Mark A. Mitchell v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Mark A. Mitchell, appeals the trial court's dismissal of his petition, which sought post-conviction relief and post-conviction DNA analysis. The single issue presented for review is whether the petition was properly dismissed. The judgment is affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Willie Tom Ensley v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Willie Tom Ensley, appeals the trial court's denial of his post-conviction petition requesting DNA analysis. The issue presented for review is whether the trial court erred by summarily dismissing the petition without the appointment of counsel, an opportunity to amend, or an evidentiary hearing. The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Louis Tyrone Robinson - Order
In this appeal the appellant, Louis Tyrone Robinson, complains that the Davidson County Criminal Court erroneously dismissed his petition for the writ of habeas corpus without affording the appellant a hearing on the petition. After reviewing the record in this matter we are of the opinion that the criminal court was correct in its summary dismissal of the petition and we therefore affirm the action of the trial court pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Cecil Eugene Brannan v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Cecil Eugene Brannan, pled guilty in the Bedford County Circuit Court to three counts of vehicular assault and one count of driving under the influence (DUI), fourth offense. The plea agreement stipulated that the petitioner would receive a total effective sentence of eight years incarceration. The petitioner subsequently filed for post-conviction relief, alleging that trial counsel failed to advise him that his plea agreement violated double jeopardy principles. The post-conviction court dismissed the petition and the petitioner timely appealed. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Pharez Price
A Maury County jury convicted the defendant, Pharez Price, of facilitation of felony murder, facilitation of attempted first degree murder, facilitation of attempted second degree murder, facilitation of attempted especially aggravated robbery, and criminal responsibility for the conduct of another for felony reckless endangerment. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of forty-three years. On appeal, the defendant contends (1) the trial court improperly found a child witness competent to testify, and (2) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions for any of the offenses other than felony reckless endangerment. We reverse and dismiss the convictions for facilitation of attempted first degree murder and facilitation of attempted second degree murder, affirm the other convictions, and remand for a determination of concurrent/consecutive sentencing. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ricky Blair
The defendant was convicted by a jury of attempted second degree murder, aggravated assault, and setting fire to personal property. The defendant received an effective sentence of nine years. The sole issue on appeal is whether the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction for attempted second degree murder. We affirm the judgments from the trial court. |
Haywood | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Vincent Howard
The defendant appeals his convictions of first degree felony murder and especially aggravated robbery. He received a life sentence for the first degree felony murder conviction and an additional twenty-one year sentence for his especially aggravated robbery conviction. The defendant contends the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions. The defendant also argues his twenty-one- year sentence for especially aggravated robbery is excessive. The defendant alleges the trial court misapplied enhancement factors (1), (8), (13), and (16) and erred in finding him a dangerous offender to support its consecutive sentence determination. We affirm the convictions, but remove the presumption of correctness due to the misapplication of four enhancement factors and remand for a new sentencing hearing on the especially aggravated robbery conviction only. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Larry D. Anderson
The defendant was found guilty by a jury of first degree felony murder and especially aggravated burglary. He was sentenced to life plus twelve years, respectfully, in the Department of Correction. The defendant contends that he was mentally incompetent to stand trial or to give a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of his Miranda rights and that his sentences were in error. We affirm the judgments from the trial court. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Mohamed F. Ali v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Mohamed F. Ali, appeals from the judgment of the Washington County Criminal Court denying him post-conviction relief from his convictions for rape and attempted bribery. He is serving an effective sentence of fifteen years in the Department of Correction. The petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred in (1) applying incorrect law governing judicial bias, (2) finding that the convicting trial judge was not biased against him, (3) excluding evidence of judicial bias, (4) refusing the petitioner's discovery requests regarding the issue of bias, and (5) denying the petitioner's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the post-conviction court. |
Washington | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kenneth Lee England
The defendant, Kenneth Lee England, was convicted by a Campbell County Criminal Court jury of retaliation for past action, a Class E felony, and the trial court sentenced him as a career offender to six years in the Department of Correction. The defendant appeals, claiming that the evidence is insufficient and that the trial court erred by allowing the state to impeach him with his prior retaliation for past action convictions under Tenn. R. Evid. 609. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Campbell | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kristina Dawn Catron
The defendant, Kristina Dawn Catron, pleaded guilty to one count of fabricating evidence, one count of making a false report, and one count of misdemeanor theft under $500. The negotiated plea agreement produced an effective sentence of three years. The manner of service of the sentence was to be determined by the trial court. Following a presentence investigation and a sentence hearing, the trial court ordered the defendant to serve the sentence in confinement. It is from this sentencing determination that the defendant appeals. We affirm the judgment of the trial court based on the need to avoid depreciating the seriousness of the offense. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Gabor Palasti
The defendant, Gabor Palasti, was convicted upon his pleas of guilty to the charges of vehicular assault and three counts of reckless endangerment. He originally received a four year effective sentence with 11 months, 29 days of incarceration followed by probation. This was ultimately altered by the trial judge to require that the defendant serve six (6) months in confinement with thirty days of continuous confinement followed by five months of work release and then supervised probation. In this appeal the defendant contends he should have received full probation for these offenses and he cites numerous alleged deficiencies in the trial court's sentencing procedures. We find that in sentencing the defendant the trial court failed to make appropriate findings on the record and that therefore our review of the defendant's sentence is de novo without a presumption of correctness. Nevertheless, we find that the record contains sufficient evidence from which this Court concludes that six (6) months confinement of the defendant is appropriate. However, we believe the entire confinement should be served on work release. We therefore AFFIRM the decision of the trial court with the modification that the entire period of incarceration be served on work release. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Tony Allen Leonard v. State of Tennessee
Following an evidentiary hearing, the Sullivan County Criminal Court denied the petitioner, Tony Allen Leonard, post-conviction relief. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the post-conviction court erred in failing to find that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance. Because the record supports the lower court's findings and holding, we affirm. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Eric Alonzo Smith
The defendant, Eric Alonzo Smith, was convicted of driving on a revoked license, aggravated robbery, and evading arrest. The trial court imposed concurrent sentences of 6 months, 8.5 years, and 11 months, 29 days, respectively. In this appeal of right, the defendant asserts that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction for aggravated robbery. The judgments of the trial court are affirmed. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Toby P. Leonard
The defendant, Toby P. Leonard, entered pleas of guilt to aggravated assault and civil rights intimidation. As a part of the plea agreement, the defendant received Range I, consecutive sentences of six and two years, respectively, for an effective sentence of eight years. The trial court denied probation. In this appeal of right, the defendant argues that he should have been granted an alternative sentence. The judgment is affirmed. |
Giles | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Austin Eugene Lineback v. State of Tennessee
Through a 2001 Tipton County Circuit Court post-conviction petition, Austin Eugene Lineback challenges his 2001 convictions in that court of statutory rape and especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor. The convictions resulted from his guilty pleas, which the petitioner now |
Tipton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Abron A. Coleman
Aggrieved that his Shelby County jury conviction of aggravated robbery is not supported by sufficient evidence, Abron A. Coleman, the defendant, appeals. Because we conclude that the evidence is sufficient, we affirm the conviction. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Paul Anthony Wright
The defendant, Paul Anthony Wright, pled guilty in the Obion County Circuit Court to manufacturing methamphetamine, a Class C felony, and was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to three years, with ninety days to be served in the county jail and the remainder in a community corrections program. As a condition of his guilty plea, the defendant sought to reserve as a certified question of law whether the trial court erred in finding there was probable cause to issue a search warrant for his property. On appeal, the defendant argues that he properly certified the question for appeal whether the trial court erred in concluding that the search warrant sufficiently established probable cause for the search of his premises. We agree with the defendant that the certified question is properly before this court and agree with the State that the trial court properly determined that the search warrant was adequate. Accordingly, we affirm the order of the trial court. |
Obion | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Wendell Ray Williams - Dissenting
The majority concludes that reversal is necessitated based upon (1) failure to instruct the jury on facilitation and (2) error in admitting into evidence the defendant's prior felony drug conviction for purposes of impeachment. Because I am unable to join on either point, I must respectfully dissent. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Wendell Ray Williams
|
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Leroy Nevils
|
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Percy Wade Cockrill
The Defendant, Percy Wade Cockrill, pled guilty to six counts of robbery. After a hearing, the trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I offender to four years each on three of the robberies, and to five years each on the remaining three robberies. The trial court further ordered the five-year sentences to run consecutively to each other, for an effective sentence of fifteen years to be served in the Department of Correction. The Defendant now challenges the length of each term as well as the imposition of consecutive sentences. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Samuel L. Giddens
|
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Charles Hinkle
The defendant was found guilty by a jury of reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon, vandalism up to five hundred dollars ($500), and public intoxication. The trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range I standard offender to a term of two years for reckless endangerment, eleven months and twenty-nine days for vandalism, and thirty days for public intoxication. These sentences were to run concurrently and were to be served in confinement in the county jail. The trial court rejected alternative sentencing. The defendant contends his sentence is excessive. Because the defendant failed to include the trial transcript, we are unable to conduct an adequate appellate review. Therefore, we presume the trial court correctly sentenced the defendant and affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Carroll | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Carlton Lee McAlister
The defendant appeals his conviction for DUI - second offense and his sentence of sixty days. The defendant contends the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction, more specifically that he was not impaired while driving or on a public road. The defendant also argues that his sentence of sixty days is excessive. We conclude the evidence is sufficient to sustain his conviction. The defendant failed to include the sentencing hearing transcript, thus barring this Court from reviewing his argument concerning sentencing. We affirm the judgment from the trial court as modified. |
Carroll | Court of Criminal Appeals |
