State of Tennessee v. John Russell Giles, Jr.
Following a jury trial, the Defendant, John Russell Giles, Jr., was convicted of premeditated first degree murder and sentenced to imprisonment for life. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-202. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends (1) that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction; (2) that the trial court erred “in refusing to fashion a remedy” for alleged discovery violations made by the State; (3) that the trial court admitted in violation of Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b) evidence that, the day before the murder, the Defendant had conducted internet searches for and visited pornographic websites depicting women being raped; (4) that one of the State's witnesses “perjured himself,” and the trial court did not allow the witness to be recalled for further cross-examination; and (5) that the State was allowed to argue a time of death that differed from the time of death provided in the bill of particulars. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Cumberland | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Branden Michael Toth
Defendant, Branden Michael Toth, appeals after a jury found him guilty of one count of theft of property valued at $60,000 or more and five counts of theft of property valued at $10,000 or more. Defendant was sentenced to an effective sentence of twelve years in incarceration. On appeal, Defendant challenges the trial court‘s failure to charge lesser-included offenses, the trial court‘s handwritten notations on the verdict forms, the trial court‘s failure to dismiss Count 4 of the indictment, the sufficiency of the evidence, and his sentence. After a review, we determine that the trial court dismissed the original Count 5, renumbered the remaining counts of the indictment (Count 7 became Count 6, Count 6 became Count 5) and submitted Count 4 to the jury on a lesser-included offense. Consequently, we affirm the convictions. On remand, the trial court should correct the judgment form in Count 3 to reflect a conviction of theft of property valued at $60,000 or more, hold a hearing on restitution, and correct the offense dates in Counts 5 and 6 to December 16, 2009 and January 2, 2010, respectively. Accordingly, the convictions are affirmed and remanded. |
Washington | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Bobby Lynch
The Defendant, Bobby Lynch, was convicted by a Knox County Criminal Court jury of third offense simple possession or casual exchange of a controlled substance, a Class E felony. See T.C.A. § 39-17-418 (2010) (amended 2014). The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a career offender to six years' confinement. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred by denying him alternative sentencing. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Timothy Damon Carter
A Davidson County jury convicted the Defendant, Timothy Damon Carter, of theft of property valued over $60,000 and of being a felon in possession of a handgun. The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a career offender to a total effective sentence of thirty years in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the trial court erred when it determined that he had forfeited his right to counsel; (2) the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress evidence seized from his vehicle; (3) the trial court erred when it determined that the State had not committed a Brady violation; (4) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction for theft of property valued over $60,000; (5) the trial court erred when it admitted into evidence a business record and an out-of-court statement pursuant to hearsay exceptions; (6) the trial court erred when it declined to bifurcate the felon in possession of a weapon charge; and (7) the trial court erred when it limited the Defendant’s ability to call witnesses to testify. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Anthony Blake Wisdom
The Defendant, Anthony Blake Wisdom, was convicted by a Davidson County Criminal Court jury of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony. See T.C.A. § 39-13-402(a)(1) (2014). The Defendant was sentenced as a Range II, multiple offender to fourteen years. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Billy Cook v. Doug Cook, Warden
The petitioner currently is serving an effective seventy-year sentence following his 2013 guilty pleas to fifty counts of especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor, ten counts of rape of a child, and seventeen counts of aggravated rape of a child. Following an unsuccessful petition for post-conviction relief based upon the alleged ineffectiveness of trial counsel, Billy Jack Cook v. State, No. M2014-00616-CCA-R3-PC, 2015 WL 2445868, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. May 22, 2015), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Aug. 12, 2015), he filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, which appears to be a confusing and convoluted rehash of his post-conviction petition, claiming this time that his trial counsel had “[m]ade up evidence along with the state DA to get [a] guilty plea” and, without providing any details, that his “due process rights were violated.” He has appealed the trial court’s order denying the petition because he had failed to show that the judgments were facially void. Following our review, we affirm the denial of relief, pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Garrick Graham
Defendant, Garrick Graham, and his Co-Defendant, Bashan Murchison, were convicted of numerous drug offenses by a Sullivan County Jury. Specifically, Defendant Graham was convicted of three counts of delivery of .5 grams or more of cocaine (counts 1,3,5), three counts of sale of .5 grams or more of cocaine (counts 2, 4, 6), delivery of .5 grams or more of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a recreation center (count 7), sale of .5 grams or more of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a recreation center (count 8), facilitation of delivery of .5 grams or more of cocaine within 1,000 of a school (count 9), facilitation of .5 grams or more of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school (count 10), facilitation of delivery of .5 grams or more of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a daycare (count 11), facilitation of sale of .5 grams or more of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a daycare (count 12), delivery of .5 grams or more of cocaine (count 13), facilitation of sale of .5 grams or more of cocaine (count 14), conspiracy to sell more than 26 grams of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school (count 21) and conspiracy to deliver more than 26 grams of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school (count 22). The trial court merged counts 1 and 2, counts 3 and 4, counts 5 and 6, counts 7 and 8, counts 9 and 10, counts 11 and 12, counts 13 and 14, and counts 21 and 22. Defendant Graham received twelve-year sentences for the resulting convictions in counts 1, 3, 7, 9, and 13. He received a six-year sentence for count 11, and a 25-year sentence for count 21. The trial court imposed concurrent sentences for counts 1, 3, 5, 11, 13, and 21 to be served consecutively to concurrent sentences in counts 7 and 9 for an effective 37-year sentence. On appeal, Defendant Graham raises the following issues: (1) the trial court erred by denying Defendant Graham's motion for severance of offenses; (2) the trial court erred in denying Defendant Graham's motion for election of theories and/or bill of particulars; (3) the trial court erred in denying Defendant Graham's Batson challenge; (4) the trial court erred in denying Defendant Graham's request to determine the competency of the CI; (5) whether the evidence was sufficient beyond a reasonable doubt to support Defendant's Graham's conspiracy convictions; and (6) whether the trial court correctly sentenced Defendant Graham. Defendant Murchison also filed an appeal which is addressed in a separate opinion of this court. Following our review of the parties' briefs, the record, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Matthew Whitehair
A Rutherford County Circuit Court Jury convicted the appellant, Matthew Whitehair, of two counts of aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony; one count each of incest, statutory rape by an authority figure, and sexual battery by an authority figure, Class C felonies; five counts of attempted incest, a Class D felony; two counts of sexual battery, a Class E felony; and one count of assault, a Class A misdemeanor. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced him to an effective eight-year sentence to be served at 100% followed by seven years on supervised probation. On appeal, the appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions, that the trial court improperly limited cross-examination of the victim pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Evidence 412; that the trial court improperly allowed a nurse practitioner to testify as an expert; that the State committed prosecutorial misconduct; that the verdict as to count seventeen, sexual battery by an authority figure, was not unanimous; that defense counsel should have been allowed to review the victim’s case file from the Department of Children’s Services (DCS); that the appellant’s convictions of aggravated sexual battery must be reduced to child abuse because aggravated sexual battery is not a lesser-included offense of the charged offense of rape of child; and that cumulative error warrants a new trial. Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Marvin E. Potter, Jr.
The Defendant, Marvin E. Potter, Jr., was convicted by a Washington County Criminal Court jury of two counts of premeditated first degree murder, for which he is serving consecutive life sentences. On appeal, he contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions, (2) the trial court erred in admitting hearsay evidence as statements of co-conspirators, (3) the trial court erred in denying the Defendant's motion for a mistrial due to an absent material witness, and (4) the State's use of visual aids during closing argument constituted prosecutorial misconduct. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Washington | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Armand E. Booker, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Armand E. Booker, Jr., appeals the Knox County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his 2014 guilty pleas to especially aggravated kidnapping, aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery, aggravated assault, employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, attempt to commit aggravated robbery, and custodial interference and his effective fifteen-year sentence. The Petitioner contends that (1) his guilty pleas were involuntary and unknowing and (2) he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Doug Harold Morrison
Following a jury trial, Doug Harold Morrison (“the Defendant”) was convicted of theft of property valued at $1,000 or more but less than $10,000. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred when it failed to instruct the jury as to the lesser included offense of attempted theft of property. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Marion | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Thomas A. Isbell
Defendant, Thomas A. Isbell, was convicted of aggravated child abuse after his infant son was brought to Maury Regional Hospital with a spiral fracture of the left humerus. As a result of the conviction, Defendant was sentenced to fifteen years in incarceration as a Range I, standard offender and ordered to serve 100% of the sentence pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-501(i)(1) and (2)(K). He appeals both his conviction and sentence. After a review of the record and applicable authorities, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jose A. Rivas v. Gerald McAllister, Warden
In 2005, the petitioner pled guilty as a career offender to two counts of facilitation of first degree murder, a Class A felony, and he was sentenced to serve an effective sentence of sixty years in prison. On May 22, 2015, the petitioner filed a petition for the writ of habeas corpus, asserting that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because, while his crimes took place in Hancock County, his guilty pleas were entered in Greene County. The trial court dismissed the petition, and the petitioner appeals. On review, we conclude that the judgments are facially valid, and we affirm the dismissal of the petition. |
Johnson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Michael Wayne Davis v. State of Tennessee
Michael Wayne Davis (“the Petitioner”) appeals from the dismissal of his untimely filed petition for post-conviction relief. The Petitioner argues that principles of due process require tolling the statute of limitations to file his petition. Because the record does not justify tolling the statute of limitations, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Thomas A. Isbell - Concurring
I concur in all portions of the majority opinion except the conclusion that the trial court did not violate the holding in Mitchell v. U.S., 526 U.S. 314 (1999). In Mitchell, the Supreme Court held, By holding [the defendant’s] silence against her in determining the facts of the offense at the sentencing hearing, the [trial court] imposed an impermissible burden on the exercise of the constitutional right against compelled self-incrimination. Id. at 330. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kevin Butler
The Defendant-Appellant, Kevin Butler, was convicted by a Rutherford County jury of aggravated robbery and sentenced as a Range II, multiple offender to fourteen years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The sole issue presented for our review is whether the trial court erred in allowing the State to engage in prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument. Upon review, it is necessary to remand this matter for entry of an amended judgment which reflects the sentence as stated in the trial court’s order denying the motion for new trial. In all other respects, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Bruce Lee Robinson
The defendant, Bruce Lee Robinson, pled guilty in 1999 to first degree felony murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment. In 2015, he filed a motion pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1, claiming that his sentence was illegal. The trial court disagreed, dismissing the motion after concluding that it did not present a colorable claim. We agree and affirm the dismissal of the motion, pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ivan Charles Marable
In 1997, the defendant, Ivan Charles Marable, pled guilty to burglary and two charges of possession of a controlled substance. He claims that, although the offenses were committed serially, with the second and third committed while he was on bond, he pled to concurrent three-year sentences. He does not dispute that these sentences have expired. Now an inmate in a federal penitentiary, he filed a motion pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 to correct his alleged illegal sentences and to award jail credits. The trial court granted the motion for an evidentiary hearing but ordered that it would not be held until after the defendant’s release from federal prison. The defendant appealed this order and sought to have a hearing after which he would be allowed to withdraw his pleas of guilty. Based upon the decision of our supreme court in State v. Adrian R. Brown, --- S.W.3d ---, No. E2014-00673-SC-R11-CD, 2015 WL 7748275 (Tenn. Dec. 2, 2015), which was released while the appeal was pending in this matter, we reverse the order of the trial court granting a hearing on the defendant’s motion and direct that his motion be dismissed because the 1997 Tennessee sentences of which he complains have expired. |
Gibson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Anthony John Silva
The defendant, Anthony John Silva, was arrested on suspicion of driving while intoxicated. He filed a motion to suppress the evidence, which the trial court granted. The State now appeals, arguing that the defendant’s arrest was sufficiently supported by probable cause. Following our review of the briefs, the record, and the applicable law, we reverse the judgment of the trial court granting the defendant’s motion to suppress, and we remand for further proceedings. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Anthony John Silva - Dissent
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s holding that the evidence preponderates against the findings of the trial court, thereby finding the Defendant’s warrantless arrest was sufficiently supported by probable cause. I agree with the trial court that the facts and circumstances known to the officer at the time of the arrest were not sufficient to lead a prudent person to believe that the Defendant committed or was committing a DUI offense. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jordan Mansfield Looper v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Jordan Mansfield Looper, pleaded guilty to attempted second degree murder, and the trial court sentenced him to twelve years in confinement. State v. Jordan Mansfield Looper, No. M2012-02523-CCA-R3-CD, 2013 WL 4647629, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 26, 2013). Petitioner unsuccessfully appealed his twelve-year sentence. Id. Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief, and he now appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of relief. Petitioner argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his trial counsel “abandoned” his case and when trial counsel told him that he would receive probation during sentencing. Petitioner further argues that these errors, in addition to his grief after viewing pictures of the victim’s injuries for the first time, resulted in his guilty plea not being knowingly and voluntarily entered. Following our thorough review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Carlos Campbell
Appellant, Carlos Campbell, stands convicted of two counts of aggravated assault, for which the trial court sentenced him to an effective term of six years' incarceration. On appeal, appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions and that his statement to the police should have been suppressed. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joshua Sammy Steadman
The Defendant-Appellant, Joshua Sammy Steadman, appeals the trial court’s order revoking his community corrections sentence. He argues that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his community corrections sentence and ordering him to serve his original sentence in confinement. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Quinton Sanders v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Quinton Sanders, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, the petitioner argues that the post-conviction court failed to make adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding one of his claims, and he argues that trial counsel was ineffective. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Roscoe Graham v. State of Tennessee
In August 2013, Roscoe Graham (“the Petitioner”) was convicted of aggravated sexual battery and sentenced to ten years' incarceration. Thereafter, he filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which was denied after a hearing. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by: (1) failing to assert a viable defense; (2) coercing the Petitioner to waive filing of a motion for new trial and direct appeal; and (3) operating under an actual conflict of interest. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals |
