State of Tennessee v. Roberto Vasques, Luis D. Vidales Romero, Kevin Joel Hernandez, Luis Martin Vasquez, Hector Alonzo, and Victor Hugo Garza
A Davidson County Criminal Court jury convicted the defendants of conspiracy to possess with intent to sell more than seventy pounds of marijuana within one thousand feet of a school zone, a Class A felony, and the trial court sentenced each of them to fifteen years confinement at one hundred percent in the Department of Correction. The defendants appealed their convictions, with various defendants claiming that the evidence was insufficient, that the Tennessee Drug Free School Zone Act was unconstitutional, that the trial court erred in instructing the jury, that the state's continued reference to the defendants' ethnicity was overly prejudicial, that the state's introduction of evidence concerning the presence of weapons was irrelevant and overly prejudicial, and that the jury's verdict lacked unanimity. However, before oral argument, this court stayed the appellate proceedings based upon the defendants filing petitions for coram nobis relief in the trial court. The trial court thereafter granted the petitions for coram nobis relief and vacated the defendants' convictions, and the state now appeals, claiming the trial court improperly granted coram nobis relief to each defendant. In these consolidated cases, we affirm the trial court's coram nobis judgment as to the defendants Luis Vasquez and Victor Garza but reverse the judgment as to the other defendants. On direct appeal of the underlying convictions, we hold the trial court erred in not instructing the jury about facilitation but that the error did not affect a substantial right of Roberto Vasques, Luis D. Vidales Romero, Kevin Joel Hernandez, or Hector Alonzo, and we affirm their convictions. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
John E. Carter v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, John E. Carter, appeals from the trial court's order construing his untitled pleading as one for writ of habeas corpus and denying relief. The state has filed a motion requesting that his court affirm the trial court's denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The petitioner has failed to establish that he is entitled to habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, the state's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Johnson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John L. Wright
The Defendant, John L. Wright, was convicted of driving under the influence ("DUI"), fifth offense, and of violating the implied consent law. The Defendant now appeals, contending that: (1) the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress statements the Defendant made to the police; (2) the trial court improperly concluded that the Defendant's arrest was lawful; and (3) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his DUI conviction. Finding that there exists no reversible error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Erick Bailey v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Erick Bailey, was found guilty of second degree murder and felony murder. His conviction of second degree murder was merged into his conviction of felony murder, and he was sentenced to life imprisonment. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that his trial counsel were ineffective. The post-conviction court denied the petition, and the petitioner appeals. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Robert L. Gibson
The Wilson County Grand Jury indicted the defendant, Robert Louis Gibson, on one count of sexual battery, a Class E felony. The defendant filed an application for pretrial diversion, which the prosecutor denied. On petition for writ of certiorari, the trial court affirmed the prosecutor's decision to deny pretrial diversion. In this interlocutory appeal, the defendant contends that the prosecutor abused his discretion in denying his application for pretrial diversion by improperly and unfairly weighing the factors used to determine whether diversion should be granted. Based upon our review, we affirm the order of the trial court. |
Wilson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Halbert Varnell
A Hamilton County jury convicted the Defendant, Halbert Varnell, of driving under the influence ("DUI"). The Defendant admitted that he had three previous DUI convictions, and the trial court sentenced him for DUI, fourth offense, a Class E felony. The Defendant now appeals, contending that: (1) insufficient evidence was presented at trial to support his DUI conviction; and (2) the trial court erred by permitting improper closing argument by the State. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Lorenzo Bene Ware
The defendant, Lorenzo Bene Ware, was convicted by a Davidson County jury of two counts of sexual battery by an authority figure, class C felonies. The trial court denied the defendant's request for probation and sentenced him to serve concurrent terms of three years in confinement. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his request for probation. After considering the record and the relevant authorities, we conclude the defendant has waived this issue and affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Kevin Jerron Cook v. State of Tennessee
In this post-conviction action the petitioner contends that: (1) trial counsel was ineffective in failing to advise him of the effect his plea would have on his eligibility for rehabilitative programs and less restrictive forms of confinement during his federal sentence; and (2) his plea was involuntary and unknowing. Following our review, we conclude that counsel was not ineffective for failing to advise the petitioner of a collateral consequence of his plea and that his plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered. Therefore, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Brandon Miller Waire
The defendant, Brandon Miller Waire, was convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to resell and possession of marijuana with intent to resell. The trial court imposed Range I sentences of six years and two years, respectively, which were ordered to be served consecutively to each other and consecutively to a previously imposed sentence. The defendant was fined two-thousand dollars in each case and ordered to serve his sentence on intensive probation. Later, the probation was revoked and the defendant was ordered to serve his sentence in the Department of Correction. The single issue presented for review is whether the trial court properly revoked probation. The judgment is affirmed. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Danny James McAlpin v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Danny James McAlpin, appeals the denial of post-conviction relief. The single issue presented for review is whether he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. The judgment is affirmed. |
Robertson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Terry Stephens v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Terry Stephens, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. In this appeal, he alleges that his judgment is void because his sentence was imposed by the trial judge rather than a jury, in violation of the requirements of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Nelius O. Ellis
The defendant, Nelius O. Ellis, contests the trial court's order revoking his probation and reinstating his original sentence. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Bobby Lee v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant, Bobby Lee, appeals the Obion County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. Lee was convicted of attempted first degree murder and received a sixty-year Department of Correction sentence as a career offender. On appeal, Lee contends that trial counsel’s failure to call favorable witnesses denied him his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel. After review of the record, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief. |
Obion | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James Aaron Earnest v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, James Aaron Earnest, appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to reopen his petition for post-conviction 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. Because this Court is without jurisdiction to entertain this appeal, the above-captioned matter is dismissed. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Eric Carter v. Warden Glen Turner
This matter is before the Court upon the State’s motion to affirm the judgment of the trial court by opinion pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner is appealing the trial court's denial of habeas corpus relief. A review of the record reveals that the Petitioner is not entitled to habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Mark Grimes v. Stephen Dotson, Warden
The Petitioner, Mark Grimes, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Harry McLemore v. David Mills
This matter is before the Court upon the State’s motion to affirm the judgment of the trial court by opinion pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner is appealing the trial court's denial of habeas corpus relief. A review of the record reveals that the Petitioner is not entitled to habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Lester P.Parker, III v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Lester P. Parker, III, appeals the Blount County Circuit Court's denial of post-conviction relief. His post-conviction relief petition attacked his 1997 conviction of attempt to possess cocaine with intent to deliver, as a result of which he received a two-year suspended sentence. His post-conviction claims of the state's suppression of exculpatory evidence and of ineffective assistance of trial counsel are spiced with allegations that the prosecution was the result of conspiratorial retaliation for his championing a fight against corruption in the Alcoa Police Department. The post-conviction court denied relief, and we affirm. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Teresa C. Graves
The defendant, Teresa C. Graves, was convicted of theft of property over $1,000 but less than $10,000, a Class D felony, for which she was sentenced as a Range III, persistent offender, to nine years in the Department of Correction. The defendant was granted a delayed right of appeal and raises two issues: (1) whether she should be given a new trial because of ineffective assistance of counsel; and (2) whether the evidence is sufficient to support her conviction. The State also appeals and raises two issues: (1) whether the delayed appeal is time barred by the post-conviction statute of limitations; and (2) whether the trial court erred by not sentencing the defendant as a career offender. Following our review, we conclude that (1) the defendant's delayed appeal is not barred by the post-conviction statute of limitations; (2) the defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim is not properly before this court; (3) the evidence is sufficient to support the defendant's conviction; and (4) the defendant should have been sentenced as a career offender. Therefore, we remand to the trial court for resentencing as a career offender. |
Loudon | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Gary Stephen Mayes
The defendant, Gary Stephen Mayes, was indicted by the Knox County Grand Jury on two counts of especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor, a Class B felony, and one count of stalking, a Class E felony. The trial court dismissed one of the sexual exploitation counts at the end of the State's proof; and, at the conclusion of the trial, the jury convicted the defendant of the remaining sexual exploitation count but acquitted him of the stalking count. The trial court subsequently sentenced the defendant as a repeat, violent offender to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, pursuant to the provisions of Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-120. In a timely appeal to this court, the defendant raises the following issues: (1) whether the trial court erred by not severing the stalking count of the indictment; (2) whether the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress the videotape he made of the child victims; and (3) whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain his conviction. Following our review, we conclude that the trial court committed harmless error by not severing the stalking offense, that it properly denied the defendant's motion to suppress the videotape, and that the evidence is sufficient to sustain the defendant's conviction. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kelly Michael Pickett
After a bench trial, the Davidson County Criminal Court convicted the appellant of eleven counts of sexual exploitation of a minor, a Class E felony. The trial court sentenced him to an effective four-year sentence to be served as ninety days in the county workhouse at one hundred percent and the remainder on probation. The appellant appeals, claiming (1) that the sexual exploitation of a minor statute is unconstitutional, (2) that the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions because the State failed to prove that he "possessed" pornographic images as required by the statute and because the State failed to prove that the images were real as opposed to virtual; (3) that his convictions are multiplicitous; and (4) that the trial court erred by not sentencing him to full probation and by not granting him judicial diversion. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we conclude that the offenses are multiplicitous and reverse the appellant's convictions for counts two through eleven. We also modify the sentence for count one to reflect that the appellant is eligible to receive applicable statutory credits. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Debra Elaine Kirk
Defendant, Debra Elaine Kirk was indicted on one count of aggravated child abuse and one count of felony murder. Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of aggravated child abuse of a child less than six years old, a Class A felony, and criminally negligent homicide, a Class E felony, and lesser included offense of felony murder. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Defendant as a Range I standard offender to twenty-five years for the aggravated child abuse conviction and two years for the criminally negligent homicide conviction. The trial court ordered Defendant to serve her sentences concurrently. In this appeal, Defendant argues (1) that the length of sentence imposed for her aggravated child abuse conviction violated the principles set forth in the recent United States Supreme Court's decision in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531, 159 L. Ed. 2d 403 (2004); (2) that the trial court erred in denying Defendant's motion to suppress her statement and in allowing Defendant's statement to be introduced into evidence; (3) that the trial court erred in allowing the admission of evidence of Defendant's prior drug use; (4) that the trial court erred in allowing Dr. Darinka Mileusnic to testify about certain toxicology test results; and (5) that the jury's verdicts were inconsistent. Because we determine that reversible error occurred in the trial court's admission of evidence at trial of Defendant's prior drug use, we reverse the judgments of the trial court and remand for a new trial. |
Cocke | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Anthony Griffin - Concurring
I concur in the result regarding the trial court’s failure to instruct on the lesser offense of Class E evading arrest. In my view, the legislature was empowered to enact the 2001 amendment (effective 2002) to Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-18-110. As a result, the defendant’s failure to make a timely objection or request for a special instruction equates to a waiver of the issue on appeal. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Anthony Griffin
The appellant, Anthony Griffin, was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault and felony evading arrest. After the trial, the trial court set aside the conviction for aggravated assault. The appellant was sentenced to twelve (12) years as a career offender for the Class D felony evading arrest conviction. After the denial of a motion for new trial, this appeal ensued. On appeal, the appellant argues that the trial court failed to properly instruct the jury on the lesser-included offenses of evading arrest and that he was improperly sentenced as a career offender. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Adam Dewey Householder
The appellant, Adam Dewey Householder, pled guilty to theft over $10,000, a Class C felony. He received a four year sentence, with nine months to be served in the county jail and the remainder on supervised probation. In addition, he was ordered to pay $26,820.00 in restitution. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in denying judicial diversion and in ordering a sentence of split confinement. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals |
