State of Tennessee v. Herbert Eugene Ewing
Herbert Eugene Ewing, Movant, filed a motion pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Clarence M. Porter
Defendant, Clarence M. Porter, was convicted by a Loudon County jury of two counts of felony murder, one count of theft of property under $1,000, and one count of especially aggravated robbery. He was also charged with possession of a handgun by a convicted felon, but following a bifurcated trial, that charge was dismissed by the trial court. The trial court imposed an effective life sentence for the felony murder, theft, and especially aggravated robbery convictions. Defendant argues that the trial court erred in admitting a hearsay statement by a co-defendant because the State failed to prove that Defendant was involved in a conspiracy with co-defendants; that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions because there was no independent proof to corroborate accomplice testimony and the State failed to prove that he was criminally responsible for the actions of his co-defendants or that he independently possessed any criminal intent to commit the charged offenses; that the trial court erred in allowing the State’s lead investigator to reference the Chattanooga Police Department’s “street gangs unit;” and that the State committed prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument. Following our review of the entire record and the oral arguments and briefs of the parties, we determine that the trial court erred in admitting hearsay evidence. Further, following State v. Thomas, 687 S.W.3d 223, (Tenn. 2024), because the accomplice testimony was not sufficiently corroborated, we find that the evidence is insufficient to sustain Defendant’s convictions. Accordingly, we reverse the judgments of the trial court and dismiss the charges against Defendant. |
Loudon | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Antwain Tapaige Sales v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Antwain Tapaige Sales, appeals from the Hardeman County Circuit Court’s order summarily dismissing his third state petition for writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, Petitioner asserts that his sentence is void and that he is entitled to habeas corpus relief. After review, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Mustafa Malik Slater and Tramell Rasha Sparkman
In this interlocutory appeal, at issue is the appropriate jury instruction to be given in a murder case for a crime committed in 2015 but tried in 2024. In the time between the murder and trial, the Tennessee Supreme Court released an opinion, State v. Thomas, 687 S.W.3d 223 (Tenn. 2024), which abrogated the old common-law accomplice-corroboration rule. The State requested the new jury instruction pursuant to Thomas, and the trial court ruled that fairness concerns required the old common-law instruction. The State sought and obtained an interlocutory appeal. On appeal, it asserts that the trial court erred and that the jury should be instructed pursuant to Thomas. After review, we conclude that the Thomas court intended that the new law apply to trials commencing after March 7, 2024. Because the trial for this matter has not yet commenced, the jury in this case shall be instructed in accordance with Thomas and its conclusion regarding the jury instruction about accomplice testimony. Accordingly, the order of the trial court is reversed, and this case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Hickman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jeffery Lynn Lane, Jr.
The Defendant, Jeffery Lynn Lane, Jr., was convicted in the Madison County Circuit Court of possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a felony crime of violence, driving without a license, and driving without proof of insurance and received an effective twelve-year sentence to be served at eighty-five percent release eligibility. On appeal, he claims that the evidence is insufficient to show he possessed the firearm, that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence, and that the trial court committed plain error by allowing the State to introduce evidence of uncharged offenses. Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ brief, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Dale Steven White
The Defendant, Dale Steven White, was charged with twelve offenses resulting from his fleeing from the police on three separate occasions on June 13, December 11, and December 13, 2021. The Defendant entered a "blind" plea to each charge on November 16, 2023, and following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed an effective sentence of twenty-two years' incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant argues that his sentence is excessive, that the trial court erred in imposing partially consecutive sentences, and that his judgment forms contain clerical errors. Following our review, we remand for entry of corrected judgments consistent with the trial court's pronouncement of the Defendant's sentence at the sentencing hearing. We otherwise affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Court of Criminal Appeals | ||
George W. Cosey v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, George W. Cosey, pleaded nolo contendere to Class E felony theft and received an agreed one-year sentence. Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which the Davidson County Criminal Court denied after a hearing. On appeal, Petitioner argues that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel because counsel did not inform him that, between the time of the offense and Petitioner’s plea, the theft grading statute had been amended. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Vincent Olajuan Morrison
The Defendant, Vincent Olajuan Morrison, appeals his convictions for aggravated |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Eric Wayne Herndon
A Gibson County jury convicted Defendant, Eric Wayne Herndon, of violation of an order of protection and aggravated stalking. Defendant received an effective sentence of two years’ confinement. On appeal, Defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions for violation of an order of protection and aggravated stalking. After review, we conclude that the evidence was insufficient to sustain Defendant’s conviction for violation of an order of protection, and we reverse that judgment and dismiss that conviction accordingly. We also conclude the evidence was insufficient to sustain Defendant’s conviction for aggravated stalking, but we determine that the proof was sufficient to support the lesser-included offense of stalking, which was charged to the jury. Accordingly, we reverse Defendant’s conviction for aggravated stalking, and we remand the case to the trial court for entry of an amended judgment reflecting a conviction for stalking and for resentencing on this modified conviction. |
Gibson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Alonzo Fishback
A Rutherford County jury convicted the Defendant, Alonzo Fishback, of especially aggravated kidnapping, aggravated assault, and possession of a weapon during the commission of a felony, for which he was sentenced to a total effective sentence of seventy-five years. The Defendant appealed his convictions, and this court affirmed, and he then unsuccessfully sought post-conviction relief. The Defendant filed a motion pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1, arguing that his sentence was illegal because the proven facts of his case did not meet the necessary requirements to be convicted of especially aggravated kidnapping. The trial court denied this motion, stating that the Defendant’s claim was not colorable under Rule 36.1. The Defendant maintains his argument on appeal. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Christopher Bassett v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Christopher Bassett, appeals from the Knox County Criminal Court’s |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Bernard Strowder
The Defendant, Bernard Strowder, pled guilty to reckless aggravated assault and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The parties agreed that he would be sentenced to an effective term of ten years but that the trial court would decide the manner in which the sentence would be served. After a hearing, the trial court ordered that the full sentence be served in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the denial of an alternative sentence, but the State argues that this appeal should be dismissed because his notice of appeal was untimely. Upon our review, we agree that the Defendant’s notice of appeal was untimely and that the interest of justice does not require us to waive the timely filing requirement. We respectfully dismiss the appeal. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Caitlyn Brooke Henson
Defendant, Caitlyn Brooke Henson, appeals from the trial court’s denial of her motion for expungement. Defendant argues that she is entitled to expungement after her successful completion of a judicial diversion probationary period. We agree with Defendant. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for entry of an order of expungement pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-313. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Eric Joseph Mathis
The Defendant, Eric Joseph Mathis, was sentenced to a sum of twenty years of supervised |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Alexandre Kim
The Petitioner, Alexandre Kim, was charged with first degree murder for the October 2012 death of his mother, Estelle Kim. Following a bench trial in 2014, he was found not guilty by reason of insanity and was involuntarily committed to a mental health facility. In 2017, the Petitioner was transitioned to a Mandatory Outpatient Treatment (“MOT”) program pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 33-7-303. In 2021, the Petitioner sought to terminate his MOT by filing a petition in the trial court. After several hearings on the matter, the trial court denied his petition based, in large part, on the Petitioner’s request to move out of state. The Petitioner now appeals from this denial arguing he meets all requirements for termination. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Alec Byron Harrison
The defendant, Alec Byron Harrison, pled guilty to aggravated statutory rape. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered the defendant to serve a three-year sentence in confinement with the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant contends the trial court erred in sentencing the defendant to confinement. Upon our review of the applicable law, the record on appeal, and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the trial court’s decision. |
Hardin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Brandon Cody Phillips
The Scott County Grand Jury indicted the Defendant, Brandon Cody Phillips, and his |
Scott | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Crystal Lee Martin
The defendant, Crystal Lee Martin, appeals the order of the trial court revoking her probation and ordering her to serve her original six-year sentence in confinement. Upon our review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and the applicable law, we affirm revocation of the defendant’s probation but reverse the trial court’s imposition of the original sentence and remand for the trial court to make findings concerning the consequence imposed for the revocation in accordance with State v. Dagnan, 641 S.W.3d 751, 753 (Tenn. 2022). |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Joe G. Manley v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Joe G. Manley, appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition, arguing the post-conviction court erred in finding he received the effective assistance of counsel. After our review of the record, briefs, and applicable law, we affirm the denial of the petition. |
Fayette | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Matthew Cole Welch
Matthew Cole Welch, Defendant, was indicted for first degree murder and aggravated assault. After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of the lesser included offense of second degree murder and not guilty of aggravated assault. The trial court denied a motion for new trial and Defendant appealed, arguing that the evidence was not sufficient to support the conviction for second degree murder and that the trial court erred by refusing to charge the jury with a self-defense instruction. After a review, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction for second degree murder and that Defendant was not entitled to a self-defense instruction where the proof established that Defendant had a duty to retreat and failed to do so. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Dickson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John Edward Roach
The Defendant, John Edward Roach, was convicted by a Hardin County jury of three drug-related offenses for which he received an effective sentence of twenty years’ imprisonment. The sole issue presented for our review is whether the evidence is sufficient to support his conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-425 (a)(1)-(2). The Defendant argues that the State failed to establish (1) that the items seized from the search of his home constituted drug paraphernalia and (2) that the Defendant intended to use any of the seized items for an illicit purpose. Upon our review, we affirm. |
Hardin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Darius Mack v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Darius Mack, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his post-conviction petition. He argues that the post-conviction court erred in dismissing his petition without first appointing counsel because his petition presented a colorable claim for relief and the issues were not previously determined. Upon review of the entire record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we conclude that the trial court erred in dismissing the petition as it stated a colorable claim and warranted the appointment of counsel. Thus, we reverse the order of summary dismissal and remand the case for further proceedings pursuant to the Post-Conviction Procedure Act. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re: Tennessee Bonding Company
Tennessee Bonding Company (“Tennessee Bonding”) claims that the trial court erred by temporarily suspending its bonding authority for thirty days and then restricting its bonding authority for a period of one year for violating local bail bonding rules that required a source hearing for bonds of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) or more. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Hickman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Robert King Vaughn, Jr.
Defendant, Robert King Vaughn, Jr., appeals his convictions for attempted first degree murder and aggravated rape, for which he received a total effective sentence of 120 years’ confinement. Defendant contends that: (1) the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his conviction for attempted first degree murder; (2) no reasonable trier of fact could find that he failed to establish the insanity defense by clear and convincing evidence; and (3) the prosecutor engaged in improper argument by misstating Tennessee law and vouching for witnesses during the State’s closing argument. Following a thorough review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Trousdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Raymond Scott Knox
In 2023, the Defendant, Raymond Scott Knox, pleaded guilty to eleven counts of methamphetamine and weapons related charges, and the trial court sentenced him to an effective sentence of sixty five years of incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that the trial court erred when it sentenced him. After review, we affirm the trial court's judgments. |
McMinn | Court of Criminal Appeals |
