State of Tennessee v. Mack T. Transou
Following a jury trial, Defendant Mack Transou was convicted of aggravated burglary and rape. He was sentenced to concurrent sentences of fifteen years for aggravated burglary and sixteen years for rape. On appeal, Defendant argues that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support the jury's verdict, that the trial court erred in admitting DNA evidence, and that his sentence was improper in light of Blakely v. Washington. We conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's convictions, the DNA evidence was properly admitted, and that the trial court did not err in its application of one enhancement factor when sentencing Defendant. Accordingly, we affirm Defendant’s convictions and sentences. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Harlen Roy L. Zirker, aka Anthony Lamont Zirker
The defendant, Harlen Roy L. Zirker, aka Anthony Lamont Zirker, was convicted by a Davidson County jury of two counts of rape of a child, a Class A felony, and four counts of aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony, and received an effective sentence of seventy-two years. The defendant raises the following issues on appeal: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to support his convictions; (2) whether the trial court erred in denying his motion to strike two jurors for cause, in admitting evidence of the defendant's prior criminal convictions, and in imposing consecutive sentences. Following our review, we affirm the convictions and sentences. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Prentiss Phillips v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Prentiss Phillips, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The single issue presented for review is whether the petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial. The judgment is affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Willie Tom Ensley v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner appeals from the dismissal of his Post-Conviction DNA Analysis Petition. Dismissal followed an unfavorable result for the petitioner after DNA analysis of a portion of the evidence. Upon review, we affirm the dismissal. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Douglas E. Copeland
The defendant, Douglas E. Copeland, was convicted by a Putnam County Criminal Court jury of driving under the influence of an intoxicant (DUI), a Class A misdemeanor, and driving on a suspended license, a Class B misdemeanor. The trial court imposed a sentence of eleven months, twenty-nine days for the DUI conviction, with probation after ten days in jail, to be served concurrently with his sentence of six months on probation for the driving with a suspended license conviction. The trial court also ordered that the defendant pay fines totaling $860.00. On appeal, the defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his DUI conviction and that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury that his inoperable vehicle was a defense to the DUI offense. We affirm the trial court. |
Putnam | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Nathaniel Champion
A Coffee County jury convicted the Defendant, Nathaniel Champion, of the sale of a controlled substance, cocaine, and the trial court sentenced the Defendant to three years. On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction for the sale of cocaine; and (2) the trial court erred when it denied the Defendant's motion for dismissal of appointed counsel. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Coffee | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Leonard Dale Kincer
A Van Buren County Jury found the Defendant, Leonard Dale Kincer, guilty of facilitation of the manufacture of one hundred grams or more of a substance containing methamphetamine. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to four years. On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction; (2) the trial court erred in its instruction to the jury on facilitation; (3) the State committed prosecutorial misconduct by introducing prejudicial information during its closing argument; and (4) the statute under which the Defendant was convicted is unconstitutional. After thoroughly reviewing the record and the applicable authorities, we affirm the Defendant’s conviction and sentence, and remand for entry of an amended judgment in Count one. |
Van Buren | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Luis Perez
The defendant appeals his dual convictions for possession of marijuana with intent to sell and with intent to deliver. We affirm the sufficiency of the evidence and the denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress. We remand for merger of the offenses as the dual convictions are violative of double jeopardy. Further, we modify the sentence to two years in our de novo review, due to error in failure to make findings of fact in sentencing. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Terry Wayne Mitchell
The Defendant, Terry Wayne Mitchell, pled guilty to burglary of an automobile and theft of property over $500.00, in case number 5504, and possession of a schedule IV controlled substance, in case number 5505. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to three years and six months, as a Range II offender, for each of the convictions in case 5504, and it sentenced the Defendant to eleven months and twenty-nine days for the conviction in case 5505. The trial court further ordered that the two sentences in case 5504 would be served consecutively, and the sentence in 5505 would run concurrently. On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the trial court erred by not recusing itself; and (2) the trial court erred when it sentenced the Defendant. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the Defendant's convictions and sentences. |
Overton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jerry Bell
The Appellant, Jerry Bell, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of two counts of theft of property under $500, one count of aggravated burglary, two counts of kidnapping, and two counts of rape. As a result of these convictions, Bell received an effective sentence of fourteen years, eleven months, and twenty-nine days. On appeal, Bell raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to support his convictions, (2) whether the trial court’s ruling permitting introduction of his juvenile record was error, (3) whether the fines imposed by the trial court are excessive, and (4) whether he was sentenced in violation of Blakely v. Washington. After review of the record, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Anthony D. Parr
The defendant, Anthony D. Parr, was convicted by a Dyer County jury of the sale of over .5 grams of a Schedule II controlled substance, cocaine, a Class B felony, and was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to ten years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he asserts: (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction; (2) the State failed to establish evidentiary chain of custody; and (3) the prosecutor made prejudicial comments in the State’s opening arguments. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Sammie Netters v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Sammie Netters, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief from his conviction for aggravated robbery, a Class B felony. He claims that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to investigate his case adequately. We affirm the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Shonda Kay Garcia
The defendant, Shonda Kay Garcia, pled guilty to child abuse and neglect of a child six years of age or less, a Class D felony, in exchange for a two-year sentence as a Range I, standard offender, with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. Finding that the defendant lacked remorse and that a pattern of child abuse and neglect had been established, the trial court denied the defendant’s request for alternative sentencing and ordered that she serve her sentence in the Department of Correction. The defendant appeals the denial of alternative sentencing. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Obion | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Linda June Cross v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Linda June Cross, was convicted by a jury in the Cumberland County Criminal Court of first degree murder. She was sentenced to life imprisonment in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that because her trial counsel had an actual conflict of interest in representing her, counsel was therefore ineffective. The post-conviction court denied the petition, and the petitioner now appeals. Upon our review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Cumberland | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
David Johnson Hartsell v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, David Johnson Hartsell, appeals the dismissal by the Johnson County Circuit Court of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The state has moved this court to affirm the judgment of the trial court pursuant to Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20. On review, this court affirms the order of dismissal. |
Johnson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James William Parsons, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, James William Parsons, Jr., filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that he pled guilty to an illegal sentence. The trial court denied the petition, and the petitioner now appeals. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Johnson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Steven John Chromik, III
In this interlocutory appeal arising from the Davidson County Criminal Court's order suppressing certain statements and writings made by the defendant, Steven John Chromik, III, the state claims that the trial court erred in finding the defendant's statements and writings constituted inadmissible hearsay. The defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the statements and writings because of violation of his rights under the United States and Tennessee constitutions. We affirm the trial court's judgment concerning the defendant's constitutional claims but reverse its suppression of the defendant's statements on evidentiary grounds, and we remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jimmy Jennett, Jr. a/k/a Michael Brewer v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Jimmy Jennett, Jr., appeals the trial court's dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. In this appeal, he asserts that the trial court erred by dismissing the petition because he is "restrained of his liberty" by virtue of a 1977 Tennessee conviction that was used to increase his sentence for a 1985 Mississippi conviction. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Donald Blevins
The defendant, Donald Blevins, was convicted for contributing to the delinquency of a minor. The trial court imposed a sentence of 11 months and 29 days. On appeal, the defendant asserts that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on the defenses of necessity and duress. The conviction and sentence are affirmed; the case is remanded for entry of an amended judgment to correct a clerical error. |
Warren | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Anthony Norfleet v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Anthony Norfleet, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his aggravated robbery conviction, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in finding he received effective assistance of trial counsel. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Albert Smith v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Albert Smith, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief as time-barred. He contends that Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. ___, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), announced a new rule of constitutional law that applies retroactively to his case, thereby creating an exception to the one-year statute of limitations for filing a post-conviction petition. He further contends that the post-conviction court should have held an evidentiary hearing to determine the reason for his late filing of the petition. We conclude that the petitioner has not demonstrated that a valid exception to the one-year statute of limitations exists in his case or that the post-conviction court erred by denying the petition without an evidentiary hearing. Accordingly, we affirm the post-conviction court’s summary denial of the petition. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Montez Antuan Adams v. State of Tennessee
On February 2, 1999, the petitioner, Montez Antuan Adams, filed a petition for post-conviction relief to challenge his 1997 Madison County Circuit Court convictions of first degree felony murder, especially aggravated burglary, conspiracy to commit especially aggravated burglary, and theft over $500, all of which were affirmed on appeal. See State v. Montez Antuan Adams, No. 02C01-9709-CC-00352 (Tenn. Crim. App., Jackson, Sept. 1, 1998). The post-conviction court appointed counsel, and after conducting an evidentiary hearing, it denied relief. The petitioner appealed in a timely manner. Following our review upon the record, we affirm the order denying post-conviction relief. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jason Brian Hargrove
The petitioner, Jason Brian Hargrove, pled guilty to multiple counts of theft and burglary and was ordered to serve an effective sentence of twenty (20) years. This Court affirmed his sentence on direct appeal. See State v. Jason Brian Hargrove, No. M2001-01579-CCA-R3-CD, 2002 WL 1585638 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, July 18, 2002). The petitioner filed a timely petition for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and arguing that his guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied the petition. On appeal, the petitioner challenges the denial of the petition for post-conviction relief based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. He also argues that the holding in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. ___, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), requires a reduction in his sentence. For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of the post-conviction court and decline to modify the petitioner's sentence. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Monoleto D. Green
The Defendant was convicted on a jury verdict of three counts of aggravated robbery and three counts of robbery. Following a sentencing hearing, he was sentenced on all six convictions as a Range II offender to an aggregate sentence of eighty-four years with all sentences to be served consecutively. On appeal, the Defendant argues two issues: 1) there was insufficient evidence to support one of his robbery convictions and all three aggravated robbery convictions; and 2) the trial court erred by imposing excessive sentences and by ordering all the sentences to be served consecutively. We affirm the judgments of the trial court as to the convictions but modify the Defendant's sentences to an aggregate term of seventy-eight years. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Steve Cornell Snipes
The defendant, Steve Cornell Snipes, pled guilty in the Haywood County Circuit Court to possession of over .5 grams of a Schedule II controlled substance with the intent to deliver or sell, a Class B felony, and was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to eight years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. As a condition of his guilty plea, the defendant sought to reserve as a certified question of law whether the trial court erred in finding that the affidavit supporting the search warrant set forth sufficient facts establishing the credibility of the confidential informant. Based on our review, we affirm the order of the trial court. |
Haywood | Court of Criminal Appeals |
