State of Tennessee v. Michael Deshawn Smith
The Defendant, Michael Deshawn Smith, pled guilty to second degree murder, a Class A felony. See T.C.A. § 39-13-210 (2010). He was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to twenty-three years’ confinement. On appeal, he contends that the trial court imposed an excessive sentence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Fayette | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jose Hermes Gomez
Following a jury trial, the Defendant, Jose Hermes Gomez, was convicted of three counts of aggravated robbery, Class B felonies, and one count of aggravated burglary, a Class C felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-13-402(b), -14-403(b). The trial court sentenced him as a Range I, standard offender to ten years for each aggravated robbery conviction and five years for the aggravated burglary conviction. The trial court ordered that his five-year sentence and two of his ten-year sentences be served consecutively, for a total effective sentence of twenty-five years. In this direct appeal, the Defendant presents the following issues for our review: (1) The trial court erred when it denied two of the Defendant’s challenges for cause to potential jurors; (2) The State presented insufficient evidence to convict the Defendant of three counts of aggravated robbery; and (3) The trial court erred when it imposed consecutive sentences. After our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court and remand solely for the entry of corrected judgment forms for each of the Defendant’s aggravated robbery convictions. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John M. Bailey
The Defendant, John M. Bailey, pled guilty to aggravated assault, a Class C felony, and failure to appear, a Class E felony. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-102 (Supp. 2009) (amended 2010), 39-16-609 (2010). He was sentenced as a Range III, persistent offender to ten years’ confinement for aggravated assault and a consecutive four-year sentence for failure to appear. On appeal, he contends that the trial court erred during sentencing by affording undue weight to enhancement factors and by failing to apply mitigating factors supported by the evidence. Without the guilty plea hearing transcript, we presume the trial court’s determinations were correct. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Jefferson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Paul Williams, aka Paul Williams El
The defendant, Paul Williams, a/k/a Paul Williams El, was convicted by a Carroll County Circuit Court jury of driving on a cancelled, suspended, or revoked license, second offense, and was sentenced to six months in the county jail. On appeal, he argues that: (1) the trial court’s method for selecting the alternate juror resulted in the exclusion of the only African-American on the panel; (2) there is newly discovered evidence that should be considered; (3) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction; and (4) the trial court erred in revoking his probation on a previous conviction and in sentencing him. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Carroll | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Larry Randall Henry, II
A Bedford County jury convicted the Defendant, Larry Randall Henry, II, of aggravated burglary, and the trial court sentenced him to nine years in the Tennessee Department of Correction (“TDOC”). On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction and that the trial court erred when it set the length of his sentence. Having reviewed the record and applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tony Ray Billings
A Davidson County jury convicted the Defendant, Tony Ray Billings, of aggravated robbery, and the trial court sentenced him as a Range II, Multiple Offender to fourteen years in the Tennessee Department of Correction (“TDOC”). On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the trial court erred when it allowed the State to amend the indictment; (2) the trial court committed plain error when it denied the Defendant’s motion to exclude identification testimony; and (3) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Bryan K. Howard
The Defendant, Bryan K. Howard, pled guilty to vehicular homicide, a Class B felony, with the length of his sentence and manner of service left to the discretion of the trial court. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court denied all forms of alternative sentencing and sentenced the Defendant to eight years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying all forms of alternative sentencing. Following our de novo review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Roane | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Danny Ray Smith
The Defendant, Danny Ray Smith, was convicted of four counts of aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony, and three counts of rape of a child, a Class A felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-13-504, 522. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends that (1) the trial court erred by allowing the victim to testify about instances of sexual contact between her and the Defendant other than those charged in the indictment; (2) the trial court erred by allowing a videotape of the victim’s forensic interview to be played for the jury; (3) the trial court erred by allowing the State to cross-examine the Defendant about an expunged criminal conviction; (4) the evidence was insufficient to sustain the Defendant’s conviction on count two of the indictment because the State’s proof materially varied from the allegations in the indictment; (5) the trial court erred in denying the Defendant’s motion for a judgment of acquittal on counts two, six, and seven; (6) the trial court erred by denying the Defendant’s motion for a new trial which was based on newly discovered evidence; and (7) the trial court erred by imposing partial consecutive sentences. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Leonard Lamont Currie
The defendant, Leonard Lamont Currie, was convicted of voluntary manslaughter, a Class C felony, and sentenced as a Range II, multiple offender to eight years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s rejection of his claim of self-defense. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Tipton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Chad Allen Kirk
The Defendant, Chad Allen Kirk, pled guilty to one count of driving on a suspended license, a Class B misdemeanor, in the Blount County General Sessions Court. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-50-504(a)(1). The General Sessions Court sentenced the Defendant to six months with 75 percent of the sentence to be served in confinement. The Defendant appealed the decision to the Blount County Circuit Court, which dismissed the appeal and remanded the case back to the General Sessions Court for execution of the judgment. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends that the Circuit Court failed to conduct a de novo review of the sentence. Following our review, we reverse the decision of the Circuit Court and remand the case for a new sentencing. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Bronche Blair
The defendant, Bronche Blair, was convicted by a Madison County Circuit Court jury of second degree murder, a Class A felony, and was sentenced as a Range I, violent offender to twenty-five years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction and that the trial court imposed an excessive sentence. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael R. Smart
Following a jury trial, the Defendant, Michael R. Smart, was found guilty of sale of a Schedule VI controlled substance, a Class E felony; delivery of a Schedule VI controlled substance, a Class E felony; and simple possession of a Schedule VI controlled substance, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court merged the sale and delivery convictions and sentenced the Defendant to 2 years for the Class E felony conviction and a consecutive 11 months and 29 days for the Class A misdemeanor conviction. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends (1) that the trial court erred in allowing the State to impeach him with his prior conviction of receiving stolen property; (2) that the trial court erred in failing to include the requested defense of entrapment in the jury instructions; and (3) that the trial court erred in sentencing him. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Anthony D. Forster
A Davidson County grand jury indicted the Defendant, Anthony D. Forster, for four counts of robbery related charges stemming from two incidents. The Defendant was convicted of one count of especially aggravated robbery, acquitted on the remaining charges, and the trial court sentenced the Defendant to twenty-two years in prison. On appeal, the Defendant claims that:(1) the Defendant was denied his right to a speedy trial; (2) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction; (3) the trial court erred in failing to sever the offenses; (4) the trial court erred in failing to compel the State to comply with Rule 16 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure; and (5) the trial court improperly sentenced the Defendant. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Gary Wayne McCullough
Following a preliminary hearing in Hamilton County General Sessions Court, a Hamilton County grand jury charged the defendant, Gary Wayne McCullough, with operating a boat without lights, see T.C.A. § 69-9-209 (2004), boating under the influence, see id. § 69-9- 217(a), violating the implied consent law, see id. § 69-9-217(f)(1), and simple possession of marijuana, see id. § 39-17-418 (2006). In the trial court, the defendant contended in a motion to dismiss the indictment that the actions of the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA) in setting their own cases in a disproportionate number before certain general sessions judges constituted “judge-shopping” and resulted in a violation of the defendant’s due process rights. Following an evidentiary hearing on the defendant’s motion, the trial court agreed and remanded the case for a new preliminary hearing before a division of the general sessions court not implicated by the judge-shopping allegation. On interlocutory appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court should have dismissed his indictment with prejudice instead of remanding the case for a new preliminary hearing. The State contends that the trial court erred in dismissing the indictment and remanding the case. Because we conclude that the trial court’s findings of fact are not supported by the record, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and direct the trial court to reinstate the indictment on remand. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Victor E. McConnell v. Jim Morrow, Warden, and State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Victor E. McConnell, appeals the Bledsoe County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief attacking his 1983 conviction for assault with intent to commit first degree murder. The Petitioner alleged that his judgment of conviction was void because the indictment was illegally amended on the day of his plea “to broaden the original charge without being resubmitted to the grand jury[.]” The habeas corpus court summarily dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner had failed to state a cognizable claim for relief. Following our review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the order summarily ismissing the petition. |
Bledsoe | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kasey N. Maddox
The Defendant, Kasey N. Maddox, appeals the sentencing decision of the Bedford County Circuit Court. Following her guilty plea to the sale of .5 grams or more of cocaine, a Class B felony, the trial court imposed a nine-year sentence as a Range I, standard offender to be served in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that the trial court erred in denying alternative sentencing. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jose E. Molina a/k/a Roberto C. Perez v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Jose E. Molina, aka Roberto C. Perez, was convicted by a jury of aggravated rape and aggravated robbery and was, thereafter, sentenced to an effective sentence of twenty-one years at 100%. This Court affirmed the Petitioner’s convictions on direct appeal. The Petitioner filed a timely petition for post-conviction relief and, following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. In this appeal, the Petitioner raises the following issues for review: (1) the post-conviction court erred in its determination that the Petitioner’s trial counsel was effective; and (2) in light of a recent publication, the fingerprint comparison testimony at his trial should be excluded as scientifically unreliable. Following our review, we conclude that the Petitioner has not shown he is entitled to relief. We affirm the Davidson County Criminal Court’s denial of relief. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tommy L. Beaty a/k/a Jacky Wayne Beaty
The Defendant, Tommy L. Beaty, pled guilty to aggravated burglary and agreed to allow the trial court to set the length and manner of his sentence. The trial court sentenced him to thirteen years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant contends the trial court erred when it set the length of his sentence and when it ordered him to serve his sentence in confinement. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Shanda Alene Wright v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Shanda Alene Wright, appeals as of right from the Marshall County Circuit Court’s denial of her petition for post-conviction relief. The Petitioner was convicted of especially aggravated burglary, especially aggravated robbery, and aggravated robbery. She received an effective sentence of 16 years for her convictions. The Petitioner challenges the performance of trial counsel. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the postconviction court. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Timothy Lebron Arnold
The Defendant, Timothy Lebron Arnold, was indicted for especially aggravated robbery, a Class A felony, but pled guilty to robbery, a Class C felony, and received a sentence of five years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred in permitting testimony from an officer at the sentencing hearing; that the trial court erred in setting the length of his sentence; and that the trial court erred in denying alternative sentencing. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Larry Ward
The defendant, Larry Ward, stands convicted of criminally negligent homicide, a Class E felony. The trial court sentenced him as a Range II, multiple offender to four years in the workhouse. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his conviction. Upon our close review of the evidence, we are constrained to conclude that the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a homicide was committed in this case. Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the trial court, vacate the conviction, and dismiss the charge against the defendant. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennesse v. Antonio L. Saulsberry
The defendant, Antonio L. Saulsberry, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of murder during the perpetration of a robbery and murder during the perpetration of a burglary. His convictions were merged and he was sentenced to life imprisonment, to be served consecutively to prior convictions for especially aggravated robbery and conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery for which he had already been sentenced to an effective term of fifty years as a Range II offender. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Darius Williams
Appellant, Darius Williams, was indicted by the Shelby County Grand Jury for three counts of aggravated robbery, one count of aggravated burglary, and one count of employing a firearm during a felony. After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty on all counts. As a result, Appellant was sentenced to an effective sentence of seventeen years. After the denial of a motion for new trial, Appellant initiated a direct appeal. On appeal, Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. After a review of the record, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support Appellant’s convictions. Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Cyrus Deville Wilson v. State of Tennesse
The Petitioner, Cyrus Deville Wilson, appeals as of right from the Davidson County Criminal Court’s dismissal of his petition for a writ of error coram nobis. The Petitioner contends that the coram nobis court erred by summarily dismissing his petition without an evidentiary hearing. Following our review, we reverse the judgment of the coram nobis court and remand the Petitioner’s case for an evidentiary hearing. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Cyrus Deville Wilson v. State of Tennessee - Dissenting
I dissent from the majority opinion because I conclude that the allegations contained in the Petitioner’s petition for a writ of error coram nobis are insufficient to demonstrate that he is entitled to relief. As such, I do not think that the coram nobis court erred when it summarily dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals |
