State of Tennessee v. Manfred Steinhagen
The Defendant-Appellant, Manfred Steinhagen, appeals pro se from the Circuit Court of Cheatham County. He was initially found guilty by the General Sessions Court of Cheatham County of speeding and violating the Financial Responsibility Act, both Class C misdemeanors. Steinhagen was fined ten dollars for each conviction. He appealed to the Circuit Court, which upheld the judgments of the General Sessions Court. In this appeal, Steinhagen challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and raises several procedural claims. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the Circuit Court. |
Cheatham | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Adrian Todd
The defendant, Adrian Todd, stands convicted of second degree murder, a Class A felony. The trial court sentenced him as a Range I violent offender to twenty-three years at 100% in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Daniel Ross McClellan
The Defendant, Daniel Ross McClellan, was convicted of rape of a child, a Class A felony, and incest, a Class C felony. He was sentenced as a Range II, multiple offender to serve forty years as a child rapist for the rape conviction and ten years for the incest conviction, with the sentences to be served concurrently. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in sentencing him as a multiple offender. We hold that the trial court properly sentenced the Defendant as a Range II offender for the incest conviction but erred in sentencing him as a Range II offender for the rape of a child conviction. We remand the case to the trial court for resentencing in accordance with this opinion. |
Hawkins | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Donald Mickens
The court ordered Mickens to serve his sentences in case number 07-01695, 07-01696, and 07-01701 consecutively, for an effective sentence of twenty-five years at thirty-five percent in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, Mickens argues that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of several prior bad acts involving drugs. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Richard Trehern
The Defendant, Richard Trehern, was convicted by a jury in the Hawkins County Criminal Court of two counts of aggravated child abuse, a Class A felony. The trial court sentenced him as a Range I, violent offender to concurrent twenty-year sentences. On appeal, the defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions, that the trial court erred by denying his motion to compel the State to produce the victim's and the victim's brother's medical records, and that his sentences are excessive. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Hawkins | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Claude Phillips
The defendant, Claude Phillips, appeals from his convictions of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, and aggravated assault, a Class C felony. He was sentenced to twenty years as a Range II, multiple offender for his aggravated robbery conviction and to a consecutive sentence of fifteen years as a Range III, persistent offender for his aggravated assault conviction. On appeal, he argues that the evidence was insufficient to support either conviction and that he was improperly sentenced. After careful review, we affirm the judgments from the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Lorenzo Myrick
A Shelby County jury convicted the defendant, Lorenzo Myrick, of reckless homicide, a Class D felony, and facilitation of especially aggravated robbery, a Class B felony. The trial court sentenced him as a Range I standard offender to three years for reckless homicide, concurrent with ten years for facilitation of especially aggravated robbery, to be served in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant argues that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; (2) the trial court committed reversible error by improperly commenting on the evidence; and (3) the trial court improperly denied probation. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Takeita M. Locke
The Defendant, Takeita M. Locke, appeals her conviction for criminally negligent homicide and the trial court's denial of her petition for writ of error coram nobis for a related especially aggravated robbery conviction. She had been convicted in an earlier trial of especially aggravated robbery related to the same facts and victim. For the homicide conviction, the Defendant received a sentence of two years as a Range I offender, to be served concurrently with the twenty-year sentence she was serving for the especially aggravated robbery conviction. On appeal, she challenges (1) the trial court's denial of her motion to dismiss for violation of her right to a speedy trial, and (2) the trial court's denial of her petition for writ of error coram nobis related to the especially aggravated robbery conviction. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. David Gilliam
In this consolidated appeal, the State challenges the trial court's dismissal of the charges of official misconduct, see T.C.A. _ 39-16-402 (2006), and official oppression, see id. _ 39-16- 403, against each defendant. The State contends that the court erroneously concluded that the defendants, as employees of Corrections Corporation of America, were not public servants as that term is used in Tennessee Code Annotated sections 39-16-402 and -403. Because we agree with the State, we reverse the trial court's order dismissing the charges in each case and remand the cases to the Criminal Court of Hamilton County. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Andrei Ciobanu
The Defendant, Andrei Ciobanu, was charged with vandalism of property with a value of at least $1,000 but less than $10,000. See T.C.A. _ 39-14-408. The trial court granted his motion to suppress eyewitness identification evidence and dismissed the case. In this appeal filed by the State, we reverse the order of the trial court suppressing the evidence and dismissing the case. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Eric Maxie
The petitioner, Eric Maxie, appeals the judgment of the Shelby County Criminal Court denying his petition for post-conviction relief. A jury convicted the petitioner of aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony. The trial court sentenced him as a Range I violent offender to serve ten years and six months in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On direct appeal, this court affirmed the petitioner’s conviction. The petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging the ineffective assistance of counsel, and the post-conviction court denied his petition. On appeal, the petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred when it denied his petition for post-conviction relief. After reviewing the record, the parties’ briefs, and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Kenneth J. Cradic v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Kenneth J. Cradic, appeals the summary dismissal of post-conviction relief by the Sullivan County Criminal Court. The Petitioner was convicted of three counts of rape of a child, a Class A felony, and three counts of incest, a Class C felony. He received a sentence of twenty years for each rape of a child conviction and a sentence of four years for each incest conviction. The trial court ordered that two of the twenty-year sentences for rape of a child be served consecutively to one another but concurrently with the third conviction and ordered that the three counts of incest be served consecutively to one another but concurrently with the rape of a child convictions, for an effective sentence of forty years. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred in summarily dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief without appointing counsel. Upon review, we reverse the judgment summarily denying post-conviction relief and remand this case to the postconviction court for a full evidentiary hearing on the Petitioner's claim of ineffectiveassistance of counsel regarding the misapplication of the sentencing law. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Joey D. Herrell v. Howard Carlton, Warden - Concurring
I concur in the result reached in the majority opinion, given existing precedent. I believe though, that once the habeas court concludes that a judgment is void, it should transfer the case to the convicting court—a court of equal jurisdiction—for further proceedings. The habeas court should not be allowed to act further regarding the convicting case by limiting the options available to the Petitioner or to the convicting court upon transfer of the case. |
Johnson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Joey D. Herrell v. Howard Carlton, Warden
The petitioner, Joey D. Herrell, appeals the trial court's dismissal of his application for his petition for the writ of habeas corpus. In six separate cases, the petitioner pled guilty to the following: theft of property under $500, aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, especially aggravated robbery, three counts of attempted aggravated burglary, theft of property over $1000, and evading arrest. The offenses in four of the cases were committed while the petitioner was released on bond from the remaining two cases. All pleas were entered on the same day, and the trial court imposed concurrent sentencing, which resulted in the petitioner receiving an effective sentence of twenty years. He has filed the instant habeas corpus petition alleging that the imposition of concurrent sentencing resulted in illegal sentences because they were imposed in direct contravention of a statute, as he had been released on bond at the time some of the offenses were committed. The habeas corpus court and the State agreed that the sentences were illegal, and the court found that the illegal portion of the sentences was not "a material element" of the petitioner's guilty plea agreement and that, therefore, he was not entitled to withdraw the plea. Rather, the court remanded the case to the trial court for imposition of consecutive sentencing. On appeal, the petitioner disagrees and asserts that he should be allowed to withdraw the plea. Following review of the record, we agree with the petitioner, reverse the decision of the habeas court, and remand with instruction to conduct a hearing to determine whether the illegal sentences were a material, bargained-for element of the plea agreement. |
Johnson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tremaine Nathaniel Pointer
The Defendant-Appellant, Tremaine Nathaniel Pointer, appeals the revocation of his probation by the Criminal Court of Davidson County. In case number 2006-D-2927, Pointer entered a guilty plea to possession with intent to sell .5 grams or more of cocaine, a Class B felony. In case number 2007-B-1142, Pointer pled guilty to felony failure to appear, a Class E [*2] felony. Pursuant to his plea agreement, he was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to an eight year term of imprisonment for the drug conviction and was ordered to have a mental health and drug assessment. He was also sentenced to one year for the felony failure to appear conviction, which was imposed to run consecutively to the eight year sentence, for an effective nine-year sentence. The trial court ordered Pointer to serve six months in jail and the remainder of his sentence on supervised probation. After a revocation proceeding on September 19, 2008, Pointer was placed back on probation to be supervised by the community corrections program, and that placement was revoked on June 1, 2009, when the court ordered Pointer to serve his sentence. On appeal, Pointer contends that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering him to serve his sentence in confinement after revoking his probation. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court revoking Pointer's probation in cases 2006-D-2927 and 2007-B-1142. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Rodney A. Lucas
The Defendant-Appellant, Rodney A. Lucas, pled guilty in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County to possession of 0.5 grams or more of cocaine with intent to deliver, a Class B felony. He received a sentence of eight years to be served on probation. The trial court revoked Lucas' probation after his second violation. On appeal, Lucas admits that he violated his probation for a second time; however, he claims the trial court erred by revoking his probation and ordering confinement. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Russel B. Cain
The defendant, Russel B. Cain, entered a plea of guilty to three counts of aggravated sexual battery of a victim under the age of thirteen, a Class B felony, but reserved a certified question of law to Counts Two and Three of the indictment. Specifically, he requests this |
Wilson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ambreco Shaw v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Ambreco Shaw, appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief in which he alleged that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. Specifically, Petitioner contends that (1) counsel failed to fully investigate all possible defenses; (2) counsel failed to adequately meet with Petitioner and allow him to be involved in his defense; (3) counsel failed to properly convey and explain settlement offers; (4) counsel failed to properly advise Petitioner concerning his right to testify; (5) counsel improperly allowed Petitioner to appear at trial in prison clothing; (6) counsel failed to request a mental evaluation in a timely manner; and (7) counsel failed to cross-examine witnesses and provide proof at the sentencing hearing. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that Petitioner has failed to show that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel and affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Quidon Clemons
Following a jury trial, Defendant, Quidon Clemons, was convicted of assault, a Class A misdemeanor, aggravated stalking, a Class E felony, and violation of an order of protection, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced Defendant as a Range I, standard offender, to two years for aggravated stalking. As to the misdemeanors, Defendant was sentenced to eleven months, twenty-nine days for assault, and eleven months, twenty-nine days for violation of an order of protection. The sentences were ordered to be served consecutively. On appeal, Defendant argues that his sentence is excessive. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Roy E. Keough v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner Roy E. Keough appeals as of right the judgment of the Shelby County Criminal Court denying his petition for post-conviction relief. On May 9, 1997, a jury found the Petitioner guilty of the premeditated murder of his wife, Betty Keough, and the attempted first degree murder of Kevin Berry. For the murder conviction, the jury found that the Petitioner had previously been convicted of one or more felonies for which the statutory elements involve the use of violence to the person. See T.C.A. _ 39-13-204(i)(2). The jury further found that this aggravating circumstance outweighed mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury then sentenced the Petitioner to death. The trial court imposed a forty-year sentence for the attempted murder conviction to be served consecutive to his sentence of death. The Petitioner's convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal by the Tennessee Supreme Court. See State v. Keough, 18 S.W.3d 175 (Tenn. 2000). On December 12, 2000, the Petitioner filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief. An amendment was filed on February 14, 2003, and an addendum to the amended petition was filed on November 6, 2007. The post-conviction court held hearings on various dates in September, October, and November 2007. On July 23, 2008, the post-conviction court entered an order denying 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 was denied a fair trial and (4) Tennessee's death penalty statutory scheme is unconstitutional. Following a thorough and exhaustive review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Tracy Lynn Harris v. State of Tennessee - Concurring
I concur with the result reached in the majority opinion, given existing precedent. I write separately, though, to express my dissatisfaction with the result reached. I believe that once the habeas court concludes that a judgment is void, whether for an illegal conviction or |
Morgan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Tracy Lynn Harris v. Jim Worthington, Warden
The Petitioner, Tracy Lynn Harris, appeals as of right from the Morgan County Criminal Court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court. |
Morgan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ricky Lee Gann, Alias Rickey Lee Gann
The Defendant, Ricky Lee Gann, alias Rickey Lee Gann, pled guilty to seven counts of theft of property valued $1,000 or more, a Class D felony, two counts of theft of property valued $500 or more, a Class E felony, and two counts of theft of property valued $500 or less, a Class A misdemeanor. Following a sentencing hearing, the Defendant was sentenced to an effective six-year term in the Tennessee Department of Correction, followed by twelve years of probation. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred in ordering consecutive sentences and in denying alternative sentencing. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Alejandro Chevo Guana A.K.A. Alejandro Chevo Gouna
Appellant, Alejandro Chevo Guana, was convicted of first degree premeditated murder for killing Tennessee State Trooper Calvin Jenks during a routine traffic stop. He was sentenced to life in prison. He was also convicted of possession of marijuana with intent to deliver, for which he was to serve one year. He appeals, arguing the trial court erred in: (1) limiting his cross-examination of his co-defendant to reveal alleged bias; (2) denying a change of venue; (3) refusing to use his proffered jury questionnaire; (4) denying his request for individual and sequestered voir dire; and (5) finding the evidence sufficient for conviction where, he claims, the only evidence of premeditation was the testimony of his accomplice. We affirm. |
Tipton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. George R. Fyke
On April 5, 2007, the Defendant, George R. Fyke, pleaded guilty to four counts of forgery, one count of identity theft, and three counts of passing worthless checks. Pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, he received an effective six-year sentence to be served in the Community Corrections Program for these convictions. Thereafter, on April 21, 2008, the Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of identity theft, one count of theft over $10,000, two counts of theft over $1,000, one count of attempted theft, and two counts of forgery. Also on that day, the Defendant admitted his violation of his April 2007 community corrections sentence. The trial court granted the Defendant a furlough to attend and complete a one-year rehabilitation program before sentencing. Following the Defendant's failure to complete the program, a sentencing hearing was held. The trial court ordered that the remainder of the Defendant's six-year sentence be served in confinement and, for the April 2008 convictions, imposed an effective eight-year sentence to be served on community corrections. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering revocation of his community corrections sentence and that his eight-year sentence his excessive. After review, we affirm the sentencing decision of the trial court. However, we must remand for entry of a corrected judgment. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals |
