of a credit card, and he received a total effective sentence of forty years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that the sentences imposed were illegal. The habeas corpus court dismissed the petition without appointing counsel or conducting an evidentiary hearing. The petitioner appeals the dismissal. Upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court.
State vs. Earl Marion Grindstaff - E2005-02059-CCA-R3-CD View
Cocke County - The defendant, Earl Marion Grindstaff, pled guilty to five counts of aggravated sexual battery with the length and manner of service of the sentences to be determined by the trial court. Following a sentencing hearing, the defendant was sentenced to an effective sentence of thirty years. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court: (1) erred in sentencing him and (2) erred in denying him alternative sentencing. Following our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.
State vs. David Keen - W2004-02159-CCA-R3-PD View
Shelby County - Capital Petitioner David Keen appeals as of right the judgment of the Shelby County Criminal Court denying his petition for post-conviction relief. Petitioner Keen pled guilty to first degree felony murder committed in the perpetration of the rape of an eight-year-old. See State v. Keen, 31 S.W.3d 196 (Tenn. 2000); State v. Keen, 926 S.W.2d 727 (Tenn. 1996). He was sentenced to death. On direct appeal, the petitioner’s conviction was affirmed, but the supreme court reversed and remanded the sentence of death after finding reversible error due to erroneous jury instructions. Keen, 926 S.W.2d at 736. On remand, the jury, again, imposed the penalty of death. Keen, 31 S.W.3d at 202. Our supreme court affirmed the sentence of death on direct appeal. Id. A pro se petition for post-conviction relief was filed on May 3, 2001, which was followed by the appointment of counsel and an amended petition on November 16, 2001. An evidentiary hearing was conducted and, on August 2, 2004, the post-conviction court denied relief and dismissed the petition. On direct appeal to this Court, the petitioner presents for our review the following claims: (1) whether the petitioner was denied a fair trial due to jury misconduct; (2) whether the petitioner received constitutionally effective assistance of counsel at his sentencing hearing; (3) whether the death sentence violates the holdings in Apprendi, Ring, or Jones; (4) whether the prosecutor’s discretion in seeking the death penalty violates Bush v. Gore; (5) whether the imposition of the death penalty is unconstitutional; and (6) whether imposition of the death penalty violates international law. After a careful and laborious review of the record, this Court concludes that there is no error requiring reversal. Accordingly, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed.
State vs. Jeffrey Phillips - E2005-01709-CCA-R3-CD View
Sullivan County - The defendant, Jeffrey Allen Phillips, appeals the Sullivan County Criminal Court’s judgment denying alternative sentencing. The record evinces no basis for disturbing the criminal court’s determinations, and we affirm the judgments.
State vs. Marcus Copenny - E2005-01476-CCA-R3-CD View
Hamilton County - The defendant, Marcus James Copenny, alias DeShun Norwood, alias Mark James Copeny, appeals the Hamilton County Criminal Court’s sentencing determinations that followed his guilty plea to and conviction of attempt to commit voluntary manslaughter. The court imposed a maximum, incarcerative sentence of eight years. The defendant challenges the length and manner of service of the sentence. Upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
State vs. Julie Foster - E2005-01996-CCA-R3-CD View
Blount County - Accused of theft of property valued at $1,000 or more, see Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-103 (2003), a Class D felony, see id. § 39-14-305(3), the defendant, Julie Foster, alias Julie Joines, entered into a plea agreement that reserved for the trial court to determine whether she would be placed in a judicial diversion program, see id. § 40-35-313 (Supp. 2005), and if not, the length of sentence and whether she would receive a sentencing alternative to incarceration, see generally id. §§ 40-35-104 & -109 (2003). The trial court denied diversion but imposed a suspended Department of Correction sentence of three years. The defendant appealed in a timely manner, see Tenn. R. App. P. 37(b)(2)(ii); Tenn. R. App. P. 4(a), and contests the denial of diversion and the length of her sentence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
State vs. Jody Evans - E2005-00261-CCA-R3-CD View
Jefferson County - The defendant pled guilty in Jefferson County Circuit Court to aggravated assault, two counts of simple assault, vandalism, simple possession of marijuana and driving on a revoked driver’s license, second offense. The trial court sentenced the defendant to nine years on the aggravated assault conviction and eleven months and twenty-nine days on each of the other convictions. These sentences were all ordered to run concurrently. The defendant now appeals the trial court imposition of his sentence for the aggravated assault. He argues that the trial court incorrectly applied two enhancement factors and failed to apply one mitigating factor. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
State vs. Mario Johnson - W2005-01052-CCA-R3-CD View
Shelby County - This is a direct appeal from convictions on a jury verdict of four counts of aggravated robbery. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-402. The Defendant was sentenced as a Range II, multiple offender to sixteen years for each conviction to be served consecutively in part for an effective thirty-two-year sentence. On appeal, the Defendant raises four issues: (1) the trial court erred in consolidating the Defendant’s two indictments for a single trial; (2) the admission of hearsay statements is plain error; (3) the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of aggravated assault; and (4) the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences violated the Defendant’s constitutional rights pursuant to Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004). We affirm the judgments of the trial court.
State vs. Cassandra Robinson - W2005-01500-CCA-R3-CD View
Shelby County - The defendant, Cassandra Robinson, was convicted of conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery, aggravated robbery, and aggravated assault. The trial court imposed Range I, concurrent sentences of four years, nine years, and four years, respectively. In this appeal, the defendant asserts that the evidence was insufficient to support her convictions. The judgments of the trial court are affirmed.
Cases posted the week of 05/29/2006
State vs. Larry Payne - W2005-00679-CCA-R3-CD View
Shelby County - A Shelby County Criminal Court jury convicted the appellant of four counts of aggravated robbery against two victims, and the appellant received an effective thirty-six-year sentence. In this appeal, the appellant claims (1) that the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions; (2) that the trial court erred by requiring Detention Response Team personnel to sit next to him in the courtroom and while he testified; and (3) that his sentences are excessive. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the four convictions should be merged into two convictions and that the case should be remanded for entry of corrected judgments consistent with this opinion. In all other respects, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.
State vs. Robert L. Mitchell - M2005-01652-CCA-R3-CD View
Davidson County - The defendant, Robert L. Mitchell, was convicted of especially aggravated kidnapping, two counts of aggravated kidnapping, and assault. Later, the two aggravated kidnapping convictions were merged. The trial court sentenced the defendant as a violent offender to twenty-five years for the especially aggravated kidnapping, twelve years for the aggravated kidnapping, and eleven months and twenty-nine days for the assault. Because the kidnapping sentences are to be served consecutively, the effective sentence is thirty-seven years. In this appeal of right, the defendant claims that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his kidnapping convictions; (2) the trial court erred by admitting evidence of prior bad acts; and (3) his sentence is excessive. The judgments of the trial court are affirmed.
State vs. Steven Chance - W2006-00243-CCA-R3-HC View
Lauderdale County - The Petitioner, Steven Ray Chance, appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The State’s motion is granted. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
State vs. Tommy Dixon - W2005-02921-CCA-R3-HC View
Lake County - The Petitioner, Tommy Dixon, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court's denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Petitioner has failed to allege any ground that would render the judgments of conviction void. Accordingly, we grant the State's motion and affirm the judgment of the lower court.
State vs. Ryan Moran - W2006-00242-CCA-R3-HC View
Lauderdale County - The Petitioner, Ryan James Moran, appeals the lower court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner has failed to allege any ground that would render the judgments of conviction void. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal.
State vs. Edward Hutchinson - M2005-01874-CCA-R3-CD View
Dickson County - The Appellant, Edward Hutchinson, presents for review a certified question of law following his guilty plea to driving under the influence (“DUI”), first offense. See Tenn. R. Crim. P. 37(b)(2)(i). As a condition of his guilty plea, Hutchinson explicitly reserved a certified question of law challenging the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to a warrantless stop and seizure. Hutchinson argues that the officer did not have reasonable suspicion when he subjected Hutchinson to an investigatory stop. Finding no error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
State vs. Michael Joseph Hulett - M2005-01875-CCA-R3-CD View
Montgomery County - Following a bench trial in the Montgomery County Circuit Court, the Appellant, Michael Joseph Hulett, was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to twenty-one years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, Hulett contends that the evidence presented was insufficient to support the verdict. Specifically, he challenges the evidence with regard to the mens rea element of “knowingly.” After review, we find no error and affirm the judgment of conviction.
State vs. Ginger J. Jackson - M2005-01651-CCA-R3-CD View
Franklin County- The Appellant, Ginger J. Jackson, was convicted by a Franklin County jury of soliciting the first degree murder of her ex-husband and was sentenced to a term of eight years and six months confinement in the Department of Correction. On direct appeal, a panel of this court affirmed Jackson’s conviction but modified her sentence to eight years based upon violations of Blakely v. Washington. Additionally, the case was remanded to the trial court “for the consideration of [her] suitability for probation.” State v. Ginger Jackson, No. M2003-02539-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville, Mar. 4, 2005). On remand, the trial court again imposed a sentence of eight years and six months, relying upon our supreme court’s decision in State v. Gomez, which was decided after this court’s opinion was filed on March 4, 2005, and after the mandate had issued in this case. On appeal, Jackson argues that the trial court erred in failing to proceed with the mandate of this court, i.e., entry of a sentence of eight years and consideration for probation. Because we conclude that the law of the case doctrine is inapplicable to the facts of this case, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
State vs. Chad Michael Knight - M2005-00779-CCA-R3-CD View
Montgomery County - The Appellant, Chad Michael Knight, appeals the sentencing decision of the Montgomery County Circuit Court. Following a jury trial, Knight was convicted of reckless endangerment, a Class A misdemeanor, and aggravated child abuse, a Class A felony, and sentenced to an effective term of twenty years, eleven months, and twenty-nine days in confinement. On appeal, Knight argues that the trial court erred in: (1) failing to apply various sentencing considerations which would have served to mitigate his sentence, as authorized by Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-113(13) (2003); and (2) refusing to sentence him as an especially mitigated offender in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-109 (2003). After review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Andre L.Mayfield vs. State - M2005-01988-CCA-R3-PC View
Davidson County - The Appellant, Andre L. Mayfield, proceeding pro se, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief upon grounds that the petition is time-barred. On April 18, 2005, Mayfield filed the instant petition collaterally attacking his 1989 convictions for robbery and receiving stolen property. He alleges that the convictions are facially invalid and void due to the trial court’s imposition of concurrent sentences despite the fact that he was on bail when the offenses were committed. The post-conviction court summarily dismissed the petition as time-barred. After review, we affirm summary dismissal of the petition.
State vs. Tamaine Works - W2005-01048-CCA-R3-CD View
Shelby County - This is a direct appeal from a conviction on a jury verdict of first degree premeditated murder. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-202. The Defendant was sentenced to life in prison. On appeal, the Defendant raises five issues: (1) the trial court erred in allowing the State to define premeditation for prospective jurors through the uses of examples during voir dire; (2) the trial court erred in excluding from evidence the victim’s alleged involvement in a prior homicide; (3) the trial court erred in allowing as evidence at trial the prior testimony from an unavailable witness; (4) the trial court erred by allowing the testimony of three of the State’s rebuttal witnesses; and (5) the evidence was insufficient to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crime of first degree, premeditated murder. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
State vs. Clifford Sims - W2004-02167-CA-R3-PC View
Shelby County - The petitioner, Clifford Sims, appeals from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that his guilty pleas were unknowing and involuntary and that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition.
Grenda Ray Harmer vs. State - E2005-01580-CCA-R3-PC View
Knox County - The petitioner, Grenda Ray Harmer, appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of post-conviction relief. On appeal, he alleges that (1) he received the ineffective assistance of counsel with respect to his suppression hearing; and (2) his constitutional rights were violated by the loss and destruction of evidence relevant to the suppression hearing. Following our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the order of the post-conviction court.
Gary Wayne Sutton vs. State - E2004-02305-CCA-R3-PD View
Blount County - The petitioner, Gary Wayne Sutton, appeals as of right from the order of the Blount County Circuit Court denying his petition for post-conviction relief from his 1992 conviction for first degree murder and resulting death sentence. The petitioner claims (1) that he received the ineffective assistance of trial counsel because counsel (a) lacked the necessary experience and qualifications to handle a capital case, (b) were deficient in their choice of defense strategy and decision to share information and responsibilities with counsel for the co-defendant, (c) failed to present a coherent defense, (d) failed to obtain adequate expert assistance in his defense, and (e) failed to prepare adequately for the penalty phase of his trial; (2) that he received the ineffective assistance of appellate counsel because counsel (a) failed to challenge the trial court’s denial of a requested jury instruction on residual doubt at sentencing and (b) failed to provide a complete record for purposes of appellate review as to whether the trial court complied procedurally with Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b) in admitting evidence of another crime at trial; (3) that the prosecution failed to disclose exculpatory evidence regarding another possible suspect; (4) that the failure to include in the indictment the aggravating circumstance that the petitioner had a previous felony conviction involving violence invalidates his death sentence; and (5) that the cumulative effect of errors at the trial violates his rights to due process. We conclude no reversible error of law exists, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court denying post-conviction relief.
Cases posted the week of 05/22/2006
Johnny E. Ewing vs. State - M2005-01222-CCA-R3-PC View
Davidson County - The Petitioner, Johnny B. Ewing, pled guilty to second degree murder and was sentenced to forty years in the Department of Correction. The Petitioner did not appeal his guilty plea or sentence, however, the Petitioner did file a petition for post-conviction relief, which the post-conviction court dismissed after a hearing. The Petitioner now appeals, contending that the post-conviction court erred in finding the Petitioner’s guilty plea was entered knowingly and voluntarily and was not the result of ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, the Petitioner claims that Counsel: (1) failed to adequately consult with the Petitioner and advise him of the consequences of his plea; (2) failed to adequately inform the Petitioner of the nature of the evidence the State intended to present at trial; and (3) induced the Petitioner into pleading guilty. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.
State vs. Arlie Thomas - M2004-01538-CCA-R3-CD View
Putnam County - The Defendant, Arlie Thomas, was convicted of first degree premeditated murder and sentenced to life in prison. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that: (1) the evidence was insufficient to establish premeditation; (2) the trial court improperly overruled the Defendant’s motion to suppress two pieces of evidence; (3) the trial court erred when it denied the Defendant’s motion for a continuance and change of venue based on pre-trial publicity; (4) the trial court erred when it admitted into evidence a photograph of the victim prior to her death and a photograph of the barrel that contained the victim’s body; (5) the trial court erred when it denied his request for a new trial based upon comments made by the State during closing arguments; (6) the trial court erred when it refused to allow the Defendant to move into evidence a statement from the bill of particulars; and (7) the trial court erred when it refused the Defendant’s request for a mistrial based upon certain members of the jury pool discussing the case prior to voir dire. Finding that there exists no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Reginol L. Waters vs. State - M2005-02009-CCA-R3-PC View
Davidson County - The petitioner, Reginol L. Waters, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court’s dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for two counts of aggravated rape, one count of aggravated robbery, and one count of aggravated burglary and resulting effective sentence of fifty-eight years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the petitioner claims he received the ineffective assistance of counsel based upon his trial attorney’s failure (1) to consult with him adequately, (2) to investigate the facts of his case adequately, (3) to prepare his testimony adequately, and (4) to file a pre-trial motion to suppress properly. We affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the petition.
State vs. Antonio D. Winters - M2005-00711-CCA-R3-CD View
Davidson County - The probation of the defendant, Antonio D. Winters, was revoked based upon: 1) new law violations consisting of possession of Schedule II drugs for resale; 2) failure of drug tests for use of cocaine and marijuana; and 3) failure to complete Lifelines Therapeutic Community program. On appeal, the defendant contends: 1) that the trial court abused its discretion when it granted the state’s motion to impose sentence because the motion was not a probation violation warrant; and 2) whether the trial court had jurisdiction to impose the original sentence. Upon review, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion because the motion to impose sentence did serve as the functional equivalent of a probation violation warrant and did provide actual notice to the defendant of the defendant’s violations and of the state’s intention to have his probation revoked. Further, the trial court did have jurisdiction to impose the original sentence. The probation revocation judgment from the trial court is affirmed.
Clinton W. Lynch vs. State - M2006-00011-CCA-R3-HC View
Davidson County - The Petitioner, Clinton W. Lynch, appeals from the dismissal of his petition for the writ of habeas corpus. The State has filed a motion requesting that the Court affirm the trial court’s denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. We find the State’s motion has merit. Accordingly, the motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.
Lufti Shafq Talal a/k/a James Taylor vs. State - M2005-02964-CCA-R3-HC View
Hickman County - This matter is before the Court upon the State’s motion to affirm the judgment of the trial court by memorandum opinion pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The petitioner has appealed the trial court’s order summarily dismissing the petition for the writ of habeas corpus. In that petition, the petitioner alleges that he was improperly sentenced, that the trial court lacked authority to determine his release eligibility and that the trial court failed to render a final sentencing judgment regarding his first degree murder conviction. Upon a review of the record in this case we are persuaded that the trial court was correct in summarily dismissing the habeas corpus petition and that this case meets the criteria for affirmance pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Accordingly, the State’s motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Antione D. Redeemer vs. State - M2005-01159-CCA-R3-PC View
Montgomery County - The petitioner, Antione D. Redeemer, appeals the Montgomery County Criminal Court’s dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief from his conviction for the sale of less than one-half gram of cocaine within one thousand feet of a school zone, a Class B felony, and resulting sentence of eight years at 100% in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the petitioner contends that because he was only seventeen years old at the time of the offense, his right to due process of law was violated when he entered a guilty plea in the Montgomery County Criminal Court without having been transferred to criminal court from the Montgomery County Juvenile Court. We agree that the petitioner’s procedural due process right to a juvenile transfer hearing was violated and conclude that the trial court did not follow the procedures set forth in Sawyers v. State, 814 S.W.2d 725 (Tenn. 1991), for the purpose of assessing the prejudice of the due process violation. We reverse the trial court’s dismissal of the petition and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
State vs. Denise Dycus - M2005-02252-CCA-R3-CD View
Montgomery County - This is an appeal from the order of the trial court revoking the Defendant’s probation and ordering her to serve the remainder of her ten-year sentence with the Department of Correction. The Defendant, Denise Dycus, raises as her sole issue on appeal the claim that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking her probation and ordering her to serve the remainder of this sentence in confinement. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
State vs. Louis Leslie Myles - M2005-01671-CCA-R3-CD View
Davidson County - The Appellant, Louis Leslie Myles, appeals the denial of judicial diversion following his guilty pleas to two counts of theft of property over $1,000. After review of the record, we reverse the sentencing decision of the Davidson County Criminal Court and remand for deferment of the proceedings as provided by Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-313 (2003).
State vs. Festus Babundo - E2005-02490-CCA-R3-CD View
Bradley County - The defendant, Festus Babundo, appeals from the judgments of the Bradley County Criminal Court, which, pursuant to his guilty pleas, convicted him of felony possession of cocaine with intent to sell and misdemeanor possession of marijuana and sentenced him to a suspended, effective sentence of eight years. Prior to submitting his guilty pleas, the defendant moved the trial court to suppress evidence seized during a police officer’s search of the defendant’s vehicle. After the trial court apparently denied the motion to suppress, the defendant filed written guilty pleas, “reserving a certified question of law.” Following the entry of judgments, the defendant filed a timely appeal. The state has requested that this court dismiss the appeal because no certified legal question was properly reserved for appellate review. Because the state is correct in its claim, this court is without jurisdiction, and the appeal is dismissed.
State vs. Bradley David Townsend - E2005-00115-CCA-R3-CD View
Roane County - The defendant, Bradley Townsend, was indicted by the Roane County Grand Jury on one count of aggravated sexual battery and twenty-one counts of rape of child based on acts he committed against his eight-year-old stepdaughter over the course of a five-month period. Following a jury trial, he was convicted of the aggravated sexual battery count and of the lesser-included offense of aggravated sexual battery in one of the rape counts, but acquitted of the remaining rape counts of the indictment. The trial court subsequently sentenced him as a violent offender to concurrent eight-year terms at 100% release eligibility for each conviction. On appeal, the defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions, the trial court erred in not instructing the jury on misdemeanor assault and child abuse as lesser-included offenses of both rape of a child and aggravated sexual battery, and the State made improper and prejudicial comments in closing. Based on our review, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions, that the failure to instruct on the lesser-included offenses does not rise to the level of plain error, and that the prosecutor engaged in improper closing argument by referring to matters that were not in evidence but that the improper comments could not have influenced the jury’s verdict. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.
Bryan Pearson vs. State - E2005-02606-CCA-R3-HC View
Bledsoe County - The petitioner, Bryan Pearson, filed a 2005 Bledsoe County Circuit Court petition for habeas corpus relief from his 1993, guilty-pleaded, Knox County conviction of second degree murder and alleged that he was improperly sentenced. The 1993 Knox County judgment appended to the petition showed that the defendant was convicted of an offense occurring on March 29, 1989, and was sentenced pursuant to the 1982 sentencing act as a standard offender to a term of 25 years in the Department of Correction. The habeas corpus court entered an order summarily dismissing the petition, after holding that the petitioner’s claims were previously adjudicated. We affirm the order.
State vs. Mozella Newson - W2005-00477-CCA-R3-PC View
Shelby County - The Appellant, Mozella Newson, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of her petition for post-conviction relief. Following a transfer hearing, Newson, who was fourteen years old at the time of the crimes, was transferred from the juvenile court to the Shelby County Criminal Court to be tried as an adult. She subsequently pled guilty to carjacking, especially aggravated robbery, and two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, for which she received an effective fifteen-year sentence. On appeal, Newson argues that she was denied her Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel, specifically arguing that the attorney representing her during the transfer hearing was ineffective by: (1) failing to advise the juvenile court of Newson’s age; (2) failing to challenge the transfer order which stated that Newson was sixteen years old or older; (3) failing to present any favorable evidence at the transfer hearing which might have prevented her transfer; (4) failing to object to the identification procedure employed at the transfer hearing; and (5) failing to advise Newson of her right to appeal the juvenile court’s decision to transfer the case. After review, we conclude: (1) Newson’s subsequent guilty pleas waived all issues regarding guilt; and (2) Newson’s failure to prepare a complete record precludes review of her allegations of deficient performance which resulted in her transfer to the criminal court. Accordingly, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed.
State vs. Jeremy Catron - W2005-02323-CCA-R3-PC View
Shelby County - The Petitioner, Jeremy Catron, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for post-conviction DNA testing. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court's denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Because Petitioner has failed to satisfy the qualifying criteria under the Post-Conviction DNA Analysis Act, we grant the State's motion and affirm the judgment of the lower court.
State vs. Andrew Ewing - W2004-03007-CCA-R3-PC View
Shelby County - The Petitioner, Andrew Ewing, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court's denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Because the petition for post-conviction relief is barred by the statute of limitations, we grant the State's motion and affirm the judgment of the lower court.
State vs. Susan Wallace - W2005-02235-CCA-R9-CD View
Henderson County - The defendant, Susan Wallace, a special education teacher, was indicted by the Henderson County Grand Jury for fourteen counts of child abuse and fourteen counts of assault. She filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the State had not complied with the School Discipline Act, Tennessee Code Annotated section 49-6-4101, et seq. The trial court denied the motion, finding that any procedural defects were cured by the return of the grand jury indictment, and this Rule 9 interlocutory appeal followed. Following our review, we affirm the order of the trial court denying the motion to dismiss the indictment.
State vs. Thomas Martin McGouey - E2005-00642-CCA-R3-CD View
Knox County- The defendant, Thomas Martin McGouey, was convicted by a Knox County jury of aggravated assault and felony reckless endangerment. On appeal, he argues: (1) an unloaded pellet gun without a propulsion source is not a deadly weapon and (2) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions. Following our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.
State vs. Christopher Hodge - W2005-01588-CCA-R3-PC View
Lauderdale County - The petitioner, Christopher Hodge, appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in finding that he received effective assistance of trial counsel. Following our review, we affirm the dismissal of the petition.
State vs. Robert Wiley - W2005-01662-CCA-R3-CD View
McNairy County - The Defendant, Robert A. Wiley, aka Jabo, was convicted by a McNairy County jury of identity theft, violation of a Motor Vehicle Habitual Offender (MVHO) order, and driving while license cancelled, suspended, or revoked. For these convictions, the Defendant received an effective three-year sentence as a Range I, standard offender. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant argues that: (1) the trial court made several errors in instructing the jury, (2) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for identity theft, and (3) the trial court committed sentencing errors. Finding plain error, double jeopardy principles require us to vacate the Defendant’s conviction for driving while license cancelled, suspended, or revoked. The remaining judgments of the trial court are affirmed in all respects.
Cases posted the week of 05/15/2006
State vs. James DeWayne Bass - M2005-01471-CCA-R3-CD View
WIlliamson County - The defendant, James Dewayne Bass, is aggrieved that the Williamson County Circuit Court ordered him to serve his guilty-pleaded, three-year, Department of Correction sentence consecutively to “all outstanding sentences,” and he appeals that ruling. We hold that evidence of the defendant’s extensive criminal activity and of his re-offending while on probation supports the consecutive sentencing determination, although the record fails to justify consecutive sentencing via a finding of professional criminality. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
State vs. Timmy Lee Hill - M2005-01126-CCA-R3-CD View
A Marshall County Circuit Court jury found the defendant, Timmy Lee Hill, guilty of possession with intent to sell one-half gram or more of cocaine, a Class B felony, possession with intent to deliver one-half gram or more of cocaine, a Class B felony, and resisting arrest, a Class B misdemeanor. The trial court merged the possession with intent to deliver conviction into the possession with intent to sell conviction and imposed an eighteen-year sentence for the possession conviction and a sixty-day sentence for the evading arrest conviction to be served consecutively as a Range II, multiple offender in confinement. The defendant appeals, contending that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for possession with intent to sell one-half gram or more of cocaine. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.
State vs. Terry R. Kleinberg - M2005-01717-CCA-R3-CD View
Humphreys County - The appellant, Terry Kleinberg, was indicted for felony reckless endangerment in October of 2003. After a bench trial, the appellant was convicted of the offense and sentenced to a one-year suspended sentence. On appeal, the appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, and the trial court’s denial of judicial diversion. Because the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying judicial diversion, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Kenneth B. White vs.State - M2005-02787-CCA-R3-HC View
Wayne County - The Defendant, Kenneth B. White, appeals from the trial court’s dismissal of his petition seeking habeas corpus relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the petition pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The State’s motion is granted. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
State vs. Brian Cable - E2005-00608-CCA-R3-CD View
Blount County - The defendant, Brian Lee Cable, was convicted by a Blount County jury of two counts of aggravated burglary, a Class C felony; two counts of theft over $10,000, a Class C felony; two counts of burglary, a Class D felony; and four counts of theft over $1000, a Class D felony. The trial court sentenced him as a Range I, standard offender to three years for each of the Class C felonies and two years for each of the Class D felonies, imposed fines totaling $22,000, and ordered restitution totaling almost $18,000. Finding the defendant to be an offender whose record of criminal activity is extensive, the trial court ordered that all his sentences be served consecutively, for an effective sentence of twenty-four years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant challenges the aggregate length and manner of service of his sentences, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his request for alternative sentencing, in ordering consecutive sentences, and in imposing excessive fines without regard to his ability to pay. Finding no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court but remand for entry of corrected judgments in Count 8 to reflect that the sentence is to be run consecutively to the sentence in Count 7, instead of Count 6, and in Count 2 to reflect that no fine was imposed for that count.
Jackie Crowe vs. State - E2005-01210-CCA-R3-HC View
Mcinn County - The petitioner, Jackie William Crowe, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging his two 1988 convictions for sexual battery, two 1996 convictions for incest, and two 1996 convictions for rape. After a hearing, the habeas corpus court granted the petition for the two 1996 rape convictions, finding that the petitioner’s sentences were illegal and void. The habeas corpus court then remanded the petitioner to the trial court for resentencing of the 1996 rape convictions. The petitioner appeals, arguing: (1) the habeas corpus court lacked jurisdiction to remand his case to the trial court for resentencing; (2) his resentencing violates double jeopardy; (3) his new sentence violates the holding in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004); and (4) the resentencing court denied him the right to put on evidence at his resentencing hearing. Following our review, we affirm both judgments of the habeas corpus court and resentencing court.
Jeffrey Williams vs. State - E2005-00723-CCA-R3-PC View
Knox County - Petitioner, Jeffrey Shawn Williams, filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief attacking his convictions in Knox County Criminal Court in case number 69596. He pled guilty to aggravated kidnapping and rape of a child. The trial court entered an order summarily dismissing the petition for post-conviction relief. The basis for the dismissal was twofold: the petition was filed beyond the statute of limitations, and the allegations of the petition alleged “no constitutional ground for violation [of] the rights of the defendant.” After a careful review of the record, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this case for further proceedings.
Chivous Robinson vs. State - E2005-01036-CCA-R3-PC View
Knox County -The Appellant, Chivous Robinson, appeals the judgment of the Knox County Criminal Court denying post-conviction relief. Robinson was convicted of second degree murder and solicitation to commit first degree murder and subsequently sentenced to an effective thirty-four year sentence. On appeal, Robinson argues that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel, specifically arguing that counsel was ineffective by: (1) not raising the issue of newly discovered evidence on direct appeal; and (2) not seeking jury instructions on the lesser included offenses of reckless homicide and criminally negligent homicide and not appealing the failure of the trial court to instruct on these lesser offenses. After review, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed.
State vs. James Creasy - W2005-00590-CCA-R3-CD View
Hardin County - The defendant, James David Creasy, was convicted
of possession with intent to manufacture, deliver, or sell a schedule II drug
(methamphetamine) and possession of drug paraphernalia. The trial court imposed
an eight-year sentence for the possession of methamphetamine conviction and
an eleven-month and twenty-nine day sentence for the possession of drug paraphernalia
conviction. The Range II sentences were ordered to be served concurrently.
In this appeal, the defendant asserts (1) that the evidence was insufficient
to support the conviction for possession with intent to manufacture, deliver,
or sell methamphetamine and (2) that the sentence is excessive. The judgments
of the trial court are affirmed.
State vs. Michael Kennedy - W2005-01797-CCA-R3-PC View
Chester County - The petitioner, Michael Keith Kennedy, appeals
from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The single issue
presented for review is whether the petitioner received the effective assistance
of counsel at trial. The judgment is affirmed.
State vs. Stephen Miles -
W2005-01465-CCA-R3-PC View
The petitioner, Stephen E. Miles, appeals the Weakley
County Circuit Court’s
denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his guilty pleas to
six counts of aggravated robbery, one count of theft of property greater than
ten thousand dollars but less than sixty thousand dollars, and the resulting
effective sentence of eighteen years in confinement. He contends (1) that he
received the ineffective assistance of trial counsel; (2) that his guilty pleas
were involuntary; (3) that the State failed to turn over evidence to the defense
as required by Rule 16, Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure; and (4) that
his confession to police was involuntary. Upon review of the record and the
parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.
State vs. Jamie Bailey - W2005-01629-CCA-R3-CD View
Dyer County - The trial court found that the defendant, Jamie
L. Bailey, was competent to stand trial and he pled guilty to three counts
of first degree murder and was sentenced to three concurrent life sentences,
reserving as a certified question of law whether the trial court was correct
in its competency determination. He then filed a pro se motion to withdraw
his pleas of guilty, and defense counsel filed a notice of appeal as to the
certified question. Pending the outcome of his appeal, the trial court held
in abeyance the pro se motion to withdraw the pleas of guilty. Before considering
the appeal as to the certified question, this court remanded the matter to
the trial court for a determination as to the motion to withdraw the pleas
of guilty. Following the remand, the defendant withdrew his motion to withdraw
the pleas of guilty, and this court then considered his appeal as to the certified
question. Following our review, we conclude that this appeal does not properly
present a certified question because, even if resolved in favor of the defendant,
it would result only in remand to the trial court for further determinations.
Accordingly, this court does not have jurisdiction as to the matter and the
appeal is dismissed.
State vs. Albert Evans - W2005-00161-CCA-R3-CD View
The defendant, Albert Evans, was convicted by a Shelby
County Criminal Court
jury of first degree felony murder, first degree premeditated murder, and especially
aggravated robbery, a Class A felony. The trial court merged the first degree
felony murder conviction into the premeditated murder conviction, for which
the defendant was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole, and
sentenced the defendant to twenty-four years as a Range I, standard offender
for the especially aggravated robbery conviction, to be served consecutively
to the life sentence without parole. On appeal, the defendant argues: (1) the
trial court erred in (a) admitting an exhibit, (b) in allowing the defendant’s
spouse to testify in violation of the marital privilege, and (c) in allowing
the State to “proffer the contents of a prior statement” of a witness “as
substantive evidence under the guise of impeaching” the witness with
a prior inconsistent statement; (2) the evidence was insufficient to support
his convictions; and (3) the trial court erred in sentencing the defendant.
Finding no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.
State vs. Donald Williams - W2004-02355-CCA-R3-CD View
Shelby County - The appellant, Donald Williams, Jr., was indicted
on one count of first degree murder, two counts of felony murder, especially
aggravated robbery, especially aggravated burglary and arson. After a jury
trial, the appellant was found guilty of second degree murder, two counts of
felony murder, especially aggravated robbery and especially aggravated burglary.
The trial court imposed life sentences for the two felony murder convictions,
a twenty-five year sentence for the second degree murder conviction, a twenty-five
year sentence for the especially aggravated robbery conviction and a twelve-year
sentence for the especially aggravated burglary conviction. The trial court
denied a motion for new trial. On appeal, the appellant argues that the trial
court erred: (1) by refusing to grant a continuance; (2) by refusing to allow
the appellant to question Officer Robert Shemwell about a potentially exculpatory
witness; and (3) by admitting an excessively graphic photograph of the victim.
The appellant also contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the
verdict. Because the judgment forms do not reflect whether the sentences were
imposed concurrently or merged for an effective life sentence, we remand the
matter to the trial court for entry of corrected judgment forms to reflect
that the convictions for felony murder and second degree murder are merged
into one count of felony murder for an effective life sentence. In all other
respects, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
State vs. Brandon Goods -
W2005-00481-CCA-R3-CD View
The Appellant, Brandon Goods, was convicted by a Shelby
County jury of first
degree premeditated murder and especially aggravated robbery, resulting in
concurrent sentences of life imprisonment and twenty years. On appeal, Goods
raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether the trial court abused
its discretion by admitting into evidence certain photographs of the deceased;
and (2) whether the trial court’s response to a jury question during
deliberations constituted reversible error. After a review of the record, the
judgment of the Shelby County Criminal Court is affirmed.
State vs. Alex Wells - W2005-02841-CCA-R3-PC View
Fayette County - The petitioner, Alex D. Wells, appeals from
the post-conviction court’s
denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, he argues that
the post-conviction court erred in finding that his guilty plea was voluntarily
entered and that he received the effective assistance of counsel. Following
our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment
of the post-conviction court.
State vs. Rita Kay Vines - E2005-01240-CCA-R3-CD View
Washington County - The defendant, Rita Kay Vines,
pled guilty to accessory after the fact, aggravated burglary, theft
over $500, theft under $500, vandalism under $500, and three counts
of forgery in exchange for a total effective sentence of eight years
as a Range I, standard offender, with the manner of service to be determined
by the trial court. On appeal, she argues that the trial court erred
in denying alternative sentencing. Based upon our review, we affirm
the judgment of the trial court.
Bronson Wayne Coker vs. State -
E2005-02131-CCA-R3-PC View
Sullivan County - The petitioner, Bronson Wayne Coker,
appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing
that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance for failing
to adequately investigate the case or explain the ramifications of
the plea agreement and that his guilty pleas were consequently unknowing
and involuntary. Following our review, we affirm the dismissal of the
petition for post-conviction relief.
Brian Michael Newman vs. State - E2005-01967-CCA-R3-PC View
Knox County - The petitioner, Brian Michael Newman,
appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief in
which he asserted various instances of ineffective assistance of counsel.
A review of the record supports the findings of the post-conviction
court. We affirm the denial of the petition.
Cases posted the week of 05/08/2006
State vs. Frank Snowden - W2005-01851-CCA-R3-CD View
Gibson County - The appellant, Frank Randall Snowden, pled guilty in the Gibson County Circuit Court to a violation of the residency restriction for convicted sex offenders, a Class A misdemeanor. He received a sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days, suspended. As a condition of his plea, the appellant attempted to reserve a certified question of law as to “whether [Tennessee Code Annotated section] 40-39-111 is constitutional under state and/or federal law and as applied to this [appellant].” Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the appellant did not properly reserve his certified question, and, therefore, the appellant’s appeal must be dismissed.
State vs. Robert Edward Joffe - E2004-02926-CCA-R3-CD View
Knox County - The appellant, Robert Edward Joffe, was indicted for assault, resisting arrest and two counts of disorderly conduct. After a jury trial, the appellant was convicted of assault, resisting arrest and one count of disorderly conduct. The trial court sentenced the appellant to eleven months and twenty-nine days for assault, six months for resisting arrest and thirty days for disorderly conduct. The trial court ordered the sentences to run concurrently and ordered that the appellant serve ninety days of the sentence in jail with the remainder of the sentence to be served on probation. The appellant appeals, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to justify the convictions and that the trial court erred in sentencing the appellant. Because the evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to determine that the appellant committed the crimes as charged and because the trial court did not err in sentencing the appellant, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
State vs. Artis Whitehead - W2004-03058-CCA-R3-CD View
Shelby County - The defendant, Artis Whitehead, appeals his convictions and sentencing on five counts of especially aggravated kidnapping (Class A felony); two counts of aggravated assault (Class C felony); two counts of aggravated robbery (Class B felony); two counts of especially aggravated robbery (Class A felony); and one count of attempted aggravated robbery (Class C felony). The consecutive sentences imposed totaled 249 years.
On appeal, the defendant presents the following issues:
1. The evidence of identity was insufficient to support the conviction.
2. A computer composite of the suspect was improperly admitted into evidence.
3. The identification testimony of Ray Spence was improperly admitted.
4. The defendant was prevented from effective cross-examination of Sergeant Howell.
5. The defendant was improperly sentenced.
Having found no reversible error, we affirm the convictions and sentencing.
State vs. George Ross III - W2005-01832-CCA-R3-HC View
Hardeman County - The Petitioner, George H. Ross, III, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court's denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Petitioner has failed to allege any ground that would render the judgments of conviction void. Accordingly, we grant the State's motion and affirm the judgment of the lower court.
State vs. Darrell E. Pointer - M2005-01743-CCA-R3-CD View
Davidson County - The Defendant, Darrell E. Pointer, pled guilty to two counts of aggravated robbery, and the trial court sentenced him, as a Range III offender, to twenty years in prison for each count to be served consecutively. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it imposed consecutive sentences. Finding that there exists no reversible error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.
State vs. Daniel E. Pottebaum, Sr. - M2004-02733-CCA-R3-CD View
Davidson County - The Defendant, Daniel E. Pottebaum, Sr., was convicted by a Davidson County jury of two counts of rape of a child, two counts of aggravated sexual battery, and one count of assault. For these convictions, the Defendant received an effective seventy-four-year sentence in the Department of Correction. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant presents the following issues for our review: (1) whether the trial court erred by denying certain motions in limine regarding prior allegations of sexual abuse; (2) whether the trial court erred in ruling that, if the Defendant chose to testify, his prior felony conviction for escape would be admissible to impeach his credibility; (3) whether the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss the indictment based upon the Department of Children’s Services’ failure to preserve evidence; (4) whether it was error to permit the State to play a taped telephone conversation between the Defendant and the victim’s mother; (5) whether the trial court erroneously permitted the State to ask “open-ended” questions; and (6) whether his sentence was improperly enhanced in violation of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004). Because the Defendant should have been allowed to impeach the victim by cross-examining her about the prior accusation of sexual abuse and because the tape was erroneously admitted, the judgments of conviction are reversed, and the case is remanded for a new trial.
Jeffrey L. Gills vs. State - M2005-01218-CCA-R3-PC View
A Davidson County jury convicted the Petitioner of facilitation of first degree murder, two counts of facilitation of attempted first degree murder, two counts of aggravated assault, and felony reckless endangerment. The trial court sentenced the Petitioner to fifty-one years in prison, and this Court affirmed the Petitioner’s convictions and sentences on appeal. State v. Frank E. Huey, Ronnie Finch & Jeffrey L. Gills, No. M2000-02793-CCA-R3-CD, 2002 WL 517132, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Apr. 5, 2002), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Oct. 14, 2002). Subsequently, the Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. After a hearing, the post-conviction court dismissed the petition, and the Petitioner now appeals alleging that the post-conviction court erred. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.
State vs. Marty Clark - W2005-01540-CCA-R3-CD View
Madison County - The defendant, Marty Mitchell Clark, was convicted by a Madison County jury of aggravated burglary, a Class C felony, attempted aggravated burglary, a Class D felony, theft of property under $500, and vandalism under $500, both Class A misdemeanors. He was sentenced as a Range II, multiple offender to ten and eight years, respectively, for the felony counts and eleven months and twenty-nine days for each misdemeanor, with all sentences to be served concurrently for a total effective sentence of ten years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. Finding no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.
State vs. Crystal Delaney - W2005-01459-CCA-R3-CD View
Fayette county - Pursuant to an open plea agreement, as provided by Tenn. R. Crim. P. 11(e)(1)(B), the Appellant, Crystal Antonette Delaney, aka Crystal Ward, pled guilty to identity theft, a Class D felony, and theft of property, a Class C felony. Following the guilty plea hearing, the Fayette County Circuit Court sentenced Delaney, as a Range III persistent offender, to ten years for the identify theft and twelve years for the theft of property. The court further ordered that the two sentences were to be served concurrently to each other but consecutively to an effective twelve-year sentence imposed in a separate Lauderdale County case. On appeal, Delaney contends that the trial court failed to properly consider and follow the sentencing guidelines and raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether the sentences imposed are excessive; and (2) whether the court erred in ordering that the sentences be served consecutively to her Lauderdale County sentence. Because the trial court failed to conduct a sentencing hearing as contemplated by our sentencing statutes, the record contains no findings of fact with regard to sentencing enhancement factors or the trial court’s reasons for imposing consecutive sentences. As such, we are unable to conduct a de novo review of the sentences imposed and, accordingly, remand the case to the Fayette County Circuit Court for a sentencing hearing and for written findings of fact and imposition of sentences in accordance with statutory law.
State vs. Spencer Peterson - W2005-01701-CCA-R3-CO View
Shelby County - The Appellant, Spencer Peterson, appeals the sentencing decision of the Shelby County Criminal Court. After a jury trial, Peterson was convicted of three counts of second degree murder, two counts of attempted second degree murder, eight counts of aggravated robbery, one count of aggravated burglary, three counts of attempted especially aggravated robbery, and two counts of attempted aggravated robbery. The trial court merged the three second degree murder convictions and the separate convictions of aggravated robbery involving the same victim and sentenced Peterson as a Range I offender to consecutive terms of twenty years for the second degree murder conviction and eight years for each of the four aggravated robbery convictions. The trial court ordered concurrent sentences for the remaining convictions, resulting in an effective sentence of fifty-two years in the Department of Correction. Peterson appealed the imposition of consecutive sentences, and this court remanded the case to the trial court for purposes of setting forth its reasons for consecutive sentencing, as required by Tenn. R. Crim. P. 32(c)(1). On appeal, Peterson again argues that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences. After review of the record, we affirm the trial court’s sentencing decision.
Cases posted the week of 05/01/2006
State vs. Leroy Brimmer - W2005-01932-CCA-R3-CD View
A Shelby County Criminal Court jury convicted the appellant, Leroy
Brimmer, of first degree premeditated murder, and the trial court
sentenced him to life imprisonment. In this appeal, the appellant
claims that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction.
Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm
the judgment of the trial court
State vs. Eddie Gordon - W2005-02330-CCA-R3-PC View
Gibson County - The petitioner, Eddie Wayne Gordon, appeals the Gibson County Circuit
Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from
his guilty plea to first degree murder and resulting life sentence.
He contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel
and that his guilty plea was involuntary. Upon review of the record
and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the post-conviction court’s
judgment that the petitioner received the effective assistance of counsel.
However, because the post-conviction court failed to address the issue
of whether the petitioner pled guilty voluntarily, the case is remanded
for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
State vs. Jerry Haley - W2005-01447-CCA-R3-CD View
Henry County - The defendant, Jerry Phillip Haley,
was convicted of aggravated burglary, theft over $1000, and assault.
The trial court imposed Range II sentences of six years for the aggravated
burglary, four years for the theft, and eleven months and twenty-nine
days for the assault. The sentences were ordered to be served concurrently,
for an effective sentence of six years. In this appeal, the defendant
asserts (1) that the trial court erred by denying his motion for judgment
of acquittal based on the insufficiency of the evidence and (2) that
the trial court erred by failing to provide a jury instruction on facilitation
of a felony. The judgments of the trial court are affirmed.
State vs. Marcus Hayes - W2005-01597-CCA-R3-CD View
Shelby County - The defendant, Marcus D. Hayes, was indicted
for premeditated first degree murder. He was convicted by a jury of the
lesser-included offense of second degree murder. He was sentenced to twenty-three
years in confinement. On appeal, the defendant challenges the admissibility
of his statements to police and the sufficiency of the convicting evidence.
After review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the
judgment of the trial court.
State vs. James Westbrook - W2005-02459-CCA-R3-PC View
Gibson County - The petitioner, James Westbrook, appeals
the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that
his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress
evidence and for failing to call his codefendant as a witness at trial.
Following our review, we conclude that the petitioner has failed to meet
his burden of demonstrating either a deficiency in counsel’s performance
or resulting prejudice to his case. Accordingly, we affirm the post-conviction
court’s dismissal
of the petition.
State vs. Randy White -
W2005-01794-CCA-R9-CD View
Hardin County - The State appeals the suppression of
evidence by the Hardin County Circuit Court. Following his arrest for
driving while intoxicated, the Defendant, Randy C. White, stated to the
arresting officer that he was the driver of the vehicle. The trial court
found that the statement was obtained in violation of Miranda v. Arizona.
After review we conclude that, although the statement was made while White
was in custody, it was not made in response to police interrogation. Thus,
Miranda warnings were not required. Accordingly, we reverse the trial
court’s suppression
of the statement and remand for further proceedings consistent with this
opinion.
State vs. Paul Wilson - W2005-02317-CCA-R3-HC View
Hardeman County - The petitioner, Paul Wilson, appeals
the summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus, arguing
that prior judgments used to enhance his 2005 aggravated robbery sentence
were illegal and void. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of
the trial court dismissing the petition for writ of habeas corpus.
State vs. Antonio Richardson - M2005-01161-CCA-R3-CD View
A Davidson County Criminal Court jury convicted the defendant,
Antonio D. Richardson, of three counts of especially aggravated kidnapping,
one count of aggravated assault, one count of felony reckless endangerment,
and one count of burglary, all stemming from an unsuccessful attempt on
January 12, 2003, to rob a Calhoun’s restaurant in the Rivergate
area of Davidson County. Additionally, the defendant pleaded guilty to
attempted especially aggravated robbery. The trial court imposed an effective
Department of Correction (DOC) sentence of 67 years. Now on appeal, the
defendant claims (1) that the convictions of especially aggravated kidnapping
are prohibited by, on due process grounds, the conviction of attempt to
commit especially aggravated robbery and (2) that the trial court erred
in sentencing. Following our review, we reverse the convictions of especially
aggravated kidnapping and order the charges on these counts dismissed.
Otherwise, we affirm the convictions, although we remand for re-sentencing.
State vs. Shane McAnally - M2005-00774-CCA-R3-CD View
(Dissent) - View
Bedford County - The appellant, Shane M. McAnally, was
convicted by a Bedford County jury of misdemeanor vandalism and was sentenced
to a term of eleven months and twenty-nine days, with sixty days to be
served in confinement. On appeal, McAnally raises two issues for our
review: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction;
and (2) whether the sixty-day period of confinement is excessive. Following
review of the record, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient to
support McAnally’s conviction for vandalism, and therefore affirm
the judgment of the trial court.
Milton Perkins vs. State - M2005-01762-CCA-R3-PC View
Davidson County - The petitioner, Milton K. Perkins,
appeals from the Davidson County Criminal Court’s dismissal of
his petition for post-conviction relief from his guilty plea to aggravated
robbery, a Class B felony, for which he received a twenty-year sentence.
He contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel,
rendering his guilty plea unknowing and involuntary. We affirm the
judgment of the trial court.
State vs. Rickie Boyd - W2005-01599-CCA-R3-PC View
Shelby County - The petitioner, Rickie Boyd, appeals
from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal,
he contends that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. Following
our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the
judgment of the post-conviction court denying post-conviction relief.
State vs. Thomas Richardson Jr. -
W2004-00508-CCA-R3-CD View
(Concur) - View
Shelby County - The defendant, Thomas Richardson,
Jr., appeals his conviction for first degree felony murder. In support
of his appeal, the defendant presents three issues: (a) The evidence
is insufficient to support the conviction; (b) Two photographs of the
victim were improperly admitted; and (c) Hearsay statements were improperly
admitted.
State vs. John Casey - W2005-01591-CCA-R3-PC View
Lauderdale County - The petitioner, John W. Casey,
pled guilty in the Lauderdale County Circuit Court to possession of
.5 grams or more of cocaine with the intent to sell and possession
of drug paraphernalia. He received a total effective sentence of eight
years. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction
relief, alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective and his pleas
were not knowing and voluntary. The post-conviction court denied the
petition, and the petitioner appeals. Upon our review of the record
and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction
court.
State vs. James Johnson - W2005-01570-CCA-R3-HC View
Lake County - The petitioner, James C. Johnson, was
convicted of rape of a child, and he received a twenty-year sentence.
Subsequently, he filed for habeas corpus relief, alleging that the
Tennessee Department of Correction impermissibly changed his release
eligibility from thirty percent to one hundred percent, his sentence
is void because of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct.
2531 (2004), and his sentence is void because the State failed to file
a notice of enhancement prior to trial. The habeas corpus court denied
the petition, and the petitioner now appeals. Upon our review of the
record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the
habeas corpus court.
State vs. Derek Osborne - E2004-02723-CCA-R3-CD View
Knox County - The Appellant, Derek James Osborne,
presents for review a certified question of law. See Tenn. R. Crim.
P. 37(b)(2)(i). Osborne pled guilty to driving under the influence
(“DUI”), first offense, and received an eleven month and twenty-nine day sentence, to be suspended after service of forty-eight hours in confinement. On appeal, Osborne argues that his indictment for DUI was returned outside the twelve-month limitations period for misdemeanor offenses; therefore, the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss. On appeal, the State asserts that Osborne’s
argument is without merit, and because Osborne failed to properly reserve
his certified question, this court is without jurisdiction to hear
the appeal. Following review, we agree that the certified question
of law was improperly reserved. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
State vs. Kathy Cooper - E2005-01243-CCA-R3-CD View
Blount County - The community corrections sentence
of the defendant, Kathy E. Cooper, was revoked after a new law violation
of driving under the influence, and the trial court resentenced her
to serve twelve years, the maximum in the range, in the Department
of Correction. On appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court
inappropriately enhanced her sentence and revoked her community corrections
sentence. Upon review, we conclude that facts which develop between
the time a defendant is sentenced to community corrections and the
time the sentence is revoked may be considered in applying enhancement
factors and increasing a sentence.
Cases posted the week of 04/24/2006
State vs. Joe Mac Pearson - M2005-00673-CCA-R3-CO View
Marshall County - The Appellant, Joe Mac Pearson, was convicted by a Marshall County jury of the sale and delivery of a Schedule II controlled substance and the sale and delivery of a Schedule III controlled substance. As a result of these convictions, Pearson received an effective sentence of twenty-five years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, Pearson argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions. After review of the record, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient. We remand, however, for merger of offenses and for entry of corrected judgments of conviction.
State vs. Art Mayse - M2004-03077-CCA-R3-CD View
Fentress County - The Appellant, Art Mayse, was convicted by a Fentress County jury of eight counts of rape of a child and four counts of aggravated sexual battery. Following a sentencing hearing, Mayse was sentenced to an effective thirty-two year sentence in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he has raised ten issues for our review: (1) whether the trial court erred in allowing the victim to testify in her Marine uniform; (2) whether the trial court erred in failing to strike four jurors for cause; (3) whether the trial court erred by engaging in improper ex parte communications with the jury; (4) whether the State’s Bill of Particulars failed to sufficiently inform Mayse of the charges against him; (5) whether the trial court erred in failing to grant Mayse’s motion for a change of venue; (6) whether the trial court erred by denying Mayse’s motion for continuance; (7) whether the sentences imposed by the trial court violate Blakely v. Washington; (8) whether the trial court erred in denying Mayse’s motion to recuse; (9) whether the evidence is sufficient to support the convictions; and (10) whether Mayse was denied a fair trial based upon the cumulative effect of errors committed. After review of the record, we find no reversible error and affirm the judgments of conviction and resulting sentences.
Gary E. Aldridge vs. State - M2005-01861-CCA-R3-HC View
Davidson County -On July 5, 2005, the petitioner, Gary Eugene Aldridge, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Davidson County Criminal Court, attacking his 1997 Hickman County Criminal Court convictions of aggravated kidnapping, rape, two counts of aggravated rape, and two counts of assault. The petitioner’s aggregate incarcerative sentence was 61½ years, 60 years of which must be served with no release eligibility date. The petition alleged that (1) the Hickman County sentencing proceedings violated his right to a jury determination of facts upon which sentencing enhancement was based, (2) the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentencing was cruel and unusual punishment, (3) his marriage to the victim precluded the prosecution for rape, (4) the trial court violated his right to avoid self-incrimination, and (5) an amendment to the indictment violated his right to grand jury adjudication. In response to the state’s motion to dismiss the petition, the habeas corpus court, on July 12, 2005, entered a thorough order dismissing the petition without an evidentiary hearing. The petitioner now appeals. We affirm the action of the habeas corpus court.
State vs. Russell Maze - M2004-02091-CCA-R3-CD View
Davidson County -In January 2000, a Davidson County jury found the defendant, Russell Lee Maze, guilty of felony Class A aggravated child abuse in connection with injuries that his infant son sustained on May 3, 1999. The defendant appealed his conviction, State v. Russell Maze, No. M2000-02249- CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App., Nashville, Aug. 16, 2002), and while his case was on appeal, the child died on October 25, 2000. Because the trial court erroneously failed to instruct the jury on knowing and reckless aggravated assault, knowing and reckless assault, and child abuse as lesser included offenses, the defendant’s conviction was reversed, and the case was remanded for a new trial. The state then sought and obtained a superseding indictment charging the defendant with first degree felony murder and aggravated child abuse. A Davidson County jury convicted the defendant of both counts in April 2004, and the trial court sentenced the defendant to life imprisonment on the felony murder conviction and to 25 years as a violent offender on the aggravated child abuse conviction with concurrent service of that sentence to life imprisonment. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence, complains that the trial court prejudicially erred in not allowing certain defense expert-witness testimony, and claims that he was denied a fair trial because the jury was exposed to extraneous influences from third parties. After an extensive review of the record, the briefs of the parties, and applicable law, we affirm the defendant’s convictions.