COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OPINIONS

State vs. Jones
03C01-9702-CR-00062
Trial Court Judge: Lynn W. Brown

Johnson Court of Criminal Appeals

State vs. Brian Waters
E1999-00551-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: James E. Beckner

Hawkins Court of Criminal Appeals

State vs. Gary Haney
E1999-00552-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas T. Woodall
Trial Court Judge: Ben W. Hooper, II

Jefferson Court of Criminal Appeals

State vs. Gary Haney
E1999-00552-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas T. Woodall
Trial Court Judge: Ben W. Hooper, II

Jefferson Court of Criminal Appeals

State vs. Luther Ray Dotson, Jr.
E1999-00640-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: J. Curtis Smith

Rhea Court of Criminal Appeals

State vs. Luther Ray Dotson, Jr.
E1999-00640-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: J. Curtis Smith

Rhea Court of Criminal Appeals

State vs. Vernon Haas
E1999-00690-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas T. Woodall
Trial Court Judge: R. Jerry Beck

Sullivan Court of Criminal Appeals

E1999-00915-CCA-R3-PC
E1999-00915-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: R. Steven Bebb

Bradley Court of Criminal Appeals

State s. Amanda Lee Sutton
E1999-00920-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Trial Court Judge: Stephen M. Bevil
The defendant, a former day care worker, pled guilty to Class D felony child abuse for breaking the jaw of a two-year-old child in her care. She was given a three-year sentence, to be served in split confinement, with six months in the county workhouse and four years of supervised probation. On appeal, the defendant raises the issues of whether the trial court erred in considering the age, vulnerability, and risk to the victim's life as a sentencing enhancement factor when the offense was already classified according to the age of the victim, and whether the trial court erred in failing to utilize alternative sentencing. Based upon our review, we affirm the decision of the trial court.

Hamilton Court of Criminal Appeals

Johnny Rutherford vs. State
E1999-00932-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: James B. Scott, Jr.

Anderson Court of Criminal Appeals

State vs. Richard Eugene Trivette
E1999-00944-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: Phyllis H. Miller
The Defendant was convicted of two counts of sexual battery. His plea agreement provided for concurrent sentences of two years for his convictions, with the manner of service of the sentences to be determined by the trial judge. The trial judge ordered that the Defendant serve 280 days of his sentences in the county jail, with the balance to be served on intensive probation. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial judge erred by ordering him to serve 280 days in jail. We modify the sentences imposed by the trial court.

Sullivan Court of Criminal Appeals

State vs. Gordon Scott Katz
E1999-01220-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: James B. Scott, Jr.
The appellant, Gordon Scott Katz, was found guilty by a jury in the Criminal Court of Anderson County of one count of auto burglary, a class E felony, and one count of theft under $500, a class A misdemeanor. Subsequently, the trial judge granted the appellant's motion for judgment of acquittal. The State appealed. This court reversed the trial court's judgment of acquittal and remanded for further proceedings. The appellant then moved for a new trial. The trial court denied the appellant's motion for new trial, stating that the opinion of this court mandated a reinstatement of the jury's verdict. The appellant appeals and presents the following issues for our review: (1) whether the trial court erred in ruling that the previous order of the Court of Criminal Appeals required denial of the motion for new trial; (2) whether the indictment in this case is fatally defective such as to require dismissal of this charge; (3) whether the evidence of intent to commit a felony is insufficient to support the conviction; and, (4) whether the evidence of intent to deprive the owner is insufficient to support the conviction. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for a new trial.

Anderson Court of Criminal Appeals

State vs. Michelle Ferguson
E1999-01302-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas T. Woodall
Trial Court Judge: Carroll L. Ross
Defendant Michelle Ferguson was convicted by a jury of two counts of aggravated child abuse and one count of first degree murder in perpetration of aggravated child abuse. The trial court subsequently imposed concurrent sentences of eighteen years, eighteen years, and life. Defendant challenges her convictions, raising the following issues: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support her convictions; (2) whether the trial court erred when it failed to sever the trials for the charges in this case; and (3) whether the trial court erred when it failed to grant a motion for a mistrial. The judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the case is remanded for a new trial.

McMinn Court of Criminal Appeals

State vs. James Chapman
E1999-01315-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas T. Woodall
Trial Court Judge: Douglas A. Meyer

Hamilton Court of Criminal Appeals

State of Tennessee v. Gregory A. Hedges
E1999-01350-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge J. Curwood Witt, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: J. Curtis Smith

Bledsoe Court of Criminal Appeals

State vs. Ann Elizabeth Martin
E1999-01361-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas T. Woodall
Trial Court Judge: Stephen M. Bevil
Defendant Ann Elizabeth Martin was convicted of driving under the influence, first offense. In this appeal as of right she argues (1) the trial court erred when it did not suppress blood test results because of statutory and constitutional infirmities in the implied consent form; and (2) the stop of her vehicle and subsequent arrest are unconstitutional because the arresting officer did not have a reasonable articulable suspicion warranting a traffic stop. Held: the implied consent form complies with the statutory requirements. However, the officer who arrested Defendant did not have a reasonable articulable suspicion warranting a traffic stop. Defendant's conviction is reversed, and the case is remanded for dismissal of the charge.

Hamilton Court of Criminal Appeals

William Howell vs. State
E1999-01502-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley

Knox Court of Criminal Appeals

E1999-01504-CCA-R2-CD
E1999-01504-CCA-R2-CD
Trial Court Judge: Douglas A. Meyer

Hamilton Court of Criminal Appeals

E1999-01504-CCA-R2-CD
E1999-01504-CCA-R2-CD
Trial Court Judge: Douglas A. Meyer

Hamilton Court of Criminal Appeals

State vs. Harvey Holt
E1999-01552-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: Ben W. Hooper, II

Cocke Court of Criminal Appeals

State vs. Robert Blocker
E1999-01624-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: Douglas A. Meyer

Hamilton Court of Criminal Appeals

State vs. Clint T. Melton
E1999-02090-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes

Knox Court of Criminal Appeals

William Boyd v. State of Tennessee
E1999-02179-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge J. Curwood Witt, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Richard R. Baumgartner

Knox Court of Criminal Appeals

State vs. Henry C. Bond
E1999-02183-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: Ray L. Jenkins
The Defendant was convicted by a Knox County jury of two counts of forgery not exceeding $500. The Defendant was sentenced as a career offender to concurrent terms of six years on each conviction. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is not sufficient to support his convictions for forgery. Finding no error, we affirm.

Knox Court of Criminal Appeals

State vs. Kenneth R. Shell
E1999-02422-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge J. Curwood Witt, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Lillie Ann Sells
Kenneth R. Shell appeals from his conviction of aggravated sexual battery. He seeks a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence. Finding no error in the trial court's denial of his motion for new trial on this basis, we affirm.

Cumberland Court of Criminal Appeals