Antonio Kendrick v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Antonio Kendrick, appeals the Criminal Court of Shelby County’s dismissal of his pro se 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 | |
Rodney M. Butler v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Rodney M. Butler, appeals pro se after the Madison County Circuit Court summarily dismissed his post-conviction petition seeking relief from his guilty plea to driving under the influence, fourth offense, a Class E felony, for which he received a three-year sentence with a 35 percent release eligibility. We conclude that Petitioner should have been afforded an evidentiary hearing, and for the reasons stated herein, we reverse the judgment of the post-conviction court and remand this matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Small
The Defendant-Appellant, Michael Small, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of two counts of aggravated robbery, Class B felonies. On appeal, Small argues that the trial court erred in imposing a twenty-year sentence consecutive to his effective sentence of forty years for three previous convictions for aggravated robbery. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Stacy Lee Fleming
The Defendant-Appellant, Stacy Lee Fleming, was convicted by a Tipton County jury of delivery of more than 0.5 grams of cocaine, a Class B felony. He was sentenced as a career offender to thirty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, Fleming claims: (1) the insufficiency of the evidence; (2) the trial court abused its discretion by restricting the cross-examination of a State’s witness; (3) the State committed prosecutorial misconduct in its closing argument; and (4) the trial court erred by sentencing Fleming as a career offender. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Tipton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jerry Wayne Lankford v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Jerry Wayne Lankford, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. He was convicted by a McMinn County jury of aggravated burglary, a Class C felony, and theft of property over $1,000, a Class D felony. State v. Lankford, 298 S.W.3d 176, 178 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2008). The petitioner was sentenced as a Range III, persistent offender to twelve years for aggravated burglary and ten years for theft of property, to be served consecutively, for an effective sentence of twenty-two years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Id. On appeal, the petitioner claims he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
McMinn | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
George Franklin v. State of Tennessee
The pro se petitioner, George Franklin, appeals the post-conviction court’s dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief as time-barred. The State acknowledges on appeal that the petition was timely filed because the petitioner delivered it to the appropriate prison official for mailing within the one-year statute of limitations. We agree. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the post-conviction court and remand for consideration of the petition. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Kendrick D. Rivers v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Kendrick D. Rivers, appeals the Madison County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The petitioner was convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to sell, resisting arrest, evading arrest, and criminal trespass. Following a sentencing hearing, he was sentenced to serve an effective term of twelve years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the petitioner asserts that he was denied his right to the effective assistance of counsel, specifically arguing that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to meet with the petitioner a sufficient number of times and to properly investigate the case. Following review of the record, we find no error and affirm the denial of post-conviction relief. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Michael Ware v. Henry Steward, Warden
The pro se petitioner, Michael Ware, appeals the dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Following our review, we affirm the order of the habeas corpus court dismissing the petition. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Mack Jones v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Mack Tremaine Jones, was convicted of one count of first degree murder and nine counts of attempted first degree murder. As a result, Petitioner was sentenced to life in prison for the first degree murder conviction and twenty-two years for each of the nine counts of attempted first degree murder. The sentences were ordered to be served concurrently. Petitioner’s convictions and sentences were affirmed on appeal. See State v. Mack Tremaine Jones, No. W2005-00014-CCA-R3-CD, 2007 WL 1840798 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, June 27, 2008), perm. app. denied, (Tenn. Oct. 15, 2007). Petitioner subsequently sought post-conviction relief, on the basis that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. Petitioner has appealed. On appeal, we determine that Petitioner has failed to show that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Accordingly, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Phillip Shane Duncan v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Phillip Shane Duncan, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the trial court erred in imposing a sentence of twenty-five years for his second degree murder conviction. The habeas corpus court dismissed the petition, and the Petitioner appealed. The State filed a motion requesting that this court affirm the habeas corpus court’s denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. After review, we conclude that the petition was properly dismissed. Accordingly, the State’s motion is granted and the judgment of the habeas corpus court is affirmed. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Camille Kristine Chesney
A Davidson County Criminal Court jury convicted the appellant, Camille Kristine Chesney, of facilitation to sell .5 grams or more of cocaine, a Schedule II controlled substance, and driving on a suspended license. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced her to concurrent sentences of four years for the facilitation to sell cocaine conviction and eleven months, twenty-nine days for the driving on a revoked license conviction, to be served as ninety days in jail and the remainder on supervised probation. She also was fined three thousand five hundred dollars. On appeal, the appellant contends that the trial court erred by denying her motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of an illegal stop and arrest and that the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the appellant’s conviction for facilitation to sell cocaine but reverse the conviction for driving on a suspended license. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Cantrell Lashone Winters
A Davidson County Criminal Court jury convicted the defendant, Cantrell Lashone Winters, of possession of 50 grams or more of hydromorphone in a school zone with intent to sell or deliver, a Class A felony, see T.C.A. §§ 39-17-417(a)(4), (j)(3); 39-17-432(b) (2006), and evading arrest, a Class D felony in this case, see id. § 39-16-603(b)(1), (3). In this appeal, the defendant challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained during the search of his person following his arrest, the trial court’s denial of his request for substitute counsel, the admission of expert testimony on illegal drug packaging, the sufficiency of the convicting evidence, and the trial court’s denial of his petition for writ of error coram nobis. Because the evidence adduced at trial does not establish that the defendant created a risk of death or injury, his conviction of Class D felony evading arrest must be modified to Class E felony evading arrest. The judgments of the trial court are otherwise affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Daniel Leon Lee
Appellant, Daniel Leon Lee, was convicted by a Maury County Jury of attempted possession of cocaine over .5 grams and simple possession of marijuana. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced him to an effective sentence of ten years. On appeal, Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and his sentence. We affirm Appellant’s convictions for attempted possession of cocaine over .5 grams and possession of marijuana because we determine that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions. However, we determine that the trial court improperly utilized convictions that appeared in Appellant’s presentence report but did not appear on the notice to seek enhanced punishment in order to establish Appellant’s sentencing range. Additionally, the trial court failed to place adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law with regard to sentencing on the record. Consequently, we affirm in part, reverse in part and remand the matter for a new sentencing hearing. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Dearice Cates v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Dearice Cates, appeals as of right from the Knox County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The Petitioner contends that he received the ineffective assistance of both trial and appellate counsel for failing to raise the statutorily mandated mitigating factor that he “voluntarily” released the victims of his especially aggravated kidnappings alive. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-305(b)(2). Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Lisa Joyce Tyler
The defendant, Lisa Joyce Tyler, appeals the trial court’s revocation of her probation. On appeal, she argues that the non-payment of her restitution was not willful but, instead, due to her inability to pay. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Victor Pritchard v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Victor Pritchard, appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel, which caused him to enter unknowing and involuntary guilty pleas. After review, we affirm the denial of the petition. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Anthony Allen v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Anthony Allen, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. He was convicted by a Shelby County jury of multiple counts of aggravated rape and aggravated robbery. See State v. Anthony Allen, W2004-01085-CCA-R3-CD, 2005 WL 1606350, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, July 8, 2005). The petitioner was sentenced to a term of 104 years. Id. On appeal, the petitioner claims he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Aaron Malone
A Shelby County jury convicted the defendant, Aaron Malone, of first degree murder, and he received a life sentence in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant argues that (1) the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress his statement, arguing that (a) he did not waive his rights knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently and (b) that the court should have suppressed the statement under the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine after ruling that his arrest was illegal; (2) the trial court erred by admitting the victim’s teeth into evidence; and (3) the trial court erred by allowing a state witness, qualified as an expert in crime scene investigation, to testify about blood spatter analysis. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Lynn Inman
The Defendant-Appellant, Christopher Lynn Inman, was convicted by a Benton County jury of coercion of a witness, a Class D felony. He was sentenced to two years in the Tennessee Department of Correction and assessed a $5,000 fine. On appeal, Inman claims the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Benton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John Hall
A Cocke County Circuit Court Jury found the appellant, John Hall, guilty of assault, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court imposed a sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days, thirty percent of which the appellant would be required to serve in the county jail. On appeal, the appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and the sentence imposed by the trial court. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court but remand for entry of a corrected judgment. |
Cocke | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Willie Clark Bennett
The defendant, Willie Clark Bennett, appeals the trial court’s revocation of his probation. In this appeal, he contends that the trial court erred by failing to suppress evidence obtained during a search of his person. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Travis Dean Jackson v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Travis Dean Jackson, appeals the Hardeman County Circuit Court’s dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief from his 2008 conviction for rape of a child. He claims his conviction is void because his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary and was the result of misrepresentations that he would receive sentence reduction credits that were not applicable to his conviction. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Cornelius O'Brien Love
The Defendant, Cornelius O’Brien Love, pled guilty to aggravated burglary, a Class C felony, and theft of property worth at least $500 but less than $1,000, a Class E felony. See T.C.A. §§ 39-14-403, 39-14-103, 39-14-105(2) (2010). He was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to four years’ incarceration for aggravated burglary and two years’ incarceration for theft, with the sentences to be served concurrently. He was ordered to pay $1,906.06 in restitution to the victims. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred by imposing confinement. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Elton Crawford
The defendant, Elton Crawford, entered an Alford guilty plea in the Shelby County Criminal Court to the attempted rape of his daughter and was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to four years in the county workhouse. The sole issue he raises on appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying his request for probation. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Wanda Elaine Brock
The defendant, Wanda Elaine Brock, appeals her Sullivan County jury convictions of two counts of aggravated child abuse of a child less than eight years of age and two counts of aggravated child neglect of a child less than eight years of age, Class A felonies. At sentencing, the trial court merged the convictions into one count of aggravated child abuse and imposed a Range I sentence of 20 years to be served at 100 percent by operation of law. See T.C.A. § 40350501(i)(1), (2)(k). On appeal, the defendant challenges (1) the sufficiency of the convicting evidence, (2) the trial court’s exclusion of extrinsic evidence concerning an inconsistent statement made by the victim, (3) the length of the sentence imposed, and (4) the trial court’s denial of her petition for a writ of error coram nobis. On appeal, we conclude that the evidence is insufficient to support the defendant’s convictions of aggravated child neglect. In consequence, with respect to counts three and four, the judgments of conviction are reversed, the verdicts are vacated, and the charges are dismissed. We further conclude, that the trial court erred by excluding extrinsic evidence of the victim’s prior inconsistent statement. Accordingly, we reverse the judgments of conviction in counts one and two and remand those counts for a new trial. Concerning the trial court’s denial of coram nobis relief, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the petition for a writ of error coram nobis and affirm the trial court’s order with respect to the coram nobis petition. In summary, the judgments of the trial court in counts three and four are reversed, and the charges are dismissed; the judgments of the trial court in counts one and two are reversed, and the case is remanded for a new trial on those counts; and the order of the trial court denying coram nobis relief is affirmed. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals |
