Govindaswamy Nagarajan vs. Sandra Scheick
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Betty Frazier v. Saturn Corporation
|
Maury | Workers Compensation Panel | |
State vs. Clarence W. Carter
The defendant, Clarence W. Carter, was tried and convicted of conspiracy to sell cocaine and possession of cocaine with intent to manufacture, deliver or sell, and the defendant was sentenced as a Range Two multiple offender to consecutive sentences of thirty-six and sixteen years. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed both the convictions and sentences. Although there are several issues in this case, we granted permission to appeal primarily to determine whether the trial court committed reversible error in sentencing the defendant as a Range Two multiple offender when the only notice of intent to seek enhanced punishment filed by the State was in relation to an indictment that was superseded by the indictment upon which the defendant was tried. Additionally, the defendant argues on appeal that the indictment for possession with intent to deliver was insufficient to charge anything more than simple possession because it failed to contain the language that the defendant possessed the cocaine "with intent to deliver." Upon review, we conclude that the notice of intent to seek enhanced sentencing was sufficient as to the possession charge, but was not sufficient as to the conspiracy charge because conspiracy was not charged in the original indictment for which notice was given. We also hold that the indictment was sufficient to charge the offense of possession with intent to deliver. Finally, we hold that the defendant's remaining arguments regarding the sufficiency of the evidence and length of sentence are without merit. The case is therefore remanded to the trial court for re-sentencing on the conviction for conspiracy to sell cocaine. |
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Kelvin Hobson
Davidson County Criminal Court jury convicted the defendant, Kelvin Hobson, of two counts of aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony, and the trial court sentenced him as a violent offender to concurrent ten-year sentences. The defendant appeals his convictions, claiming that (1) the evidence is insufficient; (2) the trial court improperly allowed the state to cross-examine him about prior bad acts; (3) the trial court improperly allowed state witnesses to give rebuttal testimony about his prior bad acts and his character for truthfulness; (4) the trial court improperly refused to give a curative instruction after the state shifted the burden of proof during closing argument; and (5) the trial court should have granted his new trial motion because the jury foreman mistakenly told other jurors during deliberations that the defendant would serve only probation for his aggravated sexual battery convictions. We conclude that the trial court committed reversible error by allowing state witnesses to testify on rebuttal about the defendant's prior bad acts and his character for truthfulness. Accordingly, we reverse the judgments of the trial court and remand the case for a new trial. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John E. Turner
The Appellant, John E. Turner, appeals his conviction by a Rutherford County jury for especially aggravated robbery, a class A felony. The single issue for our review is whether the trial court erred by not suppressing Turner's statement to the police and the victim's gun, which was discovered as a result of his statement. After a review of the record, we conclude that the Appellant's statement was obtained in violation of his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. Moreover, we conclude that the stolen weapon is also inadmissible unless, upon remand, the State can show either that the police had an independent, untainted source for the information leading to the gun or that the gun would have been inevitably discovered through routine police investigation. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William Edward Crick
The defendant appeals from the trial court’s denial of an alternative sentence. The defendant pled guilty to a Class E felony, possession of a Schedule VI controlled substance with intent to manufacture, deliver, or sell. The trial court denied the defendant’s request for an alternative sentence and imposed a two-year sentence in the special needs facility of the Tennessee Department of Correction. We affirm the sentence imposed by the trial court, but remand for correction of the judgment to reflect a guilty plea rather than a jury verdict. |
Henry | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Roger L. Hickman v. State of Tennessee
|
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Roger L. Hickman v. State of Tennessee - Dissenting
|
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Darrell Glen Smith
The defendant, Darrell Glen Smith, appeals as of right from his conviction by a jury in the Cocke County Circuit Court for first degree murder. The defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. He contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support the jury's rejection of his insanity defense and (2) the trial court erred in failing to grant a new trial due to juror misconduct. We affirm the trial court's judgment of conviction. |
Cocke | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v.Terry Franklin Stogdill
The petitioner, Terry Franklin Stogdill, was convicted by a jury in the Claiborne County Criminal Court of one count of rape of a child and one count of incest. The trial court sentenced the petitioner to an effective twenty year sentence to be served in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Following an unsuccessful appeal of his convictions, the petitioner timely filed a petition for post-conviction relief. The petitioner now appeals the dismissal of his petition. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Claiborne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Darrell Dwain Binkley v. Tennessee Diecasting-Harvard
|
Lauderdale | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Willie Jean Head v. Nissan Motor Manufacturing
|
Davidson | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Thomas K. Bowers vs. Gutterguard of Tennessee
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Kathy Clark vs. Randall McClung
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Calvin Owens
The Defendant, Calvin Owens, was convicted of two counts of aggravated robbery, one count of attempt to commit especially aggravated robbery, and one count of attempted second degree murder, all Class B felonies. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced him as a Range I offender to eleven years for each of his four convictions. The trial court ordered three of the sentences to be served consecutively, with the sentence for the remaining conviction to be served concurrently, resulting in an effective sentence of thirty-three years. In this direct appeal, the Defendant argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions and that the trial court erred in sentencing him to thirty-three years. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
William Terry v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, William Terry, appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. Petitioner argues that the post-conviction court erred in finding that Petitioner’s plea of guilty was voluntary and knowing and in finding that Petitioner’s trial counsel rendered effective assistance of counsel prior to and during plea negotiations. For the reasons discussed herein, we affirm the post-conviction court’s dismissal of the petition for post-conviction relief. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Dept of Children's Srvcs. vs. A.W.S. & E.S. In Re: R.T.S.
|
Blount | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Treacy F. Lewis
Defendant, Treacy F. Lewis, entered a plea of nolo contendre to the offense of murder in the second degree. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Defendant to twenty-three years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Defendant appeals the length of her sentence, arguing that the trial court misapplied enhancement factor (4), the victim was particularly vulnerable because of age and physical disabilities, and failed to give sufficient consideration to the applicable mitigating factors. Defendant does not challenge the application of enhancement factor (9), based upon the use of a gun in the commission of the offense. Based on a review of the record, we conclude that the trial court improperly applied enhancement factor (4) in its sentencing determinations. Accordingly, we modify the judgment of the trial court to reduce the sentence to twenty-two years. |
Humphreys | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ronald Paul v. State
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Carrol Preston Flannary v. Joyce Ann Flannary
We granted permission to appeal to determine whether the trial court erred in dividing as marital property funds that were missing at the time the divorce complaint was filed. We hold that the missing funds are not marital property that can be divided between the parties. However, we also conclude that the trial court may properly consider Husband's careless handling of those funds in distributing property that does constitute marital property. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals as modified, and we remand the case to the trial court for reconsideration of its property division and alimony award. |
Hawkins | Supreme Court | |
03-03-026-CC
|
Dickson | Court of Appeals | |
Edward Caksackkar v. Goodyear Tire
|
Obion | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Jennifer Biscan v. Franklin Brown
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In the Matter of: D.L.(P.)C.,et al
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Milburn L. Edwards v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Milburn L. Edwards, filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which was subsequently amended. Following an evidentiary hearing, the petition for post-conviction relief was dismissed. On appeal, Petitioner argues (1) that the post-conviction court erred in not stating its findings of fact and conclusions of law in its order denying Petitioner post-conviction relief; (2) that Petitioner received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal; and (3) that Petitioner was not afforded a full and fair evidentiary hearing. After a thorough review of the record, we find no error and affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals |