COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OPINIONS

State of Tennessee v. Aaron McFarland
W1999-01410-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Trial Court Judge: Judge Arthur T. Bennett

The defendant was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life with the possibility of parole. On appeal, he has presented as issues that the trial court should have suppressed his confession and that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction. Based upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Kelly Anne Newmon
W1999-01497-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Trial Court Judge: Judge Lee Moore

This appeal arises from a guilty verdict returned by a Carroll County jury against the defendant for two counts of delivering less than 0.5 grams of cocaine. On appeal, the defendant challenges her convictions on the basis that the introduction of evidence bolstering the informant's testimony was plain error, and the evidence was not sufficient to support the verdict. After a careful review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Sherman Dunlap
M1999-00325-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: Judge John W. Rollins

Sherman Dunlap appeals his sentence after pleading guilty in the Coffee County Circuit Court to facilitation of theft over $10,000, a class D felony. The trial court sentenced the appellant, as a Range II multiple offender, to four years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction, requiring the appellant to serve one year of his sentence in continuous confinement. On appeal, the appellant presents the following issue for review: whether the trial court erred in denying him full probation or, in the alternative, in denying him an opportunity to serve his sentence in periodic confinement. Following a review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Sherman Dunlap - Concurring
M1999-00325-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry L. Smith
Trial Court Judge: John W. Rollins

While I concur fully in the judgment of the Court denying the appellant full probation, I do so because the record reflects the appellant has received probation for a number of previous offenses, but has yet to be rehabilitated. Thus, “measures less restrictive than confinement have frequently or recently been applied unsuccessfully to the [appellant].” See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-35-103(c).  This reason alone amply justifies the denial of probation in this case.

State of Tennessee v. Kenneth D. Melton
M1999-01248-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: Judge Jane W. Wheatcraft

The appellant, Kenneth D. Melton, was convicted by a jury in the Sumner County Criminal Court of disorderly conduct, a class C misdemeanor. The trial court imposed a sentence of thirty days incarceration in the Sumner County Jail. The court then suspended all but five days of the appellant's sentence, placing the appellant on unsupervised probation for the remainder. On appeal, the appellant presents the following issues: (1) whether the indictment provided adequate notice to the appellant of the charged offense; and (2) whether the evidence adduced at trial supports his conviction of disorderly conduct. Following a review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Ricky Raymond Bryan
M1999-00854-CCA-R9-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge John Everett Williams
Trial Court Judge: Judge James K. Clayton, Jr.

The defendant, facing a third trial for first degree murder, has filed this interlocutory appeal. The defendant alleges that the trial court erred in disqualifying his counsel because of an appearance of impropriety. We affirm.

State of Tennessee vs. James A. Shively
M1999-01072-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge John Everett Williams
Trial Court Judge: Judge Henry Denmark Bell

Having pled guilty to various counts of aggravated burglary, robbery, auto theft, and theft, the defendant appeals from his sentences. He argues that the trial court improperly imposed consecutive sentences and that his effective twelve-year sentence is therefore excessive. After a de novo review, we affirm the sentences as imposed.

State of Tennessee vs. David Lee and Treva Lee
M1999-02471-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Trial Court Judge: Judge Leonard W. Martin

In this appeal, defendants challenge the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. The defendants were convicted by a Dickson County jury of criminal trespass and fined $50. Upon a review of the record, we find the evidence is sufficient to sustain the convictions. Thus, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

State of Tennessee v. David Alan Hurst
W1999-01860-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Trial Court Judge: Judge John Franklin Murchison

The defendant appeals his convictions for two counts of aggravated assault and two counts of simple assault and the consecutive five-year sentences imposed for the aggravated assaults. The defendant raises the following issues in this appeal: 1) whether evidence presented at trial was sufficient to sustain the guilty verdicts, and 2) whether the trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences for the two aggravated assault convictions. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Henry Lee Berry
E1999-00704-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Trial Court Judge: Judge Richard R. Baumgartner

Henry Lee Berry appeals his Knox County conviction for second degree murder. Berry contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction; (2) the trial court erroneously admitted into evidence two recorded 911 telephone calls and an order of protection entered against the appellant by the victim; and (3) the trial court erred by failing to grant a mistrial when evidence of a pending rape charge in Nashville was introduced before the jury. Additionally, the appellant urges adoption of DNA testing on decomposed bodies to positively establish the identity of the victim. Although we conclude that admission of the 911 telephone calls and the order of protection was error, the error was harmless. Moreover, finding no other reversible error of law, we affirm the judgment of conviction entered by the trial court.

State of Tennessee vs. James T. Cooper
M1999-01132-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge John Everett Williams
Trial Court Judge: Judge Stella L. Hargrove

The defendant appeals the trial court's revocation of his probation, based on his failing a drug screen and his delinquency in paying court costs. We hold that the record is insufficient to support the trial court's finding of delinquent payments. However, the failing of the drug screen served as a sufficient basis for the revocation. We affirm the trial court's order. .

Donna Jean Sexton v. State of Tennessee
E1999-02226-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: Lynn W. Brown

State vs. Lester Douglas Giles
E1999-02236-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Trial Court Judge: Carroll L. Ross
On June 21, 1999, the defendant pled guilty in the Monroe County Criminal Court to attempted rape and was sentenced to four years as a Range I standard offender. The sentence was suspended, and he was placed on probation. On July 6, 1999, a probation violation was issued, alleging that the defendant had violated his probation by having contact with the victim's family. Following a hearing on August 16, 1999, the trial court ruled that the defendant had violated the terms of his probation, a ruling which the defendant timely appealed. Based upon our review, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and reinstate the defendant's probation.

State vs. Carl Couch
W1999-00645-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: C. Creed Mcginley
The defendant appeals his split sentence of 60 days confinement plus 1 year and 4 months of probation for the offense of reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon. The defendant contends in this appeal that the trial court erred in denying him total probation. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State vs. Robin Vanhoose
W1999-00708-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: C. Creed Mcginley
The defendant was convicted by a Hardin County jury of aggravated assault and received an eight-year sentence as a Range II multiple offender. He now appeals his conviction alleging (1) the indictment does not state an offense; and (2) the evidence is insufficient to support aggravated assault. We conclude the indictment adequately informed the defendant of the offense charged, and the evidence presented at trial was sufficient for the jury to conclude he was guilty of aggravated assault. Thus, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

State vs. Selina Harrelson
W1999-00521-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: C. Creed Mcginley
The defendant, Selina G. Harrelson, was convicted of possession of one-half gram or more of cocaine with intent to sell. She contends that the officer did not have probable cause to search the truck with the drug detection dog; that the evidence is insufficient to show that she possessed crack cocaine; and that the trial court should have imposed a sentence alternative to incarceration. We hold that the defendant lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in the truck to contest the search and that, in any event, the officer had probable cause. We hold that the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction and that the trial court properly sentenced the defendant to incarceration. We affirm the judgment of conviction.

State vs. Bobby Perkins
W1999-01368-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: J. Steven Stafford
The defendant, Bobby Earl Perkins, appeals his conviction for especially aggravated robbery, contending that the trial court erred (1) by allowing a witness to testify about the defendant's statement a year before the robbery that he planned to rob the victim, (2) by allowing a police officer to testify to statements the victim made regarding the defendant, and (3) by sentencing the defendant to twenty-one years. We affirm the conviction, but we modify the sentence to twenty years.

Roger Harris vs. State
E1999-02056-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge John Everett Williams
Trial Court Judge: Lynn W. Brown
The petitioner, convicted of first degree murder and reckless endangerment, filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief in March 1995. The petition was amended several times, first by the petitioner, then by the public defender, and ultimately by private counsel. The trial court summarily dismissed the petition by order because it was not "verified by any oath or affirmation." We reverse and remand, holding that the original petition was filed under a statute that did not require verification by oath or affirmation and, in the alternative, that the affirmation executed by the private counsel is sufficient under the current law.

Rodney Buford vs. State
M1999-00487-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Gary R Wade
Trial Court Judge: Timothy L. Easter
The petitioner, Rodney Buford, is serving an effective sentence of life plus twenty years. His petition for habeas corpus relief was properly dismissed by the trial court because the judgment is not facially invalid and the sentence has not been served.

State vs. Edward T. Flye
M1999-01183-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Gary R Wade
The defendant, Edward T. Flye, challenges the sufficiency of the evidence used to convict him of aggravated burglary and evading arrest. Because the evidence is adequate to support the convictions, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

George Todd vs. State
M1999-00976-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: L. Craig Johnson
The Defendant appeals from the trial court's dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. The trial court found that the petition was barred by the statute of limitations. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

George Todd vs. State
M1999-00976-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: L. Craig Johnson

The Defendant appeals from the trial court's dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. The trial court found that the petition was barred by the statute of limitations. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State vs. John Wayne Gray
M1999-01615-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: Buddy D. Perry
The Defendant, John Wayne Gray, appeals as of right from his conviction of the sale of a schedule II controlled substance. On appeal, he argues (1) that the trial court erred by failing to grant his motion for acquittal or directed verdict because the State failed to establish circumstances and facts that would provide for a reasonable assurance of the identity of the evidence and because the State failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody; (2) that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to support the jury verdict; and (3) that the trial court erred in sentencing the Defendant to a mid-range sentence as a Range III offender. We find no error. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State vs. Daniel Joe James
M1999-1423-CCA-R3-CD
Trial Court Judge: Buddy D. Perry
On September 9, 1998, the Defendant, Daniel Joe James, was charged with possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. The Defendant was convicted by a jury of simple possession of a controlled substance. He received a sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days probation and was fined $2,500.00. The Defendant now challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. On appeal, the State has conceded that the evidence is insufficient to support a conviction. After a careful examination of the record, we agree that there is insufficient evidence against the Defendant to support a conviction. Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.

William Lavern Davis vs. State
M2000-00341-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge John Everett Williams
Trial Court Judge: William Charles Lee
The petitioner argues that in finding that his trial counsel was not ineffective and denying his post-conviction petition, the petitioner appeals from the trial court's denial of his post-conviction petition. He argues that the trial court erred by finding that his trial counsel was not ineffective. The trial court's order is affirmed.