State vs. Michael A. Janosky M1999-02574-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Trial Court Judge: Cheryl A. Blackburn
Michael Janosky appeals from his conviction of driving under the influence. In this direct appeal, he challenges his conviction based upon (1) erroneous admission of breath alcohol test results which he contends were involuntarily obtained and (2) the results of the breath test were not administered in accordance with the requirements of State vs. Sensing. As to issue (1), we hold that, absent a motorist's express refusal, consent to a breath test is deemed voluntary as a matter of law. With reference to issue (2), the improper administration of the breath test, we find this issue waived because it was not included in the appellant's motion for new trial. Tenn. R. App. P. 3(e). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment entered by the trial court.
Davidson
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Damon Theodore Marsh M1999-01879-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: W. Charles Lee
Defendant, Damon Theodore Marsh, appeals his conviction for second degree murder, for which he received a sentence of 23 years and 6 months. On appeal, the defendant raises the issue of sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction. We conclude that the issue raised by the defendant in this appeal is without merit. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Bedford
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Douglas Canady M1999-02135-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: Timothy L. Easter
Defendant, Douglas Canady, appeals his conviction for aggravated robbery, for which he received a sentence of ten years in the Department of Correction. The sole issue in this appeal is whether the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict. Finding the evidence sufficient, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Hickman
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Richard Allan Frye E1999-01564-CCA-R9-RL
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Trial Court Judge: Phyllis H. Miller
This appeal arises from the order of the Sullivan County Criminal Court upholding the district attorney general's refusal to accept the application of the defendant for pretrial diversion. The defendant asserts that the trial court erred in failing to determine that the district attorney general abused his discretion by relying on facts not supported by the evidence and by failing to consider all relevant factors. We conclude that substantial evidence was before the district attorney general to support the validity of each of the four factors relied on in denying pretrial diversion and that the district attorney general considered all relevant factors. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Sullivan
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Joy A. Stinson E1999-02082-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Trial Court Judge: James B. Scott, Jr.
The defendant was convicted of one count of theft of property over $1,000 for her unauthorized charge of items at a retail store to her former employer's account. The trial court sentenced her to four years imprisonment, with three years suspended. On appeal, the defendant presents the issues of whether the trial court erred in allowing the State to introduce the testimony of an alibi rebuttal witness whom the State did not identify as a witness prior to trial, and in allowing the State to present evidence which she alleges tied her to an uncharged crime. Based upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Anderson
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Raymond Jackson Collins E1999-00233-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge John Everett Williams
Trial Court Judge: R. Jerry Beck
The defendant appeals from his conviction of, and four-year sentence for, violation of a habitual traffic offender order, failure to stop for a red light, and violation of the seat belt law. He asserts that insufficient evidence supported the verdict, that the imposed sentence was excessive, and that the trial court improperly denied alternative sentencing. We affirm the convictions and sentence, holding that sufficient evidence supported the verdict and that the trial court properly sentenced the defendant.
Sullivan
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Chris Wilson a/k/a Calvin Clark M1998-00395-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Trial Court Judge: John H. Gasaway, III
Following a "best interest" plea to one count of aggravated burglary, the appellant was sentenced to a term of five years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he challenges (1) the length of the sentence and (2) the imposition of a sentence of total confinement. After review, we affirm.
Montgomery
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Bernard K. Johnson E2000-00009-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge J. Curwood Witt, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Ray L. Jenkins
The defendant appeals to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions of sexual battery and aggravated kidnapping and the propriety of the felony sentences imposed by the trial court. We affirm the convictions, but upon notice of plain error, we reverse a misdemeanor conviction of aggravated criminal trespass. Finding the misapplication of some enhancement factors, we modify some of the sentences.
Knox
Court of Criminal Appeals
State sv. Marcus Anthony Parram E2000-00581-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: James B. Scott, Jr.
The defendant appeals his convictions for aggravated robbery and aggravated burglary, contending that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions, that the trial court erred in allowing hearsay statements into evidence, and that the trial court erred in allowing evidence of a prior robbery committed by the defendant. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.
Anderson
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. William Terrell Hampton E2000-00582-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: Carroll L. Ross
The defendant appeals his conviction for aggravated sexual battery, contending that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction, the trial court erred in admitting evidence of a fresh complaint, and the trial court erred in imposing a nine-year sentence. We affirm the defendant's conviction and sentence.
Bradley
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Frankie Lee Lunsford E2000-00642-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge J. Curwood Witt, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: R. Jerry Beck
The defendant appeals from his sentences imposed in the Sullivan County Criminal Court for three counts of contributing to the unruliness of a minor, a Class A misdemeanor; one count of inhaling paint, a Class A misdemeanor; one count of public intoxication, a Class C misdemeanor; one count of giving paint to another for unlawful purposes, a Class E felony; and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court imposed a sentence of two years on the felony conviction to be served in the Department of Correction, with the misdemeanor sentences running concurrently to the felony and to each other. In this direct appeal, the defendant challenges the denial of probation or alternative sentencing. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Sullivan
Court of Criminal Appeals
Bobby Lee Tate vs. State E2000-00796-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge J. Curwood Witt, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Ray L. Jenkins
The petitioner appeals the trial court's denial of his "Motion to Vacate Judgment." Even though we treat the motion as a petition for habeas corpus relief and countenance the appeal via Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(b), the record supports the trial court's determination that the factual allegations of improper or invalid judgments are unfounded. Thus, the trial court's denial of the motion or petition is affirmed.
Knox
Court of Criminal Appeals
Michael E. Christian vs. State E2000-00922-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: R. Jerry Beck
The petitioner, Michael E. Christian, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. He contends that he did not voluntarily enter his guilty pleas because he was experiencing panic attacks and confusion, which was a side effect of his medication, at the time he entered the pleas. He also claims that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorneys did not investigate the effects of his medication on his competency and scared him into pleading guilty. We affirm the trial court's denial of the petition.
Sullivan
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Kimberly Greene E1999-02200-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge J. Curwood Witt, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: D. Kelly Thomas, Jr.
The defendant appeals from her Blount County Circuit Court conviction and sentence for criminal responsibility for rape of a child, a Class A felony. The trial court sentenced the defendant as a child rapist to 25 years incarceration in the Department of Correction. In this direct appeal, the defendant complains that the videotaped statement she made in response to questioning at the police station should have been suppressed; that the videotaped statement contained inadmissible references to uncharged misconduct; that the cautionary instruction about the evidentiary value of the videotaped statement was inadequate; that her sentence is excessive; and that she should have been sentenced as a Range I, standard offender with a 30 percent release eligibility date. We affirm the defendant's conviction and sentence.
Blount
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Joshua Webster E1999-02203-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge J. Curwood Witt, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: D. Kelly Thomas, Jr.
The defendant appeals the trial court's denial of probation or split confinement as the manner of serving his eight-year rape sentence. Because the record supports the trial court's imposition of an incarcerative sentence, we affirm.
State vs. Tracy L. Fry E1999-02758-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry Smith
Trial Court Judge: Lynn W. Brown
Tracy Fry, the Defendant and Appellant, pled guilty to driving under the influence, second offense. With the State's and trial court's agreement, however, she specifically reserved the right to appeal a dispositive question of law pursuant to Tenn. R. Crim. P. 37(b)(2)(1). The issue reserved for review is whether Officer Kyte "had reasonable suspicion based on specific and articulable facts, to approach and subsequently seize the defendant leading to the arrest of the defendant." We conclude that the initial encounter between Officer Kyte and the Defendant was not a seizure, that the encounter provided reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify an investigatory detention of the Defendant, and that sufficient probable cause to arrest the Defendant developed during the course of the brief investigatory detention. Thus, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Washington
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Bruce Adams E2000-00298-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge J. Curwood Witt, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: D. Kelly Thomas, Jr.
The defendant, Bruce Adams, appeals his convictions of resisting arrest and disorderly conduct and the manner of service of his effective six-month sentence. The trial court ordered ten days of confinement and probated the balance of the sentence. The resisting arrest conviction is supported by sufficient evidence, and we affirm that conviction and the sentence, including the confinement term. However, because we find insufficient evidence to support the disorderly conduct conviction, we reverse it and dismiss that charge.
Blount
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. James E. Harman, Jr. E2000-00437-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry Smith
Trial Court Judge: R. Jerry Beck
In October of 1999, the defendant pled guilty to one count of theft over one-thousand dollars ($1,000.00) and one count of possession of less than .5 ounces of marijuana. His plea form indicated that he agreed to receive concurrent sentences of five and one-half years as a Range II, multiple offender for the former offense and eleven months and twenty-nine days for the latter. Subsequently, the trial court conducted a hearing to determine the manner in which these sentences were to be served. At the conclusion of such hearing, the trial court denied the defendant any form of alternative sentencing, and it is this denial that the defendant contests through his appeal. However, after having reviewed the record and applicable authorities, we find this contention to be without merit and, therefore, affirm the trial court's sentence.
Sullivan
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. James E. Harman, Jr. E2000-00437-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry Smith
Trial Court Judge: R. Jerry Beck
In October of 1999, the defendant pled guilty to one count of theft over one-thousand dollars ($1,000.00) and one count of possession of less than .5 ounces of marijuana. His plea form indicated that he agreed to receive concurrent sentences of five and one-half years as a Range II, multiple offender for the former offense and eleven months and twenty-nine days for the latter. Subsequently, the trial court conducted a hearing to determine the manner in which these sentences were to be served. At the conclusion of such hearing, the trial court denied the defendant any form of alternative sentencing, and it is this denial that the defendant contests through his appeal. However, after having reviewed the record and applicable authorities, we find this contention to be without merit and, therefore, affirm the trial court's sentence.
Sullivan
Court of Criminal Appeals
John E. Carter vs. Howard Carlton E2000-00406-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge J. Curwood Witt, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Robert E. Cupp
John E. Carter seeks the writ of habeas corpus. He claims that he is entitled to immediate release from his two 1981 convictions for the first degree murder of his grandparents. Carter alleges that he is being illegally restrained because he had inadequate notice of the charges against him, because the trial court excluded relevant evidence at his trial, and because the jury instructions given at his trial were flawed. We agree with the court below that these issues do not entitle Carter to issuance of the writ of habeas corpus. Accordingly, we affirm the lower court's dismissal of the petition.
Johnson
Court of Criminal Appeals
Michael Bailey vs. State E2000-00432-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry Smith
Trial Court Judge: R. Jerry Beck
A Sullivan County jury convicted the petitioner of one count of second degree murder involving the death of his son. For this offense the petitioner received a sentence of twenty years as a Range I, standard offender, and a $50,000 fine. He unsuccessfully brought a direct appeal challenging both his conviction and sentence. Subsequently, he filed a pro se post-conviction petition and was appointed counsel from the public defender's office. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court took this matter under advisement and later issued a detailed order dismissing the petition. Thereafter, the petitioner requested that his appointed attorney withdraw from the case and that he be allowed to bring his appeal pro se. The trial court granted this motion, and the petitioner now brings this appeal raising three issues. More specifically, he asserts that (1) the jury instructions, when viewed overall, effectively denied him "a fair trial and a reliable verdict;" (2) the State engaged in misconduct and denied him a fair trial by withholding exculpatory material; and (3) the prosecuting officer made the result of the petitioner's trial unreliable because the officer perjured himself. After reviewing these issues, we find that all have been waived and/or lack merit. We, therefore, affirm the trial court's denial of post-conviction relief.
Sullivan
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Ricky Lee Netherton E2000-01016-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: Lillie Ann Sells
The defendant appeals his conviction for especially aggravated robbery, contesting the validity of the indictment and the length of his sentence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Cumberland
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Steve Jackson E1999-02013-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry Smith
Trial Court Judge: Mary Beth Leibowitz
A Knox County jury convicted the defendant of aggravated burglary. For this offense the trial court sentenced him to twelve years as a Range III, persistent offender. Through the instant appeal the defendant challenges both the validity of his convictions and his sentence. More specifically, he alleges that the evidence is insufficient to support the jury's verdict of guilty; that the trial court did not appropriately carry out its role as the thirteenth juror; that the copies of prior convictions used to enhance his sentence were not properly certified; and that one of these prior convictions from another state should not have been utilized in sentencing because the State failed to prove that the offense would have been a crime in Tennessee. After reviewing the record, we find that these claims lack merit and, therefore, affirm the lower court's actions.
Knox
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Charles Arnold Ballinger E2000-01339-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry Smith
Trial Court Judge: R. Steven Bebb
On October 14, 1998, a Bradley County Grand Jury indicted Charles Ballinger, the defendant and appellant, for statutory rape and contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Following a jury trial, the defendant was convicted on both counts. The court sentenced the defendant to serve two years for statutory rape concurrently with eleven months and twenty-nine days for contributing to the delinquency of a minor. On appeal, the defendant claims (1) that the evidence was insufficient to support a statutory rape conviction, (2) that the trial court should have suppressed a tape recording of a telephone conversation, (3) that the defendant's sentence was excessive, and (4) that the trial court should have instructed the jury to consider mistake of fact as a defense. Because we find that statutory rape requires proof of at least a "recklessness" mens rea and that the trial court should have instructed the jury to consider mistake of fact as a defense to statutory rape, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this case for a new trial.