State of Tennessee v. Alonzo Thomas
The appellant, Alonzo Thomas, pled guilty to attempted aggravated sexual battery and was sentenced to four years and six months in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant challenges the trial court’s denial of probation. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Harris and Eddie Harris
A Shelby County Criminal Court jury convicted the appellants, Michael Harris and Eddie Harris, of aggravated robbery, and the trial court sentenced them to nine years in confinement. On appeal, they contend that the evidence is insufficient to support their convictions. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Benjamin Wheeler Word
The petitioner, Benjamin Wheeler Word, pleaded guilty to underage consumption. The trial court sentenced him to serve eleven months and twenty-nine days in jail but suspended the petitioner’s sentence to probation. The petitioner filed a petition for post conviction relief, which the post-conviction court denied. The petitioner appeals the denial of post-conviction relief arguing that (1) his conviction is unconstitutional; (2) the conduct with which he was charged was not an offense; (3) his conviction is void because it denied him expungement of his record; and (4) his sentence violated the jurisdictional limits of the court. After a thorough review of the parties’ briefs, the record, and the applicable law, we reverse the judgment of the post-conviction court and grant post-conviction relief. |
Putnam | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Candance Orrand Bush and Gary W. Bush
Following a jury trial, the Defendants, Candance Orrand Bush and Gary W. Bush, were convicted of first-degree murder, a Class X felony, for the 1982 killing of Lynn Orrand. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-2-202 (1982). Both Defendants were sentenced to imprisonment for life. In this appeal as of right, the Defendants raise the following issues: (1) Defendant Orrand contends that the trial court erred in failing to disqualify District Attorney General William C. Whitesell, Jr. and his office from prosecuting this case; (2) Defendant Bush contends that the trial court erred by admitting into evidence a tape recording of a phone call between Defendant Bush and Jason Riley; (3) both Defendants contend that the evidence was insufficient to sustain their convictions because it was based upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice, Kevin Patterson; and (4) Defendant Bush contends that the trial court erred by failing to select the alternate jurors “in plain view.” Following our review, we conclude that these issues have no merit and affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Timothy L. Diggs, Sr.
The defendant, Timothy L. Diggs, Sr., stands convicted of aggravated child abuse of a child under eight years old, a Class A felony, and felony murder. The trial court sentenced him as a violent offender to serve fifteen years for aggravated child abuse concurrently with a life sentence for felony murder in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court, but we remand for a corrected judgment form for the felony murder conviction to properly reflect the defendant’s life sentence. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Martha Patlan
This case is before this court upon the Tennessee Supreme Court’s remand for further consideration in light of its opinion in State v. Dorantes (Dorantes II), 331 S.W.3d 370 (Tenn. 2011). A Davidson County jury convicted the defendant, Martha Patlan, of aggravated child abuse, a Class A felony, and first degree felony murder during the perpetration of aggravated child abuse. The trial court sentenced the defendant to a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment for the murder conviction and, consecutive to the life sentence, twenty years for the aggravated child abuse conviction both to be served in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant argued that (1) the evidence was insufficient to convict her of aggravated child abuse and felony murder; (2) her felony murder conviction is unconstitutional; (3) the trial court erred when it failed to require the state to elect an incident of neglect; (4) the trial court erred when it refused to allow testimony regarding bruises on the defendant’s face; (5) the trial court erred when it allowed certain photographs into evidence; (6) the trial court erred in overruling the defendant’s objection to the use of the term Battered Child Syndrome; and (7) the trial court erred by ordering that the defendant serve her sentences consecutively. This court affirmed the defendant’s convictions and sentences. Upon review, we again conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support the defendant’s convictions and that the defendant’s sentence is proper. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Vianey Becerra Ibanez
A Sullivan County jury convicted the Defendant, Vianey Becerra Ibanez, of facilitation of possession of more than .5 grams of cocaine, maintaining a dwelling where controlled substances are used or sold, facilitation of sale of more than .5 grams of cocaine, and delivery of more than .5 grams of cocaine. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to a total effective sentence of eleven years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant contends the trial court erred when it set the length of her sentence and when it denied her alternative sentencing. Having reviewed the record and applicable law, we conclude the trial court properly sentenced the Defendant. As such, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Omowali Ashanti Shabazz, aka Fred Edmond Dean v. State of Tennessee
In June 2010, the Petitioner, Omowali Ashanti Shabazz, aka Fred Edmond Dean, filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis challenging his conviction for second degree murder. The Petitioner alleged that he was prejudiced by the State’s failure to disclose a “rent receipt” earlier in the trial proceedings and by the trial court’s failure to include a jury instruction on the term “residence” or, alternatively, that counsel was ineffective by failing to request a jury instruction on the term “residence” or pursue the issue on appeal. The coram nobis court summarily dismissed the petition on the basis that any relief was time-barred and that the Petitioner had failed to state a cognizable claim for relief. Following our review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the Sullivan County Criminal Court summarily denying relief. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ronald Eugene Brewer, Jr.
Following a jury trial, the Defendant, Ronald Eugene Brewer, Jr., was convicted of first degree premeditated murder, first degree murder in the attempt to perpetrate a first degree murder, and criminal attempt to commit first degree murder. Following a sentencing hearing, the jury sentenced the Defendant to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for each count of first degree murder. The trial court merged the two counts of first degree murder and imposed a concurrent twenty-five-year sentence for the third count. In this direct appeal, the Defendant raises the following issues for our review: (1) The State presented insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction for first degree murder; (2) The indictment alleging the intent to directly kill the victim was improperly before the jury; (3) The trial court erred when it refused a change of venue; (4) The trial court erred when it allowed the 911 tape to be admitted into evidence; (5) The trial court erred when it allowed the Defendant’s signed statement, and a comment he made to a police officer while being transported, to be admitted into evidence; (6) The trial court erred when it allowed material related to gangs and gang activity to be admitted into evidence; (7) The trial court erred when it allowed purported expert testimony about gangs; (8) The trial court erred when it allowed testimony about a shell casing found in the Defendant’s vehicle; (9) The trial court erred when it allowed the State to use and present two aggravating circumstances to the jury; and (10) The evidence was insufficient to support a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. After our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Hawkins | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Charles E. Shifflett, Sr. v. State of Tennessee
In October 2009, the Petitioner, Charles E. Shifflett, Sr., filed a petition for post-conviction relief challenging his convictions for first degree murder and robbery. The Petitioner alleged nine grounds of ineffective assistance of trial counsel and three grounds of prosecutorial misconduct at trial. The post-conviction court summarily dismissed the petition, finding that some of the issues had been raised on direct appeal, and that other allegations were conclusory and failed to sufficiently allege prejudice. Following our review of the record, we reverse the judgment of the Sullivan County Criminal Court and remand for further proceedings. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ryan Mathis v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Ryan Mathis, pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated burglary, one count of employment of a firearm during a dangerous felony, two counts of aggravated robbery, and three counts of aggravated kidnapping. All of his sentences were ordered to be served concurrently, for a total effective sentence of eight years in the Department of Correction. The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, claiming that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. In this appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred when it denied relief and, specifically, he asserts that Trial Counsel failed to fully advise him of the nature and elements of aggravated kidnapping. After our review, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief. |
Obion | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Mabry
A Shelby County Criminal Court jury convicted the appellant, Christopher Mabry, of aggravated assault, a Class C felony, and aggravated criminal trespass, a Class A misdemeanor. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced him to consecutive sentences of four years and eleven months, twenty-nine days, respectively. On appeal, the appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Elgie Sykes
The Defendant-Appellant, Elgie Sykes, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of first degree premeditated murder and sentenced to life with the possibility of parole. On appeal, Sykes claims: (1) the jury instruction for premeditation was improper; (2) the insufficiency of the evidence; (3) the trial court erred by excluding the testimony of a psychologist; and (4) the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury not to consume alcohol while sequestered. Upon review, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for a new trial. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Desean Breland
The Defendant, Michael Desean Breland, pled guilty to two counts of theft of property, and the trial court sentenced him to two concurrent eight-year sentences to be served on probation. Subsequently, the trial court twice found the Defendant was in violation of the terms of his probation, and it revoked the Defendant’s probation and ordered him to serve the remainder of his sentence in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant contends the trial court erred when it placed his original sentence into effect rather than allow him to return to probation with the condition that he complete an alcohol abuse treatment program. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Young Bok Song v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Young Bok Song, appeals from the trial court’s dismissal of a petition for writ of error coram nobis. Petitioner is currently serving a 65 year sentence for seven counts of rape of a child and four counts of aggravated sexual battery. See State v. Young Bok Song, No. M2004-02885-CCA-R3-CD, 2005 WL 2978972, at *12 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Nov. 4, 2005), perm. app. denied, (Tenn. Mar. 27, 2006). The petition for writ of error coram nobis alleged that Petitioner was: (1) being illegally restrained as a result of actions by the criminal court; (2) that trial counsel was ineffective for challenging various issues at trial and on appeal; and (3) that his case should be considered by “the Presidential Speech,” public concern, and by the judgment of the International Court of Justice. After a review of the record, we determine that the trial court properly denied coram nobis relief. Consequently, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Iroko Phillips
A Shelby County jury convicted the Defendant, Iroko Phillips, of one count of aggravated kidnapping and two counts of attempted aggravated rape. The trial court merged the two counts of attempted aggravated rape and imposed on the Defendant as a Range III, Persistent Offender an effective sentence of sixty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant contends the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions and that his convictions violate due process principles. Having thoroughly reviewed the record and relevant authorities, we conclude the evidence is sufficient to support the Defendant’s convictions and that his convictions do not violate his due process rights. As such, the trial court’s judgments are affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Matthew Jackson v. State of Tennessee
In August 2001, the Petitioner, Matthew Jackson, pled guilty to two counts of aggravated robbery for which he received two concurrent ten-year sentences. In November 2010, the Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis alleging the existence of newly discovered evidence. The coram nobis court denied relief without a hearing. On appeal, the Petitioner contends the coram nobis court abused its discretion when it denied his petition for coram nobis relief. Having reviewed the record and relevant authorities, we affirm the coram nobis court’s judgment. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Alonzo Felix Andres Juan v. State of Tennessee
In 1992, the Petitioner, Alonzo Felix Andres Juan, was convicted of first degree murder and theft of property of a value of $600.00. He was sentenced to concurrent terms of life imprisonment and eleven months and twenty-nine days. This Court affirmed his convictions on direct appeal. See State v. Alonzo Felix Andres Juan, No. 03C01-9211-CR-00382, 1993 WL 310702 (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, Aug. 17, 1993), perm. to appeal denied, (Tenn. Dec. 6, 1993). The Petitioner filed a petition for error coram nobis relief in September 2010, however, the error coram nobis court summarily dismissed his petition without conducting an evidentiary hearing. After our review, we affirm the summary dismissal of the petition. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Mira Eva Harris
The defendant, Mira Eva Harris, pled guilty, in two different indictments, to two counts of driving under the influence (“DUI”), two counts of DUI as a prior offender, driving on a revoked license, driving on a revoked license as a prior offender, violation of the implied consent law, and violation of the open container law. After merger with the appropriate prior offender charges, the defendant was sentenced to eleven months and twenty-nine days on each of the two DUI convictions and eleven months and twenty-nine days on the driving on a revoked license conviction, all to be served consecutively, as well as eleven months and twenty-nine days for violation of the implied consent law with five days served consecutively to the other sentences. On appeal, the defendant presumably challenges the sentences imposed by the trial court. Following our review, we affirm the judgments below. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Rhonda Louise Medley
The defendant, Rhonda Louise Medley, was convicted in the Bedford County Circuit Court of five counts of rape of a child and subsequently sentenced to an effective term of forty years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant challenges her convictions and sentences, specifically asserting that: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions; (2) the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentencing; and (3) the trial court erred in denying the motion to declare Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-522(b)(2)(A) unconstitutional. Following review of the record, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and that the challenged portion of the statute is not unconstitutional. However, while the trial court appears to have appropriately applied consecutive sentencing, it erred in imposing fifteen-year terms for Counts Two through Five because Tennessee Code Annotated Section 39-13-522(b)(2)(A) mandates that these sentences be set at a minimum of twenty-five years each. As such, we vacate those sentences and remand for resentencing with regard to those convictions, as well as for reconsideration of the imposition of consecutive sentencing in light of the ordered changes in the sentence lengths. The decision of the trial court is affirmed in all other respects. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Talmadge S. Crowder
The defendant, Talmadge S. Crowder, challenges the revocation of his diversionary status, maintaining that the trial court abused its discretion in determining that he violated an Order of Protection and using that violation as a basis for the revocation. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence for the trial court to determine that the defendant violated the terms of his release by violating an Order of Protection, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Wilson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Travis Lurry
The defendant, Travis Lurry, appeals the denial of his request for judicial diversion, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by improperly weighing the factors for and against diversion. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Fayette | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Eunus Alton Howell v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Eunus Alton Howell, appeals from the dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner was convicted in 1983 of armed robbery and sentenced to life imprisonment as a persistent offender. Petitioner’s sentence and conviction were affirmed on appeal. State v. Howell, 672 S.W.2d 442, 443 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1984). In 2010, Petitioner sought habeas corpus relief on the alleged basis that he was indicted on a charge that did not exist. The habeas corpus court dismissed the petition without a hearing. Petitioner appeals. After a review, we determine that the habeas corpus court properly dismissed the petition for relief. |
Wayne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jamie Scott Moore v. Sheriff Robert Arnold and State of Tennessee
This matter is before the Court upon the State’s motion to dismiss or in the alternative to affirm the judgment of the trial court by memorandum opinion pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Petitioner, Jamie Scott Moore, has appealed the trial court’s order dismissing his petition for writ of habeas corpus in which Petitioner alleged that his convictions for two counts of criminal attempt to sell methamphetamine are void because they were not ordered to be served consecutively to a previous conviction for which he was on parole at the time he committed the offenses. Upon a review of the record in this case, we are persuaded that the trial court was correct in dismissing the petition for habeas corpus relief 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. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Marlon Wiliams v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Marlon Williams, appeals the Fayette County Circuit Court’s denial of post-conviction relief from his convictions for possession of marijuana, a Class E felony, and possession of a firearm in the commission of a felony, a Class D felony. He is serving one year for possession of marijuana consecutively to three years for possession of a firearm. The Petitioner contends that he did not receive the effective assistance of counsel in connection with his guilty plea to the possession of a firearm charge and that his pleas were not knowingly and voluntarily entered because he did not understand that the firearm conviction required 100 percent service of the sentence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Fayette | Court of Criminal Appeals |
