Eric Ross Sewell v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The petitioner pled guilty to two counts of aggravated sexual battery, Class B felonies, and one count of attempted aggravated sexual battery, a Class C felony. Subsequently, he filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel as its main issue. Following a hearing, the court denied relief, and the petitioner timely appealed. On appeal, the petitioner argues that the record shows that trial counsel was ineffective and that the post-conviction court showed bias in its ruling and incorrectly limited his proof at the hearing. Following our review, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Holly Fant
The Appellant, Holly Fant, appeals from the sentencing decision of the Gibson County Circuit Court. Fant pled guilty, under an "open" plea agreement, to aggravated assault and, following a hearing, was sentenced to a term of four years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Fant now appeals, asserting that the trial court failed to comply with the relevant sentencing principles and, therefore, erred in not granting her a non-incarcerative sentence. Because we find that the trial court failed to place on the record discernable enhancing or mitigating factors as is statutorily required, and failed to include findings with regard to the denial of an alternative sentence, the judgment is reversed and this case is remanded for a new sentencing hearing. |
Gibson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Frederick Beauregard v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant, Frederick Beauregard, appeals from the Hardeman County Circuit Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. In May of 1997, Beauregard was convicted of the rape and incest of his thirteen-year-old daughter. He received an effective sentence of nine years for the convictions. Beauregard's convictions and sentences were later affirmed on direct appeal. See State v. Beauregard, 32 S.W.3d 681 (Tenn. 2000). On February 13, 2001, Beauregard timely filed his pro se petition for post-conviction relief which was amended following appointment of counsel. Following a hearing on the merits, the trial court denied Beauregard's petition. From this denial, Beauregard now appeals asserting that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel in the following respects: (1) trial counsel was inadequately prepared for trial; (2) trial counsel failed to properly investigate, interview or call material witnesses at trial; (3) trial counsel failed to discuss trial strategy or the theory of the case with Beauregard; (4) trial counsel failed to review the jury list with Beauregard; (5) trial counsel failed to develop testimony with regard to the chain of custody of the rape kit and its reliability; and (6) trial counsel failed to provide expert proof to rebut the State's DNA expert. After review, we find no error and affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jeffrey Douglas Stratton
The defendant, Jeffrey Douglas Stratton, pleaded guilty to seven counts of theft involving checks that he had forged. Pursuant to a plea agreement with the state, the defendant was sentenced to four years on each count, and two of the sentences were to be served consecutively for an effective sentence of eight years. The trial court was to determine the manner of service of the sentences. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed fully incarcerative sentences to be served in the Department of Correction. The defendant appeals this sentencing determination. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ricky Garrett v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from a burglary conviction, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in finding that he received the effective assistance of trial counsel. He contends that trial counsel failed to provide information that was essential for him to make informed decisions in his case and failed to present an adequate defense at trial, and that the cumulative effect of the alleged deficiencies in counsel's performance was to prejudice the outcome of his case. We affirm the denial of the petition for post-conviction relief. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ricky Garrett v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from a burglary conviction, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in finding that he received the effective assistance of trial counsel. He contends that trial counsel failed to provide information that was essential for him to make informed decisions in his case and failed to present an adequate defense at trial, and that the cumulative effect of the alleged deficiencies in counsel's performance was to prejudice the outcome of his case. We affirm the denial of the petition for post-conviction relief. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jimmy L. Slatton
The defendant, Jimmy L. Slatton, pleaded guilty to attempted aggravated sexual battery and agreed to a six-year sentence. The plea agreement provided that the trial court would determine the manner of service of the sentence. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court denied any form of alternative sentencing and imposed incarceration in the Department of Correction. From this determination, the defendant appeals. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Wilson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jimmy L. Slatton
|
Wilson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Steve V. Walker v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, alleging that his sentence was illegal because: (1) he was improperly sentenced as a persistent offender; (2) his sentence was improperly enhanced because he did not receive the State's notice of intent to seek enhanced punishment; (3) the record of his prior criminal convictions relied upon to sentence him was inaccurate; and (4) his counsel was ineffective. The trial court denied the Petitioner's request for habeas corpus relief, and the Petitioner appealed. Because the Petitioner has failed to allege grounds that would warrant habeas corpus relief, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Danelle Harvey
|
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re: Sanford & Sons Bail Bonds, Inc.
The appellant, Sanford & Sons Bail Bonds, Inc., appeals the judgment of the Hamblen County Criminal Court forfeiting $5,000 bail in the case of criminal defendant Florentino DeJesus Hernandez. Following a review of the record and the parties' briefs, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this case for proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Hamblen | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jody Alan Ferguson
On November 9, 1999, the Appellant, Jody Alan Ferguson, pled guilty to nine counts of forgery in the Obion County Circuit Court and was sentenced to two years of community corrections after service of thirty days confinement in the county jail. On March 9, 2000, Ferguson pled guilty to four counts of forgery and received an effective sentence of two years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Ferguson's placement in the community corrections program was revoked and his nine two-year sentences were ordered to be served in the Department of Correction concurrently with his March 9th sentences. On June 21, 2000, Ferguson was granted determinate release by the Department of Correction for the series of two-year sentences imposed on November 9, 1999, and March 9, 2000, and he was returned to supervised probation. On June 26, 2000, Ferguson again pled guilty to two counts of forgery and received concurrent two-year suspended sentences to be served concurrently to all outstanding sentences previously imposed. On August 28, 2001, probation violation warrants were issued against Ferguson. The warrants alleged that Ferguson had violated the following conditions: (1) failed to report to the probation officer; (2) failed to pay supervision fees; (3) failed to pay restitution and court costs; and (4) failed to perform community service work. On November 9, 2001, the trial court revoked Ferguson's probationary status and ordered him to serve the remainder of his two-year sentences in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, Ferguson does not contest the trial court's finding that he violated the terms of his probation. Rather, Ferguson argues that the trial court abused its discretion by not again placing him on probation or community corrections. After review, we find no error and affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Obion | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Terrance Burke
|
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William J. Burns
William J. Burns appeals from his aggravated burglary and theft convictions. He was convicted at a jury trial in the Sevier County Circuit Court, and he is presently serving an effective fifteen-year sentence as a persistent offender for these crimes. He claims in this appeal that the evidence is insufficient to support his aggravated burglary conviction and that the lower court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial. Because we disagree, we affirm. |
Sevier | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Douglas A. Mathis
A Sullivan County jury convicted the defendant of theft over $1,000 for stealing a car. On appeal, he argues the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Carl G. Dodd
|
Rhea | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Stevie Lawson
|
Hawkins | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Robert Wilson
Defendant, James Robert Wilson, was convicted by a Davidson County jury of first degree felony murder and especially aggravated robbery. He was ordered to serve concurrent sentences of life imprisonment for the felony murder conviction and twenty years for the especially aggravated robbery conviction. Defendant appeals his convictions and presents the following five issues for review: (1) whether the trial court erred by admitting audio taped threat evidence; (2) whether the trial court erred by denying Defendant's motion for a mistrial based on a witness's characterization of Defendant as a "robber"; (3) whether the trial court erred by denying Defendant's motion for a mistrial based on the State's comment that Defendant failed to call a witness; (4) whether the trial court erred by denying Defendant's request for a jury instruction on accomplice testimony; and (5) whether the trial court erred in failing to charge all applicable lesser-included offenses. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Charles Kirby
The appellant, Charles Kirby, was found guilty of facilitation of the sale of cocaine in the amount of .5 gram or more. He was sentenced to five years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The appellant timely filed a notice of appeal, alleging that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. After review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Gibson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jermaine A. Paine v. State of Tennessee
|
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Steven James McCain
The appellant, Steven James McCain, was convicted by a jury in the Criminal Court of Davidson County of two counts of first degree premeditated murder. He received two consecutive sentences of life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. On appeal, the appellant raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether the trial court erred in denying the appellant's "Motion to Suppress Identifications Made During an Unconstitutional Photographic Line-Up Procedure"; (2) whether the trial court erred in denying the appellant's "Motion to Suppress Defendant's Statements"; (3) whether the trial court erred in admitting the audio-tape-recorded statement of Chad Collins; (4) whether the trial court erred in overruling the defense request for a mistrial when the prosecution improperly argued that the jury should consider Chad Collins' statement as substantive evidence at trial; and (5) whether the evidence was sufficient to support his convictions. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Willie J. Miller, Jr.
|
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Steven Dalton
|
Hickman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ricky T. Hughes
A Davidson County Criminal Court jury convicted the defendant, Ricky T. Hughes, of facilitation of first degree felony murder, a Class A felony, and especially aggravated robbery, a Class A felony. The trial court sentenced him to consecutive sentences of twenty-five years as a standard offender for the facilitation conviction and twenty-five years as a violent offender for the aggravated robbery conviction. The defendant appeals, claiming that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Terry Norris
A Shelby County jury found the Defendant guilty of second degree murder, and the trial court sentenced him to twenty-one years incarceration. The Defendant now appeals his conviction, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial because (1) his counsel failed to file a motion to suppress his confession based upon a violation of the Defendant's Fourth Amendment rights; and (2) his counsel argued a theory of defense to the jury that was contrary to the Defendant's wishes and testimony. We conclude that the Defendant's trial counsel were not ineffective for failing to base the motion to suppress the Defendant's confession on a violation of the Defendant's Fourth Amendment rights. We further conclude that although the Defendant's counsel did not comply with the Defendant's wish to proceed at trial under a theory of self-defense, any error in this regard was harmless in light of the record as a whole. We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals |
