State of Tennessee v. Terry Rainey
The State appeals the Chester County Circuit Court's decision to order pretrial diversion for the Defendant-Appellee, Terry Rainey. Rainey was indicted for reckless endangerment, a Class E felony, and two counts of aggravated assault, Class C and D felonies. The State claims it properly appealed as of right under Rule 3(c) of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. Alternatively, the State asserts the circumstances of this case warrant review as an extraordinary appeal under Rule 10(a) of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. Upon review, we hold that the State cannot appeal the trial court's decision to order pretrial diversion under Rule 3(c). We also decline review under Rule 10(a). Accordingly, the State's appeal is dismissed. |
Chester | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Patrick Trawick
The Defendant, Patrick Trawick, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of one count of premeditated first degree murder and two counts of aggravated assault related to the death of his estranged girlfriend and the aggravated assault of her companion. The jury found life without the possibility of parole to be the appropriate sentence for the premeditated first degree murder count. Following a separate sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed concurrent six year sentences for the two aggravated assault counts to be served consecutively to the sentence of life without the possibility of parole. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred by (1) failing to recuse itself, (2) ruling admissible for impeachment purposes the Defendant's prior rape conviction, (3) admitting crime scene photographs of the victim's body, and (4) failing to instruct the jury regarding all lesser included offenses for premeditated first degree murder. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Danurico Dujuan Grundy
The Defendant-Appellant, Danurico Dujuan Grundy, appeals the revocation of his probation by the Circuit Court for Dickson County. On November 17, 2005, he pled guilty to theft under $500, a Class A misdemeanor, and five counts of uttering a forged instrument under $1,000, a Class E felony. Grundy received an effective sentence of two years in the Tennessee Department of Correction and was ordered to pay $26.50 to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Fund and $546.50 in court costs. On appeal, Grundy claims the trial court erred by revoking his probation and reinstating his original sentences of confinement. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Dickson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Larry Brian Shelton v. State of Tennessee
|
Hawkins | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jerry Timberlake v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Jerry Timberlake, appeals the Henderson County Circuit Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this court affirm the lower court's denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Because the petitioner has failed to prove his allegations by clear and convincing evidence, we conclude that the State's motion is well-taken. Accordingly, we affirm the lower court's denial of post-conviction relief. |
Henderson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tommy L. Wray
|
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Tommy Ray Young v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Tommy Ray Young, appeals from the summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. In this appeal, both the petitioner and the State argue that the postconviction court erred by dismissing the petition without a hearing. We agree. Accordingly the judgment of the post-conviction court is reversed, and the case is remanded for the appointment of counsel and an evidentiary hearing. |
Campbell | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Richard Dean Nance
A Washington County jury convicted the defendant, Richard Dean Nance, of two counts of rape of a child and one count of incest. He appeals his convictions, arguing that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law and that the trial court erred by permitting into evidence a prior conviction of one of his key witnesses. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Washington | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Daryl Powell
The Defendant-Appellant, Daryl Powell, appeals from the Sequatchie County Circuit Court's order denying his motion to determine the conditions and status of his probation and requiring him to provide a blood sample to the DNA database, which was entered more than four years after he was sentenced for his conviction for incest, a Class C felony. In his appeal, Powell argues that he complied with the provisions of Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-321 when he submitted a blood sample to the DNA database during the investigation of the charges against him in this case. Upon review, we conclude that Powell does not have an appeal as of right pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(b). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. |
Sequatchie | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ricky Lee Cook
On May 11, 2009, the Defendant, Ricky Lee Cook, pleaded guilty to Class D felony evading arrest and driving under the influence ("DUI"), third offense. Pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, he received a sentence of eleven-months and twenty-nine days at 75% to serve for the DUI conviction and a sentence of three years at 30% to be probated for the felony evading arrest conviction. These sentences were consecutive terms. Thereafter, the Defendant filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The Sumner County Criminal Court denied the motion. The Defendant now appeals, contending that this denial was error. After our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Franklin Wiggins
The Defendant, James F. Wiggins, pled guilty to driving under the influence of an intoxicant (DUI), a Class A misdemeanor. He received a sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days and was ordered to serve forty-eight hours in jail and the rest on probation. The Defendant's plea agreement reserved a certified question of law regarding the legality of the traffic stop which led to his arrest. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Loudon | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Mario Antwan Fulgham v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Mario Antwan Fulgham, appeals as of right from the Hamilton County Criminal Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief challenging his convictions for facilitation of first degree murder, attempted especially aggravated robbery, and attempted aggravated robbery. The Petitioner argues that he was entitled to post-conviction relief because his trial counsel committed ineffective assistance in failing to pursue defenses of intoxication or diminished capacity and in failing to advise the Petitioner of his right of allocution at sentencing. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Anthony Levail Newsom
The appellant, Anthony Levail Newsom, was convicted of possession of .5 grams or more of cocaine for resale, and an eight-year sentence was imposed. The appellant was granted probation. However, the trial court subsequently found that the appellant violated the terms of his release, revoked the appellant's probation, and ordered him to serve his eight-year sentence in confinement. On appeal, the appellant contends that the trial court erred in revoking his probation and in ordering him to serve his sentence in confinement instead of on community corrections. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Robert M. Winters v. Jim Morrow, Warden
The pro se Petitioner, Robert M. Winters, appeals as of right from the Bledsoe County Circuit Court's order summarily dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus attacking his convictions for felony murder and aggravated robbery. He alleges that his indictment is void for failing to charge an offense. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court. |
Bledsoe | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee. v. Dwight J. Shankle
The Defendant-Appellant, Dwight Shankle, was convicted by a McMinn County jury of manufacture of methamphetamine under 0.5 grams, a Class C felony. He was sentenced as a multiple offender to eight years in the Tennessee Department of Correction and assessed a $25,000 fine. On appeal, he claims the insufficiency of the evidence. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
McMinn | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Harold James Greenleaf, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Harold James Greenleaf, Jr., appeals from the order of the trial court denying his petition requesting forensic DNA analysis. Upon his plea of guilty in 2000, the Petitioner was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to forty years in the Department of Correction. The Petitioner seeks DNA testing of evidence related to the investigation and prosecution. After our review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the Rutherford County Circuit Court. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Willie James Krisle
The appellant, Willie James Krisle, was convicted in the Sumner County Criminal Court of two counts of the sale of less than .5 grams of a substance containing cocaine, see Tenn. Code Ann. _ 39-17-417(c)(2)(A), and he received a total effective sentence of eight years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions, specifically contending that there was insufficient evidence corroborating the testimony of his accomplice, co-defendant Robert Hargrove. Upon review, we affirm the appellant's convictions. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James G. Coons, II
The Defendant, James G. Coons, pled guilty to second degree murder, and the trial court sentenced him to forty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The Defendant appeals, contending the trial court did not adequately consider his mental health as a mitigating factor in his punishment. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we conclude the trial court properly sentenced the Defendant. As such, we affirm the trial court's judgment. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Andy B. McAmis
The Warren County Grand Jury indicted Appellant, Andy McAmis, for one count of aggravated assault in connection with a fight. After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of reckless aggravated assault. The trial court sentenced Appellant to eight years as a Range II, standard offender. On appeal, Appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and to rebut his assertion of the affirmative defense of self-defense; the trial court erred in denying his motion for mistrial; and the trial court erred in admitting inflammatory photographs. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient and that the trial court did not err in denying the mistrial or allowing the photographs into evidence. However, there is a mistake on the judgment form identifying Appellant as a Range I offender instead of a Range II offender. Therefore we affirm Appellant's conviction but remand for correction of the judgment. |
Warren | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Adam D. Sluder
The Defendant, Adam D. Sluder, pled guilty to theft over $500, two counts of violating the sexual offender registration law, six counts of statutory rape, and felony failure to appear, all Class E felonies. The Defendant received a two-year sentence for each offense as a Range I, standard offender with the failure to appear sentence to be served consecutively, for an effective four-year sentence. The trial court denied the Defendant's request to serve his sentence on probation or in community corrections. The Defendant appeals the trial court's decision, contending that confinement is an improper punishment given the nature of the offenses, his criminal history, and his rehabilitation. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Robert L. Leach, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant was convicted of two counts of first degree murder, one count of especially aggravated robbery and one count of aggravated rape. He was sentenced to death for each murder conviction. He received consecutive twenty-five year sentences for the especially aggravated robbery and aggravated rape. His convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal. See State v. Leach, 148 S.W.3d 42 (Tenn. 2004). The Appellant subsequently petitioned for post-conviction relief, which was denied by the trial court. He now appeals from the denial of post-conviction relief. On appeal, he argues numerous violations of his constitutional rights during his trial proceedings, including denial of the effective assistance of counsel. After careful review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joe Maine
Following a jury trial, the Defendant, Joe Maine, was convicted of the 1997 first degree murder of Amy Lynn King and conspiracy to commit first degree murder. The Defendant waived a jury determination of his sentence, and the trial court sentenced the Defendant to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for the first degree murder conviction and a concurrent twenty-five year sentence for the conspiracy conviction. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends, relative to his first degree murder conviction, that (1) the trial court erred in denying the Defendant's motion to suppress his statement; (2) the trial court erred in declining to declare a mistrial when inadmissible photographs were published to the jury; (3) the trial court erred in allowing the State to use the actual skull of the victim as an exhibit for demonstrative purposes; (4) the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's verdicts; (5) the trial court erred in sentencing the Defendant; and (6) the trial court erred in not granting a new trial. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Cocke | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Lori Michelle Waller
The Appellant, Lori Michelle Waller, appeals following the revocation of her probation. The Appellant admitted her violation of probation. In her brief, the Appellant alleges that her term of split confinement has been served. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the decision of the lower court. After review of the pleadings and record before this Court, we conclude that the State's motion is well-taken. Accordingly, the action of the lower court is affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. |
Carroll | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Cassandra Hendricks Franklin
The defendant, Cassandra Hendricks Franklin, was convicted by a Tipton County jury of first degree premeditated murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. In a timely appeal to this court, she argues that the evidence was insufficient to sustain her conviction and that the trial court erred by denying defense counsel's motion to withdraw from representation. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Tipton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee Ex Rel David W. Dunn v. Howard Carlton, Warden
In 1985, a jury found the petitioner, David W. Dunn, guilty of first degree murder. He received a life sentence. In his petition for habeas corpus relief, the petitioner contended that the judgment against him was void because the trial court sentenced him as a Range I, standard offender, and the trial court did not have jurisdiction to impose a life sentence with a thirty percent release eligibility. The habeas corpus court denied relief and remanded the case to the Criminal Court of Davidson County for entry of a corrected judgment. Following our review of the parties' briefs, the record, and the applicable law, we conclude that the petitioner failed to timely file his notice of appeal and that his claims do not warrant consideration in the "interest of justice." Therefore, we dismiss his appeal. |
Johnson | Court of Criminal Appeals |
