State vs. DeWayne Greene E1999-01288-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas T. Woodall
Trial Court Judge: O. Duane Slone
Defendant, Dewayne Greene, was convicted by a guilty plea of simple assault, resisting arrest, evading arrest, and reckless endangerment in Hamblen County Circuit Court. The trial court sentenced Defendant to eleven months and twenty-nine days, with three-hundred days to be served in confinement. Defendant was also indicted by the Jefferson County Grand Jury for two counts of aggravated assault arising from incidents involving the same victim as those which generated the Hamblen County indictments. Defendant pled guilty in the Jefferson County Circuit Court with the condition that the trial court "reserve an entry of conviction" until the court heard Defendant's motion to dismiss on grounds of double jeopardy. After the trial court heard and denied Defendant's motion, it sentenced Defendant as a Range I offender to concurrent terms of six years for each count of aggravated assault. In this appeal, Defendant argues that (1) double jeopardy bars the Jefferson County convictions because Defendant's previous Hamblen County convictions were based upon the same conduct, and (2) Defendant's sentence for the aggravated assault convictions is excessive. After a thorough review of the record, we find that only Defendant's sentencing issue is properly before this Court. Defendant failed to properly reserve the double jeopardy issue as a certified question of law for appellate review. We affirm the sentence of six years for count 1 and reduce the sentence for count 2 to five years; the total effective sentence remains at six years.
State vs. Ernest B. Eady E2000-00722-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: Richard R. Baumgartner
The defendant appeals from his conviction for second degree murder, contesting the sufficiency of the evidence, the timeliness of the state's disclosure of a potentially exculpatory witness, and the trial court's failure to declare a mistrial. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Knox
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Sean Imfeld E2000-00094-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Gary R Wade
Trial Court Judge: Mary Beth Leibowitz
Knox
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Homer L. Evans E2000-00069-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: E. Shayne Sexton
The defendant appeals from the trial court's denial of alternative sentencing. We affirm the trial court.
Campbell
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Sean Imfeld E2000-00094-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Gary R Wade
Trial Court Judge: Mary Beth Leibowitz
Knox
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Sonya Gosnell & Bronzo Gosnell, Jr . E1999-00603-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: James E. Beckner
A jury convicted both defendants of second degree murder. Bronzo Gosnell and Sonya Gosnell were sentenced to 25 years and 20 years, respectively. In this appeal as a matter of right, both defendants challenge the introduction of recorded conversations made while detained in a police cruiser. Sonya Gosnell further challenges the introduction of certain pretrial statements, the administration of a polygraph examination, the denial of her motion for severance, and the denial of expert assistance. Bronzo Gosnell further challenges the trial court's limitation of his cross-examination of a witness and his maximum sentence of 25 years. Our review of the issues presented by the defendants reflects no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.
Greene
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Leon Hurd E1999-01341-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Gary R Wade
Trial Court Judge: James B. Scott, Jr.
Anderson
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Leon Hurd E1999-01341-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Gary R Wade
Trial Court Judge: James B. Scott, Jr.
Anderson
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Tracie Kirkland E1999-01344-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: Carroll L. Ross
Defendant was convicted by a Monroe County jury of first degree premeditated murder and given a life sentence. In this appeal, defendant makes the following allegations of error: (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain her conviction; (2) the trial court erred in denying a continuance; (3) the trial court improperly charged the jury on criminal responsibility for the conduct of another; and (4) the trial court erred in refusing to grant a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence. Upon our review of the record, we conclude the evidence was not sufficient to support a conviction for first degree premeditated murder, and defendant's sentence should be reduced to second degree murder. The other allegations of error are without merit. Therefore, the judgment of the trial court is modified to reflect a conviction for second degree murder, and the case is remanded to the trial court for a new sentencing hearing.
Monroe
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Deandrade Phillips E2000-00153-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: Phyllis H. Miller
The defendant appeals from his conviction for selling less than one-half gram of cocaine, contesting the sufficiency of the evidence, the trial court's restrictions of his examinations of witnesses, the trial court's failure to require the state to elect the offense for which it sought a conviction, and the jury instructions. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Sullivan
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Thomas E. Davenport and John Simmons M2000-00317-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: Timothy L. Easter
Both defendants were convicted by a Williamson County jury of selling more than 0.5 grams of cocaine, a Class B felony. Both defendants were sentenced as Range II, multiple offenders. Defendant Simmons received a sixteen-year sentence, and defendant Davenport received a fifteen-year sentence. In this direct appeal, both defendants challenge (1) the sufficiency of the evidence, and (2) the length and manner of service of their sentences. Simmons further raises the following issues: (1) whether he was denied a speedy trial; (2) whether the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss due to the absence of proper signatures on the indictment; and (3) whether the trial court erred in failing to require the state to elect an offense upon which to proceed. Additionally, Davenport makes the following allegations: (1) the trial court erred in allowing portions of the audio taped drug transaction to be presented to the jury; (2) the trial court erred in ruling his prior convictions were admissible under Tenn. R. Evid. 609; and (3) the trial court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial when the informant referred to Davenport's offering her a crack pipe. Based upon a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court as it relates to defendant Simmons; however, we reverse defendant Davenport's conviction for the sale of cocaine and reduce it to simple possession of cocaine. We remand to the trial court to re-sentence defendant Davenport.
State vs. Timothy Tyrone Sanders M2000-00603-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Trial Court Judge: William Charles Lee
The Appellant, Timothy Tyrone Sanders, was convicted by a Bedford County jury of possession of more than .5 grams of cocaine with intent to sell. The Appellant was sentenced to seventeen years six months as a range II offender. On appeal, he raises the following issues: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict; (2) whether the trial court erred by not instructing the jury on the lesser-included offense of simple possession; and (3) whether the trial court improperly sentenced the Appellant. After review, we conclude that the trial court erred in not instructing the jury on simple possession. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial.
Bedford
Court of Criminal Appeals
Archie Lee Roberts vs. State M1999-02462-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: Leon C. Burns, Jr.
The petitioner, Archie Lee Roberts, was found guilty by a jury in the DeKalb County Criminal Court of one count of first degree murder, for which he received a life sentence, and one count of attempted first degree murder, for which he received a sentence of twenty years incarceration. On direct appeal, we affirmed the petitioner's convictions. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, which petition was denied by the post-conviction court. On appeal, the petitioner raises the following issue for our review: whether the post-conviction court erred in denying his claim for relief. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.
DeKalb
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Gregory Lynn Redden M2000-00988-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Trial Court Judge: Robert W. Wedemeyer
The Appellant, Gregory Lynn Redden, was convicted by a Robertson County jury of burglary, theft of property over $1,000, and criminal impersonation. He received concurrent sentences of twelve years for burglary, twelve years for theft of property, and six months for criminal impersonation. On appeal, the Appellant raises the following three issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict; (2) whether the trial court erred in not excusing two jurors for cause during voir dire; and (3) whether the trial court erred by allowing the statement of the Appellant's confession into evidence. After review, we find no error and affirm the judgment.
Robertson
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Curtis Emery Duke M2000-00350-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: William Charles Lee
The appellant, Curtis Emery Duke, was convicted in the Marshall County Circuit Court of two counts of the sale of crack cocaine, one count of possession of crack cocaine with the intent to sell, two counts of criminal impersonation, and one count of failure to appear. The trial court sentenced the appellant to a total effective sentence of thirty-nine years. On appeal, the appellant raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to sustain the appellant's convictions; (2) whether the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of simple possession; and (3) whether the trial court erred in sentencing the appellant. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court as modified.
Marshall
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Harold Bayuk M2000-01654-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Trial Court Judge: Timothy L. Easter
The Appellant, Harold M. Bayuk, was convicted by a Hickman County Circuit Court jury of one count of driving under the influence of an intoxicant and one count of driving on a revoked license. Following his conviction for DUI, the Appellant waived his right to jury sentencing and agreed to submit the issue of enhanced punishment to the trial court. The trial court found the Appellant guilty of DUI, third offense, and sentenced him to eleven months twenty-nine days, with 150 days to be served in confinement. On appeal, the Appellant argues that the trial court erred in sentencing him to serve 150 days instead of the statutory minimum of 120 days. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court in part, vacate in part, and remand this case to the trial court for entry of an amended judgment of conviction.
Hickman
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. G'dongalay Berry and Christopher Davis M1999-00824-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry Smith
Trial Court Judge: J. Randall Wyatt, Jr.
A jury convicted the defendants of first degree murder in the shooting death of Adrian Dickerson. For this offense, the defendants received life sentences. They now appeal their convictions bringing three issues each. More specifically, G'dongalay Berry contends (1) that the trial court erred by not granting his request for a severance while allowing testimony concerning Berry's co-defendant's solicitation of a witness to commit a separate murder four months after this event; (2) that the uncorroborated testimony of accomplices is insufficient to sustain his conviction; and, similarly, (3) that the evidence presented is "insufficient, as a matter of law, for a rational trier of fact to find the defendant guilty of first degree murder." In addition, Christopher Davis alleges (1) that the trial court committed prejudicial error by allowing testimony concerning gang activity and membership; (2) that the trial court's admission of testimony regarding Davis' aforementioned solicitation to commit murder four months after this crime occurred constituted prejudicial error; and, (3) that should this court deem these alleged errors harmless individually, the cumulative effect of such mistakes deprived him of due process by making the trial fundamentally unfair. Having reviewed all of these issues and finding that none provide a basis for relief to either defendant, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
Davidson
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. William "Butch" Osepczuk M1999-00846-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Trial Court Judge: Stella L. Hargrove
William Osepczuk was convicted of criminal attempt to commit first degree murder and was sentenced to twenty-five years in the Department of Correction. He now appeals his conviction challenging the sufficiency of the convicting evidence based upon the non credible testimony of the victim and the erroneous admission of non relevant physical evidence. Finding the proof more than sufficient to support his conviction, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Lawrence
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Carl Bolin M1999-00849-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry Smith
Trial Court Judge: Robert W. Wedemeyer
The defendant, Carl Dean Bolin, was convicted by a Montgomery County Circuit Court jury of reckless homicide, a Class D felony. The trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range I, standard offender to four years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court erred in sentencing him to the maximum of four years and by ordering that his sentence be served in the Department of Correction. After a careful review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Montgomery
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Larry Wilkins M2000-01225-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: Donald P. Harris
The appellant, Larry Wilkins, pled guilty in the Williamson County Circuit Court to two counts of the class D felony of causing a computer system to be accessed for the purpose of obtaining $1,000 or more for himself or another by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises. For these offenses, the trial court imposed concurrent sentences of three years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction, suspending all but one year of the appellant's sentences and placing him on supervised probation for four years. Additionally, the trial court imposed fines amounting to $1,500 and ordered restitution amounting to $4,500. The appellant now appeals the trial court's sentencing determinations. Specifically, notwithstanding the trial court's imposition of alternative sentences of split confinement, the appellant contends that the trial court should have granted him either total probation or placement in a community corrections program. Following a review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm in part and reverse in part the judgments of the trial court, and we remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Williamson
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Glenn Tidwell M2000-00538-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry Smith
Trial Court Judge: Frank G. Clement, Jr.
The State of Tennessee appeals from the trial court's dismissal of an indictment for DUI against the appellee, Glenn Tidwell. The trial court determined that the indictment should be dismissed because Tidwell's right to a speedy trial had been violated. After a review of the record, we find that the appellee's right to a speedy trial was violated by the delay in bringing him to trial. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
