Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas T. Woodall
Trial Court Judge: Robert W. Wedemeyer
Defendant Joseph Miles was convicted by a Robertson County jury of second degree murder. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Defendant as a Range II violent offender to forty years. On appeal, Defendant raises the following issues: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to support his conviction for second degree murder, (2) whether the sentence imposed by the trial court is excessive, and (3) whether a finding of plain error pursuant to Tenn. R. Crim. P. 52(b) justifies a dismissal of charges on the ground that the State participated in a conspiracy to kill Defendant. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Trial Court Judge: Jim T. Hamilton
Defendant Joey L. Salcido was indicted by the Giles County Grand Jury for three counts of incest and three counts of rape of a child. Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of three counts of aggravated sexual battery as a lesser-included offense of child rape and acquitted of the charges of incest. On March 15, 1999, the trial court sentenced Defendant as a violent 100% offender to a term of twelve years for each of his three convictions and ordered that all sentences be served consecutively. On April 15, 1999, thirty-one days after Defendant's judgment was entered, Defendant filed an untimely motion for new trial. The motion was nevertheless heard on April 19, 1999 and denied on April 20, 1999. On April 23, 1999, Defendant filed a notice of appeal which was also untimely due to the late filing of Defendant's motion for new trial. On May 25, 2000, Defendant filed a motion to waive the timely filing of his notice to appeal and on June 7, 2000, this Court granted Defendant's motion. In this appeal Defendant raises the following issues: (1) whether the Defendant's conviction of aggravated sexual battery, an offense which was neither charged in the indictment nor a lesser-included offense of the offenses charged, was error; (2) whether, assuming aggravated sexual battery is determined to be a lesser-included offense of child rape, the trial court erred in its jury instruction regarding the mental state necessary to convict him; (3) whether the trial court erred when it admitted certain evidence over Defendant's objections; (4) whether the cumulative effect of the trial court's errors renders the trial fundamentally unfair so as to offend Defendant's due process guarantees; and (5) whether the trial court erred when it imposed consecutive sentences. Defendant asserts that his first issue concerns subject matter jurisdiction and, therefore, must be heard by this Court pursuant to Tenn. R. App. P. 13(b). Defendant also urges this Court to exercise its discretion under Tenn. R. Crim. P. 52(b) or Tenn. R. App. P. 13(b) and consider the remaining four issues. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we find no errors requiring reversal and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: J. Steve Daniel
The appellant, Larry Coulter, appeals his conviction by a jury in the Rutherford County Circuit Court of one count of first degree premeditated murder. For his offense, the appellant received a sentence of life imprisonment in the Tennessee Department of Correction. In this appeal, the appellant presents the following issues for our review: (1) whether the trial court erred in failing to disqualify the office of the District Attorney General for the Sixteenth Judicial District from participating in the appellant's case; (2) whether the trial court erred in denying the appellant's pre-trial motion to suppress a statement that he made to officers of the La Vergne Police Department following his offense; (3) whether the trial court erred in denying the appellant's pre-trial motion to suppress the fruits of a warrantless search of his home by officers of the La Vergne Police Department; (4) whether the trial court erred in denying the appellant's pre-trial motion to exclude from evidence notes and letters written by the appellant to the victim prior to this offense; (5) whether the trial court erred in denying the appellant's pre-trial motion to exclude from evidence any proof of the victim's plans to move away from the Coulters' mobile home; (6) whether the trial court erred in overruling the appellant's objection to testimony by Sybil Victory concerning a telephone conversation; (7) whether the trial court erred in overruling the appellant's Tenn. R. Evid. 615 objection to testimony by Fawn Jones; (8) whether the trial court erred in overruling the appellant's objection to testimony by the State's firearms identification expert concerning a bullet recovered from the victim's body; (9) whether the trial court erred in permitting each member of the jury to "dry-fire" the murder weapon during the State's case-in-chief; (10) whether the trial court erred in permitting a State's witness to testify by deposition pursuant to Tenn. R. Crim. P. 15; (11) whether the trial court erred in permitting the State to impeach the appellant's psychologist with a "learned treatise" without satisfying the requirements of Tenn. R. Evid. 618; (12) whether the trial court erred in overruling the appellant's objection to rebuttal testimony by the State's psychologist that violated Tenn. R. Crim. P. 12.2(c); (13) whether the trial court erred in failing to charge the jury with certain special instructions requested by the appellant; (14) whether the trial court erred in permitting the State to alter or amend an exhibit immediately prior to the jury's deliberations; (15) whether the evidence adduced at trial is sufficient to support the jury's verdict; and (16) whether the cumulative effect of any errors requires the reversal of the appellant's conviction and the remand of this case for a new trial. Following a review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: James K. Clayton, Jr.
The Petitioner, Phyllis McBride, was convicted by a Rutherford County jury of first degree murder. On appeal, this Court affirmed the conviction. The Petitioner filed an application for permission to appeal to the Tennessee Supreme Court which was denied. The Petitioner then filed a petition for post-conviction relief. Following a hearing, the petition was dismissed. The Petitioner now appeals the trial court's denial of post-conviction relief. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Trial Court Judge: Stephen M. Bevil
This case presents an appeal to this court after remand by order of the Tennessee Supreme Court. The Appellant, Chester Lebron Bennett, pled guilty to five counts of criminal exposure to HIV and was sentenced to five concurrent four-year Department of Correction sentences. This court, on direct appeal, remanded the case to the trial court for consideration of alternative sentencing. See State v. Chester Lebron Bennett, No. 03C01-9810-CR-00346 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Knoxville, July 28, 1999), perm. to appeal granted, (Tenn. Oct. 16, 2000). Subsequent to this court's decision, the supreme court released its decision in the case of State v. Daryl Hooper, No. M1997-00031-SCR-11-CD (Tenn. at Nashville, Sept. 21, 2000) (for publication). In State v. Daryl Hooper, the court announced new sentencing considerations regarding the need for deterrence as grounds for denying an alternative sentence. In light of its decision in State v. Daryl Hooper, the court remanded the case to this court for reconsideration. See State v. Chester Lebron Bennett, No. E1998-00614-SC-R11-CD (Tenn. at Knoxville, Oct. 16, 2000). After revisiting this issue under the standards announced in State v. Daryl Hooper, we affirm the trial court's denial of alternative sentencing.
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: William B. Acree
The Defendant, Michael Joseph Cook, was convicted of driving under the influence, second offense. The trial court sentenced him to 11 months and 29 days and required him to serve six months of that sentence in the local jail. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the evidence was insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and (2) the trial court improperly sentenced the Defendant. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: William B. Acree
The Defendant, Michael Joseph Cook, was convicted of driving under the influence, second offense. The trial court sentenced him to 11 months and 29 days and required him to serve six months of that sentence in the local jail. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the evidence was insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and (2) the trial court improperly sentenced the Defendant. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: Buddy D. Perry
The defendant was convicted by a Grundy County jury of premeditated first degree murder and sentenced to life. In this appeal, he challenges: (1) the sufficiency of the evidence; (2) the admission of a photograph of the victim's body; (3) the exclusion of testimony relating to statements made by the victim; and (4) the evidentiary rulings relating to the victim's propensity toward violence. Upon our review of the record, we find no reversible error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Trial Court Judge: Charles D. Haston, Sr.
The appellant, Thomas Edward Ford, was convicted of Class C felony aggravated assault and Class D vandalism. The Circuit Court of Warren County sentenced the appellant to five years for aggravated assault and two years for vandalism. The sentences were ordered to run consecutively. Upon appeal, the appellant raises the following issues for review: (1) propriety of the five-year sentence; (2) imposition of consecutive sentences; (3) sufficiency of the evidence for aggravated assault; and (4) misleading jury instruction. After review, we find no error. Accordingly, the judgment of the Circuit Court of Warren County is affirmed.
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Trial Court Judge: Walter C. Kurtz
Charles B. Sullivan entered guilty pleas in the Davidson County Criminal Court to three counts of aggravated rape, one count of especially aggravated burglary, three counts of aggravated burglary, and one count of rape, for which the trial court imposed an effective sentence of fifty-nine years. In this appeal as of right, the appellant contends that the individual sentences are excessive and that partial consecutive sentences are not warranted. After review, we affirm.
Authoring Judge: Judge Cornelia A. Clark
Trial Court Judge: Julian P. Guinn
Defendant Margaret Ree Somerville was convicted by a jury of one count of possession of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver, a Class B felony, and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a sentence of twelve (12) years on the felony offense and eleven (11) months, twenty-nine (29) days on the misdemeanor offense. The sentences were run concurrent to one another. Defendant challenges her convictions, asserting that (1) she was denied her right to the timely appointment of counsel; (2) the indictments against her were defective and should be quashed; and (3) the search warrant executed in this case was defective. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: Jon Kerry Blackwood
The Defendant, Michael W. Smith, appeals as of right from the trial court's denial of post-conviction relief. On appeal, he asserts that his conviction for escape, which was entered pursuant to his guilty plea, should be set aside because the plea was entered involuntarily due to his trial counsel's ineffectiveness. We conclude that the trial court properly denied relief based on its findings that the Defendant received effective assistance of counsel and that he entered the plea knowingly and voluntarily. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: John Franklin Murchison
The Defendant, Samuel Pegues, was convicted of second degree murder after a jury trial. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant asserts that the evidence presented at trial is insufficient to sustain his conviction, that the trial court erred by denying proposed testimony regarding statements made by the victim on the night of the incident, and that the trial court erred by excluding the Defendant's testimony regarding statements made by the victim that she had stabbed or cut someone. We conclude that the evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction, that the trial court did err by denying the proposed testimony of statements made by the victim but that such error was harmless, and that the Defendant has waived his issue regarding the statements of the victim that she had stabbed or cut someone. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: Arthur T. Bennett
This case is before the court upon remand from the Supreme Court of Tennessee for reconsideration in light of State vs. Nichols, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Tenn. 2000). Previously, this court found the "weigh and consider" jury instruction to be in violation of due process. Nichols reached a contrary conclusion; therefore, we now affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Authoring Judge: Judge J. Curwood Witt, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Phyllis H. Miller
David Wayne Salley appeals from his conviction of aggravated rape. He raises issues related to sufficiency of the evidence, jury instructions on lesser-included offenses, admission of evidence obtained pursuant to search warrants, impeachment of the defendant with prior violent felony convictions, exclusion of evidence of consensual sexual relations with the then-minor victim 21 years before the crime, deficient notice that the state was seeking Range III classification for sentencing, and an excessive sentence. Because there is no error requiring reversal, we affirm.
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Trial Court Judge: Judge Seth W. Norman
The appellant, Calvin Otis Tanksley, was convicted by a Davidson County Jury of one count of rape of a child and one count of attempted rape of a child. Based on his classification as a repeat violent offender, the appellant was sentenced upon each count to two consecutive sentences of life without parole. Upon appeal, the appellant raises the following issues: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the verdicts; (2) whether the court erred in ruling the defendant's prior bad acts could be introduced by the State if the defendant presented an alibi defense; (3) whether the court erred in allowing the State to introduce over four hundred pairs of women's undergarments seized from the defendant in an investigation in another county; (4) whether the trial court erred in not suppressing the photographic array; and (5) whether the appellant qualified for sentencing as a repeat violent offender. Finding no reversible error, the judgments are affirmed.
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: Judge W. Charles Lee
In November 1997, the Defendant, Donald Marbley, was arrested for aggravated robbery in Lincoln County. Approximately two weeks after being released on bond, the Defendant was arrested in Marshall County for attempted aggravated robbery and aggravated assault. The Defendant was found guilty by a Lincoln County jury of aggravated robbery and sentenced to seventeen years as a Range II multiple offender. The Defendant pleaded guilty to the Marshall County attempted aggravated robbery charge and was sentenced to eight years as a Range II multiple offender. The two sentences were to be served consecutively, for a total sentence of twenty-five years as a Range II multiple offender. In this consolidated appeal, the Defendant raises the following issues: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for aggravated robbery in Lincoln County; (2) whether the Lincoln County trial court erred in admitting the Defendant's prior criminal convictions into evidence; (3) whether the trial court properly sentenced the Defendant in both the Lincoln and Marshall County cases; and (4) whether the Defendant received effective assistance of counsel in the Lincoln County case. Finding no error in the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: Judge J. Randall Wyatt, Jr.
Defendant, Joseph E. Suggs, pled guilty to three counts of child rape, for which he received three consecutive 25-year sentences. On appeal, the defendant raises two issues: 1) whether the trial court erred by imposing the maximum sentence for each count; and 2) whether the trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences on all counts. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Authoring Judge: Judge L. Terry Lafferty
Trial Court Judge: Judge Seth W. Norman
The appellant/defendant, Marty W. Stanfill, appeals as of right from the judgment of the Davidson County Criminal Court which imposed a sentence of eight (8) years in indictment No. 97-B-1320, for the state offense of unlawful possession of cocaine with the intent to sell or deliver. The trial court ordered this sentence to be served consecutively to a federal conviction, No. 3:97-00087, for conspiracy to distribute cocaine. At the same sentencing hearing, in indictment No. 99-B-865, the trial court imposed, in three separate counts, two (2) eight (8) year sentences for unlawful possession of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver, and one (1) year for the unlawful possession of a weapon. These sentences were to be served concurrently with case No. 97-B-1320 and the federal conviction, No. 3:97-00087, imposed by the U.S. District Court for Middle Tennessee at Nashville. The defendant presents one appellate issue: Whether the trial court erred in imposing an eight (8) year sentence in case No. 97-B-1320, consecutive to federal case No. 3:97-00087? After a complete review of the record, briefs of the parties and applicable law, we vacate the judgment of conviction and remand the case for further proceedings.
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Trial Court Judge: Judge James B. Scott, Jr.
The defendant was convicted of driving under the influence, second offense, and received a sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days. The defendant was ordered to serve forty-five days in continuous confinement and five days on the weekends, with the remainder of his sentence to be served on probation. In this appeal as of right, the defendant makes the following allegations of error: (1) the trial court used an invalid judgment to elevate his DUI charge to a DUI second; (2) the trial court's initial denial of an appeal bond violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the United States and Tennessee Constitutions; and (3) the trial court incorrectly concluded it was not authorized to grant work release or periodic confinement during the defendant's mandatory minimum period of incarceration for DUI. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude the trial court did not commit the above errors and affirm the defendant's conviction and sentence.
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: Judge James C. Beasley, Jr.
I must respectfully dissent because, while I agree that the appellant’s confession to the police should have been suppressed, I do not believe that the trial court’s admission of the confession at trial constituted reversible error.
Authoring Judge: Judge John Everett Williams
Trial Court Judge: Judge Carolyn Wade Blackett
This is a case involving two defendants: O'Connor, the mother's friend, was convicted of Aggravated Child Abuse through injury and Aggravated Child Abuse through neglect. Lekin, the mother, was convicted of Aggravated Child Abuse through neglect. We affirm the conviction of Aggravated Child Abuse through injury, as we hold that a four-year-old who received a skull fracture, epidural bleeding, swelling and bruising around the eyes and face, and the pain associated with said injuries has sustained "serious bodily injury." Further, we find sufficient evidence to support both convictions for Aggravated Child Abuse through neglect. Finally, we reject the arguments that the state was required to elect a specific "serious bodily injury" and that Aggravated Child Abuse through neglect is not an offense in Tennessee.
