Ricky Johnson v. State of Tennessee
The pro se petitioner, Ricky Johnson, appeals the circuit court’s denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The state has filed a motion pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals, for this court to affirm the judgment of the circuit court by memorandum opinion. We grant the motion and affirm the judgment of the court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Terence Alan Carder
The defendant, Terence Alan Carder, pled guilty to theft of property over $1,000 but less than $10,000 and received a sentence of two years to be served on probation after service of 60 days in jail. The defendant was also ordered to provide restitution to the victim in the amount of $80,000 to be paid back at $1,000 per month. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in ordering confinement and setting restitution. Following our review, we affirm the sentence as imposed but conclude that the trial court made inadequate findings in assessing restitution pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-304. Therefore, we remand for reconsideration of the restitution award based upon the required findings. |
McNairy | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Dalton Lister
The defendant, Dalton Lister, appeals from his jury convictions in the Bradley County Criminal Court for first degree felony murder; two counts of attempted aggravated robbery, a Class C felony; and conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery, a Class C felony. He received a life sentence, with concurrent sentences of six years as a Range I, standard offender for each Class C felony. On appeal, the defendant contends (1) that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of the charged offenses; (2) that the trial court erred in not permitting cross-examination regarding a severed defendant’s outstanding arrest warrant, pending charges, status as a fugitive, and possible bias to fabricate testimony to obtain a favorable disposition of the pending charges; (3) that the trial court erred by failing to suppress a recorded statement of the defendant when the original recording was intentionally destroyed and lost by the detective who had possession of it; and (4) that the trial court erred in not ordering disclosure of the detective’s statement to the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation concerning the lost and destroyed original recording of the defendant’s statement taken the night of the homicide. We hold that the evidence was sufficient to convict the defendant of the charges and that the defendant waived his remaining issues by not filing a timely motion for new trial, and we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Bradley | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Derrick Brandon Wells
A jury convicted the Defendant, Derrick Brandon Wells, of both the sale and delivery of over .5 grams of a Schedule II controlled substance, crack-cocaine. The trial court merged the convictions and sentenced the Defendant as a Range II, multiple offender to twenty years and fined the Defendant $75,000. The Defendant appeals, contending the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of the sale of crack-cocaine. After reviewing the record and relevant authorities, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Charlton Garner
The defendant, Charlton Garner, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of second degree murder, a Class A felony; attempted second degree murder, a Class B felony; and reckless endangerment, a Class E felony. He was subsequently sentenced by the trial court to an effective sentence of twentyeight years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he raises the single issue of sufficiency of the evidence with regard to each of the convictions. Specifically, he argues that the evidence presented at trial supports his theory of self-defense. Following review of the record, we affirm the judgments of conviction. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Arterio Holman
The defendant, Arterio Holman, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of simple possession of cocaine and possession with intent to deliver 26 grams or more of cocaine. The trial court merged the simple possession conviction with the possession with intent to deliver convictionand sentenced the defendant as a Range I offender to eleven years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues that (1) the trial court erred in allowing an officer to testify as an expert on drug intent to deliver more than 26 grams of cocaine, (3) the trial court imposed an excessive sentence, and (4) cumulative error compromised his rights to a fair trial and due process. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Chanceller Chatman
The defendant, Chanceller Chatman, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of one count of felony murder, one count of especially aggravated robbery, and four counts of aggravated robbery. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for the felony murder conviction, fifteen years for the especially aggravated robbery conviction, eight years each for two of the aggravated robbery convictions, and twelve years each for the remaining aggravated robbery convictions. The trial court ordered that the life sentence for felony murder and the fifteen-year especially aggravated robbery sentence be served concurrently to each other. The court further ordered that the aggravated robbery sentences be served consecutively to each other and consecutively to the life plus fifteen-year sentence, for an effective sentence of life plus forty years. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence in support of his felony murder conviction and the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Deangelo Davis
The defendant, Deangelo Davis, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of criminal attempt to commit first degree murder, a Class A felony. For his conviction, the defendant received a sentence of twenty-five years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant raises the following issues: (1) whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion for a mistrial; (2) whether evidence of a fight between the defendant’s cousin and the victim’s uncle was properly admitted; and (3) whether the trial court erred in refusing to allow the defendant to impeach the victim’s testimony with evidence of a prior conviction. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jeremy Paul Duffer
A Davidson County Criminal Court jury convicted the appellant, Jeremy Paul Duffer, of the following indicted offenses: Seven counts of rape of a child, four counts of aggravated sexual battery, two counts of especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor, and two counts of failure to appear. After a sentencing hearing, the appellant received an effective sentence of one hundred thirty-seven years in confinement. On appeal, the appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions and that his effective sentence is excessive. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Gary V. Bullard
The Defendant, Gary V. Bullard, was charged with one count of aggravated assault and one count of attempted aggravated rape. Following a jury trial, he was found guilty of both counts. In this direct appeal, he argues that (1) the State presented evidence sufficient to convict him of simple assault, but not aggravated assault; and (2) the State presented evidence insufficient to convict him of attempted aggravated rape. After our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Marcus Rogers v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Marcus Rogers, appeals from the post-conviction court’s denial of post-conviction relief as it relates to the petitioner’s convictions on one count of second degree murder and two counts of attempted second degree murder. On appeal, the petitioner argues that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. Following our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court denying post-conviction relief. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Nicholas Fletcher
Following a jury trial, Defendant, Nicholas Fletcher was found guilty of first degree felony murder, attempted especially aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, and aggravated assault, a Class C felony. Defendant was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender, to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole for his felony murder conviction, eight years for his attempted especially aggravated robbery conviction, and three years for his aggravated assault conviction. The trial court ordered Defendant to serve his sentences concurrently for an effective sentence of life with the possibility of parole. On appeal, Defendant argues that (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress; (2) the prosecutor engaged in prosecutorial misconduct during the cross examination of Cordareyes Torry; and (3) the cumulative effect of these errors denied Defendant his constitutional right to a fair trial. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Kenyale Pirtle v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Kenyale Pirtle (“Pirtle”), appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. In this appeal, Pirtle raises a single issue for our review. He argues that the trial court erred in granting the motion to dismiss because the Attorney General and Reporter, acting through one of his assistants, had no authority to file a motion to dismiss in the habeas court. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Haywood | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Susan Gail Stephens
The Defendant, Susan Gail Stephens, was charged with two counts of statutory rape and two counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. The State denied her application for pretrial diversion, and she petitioned for a writ of certiorari to review the State’s decision. The Circuit Court of Coffee County upheld the denial of pretrial diversion. The Defendant now appeals, arguing that the State, in its memorandum, considered irrelevant factors and failed to consider all relevant factors. After our review, we vacate the judgment of the trial court and direct that this case be remanded to the district attorney general for further consideration. |
Coffee | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ricky Lee Nelson v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Ricky Lee Nelson, appeals the criminal court’s dismissal of his petition for postconviction relief. The state has filed a motion requesting that this court affirm the court’s judgment pursuant to Rule 20 of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals. We conclude that the state’s motion is meritorious. Accordingly, we grant the state’s motion and affirm the judgment. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Lorne James Clabough
The defendant, Lorne James Clabough, was convicted of especially aggravated kidnapping (Class A felony), aggravated assault (Class C felony), two counts of aggravated assault by recklessness (Class D felony), and evading arrest (Class E felony). The trial court imposed an effective sentence of twenty years. In our initial review, the convictions and sentences were affirmed. See State v. Lorne James Clabough, No. E2005-02133-CCA-R3-CD, 2007 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 14 (Tenn. Crim. App. Jan. 8, 2007, at Knoxville), perm. to appeal granted, case remanded (Tenn. Oct. 15, 2007). Our supreme court remanded to this court for reconsideration in light of State v. Gomez II, 239 S.W.3d 733 (Tenn. 2007). Upon review, we remand to the trial court for resentencing of the defendant for his Class A felony and both Class D felony convictions, and we affirm the remainder of the sentence. |
Bradley | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Charles Green v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Charles Green, appeals the judgment of the Gibson County Circuit Court denying post-conviction relief. On appeal, the petitioner argues that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel which caused him to enter an unknowing and involuntary guilty plea. Following our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the court denying post-conviction relief. |
Gibson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Giovanna A. Sturgill v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Giovanna A. Sturgill, appeals from the order of the trial court dismissing her petition for post-conviction relief as time-barred. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the judgment of the trial court pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal appeals. We grant the State’s motion and affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jerome F. Sawyers v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant appeals the trial court's dismissal of his petition for post conviction relief. The Appellant filed his petition outside the statute of limitations. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Corey Lillard v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant appeals the trial court's dismissal of his petition for post conviction relief. The Appellant filed his petition outside the statute of limitations. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Adam Betts v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Adam Betts, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The petitioner was convicted of first degree murder and is currently serving a sentence of life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. On appeal, he argues that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel, specifically arguing that trial counsel was ineffective in: (1) failing to investigate the case or hire an investigator, to file certain pretrial motions, and to interview witnesses prior to trial; and (2) failing to litigate the motion to suppress the petitioner’s statement. After review, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Andre Perkins
The defendant, Andre Perkins, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of one count of voluntary manslaughter, a Class C felony, and one count of theft of property over $1000, a Class D felony. The trial court subsequently sentenced the defendant as a Range I, standard offender to consecutive sentences of six years and four years for the respective convictions. On appeal, the defendant asserts that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions; and (2) the sentences imposed are excessive based upon the erroneous application of enhancement factors, the failure to apply mitigating factors, and the imposition of consecutive sentencing. Following review of the record, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction for voluntary manslaughter, and we affirm that conviction. However, review of the record reveals that the State failed to establish the element of value with regard to the theft conviction. As such, we modify the conviction to one for theft of property less than $500, a Class A misdemeanor, and remand to the trial court for re-sentencing. With regard to the sentence for voluntary manslaughter, we conclude that the trial court erred in its application of two enhancement factors. The record does support the trial court’s refusal to apply mitigating factors and its imposition of consecutive sentencing. Nonetheless, because of the errors which occurred in sentencing, we remand the case for re-sentencing in accordance with the principles set forth in this opinion. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joseph Ray Pinson
A McNairy County jury convicted the Defendant-Appellant, Joseph Ray Pinson (“Pinson”), of rape of a child. The trial court sentenced Pinson to twenty years in confinement to be served at 100%. The sole issue for our review is whether the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction. However, we lack jurisdiction to review this matter because there is no order reflecting the trial court’s ruling on Pinson’s motion for new trial. Because the record clearly shows the trial court denied Pinson relief, we remand this case for supplementation of the record with an order denying Pinson’s motion for new trial. |
McNairy | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Willie Andrew Cole
The defendant, Willie Andrew Cole, was convicted by a Davidson County jury of first degree premeditated murder and tampering with evidence, a Class C felony. He was subsequently sentenced by the trial court as a repeat violent offender to concurrent terms of life without the possibility of parole for the first degree murder conviction and six years for the tampering with evidence conviction, to be served consecutively to a previous life sentence for second degree murder. In a timely appeal to this court, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence in support of his first degree murder conviction and argues that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of his prior bad acts, not suppressing his statement, denying his motion to relieve trial counsel, and not addressing alleged prosecutorial misconduct. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Rickey E. Hutchings
The Defendant, Rickey E. Hutchings, appeals as of right from the Williamson County Circuit Court’s revocation of his 1994 probationary sentence for possession of contraband in a penal institution. On June 22, 1998, a warrant was issued against the Defendant, alleging a violation of probation based upon the Defendant’s arrest in Gulfport, Mississippi for possession of approximately one hundred pounds of marijuana with the intent to sell. The warrant was not served on the Defendant until November 27, 2007, and was thereafter amended to include additional criminal behavior. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the delay between the issuance of the probation violation warrant and his revocation hearing violated his right to a speedy revocation hearing and, therefore, that the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss the warrants. Because the Defendant was denied the right to a speedy probation revocation hearing, the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the warrants against the Defendant are dismissed. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals |
