State of Tennessee v. Larry Jereller Alston, et al
In this appeal as of right, the State challenges the Knox County Criminal Court’s setting aside the jury verdicts of guilty of especially aggravated kidnapping, aggravated burglary, and possession of a firearm with intent to go armed during the commission of a dangerous felony and ordering dismissal of the charges. Because the trial court erred by setting aside the verdicts and dismissing the charges of especially aggravated kidnapping and aggravated burglary, the jury verdicts are reinstated, and the case is remanded to the trial court for sentencing. Although the trial court erred by dismissing the firearms charge on the grounds named in its order, error in the indictment for that offense nevertheless requires a dismissal of those charges. Finally, the defendants’ convictions of aggravated robbery and the sentences that accompany them are affirmed. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Marquon Lanorris Green
The defendant, Marquon Lanorris Green, was convicted by a Madison County Circuit Court jury of aggravated kidnapping, a Class B felony; aggravated rape, a Class A felony; and aggravated robbery, a Class B felony. He was sentenced to twenty years on the aggravated kidnapping and aggravated rape convictions and ten years on the aggravated robbery conviction, to be served consecutively to each other and a prior ten-year sentence. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence and the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Bobby Jackson v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Bobby Jackson, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel at trial. Following our review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of the petition. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Lamont Johnson
After a trial by jury, the defendant was found guilty of the first degree felony murder of his girlfriend’s five-month-old daughter. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court’s decision to exclude the testimony of four potential witnesses concerning the defendant’s son’s propensity toward violence violated his constitutional right to present a defense. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the defendant has failed to establish that the testimony of these four witnesses was critical to the defense. In addition, strong societal interests support the exclusion of this type of character evidence when nothing in the record might suggest that the defendant’s son actually committed the crime. Consequently, the trial court’s decision to exclude the testimony of these witnesses did not violate the defendant’s constitutional right to present a defense. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Gibson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tyrone Bohanna
Appellant, Tyrone Bohanna, was indicted by the Shelby County Grand Jury in a multi-count indictment with co-defendant Brandon Harris in March of 2010. Appellant was indicted for especially aggravated robbery, attempted second degree murder, two counts of employing a firearm during a felony, aggravated burglary, and three counts of aggravated assault. Following a lengthy jury trial, Appellant was convicted of especially aggravated robbery, reckless endangerment as a lesser included offense of attempted second degree murder, one count of employing a firearm during the commission of a felony, and three counts of aggravated assault. Appellant was acquitted of one of the firearms charges. At a separate sentencing hearing, the trial court determined that Appellant was a career offender. As a result, the trial court imposed the maximum sentence for each offense and ordered consecutive sentencing after finding that Appellant had an extensive criminal history and was a dangerous offender. Appellant received a total effective sentence of 120 years, eleven months, and twenty-nine days. Appellant filed a timely motion for new trial which the trial court denied. On appeal, Appellant seeks resolution of the following issues: (1) the sufficiency of the evidence; (2) the admission of evidence pursuant to the forfeiture by wrongdoing provision of Tennessee Rule of Evidence 804(b)(6); (3) the admission of recordings of telephone calls made by Appellant from jail; (4) the determination by the trial court to hold court on Sunday; (5) the denial of Appellant’s motions for mistrial; (6) the admission of the testimony of Donovan Hensley; and (7) the imposition of consecutive sentencing. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude: (1) the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence including Appellant’s telephone calls, hearsay statements of Antonio Hawkins, and testimony from Donovan Hensley; (3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a mistrial; and (4) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Appellant. Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jeffrey Booth v. State of Tennessee
Jeffrey Booth (“the Petitioner”) was convicted by a jury of two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, one count of aggravated robbery, and one count of aggravated assault. Pursuant to a sentencing agreement, the trial court sentenced the Petitioner to an effective sentence of twenty years’ incarceration. On appeal, this Court merged the two especially aggravated kidnapping convictions. The Petitioner subsequently filed for postconviction relief, which the post-conviction court denied following an evidentiary hearing. The Petitioner now appeals, arguing that the post-conviction court should have applied State v. White, 362 S.W.3d 559 (Tenn. 2012), retroactively. He also contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Upon our thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Robert Otis Simerly v. State of Tennessee
In 2004, a Johnson County jury convicted the Petitioner, Robert Otis Simerly, of first degree felony murder, and the jury sentenced him to life in prison with the possibility of parole. This Court affirmed his conviction on appeal. State v. Robert Simerly, No. E2002-02626-CCA-R3-CD, 2004 WL 443294, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxville, Mar 11, 2004), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Oct. 4, 2004). The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief and a motion for recusal, which the post-conviction court denied after a hearing. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred when it denied the Petitioner’s motion for recusal because, during the trial, the judge improperly reminded the prosecutor to establish venue. The State counters first that the appeal was untimely filed. The State further avers that the Petitioner is not entitled to relief based upon the trial court’s failure to recuse itself. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities, we conclude that, pursuant to the circumstances of this case, the Petitioner’s petition should not be dismissed based on his failure to timely file a notice of appeal. We further conclude that he is not entitled to post-conviction relief based upon the merits of his claim. The post-conviction court’s judgment is, therefore, affirmed. |
Johnson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Andrew Reginald Mackinnon
In 2007, a Sevier County jury convicted the Defendant, Andrew Reginald Mackinnon, of violating the implied consent law. The Defendant appealed, and this Court vacated the judgment, remanding the case for the trial court to determine whether the Defendant violated the implied consent law. State v. Andrew Reginald MacKinnon, No. E2009-00093-CCA-R3-CD, 2011 WL 1460167 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxville, Mar. 30, 2011), no Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application filed. On remand, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to suppress, both of which the trial court denied after a hearing. After a non-jury trial, the trial court determined that the Defendant had violated the implied consent law. The trial court ordered the Defendant’s license be revoked for a period of one year. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it:(1) denied his motion to dismiss; and (2) denied his motion to suppress. After a thorough review of the record, the briefs, and relevant authorities, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Sevier | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Kevin T. Saulter v. State of Tennessee
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 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner, Kevin T. Saulter, appeals the trial court’s dismissal of his petition for writ of error coram nobis and a motion to reconsider the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. Upon a review of the record, we are persuaded that the lower court was correct that the Petitioner is not entitled to relief. This case meets the criteria for affirmance pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Accordingly, the State’s motion is granted, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re: A Way Out Bonding
The appellant, A Way Out Bonding, appeals the Maury County Circuit Court’s denial of its Petition to Operate a Bail Bonding Company. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the trial court erred by summarily denying the petition without conducting a hearing. Therefore, the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ruby W. Graham
The defendant, Ruby W. Graham, appeals her White County Circuit Court jury convictions of attempt to possess with the intent to sell morphine, oxycodone, and marijuana, challenging the sufficiency of the convicting evidence and the total fine imposed. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
White | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Bobby Glen Crocker v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner challenges the Carroll County Circuit Court’s dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief from his conviction of second degree murder and resulting thirty-year sentence. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred by dismissing the petition as time-barred because his mental incompetence tolled the one-year statute of limitations for filing the petition. Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Carroll | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Bobby Glen Crocker v. State of Tennessee - Concurring
I concur with the majority opinion save one point. My colleagues infer that the post-conviction court discredited the Petitioner’s testimony, although the court made no such finding. I believe the record reflects that the court’s findings accepted all the testimony as true but that the court concluded the Petitioner did not provide clear and convincing evidence of his claim. The record supports such a conclusion. |
Carroll | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Nathanael Little
A Chester County jury convicted appellant, Nathanael Little, on count 1 for selling more than one-half ounce of marijuana, a Class E felony; on count 2 for delivering more than one-half ounce of marijuana, a Class E felony; on count 3 for possession of more than one-half ounce of marijuana with intent to sell, a Class E felony; on count 4 for possession of more than one-half ounce of marijuana with intent to deliver, a Class E felony; and on count 5 for possession of drug paraphernalia with intent to use, a Class A misdemeanor. After appropriately merging some of the counts, the trial court sentenced appellant to an effective sentence of two years, eleven months, and twenty-nine days for two Class E felonies and one Class A misdemeanor. On appeal, appellant argues that the trial court erred by failing to rule on his motion to suppress and by improperly sentencing him. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Chester | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Nathanael Little - Concurring and Dissenting
I concur in the majority opinion’s conclusion that the trial court did not err in refusing to hear the Defendant’s suppression motion. I respectfully dissent, though, because I believe the trial court did not have sufficient evidence to support the conclusions regarding both full confinement and consecutive sentencing. I also believe the principles and purposes of the Sentencing Act were not best served by the sentence imposed. |
Chester | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Carlos Ponce DeLeon
The Defendant, Carlos Ponce DeLeon, entered best interest guilty pleas to theft of property valued at $1000 or more but less than $10,000, a Class D felony, two counts of automobile burglary, Class E felonies, theft of property valued at more than $500 but less than $1000, a Class E felony, and two counts of theft of property valued at $500 or less, Class A misdemeanors. See T.C.A. §§ 39-14-402, 39-14-103, 39-14-105 (2010). He was sentenced as a Range II, multiple offender to six years for the theft of property valued at $1000 or more but less than $10,000 conviction, four years for each automobile burglary conviction, three years for the theft of property value at more than $500 but less than $1000 conviction, and eleven months and twenty-nine days for each theft of property valued at $500 or less conviction. The trial court ordered partial consecutive sentencing for an effective ten-year sentence. On appeal, the Defendant contends that his effective sentence is excessive. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tarence Nelson
Defendant, Tarence Nelson, was indicted by the Shelby County Grand Jury for two counts of premeditated first degree murder. Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted as charged and sentenced by the trial court to two consecutive terms of life imprisonment. In this appeal as of right, Defendant contends that: 1) the State failed to prove that Defendant did not act in self-defense; 2) the trial court erred by allowing into evidence a revolver found during the search of Defendant’s residence that was not the murder weapon; 3) the prosecutor misquoted Defendant during closing argument in an inflammatory manner; and 4) the trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences. After a careful review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kenneth Gaines
Appellant, Kenneth Gaines, was indicted by the Shelby County Grand Jury in September of 2009 with two counts of aggravated assault and one count of reckless endangerment. Appellant pled guilty to all three charges. Pursuant to an agreement with the State, Appellant was placed on judicial diversion for three years under the supervision of the department of probation. The State filed a petition for revocation of Appellant’s probation in March of 2011 after Appellant was charged with rape, failed to report the arrest, failed to pay court costs, and failed to pay probation fees. After a jury trial on the rape charge, Appellant was convicted of the lesser included offense of assault. The trial court approved the jury verdict, terminated Appellant’s judicial diversion, and set both matters for a sentencing hearing. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Appellant to six years for each aggravated assault conviction and two years for the reckless endangerment conviction. The trial court ordered the sentences to run concurrently with each other but consecutively to the six-month sentence Appellant received for the assault conviction, for a total effective sentence of six years and six months. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. On appeal, he challenges the termination of judicial diversion without a formal hearing and insists that the trial court imposed an excessive sentence. After a review of the record, we conclude that Appellant’s rights to due process were not violated when the trial court made the determination that Appellant violated the terms of his judicial diversion contemporaneously with his trial on subsequent charges. Further, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Appellant to an effective sentence of six years and six months. Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Delmonta Hill
The Defendant, Delmonta Hill, entered a best interest plea to reckless aggravated assault, a Class D felony. See T.C.A. § 39-13-101 (2010). The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I, standard offender to two years on probation. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred (1) by failing to classify him as an especially mitigated offender and (2) by denying him judicial diversion. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Dean Heath
A Shelby County Criminal Court Jury convicted the appellant, Dean Heath, of first degree premeditated murder, first degree felony murder, and especially aggravated robbery. The trial court merged the murder convictions and imposed a total sentence of life imprisonment in the Tennessee Department of Correction for the murder conviction and a concurrent twenty-five-year sentence for the especially aggravated robbery conviction. On appeal, the appellant argues that the trial court erred in finding him competent to stand trial and that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction of felony murder. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ernest Dodd
Appellant, Ernest Dodd, was indicted by the Warren County Grand Jury in 2010 along with three other defendants for initiating a process intended to result in the manufacture of methamphetamine and promoting the manufacture of methamphetamine. Appellant was convicted by a jury of initiating a process to manufacture methamphetamine and attempt to promote the manufacture of methamphetamine. As a result, Appellant was sentenced to an effective sentence of nineteen years at thirty-five percent. After the denial of a motion for new trial, Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. On appeal, he presents the following issues: (1) whether the trial court improperly denied Appellant’s motion in limine to exclude photographs of precursors to manufacturing methamphetamine; (2) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; (3) whether the trial court imposed an excessive sentence; and (4) whether the convictions should be reversed for cumulative error. After a review of the record, we determine: (1) that the trial court properly admitted photographs of the precursors to manufacturing methamphetamine where the actual evidence was destroyed as hazardous material; (2) the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; and (3) the trial court properly sentenced Appellant. Consequently, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed. |
Warren | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ashley Mai Cook v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Ashley Mai Cook, was convicted of first degree murder and conspiracy to commit first degree murder, for which she received consecutive sentences of life in prison and twenty years, respectively. In this petition for post-conviction relief, petitioner alleges that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to properly advise her with regard to whether to testify at trial. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Willie Earl Brown, Jr.
This appeal arises from the second jury trial in this matter. At his first trial, a Davidson County jury convicted appellant, Willie Earl Brown, Jr., of eleven counts of rape of a child, and he received a sentence of seventy-four years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, this court reversed his convictions based on the improper admission of evidence relating to uncharged sexual conduct and remanded for a new trial. See State v. Willie Earl Brown, Jr., No. M2009-00505-CCA-R3-CD, 2010 WL 4396490, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 15, 2010). Following the remand, the parties amended the indictment to charge eight counts of rape of a child. At his second trial, the jury convicted him as charged, and the trial court sentenced him to an effective sentence of eighty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. In this appeal, appellant argues that (1) the State’s election of offenses failed to distinguish count seven from counts one and four; (2) the trial court erred by admitting the victim’s forensic interview; (3) the trial court erred by imposing a harsher sentence after appellant’s second trial; and (4) the trial court erred by imposing partial consecutive sentences. Following a thorough review of the record, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Steven O. Hughes-Mabry
The Defendant, Steven O. Hughes-Mabry, was convicted by a Sullivan County jury of possession of .5 grams or more of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver within 1000 feet of a school zone, introduction of contraband into a penal institution, and driving on a suspended license. He was sentenced to concurrent terms of fifteen years, three years, and six months, respectively. In this direct appeal, the Defendant challenges (1) the denial of his motion to suppress, arguing that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop; (2) the sufficiency of the evidence establishing that the possession offense occurred within 1000 feet of a school zone; and (3) the trial court’s refusal to impose sanctions against the State for failing to preserve the identity of a witness. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable authorities, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Theotus Barnett
The defendant was convicted of especially aggravated kidnapping, a Class A felony, and aggravated robbery, a Class B felony. He was sentenced to twenty-five years for the kidnapping conviction and to a consecutive ten years for the aggravated robbery, for a total effective sentence of thirty-five years. On appeal, the defendant claims that: 1) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction; 2) the trial court erred by failing to apply a mitigating factor at sentencing; and 3) the trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences. After a careful review of the record, we find no error and affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals |
