James Edward Bostic, Jr., a.k.a. James Edward Dalton v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, James Edward Bostic, Jr., appeals from the trial court’s summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. The record reflects that on February 7, 2007, Petitioner pled guilty in the Criminal Court of Davidson County to aggravated burglary, a Class C felony, and received a sentence of seven years and six months as a Range II offender pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. The trial court ordered the sentence to be served in community corrections, and judgment was entered June 26, 2007. On August 7, 2009, the trial court entered an order which revoked the community corrections sentence and ordered the original sentence of seven years and six months to be served by incarceration. Petitioner filed his pro se petition for post-conviction relief on November 30, 2009. The petition alleged as grounds for relief that the conviction was based on an unlawfully induced guilty plea and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The factual allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel pertained to representation atthe communitycorrections revocationproceedings. On January 5, 2010, the trial court dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing or appointing counsel, on the basis that the petition was barred by the one year statute of limitations for post-conviction proceedings found in Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-30-102(a). In light of, and based upon the court’s holding in Carpenter v. State, 136 S.W.3d 608 (Tenn. 2004)and AnthonyL.Grant,Jr.v.State,No.M2007-00052-CCA-R3-PC,2008 WL 4169985 (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 8, 2008), no perm. app. filed, we affirm the trial court’s order insofar as it dismissed the post-conviction petition as to the original conviction. However, as to the petitioner’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in the communitycorrections revocation proceedings, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for further proceedings. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Donald R. Jett v. State of Tennessee
The pro se petitioner, Donald R. Jett, appeals the Bedford County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief attacking his 2006 guilty-pleaded conviction of aggravated sexual battery for which he received a sentence of 12 years’ incarceration to be served at 100 percent. On appeal, the petitioner argues that due process concerns require the tolling of the statute of limitations and that the post-conviction court denied him a full and fair hearing to address his claims. Discerning no error, we affirm the order of the post-conviction court |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Karen E. Carpenter
Following a jury trial, the Defendant, Karen E. Carpenter, was convicted of facilitation of the anufacture of .5 grams or more of methamphetamine, a Class C felony, and facilitation of felony possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor. See §§ 39-11-403, -17417, -17-425. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends (1) that the trial court erred by failing to, sua sponte, declare a mistrial after a witness mentioned the Defendant’s prior criminal charges; (2) that the jury instruction given by the trial court regarding the witness’ testimony was not “adequate;” and (3) that prosecutorial misconduct during the opening and closing statements denied her a fair trial. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Grainger | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Anna M. Steward
The defendant, Anna M. Steward, pleaded guilty as a Range II, multiple offender to robbery, a Class C felony. See T.C.A. § 39-13-401 (2006). The plea agreement called for a six-year sentence, with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. The trial court ordered the defendant to serve her sentence in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court erred by imposing a sentence of full confinement. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Cocke | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Bob J. Spivey and Misty Buckner
The State appeals from the Dyer County Circuit Court’s dismissal of two indictments charging the Defendant-Appellees, Bob J. Spivey and Misty Buckner, with possession with intent to sell or deliver more than 0.5 grams of a Schedule II controlled substance, a Class B felony. Both defendants moved to suppress evidence obtained during a police search of the Buckner home. The trial court granted these motions upon finding that the search warrant inadequately described the property to be searched, and the charges against Spivey and Buckner were dismissed. In this appeal, the State claims that the trial court erred by granting the motions to suppress. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Anna M. Steward - Concurring
I concur in the results reached in the majority opinion. However, I would affirm the trial court because of the Defendant’s failure to include the guilty plea hearing transcript in the record and the attendant presumption that the trial court’s determinations were correct. See State v. Oody, 823 S.W.2d 554 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991) (holding trial court’s ruling presumed correct in the absence of an adequate record on appeal). |
Cocke | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Shawn Dale Ownby
A Sevier County jury convicted the Defendant, Shawn Dale Ownby, of driving under the influence (“DUI”) and violation of the implied consent law, and the trial court sentenced him to eleven months and twenty-nine days in jail and revoked his licence. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his DUI conviction. After a thorough review of the record and relevant authorities, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. |
Sevier | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Anthony Holman
Defendant, Christopher Anthony Holman, appeals from the Montgomery County Circuit Court’s sentencing of him on multiple felonies following entry of “open” guilty pleas. Defendant does not challenge the length of the sentences imposed by the trial court, and does not contest the trial court’s order of partial consecutive sentencing. The sole issue on appeal is Defendant’s assertion that the order of service by incarceration of the effective sentence of twenty-two years is error. He argues that he “should be resentenced with the opportunity to enter a drug rehab [sic] program that accepts sex offenders.” After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Susan Renee Bise
The defendant, Susan Renee Bise, was convicted by a Greene County Criminal Court jury of facilitation of aggravated burglary and two counts of theft of property in an amount greater than $1000 but less than $10,000, all Class D felonies, and was sentenced to an effective term of three years as a Range I offender. On appeal, she challenges the sufficiency of the evidence of her theft convictions and the sentence imposed by the trial court. After review, we affirm the defendant’s convictions, but we conclude that the trial court inappropriately enhanced the defendant’s sentences. Therefore, we modify the defendant’s sentences to the minimum in the range of two years. |
Greene | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Susan Renee Bise - Concurring/Dissenting
I concur with the majority opinion in affirming the convictions. I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion’s conclusion that the effective sentence must be modified to the minimum sentence of two years, based upon the majority’s conclusion that the one enhancement factor found by the trial court was inappropriately applied. I do agree that the enhancement factor was inappropriately applied. I conclude, however, that in order for our sentencing scheme to be in full compliance with the United States Supreme Court’s holding in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 1245 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), and that case’s progeny, we cannot reduce an enhanced sentence imposed by a trial court which is within the appropriate range, for the sole reason that no statutory enhancement factors are applicable. |
Greene | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Susan Renee Bise - Concurring
Judge Glenn, Judge Woodall, and I all agree that the trial court inappropriately applied a single enhancement factor when considering the defendant’s sentence. I write separately because each of us has different opinions as to what process should be used in determining the end result in circumstances in which the trial court inappropriately applied a single enhancing factor. Because I believe the trial judge is “closer to the case,” I would prefer to remand this case to the trial court for resentencing. I do not have that option as a result of my other two colleagues’ decisions. Therefore, with the trial court not having a presumption of correctness, I have reviewed the case de novo and, after giving consideration to the principles of sentencing, have concluded that the defendant’s appropriate sentence is two years. The result that I reached is the same reached by Judge Glenn’s opinion announcing the decision of the court. However, I think Judge Woodall has expressed appropriate concerns about the language contained in that opinion. |
Greene | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Wayne Lamar Donaldson, Jr.
In an indictment returned by the Davidson County Grand Jury, Defendant Wayne Lamar Donaldson, Jr., was charged with possession of, with intent to sell or deliver, twenty-six grams or more of a substance containing cocaine within a drug-free school zone. The drugs were seized after a traffic violation stop of Defendant by an officer of the Metropolitan Davidson County Police Department. Defendant filed a motion to suppress all evidence seized during the stop. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court entered an order which granted the motion,and subsequently entered an order dismissing the indictment based upon the State’s acknowledgment that it could not proceed to trial without the evidence. The State has appealed. Based upon the finding of facts made by the trial court and the application of the law to those facts, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Larry Wayne Webb
The Defendant, Larry Wayne Webb, pled guilty to possession with intent to sell twenty-six grams or more of cocaine, a Class B felony, and to possession of marijuana, a Class A misdemeanor. See T.C.A. §§ 39-17-417 (2010); 39-17-418 (2010). He was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to nine years for the possession with intent to sell conviction and to eleven months, twenty-nine days for the misdemeanor possession conviction, to be served concurrently. He was order to serve fifteen weekends in the Blount County Jail with the balance of his sentences on community corrections. The Defendant’s plea agreement reserved a certified question of law regarding the legality of the traffic stop that led to his arrest. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Anthony Saunders
A Dickson County Circuit Court jury convicted the defendant, Michael Anthony Saunders, of one count of aggravated assault, see T.C.A. § 39-13-104(a)(1)(B) (2006), and one count of vandalism of propertyvalued at $1,000 or more butless than $10,000,see id.§ 39-14-408. The trial court imposed concurrent sentences of three years and two years, suspended to probation following the service of six months’ incarceration in the county jail. In addition to contesting the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions, the defendant contends on appeal that the trial court erred by (1) denying his motion for a mistrial based upon inflammatory statements made by the victim, (2) denying his request for judicial diversion, and (3) denying him full probation. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Dickson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kenneth McIntyre
The Defendant-Appellant, Kenneth McIntyre, pled guilty to a violation of the habitual motor vehicle offender (HMVO) order, a class E felony, and passing worthless checks under the value of $500, a class A misdemeanor. Under the terms of the plea agreement, the Defendant-Appellant agreed to be sentenced as a career offender with the time and manner of the sentence to be determined by the trial court. The Defendant-Appellant received a sixyear term of imprisonment for the HMVO conviction, and eleven months and twenty-nine days imprisonment for the worthless check conviction. The trial court ordered these sentences to be served concurrently. In this appeal, the Defendant-Appellant argues the trial courterred inimposing sentence. Because the Defendant-Appellant filed his notice of appeal more than five months after the judgment became final, we dismiss this appeal. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Terrance Cecil v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner,Terrance Cecil,was found guilty by a Maury County jury of possessing twenty-six grams or more of cocaine with intent to sell, a Class B felony, and was sentenced to serve ten years in the Department of Correction as a Range I standard offender. On direct appeal, this Court affirmed the judgment. See State v. Terrance Cecil, No. M2004-00161-CCA-R3-CD, 2004 WL 3044896 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 30, 2004) app. denied (Tenn. May 23, 2005). Petitioner timely filed a petition for post-conviction relief. The post-conviction court granted relief to the extent of setting aside the sentence and granting a new sentencing hearing. The State has not appealed from that order. Petitioner has appealed from the post-conviction court’s denial of the relief requested by Petitioner to set aside his conviction. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that Petitioner failed to prove that he suffered any prejudice from any alleged deficiencies by his counsel. Since the prejudice prong was not proven, we need not address the alleged deficiencies of counsel. Accordingly, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Dequon Letray Boyd and Jemarow Deverius Tillison
Defendants Jemarow Deverius Tillison and Dequon Letray Boyd were originally indicted separately by the Hamilton County Grand Jury for offenses that occurred in the same shooting incident against the same victims. Upon motion of the State and by agreement between the parties, the indictments were consolidated, and a superceding indictment charged both defendants with attempted first degree premeditated murder of Darlisa Wynn; first degree premeditated murder of Casey Woods; felony murder of Casey Woods; especially aggravated robbery of Darlisa Wynn; aggravated assault of Darlisa Wynn; reckless endangerment; and especially aggravated burglary of the home of Kysha Henderson. Following a jury trial, Defendant Boyd was convicted of attempted first degree premeditated murder; first degree premeditated murder; felony murder; two counts of aggravated assault, one as charged and the other as a lesser-included offense of especially aggravated robbery; reckless endangerment; and aggravated criminal trespass as a lesser-included offense of especially aggravated burglary. Defendant Boyd’s felony murder conviction was merged with his conviction for first degree murder, and both aggravated assault convictions were merged with his conviction for attempted first degree murder. He received an effective sentence of life imprisonment. Defendant Tillison was convicted of facilitation of attempted first degree premeditated murder; facilitation of first degree premeditated murder; facilitation of felony murder; aggravated assault of Darlisa Wynn; attempted aggravated assault, a lesser included offense of aggravated assault; reckless endangerment; and aggravated criminal trespass, a lesser-included offense of especially aggravated burglary. He was sentenced to an effective sentence of 25 years imprisonment. On appeal, both Defendants challenge the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. Defendant Boyd also raises the following additional issues: 1) whether the trial court erred by not granting a mistrial following testimony that he was a gang member; and 2) whether the prosecutor’s statement during closing argument that the jury had a duty to the community to convict constitutes misconduct. After a careful review of the record before us, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Anthony Clinton
The Defendant, Anthony Clinton, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of robbery, a Class C felony. See T.C.A. § 39-13-401 (2010). He was sentenced as a career offender to 15 years’ confinement. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Terry Johnson
Following a jury trial Defendant, Terry Johnson, was convicted of aggravated robbery of a Family Dollar Store in Memphis. The offense involved the theft of merchandise from the store. The trial court sentenced Defendant to serve twenty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. In this appeal, relying upon State v. Owens, 20 S.W.3d 634 (Tenn. 2000) and State v. Swift, 308 S.W.3d 827 (Tenn. 2010), Defendant asserts that the evidence is legally insufficient to support his conviction for aggravated robbery. Defendant also argues that the trial court erred by overruling his objection to testimony concerning another theft related offense by Defendant of the same store, also involving merchandise, which occurred about two weeks prior to the offense in the case sub judice. After a thorough analysis, we distinguish Owens and Swift. We also conclude that the admission into evidence of the prior theft related offense was not error. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Devaron Taylor
Defendant, Devaron Taylor, was indicted by the Shelby County Grand Jury for two counts of felony murder and one count each of aggravated burglary and attempt to commit especially aggravated robbery. Prior to trial, one count of felony murder was dismissed on motion of the State. Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of felony murder, attempt to commit especially aggravated robbery, and aggravated burglary. Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment for his felony murder conviction and concurrent sentences of eight years for attempted robbery and three years for aggravated burglary for an effective sentence of life imprisonment. In this appeal, Defendant raises the following issues for our review: 1) whether the trial court erred by refusing to grant a mistrial after a juror was dismissed for sleeping; 2) whether the trial court erred by failing to restrict the State’s use of a hypothetical fact pattern during voir dire and by limiting Defendant’s voir dire. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Terry Johnson
Following a jury trial Defendant, Terry Johnson, was convicted of aggravated robbery of a Family Dollar Store in Memphis. The offense involved the theft of merchandise from the store. The trial court sentenced Defendant to serve twenty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. In this appeal, relying upon State v. Owens, 20 S.W.3d 634 (Tenn. 2000) and State v. Swift, 308 S.W.3d 827 (Tenn. 2010), Defendant asserts that the evidence is legally insufficient to support his conviction for aggravated robbery. Defendant also argues that the trial court erred by overruling his objection to testimony concerning another theft related offense by Defendant of the same store, also involving merchandise, which occurred about two weeks prior to the offense in the case sub judice. After a thorough analysis, we distinguish Owens and Swift. We also conclude that the admission into evidence of the prior theft related offense was not error. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Stephanie Denise Phillips v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Stephanie Denise Phillips, appeals as of right from the Cocke County Circuit Court’s denial of her petition for post-conviction relief. The Petitioner argues that errors in her trial denied her due process of law. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Cocke | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Thaddius Brown v. State of Tennessee
In August 2003, the Petitioner, Thaddius Brown, pleaded guilty to multiple counts of especially aggravated kidnapping and aggravated robbery. Pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, he received an effective twenty-year sentence. He subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief, and the post-conviction court denied relief. On appeal, the crux of the Petitioner’s argument is that he received an illegal sentence because both boxes were checked on his judgment forms for especially aggravated kidnapping indicating that his sentences should run at 30% and 100%. The post-conviction court found that the error in the Petitioner’s judgment forms was a clerical error and that his plea was voluntarily and knowingly entered. We agree. We remand solely for entry of corrected judgment forms to reflect a single release eligibility of 100% for the Petitioner’s especially aggravated kidnapping convictions. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Daniel Deeter v. Cherry Lindamood, Warden
The Petitioner, Daniel Deeter, appeals from the dismissal of his petition for the writ of habeas corpus. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court’s denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. We find the State’s motion has merit. Accordingly, the motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. |
Wayne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tavares Duone Braden
A Davidson Countyjuryconvicted the Defendant,Tavares Duone Braden,for the sale of less than 0.5 grams of cocaine, possession with intent to sell 0.5 grams or more of cocaine, promotion of prostitution, possession of marijuana, and evading arrest. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective sentence of eighteen years in the Tennessee Department of Corrections. On appeal, the Defendant contends: (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions; (2) the trial court erred when it denied his motion for judgment of acquittal; (3) the trial court imposed an excessive sentence; and (4) he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities,we conclude the evidence is sufficient to sustain the Defendant’s convictions and that the trial court properly sentenced him. We, therefore, affirm the trial court’s judgments. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals |
