State of Tennessee v. Garen Wright
Defendant, Garen Wright, appeals from the Rutherford County Circuit Court’s revoking his probation and ordering him to serve his previously ordered probationary sentence of twenty years in confinement. On appeal, Defendant argues the trial court abused its discretion by not considering alternatives to placing Defendant in custody for the full term. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Randy O. Reynolds
Defendant, Randy O. Reynolds, stands convicted by a Dickson County jury of aggravated vehicular homicide (Count 1), vehicular homicide (Count 2), reckless homicide (Count 3), vehicular assault by driving under the influence (Count 4), simple possession of a schedule II controlled substance (Count 5), leaving the scene of an accident (Count 6), evading arrest (Count 7), and driving on a revoked license (Count 8). On appeal, Defendant argues (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the results of his blood alcohol test; (2) the trial court erred in allowing the State to present expert testimony regarding the effects of intoxication; and (3) the evidence produced at trial was insufficient to support his all of his felony convictions, and his misdemeanor evading arrest conviction. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm. |
Dickson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Paul Tracy Bailes
The Defendant, Paul Tracy Bailes, appeals from the Hamilton County Criminal Court’s |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Byron Black v. State of Tennessee
At the heart of this appeal is a narrow procedural question: whether the 2021 amendment to Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-203 permits the Defendant, Byron Black, to move for a hearing on whether he has an intellectual disability and is therefore ineligible for the death penalty. The trial court dismissed the motion after determining that the Defendant was procedurally barred from bringing the issue. On appeal, we hold that because the issue of the Defendant’s intellectual disability has been previously adjudicated, he may not file a motion pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-203(g)(1). We also hold that the General Assembly’s decision not to entitle the Defendant to a second hearing does not subject him to cruel and unusual punishment, nor does it deny him due process of law or the equal protection of the law. Accordingly, we respectfully affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Oberton Curry, Jr.
A Madison County jury convicted the Defendant, Christopher Oberton Curry, Jr., of being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm, evading arrest while operating a motor vehicle, reckless driving, driving while unlicensed, violation of the registration law, and disobeying a stop sign. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective sentence of ten years. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction for felony possession of a weapon and that an item of evidence was erroneously admitted. He further contends that the jury instructions were inaccurate and incomplete. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Floyd Hall, III v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Floyd Hall, III, appeals the Haywood County Circuit Court’s denial of his |
Haywood | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Antonio Tywan James
The Appellant, Antonio Tywan James, appeals as of right from his convictions of firstdegree |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ovitta Vaughn
A Shelby County jury convicted the defendant, Ovitta Vaughn, of driving with a blood |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Sebakire Crode
A Rutherford County jury found Defendant, Sebakire Crode, guilty of driving under the influence (DUI), third offense. The trial court sentenced him to eleven months, twenty-nine days, with Defendant to serve 150 days in jail and the balance on probation. On appeal, Defendant argues the evidence was insufficient to convict him of driving under the influence and that he received an excessive sentence. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Hopie Conley
Defendant, Hopie Conley, pled guilty to two counts of aggravated assault, one count of |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jose Gonzalez Bonilla v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Jose Gonzalez Bonilla, appeals as of right from the Sumner County Criminal Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, wherein he challenged his convictions for rape of a child and aggravated sexual battery. On appeal, Petitioner asserts that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel because counsel (1) did not inform Petitioner during plea negotiations that he would be subject to lifetime community supervision and registration on the sex offender registry if he was convicted at trial; (2) failed to object to the admission of the victim's forensic interview recording during a pretrial severance hearing; and (3) failed to object to the racial composition of the jury venire. Petitioner also argues that the cumulative effect of these errors requires relief. Following our review, we affirm. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Quincy D. Moutry
The Defendant, Quincy D. Moutry, appeals the dismissal of his Tennessee Rule of Criminal |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William Vess Binkley
Defendant, William Vess Binkley, stands convicted by a Dickson County jury of one count of rape of a child, a Class A felony, and was sentenced to forty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues: (1) the trial court erred by not declaring a mistrial after the State introduced evidence during trial that had not been disclosed to Defendant during discovery; (2) the trial court erred by admitting the victim's forensic interview as substantive evidence; (3) the State committed prosecutorial misconduct during its closing arguments; and (4) the trial court imposed an excessive sentence. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Dickson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher David McIntosh
The defendant, Christopher David McIntosh, appeals his effective 10-year sentence |
Union | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Latrice Rogers
Defendant, Latrice Rogers, appeals the trial court's order denying her motion to withdraw |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Steven Craig Griffin
Steven Craig Griffin, Petitioner, claims the trial court erred by summarily dismissing his |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Joseph Lester Haven, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
The Appellee, Joseph Lester Haven, Jr., was originally convicted of rape of a child and two |
Obion | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Stacy Matthews
A Maury County jury convicted Stacy Matthews, Defendant, of two counts of sale of 0.5 grams or more of methamphetamine within 1,000 feet of a school zone and one count of sale of 0.5 grams or more of methamphetamine. At sentencing, the trial court struck the school zone sentencing aggravator for two of the convictions and entered judgments on three counts of sale of 0.5 grams or more of methamphetamine. The trial court imposed three concurrent sentences of twelve years, as a Range I, standard offender, in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, Defendant argues: he was prejudiced by the language of Counts 1 and 3 of the indictment; that the trial court imposed an excessive sentence; and that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions. Following our review of the entire record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Charles Randolph Johnson
Defendant, Charles Randolph Johnson, was convicted by an Anderson County Jury of one |
Anderson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Gregory Hickman
A Shelby County jury convicted the Defendant, Gregory Hickman, of rape of a child, and |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Raymon Muhammad v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Raymon Muhammad, filed a post-conviction petition in the Shelby County |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Timothy Travis Jenkins
The Defendant, Timothy Travis Jenkins, appeals the trial court’s order imposing confinement after finding that the Defendant violated his probation. The Defendant’s probation began in 2019, when he was convicted of sale of methamphetamine and given a six-year sentence to be served on supervised probation. In 2022, the trial court issued a probation violation warrant, the Defendant’s third, which alleged multiple violations. After a hearing, the trial court revoked the Defendant’s probation and ordered him to serve the remainder of his sentence in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that the trial court abused its discretion when it revoked his probation and when it ordered him to confinement. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Lawrence | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Cory Lamont Batey v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Cory Lamont Batey, appeals the dismissal of his post-conviction petition. On appeal, he asserts that the post-conviction court erred in dismissing his petition as untimely because he was actively misled by his appellate counsel. Following our review of the entire record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Angela Buchanan v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Angela Buchanan, appeals from the Rutherford County Circuit Court’s denial of her petition for post-conviction relief, wherein she challenged her convictions for criminally negligent homicide and aggravated child neglect. On appeal, the Petitioner argues: (1) she received ineffective assistance of trial counsel; (2) her convictions were based on inadmissible Rule 404(b) evidence; (3) she received ineffective assistance of appellate counsel; and (4) the trial court, in violation of Tennessee law and article I, section 9 of the Tennessee Constitution, failed to inform her that she could make a statement of allocution at sentencing. 1 We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Luis Santiago
Pursuant to a plea agreement, the Appellant, Luis Santiago, entered a guilty plea to |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals |