State of Tennessee v. Johntavius Griggs
In this interlocutory appeal pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 9, we review the trial court’s order denying the motion of Defendant, Johntavius Griggs, for release from custody after he was found to be incompetent to stand trial for first degree murder due to his intellectual disability. The trial court found that the conclusion of psychiatrists designated by the Department of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (“DIDD”)1 that Defendant was ineligible for involuntary commitment was based on their misinterpretation of the statutory provisions governing the involuntary commitment of defendants found to be incompetent to stand trial due to intellectual disability. The trial court ordered additional evaluations by DIDD-designated physicians or psychologists to determine Defendant’s eligibility for involuntary commitment. Upon review, we conclude that the DIDD-designated psychiatrists misinterpreted the applicable statutory provisions in determining that Defendant did not meet the statutory requirements for involuntary commitment. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment denying Defendant’s motion for release from custody, and we remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Leigh Katherine Littleton
The Johnson County Grand Jury charged the Defendant, Leigh Katherine Littleton, and |
Johnson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Glenn Larry Brown v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Glenn Larry Brown, Jr., appeals from the Knox County Criminal Court’s |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Robert Oliver
The Defendant, Robert Oliver, was convicted by a Washington County jury of aggravated rape and aggravated assault, for which he received an effective sentence of twenty-eight years' incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant argues that (1) the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to support his conviction of aggravated rape, (2) the State committed prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments, and (3) the trial court erred by ordering the Defendant to pay $60,000 in fines. Following our review, we concluded that the trial court failed to make appropriate findings regarding its imposition of fines. Therefore, we reverse the trial court's sentencing determination regarding the fines and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We otherwise affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Washington | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jamar Laquinn Frazier
The Defendant, Jamar Laquinn Frazier, appeals from his conviction for second degree murder following a jury trial. In this appeal, the Defendant claims that the trial court (1) denied him counsel of his choosing by denying his request to continue the trial date; (2) erred by allowing certain testimony at trial in violation of the law of the case doctrine and by allowing improper opinion, character, and hearsay testimony; and (3) erred by imposing the maximum twenty-five-year sentence. Additionally, the Defendant argues that he is entitled to a new trial (4) due to the denial of funding for an investigator during the motion for new trial proceedings and (5) due to cumulative error. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Johnny Graham
The Defendant, Johnny Graham, was convicted of possession of cocaine with the intent to sell or deliver and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to a term of nine years and placed him on probation. Thereafter, the Defendant was arrested for the unlawful possession of cocaine and multiple firearms. Following a hearing, the trial court fully revoked the Defendant’s suspended sentences and ordered him to serve the full term in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in fully revoking his suspended sentences. Upon our review, we respectfully disagree and affirm the trial court’s judgments. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Tarence Nelson v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Tarence Nelson, was convicted by a jury of two counts of first degree premeditated murder and sentenced by the trial court to two consecutive terms of life imprisonment. In 2023, Petitioner filed his third petition for writ of error coram nobis (“the third petition”) claiming that a Sig Sauer P229 handgun (“the Sig Sauer”) that he hid in a computer at his home following the 2009 murders was newly discovered evidence. The Sig Sauer was found after Petitioner revealed its location and the coram nobis court by order entered on July 20, 2021, appointed counsel to represent Petitioner on the fingerprint analysis petition filed in conjunction with Petitioner’s second petition for writ of error coram nobis. Because Petitioner knew the location of the Sig Sauer at the time of his trial and because Petitioner was solely at fault in failing to present the Sig Sauer as evidence “at the proper time,” error coram nobis relief is not available. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-26- 105(b). We affirm the judgment of the coram nobis court in summarily dismissing the petition. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Stacey James May
The Defendant, Michael Stacey James May, was convicted by a Johnson County Criminal |
Johnson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Asben K. Chapman
A Davidson County jury convicted the Defendant, Asben K. Chapman, of one count of first degree premeditated murder, two counts of felony murder, two counts of attempted first degree murder, and two counts of employing a firearm during a dangerous felony offense. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of life plus thirty-one years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant contends: (1) the trial court improperly admitted pretrial statements; (2) the evidence was insufficient to establish premeditation for his first degree murder conviction and attempted first degree murder convictions; and (3) the trial court improperly ordered consecutive sentences. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Keyshawn D. Fouse v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Keyshawn D. Fouse, was convicted of attempted first degree murder, aggravated assault, and employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, for which he received an effective sentence of twenty-six years’ confinement. This court affirmed Petitioner’s convictions and sentences on direct appeal. Petitioner then filed a petition for post-conviction relief in which he claimed ineffective assistance of counsel, and the post-conviction court denied the petition after a hearing. On appeal, Petitioner asserts that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to properly advise him of the importance of his testimony at trial. After review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kenneth Street
Defendant, Kenneth Street, pled guilty to two counts of possession of a controlled substance in exchange for two consecutive sentences of eleven months and twenty-nine days, both of which would be suspended and deferred. As part of the guilty plea agreement, the State dismissed several charges. Defendant subsequently sought to withdraw his guilty pleas pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 32. The trial court denied the request. Defendant appealed. Upon our review, we conclude that Defendant has failed to prepare a sufficient brief in compliance with Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 27(a)(7) and Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 10(b). Accordingly, his issues are waived, and the appeal is dismissed. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Paul Clifford Moore, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Paul Clifford Moore, Jr., appeals the Knox County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his “Motion for Plain Error Review in an Alternative Petition for Extraordinary Writ.” He argues that the trial court’s sequential jury instructions were improper and prevented the jury from returning a verdict of voluntary manslaughter rather than second degree murder. Upon review of the entire record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we conclude that Petitioner does not have an appeal as of right under Rule 3 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure; accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Lavonta Laver Churchwell v. State of Tennessee
The pro se Petitioner, Lavonta Laver Churchwell, appeals the Davidson County Criminal |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Aaron Joseph Van Arsdale
Defendant, Aaron Joseph Van Arsdale, appeals his Maury County convictions for vehicular assault, driving under the influence (second offense), simple possession of cocaine, and failure to exercise due care. He contends that: (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the results of blood alcohol concentration testing; (2) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction for vehicular assault; and (3) the trial court erred in ordering restitution. Upon review, we affirm Defendant’s convictions, affirm the restitution order in part, vacate the restitution order in part, and remand for entry of an amended judgment consistent with this opinion. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Christopher Simonds
An Anderson County jury convicted Defendant, Michael Christopher Simonds, of attempted aggravated rape. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of eleven years’ confinement. On appeal, Defendant contends that that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction and that the State made improper comments in its closing argument. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Anderson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Scott Alan Haynes, Jr.
The Defendant, Scott Alan Haynes, Jr., was convicted in the Montgomery County Circuit Court of second degree murder and reckless endangerment committed with a deadly weapon and received consecutive eighteen- and two-year sentences, respectively. On appeal, the Defendant claims that the evidence is insufficient to support his second degree murder conviction and that his eighteen-year sentence for the conviction is excessive. Based upon our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Gemeyal Strowder v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Gemeyal Strowder, was charged with aggravated robbery, aggravated assault, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and theft of property valued at one thousand dollars ($1000) or less. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the Petitioner entered a guilty plea to aggravated robbery, and the remaining charges were dismissed with the sentence and manner of service to be determined by the trial court. Following a hearing, the trial court imposed a sentence of eighteen years’ imprisonment. The Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which the post-conviction court denied. In this appeal, the Petitioner argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. After review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
McNairy | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Luis Mendoza-Sanchez
A Rutherford County jury convicted the Defendant, Luis Mendoza-Sanchez, of multiple offenses against two victims, a child and her mother, including aggravated assault of the mother, rape of a child and four counts of aggravated sexual assault of the child. He was additionally convicted of violating the Child Protection Act. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to fifty-nine years of incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the trial court erred when it denied his motion to sever the trials for charges against the victim and her mother; (2) the trial court erred when it allowed the State to ask leading questions of their own witness; (3) the trial court erred when it limited the Defendant’s cross-examination of an expert about the victim’s sexual orientation; and (4) the cumulative effect of these errors entitled him to a new trial. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Isaih Tatum v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Isaih Tatum, pleaded guilty to possession of more than 0.5 grams of |
McMinn | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jimmie Martin v. State of Tennessee
A Shelby County jury convicted the Petitioner, Jimmie Martin, of second degree murder of Martha J. Bownes, and the trial court sentenced him to serve twenty years. On appeal, this court affirmed the judgment. State v. Martin, No. W2013-00889-CCA-R3-CD, 2014 WL 2566490, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 5, 2014), no perm. app. filed. The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, claiming that he had received the ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney had a conflict of interest at the time he represented the Petitioner and because Counsel failed to call an eye witness, Christopher Martin, to testify at his trial. After review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Charles Jordan, II
The Defendant, Charles Jordan, II, pled guilty in the Dyer County Circuit Court to possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a felony crime of violence and possession of more than one-half ounce of marijuana with intent to sell or deliver. Pursuant to the plea agreement, he was to receive an effective ten-year sentence with the trial court to determine the manner of service. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered that he serve the sentence in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant claims that the trial court erred by denying his request for alternative sentencing. Based on our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jacquet Moore v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Jacquet Moore, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s summary denial of his post-conviction petition, seeking relief from his conviction of aggravated rape and resulting sentence of sixty years to be served at one hundred percent. On appeal, the Petitioner claims, and the State concedes, that the post-conviction court erred by denying his amended petition without conducting an evidentiary hearing on his claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Based on our review, we conclude that the post-conviction court properly denied relief as to one of the Petitioner’s grounds for relief but that the case must be remanded for an evidentiary hearing on his remaining grounds. Therefore, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case is remanded to the post-conviction court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jennifer Ruth Barber
The Defendant, Jennifer Ruth Barber, appeals from the Montgomery County Circuit Court’s probation revocation of her eight-year sentence for possession of methamphetamine. On appeal, she contends that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering her to serve her sentence. We affirm the court’s judgment. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Demarcus Keyon Cole v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Demarcus Keyon Cole, acting pro se, appeals from the summary dismissal of his petition seeking a writ of error coram nobis, claiming that Judge Donald H. Allen erred by summarily dismissing the petition while Petitioner’s motion to recuse Judge Joseph T. Howell was pending. We conclude that Petitioner is not entitled to relief and affirm the summary dismissal of the petition. However, we remand for Judge Howell to enter a written order granting the recusal motion. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jerry Irve Buckner a/k/a Jerry Irvin Buckner
The Defendant, Jerry Buckner, was convicted by a Davidson County Criminal Court jury of second degree murder, a Class A felony, and unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, a Class B felony. T.C.A. §§ 39-13-210 (2018) (second degree murder), 39-17-1307(b)(1)(A) (2018) (subsequently amended) (unlawful firearm possession). The trial court sentenced the Defendant to serve concurrent sentences of forty years for second degree murder and twenty years for the firearm possession. On appeal, he contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions and that the trial court erred in declining to instruct the jury on the defense of self-defense. We affirm the judgments of the trial court and remand for correction of a clerical error on the judgment for the firearm conviction. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals |
