State of Tennessee v. Drini D. Xhaferi
Convicted in the Montgomery County Circuit Court of the second-degree murder of his wife, Imja Xhaferi, the defendant, Drini D. Xhaferi, appeals and claims the trial court erred in not instructing the jury as to voluntary manslaughter, in not suppressing evidence seized by military authorities, and in admitting evidence of the defendant's prior assaults of the victim. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael W. Cooper
The Defendant, Michael W. Cooper, pled guilty to one count of aggravated burglary and one count of aggravated assault. His plea agreement provided that he would be sentenced as a Range II offender; however, the length and manner of service of his sentences were left for the trial court's determination. After a hearing, the trial court sentenced the Defendant to nine years incarceration for each offense, to be served consecutively. The Defendant now appeals, contending that the trial court misapplied an enhancement factor; that the trial court erred in sentencing him to equivalent terms for each offense in spite of finding fewer enhancement factors applicable to the aggravated assault; and that the trial court erred in ordering his sentences to run consecutively. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Alfio Orlando Lewis
The Defendant, Alfio Orlando Lewis, was convicted by a Davidson County jury of two counts of attempted second degree murder and two counts of aggravated assault. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court merged the two aggravated assault convictions into the two attempted second degree murder convictions. The Defendant was sentenced to 12 years to be served consecutively in the Department of Correction on each of the attempted second degree murder convictions for an effective sentence of 24 years. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions, (2) the trial court erroneously prevented him from testifying that a fellow inmate confessed to the crime, and (3) the trial court improperly sentenced the Defendant. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Frederick G. Anderson
Frederick G. Anderson appeals his convictions of two counts of attempted aggravated rape, aggravated kidnapping and aggravated burglary. He received his convictions at the conclusion of a jury trial in the Davidson County Criminal Court. Presently serving an effective nine-year sentence as a violent offender, he challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence in this appeal. Because we are unpersuaded by the defendant's claims, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James Roger Ford v. State of Tennessee
|
Overton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kenneth Paul Dykas
After a lengthy trial, a Rutherford County jury found the defendant, Kenneth Paul Dykas, guilty of first-degree murder, especially aggravated robbery, and conspiracy to commit especially aggravated robbery. Following a separate penalty trial on the first-degree murder conviction, the same jury sentenced the defendant to life without the possibility of parole, and the trial court subsequently sentenced the defendant as a Range I offender to eleven years on the conspiracy conviction and as a violent offender to 24 years on the especially aggravated robbery conviction. The trial-court- imposed sentences were ordered to run concurrently with one another but consecutively to the first- degree murder sentence. In this appeal, the defendant complains that the evidence is insufficient, that numerous errors in the jury selection process taint his convictions, that DNA test results were improperly admitted, that the state suppressed exculpatory evidence about its jailhouse informant who testified at trial, and that consecutive sentencing was not justified. After a comprehensive review of the record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Vinson Taylor
On June 23, 1999, the defendant, Vinson Taylor, pled guilty to the sale of cocaine in excess of .5 grams, a Class B felony. The trial court imposed a sentence of eight years. Almost ten months later, the defendant filed a petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal from an order denying post-conviction relief, this court granted a delayed appeal based upon the failure of trial counsel to file a timely appeal. Vinson Taylor v. State, No. W2000-01991-CCA-R3-PC (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, May 3, 2001). In this delayed appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court should have granted alternative sentencing. The judgment is affirmed. |
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Vinson Taylor
On June 23, 1999, the defendant, Vinson Taylor, pled guilty to the sale of cocaine in excess of .5 grams, a Class B felony. The trial court imposed a sentence of eight years. Almost ten months later, the defendant filed a petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal from an order denying post-conviction relief, this court granted a delayed appeal based upon the failure of trial counsel to file a timely appeal. Vinson Taylor v. State, No. W2000-01991-CCA-R3-PC (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, May 3, 2001). In this delayed appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court should have granted alternative sentencing. The judgment is affirmed. |
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Joseph Azell Lee v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner appeals from the Hamilton County Criminal Court's denying him post-conviction relief from his 1998 conviction for the attempt to commit aggravated assault and ensuing twelve-year sentence as a career offender. He contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the conviction. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Hobert Dean Davis
The defendant pled guilty to burglary (Count One), theft (Count Two), and vandalism (Count Three) and was sentenced pursuant to a plea agreement to two (2) years for Count One and eleven months and twenty-nine days for both Count Two and Count Three. Counts Two and Three were to be served concurrently but consecutively to Count One. The judgment forms entered for each count indicated that the defendant was to receive 201 days of pretrial jail credit. Sixteen months after the final judgments were entered, the state moved the trial court to correct the original judgments pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36. Thereafter, corrected judgments were entered for Counts Two and Three indicating that the defendant was to receive 0 days pretrial jail credit on those counts. Generally, a trial court loses jurisdiction to amend a judgment once it becomes final. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the trial court did not make a finding as to whether there was a clerical mistake or mistake of law in the original judgments. Absent a finding that there was a clerical mistake, the trial court was without jurisdiction to alter the final judgments. Therefore, we reverse the judgments as corrected and remand to the trial court for determination of whether there was a clerical error in the original judgments. |
Anderson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Chivous Sirrel Robinson
|
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Mario Ricky Orlando Printiss
Mario Ricky Orlando Printis appeals from his convictions of driving under the influence and evading arrest. He questions the sufficiency of the evidence that he committed Class D felony evading arrest, as opposed to the Class E form of that crime, and he complains that the trial court sentenced him too harshly. Because we are unpersuaded, we affirm the convictions and sentences imposed. Due to an omission from the DUI judgment form, however, we modify that judgment to correspond with the lower court's pronouncements at the sentencing hearing. |
Obion | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Travis Poole v. State of Tennessee
In his petition for post-conviction relief, petitioner alleges that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, he illegally pled guilty to second degree murder, and his guilty plea was not made knowingly and voluntarily. The trial court dismissed the petition. We affirm. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Winfred Lee Faulcon
|
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Maurice Pierre Teague v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner was convicted of possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell, and his conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. In his petition for post-conviction relief, he asserted that trial counsel was ineffective. The post-conviction court dismissed the petition, following a hearing. We affirm the order of the post-conviction court. |
Carroll | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Danny Davidson
Defendant was convicted of attempted manufacture of methamphetamine. On appeal, defendant submits that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction, and the trial court erred in not charging the jury on facilitation. We conclude the evidence was sufficient to uphold the conviction, and defendant was not entitled to an instruction on facilitation. We affirm. |
Weakley | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. F. Chris Cawood
The Defendant was indicted for two counts of promoting prostitution and for two counts of patronizing prostitution. Following a bench trial, the Defendant was convicted of two counts of attempting to patronize prostitution, a Class C misdemeanor; sentenced to thirty days suspended; and fined $50.00 for each count. The Defendant now appeals, arguing the following: (1) that the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions; (2) that the conduct by law enforcement in this case was so outrageous as to constitute a defense; (3) that a fatal variance exists between the indicted charges and the evidence presented at trial; (4) that the trial court erred in failing to suppress the audio and video tape evidence that was introduced at trial; and (5) that the trial court erred in denying the Defendant's motion to seal the audio and video tape evidence in this case. Concluding that the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and dismiss the charges against the Defendant. |
Roane | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Charles Hall
|
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James Emmett Moses, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
|
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jeret Phillips
Defendant, Jeret Phillips, appeals from the order of the Sullivan County Criminal Court which revoked Defendant's probation and required him to serve his sentence in the Tennessee Department of Correction. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Billy Harold Arnold
The defendant, Billy Harold Arnold, appeals his misdemeanor theft conviction for which the Sullivan County Criminal Court sentenced him to eleven months twenty-nine days, all suspended except for thirty days confinement, "day for day." He contests the sufficiency of the evidence, the admission into evidence of prior similar conduct, and his sentence. We affirm the trial court, although we also note that a "day for day" term of confinement does not bar application of relevant good conduct credit statutes. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Timothy S. Oglesby
The appellant, Timothy S. Oglesby, pled guilty to the offense of felonious possession of a weapon. He received a two (2)-year sentence. Contemporaneously with the entry of the guilty plea the appellant and the State entered an agreed order purporting to reserve a certified question of law for appeal pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2)(i). The certified question of law alleged to be dispositive of the case is stated in the agreed order as “the denial of his suppression motion.” We hold that the absence in the judgment of the certified question of law or of a statement incorporating the agreed order into the judgment compels a dismissal of this appeal. In addition, the failure of the agreed order to set forth the certified question with sufficient specificity compels the dismissal of this appeal even if the agreed order had been incorporated by reference into the judgment. |
Coffee | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Gonzalo Moran Garcia
The appellant, Gonzalo Moran Garcia, appeals his conviction by a jury in the Davidson County Criminal Court of one count of possession of one thousand grams or more of methamphetamine with intent to deliver, a class A felony. He raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether the trial court erred in denying his pre-trial motion to suppress; (2) whether the trial court erred in admitting at trial the testimony of Daniel A. Rosales, an officer employed by the Houston Police Department in Texas; (3) whether the evidence underlying the appellant’s conviction is sufficient; and (4) whether the trial court erred in rejecting his proposed jury instructions. Following a thorough review f the record and the parties’ briefs, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this case |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Gonzalo Moran Garcia
After careful review of the record, I write separately because I reach a different conclusion than that expressed in the majority opinion with respect to the defendant's motion to suppress the evidence obtained during the search of his vehicle. I agree with the majority on all other matters raised in this appeal. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Eric Wallace v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Eric Wallace, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The issues presented for review are (1) whether the petitioner received effective assistance of counsel; (2) whether the petitioner was denied the right to a speedy trial; and (3) whether the state used improper impeachment evidence. Because the evidence does not preponderate against the findings of the trial court, the order denying post-conviction relief is affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals |
