State of Tennessee v. Nathan Brad Cornwell
A Hamblen County Criminal Court jury convicted the appellant, Nathan Brad Cornwell, of driving under the influence, third offense, a class A misdemeanor. He was sentenced to eleven months and twenty-nine days and fined one thousand, one hundred and ten dollars. The court also ordered that his driving license be suspended for three years. On appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hamblen | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Mark Allen v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Mark Allen, was convicted of one count of exhibition of materials harmful to a minor, one count of especially aggravated sexual exploitation, and one count of rape of a child, and sentenced to an effective sentence of twenty-four years. He filed a timely petition for post-conviction relief, asserting that trial counsel was ineffective. Following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court dismissed the petition. After our review of the record, we affirm the dismissal. |
Robertson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Carey Haynes, Jr.
The petitioner, Carey Haynes, Jr., was convicted of a Class B and a Class C felony involving the sale of cocaine and received an effective eighteen-year sentence. The only issue raised on direct appeal was ineffective assistance of counsel, which was deemed waived because it was not included in the motion for new trial. The petitioner has now filed seeking post-conviction relief, and the postconviction court has granted the petitioner a delayed appeal and ruled that his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was previously determined. As to the delayed appeal, we address whether the evidence was sufficient to support the petitioner’s convictions and whether the petitioner’s sentence was proper. We further address whether the post-conviction court properly denied relief. After careful review, we affirm the judgments from the lower courts. |
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John L. Trull
The defendant, John L. Trull, pled guilty in the Crockett County Circuit Court to driving under the nfluence (“DUI”), third offense, and was sentenced to eleven months, twenty-nine days, with all but 120 days suspended. As a condition of his guilty plea, he reserved the following certified question of law: “Whether the arrest of the defendant was unconstitutional in violation of Article I, Section 7 of the Tennessee Constitution and the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.” Upon review of the record, we agree with the State that the certified question of law does not clearly state the scope and limits of the legal issue the defendant sought to reserve for appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. |
Crockett | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ivory Gray
Defendant, Ivory Gray, was indicted in count one for the first degree premeditated murder of Derek Jones and in count two for the attempted first degree premeditated murder of Georglvekio Hampton. Following a jury trial, Defendant was found not guilty in count one of the indictment. The jury found Defendant guilty of attempted first degree premeditated murder in count two. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Defendant as a Range I, standard offender, to twenty years. On appeal, Defendant argues that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of attempted first degree premeditated murder; (2) the trial court erred in its instructions to the jury on the definition of “reasonable doubt;” (3) the trial court erred in restricting Defendant’s crossexamination of one of the State’s witnesses; and (4) the cumulative effect of these errors denied Defendant his constitutional right to a fair trial. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Richard Price
The defendant, Richard Price, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, and sentenced to twenty years as a Range II, multiple offender. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in declining to grant a mistrial after a witness testified that he attempted to speak to the defendant and challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and the sentence imposed by the trial court. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tremaine Letroy Paige
The Defendant-Appellant, Tremaine Letroy Paige (“Paige”), pled guilty to possession of over .5 grams of cocaine, a Schedule II controlled substance with the intent to sell. Pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37, Paige reserved as a certified question of law the issue of whether the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress. The certified question of law s “[w]hether Officer Anna McDowell had a legal basis for the traffic stop of the Defendant’s vehicle.” Following our review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Lamar Pritchett
The defendant, Michael Lamar Pritchett, presents for review a certified question of law as allowed by Rule 37(b)(2) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure. The defendant pled guilty to driving under the influence (DUI). As a condition of his guilty plea, the defendant reserved a certified question of law challenging the denial of his motion to suppress based upon his allegation that he was subjected to an unconstitutional investigative stop. Because the defendant failed to meet the requirements of reserving a certified question for review, we dismiss the appeal. |
Tipton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Barry Randy Hall
The Defendant, Barry Randy Hall, pled guilty to one count of facilitation to sell 0.5 grams or more of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school and one count of selling 0.5 grams or more of cocaine, both Class B felonies. The parties agreed to a ten-year sentence on the facilitation to sell conviction and an eight year sentence on the selling of 0.5 grams or more conviction, to be served concurrently. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court denied probation and alternative sentencing and ordered the Defendant to serve the entirety of sentence in confinement. The Defendant challenges the denial of alternative sentencing in this appeal. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the trial court properly sentenced the defendant and affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Rodney Lamont Love v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant appeals the trial court's dismissal of his petition for post conviction relief. The Appellant filed his petition outside the statute of limitations. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Rodney Lamont Love, pro se. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jerion Craft
The defendant, Jerion Craft, was convicted of separate counts of unlawful possession of cocaine with intent to sell and to deliver. The trial court merged the convictions and sentenced the defendant to serve eleven years as a standard offender. On appeal, the defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate that: he possessed cocaine with the intent to distribute it; the trial court interfered with his right to a fair trial; and the trial court erred in failing to declare a mistrial. After careful review, we affirm the judgments from the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Roy Shotwell, Jr.
The defendant, Roy Shotwell, Jr., was convicted of two counts of rape, each a Class B felony, and one count of sexual battery, a Class E felony. The defendant was sentenced to ten years for each Class B felony and to two years for the Class E felony. The defendant received a total effective sentence of twenty years. The defendant appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in: denying his motion for a severance; allowing the State to offer expert witnesses on DNA and forensic nursing; and in sentencing. After careful review, we affirm the trial court’s decisions to join the indictments in one trial and to admit the State’s expert testimony. Moreover, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in applying the enhancement factors or in ordering consecutive sentences. Therefore, the judgments from the trial court are affirmed. |
Fayette | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Richard Anthony Arriola
After conducting a bench trial, the trial court found the Defendant, Richard Anthony Arriola, guilty of one count of first degree murder, one count of attempted first degree murder, and two counts o fattempted second degree murder. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective sentence of life imprisonment plus fifteen years. This Court remanded the case to the trial court for an order clarifying its findings on the insanity defense. On appeal, the Defendant claims: (1) the trial court erred when it used an improper legal standard for the insanity defense; and (2) the evidence presented at trial proved by clear and convincing evidence that the Defendant was not guilty by reason of insanity. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we conclude that the trial court applied an improper legal standard for the insanity defense. Therefore, we reverse the convictions and remand for a new trial. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Doris Nell Jones
On June 1, 2009, the Tennessee Supreme Court remanded this case for reconsideration in light of its opinion in State v. Byington, 284 S.W.3d 220 (Tenn. 2009). This court initially dismissed the defendant’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction after both the defendant’s motion for new trial and the trial court’s order denying the motion were absent from the record. This court also denied the defendant’s subsequent petition to rehear and motion to supplement the record with the missing documents. On remand, the defendant, who was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to eighteen years in the Department of Correction, again argues that the trial court erred by allowing certain out of court statements into evidence and that the State engaged in prosecutorial misconduct based on certain statements made during closing argument. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the trial court erred in admitting testimony by the defendant’s mother regarding a telephone conversation between the defendant and the victim, but that such error was harmless. We also conclude that the defendant’s contentions regarding the other challenged statements and the State’s closing argument are waived for the defendant’s failure to include them in the motion for new trial and that the issues do not merit plain error review. We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Lawrence | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Enrique Alejandro Perez
The Defendant, Enrique Alejandro Perez, appeals as of right from his jury conviction in the Hamblen County Criminal Court for aggravated kidnapping, a Class B felony, for which he received a sentence of ten years as a violent offender. On appeal, he argues that (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his statement, (2) the trial court erred in denying his motion to strike the jury panel based upon his allegation of an under-representation of Latino persons, (3) the aggravated kidnapping statute, as applied in this case, is unconstitutional because he was not separately indicted for the underlying offense of rape, (4) there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction for aggravated kidnapping, and (5) the trial court imposed an excessive sentence. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hamblen | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Harold Oliver McGee v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant appeals the trial court's dismissal of his petition for post conviction relief. The Appellant filed his petition outside the statute of limitations. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Donald Edward Lynch
A Sullivan County Criminal Court jury convicted the defendant, Donald Edward Lynch, of two counts of especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor, two counts of aggravated sexual battery, and six counts of rape of a child. He challenges his convictions, arguing that the video recording used in his conviction was discovered through an illegal search and seizure. He also challenges the legal sufficiency of the convicting evidence. We discern error in the judgments for Counts eight through 10 of rape of a child and remand for correction of clerical error. In all other respects, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Deonte McBee
The Defendant, Deonte McBee, appeals from his convictions of first degree felony murder in the perpetration of robbery; especially aggravated robbery, a Class A felony; and four counts of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony. He was sentenced to life for the murder conviction, to twenty-five years as a violent offender for the especially aggravated robbery conviction, and to twelve years as a Range I offender for each of the aggravated robbery convictions. The aggravated robbery convictions were imposed consecutively to each other and to the murder conviction, and the effective sentence is life plus forty-eight years. In this appeal, the Defendant claims (1) that there was insufficient proof to support the felony murder conviction, (2) that the trial court erred in instructing the jury to consider the murder offense and its lesser included offenses in sequential order, and (3) that the trial court erred in giving a criminal responsibility instruction. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Earl McGriggs
The defendant, James Earl McGriggs, was convicted of aggravated rape, aggravated kidnapping, aggravated burglary, and aggravated robbery and was sentenced, respectively, to twenty-five years, ten years, three years, and eight years. The trial court ordered that the aggravated rape sentence be served consecutively to the aggravated kidnapping sentence, with all other to be served concurrently, for an effective sentence of thirty-five years. On appeal, the defendant argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the convictions. Following our review, we affirm the judgments. |
McNairy | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Joe Tyree v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Joe Tyree, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The petitioner submitted a guilty plea to one count of violation of the sex offender registry. On appeal, he contends that: defense counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel; his plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered; and the post-conviction court failed to comply with the statute that requires the court to set forth findings of fact and conclusions of law with regard to each issue. After careful review, we conclude no reversible error exists and affirm the judgment from the post-conviction court. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
George Hampton v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, George Hampton, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to properly investigate and prepare the case for trial. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Marktrail Lee
The defendant, Marktrail Lee, was convicted of aggravated child abuse and aggravated child abuse by neglect. The trial court merged the two convictions and sentenced the defendant as a Range I offender to twenty-three years at 100 percent. On appeal, the defendant asserts that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions and that the court erred in sentencing. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Wadie Michael Holifield v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Wadie Holifield, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief by the Tipton County Circuit Court. The petitioner was convicted of one count of aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony, and sentenced to eighteen years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he raises the single issue of ineffective assistance of counsel, specifically arguing that trial counsel was ineffective by failing to: 1) investigate his mental health and his claim of impotence as possible defenses; 2) ensure an untainted jury by requesting “the Rule” prior to voir dire; 3) effectively preclude introduction or properly cross-examine a witness following testimony about the petitioner’s prior drug habit; and 4) effectively advise the petitioner. As an initial argument, the State contends that the petitioner has waived review based upon an untimely notice of appeal. We agree that the notice was not timely filed, but, in the interest of justice, we elect to review the petitioner’s issue. Following review of the record, we find no error and affirm the denial of relief. |
Tipton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Robert Cummins v. Jim Morrow, Warden
The Petitioner, Robert Cummins, appeals the denial of habeas corpus relief by the Circuit Court for Bledsoe County. The Petitioner pled guilty to second degree murder, a Class A felony, and received a thirty-year sentence as a Range II, multiple offender to be served at one hundred percent. On appeal, he contends the trial court erred in dismissing the petition. He claims that an illegal sentence is a proper ground to allege in a habeas corpus petition, that his guilty plea was unknowingly and involuntarily entered, that his sentence is illegal because it does not conform to Tennessee Code Annotated sections 40-35-112(a)(1) (2006) and 40-35-501(i)(1), (2)(B) (2006), and that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel because trial counsel should have known the sentence was illegal. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Bledsoe | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Darnell Hubbard
A Shelby County Criminal Court Jury convicted the appellant, Darnell Hubbard, of the first-degree premeditated murder of his wife, and he was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. On appeal, the appellant contends that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of his prior acts of violence against the victim. He also challenges the trial court’s admission of evidence relating to an ex parte order of protection that the victim obtained against him and other statements the victim made to her son and police. We conclude that the trial court erred in admitting hearsay statements from the victim in violation of the appellant’s confrontation rights. However, in light of the overwhelming evidence of the appellant’s guilt, the errors were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, we affirm the appellant’s conviction. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals |
