State of Tennessee v. Andrew B. Simpkins
A Montgomery County jury convicted the Defendant of one count of criminal attempt to commit first degree murder and one count of possession of a prohibited weapon. The Defendant now appeals, asserting that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. After reviewing the record, we find no error and thus affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Steven David Brooks
A Knox County jury convicted the Defendant of three counts of rape of a child and of two counts of rape. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to twenty-three years for each rape of a child conviction and to ten years for each rape conviction. All sentences were to be served concurrently, for an effective sentence of twenty-three years. The Defendant now appeals, arguing the following: (1) that the trial court erred by not severing the offenses involving different victims, (2) that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to convict the Defendant of the charged offenses, and (3) that the cumulative error during the proceedings deprived the Defendant of a fair trial and due process of law. Concluding that the trial court's failure to sever the offenses was error and that the error was not harmless, we reverse the judgments of the trial court, sever the offenses by victim, and remand for new trials. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Gregory Fuller v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Gregory Fuller, appeals from the Davidson County Criminal Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his felony cocaine possession conviction and resulting fifteen-year sentence. He contends that the trial court erred in denying relief, claiming that (1) he received the ineffective assistance of counsel and (2) the trial court erred in denying his motion for a continuance. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Maurice Lashaun Nash
The Appellant, Maurice Lashaun Nash, appeals his conviction by a Tipton County jury for facilitation of possession of marijuana, a schedule VI controlled substance, with intent to deliver, a class A misdemeanor. On appeal, Nash raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress, and (2) whether the evidence in the record is insufficient as a matter of law to sustain his conviction. After a review of the record, we find plain error in the trial court's instruction to the jury charging the offense of facilitation, as this lesser offense was not fairly raised by the evidence. Accordingly, Nash's conviction is reversed and remanded for a new trial upon the lesser offense of class A simple possession. |
Tipton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Marc A. Bland v. James M. Dukes, Warden
The petitioner, Marc A. Bland, appeals as of right the Lauderdale County Circuit Court's dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief. He contends that his judgments of conviction are void due to illegal sentences contained therein. We affirm the trial court's dismissal of the petition. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Robert Lee Goss and Carl W. Hale v. State of Tennessee
The Appellants, Robert Lee Goss and Carl W. Hale, were convicted by a Lauderdale County jury of first-degree murder and aggravated assault. They appeal as of right the judgment of the Lauderdale County Circuit Court denying their petitions for post-conviction relief. On appeal, the Appellants argue that trial counsel were ineffective because they did not pursue a defense of insanity and/or diminished capacity. After review of the record, we find that the Appellants received the effective assistance of counsel. Accordingly, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Giovanny Orpeau v. State of Tennessee - Order
The Appellant, Giovanny Morpeau, appeals from the denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus by the Wilson County Criminal Court. On November 2, 2001, the Appellant was arrested and charged with aggravated robbery. At the Appellant's initial appearance in the general sessions court on November 6, 2001, he was found indigent, bail was set at $50,000, and a preliminary hearing was scheduled for December 19, 2001. On November 29, 2001, the Appellant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking release from confinement upon grounds that his continued confinement beyond ten days, without being afforded a preliminary hearing, violated Rule 5(d) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure.1 On November 30, 2001, the Appellant’s habeas corpus petition was denied. On December 10, 2001, the Appellant filed notice of appeal. On December 19, 2001, the Appellant's preliminary hearing was conducted in the general sessions court at which time he was bound over to the next term of the grand jury. During the January 2002 session of the Wilson County Criminal Court, the Appellant was indicted by the grand jury on one count of aggravated robbery. |
Wilson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Chad Daniel Easterly v. State of Tennessee
The Defendant, Chad Daniel Easterly, pled guilty to kidnapping and evading arrest. The plea agreement included an effective eight year sentence as a Range I standard offender. The Defendant subsequently filed a post-conviction petition, alleging that his convictions were the result of ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct. After a hearing, the trial court denied relief. The Defendant now appeals as of right. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Greene | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Perry Singo
|
Dickson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Luis Anthony Ramon - Dissenting
Given the present state of the law, I respectfully disagree with the result reached in the majority opinion. I believe that it was the jury’s prerogative to discredit some or all of the defendant’s experts’ testimony and to conclude that their testimony did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant could not appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct. |
Henry | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Luis Anthony Ramon
The Henry County Grand Jury indicted the fifteen-year-old Defendant for first degree murder. The Defendant was tried as an adult and convicted of the charged offense. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to life imprisonment. The Defendant now appeals, arguing that his insanity defense was established by clear and convincing evidence. After a thorough review of the record, we reverse the judgment of conviction, modify the judgment to “Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity,” and remand for further proceedings pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 33-7-303. |
Henry | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Russell Epperson v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for facilitation of aggravated rape, facilitation of especially aggravated kidnapping, facilitation of especially aggravated robbery, and aggravated burglary, raising three claims: (1) that he was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel; (2) that his guilty plea was involuntary; and (3) that the indictment was fatally defective. We affirm the post-conviction court's denial of the petition. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jimmy Byrd
The defendant pled guilty to two counts of Class D felony theft over $1,000 and was sentenced to the community corrections program for an effective period of three years. The trial court subsequently revoked his community corrections sentence and resentenced the defendant to consecutive sentences of four years on each count as a Range I standard offender, for an effective eight-year sentence. On appeal, the defendant contends (1) the proof was insufficient to revoke his community corrections sentence; and (2) the sentence is excessive. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Rhea | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Anthony Lee Smith
A Hamilton County jury convicted the defendant of burglary and theft under $500. He received consecutive sentences of 10 years as a Range III offender and 11 months and 29 days, respectively. The defendant contends (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; (2) the trial court erred in allowing the state to present a property receipt into evidence in lieu of coins found in the defendant's possession; (3) the prosecutor made improper remarks during closing argument; and (4) the trial court erred in ordering consecutive sentences. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jack DeForest Bolden
The defendant entered a guilty plea to Class D felony forgery and Class D felony theft for an agreed effective six-year sentence with the issue of alternative sentencing to be determined by the trial court. The trial court denied alternative sentencing. On appeal, the defendant contests the denial of community corrections. We affirm. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Anthony Gentry, II
The defendant entered a negotiated plea of guilty to two counts of sale of schedule II narcotics for agreed concurrent sentences of four years for each count, with the issue of alternative sentencing to be determined by the trial court. The trial court sentenced the defendant to four years incarceration. In this appeal, the defendant contends he should have received alternative sentencing. We affirm. |
Carter | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Michael O. Brown v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Michael O. Brown, appeals the Lincoln County Circuit Court’s denial of postconviction relief. In his post-conviction petition, he challenged his 1996 conviction of selling cocaine by alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Because the record supports the trial court’s denial of post-conviction relief, we affirm. |
Lincoln | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Michael O. Brown v. State of Tennessee - Concurring
I agree with the results reached and most of the reasoning used in the majority opinion. I respectfully disagree, though, with its view of the trial court’s limiting the issues raised by the petitioner. The majority opinion states that the record reflects that the petitioner abandoned issues that were not mentioned at the beginning of the hearing. The majority concludes that the trial court’s request that his attorney define the issues in contention, the attorney’s response, and the state’s objection for lack of notice justified the trial court’s sustaining the state’s objection regarding the Jencks Act issue. I view neither the record nor the trial court’s discretion to authorize the trial court’s actions regarding this issue. |
Lincoln | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Johnny O. Clark v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner appeals as of right from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his conviction for first degree murder, contending that: (1) he was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel; (2) the post-conviction court erred by refusing to admit the affidavit of a deceased potential defense witness into evidence at the post-conviction evidentiary hearing; and (3) the post-conviction court and post-conviction counsel erred by their failure to comply with provisions of the Post-Conviction Procedure Act and Supreme Court Rule 28. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court denying the petition for post-conviction relief. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Shannon Lee Wood
Following a jury trial, the defendant, Shannon Lee Wood, was convicted of the July 4, 1999 aggravated child abuse of his eighteen-month-old stepdaughter, for which he received a 20-year sentence as a violent offender. Now on appeal, the defendant's sole issue is whether the convicting evidence is sufficient to support the conviction. It is, and we affirm. |
Benton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Gregory W. Gurley
The defendant, Gregory W. Gurley, pursues an appeal of a certified question of law in the wake of his guilty plea and resulting conviction of second-offense driving under the influence (DUI). In his reservation of a certified question for appeal pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2)(i), the defendant claims that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the results of an intoximeter test; he posits that the test results are inadmissible because the officer who administered the test failed to comply with the "20-minute" requirement for breath-alcohol testing that was established in State v. Sensing, 843 S.W.2d 412 (Tenn. 1992). Because the record supports the trial court's denial of the suppression motion, we affirm. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ronald Eugene Purdy
The trial court placed the defendant on probation for eight years. As a condition of probation, the defendant was required to complete a one-year drug rehabilitation program. When the defendant violated his probation by failing to complete the program and failing to report to his probation officer upon his discharge from the program, the State filed a probation violation report with the court. After a hearing, the trial court revoked the defendant's probation. The defendant appeals, claiming that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his probation. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Anthony Cline
|
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Robert S. Clark
The defendant, Robert S. Clark, was convicted of two counts of robbery. The trial court imposed concurrent four-year sentences. In this appeal of right, the defendant asserts that there was prosecutorial misconduct during voir dire and that the trial court erred by excluding certain expert testimony. Because there is no reversible error, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Lavaya Demond Lee
The defendant, Lavaya Demond Lee, appeals from his jury convictions of premeditated first-degree murder, first-degree felony murder, and especially aggravated robbery in the Hamilton County Criminal Court. He received a life sentence for the merged murder conviction and a consecutive 20-year sentence for especially aggravated robbery. On appeal, he complains of evidentiary errors, jury-instruction errors, and error in imposing consecutive sentences. We affirm the convictions; however, we vacate the order imposing consecutive sentencing and impose the 20-year sentence to run concurrently with the life sentence. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals |
