State of Tennessee v. Robert A. Hayden
Indicted for aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery, aggravated sexual battery, two counts of aggravated rape, and especially aggravated kidnapping, the defendant entered negotiated pleas of guilt to aggravated robbery, two counts of aggravated rape, and especially aggravated kidnapping. The remaining charges were dismissed. After a hearing, the trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range I offender to 12 years for the robbery, 25 years for each of the rapes, and 25 years for the kidnapping. The rape sentences were ordered to be served consecutively to one another and to the robbery sentence, for an effective sentence of 62 years. In this appeal of right, the defendant claims that one of the aggravated rape convictions and the especially aggravated kidnapping conviction violate due process. He asserts that his sentences are excessive and should not have been ordered to be served consecutively. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Curtis Majors v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner was indicted for three counts of aggravated robbery and convicted by a Davidson County jury of one count of aggravated robbery and two counts of aggravated assault. The trial court sentenced him as a Range II, multiple offender to an effective sentence of seventeen years, and on direct appeal, this Court modified his sentence to an effective sentence of fifteen years. The Tennessee Supreme Court denied permission to appeal. The Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial because his attorneys failed to challenge two of his indictments prior to trial. Following a hearing, the trial court denied post-conviction relief, and the Petitioner now appeals the trial court's denial of relief. We hold that the Petitioner received effective assistance of counsel at trial and therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ricky A. Burks
Ricky A. Burks was convicted by a Davidson County jury of the first-degree murder of his wife. The trial court granted Burks' motion for judgment of acquittal and entered a judgment for second-degree murder. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Burks, as a range II offender, to forty years confinement in the Department of Correction. Burks now appeals both the judgment of conviction and the sentence entered by the Davidson County Criminal Court, challenging the trial court's (1) denial of his motions to suppress; (2) admission of prior bad acts of the defendant; (3) jury instructions regarding prior bad acts; (4) admission of autopsy photographs of the victim; (5) refusal to instruct on the lesser-included offense of reckless homicide; (6) finding that the evidence is sufficient to support a conviction of second-degree murder; and (7) imposition of the maximum sentence of forty years. The State cross-appeals challenging the trial court's ruling in reducing the jury's verdict of first-degree murder to that of second-degree murder. Finding no error, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In the matter of Leola Dedman vs. Mary Murphy
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
James Byron Transou v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, James Byron Transou, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The issues presented for review are (1) whether the petitioner was denied his constitutional right to self-representation; (2) whether the denial of a motion for continuance is a basis for relief; (3) whether the election on the charge made by the state is a basis for relief; and (4) whether the petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel. The judgment is affirmed. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael D. Rimmer
The Defendant appeals his conviction for murder in the first degree and the sentence of death imposed by the jury.1 This opinion is delivered in two parts, with a separate opinion addressing Part II. (1) Admission of evidence regarding his escape attempts; After careful review, we affirm the conviction for murder in the first degree. In Part II of this opinion, Judge Williams sets forth his minority position on the following issues: (1) Application of the (i)(2) aggravating factor in the imposition of the death penalty; and (2) Cumulative effect of errors. The position of the majority on the issues addressed in Part II is set forth in the separate opinion filed by Judge Witt, in which Judge Hayes has joined. The majority concludes that the verdict is enigmatic and uncertain, requiring reversal of the sentence of death and re-sentencing. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael D. Rimmer
This separate opinion addresses issues relative to the sentencing phase of the trial, as well as the defendant’s cumulative error issue. Expressed herein are the views of the majority, consisting of Judge Hayes and Judge Witt. The minority view of Judge Williams is expressed in his lead opinion. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Vernon Bernard Love v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner was originally convicted by a Carroll County jury of the sale of a controlled substance. The conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. The petitioner sought post-conviction relief, which was denied by the post-conviction court. In this appeal as a matter of right, the petitioner contends that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the trial court correctly denied post-conviction relief. |
Carroll | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Stefan Olaru vs. John Cooper, et al
|
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
2000-00197-COA-R3-CV
|
Anderson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tn Dpt. of Children's Services vs. Angela Knowles Huffman
|
Sullivan | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Brenda Redwine
The defendant, Brenda Redwine, after pleading guilty to possession of Schedule II drugs and simple possession of marijuana, properly reserved a certified question of law for our review. The Johnson County Criminal Court denied her motion to suppress a search warrant that was issued on January 6, 1999. The defendant asserts, by certified question of law, that the search warrant was not properly issued because the affidavit that was the basis for the warrant contained material misrepresentation by the officer. After review, we affirm the trial court's denial of the defendant's motion to suppress. |
Johnson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Esseoc Cement Corp. vs. PLC
|
Carter | Court of Appeals | |
Citizen's Tri-County Bank vs. Frank Hartman, et al
|
Sequatchie | Court of Appeals | |
Kwan & Han-Lee vs. John Doe & Allstate Ins. Co.
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
David Nevills vs. South Central Correctional Disciplinary Board
|
Wayne | Court of Appeals | |
Michael Pine vs. Dept. of Correction
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Fred Hodges vs. Virginia Lewis, Warden
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Dept. of Children's Svcs. vs. S.S.S., J.S., and K.S.
|
Putnam | Court of Appeals | |
Gerald Hopper vs. Patricia Hopper
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Johnny Conaway vs. Semiko L. Lewis (Conaway)
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Pamela Jean Anness vs. Michael Mario Chapdelaine, Sr.
|
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Darrell Cannon vs. Dept. of Correction, et al
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Delois Armstrong vs. James Coleman
|
Gibson | Court of Appeals | |
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
|
Supreme Court |