State of Tennessee v. Jeffrey McMahan
The Defendant was convicted of DUI, fourth offense. He appeals, contending that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. We affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Sevier | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Richard M. Far, Jr.
On August 5, 1998, Richard M. Far, Jr., the Defendant and Appellant, was indicted by a Rutherford County Grand Jury for one count of arson and one count of setting fire to personal property. The Defendant was tried in absentia. At the close of the State's proof, the trial court granted the Defendant's motion for acquittal regarding setting fire to personal property. Following trial, the jury convicted the defendant of arson. After a subsequent sentencing hearing, also conducted in absentia, the trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range III, persistent offender to fourteen years incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant argues (1) that the trial court erred in excluding him from his trial, and (2) that the trial court erroneously sentenced the defendant. Because we find that rule 43 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure prohibits trial in absentia when the defendant is not present at the beginning of trial, we reverse the judgement of the trial court and remand for a new trial. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Perry Thomas Randolph
The State appeals from the Putnam County Criminal Court’s order granting the Defendant’s motion to suppress. The Defendant, Perry Thomas Randolph, was charged by indictment with one count of theft, one count of aggravated assault, one count of burglary, and one count of resisting arrest. The Defendant filed a motion to suppress, challenging his initial stop and seizure by the police. The trial court found the Defendant’s seizure illegal because it failed to meet the minimal requirements of Terry v. Ohio. After review, we find it unnecessary to examine the issue of whether the officer had sufficient articulable facts to justify stopping the Defendant because we find no such stop occurred. The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion. |
Putnam | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Thorsten John Boger
Thorsten John Boger appeals from the sentencing decision of the Montgomery County Circuit Court following his guilty pleas to two counts of class B felony sale of cocaine. Boger was sentenced to nine years in the Department of Correction on each count, with the sentences to be served concurrently. On appeal, he argues that he should have received the minimum sentence of eight years. Finding no error, we affirm. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Carl Johnson and Derrick Sutton
The defendants, Carl Johnson and Derrick Sutton, were each convicted by a jury of especially aggravated robbery. Johnson raises three issues on appeal: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction for especially aggravated robbery; (2) whether the trial court erred in denying his motion for severance; and (3) whether the trial court erred in sentencing him to the maximum sentence of twenty-five years. Sutton challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Joanne Dickey, et vir., v. W. Keith McCord, et al.
This is a personal injury action arising from a boating accident in the Bahamas. At trial, the jury returned a verdict for the defendants. The plaintiffs appealed, alleging that the jury's verdict was not supported by any material evidence as well as alleging error with the trial court's function as thirteenth juror and with its evidentiary rulings concerning an expert witness and admission of testimony concerning non-use of life preservers by the plaintiffs. We affirm.
|
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Tammy Lynne Pruett v. Service Merchandise Company,
|
Davidson | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Cheryl Ellis v. Smith Co. Coatings,
|
Smith | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Terry Traylor v. North American Royalties, Inc., d/b/a
|
Knox | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Thomas Daniel Whited v. Wilson Farmers Cooperative,
|
White | Workers Compensation Panel | |
State of Tennessee v. Eddie Erwin
The Defendant, Eddie Erwin, was convicted by a jury of the sale of cocaine, a Class C felony. He was sentenced as a Range III, persistent offender to twelve years incarceration. In this appeal as of right, he agues (1) that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction; (2) that the trial court erred by convicting the Defendant based on the original indictment rather than the re-indictment; (3) that the trial court erred by failing to suppress a videotape containing statements the Defendant made while talking on a telephone in the jail; (4) that the trial court erred by admitting into evidence a photographic lineup; and (5) that the trial court erred by enhancing the Defendant's sentence based on three prior Illinois felony convictions and based on post-offense conduct. We conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, that the Defendant was not convicted based on the wrong indictment, and that the trial court did not err by admitting the videotape and the photographic lineup into evidence; thus, we affirm the Defendant's conviction. We do, however, find that the trial court erred by sentencing the Defendant as a Range III, persistent offender, based on three prior Illinois felony convictions, because those convictions would have been misdemeanors under Tennessee law. We therefore modify the Defendant's sentence to ten years as a Range II, multiple offender. We also remand for correction of the judgment, which contains a clerical error reflecting an incorrect offense date. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Anthony Ray Lawson
Anthony Ray Lawson appeals his conviction of especially aggravated robbery and contests the sufficiency of the evidence. Upon review, we hold that the evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction and therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Donald Earl Mathis v. Emerson Motor Company
|
Crockett | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Jennifer Mcgarity v. Tecumseh Products Company, et al.
|
Henry | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Philips Consumer Electronics Company v. Kathy A.
|
Knox | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Philip Workman v. Donal Campbell, et al.
|
Court of Appeals | ||
State of Tennessee v. Charlie M. Gardner
The Defendant, Charlie M. Gardner, was found guilty by a Davidson County jury of one count of first degree premeditated murder and two counts of reckless aggravated assault. The jury sentenced the Defendant to life without the possibility of parole for the first degree murder conviction, and the trial court sentenced the Defendant to four years for each reckless aggravated assault conviction, all sentences to be served consecutively. In this appeal, the Defendant challenges (1) the admissibility of hearsay statements as falling within the excited utterance exception, (2) the sufficiency of the evidence as to all three convictions and (3) the fatal variance between the allegations in count two of the indictment and the proof offered at trial. Based upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Anna Williams vs. James Williams, II
|
Blount | Court of Appeals | |
Jennifer Gregg vs. Shirley McKay, Diane Farley, and Michael Floyd
|
Sevier | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: T. M. & M.M. vs. Department of Children's Svcs
|
Blount | Court of Appeals | |
State Farm Ins. Co. vs. Charles Schubert, et al
|
Anderson | Court of Appeals | |
Bobby King vs. City of Gatlinburg
|
Sevier | Court of Appeals | |
The Weather Doctor Services Co., Inc., vs. Mark Stephens, et al
|
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Darrell Smith vs. Chattanooga Medical Investors, Inc. d/b/a Life Care Center Chattanooga
|
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Jesus M. Parra v. Rieth-Riley Construction Co.,
|
Shelby | Workers Compensation Panel |