State vs. Vincent Sims
|
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. James Hankins
|
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Pamela Hopper
|
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Tony Martin
|
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Jeffery Ray Jennings
|
Greene | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Mary Ruth Willis vs. University Health System
|
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Pike vs. John Maher Builders, Inc.
|
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Revis vs. McClean, et al
|
Dickson | Court of Appeals | |
Bryant vs. HCA Health Services of TN
|
Supreme Court | ||
Blackmon vs. TN Bd. of Paroles
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
E1999-01465-CCA-R3CD
|
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
03C01-9803-CR-00118
|
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
M1998-00118-CCA-R3-CD
|
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Jeffrey Eugene Wright, a.k.a Jeffrey Eugene Arnell
|
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Henry DeQuan Rhodes
|
Wilson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Joe Martin vs. State
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Floyd Campbell vs. Corrections Corp. of America
|
Wayne | Court of Appeals | |
State vs. Kawaski Taylor
|
Gibson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Manufacturers Consolidation vs. Rick Rodell et al
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State vs. Jerry Travis
|
Henry | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Samantha Heard
The appellant, Samantha Heard, appeals from a judgment of conviction entered by the Davidson County Criminal Court. The appellant pled guilty to one count of sale of cocaine in excess of .5 grams, a class B felony. As a condition of the plea agreement, the appellant reserved the right to appeal, as a certified question of law, the trial court's denial of her motion to suppress.1 See Tenn. R. App. P. 3(b); Tenn. R. Crim. P. 37(b). Specifically, she asserts that the facts alleged in the affidavit of the search warrant are insufficient to support a finding of probable cause for the search of her person. After review of the record, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion to suppress and affirm the judgment of conviction. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. La Southaphanh
The appellant, La Southaphanh, appeals his jury convictions for aggravated burglary and theft over $1,000. The trial court imposed, as a Range II offender, a nine year sentence for aggravated burglary and a concurrent seven year sentence for theft. On appeal, the appellant’s sole challenge is the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. Following review, we affirm. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Khanh V. Le - Concurring and Dissenting
I concur with Judge Ogle’s opinion concerning the issue of sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction for first degree murder and the issue regarding the suppression of identification testimony. I concur that the trial court did not err by refusing to charge voluntary manslaughter as a lesser-included offense. I also concur that the trial court erred by failing to charge second degree murder as a lesser-included offense. However, I dissent from the majority opinion’s conclusion that this error was not reversible error. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Khanh V. Le
The lead opinion of Judge Ogle, the separate concurring opinion of Judge Welles, and the separate opinion of Judge Woodall concurring in part and dissenting in part, filed in this case on March 6, 2000, are withdrawn. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Khanh V. Le
On November 10, 1997, the appellant, Khanh V. Le, was convicted by a jury in the Shelby County Criminal Court of first degree murder. The trial court sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment in the Tennessee Department of Correction. In this appeal as of right, the appellant presents the following issues for our review: (I) Whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain the appellant’s conviction of first degree murder; (II) Whether the trial court erred by refusing to charge any lesser included offenses to first degree murder; (III) Whether the trial court erred by denying the appellant’s motion to suppress identification testimony. Following a review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals |