Pierre Andre Brown A/K/A Anthony Anderson v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Pierre Andre Brown, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court's denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner fails to assert a cognizable claim for which habeas corpus relief may be granted. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Lake | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Michael Dwayne Edwards v. State of Tennessee - Order
Pursuant to Rule 39 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, the State of Tennessee, through the Attorney General, requested rehearing of the opinion filed in this case on January 17, 2007, which reversed the trial court’s summary dismissal of the petition for writ of habeas corpus and remanded the case for the appointment of counsel and an evidentiary hearing related to the allegation that the petitioner’s sentence was illegal due to an improper offender classification. |
Hickman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Anthony Bonds
The Appellant, Anthony Bonds , was convicted by 1 a Shelby County jury of attempted especially aggravated robbery and sentenced to ten years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, Bonds raises the single issue of sufficiency of the evidence. Following review of the record, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of conviction. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Harvey Phillip Hester v. State of Tennessee
The State appeals the Hamilton County Criminal Court’s granting the petitioner’s request for postconviction relief from his convictions for two counts of second degree murder and one count of attempted second degree murder and effective sixty-two-year sentence. In this appeal, the State claims that the trial court erred by concluding (1) that the petitioner received the ineffective assistance of trial counsel and (2) that the petitioner did not voluntarily and knowingly waive his right to a twelve-member jury verdict. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the trial court erred by granting the petitioner’s request for post-conviction relief and reverse the judgment of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Donnie Thompson
The appellant, Donnie Glenn Thompson, was indicted on one count of stalking his ex-wife. The appellant applied for pretrial diversion, and this request was denied by the district attorney general. The trial court denied the appellant’s petition for writ of certiorari, holding that the district attorney general had not abused his discretion by denying pretrial diversion. This Court accepted the appellant’s application for interlocutory appeal and issued a judgment in which we reversed the trial court’s decision and remanded the issue for further consideration by the district attorney general. The district attorney general denied the appellant’s application for pretrial diversion a second time. The appellant filed a second petition for writ of certiorari, which the trial court again denied. We have accepted the appellant’s second application for interlocutory appeal. Because the district attorney general considered the proper criteria when evaluating the appellant’s application for pretrial diversion, including evidence favorable to the defendant and because he articulated sufficient grounds for denying the appellant’s request for pretrial diversion, we affirm the trial court’s conclusion that the district attorney general did not abuse his discretion |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jamie Roskom
The Appellant, Jamie Roskom, was convicted by a Bedford County jury of violating the Sexual Offender Registration, Verification, and Tracking Act of 2004, a Class E felony. On appeal, Roskom argues that he was indicted for failing to “register” as a sexual offender, which is a violation of section 208 of the Act; however, he was convicted of failing to “report,” which is a violation of section 204. See T.C.A. § 40-39-208(1), -204(c) (Supp. 2004). As such, Roskom asserts that he was not given notice of the crime for which he was convicted, and there is “no proof that [he] [committed] the offense for which he was indicted.” After review of the record, we agree and conclude that the indicted offense of failing to “register” impermissibly varied from the proof at trial, which established the separate offense of failing to “report.” Accordingly, Roskom’s conviction for violation of the “sex offender registration act” is reversed and dismissed. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jerry Lynn Osborne, Jr.
In May of 2005, the defendant, Jerry Lynn Osborne, Jr., was indicted for one count of theft under $500, seven counts of identity theft, and seven counts of fraudulent use of a debit card. In July of 2005, the defendant was indicted for one count of driving under the influence and one count of theft over $1000. He pled guilty to all of the indicted charges and received an effective sentence of four years in the Department of Correction. The defendant requested an alternative sentence of either probation or community corrections, which the trial court denied. The defendant now argues that the trial court erred by denying his request for an alternative sentence. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jacques B. Bennett v. Virginia Lewis, Warden and State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Jacques B. Bennett, pled guilty to first degree murder in 1992 and was sentenced to life in prison. He petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the judgment against him was void because he was not present and not represented by counsel at his sentencing hearing and because the trial court did not follow statutory mandates in sentencing him. The trial court dismissed his petition without a hearing. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Bledsoe | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Andrew Soimis
Andrew Soimis, the defendant, appeals his conviction for second degree murder (Class A felony) on the sole ground that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction. After review, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient, and we affirm the judgment of conviction. |
Putnam | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Mark A. Schiefelbein
A Williamson County Circuit Court jury convicted the defendant, Mark A. Schiefelbein, of seven counts of aggravated sexual battery and one count of especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor. The trial court imposed a 12-year sentence for each conviction and ordered consecutive service, thereby yielding an effective sentence of 96 years. Aggrieved of the convictions and sentences, the defendant appeals and raises the following issues: (1) the trial court erred by failing to require the State to furnish discovery materials to the defendant; (2) the trial court committed reversible error by configuring courtroom seating to shield the public from viewing certain exhibits; (3) the trial court improperly instructed the jury, sua sponte, to disregard certain truthful testimony of the defendant; (4) the trial court’s repeated questioning of State’s witnesses created an appearance of judicial bias and improperly bolstered the State’s case; (5) the trial court committed reversible error in excluding defense-proffered medical testimony that a physical examination of the victim rebutted the occurrence of sexual penetration, contact, or injury; (6) the trial court permitted the introduction of inadmissible and highly prejudicial hearsay and opinion testimony; (7) the trial court erroneously permitted the State to examine the defendant about his knowledge that a “voice stress analysis” could detect stress in an individual’s voice; (8) the trial court erroneously instructed the jury that the defendant could be guilty of aggravated sexual battery if he acted intentionally, knowingly, or “recklessly”; (9) the trial court erroneously instructed the jury that the State could prove the mental state for aggravated sexual battery in the disjunctive by showing that the defendant acted intentionally, knowingly, “or” recklessly; (10) the trial judge should be disqualified from further involvement in the case; and (11) the defendant’s effective sentence is excessive, illegal, and unconstitutional. As an adjunct to the issues raised on direct appeal, the defendant also pursues Appellate Procedure Rule 10 interlocutory review to bar future prosecution of three related child rape charges that were severed, over his objection, from trial of the aggravated sexual battery and especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor offenses. After thorough review of the record and careful consideration of the parties briefs, their oral arguments, and the applicable law, we hold that none of the errors require reversal of the defendant’s convictions for aggravated sexual battery or for aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor. However, we hold that the incarcerative 96-years’ sentence is inconsistent with the purposes and principles of sentencing and does not provide a fair sense of predictability of the criminal law and its sanctions; therefore, we modify the defendant’s effective sentence from 96 years to 36 years. We order that the trial judge who presided at trial is disqualified from conducting any further proceedings in this cause. Finally, we dismiss the child rape offenses, as improperly severed, and hold that further prosecution on such charges is barred by |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kenneth D. Hoover
The defendant, Kenneth D. Hoover a.k.a. Kenneth Johnson, appeals his convictions and sentence. The defendant was found guilty of second degree murder (Class A felony), reckless endangerment (Class A misdemeanor), and possession of a weapon with the intent to employ it in the commission of a felony (Class E felony). The defendant received an effective sentence of twenty-nine years. On appeal, the defendant alleges that the trial court erred in admitting certain autopsy photographs and erred in imposing an excessive sentence. After review, we affirm the judgments of conviction and sentencing. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ayatolah W. Wallace
The defendant, Ayatolah W. Wallace, was convicted of three counts of aggravated kidnapping and sentenced to sixteen years in the Department of Correction as a Range II, violent offender. He argues that his convictions must be overturned in light of State v. Anthony, 817 S.W.2d 299, 301 (Tenn. 1991), which precludes dual convictions for kidnapping and another accompanying felony when the movement or confinement supporting the kidnapping charge is merely incidental to that required to commit the accompanying felony. Because the defendant was convicted only of aggravated kidnapping, however, Anthony is inapposite. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Bradley | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Emanuel Lawrence Harris
The defendant, Emanuel Lawrence Harris,1 pled guilty to nine felony drug offenses and was sentenced to an effective term of twenty-three years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in ordering that some of his sentences be served consecutively. Upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Dickson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Frank Ray Ruth
The Defendant, Frank Ray Ruth, was indicted for thirty-seven counts of filing false sales tax returns and one count of Class C felony theft of property. The district attorney general denied the Defendant’s application for pretrial diversion. The trial court reversed, concluding that the district attorney abused his discretion. The State obtained an interlocutory appeal from this Court pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 10. Following our review of the record, the judgment of the Hamilton County Criminal Court ordering the district attorney general to grant the Defendant diversion is reversed. This case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Earnest F. Brown v. State of Tennessee
In October 2004, Petitioner, Earnest F. Brown, pled guilty to two counts of theft of property over $1,000.00, one count of burglary, two counts of burglary of a motor vehicle, and one count of assault. In exchange for his plea, the trial court sentenced Petitioner to serve two years as a Range I offender for the first conviction of theft over $1,000.00, four years as a Range II offender for the second conviction of theft over $1,000.00, two years as a Range II offender for each burglary of a motor vehicle conviction, and eleven months, twenty-nine days for the assault conviction, for a total effective sentence of fourteen (14) years, eleven (11) months, twenty-nine (29) days. In June 2005, Petitioner filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief. After appointing counsel and conducting a hearing, the post-conviction court denied Petitioner post-conviction relief. Petitioner now appeals that denial arguing that the trial court erred in denying his petition because (1) his guilty pleas were not knowingly and voluntarily entered, and (2) he did not receive effective assistance of counsel. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Wiley Hawthorne
OnNovember 2, 2004, the appellant, Wiley Hawthorne, was indicted on one count of attempted first degree murder and one count of felony reckless endangerment. On July 27, 2005, a jury found the appellant guilty on both counts. On August 26, 2005, the trial court sentenced the appellant to twenty-two years for attempting to commit first degree murder and eighteen months for reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon, the sentences to run concurrently. On September 9, 2005, the trial court denied the appellant’s motion for a new trial. The appellant filed a notice of appeal. On appeal, the appellant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions on both counts of the indictment. Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the State, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to have found the accused guilty of both counts of the indictment beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, we affirm the appellant’s convictions. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William Granville Howell
Defendant, William Granville Howell, was indicted for aggravated assault. Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of simple assault and sentenced to serve eleven months, twenty-nine days, with the sentence suspended. On appeal, Defendant argues that his conviction should be reversed because (1) the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction of simple assault beyond a reasonable doubt; (2) the trial court erred in admitting testimony pertaining to a prior assault claim against Defendant; and (3) trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to the admission of the prior conviction and for opening the door for introduction of this evidence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Percy Lee Palmer v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant, Percy Lee Palmer, appeals the trial court's dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. Appellant concedes on appeal that the trial court's judgment is correct. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Joseph Jackson, Jr., v. State of Tennessee
A Shelby County jury convicted the Petitioner, Joseph Jackson, Jr., of two counts of attempted first degree murder, and the trial judge imposed two twenty-year sentences to be served concurrently. The Petitioner filed a pro se petition for habeas corpus relief, which was dismissed by the habeas court without a hearing. On appeal, the Petitioner contends he could not have been convicted for these two criminal attempts under statutory law and the underlying judgment is therefore illegal and void. Finding no reversible error exists, we affirm the judgment of the habeas court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John Patrick Nash
The appellant, John Patrick Nash, was indicted by a Sumner County grand jury of six counts of sexual contact with a victim under the age of thirteen. On August 23, 2005, he pled no contest to an amended indictment charging two counts of aggravated assault and retiring the other four counts of the original indictment. He received sentences of six and four years respectively, to run consecutively, for a total effective sentence of ten years as a standard offender and placed on community corrections. In October 2005, the appellant failed a drug test after testing positive for cocaine, marijuana, and alcohol, and a violation of community corrections warrant was filed. Following a hearing on January 9, 2006, the community corrections sentence was revoked and the appellant was ordered to serve his underlying sentences in confinement. On appeal, the appellant argues that the trial court erred in finding that he had violated the terms and conditions of his community corrections sentence. After careful review, we find no reversible error exists and affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. David Michael Chubb - Concurring
I join with the majority in concluding that the State’s special instruction submitted to the jury constituted reversible error. I write separately only to note the following additional reasons for finding the instruction was error. The special instruction, in its entirety, is as follows: The court instructs you that in a sexual abuse case you may convict the defendant on the basis of the victim’s testimony alone. Corroboration of the victim’s testimony is not necessary. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. David Michael Chubb
The appellant, David Michael Chubb, was convicted by a jury in the Sumner County Criminal Court of four counts of aggravated sexual battery, one count of attempted aggravated sexual battery, one count of possession of marijuana, and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia. The trial court sentenced the petitioner to a total effective sentence of fourteen years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether the trial court erred in failing to inquire into the conflict of interest when it was revealed at trial that the appellant’s trial counsel had previously represented the mother of the minor victim; (2) whether the trial court erred in allowing the State to admit a videotape into evidence; (3) whether the trial court erred in denying the appellant’s motion for a bill of particulars; (4) whether the trial court erred in charging a special jury instruction requested by the State; (5) whether, according to the dictates of Blakely v. Washington, the trial court erred in sentencing the appellant; and (6) whether the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences. Upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we reverse the convictions for aggravated sexual battery and attempted aggravated sexual battery based upon an improper instruction, affirm the drug related convictions, and remand for a new trial on the aggravated sexual battery and attempted aggravated sexual battery charges. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Mario L. Smith
The defendant, Mario L. Smith, was convicted by a Davidson County Criminal Court jury of attempted second degree murder, a Class B felony, and vandalism over $1000, a Class D felony and was sentenced by the trial court as a Range I, standard offender to concurrent sentences of nine years and two years, respectively, in the Department of Correction. The sole issue the defendant raises on appeal is whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain his attempted second degree murder conviction. We conclude that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction and, accordingly, affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Sherry Floyd McAlister
The defendant, Sherry Floyd McAlister, was convicted of attempted first degree murder, a Class A felony, and sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to twenty-five years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, she argues that the trial court erred by imposing an excessive sentence. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Perry | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jeremy S. Crosby
Following a jury trial, Defendant, Jeremy S. Crosby, was convicted of possession of over .5 grams of cocaine with intent to sell and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia. He was sentenced to serve eighteen years in the Department of Correction for the cocaine conviction and eleven months, twenty-nine days for the paraphernalia conviction, for an effective sentence of eighteen years. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in failing to grant his motion to suppress, and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. After a review of the record, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals |
