Timothy Taylor v. Kevin Myers, Warden
The defendant was convicted in 1998 of a series of felonies, receiving an effective sentence of five years and six months. He was released on parole in 1999, and his parole was revoked in 2002, resulting in his reincarceration. Subsequently, he filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, asserting that his five-year-six-month sentence had expired. The post-conviction court dismissed the petition; and, following our review, we affirm the dismissal. |
Wayne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Charles Jones v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Charles William Jones, appeals the denial of post-conviction relief relating to his conviction for second degree murder. On appeal, the petitioner contends the trial court erroneously instructed the jury regarding the definition of "knowingly" as applied to second degree murder. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Mandrall Porter v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Mandrall Porter, 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. After a review of the record, this court determines that petitioner's claims must fail. Petitioner has failed to present any evidence that his sentence has expired or that his conviction for especially aggravated robbery is void. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Wayne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jeffery Bowers
The defendant, Jeffery Bowers, appeals his misdemeanor speeding convictions in the Fayette County Circuit Court, claiming that the trial court improperly denied his request for time to obtain an attorney and, therefore, that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Fayette | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Brandon Mottern
The defendant pled guilty to two counts of automobile burglary and one count of theft under $500. The Washington County Criminal Court ordered the defendant to serve an effective sentence of five years of incarceration as a Range II multiple offender. During the same hearing, the trial court revoked the defendant's probation from numerous prior convictions and ordered the defendant to serve an effective three-year sentence on those cases. The guilty plea cases and the revocation cases were consolidated on appeal. On appeal, the defendant contends: (1) upon revoking his probation for the prior convictions, the trial court erred by ordering him to serve his original sentences in confinement; and (2) the trial court erred in denying alternative sentencing regarding his new convictions. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Washington | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Richard A. Siters
On February 28, 2002, the defendant, Richard A. Siters, pled guilty to four counts of attempted rape, a Class C felony; one count of sexual battery, a Class E felony; and one count of attempted sexual battery, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced the defendant to six years, suspended, and placed him on intensive supervised probation. On appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court erred in revoking his probation. We disagree and affirm the revocation. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. David L. Taylor
A Campbell County jury convicted the defendant of driving under the influence, third offense. On appeal, the defendant contends the state failed to establish venue. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Campbell | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Darian Sparks
The defendant, Darian Nigel Sparks, pled guilty in the Knox County Criminal Court to robbery and the attempted sale of a Schedule I controlled substance, Class C felonies. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the defendant received consecutive sentences of eight years for each offense, with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court denied the defendant's request for alternative sentences and ordered that he serve his sentences in the Department of Correction. The defendant appeals, claiming that the trial court erred by ordering that he serve his sentences in confinement. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Danny Williamson
The defendant, Danny Williamson, pled guilty in the Cocke County Criminal Court to possession of a Schedule VI controlled substance with intent to sell, a Class D felony. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the defendant received a two-year sentence as a Range I, standard offender with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court held that the need for deterrence warranted the defendant's serving his entire sentence in confinement. The defendant appeals, claiming that the trial court erred by denying his request for full probation. We affirm the defendant's sentence but remand the case for entry of a corrected judgment. |
Cocke | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Christopher Brown v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner appeals the denial of post-conviction relief relating to his convictions for attempted first degree murder and attempted second degree murder. On appeal, the petitioner contends: (1) he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal; and (2) the trial court erroneously instructed the jury on the definition of the "knowing" mens rea for attempted second degree murder. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jonathan W. Susman
The Defendant, Jonathan W. Susman, pled guilty to driving while under the influence of an intoxicant. As part of his plea agreement, he expressly reserved with the consent of the trial judge and the State the right to appeal a certified question of law pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2)(i). The question is whether there were sufficient specific and articulable facts to justify a police officer detaining the Defendant in order for him to perform field sobriety tests. We conclude that there were, and we affirm the trial court's judgment. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jon Brewbaker
The Defendant, Jon Brewbaker, pled guilty to second degree murder, a Class A felony. After a hearing, the trial court sentenced the Defendant to twenty-three years in the Department of Correction. The sole issue on appeal is whether the sentence imposed by the trial court is excessive. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Bradley | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Hubert Nard
The defendant, in this appeal of right, challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions for driving under the influence (DUI) and disorderly conduct. After a careful review of the record, we affirm both convictions. The disorderly conduct conviction is remanded for modification of judgment to conform to the statutory maximum sentence. |
Franklin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joe King
The defendant, Joe King, appeals the sufficiency of evidence to support his conviction for theft and the amount of restitution ordered by the trial court. After review of the entire record in this cause, we conclude that the evidence amply supported the defendant's conviction. The issue of restitution is waived pursuant to Rule 10(b) of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. |
Franklin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Ray Bartlett
The defendant, James Ray Bartlett, appeals the trial court's denial of his request for credit for time served in community corrections. Because the defendant has no appeal as of right under Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(b), the cause is dismissed. |
Lincoln | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
William Houston v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner was convicted by a Giles County jury for several drug-related offenses and was given an effective sentence of 72 years. In his direct appeal to this Court, his conviction was affirmed, and his sentence was reduced to 46 years. Petitioner then filed a Petition for Post-conviction Relief. The post-conviction court denied the petition. Petitioner appeals the decision of the post-conviction court and argues three issues on appeal: (1) Whether the post-conviction court erred in finding that trial counsel was effective; (2) whether the post-conviction court erred in its decision with respect to the trial judge's presence in the jury room; and (3) whether newly-discovered evidence of officer/witness's wrong doing and character mandates a new trial. We affirm the decision of the post-conviction court. |
Giles | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John Lemont Pierce,a.k.a. James Owens, a.k.a. John Lamonte Pierce
The defendant, John Lemont Pierce, indicted for two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, three counts of aggravated assault, and simple assault, entered a guilty plea to one count of aggravated assault. The trial court imposed a fifteen-year sentence to be served consecutively to a prior six-year sentence. In this appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court erred by ordering a maximum sentence of 15 years and requiring consecutive service. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Barry Ray Long
The Weakley County Grand Jury indicted the defendant for manufacturing not less than .5 ounce or more than 10 pounds of marijuana. The Weakley County Sheriff’s Department found the marijuana pursuant to a search of the defendant’s home based on a search warrant. The sheriff’s department received the search warrant based on information garnered in a non-consensual warrantless search of a portable shed behind the defendant’s home. Due to previous drug-related charges which were later dismissed, the portable shed had been the subject of forfeiture proceedings in 2000. The defendant made no efforts to contest the forfeiture, but the sheriff’s department also made no efforts to remove the portable shed. The defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence found as a result of the search of the portable shed. After a hearing, the trial court denied the motion. The defendant then entered a plea of guilty and purported to reserve this certified question for appeal: Whether or not the search of the storage shed predicated on a search warrant was preceded and based upon a prior warrantless search. Because of the ambiguity of the certified question as presented, we dismiss the appeal. |
Weakley | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Raymon Haymon v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Raymon Haymon, was convicted by a jury in the Dyer County Circuit Court of first degree premeditated murder. Upon conviction, the petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis, alleging that one of the witnesses at his trial had recanted his testimony. The trial court denied the petition, finding that the petitioner failed to produce newly discovered evidence. The petitioner appeals. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Richard Dewayne Jordan
A Rhea County jury convicted the defendant, Richard Dewayne Jordan, of two counts of aggravated sexual battery and one count of incest, for which he received an effective twelve-year sentence. On appeal, the defendant argues: (1) the trial court improperly allowed the state to amend the indictment to charge a different date of commission of the offenses; and (2) the indictment failed to inform him of the charges with sufficient particularity. We remand for correction of a clerical error in the judgment but otherwise affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Rhea | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Laster
The appellant, Michael B. Laster, entered pleas of no contest in the Sullivan County Criminal Court to theft of property over $1,000, operating a motor vehicle in violation of the Motor Vehicle Habitual Offenders Act, resisting arrest, and felony failure to appear. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the appellant received an effective four year sentence with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. Following a hearing, the trial court denied the appellant's request for alternative sentencing in the form of community corrections, and the appellant timely appealed. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. George Ratliff
In 1998, the defendant, George E. Ratliff, was convicted of rape of a child, a Class A felony, for raping his six-year-old daughter and was sentenced to twenty-four years in the Department of Correction. He subsequently filed a direct appeal and a petition for writ of error coram nobis based on the victim's recantation of her testimony. The trial court summarily dismissed the petition as untimely, and the defendant appealed. The direct appeal and the error coram nobis appeal were consolidated, and this court reversed the trial court's dismissal of the petition, remanded the matter for a hearing, and stayed the direct appeal pending the trial court's ruling on the error coram nobis petition. See State v. Ratliff, 71 S.W.3d 291, 293 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001), perm. to appeal denied (Tenn. 2002). On remand, the trial court denied the petition, and the defendant appeals. In his direct appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence, in denying his request for individual voir dire of two prospective jurors, and in ruling that the amount of time that lapsed between the victim's complaint and his arrest was irrelevant. Additionally, he argues that his sentence is excessive. Following our review, we affirm the defendant's conviction and sentence and affirm the trial court's denial of the petition for writ of error coram nobis. |
Washington | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Travis Lamont Williams
The defendant, Travis Lamont Williams, pled guilty in the Knox County Criminal Court to attempted carjacking, a Class C felony; burglary of a vehicle, a Class E felony; and felony vandalism, also a Class E felony. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the defendant received consecutive sentences of six years for the attempted carjacking, two years for the burglary, and one year for the vandalism, for an effective nine-year sentence with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court denied the defendant's request for enhanced probation and ordered that he serve his sentences in the Department of Correction. The defendant appeals, claiming that the trial court erred by sentencing him to confinement. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Roger Staples
The appellant, Roger Murel Staples, was convicted by a jury of possession of more than .5 grams of cocaine with the intent to sell or deliver. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the appellant to nine years as a Range I, Standard Offender. The trial court denied a motion for new trial. In this direct appeal, the appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, his sentence, statements made by the prosecutor during closing argument, and the trial court's decision to admit evidence of activity at the appellant's residence. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Franklin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joy Kennedy
The Defendant, Joy Kennedy, was found guilty by a jury of vehicular homicide, two counts of reckless aggravated assault, and reckless driving. However, the trial court granted the Defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal, concluding that she had established the defense of insanity by clear and convincing evidence. The State appealed on the ground that the trial court erred by granting the Defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal. The sole issue on appeal is whether a reasonable juror could have concluded that the defense of insanity had not been established by clear and convincing evidence. We hold that no reasonable juror could have failed to find that the Defendant was legally insane at the time of the crimes. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Franklin | Court of Criminal Appeals |
