State of Tennessee v. Steven James McCain
The appellant, Steven James McCain, was convicted by a jury in the Criminal Court of Davidson County of two counts of first degree premeditated murder. He received two consecutive sentences of life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. On appeal, the appellant raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether the trial court erred in denying the appellant's "Motion to Suppress Identifications Made During an Unconstitutional Photographic Line-Up Procedure"; (2) whether the trial court erred in denying the appellant's "Motion to Suppress Defendant's Statements"; (3) whether the trial court erred in admitting the audio-tape-recorded statement of Chad Collins; (4) whether the trial court erred in overruling the defense request for a mistrial when the prosecution improperly argued that the jury should consider Chad Collins' statement as substantive evidence at trial; and (5) whether the evidence was sufficient to support his convictions. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Willie J. Miller, Jr.
|
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Steven Robert Williams v. Margaret Simpson Williams
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Larry Butler vs. Gwendolyn Butler
|
Haywood | Court of Appeals | |
Frankie Davis vs. Jason Davis
|
Gibson | Court of Appeals | |
Steven Case v. Shelby County Civil Service Merit Board,
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Christopher N. Robinson v. William Fulliton
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
CH-00-0659-1
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Steven Dalton
|
Hickman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Orlando Residence, Ltd. v. Nashville Lodging
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ricky T. Hughes
A Davidson County Criminal Court jury convicted the defendant, Ricky T. Hughes, of facilitation of first degree felony murder, a Class A felony, and especially aggravated robbery, a Class A felony. The trial court sentenced him to consecutive sentences of twenty-five years as a standard offender for the facilitation conviction and twenty-five years as a violent offender for the aggravated robbery conviction. The defendant appeals, claiming that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Decatur County vs. Vulcan Materials
|
Decatur | Court of Appeals | |
John C. Flowers v. Joseph E. Turner And Connie Turner
|
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
Thomas Nelson vs. Robin Nelson
|
Gibson | Court of Appeals | |
Pioneer Subdivision Homeowners vs. Professional Counseling
|
Dyer | Court of Appeals | |
Pioneer Subdivision Homeowners vs. Professional Counseling
|
Dyer | Court of Appeals | |
Huntington Eldridge vs. Deborah Eldridge
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Terry Norris
A Shelby County jury found the Defendant guilty of second degree murder, and the trial court sentenced him to twenty-one years incarceration. The Defendant now appeals his conviction, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial because (1) his counsel failed to file a motion to suppress his confession based upon a violation of the Defendant's Fourth Amendment rights; and (2) his counsel argued a theory of defense to the jury that was contrary to the Defendant's wishes and testimony. We conclude that the Defendant's trial counsel were not ineffective for failing to base the motion to suppress the Defendant's confession on a violation of the Defendant's Fourth Amendment rights. We further conclude that although the Defendant's counsel did not comply with the Defendant's wish to proceed at trial under a theory of self-defense, any error in this regard was harmless in light of the record as a whole. We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
CH-01-0200-2;
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tracy Farrell
The defendant, Tracy Farrell, appeals from his eleven drug convictions rendered by a McMinn County Criminal Court jury. On appeal he challenges the trial court's failure to grant a severance of offenses. We have determined that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to sever offenses, and we affirm the conviction judgments. |
McMinn | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Nathan Scott Ramagos
The defendant pled guilty to one count of sexual battery, a Class E felony; one count of indecent exposure, a Class A misdemeanor; and one count of reckless aggravated assault, a Class D felony. Denying his request for probation, the trial court sentenced him as a Range I, standard offender to the maximum sentence for each offense, for an effective sentence of four years. In a timely appeal to this court, the defendant challenges his sentences, arguing that the trial court erred in its application of enhancement factors, and in failing to find any factors in mitigation. Based upon our review, we conclude that two of the three enhancement factors found applicable by the trial court are unsupported by the record, but that the remaining enhancement factor, the defendant's prior history of criminal conduct, is entitled to great weight. We further conclude that mitigating factor (1), the defendant's actions did not cause or threaten serious bodily injury, applies to the defendant's convictions for sexual battery and indecent exposure, but that it carries very little, if any, weight in mitigation. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's denial of the defendant's request for probation, and the sentences imposed in this case. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Joan Loreva Kreth v. Timothy Kerwin Kreth
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Charles H. Martin
The Defendant, Charles H. Martin, was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced him as a Range I offender to six years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to strike handwritten portions of the indictment. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sevier | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Steven L. Rauhuff
The defendant was indicted for operation of a motor vehicle after being declared an habitual offender. Following a bench trial, he was convicted of the indicted offense. In this appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. We affirm. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James L. McCurry
The Appellant, James L. McCurry, was convicted by a Roane County jury of one count of premeditated first degree murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal, McCurry raises two issues for our review: (1) Whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support a conviction for premeditated first degree murder; and (2) whether the trial court erred by failing to exercise its role as the thirteenth juror. After review, we find no error and affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Roane | Court of Criminal Appeals |