Paul Clifford Moore, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Paul Clifford Moore, Jr., appeals the Knox County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his “Motion for Plain Error Review in an Alternative Petition for Extraordinary Writ.” He argues that the trial court’s sequential jury instructions were improper and prevented the jury from returning a verdict of voluntary manslaughter rather than second degree murder. Upon review of the entire record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we conclude that Petitioner does not have an appeal as of right under Rule 3 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure; accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Scott Alan Haynes, Jr.
The Defendant, Scott Alan Haynes, Jr., was convicted in the Montgomery County Circuit Court of second degree murder and reckless endangerment committed with a deadly weapon and received consecutive eighteen- and two-year sentences, respectively. On appeal, the Defendant claims that the evidence is insufficient to support his second degree murder conviction and that his eighteen-year sentence for the conviction is excessive. Based upon our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Lavonta Laver Churchwell v. State of Tennessee
The pro se Petitioner, Lavonta Laver Churchwell, appeals the Davidson County Criminal |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Aaron Joseph Van Arsdale
Defendant, Aaron Joseph Van Arsdale, appeals his Maury County convictions for vehicular assault, driving under the influence (second offense), simple possession of cocaine, and failure to exercise due care. He contends that: (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the results of blood alcohol concentration testing; (2) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction for vehicular assault; and (3) the trial court erred in ordering restitution. Upon review, we affirm Defendant’s convictions, affirm the restitution order in part, vacate the restitution order in part, and remand for entry of an amended judgment consistent with this opinion. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Christopher Simonds
An Anderson County jury convicted Defendant, Michael Christopher Simonds, of attempted aggravated rape. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of eleven years’ confinement. On appeal, Defendant contends that that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction and that the State made improper comments in its closing argument. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Anderson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Gemeyal Strowder v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Gemeyal Strowder, was charged with aggravated robbery, aggravated assault, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and theft of property valued at one thousand dollars ($1000) or less. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the Petitioner entered a guilty plea to aggravated robbery, and the remaining charges were dismissed with the sentence and manner of service to be determined by the trial court. Following a hearing, the trial court imposed a sentence of eighteen years’ imprisonment. The Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which the post-conviction court denied. In this appeal, the Petitioner argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. After review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
McNairy | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Luis Mendoza-Sanchez
A Rutherford County jury convicted the Defendant, Luis Mendoza-Sanchez, of multiple offenses against two victims, a child and her mother, including aggravated assault of the mother, rape of a child and four counts of aggravated sexual assault of the child. He was additionally convicted of violating the Child Protection Act. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to fifty-nine years of incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the trial court erred when it denied his motion to sever the trials for charges against the victim and her mother; (2) the trial court erred when it allowed the State to ask leading questions of their own witness; (3) the trial court erred when it limited the Defendant’s cross-examination of an expert about the victim’s sexual orientation; and (4) the cumulative effect of these errors entitled him to a new trial. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Isaih Tatum v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Isaih Tatum, pleaded guilty to possession of more than 0.5 grams of |
McMinn | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Charles Jordan, II
The Defendant, Charles Jordan, II, pled guilty in the Dyer County Circuit Court to possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a felony crime of violence and possession of more than one-half ounce of marijuana with intent to sell or deliver. Pursuant to the plea agreement, he was to receive an effective ten-year sentence with the trial court to determine the manner of service. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered that he serve the sentence in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant claims that the trial court erred by denying his request for alternative sentencing. Based on our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jacquet Moore v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Jacquet Moore, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s summary denial of his post-conviction petition, seeking relief from his conviction of aggravated rape and resulting sentence of sixty years to be served at one hundred percent. On appeal, the Petitioner claims, and the State concedes, that the post-conviction court erred by denying his amended petition without conducting an evidentiary hearing on his claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Based on our review, we conclude that the post-conviction court properly denied relief as to one of the Petitioner’s grounds for relief but that the case must be remanded for an evidentiary hearing on his remaining grounds. Therefore, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case is remanded to the post-conviction court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jimmie Martin v. State of Tennessee
A Shelby County jury convicted the Petitioner, Jimmie Martin, of second degree murder of Martha J. Bownes, and the trial court sentenced him to serve twenty years. On appeal, this court affirmed the judgment. State v. Martin, No. W2013-00889-CCA-R3-CD, 2014 WL 2566490, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 5, 2014), no perm. app. filed. The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, claiming that he had received the ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney had a conflict of interest at the time he represented the Petitioner and because Counsel failed to call an eye witness, Christopher Martin, to testify at his trial. After review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Demarcus Keyon Cole v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Demarcus Keyon Cole, acting pro se, appeals from the summary dismissal of his petition seeking a writ of error coram nobis, claiming that Judge Donald H. Allen erred by summarily dismissing the petition while Petitioner’s motion to recuse Judge Joseph T. Howell was pending. We conclude that Petitioner is not entitled to relief and affirm the summary dismissal of the petition. However, we remand for Judge Howell to enter a written order granting the recusal motion. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jennifer Ruth Barber
The Defendant, Jennifer Ruth Barber, appeals from the Montgomery County Circuit Court’s probation revocation of her eight-year sentence for possession of methamphetamine. On appeal, she contends that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering her to serve her sentence. We affirm the court’s judgment. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jerry Irve Buckner a/k/a Jerry Irvin Buckner
The Defendant, Jerry Buckner, was convicted by a Davidson County Criminal Court jury of second degree murder, a Class A felony, and unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, a Class B felony. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-210 (2018) (second degree murder), 39-17-1307(b)(1)(A) (2018) (subsequently amended) (unlawful firearm possession). The trial court sentenced the Defendant to serve concurrent sentences of forty years for second degree murder and twenty years for the firearm possession. On appeal, he contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions and that the trial court erred in declining to instruct the jury on the defense of self-defense. We affirm the judgments of the trial court and remand for correction of a clerical error on the judgment for the firearm conviction. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re Ann Blankenship (d/b/a Ann Blankenship Bonding)
The appellant, Ann Blankenship d/b/a Ann Blankenship Bonding, appeals her suspension from writing bonds in the Twenty-Fourth Judicial District due to her failure to comply with the applicable statutes. Based upon the record, the parties’ briefs, and oral argument, we affirm that decision of the trial court. |
Decatur | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Charles R. Johnson v. State of Tennessee
After being convicted of several drug offenses, Charles R. Johnson, Petitioner, was sentenced to an effective thirty-year sentence. State v. Johnson, No. E2021-01106-CCA-R3-CD, 2023 WL 3535344, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. May 18, 2023), no perm. app. filed. Petitioner's direct appeal was unsuccessful. He sought post-conviction relief by filing a pro se petition in which he argued that trial counsel was ineffective and that his due process rights were violated in various ways. The post-conviction court summarily dismissed the petition without appointment of counsel. On appeal, Petitioner argues that the post-conviction court improperly dismissed the petition. After a review, we affirm the post-conviction court's summary dismissal of Petitioner's standalone due process claims. However, we reverse and remand the post-conviction court's summary dismissal of Petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel without appointment of counsel or a hearing. Consequently, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. On remand, the post-conviction court should appoint counsel for Petitioner, allow Petitioner to amend his pro se petition, and hold a hearing on the petition. |
Anderson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Antonio Gipson
A Knox County jury convicted the Defendant, Antonio Gipson, of second degree murder and unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and the trial court imposed a sentence of forty years. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the evidence is legally insufficient to support his conviction for second degree murder. He also asserts that the trial court erred by (1) finding that prior threats made by the victim were hearsay; and (2) excluding a video of the victim displaying a firearm in the weeks before the shooting. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Dale Merritt
Petitioner, Dale Merritt, appeals the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, filed pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1. Following our review of the entire record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Bryant Donaldson, Jr.
Defendant, Bryant Donaldson, Jr, pled guilty to one count of especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor and six counts of aggravated statutory rape, with the trial court to determine the manner and length of sentence. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed an effective twenty-three-year sentence. Defendant appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in admitting his psychosexual evaluation and a victim impact statement at sentencing and that the trial court misapplied enhancement factors. Upon our review of the entire record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Wilson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Dunford
Defendant, Michael Dunford, appeals as of right from his jury convictions for two counts |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re Bail U Out Bonding
When Daniel Barillas failed to appear for a scheduled court appearance, the trial court entered a conditional forfeiture against Mr. Barillas and Bail U Out Bonding (“Bail U Out”). Bail U Out moved for exoneration of the bail bond, claiming that Mr. Barillas had been deported. Following a hearing, the trial court ordered forfeiture of the full amount of the bond. After a thorough review, we determine that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and affirm the judgment. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jamauri Ransom v. Jerry Wardlow, Warden
The pro se Petitioner, Jamauri Ransom, appeals the Hardeman County Circuit Court’s order granting the State of Mississippi’s request that he be extradited to Mississippi on a murder indictment. We conclude that the Petitioner has waived consideration of his claim regarding the alleged invalidity of the extradition paperwork by failing to include an adequate record for appellate review. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Julian Summers
Defendant, Julian Summers, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of first degree murder, tampering with evidence, and abuse of a corpse. As the thirteenth juror, the trial court affirmed the verdicts as to the first degree murder and abuse of a corpse but dismissed the verdict as to tampering with evidence. The trial court sentenced Defendant to a total effective sentence of life imprisonment plus two years. On appeal, Defendant claims that 1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his video-recorded statement to the police; 2) the trial court abused its discretion by permitting the State to call the forensic evaluator as a rebuttal witness; 3) the evidence was insufficient to support his first degree murder conviction; and 4) the trial court abused its discretion by imposing consecutive sentences. Upon review of the entire record, the briefs of the parties and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Alonzo Hoskins v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Alonzo Hoskins, appeals from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief challenging his 2019 convictions for felony murder and especially aggravated robbery. The Petitioner argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel due to trial counsel’s failure to request a post-trial inquiry into a juror who had expressed difficulty hearing portions of the trial. The State counters that the post-conviction court correctly denied relief. Based on our review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Destiny Diamond Baxter and Anthony Wayne Sheffield
A Maury County jury convicted Destiny Diamond Baxter and Anthony Wayne Sheffield of first degree premeditated murder, attempted first degree murder, especially aggravated robbery, two counts of felony murder, and abuse of a corpse. Defendant Sheffield was also convicted of possessing a firearm with a prior conviction for a crime of violence and employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. The jury determined that both Defendants should serve life in prison without the possibility of parole for the homicide offenses. As for the remaining convictions, the trial court sentenced Defendant Baxter to an additional twenty-two years and sentenced Defendant Sheffield to a further thirty-five years. On appeal, both Defendants challenge whether the evidence is legally sufficient to support their convictions. Defendant Sheffield also argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to sever the Defendants’ cases and admitting photographs of the homicide victim into evidence during the jury’s sentencing phase. Further, Defendant Sheffield argues that the trial court improperly sentenced him for the other convictions by failing to consider the risk and needs assessment, miscalculating the range, and imposing consecutive sentences beyond his life term. Upon our review, we conclude that a harmless error exists in failing to issue a limiting instruction as requested by Defendant Sheffield, and we also remand the judgments for correction of clerical errors. However, we respectfully affirm the judgments of the trial court in all other respects. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals |
