State of Tennessee v. Anthony Phillip Geanes - Dissenting
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion in this matter. As I will explain, I believe that the cases relied upon by the majority are distinguishable upon the facts from those presented by the present appeal. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Anthony Phillip Geanes
A Hardeman County jury convicted the defendant, Anthony Phillip Geanes, of reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon, a Class E felony. The trial court sentenced the defendant as a multiple offender to three years imprisonment, consecutive to another sentence.1 In this appeal, the defendant raises the issue of whether the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction for reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon. Upon review of the evidence, we are constrained to hold that the evidence was insufficient to prove the defendant guilty of reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon. Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the trial court, vacate the conviction and dismiss the charge. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Anthony Phillip Geanes - Concurring
I write separately to set out unique factors used in my analysis concluding insufficient evidence exists upon this record to support the defendant’s conviction of reckless endangerment. A notion widely held is that whenever people are arguing, participating in fisticuffs, or engaged in fights involving knives, bats, or chairs, the discharging of a firearm into the air has the immediate effect of alerting all participants that a higher and more powerful authority has been introduced into the situation and, therefore, the holder of the firearm is deserving of respect and attention. I feel this notion is misguided and outdated, and although I have found for this defendant, I do not wish to suggest that firing a weapon into the air is not reckless or is safe. Common sense tells us that what goes up must come down. I simply do not know where or with what force the bullet returns. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Nino Jones
The Defendant, Nino Jones, was convicted by 1 a jury of one count of sale of cocaine, a Class C felony. In this direct appeal, he argues that the State failed to rebut his defense of entrapment beyond a reasonable doubt. We conclude that this argument lacks merit, and accordingly affirm. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Quamine Jones
The defendant, Quamine Jones, was convicted of first degree premeditated murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. He argues that the evidence of premeditation was insufficient to support his conviction for first degree murder, the indictment should have been dismissed because he was denied a preliminary hearing, the trial court erred in admitting into evidence a photograph of the victim and testimony of a witness regarding his reluctance to testify, and the State withheld exculpatory evidence. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Annette Turner Morrow
The Defendant, Annette Turner Morrow, appeals from the sentencing decision of the Maury County Circuit Court. The Defendant pleaded guilty to theft of property valued at over $10,000 but less than $60,000 and identity theft. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed an effective five-year sentence as a Range I, standard offender and ordered the Defendant to serve her sentence in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying her request for probation or other alternative sentencing. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ellis S. Baucom, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Ellis S. Baucom, Jr., pled guilty to aggravated burglary and aggravated robbery, receiving sentences, respectively, of fifteen years and thirty years, to be served concurrently at forty-five percent. Subsequently, he filed a petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that trial counsel had been ineffective in representing him. Following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court dismissed the petition. We affirm that dismissal. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Willie R. Dyer
Willie R. Dyer was indicted for driving under the influence of an intoxicant and driving with a blood alcohol level of over .08 percent. During the jury trial, the trial court dismissed the indictment with prejudice on the basis that the chain of custody for the blood sample was inadequate. Subsequently, the State appealed. We determine that the trial court abused its discretion where the evidence was sufficient to establish chain of custody of the blood sample and, therefore, reverse and remand the judgment of the trial court for reinstatement of the indictment. Further, we determine that principles of double jeopardy do not bar retrial. |
Warren | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Brian Christian Lautenschlager v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Brian Christian Lautenschlager, appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief as being time-barred. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the judgment of the trial court pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Upon review, we conclude that the petition for post-conviction relief was not filed within the one-year statute of limitations. Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal. |
Decatur | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Eric Carter v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Eric Carter, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his motion to reopen his post-conviction proceeding. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the court erred by denying his motion without holding an evidentiary hearing and claims he is entitled to relief based upon the ruling in State v. Gomez, 239 S.W.3d 733 (Tenn. 2007). Because the Petitioner failed to comply with the statutory requirements for appealing the denial of a motion to reopen, this Court is without jurisdiction to review the issue. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Frank G. Watkins
Defendant-Appellant, Frank G. Watkins (hereinafter “Watkins”), appeals the Madison County Circuit Court’s order revoking his community corrections sentence. Watkins contends that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to base its decision on a “willful” action. Following our review, we find no abuse of discretion. The judgments of the trial court are affirmed. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Timmy Lee Hill
The defendant, Timmy Lee Hill, was convicted by a jury in the Circuit Court for Marshall County of three counts of aggravated kidnapping, a Class B felony; two counts of aggravated assault, a Class C felony; one count of escape, a Class E felony; and one count of evading arrest, a Class A misdemeanor. The three counts of aggravated kidnapping were merged. The defendant was sentenced as follows: one nineteen-year sentence for aggravated kidnapping, with a concurrent eleven-month-twenty-nine-day sentence for evading arrest; one consecutive ten-year sentence for aggravated assault on the same victim as the aggravated kidnapping, with a concurrent eleven-month-twenty-nine-day sentence for assault on a second victim; and one consecutive six-year sentence for escape, for an effective sentence of thirty-five years. The defendant appeals, claiming the trial court erred in imposing a consecutive sentence for the aggravated assault. We affirm the judgments of the trial court, except we remand the case for entry of a corrected judgment for the aggravated assault to reflect a ten-year sentence. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Bobby Lee v. Stephen Dotson, Warden
The petitioner, Bobby Lee, appeals the denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus relief. The petitioner was convicted of attempted first degree murder and received a sixty-year Department of Correction sentence as a career offender. The State has filed a motion for the judgment of the trial court to be affirmed by memorandum opinion pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals. Finding merit in the motion, we grant the same and affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Obion | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Gerald Wayne Carter v. State of Tennessee
In this consolidated appeal, the petitioner, Gerald Wayne Carter, challenges the circuit court’s summary dismissal of his petitions for both post-conviction relief and writ of error coram nobis. The circuit court dismissed the petitions, finding that the petitioner had filed outside the statute of limitations period. After review, we affirm the judgments of the court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Mark Alton Mayfield
The defendant, Mark Alton Mayfield, appeals from his convictions by a jury in the Criminal Court for Cumberland County for carjacking, aggravated robbery, and aggravated kidnapping, class B felonies. He was sentenced to ten years for each offense to be served concurrently for an effective sentence of ten years. He contends: (1) the evidence is insufficient to convict for each offense; (2) the trial court improperly included language referring to the nature of conduct and the circumstances surrounding the conduct in its jury instructions; and (3) the trial court improperly sentenced the defendant to more than the minimum sentence as prohibited by Blakely v. United States, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Cumberland | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jimmie Lee Hoyle v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Jimmie Lee Hoyle, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in finding that he received effective assistance of trial counsel and entered his guilty pleas knowingly and voluntarily. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Marcus Johnson v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Marcus Johnson, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for first degree felony murder, especially aggravated robbery, and aggravated assault. On appeal, he contends that he received the ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Allan Joseph Robles v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Allan Joseph Robles, appeals the Henry County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his conviction for aggravated sexual battery and resulting twelve-year sentence. On appeal, he contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial attorney failed to file a motion to suppress his confession to police. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Henry | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Larry Darnnell Pinex - Dissenting
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s holding that the Defendant’s dual convictions of attempted aggravated rape and attempted aggravated sexual battery implicate principles of double jeopardy protections. My reasons are two-fold. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Larry Darnnell Pinex
The Defendant, Larry Darnnell Pinex, was convicted of attempted aggravated rape, a Class B felony, attempted aggravated sexual battery, and attempted especially aggravated burglary, Class C felonies. He was sentenced as a Range III, persistent offender to twenty-five years for attempted aggravated rape and to twelve years for each of the remaining offenses. The twenty-five-year sentence was ordered to be served concurrently with the sentence for attempted aggravated sexual battery but consecutively to the twelve-year sentence for attempted especially aggravated burglary, for an effective sentence of thirty-seven years in the Department of Correction. He presents five issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to support his convictions for attempted aggravated sexual battery and attempted especially aggravated burglary; (2) whether the rape and battery convictions violate constitutional proscriptions against double jeopardy; (3) whether the State should have been required to make an election of offenses; (4) whether his conviction for attempted especially aggravated burglary should be modified to attempted aggravated burglary based upon Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-14-404(d); and (5) whether he received an excessive sentence. Following our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Tennessee Constitution precluded convictions for both attempted aggravated rape and attempted aggravated sexual battery because the evidence showed that the Defendant made one continuous attempt to rape the victim. Consequently, we vacate the judgment of the trial court as to the Defendant’s conviction for attempted aggravated sexual battery, as that offense should have been merged with the Defendant’s conviction for attempted aggravated rape. We also modify the conviction for attempted especially aggravated burglary to attempted aggravated burglary and order a sentence of ten years for that offense. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Marcus Conner
The Defendant, Marcus Conner, appeals from the sentencing decision of the Lincoln County Circuit Court. In June 2007, the Defendant entered guilty pleas to three counts of selling .5 grams or more of cocaine, Class B felonies, and two counts of selling less than .5 grams of cocaine, Class C felonies. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed an effective fourteen-year sentence as a Range I, standard offender and ordered the Defendant to serve his sentence in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant argues that a sentence of community corrections was appropriate. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Lincoln | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Lee Jeffcoat
The defendant, Michael Lee Jeffcoat, pled guilty to three counts of delivery of twenty-six grams or more of cocaine, a Class B felony. The trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range II, multiple offender to eighteen years in the Department of Correction on each count, with the sentences to be served concurrently. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred by denying him alternative sentencing, and he also argues that the eighteen-year sentences imposed by the trial court were excessive. After reviewing the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Andre Davis
The defendant, Andre Davis, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of voluntary manslaughter, a Class C felony. The trial court sentenced the defendant to fourteen and one-half years as a Range III, persistent offender. In this appeal as of right, the defendant argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction for voluntary manslaughter, that the trial court erred in admitting a non-testifying witness’s statement from a police report to impeach the defendant’s testimony, that the trial court erred in excluding evidence of the victim’s prior acts of violence and gang affiliation, that the sentence imposed by the trial court is excessive, and that these cumulative errors deprived the defendant of his right to a fair trial and due process. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jeffrey W. Haithcote v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Jeffrey W. Haithcote, filed a motion to reopen his post-conviction petition, arguing that (1) he received ineffective assistance of counsel; (2) the State failed to keep a record of his preliminary hearing; (3) the State breached the plea bargain to which the Defendant agreed; (4) newly discovered evidence is available in the form of tapes, witness statements, and transcripts; (5) his motion to withdraw his guilty plea was not heard; (6) the State improperly used his prior convictions to impeach him and enhance his sentence; (7) his convictions violated the Double Jeopardy and Ex Post Facto Clauses of the United States Constitution; and (8) the State failed to make certain transcripts available to him. The trial court summarily denied the motion. Following our review, we dismiss the appeal. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Donald Clark v. State of Tennessee
The pro se petitioner, Donald Clark, appeals the dismissal of his motion to reopen his petition for post-conviction relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this court dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction or, in the alternative, affirm the post-conviction court’s summary dismissal of the motion pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Because the petitioner did not comply with the statutory requirements for seeking discretionary review of the dismissal of his motion, this court has no jurisdiction in the case. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals |
