State of Tennessee v. Scott L. Haycraft
The defendant pled guilty to violating a habitual traffic offender order and to a second offense of driving under the influence of an intoxicant. Pursuant to his plea agreement the defendant received a sentence of three years as a multiple offender for violating the habitual traffic offender order and eleven months and twenty-nine days for the second offense of driving under the influence. The trial court ordered these sentences to run concurrently. At the conclusion of a subsequent sentencing hearing, the trial court denied the defendant's request for probation or any other form of alternative sentencing. Through the instant appeal the defendant challenges this denial. After reviewing the facts and relevant caselaw, we find the denial appropriate concerning the violation of the habitual traffic offender judgment and, therefore, affirm the trial court's determination in this regard. We also affirm the denial of alternative sentencing with respect to the defendant's second offense of driving under the influence. However, because of a conflict between the transcript of the sentencing hearing and the judgment, we remand this case for correction of the judgment. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Don Woody McGowan
The Defendant was indicted for driving on a revoked license, driving on a revoked license second offense, evading arrest, and reckless driving. After the State presented its proof at trial, the trial court entered judgments of acquittal for the charges of evading arrest and reckless driving. At the conclusion of the trial, a Marion County jury convicted the Defendant of driving on a revoked license and assessed a fine of $500. The Defendant waived a jury as to the second offense driving on a revoked license, and the trial court found him guilty. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to eleven months and twenty-nine days for second offense driving on a revoked license and ordered that the sentence be served on probation except for thirty days to be served in the county jail. The Defendant now appeals, arguing that the trial court erred by admitting into evidence a Tennessee Department of Safety driving record as proof of the Defendant's prior conviction for driving on a revoked license. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Marion | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Marcus Webb
The defendant, Marcus Webb, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of two counts of aggravated robbery. On appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and the trial court's jury instruction defining the mens rea of "knowing." We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Clazelle Jennings
A Shelby County jury convicted the defendant, Clazelle Jennings,1 of aggravated robbery and two counts of aggravated assault. The trial court sentenced him to concurrent sentences of ten years for aggravated robbery and four years for each of the aggravated assaults. On appeal, the defendant presents the following issues: (1) whether the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his statements to police; (2) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; (3) whether the convictions for aggravated robbery and aggravated assault upon the same victim violate double jeopardy; and (4) whether the sentence is excessive. Upon review of the record and the applicable law, we reverse and dismiss one of the aggravated assault convictions due to a double jeopardy violation. We remand for a clerical correction of the remaining aggravated assault judgment. We affirm in all other respects. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kenneth King
Defendant, Kenneth King, was convicted of burglary of a building and was sentenced to twelve years in the Tennessee Department of Correction as a career offender. Defendant now appeals his conviction alleging that the trial court erred in refusing to grant a mental evaluation prior to trial to determine Defendant's competency to stand trial. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
John Oliver Harper v. Cathy Lynn Harper
|
Blount | Court of Appeals | |
K.D.F., et al vs. J.F.
|
Greene | Court of Appeals | |
L &Amp; L Tile v. Bruce Babb
|
Scott | Court of Appeals | |
Louis Brooks v. Lee Creech
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Wendy Layne v. Mark Layne
|
Marion | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jimmy Ray Cureton
The trial jury convicted the defendant, Jimmy Ray Cureton, of felony murder and attempted especially aggravated robbery. However, the trial court amended the defendant's attempted especially aggravated robbery conviction to attempted aggravated robbery based on the wording of the defendant's indictment. This Court subsequently reversed the trial court, finding that the indictment language was sufficient to allege attempted especially aggravated robbery. See State v. Cureton, 38 S.W.3d 64, 83-84 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000). We remanded the case for re-sentencing, and, upon remand, the trial court sentenced the defendant to serve ten years for his attempted especially aggravated robbery conviction consecutively to his life sentence for the felony murder conviction. The defendant now brings this direct appeal contending that his sentence is both (1) excessive and (2) improper because his indictment alleges that he merely committed attempted aggravated robbery. After reviewing the procedural history of this case and the record of the sentencing hearing, we find that neither of the defendant's allegations merits relief. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joshua S. Grubb
Joshua S. Grubb appeals from the Anderson County Criminal Court's imposition of incarcerative sentencing for his three aggravated burglary and three theft convictions. Contending that the lower court erroneously denied him probation, he asks us to reverse the sentencing orders entered below. We are, however, unpersuaded of the defendant's worthiness for probationary sentences and, therefore, affirm the lower court's judgments. |
Anderson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Michael D. Matthews vs. Natasha Story
|
Hawkins | Court of Appeals | |
David Andrew Nicholson, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
David Andrew Nicholson, Jr., appeals from the Hamilton County Criminal Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. He claims that he was not effectively represented by counsel at his trial and on direct appeal. He also claims that his due process rights were impaired at trial when the court interrupted a defense witness's testimony and played an audio recording of the defendant's statement to the police for the witness. Because the record supports neither allegation, we affirm the lower court's order denying relief. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Devon Lee Ramsey
Defendant, Devon Lee Ramsey, pled guilty to one count of Class D felony theft and three counts of Class E felony forgery. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Defendant to serve three and one-half years for the theft conviction, and one and one-half years for each of the forgery convictions. The trial court further ordered the sentences for the forgery convictions to be served concurrently with each other, but consecutively to the sentence for theft, for an effective sentence of five years on these convictions. These sentences were further ordered to be served consecutively to an effective sentence of two years for ten forgery convictions in Coffee County. Defendant has appealed arguing that the trial court erred by imposing excessive sentences and by ordering consecutive sentencing. After a review of the entire record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ronnie Jerome Russell
Following an evidentiary hearing, the Criminal Court of Sumner County entered an order finding the Defendant, Ronnie Jerome Russell, to be in violation of the conditions of his supervised probation and ordered him to serve his sentence in the Department of Correction. The Defendant appealed arguing that the trial court failed to exercise a "conscientious and intelligent judgment" in finding that he had violated the terms and conditions of probation and in revoking his probation. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Clemmie Rhyan
A Shelby County Criminal Court jury convicted the defendant, Clemmie Rhyan, of second degree murder, a Class A felony, and the trial court sentenced him as a Range I, violent offender to twenty-two years in the Department of Correction (DOC). The defendant appeals, claiming (1) that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction; (2) that the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on self-defense; and (3) that his sentence is excessive. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Deborah Rainey
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Donald Johnson Jr.
A Shelby County jury convicted the defendant, Donald Johnson, Jr., of first degree murder in perpetration of robbery, and the trial court sentenced him to life. On appeal, this court vacated the judgment of the trial court and remanded for findings relating to the motion to suppress the defendant's statements to police officers. Upon remand, the trial court made additional findings and again denied the motion. Upon reviewing the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
The Rogers Group vs. Anderson County
|
Anderson | Court of Appeals | |
Glenda Cooper vs. State
|
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Dennis Cedric Woodard, Jr.
The Defendant, Dennis Cedric Woodard, Jr., was convicted by a jury of first degree premeditated murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant argues that the evidence presented at trial is not sufficient to sustain his conviction. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Brenda Martin, Executor Est. of Dewey Moore v. Jean Moore
|
Clay | Court of Appeals | |
Western Express v. Benchmark Electronics
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Jet Printing v. Deep South Wholesale Paper
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals |