State of Tennessee v. Chad Ray Thompson
Chad Ray Thompson (“the Defendant”) was indicted by the Warren County Grand Jury for one count of first degree premeditated murder, one count of first degree felony murder, and one count of especially aggravated robbery in connection with the death of his cousin, Tracy Allen Martin (“the victim”). Following a jury trial, the Defendant was convicted of first degree premeditated murder, first degree felony murder, and facilitation of especially aggravated robbery. On appeal, the Defendant argues that there was insufficient evidence to show premeditation for his first degree premeditated murder conviction and that there was insufficient evidence to prove the underlying felony of especially aggravated robbery for his first degree felony murder conviction. Upon review, we conclude that the Defendant is not entitled to relief. Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed. |
Warren | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
William Phillips, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, William Phillips, Jr., appeals the dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus/motion for Rule 36.1 correction of an illegal sentence, arguing that the trial court imposed an illegal sentence in violation of Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) by altering the sentence in his negotiated plea agreement, which the trial court accepted prior to the sentencing hearing. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the habeas court dismissing the petition. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Michael D. Ellington v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Michael D. Ellington, appeals the post-conviction court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his premeditated first degree murder conviction. On appeal, he argues that the post-conviction court erred in denying relief because the State either committed prosecutorial misconduct or he received ineffective assistance of counsel. After review, we affirm the denial of the petition. |
Monroe | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Mario Cruz Estrada
The defendant, Mario Cruz Estrada, was convicted of attempted second degree murder for which he received a sentence of twelve years in confinement. The defendant appeals his conviction challenging the trial court’s denial of his request for a jury instruction on the defenses of self-defense and defense of another and the admission of certain evidence. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Lawrence | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Alvin Waller, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Alvin “A.J.” Waller, Jr., appeals the denial of post-conviction relief for his convictions of especially aggravated kidnapping and aggravated assault. On appeal, he argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. After review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. April Lamb
The defendant, April Lamb, appeals her Rutherford County Circuit Court jury conviction of aggravated assault, claiming that the evidence was insufficient to sustain her conviction and that the trial court erred by admitting certain evidence. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Lamont Johnson v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Lamont Johnson, appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition, arguing the post-conviction court erred in finding he received effective assistance of counsel at trial. After our review of the record, briefs, and applicable law, we affirm the denial of the petition. |
Gibson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Gregory L. Allen a/k/a Michael Taylor
The defendant, Gregory L. Allen a.k.a. Michael Taylor, appeals as of right from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 motion to correct an illegal sentence. The defendant contends that the trial court erred in concluding that Rule 36.1 relief was not available because the alleged illegal sentence expired prior to the filing of the motion. Following our review, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s Rule 36.1 motion. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Christopher Cunningham v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Christopher Cunningham, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. He argues the post-conviction court erred in finding he received effective assistance of counsel at trial and on direct appeal. The petitioner also asserts his convictions for aggravated robbery violate double jeopardy. Following our review of the record, briefs, and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Nicole Pamblanco
Following a jury trial, the Defendant, Nicole Pamblanco, was convicted of aggravated child neglect and criminally negligent homicide. She now appeals as of right, challenging (1) the sufficiency of the evidence by claiming that the State failed to establish the requisite mental state of knowing for her aggravated child neglect conviction and (2) the trial court’s erroneous instruction to the jury during voir dire that, if she were found guilty on both counts, those counts would merge. Following our review, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support her aggravated child neglect conviction and that the jury instruction error was harmless. Therefore, the trial court’s judgments are affirmed. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Willie Lee Hughes, Jr.
The defendant, Willie Lee Hughes, Jr., appeals both his Williamson County Circuit Court jury conviction of aggravated robbery and his guilty-pleaded conviction of failure to appear, claiming that the trial court erred by failing to exclude his statements to law enforcement officers on the basis that the statements were made during the course of plea negotiations and that the trial court erred by classifying him as a persistent offender. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Roosevelt Bigbee, Jr. v. Cherry Lindamood, Warden
The Petitioner, Roosevelt Bigbee, Jr., appeals the dismissal of his habeas corpus petition in which he challenged the legality of his convictions for first degree murder and robbery and his sentences of life for the murder conviction and eleven years for the robbery conviction, to be served consecutively. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the petition was properly dismissed, and we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court. |
Wayne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Darien B. Clay v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Darien B. Clay, appeals from the Hamilton County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his guilty plea convictions for aggravated robbery, attempted aggravated robbery, two counts of theft of property valued at $1,000 or more but less than $10,000, theft of property valued at $10,000 or more but less than $60,000, aggravated burglary, burglary of a business, and statutory rape, for which he received an effective thirteen-year sentence. On appeal, he contends that the post-conviction court erred in denying relief on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim and that the court erred in determining that the Petitioner’s guilty plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Bruce Mendenhall v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Bruce Mendenhall, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions of three counts of solicitation to commit first degree premeditated murder and resulting effective thirty-year sentence. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that he received the ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
David Chardwick Wooten v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, David Chardwick Wooten, appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief in which he alleged ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. More specifically he contends that trial counsel failed to present favorable evidence and witnesses on his behalf at trial. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jessica Marie Myers vs. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Jessica Marie Myers, appeals from the Greene County Criminal Court’s denial of her petition for post-conviction relief from her convictions for first degree murder and reckless endangerment, for which she is serving an effective life sentence. The Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred in denying relief on her ineffective assistance of counsel claims. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Greene | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Deshun Hampton, Matthew Tyler and Devonta Hampton aka Devonta Taylor
This case represents the consolidated appeals of Defendants Deshun Hampton, Matthew Tyler, and Devonta Hampton. The three Defendants, having entered open guilty pleas to various felonies, challenge only the trial court‘s sentencing decisions, including its decision to impose partially consecutive sentences. The trial court sentenced Mr. Tyler to an aggregate sentence of sixty-six years, Mr. Deshun Hampton to an aggregate sentence of fifty-five years, and Mr. Devonta Hampton to an aggregate sentence of thirty-two years. Mr. Deshun Hampton and Mr. Tyler, who were between fifteen and sixteen years old at the time of the crimes, assert that their sentences amount to de facto life sentences and are therefore in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. They also challenge the application of certain enhancement and mitigating factors. All three Defendants challenge the trial court‘s sentencing decisions, asserting that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing partially consecutive sentences. We conclude that the sentences at issue, while lengthy, allow for a meaningful opportunity for release and do not run afoul of the Eighth Amendment, and we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Benjamin K. Fowler v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Benjamin K. Fowler, appeals from the Knox County Criminal Court’s summary denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred in summarily denying his petition for being untimely filed because, he alleges that, he delivered a petition to the appropriate prison officials for mailing to the court clerk within the statute of limitations, but the prison officials failed to mail the petition. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Prentis Lee
The Defendant, Prentis Lee, appeals his convictions for two counts of rape and his resulting ten-year sentence. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his statement to police officers; (2) the failure to preserve a record of the preliminary hearing mandated dismissal of the charges or a new preliminary hearing; (3) the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions; (4) the trial court erred in limiting defense counsel's cross-examination of various witnesses; (5) the trial court erred in admitting victim impact evidence; (6) the trial court erred in allowing the State to present rebuttal witnesses who remained in the courtroom during the trial; (7) the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on assault as a lesser-included offense of rape; (8) his sentence is excessive; and (9) the cumulative effect of the errors requires a new trial. Based upon our review of the record, the parties' briefs, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Charvasea Rodshun Lancaster
Defendant, Charvasea Rodshun Lancaster, appeals his sentences in 11 separate convictions under two case numbers. Defendant entered open guilty pleas in case number 14-191 to one count of burglary and five counts of theft of property in various amounts. In case number 14-193, Defendant entered open guilty pleas to two counts of theft, two counts of vehicle burglary, and one count of aggravated burglary. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a total effective sentence of ten years in case 14-191 and an effective sentence of 12 years in case 14-193 and ordered the sentences be served consecutively, for a total effective sentence of 22 years. Defendant contends that the trial court erred by imposing partial consecutive sentencing. Having reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Luis Guillen v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Luis Guillen, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions of one count of aggravated rape and three counts of aggravated kidnapping and resulting effective thirty-five-year sentence. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. Based upon the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Daniel Muhammad v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Daniel Muhammad, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief in which he challenged his conviction of facilitation of aggravated arson and his sentence of twelve years in prison. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that he was denied his right to the effective assistance of counsel. We affirm the post-conviction court‘s denial of relief. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Charlie A. Clark v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Charles Anderson Clark, appeals from the post-conviction court’s denial of his post-conviction petition for relief. Petitioner alleges that the post-conviction court erred by not considering all of the proof presented in regard to the racial makeup of the jury. Petitioner further contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel due to his trial counsel’s failure to locate certain individuals to serve as witnesses. After review, we conclude that Petitioner has failed to establish that he is entitled to post-conviction relief, and affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Henderson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Michael Deon Mills v. State of Tennessee
Michael Deon Mills (“the Petitioner”) was convicted of two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, one count of especially aggravated robbery, and one count of aggravated burglary by a Knox County jury. The trial court sentenced the Petitioner to an effective sentence of twenty-five years with release eligibility after service of 100% of the sentence in the Department of Correction. On appeal, this court affirmed the Petitioner's convictions. The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which the post-conviction court denied. The Petitioner argues on appeal that trial counsel's performance was deficient and that he was prejudiced by the ineffective assistance of trial counsel. On appeal, we affirm the post-conviction court's denial of relief to the Petitioner. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Michael Ferrell
The Defendant, Christopher Michael Ferrell, was convicted by a jury of second degree murder, a Class A felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-210. The trial court imposed a sentence of twenty years’ incarceration to be served at one hundred percent. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends (1) that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction, specifically arguing that he should have been acquitted for acting in self-defense or convicted instead of voluntary manslaughter; (2) that the trial court erred in denying his request for a special jury instruction regarding the State’s failure to preserve evidence; (3) that the trial court committed several errors when instructing the jury on self-defense; (4) that the trial court abused its discretion in setting the length of his sentence; and (5) that he is entitled to a new trial based upon cumulative error. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals |
