State of Tennessee v. David Scott Winfrey
Appellant, David Scott Winfrey, pled guilty in Sumner County to twenty-nine Class A misdemeanors consisting of one count of aggravated criminal trespass, one count of stalking, thirteen counts of harassment, and fourteen counts of violation of an order of protection. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Appellant to eleven months and twenty-nine days for each misdemeanor conviction. In addition, the trial court ordered Appellant to serve ten of his violation of an order of protection sentences consecutively to each other, with the remaining sentences to be served concurrently. The trial court based the imposition of the consecutive sentences on Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-113(g). On appeal, Appellant argues that the trial court erred in imposing sentences of eleven months and twenty-nine days, in ordering incarceration above time already served, and in imposing consecutive sentences. After a thorough review of the record, we find no error with the length of the sentences imposed. However, we have determined that Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-113(g) authorizes sentences for violation of an order of protection to run consecutively to other convictions stemming from the same underlying facts, as opposed to authorizing sentences for violation of an order of protection to run consecutively to each other. Therefore, we vacate the sentences imposed by the trial court and remand for resentencing in accordance with this opinion. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Troy Tackett v. State of Tennessee
Pursuant to a plea agreement, the Petitioner, Troy Tackett, pled guilty to one count of rape of a child and two counts of aggravated sexual battery, and the trial court ordered him to serve twenty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The Petitioner then filed a petition for post-conviction relief claiming that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel and that his guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered. The post-conviction court denied relief after a hearing, and the Petitioner now appeals. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Warren | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. J. C. Fair And Krederick Fair
Following a jury trial, Defendants, J. C. Fair and Krederick Fair, were convicted of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony. Each Defendant was sentenced as a Range II, multiple offender, to eighteen years. On appeal, both Defendants argue (1) that the evidence was insufficient to support their conviction of aggravated robbery; (2) that the trial court erred in denying Defendants’ motions for a mistrial; and (3) the trial court erred in its instructions to the jury. Defendant J. C. Fair also argues on appeal that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the indictment against him on the basis of prosecutorial vindictiveness and that the trial court erred in certain evidentiary rulings. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Candice Parrish
The defendant, Candice Parrish, pled guilty to theft of property over $1000, a Class D felony. Following her guilty plea, the trial court sentenced the defendant to a term of four years but granted her request for judicial diversion. Shortly thereafter, the defendant was found to be in violation of her diverted probationary sentence, and, following a sentencing hearing, the trial court removed the defendant from judicial diversion and sentenced her to four years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant contends that the court erred in ordering a sentence of total confinement. Following review of the record, we find no error and affirm. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Michael Lebron Anderson v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Michael Lebron Anderson, was convicted of burglary of a building other than a habitation and was sentenced to twelve years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective. The post-conviction court denied the petition, and the petitioner appeals. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tobias Toby Horton and Latoya Lynn Townsend
The Defendant-Appellant, Latoya Lynn Townsend, pleaded guilty to facilitation to distribute cocaine, a Class C felony, and possession of marijuana with intent to deliver, a Class E felony. For the facilitation offense, she was sentenced to three years at Westate, a community based alternative to imprisonment. For the marijuana offense, she was sentenced to two years at Westate, to be served concurrently with the sentence imposed for the facilitation offense, and ordered to pay a fine. The Defendant-Appellant, Tobias Toby Horton, pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine with intent to deliver, a Class B felony, and possession of marijuana with intent to deliver, a Class E felony. For the cocaine offense, he was sentenced to eight years in the Tennessee Department of Correction, and he was ordered to pay a fine. For the marijuana offense, he was sentenced to two years in the Tennessee Department of Correction, which was to be served concurrently with the sentence imposed for the cocaine offense and his sentence for a prior probation violation. Townsend and Horton, as a part of their conditional plea agreements, attempted to reserve certified questions of law under Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37. In agreed orders filed contemporaneously with their judgment forms, they each set out the following certified question of law: whether the search of the residence leased by Townsend was unconstitutional in violation of Article I, section 7, of the Tennessee Constitution and the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Because the certified questions fail to identify the scope and limits of the legal issue reserved, we conclude that we are without jurisdiction to consider this appeal and, therefore, it is dismissed. |
Obion | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Charles Nash
A Hamilton County jury convicted the defendant, Charles Nash, of first degree murder and especially aggravated robbery. The defendant appeals, arguing that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress his statement to police. The defendant asserts that he unequivocally invoked his right to counsel before the statement began, thus rendering the statement violative of his Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination. Discerning no error, we affirm the trial court, but we remand the case for correction of the judgments. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William R. Cook
The Defendant, William R. Cook, was charged with driving under the influence (first offense)(“DUI”), a Class A misdemeanor. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-10-403. The trial court denied his motion to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of the traffic stop that led to the charges against him. The Defendant thereafter pleaded guilty, but reserved for our consideration a certified question of law regarding the constitutionality of the traffic stop supporting the charge against him. After our review, we reverse the judgment of the trial court. The indictment charging the Defendant with DUI is dismissed. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jimmy Heard v. James Fortner, Warden, and State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Jimmy Heard, appeals from the trial court’s dismissal of his petition seeking habeas corpus relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this court affirm the habeas corpus court’s dismissal of the petition pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The State’s motion is granted. The judgment of the habeas corpus court is affirmed. |
Hickman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jerome Dance v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Jerome Dance, appeals the Gibson County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. He was convicted of two counts of sale of cocaine over .5 grams, Class B felonies, and one count of sale of cocaine less than .5 grams, a Class C felony. Subsequently, he was sentenced, as a Range II offender, to an effective term of thirty-five years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the petitioner contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. He specifically argues that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to: (1) object to an insufficient Notice of Enhancement Factors filed by the State; (2) file a motion for recusal of the trial judge; (3) adequately prepare for the sentencing hearing; (4) inform the petitioner of a plea offer and to adequately advise him that he would not be sentenced as a Range I offender if he proceeded to trial; and (5) pursue a Rule 11 application to appeal with the Tennessee Supreme Court or to properly withdraw. Following review of the record, the denial of post-conviction relief is affirmed. |
Gibson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Timothy Ray Azbill
The defendant, Timothy Ray Azbill, was convicted of aggravated burglary, rape of a child, and especially aggravated kidnapping. For his conviction of aggravated burglary, the defendant was sentenced as a Range II, multiple offender to eight years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. For his convictions of rape of a child and especially aggravated kidnapping, the defendant was sentenced as a Range I, violent offender to twenty-five years for each conviction. The court ordered that the sentences were to run concurrently but consecutively to the sentence on a prior conviction. On direct appeal, this court affirmed the defendant’s convictions, but determined that the trial court had erroneously begun at the midpoint of the statutory range and remanded the case for resentencing for rape of a child and especially aggravated kidnapping. On remand, the trial court again sentenced the defendant to twenty-five years for each conviction. On appeal, the defendant asserts that the trial court erred by failing to consider mitigating evidence offered by the defendant and summarily imposed the sentences. After a thorough review of the record and the parties’ briefs, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed. |
Decatur | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Dock Walker v. Tony Parker, Warden
The petitioner, Dock Walker, proceeding pro se, appeals the Lauderdale County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for the writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner is currently an inmate in the West Tennessee State Prison as a result of his conviction for assault with the intent to commit murder, for which he was sentenced to a term of sixty years. On appeal, he argues that the habeas corpus court erred in dismissing the petition because his sixty-year sentence is illegal, as it was not authorized by statute and is in violation of ex post facto provisions. After review, we find no error and affirm the judgment of the court. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Demorris Marcel Childress v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Demorris Marcel Childress, pled guilty in Bedford County to two counts of possession of a Schedule II substance for resale, both Class B felonies, on two separate dates. Subsequently, Petitioner filed two petitions for post-conviction relief, in which he argued that he had ineffective assistance of counsel and that his guilty pleas were unknowing and involuntary. The post-conviction court dismissed the petitions after a hearing. We determine that Petitioner has failed to show that he received ineffective assistance of counsel or that his guilty pleas were entered involuntarily. Accordingly, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Joe Ervin Hunter v. Cherry Lindamood, Warden
Petitioner, Joe Ervin Hunter, pled guilty to possession of less than .5 gram of a controlled substance with intent to sell. In March 2008, Petitioner filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus which was summarily dismissed by the habeas corpus court. On appeal, he argues that the habeas corpus court erred in summarily dismissing his application. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that Petitioner did not comply with the procedural requirements as set out by statute and that he did not base his plea for habeas corpus relief upon a cognizable claim. Therefore, we affirm the summary dismissal of his application. |
Wayne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
George Scott Mason v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, George Scott Mason, appeals the judgment of the Bedford County Circuit Court denying post-conviction relief. In this appeal, the petitioner argues that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel which caused him to enter an unknowing and involuntary guilty plea. After review, the judgment of the court denying post-conviction relief is affirmed. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jordan Hill v. State of Tennessee
After a trial by jury, the Petitioner, Jordan Hill, was convicted of criminal attempt: aggravated robbery and convicted felon in possession of a handgun by a Shelby County jury. He now appeals the denial of post-conviction relief claiming “[t]he post-conviction court erred when it denied the Appellant’s Petition for Post-Conviction Relief and effectively placed its imprimatur on trial counsel’s performance as effective although the proof irrefutably showed that trial counsel had not meaningfully conferred with the Defendant prior to trial[.]” Upon our review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Danny Ray Anderson
The defendant, Danny Ray Anderson, pled guilty on January 31, 2008, to two counts of felony murder and was sentenced to two concurrent sentences of life without parole. On February 5, 2008, he filed a motion to withdraw his pleas of guilty based upon his claims that the pleas were the result of fear and misunderstanding and were not knowingly, understandingly, or voluntarily entered. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied the motion. Following our review, we affirm the order of the trial court denying the motion to withdraw the pleas of guilty. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Bruce Smiley v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Bruce A. Smiley, pled guilty in the Hamilton County Criminal Court to one count of rape of a child and one count of especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor. Pursuant to the plea agreement, he received a total effective sentence of twenty-three years. Subsequently, the Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective and that his guilty pleas were not knowingly and voluntarily entered. The post-conviction court denied the petition, and the Petitioner appeals. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. David A. Ferrell
The pro se defendant, David A. Ferrell, was convicted of failure to display a license, violation of the seatbelt law, and two violations of the vehicle registration law. The convictions arose from two indictments separated by five months. He was sentenced to thirty days in the county jail for his first violation of the registration law and for failure to display a license and to twenty days for his second violation of the registration law. Additionally, a $20.00 fine was imposed for his seatbelt law violation. His sentences were ordered to run consecutively. On appeal, he argues that the trial court did not have jurisdiction over his cases. After careful review, we affirm the judgments from the trialcourt. |
Warren | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Franklin
The defendant, Christopher Franklin, appeals from his Bedford County Circuit Court jury conviction |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Steven Watson
The defendant, Steven Watson, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of aggravated assault, a Class C felony, and sentenced to a term of six years. He was ordered to serve six months in the Shelby County Correctional Center, with the balance of his sentence on probation. The defendant was also ordered to pay $8800 in restitution to the victim. On appeal, the defendant has raised five issues for review: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction; (2) whether the trial court erred in allowing the defendant to be questioned regarding a sixteen-year-old prior conviction; (3) whether the court erred in its application and weighing of enhancing and mitigating factors; (4) whether the court erred in denying the defendant’s request for full probation; and (5) whether the court erred by ordering restitution in the amount of $8800 be paid to the victim without proof of his medical bills or lost wages. Because of an untimely filed motion for new trial, the defendant has waived review of his evidentiary issue regarding the prior conviction. After review, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient and that the sentence imposed, with regard to length and manner of service, is proper. With regard to the order of restitution, we conclude that, while the amount of restitution ordered was properly established, remand is necessary for a determination of thedefendant’s ability to pay as required by statute. The judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed in all other respects. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Steven Watson
The defendant, Steven Watson, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of aggravated assault, a Class C felony, and sentenced to a term of six years. He was ordered to serve six months in the Shelby County Correctional Center, with the balance of his sentence on probation. The defendant was also ordered to pay $8800 in restitution to the victim. On appeal, the defendant has raised five issues for review: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction; (2) whether the trial court erred in allowing the defendant to be questioned regarding a sixteen-year-old prior conviction; (3) whether the court erred in its application and weighing of enhancing and mitigating factors; (4) whether the court erred in denying the defendant’s request for full probation; and (5) whether the court erred by ordering restitution in the amount of $8800 be paid to the victim without proof of his medical bills or lost wages. Because of an untimely filed motion for new trial, the defendant has waived review of his evidentiary issue regarding the prior conviction. After review, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient and that the sentence imposed, with regard to length and manner of service, is proper. With regard to the order of restitution, we conclude that, while the amount of restitution ordered was properly established, remand is necessary for a determination of the defendant’s ability to pay as required by statute. The judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed in all other respects. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Reginald Almo v. Henry Steward, Warden
The petitioner, Reginald Almo, appeals pro se the dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief in the Lauderdale County Circuit Court from his conviction for second degree murder, a Class A felony. The petitioner alleged that: counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel; his guilty plea was entered unknowingly and unintelligently; and he was sentenced outside of his range. The habeas corpus court determined that his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were not cognizable claims for relief in a habeas corpus proceeding and that his sentencing issue had previously been determined. After careful review, we affirm the dismissal of the petition for habeas corpus relief. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Elroy Gaines v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Elroy Gaines, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. Following a jury trial, he was convicted of aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony, and was subsequently sentenced as a career offender to thirty years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the petitioner argues that he was denied his right to the effective assistance of counsel based upon counsel’s failure to: (1) properly investigate the case and prepare for trial; (2) adequately communicate with the petitioner; and (3) properly preserve appellate issues. Following review of the record, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Samuel T. Anderson
The issue is who has authority and jurisdiction to establish terms and conditions of a defendant’s |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals |
