State of Tennessee v. Ethan Allen Compton
A Maury County jury convicted Defendant, Ethan Allen Compton, of possessing a firearm after having been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence and unlawfully carrying or possessing a weapon. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days to be served on probation. On appeal, Defendant contends that Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-17-1307(f)(1)(A), which prohibits a person who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence from possessing a firearm, violates the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution on its face. Upon review, we conclude that Code section 39-17-1307(f)(1)(A) is constitutional on its face. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jay Burroughs Chandler
The Defendant in this case, Jay Burroughs Chandler, was charged with fifty-four counts of violating Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-17-1003 by possessing material depicting a minor child engaged in sexual activity. Prior to trial, the Defendant filed two motions to suppress, both of which the trial court denied. After a bench trial, the Defendant was convicted as charged. The trial court subsequently imposed an effective sentence of one hundred years in prison. In this direct appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying both of his motions to suppress and in sentencing him. We affirm the Defendant’s convictions. We vacate the Defendant’s sentence and remand this matter for a new sentencing hearing. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jay Burroughs Chandler (Concurring)
I concur in the result reached by the majority. I write separately, however, because I disagree with the majority’s analysis on three key points. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Gerry Stitts
Defendant, Gerry Stitts, appeals from his jury convictions for rape of a child and aggravated sexual battery, for which he is serving an effective sentence of thirty-five years. On appeal, he argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions and that the trial court erred by denying his motion for new trial based upon newly discovered evidence. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Sharod Demon Greer
The Defendant, Sharod Demon Greer, was convicted by a jury of aggravated sexual battery and assault by offensive touching, for which the trial court imposed an effective sentence of twelve years’ imprisonment. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his aggravated sexual battery conviction because the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that any touching of the victim was sexually motivated and (2) the trial court failed to consider the purposes and principles of sentencing when it imposed the maximum in-range sentence for aggravated sexual battery because it did not explain why the sentence was more justly deserved than a lesser sentence. After review, we affirm. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ronald David Ballard
The Defendant, Ronald David Ballard, was convicted in the Henderson County Circuit Court of fifteencounts of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court mergedall counts andsentenced himas a Range III, persistent offender to twenty-eight years in confinementfor count one. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions because the State failed to showhe constructively possessed the firearm.Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the Defendant’s convictionsbut remand the case to the trial court for sentencing on counts two through fifteenand for correction of the judgments pursuant to State v. Berry, 503 S.W.3d 360, 364 (Tenn. 2015). |
Henderson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jason Henderson, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Jason Henderson, Jr., appeals the Madison County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief,claimingthat he received the ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Based upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Earnest Costosteno Woodley v. James M. Holloway, Warden
In 2016, a Davidson County jury convicted the Petitioner, Earnest Costosteno Woodley, of four counts of attempted first degree premeditated murder. The trial court sentenced him as a repeat violent offender to four concurrent terms of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Nine years later, the Petitioner applied for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that his criminal history did not qualify him as a repeat violent offender. The habeas corpus court summarily dismissed the application, concluding that the petition failed to state a cognizable claim for relief. The Petitioner appealed. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William Lloyd Smith, III
Defendant, William Lloyd Smith, III, pled guilty to one count of possession of methamphetamine with intent to sell and received an agreed sentence of eight years as a Range I offender, to be served on probation. Following a hearing on a warrant for violation of his probation, the trial court revoked Defendant’s probation and ordered him to serve the balance of his original sentence incarcerated. Defendant appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in revoking probation rather than allowing him furlough to a residential treatment facility previously approved by his probation officer. Following a review of the entire record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Dickson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Michael Fiedler
The Defendant, Christopher Michael Fiedler, appeals his Henry County Circuit Court conviction of driving ona suspended license, for which he received a sentence of 180 days’ incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant argues that he is entitled to a new trial because the trial court erred by finding that heknowingly and voluntarily waived his right to the assistance of counsel. He also argues that he is entitled to a new sentencing hearing because the trial court failed to consider the purposes and principles of sentencing or to make the requisite findingspursuant to State v. Hooper, 29 S.W.3d 1, 13 (Tenn. 2000),insupportofits determination that confinement was particularly suited to provide an effective deterrence to others likely to commit similar offenses. The State responds that the Defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to counsel and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a within range sentence. Following our review, we reverse the Defendant’s conviction and remand for a new trial. |
Henry | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Miracle A'sha Bailey and Robert Jaylen Holland
In January 2023, the Montgomery County Grand Jury issued a four-count indictment charging Miracle A’sha Bailey (“Defendant Bailey”) and Robert Jaylen Holland (“Defendant Holland”) with first degree premeditated murder (Count 1), evading arrest in an automobile causing a risk of death or serious bodily injury (Count 2), and theft of property valued at more than $10,000 (Count 3). Defendant Holland was also charged with evading arrest (Count 4). Following a joint trial, the jury convicted Defendant Bailey of first degree premeditated murder and the lesser-included offenses of evading arrest in an automobile in Count 2 and joyriding in Count 3, for which the trial court imposed an effective life sentence. The jury convicted Defendant Holland of first degree premeditated murder, evading arrest in an automobile causing a risk of death or serious bodily injury, the lesser-included offense of joyriding in Count 3, and evading arrest, for which the trial court imposed an effective life sentence. On appeal, Defendant Bailey contends that (1) the trial court erred by admitting a detective’s body camera recording of a doorbell camera video; (2) the chain of custody for her cell phone and the victim’s cell phone was insufficiently established; (3) the trial court erred by admitting autopsy photographs; (4) the trial court erred by finding that the automobile’s owner was not a material witness; (5) the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on identity; and (6) the trial court erred by instructing the jury on flight. For his part, Defendant Holland contends that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for first degree premeditated murder; (2) the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on identity and by issuing an “inaccurate” instruction on flight; (3) his right to confront witnesses was violated when the trial court allowed an expert witness to testify who did not perform the gunshot residue (“GSR”) testing; and (4) the trial court erred by admitting autopsy photographs. After a thorough review of the evidence and applicable case law, we affirm. We also determine that there is a clerical error in Defendant Holland’s judgment form in Count 2 and remand for entry of a corrected judgment. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Johnny Robert McBee
A Knox County jury convicted the Defendant, Johnny Robert McBee, of first degree premeditated murder and unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective term of life imprisonment. On appeal, the Defendant raises the following issues: (1) whether the evidence is legally sufficient to support his convictions; and (2) whether the trial court erred in denying his oral motion to bifurcate the unlawful possession charge from the first degree murder charge. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Devon D. Holloway
A Knox County jury convicted the Defendant, Devon D. Holloway, of theft of property, and the trial court sentenced him to a term of twelve years’incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant raises twoissues: (1) whether the evidence was legally sufficient to sustain his conviction for theft; and (2) whether the trial court erred by instructing the jury on flight.Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Joshua F. Linebarger v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Joshua Linebarger, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief as untimely. After pleading guilty in the Knox County Criminal Court to theft, reckless burning, and assault and receiving an effective ten-year sentence, the Petitioner filed a post-conviction petition outside the one-year statute of limitations. The post-conviction court dismissed the petition, concluding that it was untimely on its face and that principles of due process did not toll the limitations period. Upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Waynard Q. Winbush v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Waynard Q. Winbush, appeals the dismissalof his pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Barry J. Zbleski, Jr.
A Dickson County jury convicted the Defendant, Barry J. Zbleski, Jr., of second degree murder by the unlawful distribution of fentanyl or carfentanil and of the knowing sale and distribution of fentanyl resulting in death or bodily injury. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of twenty years’ imprisonment. On appeal, the Defendant raises two issues: (1) whether the evidence is legally sufficient to support his conviction for second degree murder; and (2) whether the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses by admitting testimony from a substitute medical examiner. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Dickson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Carrington Owens v. State of Tennessee
Carrington Owens, Petitioner, appeals from the denial of post-conviction relief from Petitioner’s convictions for four counts of rape of a child, twenty-three counts of especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor, and twelve counts of aggravated sexual battery of a child less than thirteen years of age and his effective thirty-seven-year sentence. On appeal, Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred by denying relief on his ineffective assistance of counsel claims. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Shoshanna Cabanting
A Hancock County jury convicted the Defendant, Shoshanna Cabanting, of vandalism as a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court imposed a sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days, with thirty days to be served in confinement and the remainder suspended to probation. In a prior appeal, this court reversed and remanded the case for a limited resentencing hearing. On remand, the trial court made additional findings and reimposed the same sentence. The Defendant again challenges the split-confinement portion of her sentence and requests that this court impose full probation instead. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hancock | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Arvel Joshua Terry
A Maury County jury convicted the Defendant, Arvel Joshua Terry, of domestic assault. The trial court sentenced him to a term of eleven months and twenty-nine days, which was suspended after service of 120 days in custody. On appeal, the Defendant raises two issues: (1) whether the evidence is legally sufficient to support his conviction for domestic assault; and (2) whether the trial court improperly denied defense counsel the opportunity to refresh a witness’s recollection. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Reuben Hickok Fairfield v. Guy Bosch, Warden
In 2012, the Petitioner, Reuben Hickok Fairfield, pleaded guilty in the Madison County Circuit Court to the offenses of second degree murder and tampering with evidence. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of thirty-five years’ incarceration. The Petitioner later filed a pro se application for a writ of habeas corpus, asserting that his arrest warrant was void and that, as a result, his indictment and judgments were likewise void. The habeas corpus court summarily dismissed the application, concluding that the Petitioner had failed to state a cognizable claim for habeas corpus relief. The Petitioner now appeals. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court. |
Trousdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Christopher Thomas Thompson v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Christopher Thomas Thompson, appeals from the Weakley County Circuit |
Weakley | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jay Junior Heifner
Defendant, Jay Junior Heifner, appeals the Knox County Criminal Court’s revocation of the three-year term of probation imposed for his 2021 guilty-pleaded conviction of theft, arguing that the trial court was without jurisdiction to revoke his probation because the violation warrant was void and that the trial court erred by ordering that he serve the balance of his sentence in confinement. We conclude that because the affidavit in support of the violation warrant failed to comply with the statutory and rule-based requirements, the affidavit was void, the violation warrant was void, and the ensuing revocation proceeding was void. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the case is remanded to the trial court to determine whether, in the absence of a validly issued probation violation warrant, Defendant’s term of probation has expired. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Bradley J. Cooper
Defendant, Bradley J. Cooper, was indicted for one count of aggravated stalking and one count of harassment. The case went to trial, and the jury found Defendant guilty as charged. The trial court merged Defendant’s harassment conviction into his aggravated stalking conviction and sentenced Defendant to an effective sentence of two years’ incarceration. On appeal, Defendant argues (1) his conviction for aggravated stalking violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 8; (2) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for aggravated stalking; (3) the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to take judicial notice, admit testimony regarding, or allow him to otherwise argue that orders of protection generally expire after one year; and (4) his conviction for aggravated stalking and harassment violated the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. After review, we find that Defendant’s conviction for aggravated stalking violated the Double Jeopardy Clause, and we vacate Defendant’s aggravated stalking conviction. We affirm Defendant’s conviction for harassment in Count 2 but remand the case for entry of a corrected judgment form, removing the condition that Count 2 is merged with Count 1. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jeffery D. Strong v. State of Tennessee
A Macon County jury convicted the Petitioner, Jeffery D. Strong, of selling dihydrocodeinone, a Schedule III controlled substance. The Petitioner later filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by (1) failing to object to the admission of the audio recording of the drug transaction; and (2) failing to raise the recording’s admission as an error in the motion for a new trial. The post-conviction court denied relief, and the Petitioner now appeals. In addition to his ineffective assistance claim, the Petitioner also contends on appeal that the post-conviction court erred by failing to resolve the question of pretrial jail credits owed to him. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Macon | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John Collin Kilpatrick
The Defendant, John Collin Kilpatrick, was convicted by a Lewis County Circuit Court jury of possession of drug paraphernalia and two counts of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and was sentenced by the trial court to an effective term of eight years at 85% release eligibility. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the State violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), by withholding exculpatory information of addresses on file with the Tennessee Board of Probation and Parole (“Board” or “Board of Probation and Parole”); that the trial court erred by refusing to conduct an in camera review of the Board’s records that were in the possession of the State, by denying the Defendant’s request for a special jury instruction on possession, and by denying the Defendant’s motion for a mistrial based on the State’s discovery violations; and that the cumulative effect of the errors deprived the Defendant of a fair trial. Based on our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Lewis | Court of Criminal Appeals |
