Johnny Young v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Johnny Young, contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel at trial – citing multiple bases supporting his contention – and on appeal – citing counsel’s failure to file a motion for new trial – and asks this court to either grant him a new trial or a delayed appeal. After reviewing the record and the applicable authorities, we conclude that counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion for new trial and, therefore, grant the Petitioner a delayed appeal. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jeffery Scott Hutchinson
The Defendant, Jeffery Scott Hutchinson, was convicted by a Bedford County jury of one count of initiating a process intended to result in the manufacture of methamphetamine, one count of promoting the manufacture of methamphetamine, and two counts of simple possession of methamphetamine. He was thereafter convicted by a separate Bedford County jury of failure to appear. At a consolidated sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed an effective eighteen-year sentence for all of these convictions. In this direct appeal, the Defendant argues that the evidence is insufficient to support a jury’s finding that he knowingly failed to appear and that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentencing. Finding no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Robert Brian King
Defendant, Robert Brian King, was convicted by a Davidson County jury of assault. As a result, he was sentenced to eleven months and twenty-nine days in incarceration, to be served on supervised probation after the service of ten days in incarceration. Defendant was also ordered to pay restitution to the victim. After the denial of a motion for new trial, Defendant appeals, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and the trial court’s decision to exclude testimony on the basis that it constituted hearsay. After our review, we determine that the evidence was sufficient to support the assault conviction where the jury weighed the credibility of the State’s witnesses and accredited their testimony. Further, we determine that the trial court erred in excluding testimony as hearsay when the statements were not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted but to prove their effect on the hearer. However, we determine the error was harmless. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Phalanda D. Falls
Appellant, Phalanda D. Falls, entered a guilty plea to evading arrest, a Class D felony, and driving with a suspended license, a Class B misdemeanor, and received an effective sentence of four years. Following a hearing to determine her request for alternative sentencing, the trial court denied the motion and ordered appellant to serve her sentence in the Tennessee Department of Correction. This appeal follows. Upon our review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Narceus Cox
The Defendant, Narceus Cox, pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful possession of a controlled substance, Oxycodone, with intent to sell. The trial court denied the Defendant’s request for judicial diversion and sentenced him to a three-year sentence involving split confinement. The Defendant asserts that the trial court erred when it denied his application for judicial diversion. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joseph Scott Morrell
The defendant, Joseph Scott Morrell, appeals his Washington County Criminal Court jury conviction of third offense driving under the influence (“DUI”), claiming that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, that the verdict of the jury was not unanimous, and that the trial court should have dismissed the indictment or declared a mistrial following the State’s improper commentary during closing argument. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Washington | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Dean Wells
The defendant was indicted for driving under the influence of an intoxicant (“DUI”), DUI per se, simple possession, leaving the scene of an accident, and DUI (second offense) after his vehicle struck a utility pole and small building. The defendant refused law enforcement’s request to test his blood in order to determine his blood alcohol content. The defendant’s blood was taken pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-10-406(f)(2) (2012) and without a warrant, despite his refusal to submit to testing. The defendant moved to suppress evidence of his blood alcohol content, alleging that his Fourth Amendment rights had been violated and that Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-10-406(f)(2) was unconstitutional. The trial court granted the motion to suppress, concluding that the statute was unconstitutional. The State sought and was granted permission to appeal, arguing that the blood was taken under exigent circumstances and that the implied consent law functioned to satisfy the consent exception to the warrant requirement. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the blood draw violated the defendant’s right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures because it was not conducted pursuant to an exception to the warrant requirement, and we affirm the suppression of the evidence. We determine that, although the blood draw was taken pursuant to the statute, the statute did not dispense with the warrant requirement and is therefore not unconstitutional as applied to the defendant. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Vernon Motley v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Vernon Motley, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of postconviction relief from his conviction for first degree premeditated murder and his sentence of life imprisonment. On appeal, he argues that the State’s Brady violation rendered counsels’ assistance ineffective. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Charles A. Kennedy
In this interlocutory appeal by the State, the State challenges the trial court’s suppression of the results of blood alcohol testing conducted on the defendant’s blood pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-10-406(f)(2) (Supp. 2012), claiming that the trial court erred by declaring Code section 55-10-406(f)(2) unconstitutional and by ruling that no exception to the warrant requirement existed to justify the warrantless taking of the defendant’s blood. Because Code section 55-10-406(f)(2) does not mandate the warrantless taking of a blood sample, the trial court erred by declaring the statute unconstitutional, and that portion of the judgment is reversed. Because no exception to the warrant requirement justified the warrantless taking of the defendant’s blood in this case, however, we affirm the trial court’s order suppressing the results of blood alcohol testing conducted on the sample. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
David Freeman Clay v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, David Freeman Clay, appeals from the trial court’s denial of his petition for postconviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. Petitioner sought post-conviction relief from his convictions of two counts of sexual battery and three counts of assault, based upon his assertions that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal. In his appeal Petitioner asserts that the trial court erred by ruling that trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance of counsel. After a thorough review we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Barry Lamont Price v. State of Tennessee
Appellant, Barry Lamont Price, appeals the denial of his petition for writ of error coram nobis in which he challenged his 1991 guilty plea to three counts of the sale of cocaine, one count of driving on a revoked license, and one count of obtaining money by false pretenses and his effective ten-year sentence. We affirm the judgment of the coram nobis court pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jonathan Casey Bryant
The Defendant, Jonathan Casey Bryant, pled guilty to promotion of the manufacture of methamphetamine. As part of the plea agreement, the Defendant reserved a certified question of law challenging the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress the evidence resulting from his traffic stop. However, the Defendant failed to file any document specifying the certified question presented. Because the Defendant failed to properly reserve the certified question, the appeal is dismissed. |
Warren | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Concetta Long aka Concetta Walton
The defendant appeals the order of the Rutherford County Circuit Court revoking her probation and ordering her to serve the balance of her sentence in confinement. In this appeal, she argues that the trial court erred by ordering her to serve the balance of her sentence. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Andrea Kelly Jones
The defendant, Andrea Kelly Jones, appeals her Class D felony, guilty-pleaded convictions of two counts of vehicular assault entered by the Dekalb County Criminal Court. The trial court ordered that the agreed four-year sentence be served in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant challenges the trial court’s denial of a sentencing alternative to incarceration. We affirm the manner of service of the sentences imposed by the trial court. |
DeKalb | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Lonnie Lanorris Holland, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Lonnie Lanorris Holland, Jr., appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court’s denial of post-conviction relief from his 2012 guilty-pleaded conviction of second degree murder. In the petition for post-conviction relief, the petitioner claimed that his guilty plea was unknowing or involuntary and stemmed from the ineffective assistance of his counsel. Because the record supports the post-conviction court’s denial of relief, we affirm its order. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Gregory Lamont Hall
The Defendant, Gregory Lamont Hall, was indicted for one count of manufacturing .5 grams or more of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school, a Class B felony; one count of possession with intent to sell 26 grams or more of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school, a Class B felony; one count of possession of a firearm with the intent to go armed during the commission of a dangerous felony, a Class D felony; and tampering with evidence, a Class C felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-16-503, -17-417, -17-1324(a). The Defendant filed a suppression motion which the trial court denied. The Defendant subsequently entered into a plea agreement with the State and reserved a certified question of law for appellate review pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2). The Defendant pled guilty to one count of possession with intent to sell 26 grams or more of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school and received a ten-year sentence to be served consecutively to a prior sentence. The remaining charges were dismissed. In this appeal, the Defendant contends that there was not sufficient probable cause to justify the issuance of a warrant to search the residence in question. Following our review, we reverse, vacate the judgment of the trial court, and dismiss the charge. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James David Shell v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, James David Shell, pled guilty to two counts of possession with intent to sell or deliver a Schedule II controlled substance and one count of driving under the influence. During plea negotiations, Petitioner was offered two alternate sentences by the State: either one year to serve with ten years of probation or seven years to serve with no probation. After consulting with his attorney, Petitioner chose the seven-year sentence. Subsequently, Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary because he was under the influence of several prescribed medications at the time he pled. He also claimed that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief, finding that Petitioner failed to prove his claims by clear and convincing evidence. Petitioner appealed. Upon thorough review of the record, we affirm the decision of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Roderick Jermaine McAlpin
Defendant, Roderick Jermaine McAlpin, was indicted by the Knox County Grand Jury for possession with intent to sell more than .5 grams of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a public school; possession with intent to deliver more than .5 grams of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a public school; possession with intent to sell more than .5 grams of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a child care agency; possession with intent to deliver more than .5 grams of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a child care agency; criminal trespass, and public intoxication. Due to an error in the indictment, the trial court dismissed the public intoxication charge at the State’s request. Defendant was convicted by a jury of the remaining offenses. The four felony drug convictions were merged into one Class A felony conviction of possession with intent to sell more than .5 grams of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a public school. The trial court sentenced Defendant to serve 16 years’ incarceration for this conviction and 30 days, concurrently, for the conviction of criminal trespass. On appeal, Defendant contends that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress the crack cocaine, and that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. Finding no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Allen Dale Spicer
The defendant, Allen Dale Spicer, was convicted by a Fayette County Circuit Court jury of aggravated assault with serious bodily injury, a Class C felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-102(a)(1)(A) (2010). The trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range II, multiple offender to ten years’ confinement and ordered the sentence be served consecutively to the sentence in another case. On appeal, he contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction and (2) his sentence is excessive. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Fayette | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Pamela Taylor
The Defendant, Pamela Taylor, was indicted for the first degree premeditated murder of her husband, Michael Taylor. Following a jury trial, she was convicted of second degree murder. The trial court sentenced her as a Range I, violent offender to twenty-one years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant argues: (1) the trial court erred in declining to suppress her statement to police; (2) the trial court erred in abbreviating voir dire and jury selection, which prevented her from properly questioning prospective jurors and kept her from invoking her last two peremptory challenges; (3) the ex parte communication between two senior attorneys with the district attorney’s office and the trial judge created an appearance of impropriety; (4) the successor judge erred in finding that the presiding judge had satisfied her duty as the thirteenth juror; (5) the trial court erred in admitting opinion testimony requiring specialized and/or expert knowledge; (6) the trial court erred in admitting evidence of her character and her prior bad acts; (7) the State committed pervasive prosecutorial misconduct; (8) the trial court erred in excluding evidence of the victim’s violence, anger, and aggression, which were offered as corroborative evidence that the victim was the first aggressor; (9) the evidence was insufficient to sustain her conviction for second degree murder; and (10) the trial court erred in imposing an excessive sentence. Upon review, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Victor James
A Madison County jury convicted the Defendant, Victor James, of one count of driving on a revoked license. The Defendant also pleaded guilty to an additional count of driving on a revoked license, prior offender, and the trial court sentenced him to eleven months and twenty-nine days in jail. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence presented is insufficient to support his conviction. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable authorities, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Willie Douglas Johnson v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Willie Douglas Johnson, appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of post-conviction relief from his convictions for attempted second degree murder and unlawful possession of a weapon. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Curtis Keller
The defendant, Curtis Keller, was convicted of three counts of aggravated robbery, three counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, four counts of attempted aggravated robbery, four counts of aggravated assault, one count of aggravated burglary, and one count of intentionally evading arrest in a motor vehicle. For these convictions, he was given an effective sentence of three hundred years. The defendant filed a direct appeal with this court raising multiple issues. This court concluded that the defendant’s claims lacked merit and affirmed the judgments of the trial court, including the convictions for especially aggravated kidnapping. Thereafter, the defendant filed an application for permission to appeal with the Tennessee Supreme Court. The application was granted in part, and the case was remanded to this court to be reconsidered in light of State v. White, 362 S.W.3d 559 (Tenn. 2012) and State v. Cecil, 409 S.W.3d 599 (Tenn. 2013). Upon remand, we conclude that, contrary to the asserted argument, the White jury instruction was given to the jury. Thus, we are limited to a simple sufficiency of the evidence review, the same review we conducted during the direct appeal. Having already concluded that the evidence was sufficient, we again affirm the judgments of conviction. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James William Tawater
Defendant, James William Tawater, was indicted for one count of Class D felony theft of property of $1,000.00 or more in value. A jury found him guilty as charged. The trial court imposed a sentence of six years as a Range II multiple offender. The manner of service of the sentence was ordered to be an alternative sentence of probation, served by split confinement pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-306, with one year to be served in the county jail followed by five years of probation under the supervision of Community Corrections. Defendant presents three issues in his appeal: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction; (2) the trial court abused its discretion by imposing the sentence ordered; and (3) the trial court abused its discretion when it determined the amount of restitution owed by Defendant and by failing to ascertain Defendant’s ability to pay restitution. We affirm the conviction and the length and manner of service of the sentence. However, we reverse the restitution portion of the sentence and remand for a new hearing regarding restitution. |
Robertson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Bruce Rishton v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Bruce Rishton, appeals the Sequatchie County summary dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief. He contends that the trial court’s failure to inform him of the “direct and punitive consequences” of his accepting a guilty plea requiring community supervision for life renders his guilty plea void and that habeas corpus relief should have been granted. Upon consideration of the record and the applicable authorities, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court. |
Sequatchie | Court of Criminal Appeals |
