Joseph Turley vs. Francis P. Marino, et al
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Don Williams vs. Donal Campbell
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Larry W. Hopkins vs. Bd. of Paroles
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Betty J. Nash vs. G.L. Waynick
|
DeKalb | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. C. Curtis Brown
The defendant, after having his authority to write bonds in the 30th Judicial District revoked, appeals the trial court's decision and asserts that there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court's findings. Furthermore, the defendant asserts that the trial court's action was excessive. After review, we affirm the trial court in all respects. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Richard Crawford - Dissenting
Our law provides: “A person charged with an offense has no burden to prove his innocence.” TENN.CODE ANN.§39-11-201(c). Because I am unable to disregard this most basic principle of law, I am also unable to affirm the judgment of conviction in this case. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Sherman Shaw
A Shelby County jury convicted the defendant of aggravated robbery. The trial court sentenced him to 15 years as a Range II multiple offender. In this appeal, the defendant alleges (1) the trial court erroneously admitted the defendant's custodial statement; (2) the evidence was insufficient to sustain the defendant's conviction; (3) the cumulative effect of the trial court's errors requires a new trial; and (4) the defendant's sentence is excessive. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment and sentence imposed by the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Richard Crawford
Defendant, Richard Crawford, was convicted at a bench trial of theft of a motor vehicle valued over $10,000. On appeal, the defendant raises the following two issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction for theft; and (2) whether the value of the vehicle was properly established. The judgment of the Shelby County Criminal Court is affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
LaKreasha Kimble v. State of Tennessee
This is an appeal of a denial of post-conviction relief. The petitioner and two codefendants were each convicted of murder in the perpetration of robbery and of especially aggravated robbery for the robbery and killing of a man who had given them a ride in his car. The petitioner appealed her convictions to the post-conviction court, arguing, inter alia, that her counsel provided ineffective assistance by his failure to petition for a severance of trial from her codefendants. The post-conviction court denied relief, finding the petitioner's claims to be without merit. Based upon a thorough review, we affirm the post-conviction court's denial of relief. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. David Johnson
The defendant appeals from his Shelby County Criminal Court conviction and sentence for second degree murder. The trial court sentenced the defendant to 37 years in the Department of Correction as a Range II multiple offender. In this direct appeal, the defendant complains that the evidence is insufficient; that double jeopardy barred his retrial following the grant of a mistrial; that Jencks Act material, police reports, and arrest histories of state witnesses were improperly withheld; that he was not allowed to impeach a key witness in violation of his confrontation rights; that the trial court erred in ruling that his prior convictions could be used to impeach him if he testified; that the jury was improperly instructed; and that his sentence is excessive. We are unpersuaded that reversible error occurred and therefore affirm the judgment and sentence of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Earnest L. White v. State of Tennessee - Order
The petitioner, Earnest L. White, appeals the order of the Shelby County Criminal Court summarily dismissing his habeas corpus/post-conviction petition without conducting an evidentiary hearing or appointing counsel. Though styled as a petition for habeas corpus relief, White asserts therein that ten of his 1984 convictions should be set aside because of constitutional infirmities in the process surrounding the entry of his guilty pleas for these offenses. As the issues raised provide no basis for habeas corpus relief but rather set out traditional post-conviction concerns, the trial court considered this pro se petition as one for post-conviction relief. However, the trial court thereafter found that the petition had been filed past the applicable statute of limitations and, therefore, dismissed the petition. After a review of the record before this Court, we find that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Billy J. Grooms v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Billy J. Grooms, appeals the trial court's denial of a pro se petition to correct an illegal judgment/sentence. The trial court's order of dismissal is affirmed. |
Cocke | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Mitchell Hall v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store
|
Knox | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Rickey Cotten v. Board of Paroles
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Bertha Smith vs. Harley Smith
|
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Johnny & Mary Jo Harper, et al vs. Melvin Sloan, et al
|
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
Janice Sadler, d/b/a Xanadu Video vs. State
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Tony Willis v. Dept of Correction
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Tony Willis v. Dept of Correction
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joseph Vella
The Defendant, Joseph Vella, appeals as of right from his criminal trespass conviction. He asserts that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his conviction. We disagree; accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Angela Mccoin v. Lumbermens M Utual Casualty
|
Wilson | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Egyptian Lacquers Manufacturing Company, et al. v. Megan Lee Rainey, et al.
|
Williamson | Workers Compensation Panel | |
State of Tennessee v. Prentiss Phillips
The defendant was convicted by a Shelby County jury of first degree murder and especially aggravated kidnapping. He was sentenced by the jury to life without the possibility of parole for the murder conviction. He also received a sentence of twenty-five years for the especially aggravated kidnapping conviction, to be served consecutively to his life sentence. The events of this case arose out of a confrontation between rival gangs living in the Hurt Village Apartments in Memphis. The defendant, a high-ranking member of the Gangster Disciples, was prosecuted for the crimes on a theory of criminal responsibility. In this appeal as of right, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions. After a thorough review of the extensive record in this case, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient to show that the defendant, acting with the intent to promote the commission of the charged offenses, directed and aided other members of the Gangster Disciples in the commission of the offenses. His convictions for first degree murder and especially aggravated kidnapping are, therefore, affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Srirasack Srisavath
The defendant, Srirasack Srisavath, was convicted of possession of marijuana with intent to sell. The trial court imposed a sentence of one and one-half years and assessed a fine of $2,000.00. In this appeal of right, the defendant challenges the propriety for the investigatory stop which led to the discovery of the marijuana. Because the stop was not adequately supported by articulable facts, the trial court erred by overruling the motion to suppress evidence. The judgment is, therefore, reversed and the cause dismissed. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Brad Stephen Luckett
The Defendant was convicted by a jury of driving under the influence of an intoxicant, second offense. In this direct appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred by admitting the results of his breath-alcohol test. The Defendant argues that the State failed to prove that he was continuously observed for twenty minutes prior to taking the test, and that one of the requirements for the admissibility of the test results was therefore not satisfied. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals |