James Dubose v. Jim Worthington, Warden
The Petitioner, James DuBose, appeals the Morgan County Circuit Court’s dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief from his 1993 conviction for first degree murder by aggravated child abuse. He claims his judgment of conviction is void because the indictment was invalid and charged him with violating a statute that did not exist at the time of his offense. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Macon | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John Richard Sprouse
The defendant, John Richard Sprouse, appeals the Sevier County Circuit Court’s revocation of his probation. On appeal, he contends that the trial court erred by ordering him to serve his six-year sentence in incarceration. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sevier | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jennifer Renee Dennis
The appellant, Jennifer Renee Dennis, admitted in the Bedford County Circuit Court that she violated probation sentences she was serving for two felony theft convictions, and the trial court ordered her to serve her original twelve- and three-year sentences in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant contends that the trial court erred by ordering her to serve her sentences in confinement and that the trial court should have reinstated her probation. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Felix Tamayo
The Defendant, Felix Tamayo, pled guilty to five counts of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, with the sentence to be determined by the trial court. The trial court imposed consecutive sentences of 12 years as a Range I, standard offender for each count, for a total effective sentence of 60 years. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred in setting the length of his sentences and in ordering consecutive sentencing. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John D. Barnhart
Appellant, John D. Barnhart, was indicted by the Robertson County Grand Jury for aggravated assault and violation of the Sexual Offender Registration Act. Appellant pled guilty. In conjunction with the guilty plea, Appellant received a two-year sentence as a Range II, multiple offender for the conviction for violation of the Sexual Offender Registration Act and a six-year sentence for the aggravated assault conviction. The manner of service of the sentence was left to the trial court. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Appellant to serve his sentence in incarceration and ordered the sentences to run consecutively. On appeal, Appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying an alternative sentence and in ordering the sentences to run consecutively. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Robertson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James Johnson, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, James Johnson, Jr., was convicted by a Shelby County Jury for one count of second degree murder, and the trial court sentenced Petitioner to twenty-three years. State v. James Johnson, No. W2003-02009-CCA-R3-CD, 2004 WL 2378256, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, Oct. 20, 2004), perm. app. denied, (Tenn. Mar. 21, 2005). On appeal, this Court modified Petitioner’s sentence to twenty-one years based upon the fact that the trial court had misapplied certain enhancement factors during sentencing. Id. at *14. On March 27, 2006, Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Following a hearing on the petition, the post-conviction court denied the petition. Petitioner appeals this decision. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that Petitioner has not shown that trial counsel’s representation was ineffective. Therefore, we affirm the denial of the petition for post-conviction relief. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Kevin McFerren v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Kevin McFerren, appeals the Criminal Court of Shelby County’s dismissal of his pro se petition for post-conviction relief and petition for writ of habeas corpus. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court’s dismissal pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Following our review, we grant the State’s motion and affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Gerardo Gomez v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Gerardo Gomez, appeals as of right from the Knox County Criminal Court’s summary denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. In 1997, the Petitioner pled guilty to possession with intent to sell not less than 10 pounds nor more than 70 pounds of marijuana, a Class D felony, and received a sentence of 24 months, suspended to probation. As a result of his conviction, the Petitioner, who had been granted legal permanent residency status in 1990, was removed from the United States. The Petitioner then illegally re-entered the United States and was arrested. The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to advise him of the deportation consequences of pleading guilty. The post-conviction court summarily dismissed the petition, concluding that the petition was untimely. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that his claim is based on a constitutional right that did not exist at the time he pled guilty and that he is entitled to post-conviction relief from this court. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Gary Thomas Reed
Following a jury trial, the Defendant, Gary Thomas Reed, was convicted of initiating the process of manufacturing methamphetamine, a Class B felony. The Defendant was sentenced as a Range II, multiple offender to 16 years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends (1) that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction; (2) that the trial court erred in permitting expert testimony; (3) that the trial court erred in permitting lay opinion testimony; (4) that the trial court erred in permitting testimony from a witness who had not been disclosed to defense counsel; (5) that the trial court erred by failing to permit testimony from a potential defense witness; (6) that the trial court erred in denying the motion for new trial; and (7) that the trial court erred in sentencing the Defendant. Following our review, we affirm the conviction and sentence but remand the case for the entry of a corrected judgment consistent with this opinion. |
Cumberland | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Wayne C. Burkhart, Jr.
A Claiborne County Criminal Court jury convicted the defendant, Wayne C. Burkhart, Jr., of three counts of aggravated child abuse, 11 counts of rape, and 11 counts of incest, and the trial court imposed a total effective sentence of 50 years’ incarceration. In this appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence, the trial court’s denial of his motion for a mistrial, and the propriety of consecutive sentencing. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Claiborne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ashad R. A. Muhammad Ali v. State of Tennessee
This matter is before the Court upon the State’s motion to affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court by memorandum opinion pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Petitioner has appealed the habeas corpus court’s order summarily dismissing the petition for writ of habeas corpus. Upon a review of the record in this case, we are persuaded that the habeas corpus court was correct in summarily dismissing the habeas corpus petition and that 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 habeas corpus court is affirmed. |
Lincoln | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Marcus D. Bell
The defendant, Marcus D. Bell, was convicted by a Montgomery County Circuit Court jury of two counts of possession of a firearm by a person previously convicted of a felony drug offense, a Class E felony, and was sentenced to concurrent terms of four years as a Range II offender, to be served consecutively to the defendant’s prior sentences in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Erika Y. Johnson
The Defendant, Erika Y. Johnson, appeals as of right from the Williamson County Circuit Court’s revocation of her probation and order that she serve the remainder of her sentence in confinement. The Defendant contends that the trial court erred by ordering her to serve the remainder of her sentence in confinement. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Justin Mathis v. State of Tennessee
A jury convicted the petitioner, Justin Mathis, of first degree murder. The trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment. On direct appeal, this court upheld the petitioner’s conviction and sentence. The petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court denied relief, and the petitioner now appeals. Following a review of the parties’ briefs, the record, and applicable law, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Bobby Jackson
A Shelby County jury convicted the defendant, Bobby Jackson, of first degree murder in the perpetration of a robbery and especially aggravated robbery, a Class A felony. The trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment for the first degree murder conviction and to twenty years for the especially aggravated robbery conviction, to be served concurrently in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions, that the trial court erred by admitting into evidence the videotaped preliminary hearing testimony of an allegedly unavailable witness, that the trial court erred by allowing the jury to view the videotaped testimony in the jury room during deliberations, and that the trial court erred by admitting into evidence a letter purportedly written by the defendant. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Rodrickus Carlos Jefferson
Following a jury trial, Defendant, Rodrickus Carlos Jefferson, was convicted of first degree premeditated murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. On appeal, Defendant argues: (1) that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction; (2) that the trial court erred in allowing him to represent himself; and (3) the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on self-defense. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Eric C. Pendleton v. 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, Eric C. Pendleton, has appealed the trial court’s order dismissing his petition for writ of habeas corpus in which Petitioner alleged that the indictments upon which he was convicted were void for failing to name all the essential elements of the crimes. 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. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
William Paul Bogus v. Jim Morrow, Warden and State of Tennessee
Petitioner, William Paul Bogus, was convicted of first degree felony murder. See State v. William Paul Bogus, No. 02C01-9506-CC-00169, 1998 WL 22031, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, Jan. 22, 1998), perm. app. denied, (Tenn. Nov. 2, 1998). Petitioner later alleged in a petition for habeas corpus relief that his conviction was void because he was not convicted of the underlying felony and because the indictment was defective. The lower court dismissed the petition without a hearing. Petitioner appeals. Because nothing on the face of the judgment shows that Petitioner’s life sentence has expired or that the conviction is void, we affirm the dismissal of the petition for habeas corpus relief. |
Bledsoe | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jeffery Lance Cochran
Appellant, Jeffrey Lance Cochran, pled guilty to violations of the Motor Vehicle Habitual Offender Act, implied consent law, and driving under the influence, fourth offense. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently to each other; Appellant was sentenced to an effective sentence of one year and six months. He was ordered to serve a mandatory minimum sentence of 150 days and the remainder of the sentence on probation. On the same day, Appellant also pled guilty to failure to appear. He was sentenced to one year and six months for this conviction, to be served consecutively to the effective sentence for the other convictions. Subsequently, Appellant was charged with violating the terms of his probation. Following a hearing, Appellant’s probation was revoked. The trial court ordered Appellant to serve the remainder of his sentence in confinement. Appellant appeals this decision. Because we determine that the trial court properly revoked Appellant’s probation, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John Anthony Lethco
A Sevier County Circuit Court jury convicted the defendant, John Anthony Lethco, of aggravated burglary, see T.C.A. § 39-14-403; possession of burglary tools, see id. § 39-14-701; theft of property valued at $60,000 or more, see id. § 39-14-103, -105(5); and theft of property valued at more than $500 but less than $1,000, see id. § 39-13-103, -105(2). At sentencing, the trial court ordered the defendant to serve an effective sentence of 27 years’ incarceration. On appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court erred (1) by denying his motion to sever offenses, (2) by allowing hearsay testimony from witnesses other than the victim concerning ownership of stolen items at trial, (3) by denying him the opportunity to confront his accuser at trial, (4) by denying his motion for new trial, and (5) by allowing argument by the State at trial concerning his reputation as a drug dealer. Because the defendant filed his notice of appeal prior to filing his motion for new trial, the trial court was without jurisdiction to rule on the motion for new trial. Thus, any issues raised therein are waived. We discern, however, an anomaly in the judgment of theft of property valued at more than $500 but less than $1,000 that requires correction on remand. In all other respects, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Sevier | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James L. Crawford v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, James L. Crawford, filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging that his guilty pleas to various felonies were not knowingly and voluntarily entered. The trial court summarily dismissed the petition as barred by the statute of limitations. The Petitioner appeals the dismissal, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Rodney Laron Thomas v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Rodney Laron Thomas, appeals the trial court’s denial of his request for a delayed appeal concerning the denial of his post-conviction relief petition. He urges that his delay in filing his appeal should be excused because (1) his post-conviction counsel never pursued an appeal despite assuring him to the contrary, and (2) the circuit court clerk never provided him with a copy of the final order, as required by Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-30-112. We conclude that this petitioner has no right to appeal from a denial of a motion for delayed appeal of a denial of post-conviction relief. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed. |
Henderson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Ivory Williams
Defendant-Appellant, Christopher Ivory Williams, was convicted by a Madison County Circuit Court jury of first degree premeditated murder and felony murder. The trial court merged the felony murder conviction with the first degree premeditated murder conviction and sentenced Williams as a violent offender to life imprisonment. On appeal, Williams argues that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction for first degree premeditated murder; (2) the trial court erred in failing to dismiss the felony murder count of the indictment on the ground that no underlying felony was specified in the indictment; (3) the trial court erred in allowing the victim’s mother to authenticate pictures of the victim at trial; (4) the State committed prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments; (5) the trial court erred in considering Williams’ prior arson conviction for impeachment purposes. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tavarus Detterio Griffin
Following a jury trial, Defendant, Tavarus Detterio Griffin, was convicted of two counts of aggravated robbery and two counts of aggravated kidnapping. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of twenty years. Judgments of conviction were entered on October 2, 2008. An untimely motion for new trial was filed on January 30, 2009. On May 12, 2009, the trial court entered an order purporting to deny the motion for new trial, rather than dismissing the untimely motion as requested in a written response filed by the State. An untimely notice of appeal was filed May 12, 2009. Defendant, through counsel, has raised only two issues on appeal: (1) whether Defendant was denied his right to due process and a fair trial because the jury pool was allowed to see Defendant in the courtroom wearing jail clothing and restrained by leg irons and handcuffs; and (2) whether counsel who represented Defendant throughout the trial and sentence hearing (who is not the same counsel who filed the motion for new trial) rendered ineffective assistance of counsel. Because the only issues raised on appeal are waived as a result of not being included in a timely-filed motion for new trial, we conclude that this is not a case where timely filing of the notice of appeal should be waived. Accordingly, Defendant’s appeal is dismissed. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Maximo Marin In Re: E-Z Out Bail Agency
The defendant, Maximo Marin, failed to appear for his scheduled court date, and a conditional forfeiture was issued against E-Z Out Bail Agency in the amount of $100,000. With the final forfeiture date rapidly approaching, E-Z Out Bail Agency filed a motion to extend the final forfeiture date. The issue on appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to extend the final forfeiture date. We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion and affirm the judgment from the trial court. |
Henderson | Court of Criminal Appeals |
