State of Tennessee v. Ronald Turner
The Defendant, Ronald Turner, was convicted of three counts of attempted second degree murder when he fired a single shot through a glass door at his child, the mother of his child, and her roommate. The Defendant was also convicted of three counts of employing a firearm in the commission of a dangerous felony and one count of unlawful possession of a handgun with the intent to go armed in a public place where at least one person is present. The Defendant’s convictions for the three counts of attempted second degree murder and the conviction for possession of a handgun were enhanced after the jury found that the gang enhancement statute applied. The Defendant appeals, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and the constitutionality of the gang enhancement statute. We conclude that the evidence is insufficient to support two of the convictions for attempted second degree murder, and we reverse these convictions and the weapons offenses predicated on them. The Defendant raised the constitutional argument for the first time in the motion for a new trial, and the State argues that the issue is waived. We conclude that the statute is unconstitutional and that the Defendant is entitled to relief from the gang enhancement applied to his sentences. We affirm the judgments of the trial court in all remaining respects. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re Travis H.
Father appeals the termination of his parental rights on grounds of: (1) failure to substantially comply with permanency plans; (2) abandonment by failure to establish a suitable home; (3) persistence of conditions, (4) abandonment by an incarcerated parent for wanton disregard; and (5) abandonment by an incarcerated parent for willful failure to support. We vacate the trial court’s determination regarding the ground of abandonment by an incarcerated parent for willful failure to support, but otherwise affirm the trial court’s determinations regarding the remaining grounds for termination. We likewise affirm the trial court’s determination that termination of Father’s parental rights is in the child’s best interest. Accordingly, we affirm the termination of Father’s parental rights. |
Jefferson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Michael Clark v. State of Tennessee
Michael Clark (“the Petitioner”) was indicted for second degree murder and attempted second degree murder in a single indictment. In his first trial, the Petitioner was convicted of attempted second degree murder, and a mistrial was declared as to the charge of second degree murder. In the second trial, the Petitioner was convicted of the lesser-included offense of voluntary manslaughter. The Petitioner was sentenced to twenty years as a multiple offender for attempted second degree murder and to fifteen years as a persistent offender for voluntary manslaughter to be served consecutively. The Petitioner filed a single petition for post-conviction relief alleging that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel in both trials, which the post-conviction court denied following a hearing. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel during his first trial are properly before this court, that first and second trial counsel’s representations were deficient, and that he was prejudiced by those deficiencies. After a thorough review of the record and applicable case law, we affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of relief from the judgment entered in the second trial and dismiss the Petitioner’s appeal related to the judgment entered in the first trial because the petition was not filed within one year of the date our supreme court denied the application for permission to appeal. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Corey Jermaine Hart
The Defendant, Corey Jermaine Hart, appeals from the trial court’s dismissal of his motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 for failure to assert a colorable claim. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Henderson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Wynell Ford
The Defendant, Wynell Ford, pled guilty in the Madison County Circuit Court to convicted felon in possession of a firearm with a prior violent felony, a Class C felony, and was sentenced by the trial court as a multiple offender to ten years in the Department of Correction at thirty-five percent. On appeal, he challenges the trial court’s denial of his request for alternative sentencing. Following our review, we affirm the sentencing determinations of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Carvin L. Thomas
The Appellant, Carvin L. Thomas, filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence in the Davidson County Criminal Court pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1. The trial court summarily dismissed the motion, and the Appellant appeals the ruling. Based upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Reginold C. Steed
A Davidson County jury convicted the Defendant, Reginold C. Steed, of attempted voluntary manslaughter, especially aggravated robbery, and aggravated assault. The trial court merged the aggravated assault conviction into the especially aggravated robbery conviction and imposed an effective sentence of twenty-seven years. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the jury returned inconsistent verdicts; (2) the trial court erred in declining to merge the attempted voluntary manslaughter conviction into the especially aggravated robbery conviction; and (3) his sentences are excessive. Upon reviewing the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Dequan Hasani Bertrand
A Davidson County jury convicted the Defendant, Dequan Hasani Bertrand, of aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, and employment of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. The jury acquitted the Defendant of one count of aggravated rape and was unable to reach a verdict as to two other counts of aggravated rape. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to a total effective sentence of twenty-four years. On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the trial court erred when it admitted the victim’s identification of him; (2) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions; and (3) the trial court erred when it sentenced him to the maximum sentences within his range and ordered his sentences to run consecutively. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Henry Epps v. State of Tennessee
Henry Epps (“the Petitioner”) entered a best interest plea to six counts of sexual exploitation of a minor; the remaining nine counts of sexual exploitation of a minor were dismissed per the negotiated plea agreement. The Petitioner received an effective sentence of eight years with release eligibility after service of 100% of the sentence in the Department of Correction. The Petitioner filed an original and an amended petition for post-conviction relief. After an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that trial counsel’s performance was deficient in failing to subpoena the Petitioner’s computer forensic expert to testify at trial and in failing to inform the Petitioner until the Friday before his Monday trial that the expert had not been subpoenaed. Petitioner claims that absent trial counsel’s deficient performance, the Petitioner would have proceeded to trial, and therefore the Petitioner’s best interest plea was entered involuntarily. After a thorough review of the record and applicable case law, we reverse and remand for a new post-conviction hearing. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Dewayne Hall
The Defendant, Michael Dewayne Hall, was convicted by a Blount County Jury of sale or delivery of cocaine under 0.5 grams in the drug-free zone of a public park, a Class C felony, and sale or delivery of cocaine over 0.5 grams in the drug-free zone of a public park, a Class B felony. As a career offender, he received an effective sentence of thirty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant claims: (1) the trial court improperly admitted a map into evidence at trial; (2) the trial court improperly denied his motion to dismiss the indictment; (3) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions; and (4) the trial court improperly acted as thirteenth juror to approve the jury’s verdict. We conclude that the trial court properly admitted the map, denied the motion to dismiss, and acted as thirteenth juror, and that the evidence is sufficient to sustain the Defendant’s convictions. However, after a plain error review, the duplicitous nature of the Defendant’s convictions for “sale or delivery” of cocaine constitutes reversible error and violates the Defendant’s fundamental and substantial right to a unanimous jury verdict. Accordingly, we reverse, vacate, and dismiss the Defendant’s convictions. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Juan Cerano
The Defendant, Juan Cerano, was convicted of rape of a child and aggravated sexual battery. The trial court merged the aggravated sexual battery conviction into the rape of a child conviction and sentenced the Defendant to thirty years in prison. On appeal, he contends that the trial court erred by denying his motion to produce records from the Department of Children’s Services regarding prior allegations of abuse after an in camera inspection. After reviewing the record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Johnson
The Defendant, Christopher Johnson, was convicted by a Hardin County Jury of possession of mushrooms with intent to manufacture, deliver, or sell, possession of mushrooms, possession of drug paraphernalia, and unlawful possession of a weapon by a convicted felon. As a Range II, multiple offender, he received an effective sentence of fifteen years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant claims: (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction of unlawful possession of a weapon by a convicted felon; (2) the trial court improperly denied his motion to suppress; (3) the trial court improperly admitted a redacted audio recording of the Defendant’s interview with police at trial; and (4) the State committed prosecutorial misconduct by failing to provide discoverable evidence and improperly quoting a witness during closing argument. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court but remand for entry of a corrected judgment form as to count four reflecting that the Defendant was found not guilty of possession of marijuana. |
Hardin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jacqueline Allen
The Defendant, Jacqueline Allen, was found guilty by a Humphreys County Circuit Court jury of assault, a Class A misdemeanor, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, a Class E felony. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-101 (2010) (amended 2013), 39-17-1307 (2010) (amended 2012, 2014). The trial court sentenced the Defendant as Range I, standard offender to an effective two years’ probation. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred by failing to inquire about a violation of the sequestration rule pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Evidence 615. We conclude that the appeal should be dismissed because the Defendant’s motion for a new trial was untimely. |
Humphreys | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. David Scott Hall
The Appellant, David Scott Hall, was convicted in the Davidson County Criminal Court of attempted especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor, a Class C felony, and sentenced to four years to be served as one year in confinement and the remainder on supervised probation. On appeal, the Appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction, that the trial court erred by allowing an expert witness to give irrelevant and highly prejudicial testimony, that he is entitled to coram nobis relief, that his right to a speedy trial was violated, that the trial court erred by allowing the State to introduce evidence without showing a proper chain of custody, that the trial court erred by allowing the State to play only a portion of a controlled telephone call to the Appellant, that the trial court erred by allowing the victim to testify about habit, that the trial court erred by allowing the State to introduce into evidence a letter supposedly written by the Appellant, and that the trial court erred by allowing the State to make improper closing arguments. Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction, that the trial court erred by allowing a witnesses to give irrelevant testimony but that the error was harmless, that the Appellant is not entitled to coram nobis relief, and that his right to a speedy trial was not violated. Finding no plain error as to the remaining issues, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Bobby Joe Campbell
The defendant, Bobby Joe Campbell, appeals his Sullivan County Criminal Court jury conviction of second offense driving under the influence (“DUI”), arguing that the trial court committed plain error by failing to declare a mistrial following certain comments from a member of the jury, that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, and that the sentence is excessive. We affirm the judgment of the trial court but remand the case for the entry of a corrected judgment that reflects the 180-day period of confinement ordered by the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Thomas Braden
The Appellee, Thomas Braden, was indicted for possession of cocaine, possession of marijuana, and possession of Alprazolam, all misdemeanors. He filed a motion to suppress the evidence, arguing that the affidavit in support of the search warrant for the home in which the drugs were found was defective because it failed to establish ongoing criminal activity at the residence, and the Maury County Circuit Court granted the motion. The State appealed to this court, and we concluded that the trial court properly granted the motion to suppress. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted the State’s application for permission to appeal and remanded the case to this court for reconsideration in light of the court’s recent opinion in State v. Jerry Lewis Tuttle, ___ S.W.3d ___, M2014-00566-CCA-R3-CD, 2015 WL 5812945 (Tenn. Apr. 5, 2017), which overruled State v. Jacumin, 778 S.W.2d 430 (Tenn. 1989), and adopted a totality-of-the-circumstances analysis for determining whether an affidavit establishes probable cause for issuance of a search warrant. Upon reconsideration, we again conclude that the trial court properly granted the motion to suppress. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Garry Baker
The Defendant, Garry Baker, was convicted by a Rutherford County Circuit Court jury of attempt to commit voluntary manslaughter, a Class D felony, and two counts of aggravated assault, Class C felonies. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-211 (2014), 39-12-101 (2014), 39-13-102 (2014). The trial court merged the convictions into a single count of aggravated assault and sentenced the Defendant as a Range II, multiple offender to eight years to be served consecutively to a previously imposed sentence. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred (1) by permitting the State to introduce evidence of his previous conviction and (2) by imposing consecutive service. We reverse the judgments of the trial court and remand the case for a new trial. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Raquel Hayes v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Raquel Hayes, appeals from the dismissal of her petition for postconviction relief. At oral argument, the State acknowledged that the post-conviction court erred, and we agree. As a result, the judgment of the Criminal Court is reversed and the matter is remanded for a full evidentiary hearing. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John N. Porterfield
The Defendant, John N. Porterfield, appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Rule 36.1 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure. Because the challenged sentences are expired, the Defendant is not entitled relief. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ricky Thompson
Defendant, Ricky Thompson, appeals from his conviction for reckless aggravated assault, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion when it failed to declare a mistrial after a potential juror made highly prejudicial remarks that undermined the authority of the trial proceedings and contaminated the rest of the venire. Additionally, Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted photographs of surgical procedures performed on the victim. Following our review, we conclude that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in denying the Defendant’s motion for a mistrial. Additionally, we conclude that the surgical photographs were improperly admitted into evidence but find the error to be harmless. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ricky Thompson - dissenting opinion
I agree with the majority’s discussion of the photographs and subsequent legal analysis of their admissibility; however, I do not agree that the error in admitting the surgical photographs was harmless. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ashley Bradshaw v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Ashley Bradshaw, appeals the denial of post-conviction relief from her 2013 Shelby County Criminal Court jury convictions of aggravated child abuse, aggravated child neglect, and aggravated child endangerment, for which she received a sentence of 20 years. In this appeal, the petitioner contends only that she was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Timothy Lamar Baker
The defendant, Timothy Lamar Baker, appeals the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea arguing that he provided fair and just reasons in support of his motion and that the trial court failed to engage in the proper analysis. After our review of the record, briefs and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jeffrey Douglas Gwinn
Defendant, Jeffrey Douglas Gwinn, was convicted of driving under the influence of an intoxicant (“DUI”). On appeal, he argues: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction; (2) the trial court erred by permitting the arresting officer to testify about Defendant’s fitness to drive a motor vehicle and his performance on field sobriety tests; and (3) the State committed prosecutorial misconduct during its rebuttal closing argument. We conclude that the evidence was sufficient and that the lay opinion testimony was proper. We also conclude that remarks in the State’s rebuttal were improper, but we find the error to be harmless. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joseph L. Smith
Joseph L. Smith (“the Defendant”) was convicted of attempted arson under a theory of criminal responsibility and received a three-year sentence; he was ordered to serve one year in the workhouse and the remainder of the sentence on community corrections. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred in its denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal and his motion for new trial because the testimony of the accomplices was not sufficiently corroborated by independent evidence. The Defendant also contends that the evidence introduced at trial was insufficient for a rational juror to have found him guilty of attempted arson beyond a reasonable doubt and that the trial court should not have instructed the jury on the offense of attempted arson. After a thorough review of the record and applicable case law, we affirm. |
Henry | Court of Criminal Appeals |
