State vs. Toronda Sherelle Williams
M2000-00212-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry Smith
Trial Court Judge: Seth W. Norman
Following a grand jury indictment, Toranda Williams, the defendant and appellant, was tried and convicted of first-degree murder in the Davidson County Criminal Court. On appeal, she argues (1) that the trial court erroneously admitted testimony about the results of a polygraph examination; (2) that the court erroneously admitted hearsay testimony; and (3) that the cumulative effect of these errors was substantial enough to require reversal. Because we find the trial court's error in admitting the polygraph test results was harmless, and because the issue regarding hearsay testimony has been waived for failure to include it in the motion for a new trial, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Davidson
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Jack Welch
W1999-00860-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge J. Curwood Witt, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: J. Steven Stafford
Dyer
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Frank Tate
W1999-01068-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge J. Curwood Witt, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Bernie Weinman
Shelby
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Owens
W1997-00237-SC-R11-CD
Authoring Judge: Justice Adolpho A. Birch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Joseph B. Dailey
Clark Earls vs. Shirley Earls
M1999-00035-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Russell Heldman
This extraordinary appeal involves the efforts of one party to effectuate an opinion of this court which the Tennessee Supreme Court declined to review. On the first appeal, this court reversed portions of the trial court's final decree and remanded the case with specific directions regarding the details of the order to be entered. After the Tennessee Supreme Court denied the wife's application for permission to appeal, the husband asked the trial court to enter an order consistent with the directions in this court's opinion. After conducting two hearings, the trial court declined to enter the proposed order. We have granted the husband's application for an extraordinary appeal because the trial court, by its refusal to enter a judgment consistent with this court's opinion, has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings that immediate review of its actions is required. We now (1) vacate the trial court's orders filed after March 29, 2001, (2) direct the clerk of the trial court to enter this opinion and the order accompanying it as the final order in this proceeding, and (3) direct that this case be assigned to another judge in the Twenty-First Judicial District for any further proceedings.
Williamson
Court of Appeals
In the matter of B.B.
M1999-00643-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Burton D. Glover
Davidson
Court of Appeals
State vs. Frank Michael Vukelich
M1999-00618-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry Smith
Trial Court Judge: Walter C. Kurtz
On December 8 through December 17, 1998, Frank Vukelich, the defendant and appellant, was tried in the Davidson County Criminal Court for one count of conspiracy to deliver 700 pounds or more of marijuana, three counts of conspiracy to commit money laundering, and five counts of money laundering. The jury found the defendant not guilty of one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering, but guilty on all other counts. Following a subsequent sentencing hearing, the court effectively sentenced the defendant to thirty-four years of incarceration and ordered the defendant to pay fines totaling $180,000. After a hearing regarding the defendant's motion for new trial, however, the trial court dismissed four money laundering counts. The defendant appeals here, arguing; (1) that the trial court erroneously allowed the consolidation of indictments; (2) that although the trial court correctly dismissed four money-laundering counts, the trial court erred by refusing to dismiss the counts prior to trial, thus prejudicing the defendant; (3) that the trial court erroneously denied the defendant's motion to suppress the fruits of two search warrants executed at the defendant's home; (4) that the defendant's confrontation rights were violated by the introduction of hearsay at trial; (5) that the trial court erroneously refused to grant a mistrial; (6) that the trial court erroneously allowed the introduction of prior acts of the defendant at trial; and (7) that his sentence is excessive. The State also appeals here, arguing that the trial court's dismissal of the four money-laundering counts was erroneous. After a review of the record, we hold that the trial court erroneously dismissed the four money laundering counts, and those counts must be reinstated. As to the defendant's claims, we find no merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Wilson vs. Wilson
M1999-01274-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Larry G. Ross
Warren
Court of Appeals
Joey Lee Smith vs. State
M1999-01896-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry Smith
Trial Court Judge: William Charles Lee
In April of 1995, a Bedford County jury convicted the petitioner of one count of child rape, multiple counts of aggravated sexual battery, one count of sexual battery, and two counts of reckless endangerment. For these offenses he received an effective sentence of nineteen years. Having unsuccessfully pursued a direct appeal, the petitioner filed a pro se post-conviction petition and subsequently received appointed counsel. Through his amended petition the petitioner contended that counsel's alleged misdeeds had risen to the level of ineffective assistance of counsel and also that certain actions taken by the trial court had violated his due process rights. The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing on these matters and denied the petitioner relief. From this denial the petitioner brings this action again asserting that he received ineffective assistance both at trial and on direct appeal. However, following our review of the record, we find that the trial court correctly denied the petition, and we, therefore, affirm the lower court's decision.
Bedford
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Charles S. Jones
M1999-02335-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry Smith
Trial Court Judge: John H. Gasaway, III
On October 30, 1997, the defendant offered guilty pleas to six counts of aggravated burglary, five counts of theft over one thousand dollars, one count of theft under one thousand dollars, and one count of possession of an illegal weapon. After a December sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered the defendant placed on probation and granted him post-trial diversion for a period of six years during which he was to comply with a variety of requirements. Subsequently, separate affidavits were filed in July and September of 1998 alleging that the defendant had violated the terms of his probation. Following a March 1999 hearing concerning these allegations, the trial court entered judgment on the defendant's aforementioned twelve guilty pleas and sentenced him as a Range I Standard Offender to serve an effective sentence of four years for the burglary and theft charges consecutively to eighteen months for the possession of an illegal weapon offense. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court erred by (1) failing to consider him for alternative sentencing; (2) improperly enhancing his possession of an illegal weapon sentence and one of his aggravated burglary sentences; and (3) ordering the possession of an illegal weapon charge to run consecutively. After having reviewed the record and applicable authorities, we find these issues to be without merit and, therefore, affirm the trial court's sentence.
