In April of 2013, Defendant, Yvette Adele Slee, was convicted of aggravated child abuse and attempted first degree murder for suffocating the victim, Defendant’s eight-month-old child. She was sentenced to an effective sentence of 22 years in incarceration. Subsequently, in May of 2018, the victim died as a result of complications from injuries originally sustained by the aggravated child abuse. Defendant was then indicted for first degree felony murder, the subject offense of this direct appeal. After a bench trial, Defendant was found guilty as indicted. Defendant’s sole issue on appeal is whether her conviction for first degree felony murder violates double jeopardy. After a review of the record, the briefs, and applicable authorities, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Spencer L. Phillips, Defendant, claims that the trial court abused its discretion by denying
probation or an alternative sentence and ordering him to serve his sentence in confinement.
Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The Defendant, Darrin Jeremiah Baker, appeals from his guilty pleaded convictions for
possession with the intent to sell or deliver more than 0.5 gram of methamphetamine, a
Class B felony; attempted possession with the intent to sell or deliver less than fifteen
grams of heroin, a Class C felony; possession with the intent to sell or deliver less than
fifteen grams of fentanyl, a Class C felony; and driving under the influence, a Class A
misdemeanor. See T.C.A. §§ 39-17-417 (possession of heroin and fentanyl) (Supp.
2022), -17-434 (possession of methamphetamine) (2018), 55-10-401 (driving under the
influence) (2020), 39-12-101 (attempt) (2018). The Defendant pleaded guilty as a Range
I offender and agreed to an effective ten-year sentence. After a sentencing hearing, the
trial court ordered the Defendant to serve his sentence in the Department of Correction.
On appeal, the Defendant contends that the court erred in denying alternative sentencing.
We affirm the judgments of the trial court.
The defendant, Shannon Leigh Smith, appeals her Union County Circuit Court jury
conviction of second degree murder, arguing that the State improperly withheld favorable
and material evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). Because the
withheld evidence was not material to the outcome of the case, we affirm.
Petitioner, Nemon Winton, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, in which he alleged several claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. On appeal, he argues that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request specific jury instructions and for utilizing an improper trial strategy. After thoroughly reviewing the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.
The Petitioner, Alexander Jackson, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of
his post-conviction petition, seeking relief from his convictions for two counts of rape and
his resulting sentence of nine years in confinement. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that
he received the ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Upon review, we affirm the
judgment of the post-conviction court.
The Petitioner, Darryl Robinson, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his
post-conviction petition, seeking relief from his convictions of aggravated robbery and
convicted felon in possession of a handgun and his resulting effective sentence of sixteen
years in confinement. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that he received the ineffective
assistance of trial counsel. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction
Defendant, Charles Bradford Lampley, was convicted by a Maury County jury of first
degree premeditated murder and aggravated assault resulting in death, for which he
received an effective sentence of life. On appeal, Defendant contends that: (1) the trial
court erred in not granting his motion for judgment of acquittal; (2) the evidence is
insufficient as it relates to his conviction for first degree premediated murder; (3) the trial
court failed to exercise its mandatory function as the thirteenth juror as to his conviction
for first degree premeditated murder; (4) the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury
on the issue of voluntary intoxication; (5) the prosecutor made numerous improper
references to his decision not to testify, shifted the burden of proof, and improperly offered
his opinion on the truth or falsity of evidence and on Defendant’s guilt during closing
argument; and (7) he is entitled to relief under the cumulative error doctrine. After a
thorough review of the facts and applicable case law, we affirm the judgments of the trial
Petitioner, Charles Claybrooks,1 appeals the dismissal of his 2021 petition seeking postconviction
relief from his 2010 convictions for one count aggravated robbery and two
counts of aggravated assault. Following a hearing, the post-conviction court concluded
that Petitioner “failed to demonstrate entitlement to the tolling of the statute of limitations”
and dismissed the Petition. Discerning no error, we affirm.
Petitioner, Alexander Carino, appeals from the Trousdale County Circuit Court’s dismissal of his second petition for writ of habeas corpus. He alleges that the habeas corpus court erred by summarily denying his petition without advising him of his right to counsel or appointing counsel and that his judgments for second-degree murder are void because the affidavits of complaint were not “properly authenticated” because they did not contain a court seal. Petitioner further alleges for the first time on appeal that the affidavits of complaint contain an insufficient factual basis to support a finding of probable cause. Following our review of the entire record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court.
Defendant, Isiah J. Primm, was convicted after a jury trial of two counts of first degree felony murder; two counts of conspiracy to commit first degree murder, a Class A felony; and one count of conspiracy to commit voluntary manslaughter, a Class D felony; and sentenced to an effective life plus forty years in confinement. On appeal, Defendant argues that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; (2) the jury should have been instructed on self-defense, facilitation, and attempt as lesser-included offenses of first degree murder; (3) the jury should have been instructed on the State’s duty to gather and preserve evidence; (4) the State committed a Brady violation by waiting until the morning of trial to provide Defendant with a copy of Mr. Tidwell’s cell phone report; (5) the State knew or should have known that one of the victims introduced false testimony; (6) the trial court should have excluded evidence of drugs found in the apartment where Defendant was staying; (7) Defendant’s Fourteenth Amendment right was violated because the jury venire contained no African American jurors; and (8) the trial court erred by imposing partial consecutive sentencing. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court; however, because the trial court did not sign three of the judgments, we remand the case for entry of amended judgments.
Court of Criminal Appeals
Robert Garner v. State of Tennessee M2021-01396-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert H. Montgomery, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge J. Russell Parkes and Judge Stella Hargrove
In this consolidated appeal, the Petitioner, Robert Garner, appeals from the Giles County Circuit Courts’ summary denial of his petition for relief pursuant to the Post-Conviction Fingerprint Analysis Act of 2021 (Fingerprint Act) and his petition for a writ of error coram nobis. We affirm the judgments of the post-conviction and coram nobis courts.
A Shelby County jury convicted the Defendant, Cadarius Head, of first degree
premeditated murder and attempted first degree murder, and the trial court imposed an
effective life sentence. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient
to support his convictions. Specifically, the Defendant contends that the State’s primary
witness was not credible and that his convictions were otherwise based on circumstantial
evidence. He further contends that the State failed to convincingly prove the element of
premeditation as to his first degree murder conviction. Finally, he argues that the evidence
supporting his conviction for attempted first degree murder was insufficient because the
victim did not testify at trial. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial
Following a bench trial, the Defendant, Brendan Nathan Morgan, was convicted in the
Decatur County Circuit Court of aggravated sexual battery and sentenced to ten years at
100 percent in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he contends that the trial court
abused its discretion in admitting testimony that a police investigator saw search history
for pornographic material on the Defendant’s cell phone because the evidence violated the
best evidence rule and the rule against hearsay. Based on our review, we affirm the
judgment of the trial court.
After pleading guilty to two counts of violation of the habitual motor vehicle offender law and reckless endangerment, Defendant was sentenced to a total of eight years and six months on supervised probation. Several probation violation warrants, a partial revocation, and additional convictions followed, eventually culminating in a hearing on the revocation of Defendant’s probation. Defendant admitted the violations. The trial court ultimately determined that Defendant’s multiple probation violations warranted the complete revocation of probation. After a review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Petitioner, Reginold C. Steed, appeals the error coram nobis court’s summary dismissal of
his petition for error coram nobis relief. Following review of the record and applicable
law, we affirm the judgment of the coram nobis court in accordance with Rule 20 of the
Rules of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals.
Defendant, Patsy Hensley, was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder and received
a life sentence. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court’s exclusion of testimony
from her expert witness violated her right to present a defense and that the prosecutor
improperly commented during closing argument on her decision not to testify at trial.
Following our review of the entire record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the
judgment of the trial court.
Court of Criminal Appeals
State v. Carrie Joann Hamlin E2022-00139-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert H. Montgomery, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Andres Freiberg
The Defendant, Carrie Joann Hamlin, was convicted by a McMinn County Circuit Court jury of sale of a Schedule II controlled substance within 1000' of a drug-free zone, a Class C felony, for which she is serving a nine-year sentence. See T. C .A. § § 3 9-17-41 7 ( a)(3), (c)(2)(A) (2018) (subsequently amended) (sale of a controlled substance), 39-17-432 (2018) (subsequently amended) (Drug-Free Zone Act). On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support her conviction, (2) the trial court erred in declining to resentence her under the 2020 amendments to the Drug-Free Zone Act, and alternatively, (3) this court should remand her case to the trial court for resentencing under the 2022 amendments to the Drug-Free Zone Act. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Following convictions for unlawful possession of a weapon and a felony drug offense, the
Defendant, Tavares Tobin, was sentenced to an effective term of eleven years and placed
on probation. Thereafter, the Defendant engaged in new criminal conduct and stopped
reporting for supervision. As a consequence of the violations, the trial court revoked the
suspended sentences and ordered that the Defendant serve the balance of the effective
sentence in custody. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court abused its
discretion by finding that he violated the conditions of his probation and by fully revoking
his suspended sentences without considering lesser options. We respectfully affirm the
judgments of the trial court.
The Petitioner, Sharrad Sharp, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of
his petition for post-conviction relief from his aggravated sexual battery and child abuse
convictions, for which he is serving a sixteen-year sentence. On appeal, he contends that
he received the ineffective assistance of counsel because trial counsel failed to request a
limiting jury instruction regarding the victims’ forensic examination interviews. We affirm
the judgment of the post-conviction court.
In this delayed appeal, the Defendant-Appellant, Roosevelt Pitts, III, challenges his
Rutherford County jury convictions of robbery, three counts of felony reckless
endangerment, misdemeanor leaving the scene of an accident, and felony vandalism, for
which he received an effective sentence of eighteen years in prison. The Defendant argues
that the trial court erred in rejecting his challenge to two peremptory challenges based on
Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), and that the State engaged in prosecutorial
misconduct during closing arguments. Upon our review, we affirm.
The Defendant, Jeffrey Cochran, was convicted by a McMinn County Criminal Court jury of aggravated kidnapping, for which he is serving a nine-year sentence. See T.C.A. § 39- 13-304(a)(5) (2018). On appeal, he contends that (1) the trial court erred in denying, in part, his motion to suppress, (2) the trial court erred in denying his motion for a continuance, (3) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction, and (4) his sentence is excessive. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Rodger E. Broadway, Petitioner, sought relief from his 2003 convictions for first degree felony murder, especially aggravated robbery, and aggravated rape, which were the result of guilty pleas, claiming that trial counsel told him he could not file for post-conviction relief and that the trial court deprived him of his fundamental right to represent himself. The post-conviction court found that the petition was not timely filed and that Petitioner was not entitled to due process tolling and summarily dismissed the petition. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm.