Warren Fowler v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Warren Fowler, appeals as of right from the Knox County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The Petitioner pled guilty to attempted first degree murder and especially aggravated kidnapping, both Class A felonies, and received concurrent sentences of 20 years. The Petitioner challenges the performance of trial counsel and the voluntariness of his guilty plea. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Marshall Howard Murdock 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 has appealed the trial court’s order dismissing his motion to reopen his petition for post-conviction relief. Upon a review of the record in this case, we are persuaded that the trial court was correct in dismissing the petition 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 | |
State of Tennessee v. Kirby Whited
A Fentress County Criminal Court Jury convicted the appellant, Kirby Whited, of tampering with evidence, a Class C felony. Following his conviction, the trial court imposed a sentence of three years, with fifty days to be served in jail and the remainder to be served on probation. On appeal, the appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction and the sentence imposed by the trial court. The State concedes that the evidence is insufficient to support the appellant’s conviction. Upon review, we conclude that the evidence is insufficient; therefore, the appellant’s conviction must be vacated and the case dismissed. |
Fentress | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Phillip McCormick v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Phillip McCormick, appeals pro se the Knox County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief from the remainder of his forty-year sentence for a 1984 conviction. The Petitioner contends that (1) the trial court erred by finding that the State did not relinquish jurisdiction when it surrendered him to federal authorities to serve concurrent federal and state sentences for felonies he committed while on parole, (2) the State violated his due process rights by failing to hold a parole revocation hearing before transferring him, and (3) the trial court erred by dismissing his petition without appointing counsel. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Leonard Allen
A Davidson County Criminal Court jury convicted the appellant, Leonard Allen, of especially aggravated robbery, and the trial court sentenced him to twenty years in confinement to be served at one hundred percent. On appeal, the appellant contends that (1) a plea agreement he entered into with the State after the jury convicted him is invalid because he had already filed a notice of appeal to this court; (2) the trial court committed plain error by not ruling that a photograph array shown to the victim months after the robbery and introduced into evidence at trial was impermissibly suggestive; and (3) the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the appellant’s conviction for especially aggravated robbery. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jonathan Everett
Appellant, Jonathan Everett, was indicted by the Shelby County Grand Jury for one count of first degree murder and two counts of attempted first degree murder. After a lengthy jury trial, Appellant was convicted of one count of second degree murder, one count of attempted voluntary manslaughter, and one count of reckless endangerment. As a result, Appellant was sentenced to an effective sentence of twenty-nine years, eleven months, and twenty-nine days. Appellant presents the following issues for our review on direct appeal: (1) whether the trial court properly denied the motion to dismiss and remand for a preliminary hearing; (2) whether the trial court properly denied the motion to suppress Appellant’s statement; (3) whether the trial court erred by denying Appellant’s request to cross-examine Jamarcus Palmer about specific instances of conduct; (4) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; and (5) whether the trial court properly sentenced Appellant. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the trial court properly denied the motion to dismiss; the trial court properly denied the motion to suppress when Appellant’s statement was made knowingly and voluntarily; the trial court properly denied Appellant’s request to cross-examine Jamarcus Palmer; the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; and the trial court properly sentenced Appellant. Therefore, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Fred Thompson, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Fred Thompson, Jr., appeals as of right from the Davidson County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The Petitioner was convicted of first degree murder committed in the perpetration of theft and theft of property valued less than $10,000, a Class D felony. He received a sentence of life imprisonment for the first degree murder conviction and a concurrent sentence of five years for the theft conviction. The Petitioner challenges the performance of trial and appellate counsel. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Rodger Watts
The defendant, Rodger Watts, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of theft of property valued between $10,000 and $60,000, a Class C felony; burglary of a building, a Class D felony; and evading arrest, a Class A misdemeanor. He was sentenced to nine years for the theft and four years for the burglary, to be served consecutively as a Range II offender, and eleven months and twenty-nine days for the evading arrest, to be served concurrently to the felonies. On appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence with regard to his theft conviction. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Rae Lewter
The Defendant-Appellant, James Rae Lewter, was convicted by a Lincoln County jury of burglary and theft of property valued at $1,000 or more but less than $10,000, both Class D felonies. The trial court sentenced Lewter as a Range II, multiple offender to concurrent sentences of eight years at thirty-five percent in the Department of Correction. On direct appeal, Lewter argued: (1) the evidence was insufficient to convict him; (2) the trial court imposed an excessive sentence of eight years in violation of State v. Gomez, 239 S.W.3d 733, 740 (Tenn. 2007); and (3) the State engaged in misconduct during closing arguments. See State v. James Rae Lewter, No. M2007-02723-CCA-R3-CD, 2009 WL 1076716, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Apr. 9, 2009), rev’d, 313 S.W.3d 745 (Tenn. June 4, 2010). Upon initial review, this court, after concluding that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions, reversed and vacated Lewter’s convictions and dismissed the indictment. Id. Following the reversal, the State applied for permission to appeal this court’s decision to the Tennessee Supreme Court pursuant to Rule 11 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, and on August 17, 2009, permission to appeal was granted. Upon review, the Tennessee Supreme Court held that “the evidence was sufficient to support a reasonable inference of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Lewter, 313 S.W.3d 745, 746 (Tenn. 2010). Consequently, it reversed the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals and remanded the case to this court for consideration of the remaining two issues: (1) whether the trial court imposed an excessive sentence in violation of Gomez, 239 S.W.3d at 740; and (2) whether the State engaged in misconduct during closing arguments. See Lewter, 313 S.W.3d at 751. On remand, we conclude that Lewter did not receive an excessive sentence pursuant to Gomez and that the State’s remarks during closing argument did not constitute prosecutorial misconduct. Accordingly, as to the issues remanded for our review, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed. |
Lincoln | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Thomas E. Campbell
The Defendant-Appellant, Thomas E. Campbell, was convicted by a Warren County jury of attempted child abuse, a Class B misdemeanor, and aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony. He was sentenced to six months in the county jail for attempted child abuse. For aggravated sexual battery, Campbell was sentenced as a Range I, violent offender to ten years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, Campbell claims that: (1) both convictions were not supported by sufficient evidence; and (2) his sentence for aggravated sexual battery was excessive. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Warren | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Aaron Benard Barnett
The defendant, Aaron Benard Barnett, was convicted of aggravated burglary, a Class C felony, and vandalism over $1000, a Class D felony. He was sentenced to six years for aggravated burglary and four years for vandalism, with the sentences to run consecutively. On appeal, he argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions and that the trial court improperly imposed consecutive sentences. After careful review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Brian Hervery
The defendant, Brian Hervery, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of attempted second degree murder, a Class B felony; three counts of aggravated assault, a Class C felony; and one count of the employment of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. The trial court merged one of the convictions of aggravated assault into the conviction for attempted second degree murder and sentenced the defendant as a Range I offender to concurrent terms of ten years for the attempted murder conviction and three years for the aggravated assault convictions. Because the defendant had a prior conviction for voluntary manslaughter, the court sentenced him to ten years at 100% for the firearm conviction and ordered that the sentence be served consecutively to the ten-year sentence for attempted murder, in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-17-1324. The defendant raises four issues on appeal: (1) whether the trial court erred by granting the State’s motion in limine to exclude evidence that would have shown the victims’ bias; (2) whether the trial court erred by not declaring a mistrial following the prosecutor’s improper closing comments; (3) whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions; and (4) whether the trial court imposed an excessive sentence. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Henry Lee Moore
The Defendant, Henry Lee Moore, appeals the Hamilton County Criminal Court’s order revoking his probation for two counts of violation of the Motor Vehicle Habitual Offender Act, a Class E felony, and one count of resisting arrest, a Class B misdemeanor, and ordering the remainder of his effective four-year sentence into execution. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Paul Alexander Montgomery, III
The Defendant, Paul Alexander Montgomery, III, was convicted of nine counts of rape of a child, a Class A felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-522. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends that (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain the convictions of rape of a child and (2) the trial court erred by admitting evidence in violation of Tennessee Rules of Evidence 403 and 404(b). Following our review, we reverse the judgments of the trial court and remand the Defendant’s case for a new trial. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Antonio Arnold v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Antonio Arnold, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The petitioner was convicted by a Shelby County jury of felony murder, voluntary manslaughter, aggravated burglary, and aggravated assault. He was subsequently sentenced to an effective term of life in prison. On appeal, he contends that the denial of his petition was error because he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. Following review of the record before us, we affirm the denial of the petition. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Mack Transou v. State of Tennessee
The pro se petitioner, Mack Transou, appeals the denial of his motion to reopen his post-conviction petition. Because he failed to comply with the statutory requirements for seeking review of a dismissal of a motion to reopen a post-conviction petition, we dismiss the appeal. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Bobby G. Neely v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Bobby G. Neely, appeals the Marion County Circuit Court’s denial of post-conviction relief from his convictions for rape of a child, criminal attempt to manufacture a Schedule II controlled substance, and child abuse, for which he received an effective sentence of fifteen years’ confinement. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the trial court erred by determining that he failed to file his petition for post-conviction relief in a timely manner. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Marion | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Deanna Machelle Fletcher
The Defendant, Deanna Machelle Fletcher, pled guilty to three counts of identity theft, a Class D felony; burglary of an automobile, a Class E felony; three counts of forgery, a Class E felony; and three counts of theft of $500 or less, a Class A misdemeanor. See T.C.A. §§ 39-14-150, 39-14-402, 39-14-114, 39-14-103 (2010). She was sentenced as a Range II, multiple offender to eight years’ confinement for identity theft, four years’ confinement for burglary of an automobile, four years’ confinement for forgery, and eleven months and twenty-nine days’ confinement for theft, all to be served concurrently. On appeal, she contends that the trial court erred by denying alternative sentences and ordering confinement. Without the guilty plea hearing transcript, we presume the trial court’s determinations were correct. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Andrew Reginald MacKinnon
A Sevier County Circuit Court jury found that the Defendant, Andrew Reginald MacKinnon, violated the implied consent law. See T.C.A. § 55-10-406 (2006) (amended 2008, 2009, 2010). The trial court ordered that his driving privileges be revoked for one year. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the trial court erred by failing to grant his motion to suppress because the State failed to lay a proper foundation for admitting a witness’s opinion testimony into evidence and (2) the jury instructions for violation of the implied consent law were insufficient because the trial court failed to define “reasonable grounds.” Because the trial court failed to determine the issue of the implied consent violation, submitting it to the jury instead, we vacate the judgment. |
Sevier | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Andrew Reginald MacKinnon - Dissenting
I respectfully disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the judgment must be vacated and the case remanded for a new hearing. Given that the Defendant does not raise any issue regarding the trial court’s failure to determine the implied consent law violation, that no prejudice has been demonstrated, and that the trial court acted as the thirteenth juror, I would address the issues raised on appeal. |
Sevier | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Napoleon Stephan Meredith
A Davidson County Criminal Court Jury convicted the appellant, Napoleon Stephan Meredith, of two counts of aggravated robbery. The trial court imposed a total effective sentence of nine years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant argues that the trial court erred in failing to allow the appellant to be viewed from a close distance by the jury and that the error forced him to relinquish his Fifth Amendment right not to testify. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. In Re: Aaron Bonding Company (Elisha Tomlinson and Tommy Gregory)
The trial court found the Defendants, Elisha Tomlinson and Tommy Gregory, in contempt of court for their part in the depleting of $250,000 in certificates of deposit held as collateral for the bond writing ability of Aaron Bonding Company. On appeal, both Defendants contend that the evidence is insufficient to sustain this finding. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Martin
The defendant, Michael Martin, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of attempted second degree murder, a Class B felony; aggravated assault, a Class C felony; and violation of an order of protection, a Class A misdemeanor. The aggravated assault conviction merged into the attempted second degree murder conviction, and the defendant was sentenced to eighteen years as a Range II offender on the attempted second degree murder conviction and eleven months, twenty-nine days on the violation of an order of protection conviction, to be served consecutively. On appeal, the defendant argues that (1) the trial court erred in allowing photographs of the victim’s wounds into evidence; (2) the trial court erred in allowing evidence regarding injuries the victim’s grandparents sustained during the commission of the offense; (3) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction for attempted second degree murder; (4) the cumulative effect of the errors at trial was sufficient to justify a new trial; and (5) the trial court erred in sentencing him as a Range II offender. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Devon O’Neal Wiggins
The Defendant-Appellant, Devon O’Neal Wiggins, was convicted by a Dyer County jury of sale of cocaine over 0.5 grams in a drug-free zone, a Class B felony. He was sentenced as a Range III, persistent offender to twenty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The trial court ordered that this sentence be served consecutive to a thirty-year sentence for case number 07-CR-461. On appeal, Wiggins claims: (1) the insufficiency of the evidence; (2) the jury instructions should have included the offense of sale of a counterfeit controlled substance; (3) the trial court erred by denying his motion for a bifurcated trial; (4) the testimony of an expert witness violated his rights under the Confrontation Clause; (5) his sentence was excessive; (6) the trial court improperly commented on the evidence; (7) the State committed prosecutorial misconduct during its closing argument; and (8) cumulative error. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Gregory D. Roberts
The defendant, Gregory D. Roberts, was convicted by a Fayette County jury of illegal voting, a Class D felony, for having intentionally voted in a November 2008 election knowing that he was ineligible to vote due to his felony convictions for infamous crimes. He was subsequently sentenced by the trial court as a Range II offender to four years in the Department of Correction, with the sentence suspended to fifteen days in the county jail with the remainder of the time on supervised probation. The defendant raises essentially three issues on appeal: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction; (2) whether the trial court erred by not instructing the jury to disregard a lay witness’s testimony regarding similarities in signatures; and (3) whether trial counsel was ineffective for not moving for a directed verdict. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Fayette | Court of Criminal Appeals |
