State of Tennessee v. Rickey Clayton Rogers
Defendant, Rickey Clayton Rogers, was charged in a three-count indictment with DUI third offense; driving on a revoked or suspended license, third offense; and violation of the implied consent law. He filed a motion to dismiss all charges in the indictment on the basis that the charges were filed outside the applicable statute of limitations. The trial court denied the motion. Defendant pled guilty as charged in the indictment, and purported to reserve certified questions of law for appeal pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2). The State argues that the appeal should be dismissed because of Defendant’s failure to comply with all of the requirements to reserve a certified question of law for appeal; in the alternative, the State argues that the judgments should be affirmed. After a review of the record and a review of the applicable case law, we dismiss the appeal. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Detrick Cole v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Detrick Cole, appeals as of right from the judgment of the Shelby County Criminal Court denying his petition for post-conviction relief. A Shelby County Criminal Court jury found the Petitioner guilty of the premeditated first degree murder of Santiefe Thomas. The jury also sentenced the Petitioner to death after finding that the Petitioner had previously been convicted of one or more felonies for which the statutory elements involved the use of violence to the person, see Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-204(i)(2), and that this aggravating circumstance outweighed any mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. The Petitioner’s conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal by the Tennessee Supreme Court. State v. Cole, 155 S.W.3d 885 (Tenn. 2005). Following the filing of a timely petition for post-conviction relief and a full evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. On appeal to this court, the Petitioner presents a number of claims that can be characterized in the following categories: (1) the Petitioner’s trial counsel were ineffective, (2) the Petitioner’s appellate counsel were ineffective, (3) the Petitioner is statutorily ineligible for the death penalty, and (4) Tennessee’s death penalty statutory scheme is unconstitutional. Following our review, we reverse, in part, the judgment of the post-conviction court and remand this case for a new sentencing hearing. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Guy T. Graves
Appellant, Guy T. Graves, was indicted in November of 2009 by the Madison County Grand Jury for three counts of burglary. At trial, the trial court granted Appellant’s motion for acquittal on count three of the indictment. The jury found Appellant guilty of the two remaining charges. The trial court sentenced Appellant as a Range III, persistent offender, to twelve years for each conviction, ordering Appellant to serve the sentences consecutively. After the denial of a motion for new trial, the following issues are presented for this Court on appeal: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to establish Appellant’s identity as the perpetrator of the crimes; and (2) whether the trial court properly ordered consecutive sentencing. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jane Doe
The appellant, State of Tennessee, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court’s order granting the motion of the appellee, Jane Doe, to expunge a criminal indictment that was dismissed pursuant to a plea agreement. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Gary Dwayne Johnson
Following a jury trial, the Defendant, Gary Dwayne Johnson, was convicted of one count of reckless endangerment, a Class E felony, one count of robbery, a Class C felony, one count of assault, a Class A misdemeanor, two counts of carjacking, Class B felonies, one count of especially aggravated kidnapping, a Class A felony, and one count of felony escape, a Class E felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-13-101(b)(1), -13-103, -13-305(b)(1), -13-401(b), -13-404(b), -16-605(b)(2). The trial court found that the Defendant was a career offender and sentenced him to the following terms: six years for his reckless endangerment conviction, fifteen years for his robbery conviction, eleven months and twenty-nine days for his assault conviction, thirty years for each carjacking conviction, sixty years as a violent offender for his especially aggravated kidnapping conviction, and six years for his felony escape conviction. The trial court merged the Defendant’s convictions for reckless endangerment and robbery and ordered that all of his convictions, except the misdemeanor, run consecutively for a total effective sentence of 141 years. In this direct appeal, the Defendant raises the following issues for review: (1) The evidence presented at trial was not sufficient to sustain his convictions for reckless endangerment, robbery, assault, and carjacking; (2) The trial court erred when it sentenced him as a career offender and when it ordered that his sentences run consecutively; and (3) The trial court erred when it denied the Defendant’s motion to dismiss his Trial Counsel before the sentencing hearing. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James Taylor v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, James Taylor, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for first degree felony murder and especially aggravated robbery and resulting sentences of life and forty years, respectively. 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. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Lovard Deanta Horton v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Lovard Deanta Horton, appeals from a Davidson County Court’s dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. Petitioner was indicted in a multi-count indictment for three counts of conspiracy to sell cocaine weighing 300 grams or more, one count of conspiracy to possess cocaine weighing 300 grams or more with the intent to sell, one count of possession of marijuana weighing 70 pounds, one gram or more with intent to sell, one count of money laundering, one count of conspiracy to possess 300 pounds or more of marijuana with intent to sell or deliver in a school zone, and one count of possession of 300 pounds or more of marijuana with intent to sell or deliver. Petitioner pled guilty to two counts of conspiracy to sell cocaine weighing 300 grams or more, one count of possession of more than 70 pounds of marijuana with intent to sell, and one count of possession of more than 300 pounds of marijuana with intent to sell. He received an effective sentence of twenty-eight years as a Range I, Standard Offender. Petitioner filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that his guilty pleas were not knowingly and voluntarily entered. After a hearing on the petition, the post-conviction court denied relief. Petitioner has appealed. After a review, we determine that Petitioner has failed to present clear and convincing evidence that his guilty plea was involuntarily or unknowingly entered or that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Accordingly, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tony Stewart
The Defendant, Tony Stewart, was indicted for attempted first degree murder, aggravated assault, coercion of a witness, and misdemeanor evading arrest. After a jury trial, the Defendant was convicted of attempted second degree murder, aggravated assault, coercion of a witness, and misdemeanor evading arrest. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Fabian Claxton
Following a jury trial, the Defendant, Fabian Claxton, was convicted of four counts of attempted first degree murder, a Class A felony, and unlawful possession of a handgun while at a public place, a Class A misdemeanor. The Defendant was sentenced to consecutive sentences of 22 years for each of the four attempted first degree murder convictions and a concurrent sentence of 11 months and 29 days for the unlawful possession of a handgun while at a public place conviction, for a total effective sentence of 88 years. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions; (2) the trial court erred in instructing a witness to identify the Defendant; and (3) the trial court improperly imposed consecutive sentences. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Lawrence David Ralph, Jr.
A Warren County Circuit Court jury convicted the appellant, Lawrence David Ralph, Jr., of violating a habitual traffic offender order; reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon; driving on a revoked license, fifth offense; evading arrest; and reckless driving. After a sentencing hearing, the appellant received an effective eight-year sentence. On appeal, he contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction for reckless endangerment and that his sentence is excessive. We conclude that the appeal must be dismissed because we lack jurisdiction in the case. |
Warren | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Stanley Wade Rowe
The appellant, Stanley Wade Rowe, was found guilty by a Davidson County Criminal Court Jury of burglary and theft of property valued over $500 but less than $1000. Following his convictions, the trial court imposed a total effective sentence of twelve years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions, the trial court’s denial of the appellant’s request for a jury instruction on the lesser-included offenses of attempted burglary and attempted theft, and the length of the sentence imposed by the trial court. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Terry Dwight Mooningham, Jr.
The Defendant, Terry Dwight Mooningham, Jr., was found guilty by a Bedford County Circuit Court jury of driving under the influence (DUI), fourth offense, a Class E felony; evading arrest, a Class D felony; driving with a revoked license, a Class A misdemeanor; and violation of the implied consent law, a Class A misdemeanor. See T.C.A. §§ 55-10-401 (2006) (amended 2011), 39-16-603 (2010), 55-50-504 (2006), 55-10-406 (2006). He was sentenced as a Range II, multiple offender to four years’ confinement for the DUI conviction, eight years’ confinement for evading arrest, eleven months and twenty-nine days’ confinement for driving with a revoked license, and six months’ confinement for violation of the implied consent law. The DUI and evading arrest convictions were ordered to be served consecutively for an effective twelve-year sentence. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his DUI conviction and that his sentences are excessive. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Ray Bullard
The Defendant, James Ray Bullard, pled guilty to evading arrest, a Class E felony, and four counts of theft of $500 or less, a Class A misdemeanor. See T.C.A. §§ 39-16-603, 39-14- 103, 39-14-105(1) (2010). He was sentenced as a Range II, multiple offender to three years, six months’ incarceration for the evading arrest conviction and to eleven months, twenty-nine days’ incarceration for each of the theft convictions, with all sentences to be served consecutively. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred by imposing a sentence of confinement. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Robert T. Henry v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Robert T. Henry, appeals the Hamilton County Criminal Court’s dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief from his 1978 conviction for robbery. He claims his conviction is void because the law applicable at the time of his conviction has since been repealed and current law renders his indeterminate sentence illegal. The State has moved the court to affirm the trial court by memorandum opinion pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The State’s motion is granted, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Dennis Neil Bizzoco
The appellant, Dennis Neil Bizzoco, pled guilty to vehicular homicide by intoxication, reckless homicide, vehicular assault, and driving under the influence (DUI). He received a total effective sentence of eight years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant challenges the trial court’s denial of his request for alternative sentencing and the denial of his Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 35 motion. Additionally, the appellant argues that his convictions for DUI, vehicular homicide by intoxication, and vehicular assault violate double jeopardy. We conclude that the appellant’s double jeopardy claim has merit; therefore, we vacate his conviction for DUI. However, we affirm the appellant’s remaining convictions and sentences. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ronnie Wayne Blair
A Williamson County jury convicted the Defendant, Ronnie Wayne Blair, of Driving Under the Influence (“DUI”), first offense. The trial court sentenced him to eleven months and twenty-nine days, all of which was suspended after the service of four days. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court improperly limited his cross-examination of the arresting officer by preventing use of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”) manual and that the trial court improperly commented on the evidence. The State counters that this appeal should be dismissed because the Defendant failed to timely file his notice of appeal. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we conclude that the interests of justice require waiver of the Defendant’s untimely filing of his notice of appeal. However, upon our consideration of the merits of the Defendant’s issues, we conclude the Defendant is not entitled to relief. The judgment of the trial court is, therefore, affirmed. |
Wilson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Stephano L. Weilacker
Appellant, Stephano L. Weilacker, was indicted by the Montgomery County Grand Jury for aggravated robbery and especially aggravated kidnapping for his role in the robbery of Triangle Kwik Stop in Montgomery County, Tennessee. At the conclusion of a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of both offenses. Appellant was sentenced by the trial court to ten years for aggravated robbery and twenty years for especially aggravated kidnapping, to be served concurrently. The sentences were ordered to be served consecutively to an elevenyear sentence for aggravated robbery in another case. Appellant filed a motion for extension of time in which to file a motion for new trial more than thirty days after the entry of the judgments. The trial court granted the motion. Appellant filed a motion for new trial. After a hearing, the trial court denied the motion. On appeal, Appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions; that the trial court failed to properly charge the jury with lesser included offenses; and that the trial court improperly ordered consecutive sentencing. After a review of the record as a whole, we determine that the trial court improperly ruled on an untimely motion for new trial. Therefore, Appellant has waived all issues on appeal with the exception of sufficiency of the evidence, sentencing, and issues that would result in the dismissal of the prosecution. Because the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and the trial court properly sentenced Appellant, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Benjamin Randolph Hubard
The Defendant, Benjamin Randolph Hubard, pled guilty to driving under the influence (DUI), first offense, a Class A misdemeanor, and violation of the implied consent law. The trial court merged the convictions and sentenced the Defendant to 11 months and 29 days with 100 percent service of his sentence. The trial court also ordered the Defendant to pay a $350 fine, complete DUI school, and to perform 24 hours of community service in the form of litter removal. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends (1) that the trial court erred in setting the length of his sentence and (2) that the trial court erred in ordering the additional penalties. Following our review, we conclude that the trial court erred in ordering the Defendant to complete DUI school and to perform 24 hours of community service. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part and reversed in part. The case is remanded. |
Sevier | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Dawn Davidson
A Chester County jury convicted the defendant, Dawn Kathleen Davidson, of attempted first degree murder, a Class A felony, and the trial court sentenced her as a Range I, standard offender to twenty-three years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the trial court erred by denying her motion for a bill of particulars; (2) the trial court erred by preventing her attorney from fully cross-examining the state’s witnesses; and (3) her sentence was excessive because the trial court incorrectly applied an enhancement factor and erroneously failed to apply any mitigation factors. Following our review, we conclude that the defendant waived all issues other than sentencing. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Chester | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Larry J. Noel v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Larry J. Noel, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, raising the following four issues on appeal: (1) whether his pretrial transfer of custody to the Department of Correction subjected him to double jeopardy and violated his due process rights; (2) whether he was incompetent to stand trial due to a stroke he suffered less than a month prior to trial; (3) whether he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal; and (4) whether the post-conviction court erred by denying his motion for a continuance due to the unavailability of witnesses. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition for post-conviction relief. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Nesha Newsome v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Nesha Newsome1, filed in the Shelby County Criminal Court a petition for post-conviction relief from her convictions for especially aggravated kidnapping, aggravated kidnapping, aggravated robbery, and robbery. The Petitioner contended that her trial counsel were ineffective by failing to object to the trial court’s definition of “aiding” in response to the jury’s question regarding the criminal responsibility jury instruction, failing to argue that her convictions violated due process, and failing to have the Petitioner undergo a pretrial mental evaluation. The post-conviction court denied the petition, and the Petitioner now appeals. In addition to the foregoing issues, the Petitioner also asserts that the supreme court’s denial of funding for a forensic psychologist violated her federal and state due process rights. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Issac Scott v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Issac Scott, appeals the post-conviction court’s denying his petition for postconviction relief from his conviction for first degree premeditated murder and resulting life sentence. On appeal, he contends that he received the ineffective assistance of trial counsel and that the post-conviction court’s denial of funding for him to hire a forensic pathologist violated his constitutional rights. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Raymond E. McNeil v. State of Tennessee
Following a jury trial, the Petitioner, Raymond E. McNeil, was convicted of Class D felony evading arrest and driving on a revoked license, a Class B misdemeanor. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-16-603(b)(3), 55-50-504(a)(1). This Court affirmed his convictions on direct appeal. See State v. Raymond McNeil, No. M2007-01566-CCA-R3-CD, 2008 WL 4170330 (Tenn. Crim. App., Nashville, Sept. 10, 2008), perm. to appeal denied, (Tenn. Feb. 17, 2009). The Petitioner filed a timely petition for post-conviction relief. Following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. In this appeal, the Petitioner raises the following issues for review: (1) Trial Counsel was ineffective for putting a police officer’s unredacted incident report on the overhead projector; (2) Trial Counsel was ineffective for acquiescing in the admission of the incident report into evidence; and (3) The trial court erred when it allowed the entire incident report into evidence. After our review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of relief. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Shakir Adams v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Shakir Adams, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his first degree premeditated murder conviction, arguing that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. Following our review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of the petition. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Torian Dillard v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Torian Dillard, appeals the post-conviction court’s dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief for failure to prosecute, arguing that the court abused its discretion by not appointing new counsel after the petitioner’s appointed counsel was allowed to withdraw and by requiring the petitioner to proceed with his petition pro se. Following our review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s dismissal of the petition. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals |
