Matthew B. Foley v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Matthew B. Foley, appeals as of right from the Rutherford County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief as untimely. He asserts that the statute of limitations should be tolled because he did not learn until well after its expiration that the State sought to enforce the provisions of the sexual offender registration act against him contrary to the terms of his plea agreement. Following our review, we reverse the judgment of the post-conviction court and remand the case for an evidentiary hearing. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Paula Shotwell
The Defendant, Paula Shotwell, was convicted after a bench trial in the Criminal Court for Shelby County of theft of property valued at more than $500 but less than $1000, a Class E felony. See T.C.A. §§ 39-14-103; 39-14-105 (2014). The trial court sentenced the Defendant to two years' probation. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support her conviction and (2) the State violated her due process rights by failing to preserve the stolen items as evidence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Hawkins
Defendant, James Hawkins, appeals his convictions for two counts of rape of a child. Defendant raises four issues: (1) whether there was a fatal variance between the original indictments and the offenses elected by the State; (2) whether the trial court erred by admitting the forensic interview of one of the victims; (3) whether the State failed to properly elect offenses; and (4) whether there was sufficient evidence to support his convictions beyond a reasonable doubt. Based upon our review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Grico Clark v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Grico Clark, appeals as of right from the Madison County Circuit Court’s dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. The Petitioner contends that he received ineffective assistance from his trial counsel due to (1) trial counsel inaccurately advising him about his potential sentencing exposure causing the Petitioner to reject a favorable plea offer from the State; (2) trial counsel “failing to properly advise” the Petitioner about his right to testify at trial; (3) trial counsel “failing to properly communicate” to the Petitioner the results of a mental competency evaluation; and (4) trial counsel failing to raise on direct appeal an “issue regarding a conflict of interest.” Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Andrew T. Lee v. State of Tennessee
In 2012, a Rutherford County jury found the Petitioner, Andrew T. Lee, guilty of especially aggravated burglary, aggravated assault, tampering with evidence, evading arrest, and resisting arrest. The trial court sentenced the Petitioner to a total effective sentence of ten years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The Petitioner filed a petition seeking post-conviction relief, which the post-conviction court denied after a hearing. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel and that he was denied his right to a speedy trial due to the delay between his conviction and sentencing. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Travis Kinte Echols v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Travis Kinte Echols, was convicted of felony murder perpetrated during the commission of a robbery and was sentenced to life in prison. Following an unsuccessful direct appeal, he petitioned for post-conviction relief from his conviction. The post-conviction court denied relief, and this appeal follows. Petitioner seeks review of four issues: (1) whether trial counsel was ineffective for failure to contemporaneously object to the introduction of character evidence pertaining to the victim; (2) whether the State violated the tenets of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), by withholding a witness statement; (3) whether the trial court erred by precluding trial counsel from questioning the primary investigator with regard to the polygraph results of a witness; and (4) whether the trial court erred by sequestering petitioner's private investigator. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Robin Dale Arthur
The Defendant, Robin Dale Arthur, pled guilty to aggravated assault in exchange for a five-year and six-month sentence as Range I, standard offender. Thereafter, the trial court denied any form of alternative sentencing based upon the Defendant’s history of criminal convictions and criminal behavior. The Defendant appeals, arguing that he is a suitable candidate for alternative sentencing pursuant to the statutory considerations outlined in Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-103(1)(A)-(C). Following our review, we discern no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s alternative sentencing decision. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tabitha Lynn Hughes
The defendant, Tabitha Lynn Hughes, appeals her Tipton County Circuit Court jury conviction of driving under the influence, claiming that the trial court erred by denying her pretrial motion to dismiss based upon the State's failure to timely commence prosecution and by admitting certain evidence at trial. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Tipton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Lloyd Arlan Jones
The Defendant, Lloyd Arlan Jones, appeals as of right from his jury conviction for domestic assault. The Defendant contends that the trial court erred by admitting several hearsay statements into evidence and by declining to charge domestic assault by extremely offensive or provocative physical contact as a lesser-included offense of domestic assault by causing bodily injury. Furthermore, he submits that the cumulative result of these errors entitles him to a new trial. Following our review, we discern no error and affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joe Clark Mitchell
The Defendant, Joe Clark Mitchell, was convicted in 1986 of two counts of aggravated kidnapping, two counts of aggravated rape, two counts of armed robbery, two counts of aggravated assault, arson, and first degree burglary and received an effective sentence of three consecutive life sentences plus thirteen years. In 2015, the Defendant filed a motion for correction of the sentences pursuant to Tennessee Criminal Procedure Rule 36.1 contending that his life without the possibly of parole sentences were illegal because such sentences did not exist at the time of the offenses. The trial court summarily dismissed the motion upon finding that the Defendant received life imprisonment sentences, not life without the possibility of parole, and that his sentences were not illegal. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred by dismissing the motion and by imposing the costs against him. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ernest Willard Dodd v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Ernest Willard Dodd, appeals as of right from the Warren County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, wherein he challenged his convictions for initiating a process intended to result in the manufacture of methamphetamine and attempt to promote the manufacture of methamphetamine. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel based on counsel’s failure (1) to adequately advise him regarding the admissibility of his prior convictions if he chose to testify and (2) to call a “material” witness for the defense. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Warren | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Patrick Gaia
The defendant, Patrick Gaia, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court's order declaring him a motor vehicle habitual offender (“MVHO”), arguing that the trial court erred by entering a default judgment where the State failed to comply with the terms of the MVHO statute and Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure for service of process. Because the record reflects that neither the State nor the trial court complied with the necessary procedural requirements, we vacate the judgment declaring the defendant an MVHO. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Michael Davis v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Michael Davis, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court's denial of his petition for a writ of error coram nobis regarding his 2013 conviction for second degree murder and his resulting sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The coram nobis court denied relief on the grounds that the purported evidence was not newly discovered and that it was cumulative to evidence presented at the trial. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the court erred by denying relief. We affirm the judgment of the coram nobis court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kenneth Greene
Appellant was convicted of burglary other than a habitation and was sentenced to four years, suspended to probation, on January 30, 2013. A probation violation report was filed alleging that appellant had violated the terms of his probation by testing positive for marijuana, by being in possession of an adulterated urine specimen, and by failing to pay court costs. Following a probation revocation hearing, the trial court revoked appellant’s probation and ordered his sentence into execution. On appeal, appellant argues that because of his admission to his probation officer about his drug problem and his voluntarily seeking drug treatment for the same, he should have been allowed to complete his inpatient drug treatment program rather than have his probation revoked in full. Upon our review of appellant’s revocation, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Polk | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ellis Hardin v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Ellis Hardin, appeals the denial of post-conviction relief from his 2014 Rutherford County Circuit Court guilty-pleaded convictions of aggravated sexual battery and attempted aggravated sexual battery, for which he received an effective sentence of 15 years. In this appeal, the petitioner contends that his guilty pleas were not knowingly and voluntarily entered and that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Freeman Ray Harrison, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Freeman Ray Harrison, Jr., appeals as of right from the Rutherford County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, wherein he challenged his convictions for two counts of aggravated sexual battery and one count of reckless endangerment. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel based on counsel’s failure to (1) discuss the bill of particulars with him; (2) discuss the possibility of filing a motion to sever the offenses; and (3) retain medical experts. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ralph T. O'Neal v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Ralph T. O’Neal, appeals as of right from the Davidson County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. He claims entitlement to habeas corpus relief, alleging that the trial court did not have the jurisdiction or authority to sentence him for Class B felony cocaine possession because he was indicted only for Class C possession, and the record was devoid of any evidence that he consented to an amendment or waived his right to indictment at the guilty plea proceedings. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Toby Lynn Young
A Warren County jury found the Defendant, Toby Lynn Young, guilty of theft over $10,000, evading arrest, and driving on a suspended license, second offense. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to a total effective sentence of twelve years’ incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the trial court’s failure to properly instruct the jury on identity pursuant to State v. Dyle, 899 S.W.2d 607 (Tenn. 1995). Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Warren | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Cory Shane Rollins v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Cory Shane Rollins, appeals from the denial of his petition for post conviction relief, wherein he challenged his jury convictions for aggravated robbery, evading arrest, and driving under the influence. On appeal, the Petitioner raises the following ineffective assistance of counsel claims: (1) whether trial counsel failed to convey a plea offer made by the State; and (2) whether trial counsel failed to adequately apprise him of his right to testify. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Darrell Ray Beene
A Davidson County jury convicted the Defendant, Darrell Ray Beene, of aggravated robbery, and the trial court sentenced him to twenty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The trial court ordered that the Defendant’s sentence be served consecutively to the Defendant’s forty-two year sentence in another case. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction and that his sentence is excessive. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities, we affirm the Defendant’s conviction and sentence. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William Franklin Robinette
The defendant, William Franklin Robinette, appeals from his Greene County Criminal Court jury convictions of solicitation to commit first degree murder, claiming that the sentence imposed by the trial court was excessive. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Kenneth Lee Anderson v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Kenneth Lee Anderson, appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that he was denied the right to appellate counsel on direct appeal. After review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court denying the petition for post-conviction relief. |
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
George Harvey v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, George Harvey, appeals the denial of post-conviction relief from his 2013 Shelby County Criminal Court guilty-pleaded conviction of second degree murder, for which he received a sentence of 15 years. In this appeal, the petitioner contends that his guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered and that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. David Burrows
Aggrieved of his Shelby County Criminal Court jury convictions of first degree murder and especially aggravated kidnapping, the defendant, David Burrows, appeals, claiming that the trial court erred by refusing to remove a juror for cause, by admitting autopsy photographs of the victim, and by admitting evidence of the defendant's 2008 domestic assault of the victim and that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Mario Hawkins v. Michael Parris, Warden
Petitioner, Mario Hawkins, was convicted of first degree murder in 1996. On December 31, 2014, he filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, alleging that his judgment was void because he was not granted pretrial jail credits. The habeas corpus court summarily dismissed the petition based on petitioner's failure to follow the documentary requirements of the habeas corpus statutes. Following our review, we affirm the summary dismissal of the petition. |
Lake | Court of Criminal Appeals |
