State of Tennessee v. Jerry Lewis Tuttle - dissenting in part and concurring in part
I concur with the majority’s opinion in its affirmation of the trial court’s forfeiture order. I respectfully disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the affidavit supporting the search warrant was insufficient to establish probable cause. Instead, I would affirm the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion to suppress and would conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support appellant’s convictions. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Vernon Elliott Lockhart
A Davidson County Criminal Court Jury convicted the appellant, Vernon Elliott Lockhart, of one count of conspiracy to sell 300 pounds or more of marijuana within a drug-free school zone, a Class A felony; one count of possession of 300 pounds or more of marijuana with intent to deliver within a drug-free school zone, a Class A felony; ten counts of money laundering, a Class B felony; one count of possession of ten pounds or more of marijuana with intent to deliver within a drug-free school zone, a Class C felony; and one count of facilitation of possession of ten pounds or more of marijuana with intent to deliver, a Class E felony. After a sentencing hearing, the appellant received an effective ninety-four-year sentence. On appeal, the appellant contends that the trial court erred by refusing to suppress evidence obtained from the wiretaps of various cellular telephones; that the trial court erred by denying his motions to suppress evidence based upon the unlawful attachment of GPS tracking devices on two vehicles and the unlawful GPS tracking of a co-defendant’s cellular telephone; that the trial court erred by denying his motions to suppress evidence seized pursuant to an unlawful search warrant for his home; that the trial court incorrectly ruled that a detective could testify as an expert in the identification and interpretation of drug ledgers; that the trial court improperly limited his cross-examination of a State witness; that the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions; that his effective sentence is excessive; and that cumulative error warrants a new trial. Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the evidence is insufficient to support the appellant’s money laundering convictions in counts 14, 16, and 31. Therefore, those convictions are reversed, and the charges are dismissed. We also conclude that the trial court mistakenly sentenced the appellant in count 36 to the charged offense of possession of ten pounds or more of marijuana with intent to deliver rather than the convicted offense of facilitation, modify the appellant’s sentence for the conviction from four to two years, and remand the case to the trial court for correction of the judgment. The appellant’s remaining convictions and effective ninety-four-year sentence are affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Adrian Wilkerson v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Adrian Wilkerson, appeals pro se from the summary dismissal of his 2014 petition for post-conviction relief, which challenged his 1996 convictions of first degree felony murder, especially aggravated robbery, and theft of property valued at $1000 or more but less than $10,000. Because the petition was filed more than a decade beyond the applicable statute of limitations, because this is the petitioner’s second successive petition for post-conviction relief, and because the petitioner failed to either allege or prove a statutory exception to the timely filing or a due process tolling of the statute of limitations, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tracy Lynn Carman-Thacker
The Defendant, Tracy Lynn Carman-Thacker, was convicted in a bench trial in the Coffee County Circuit Court of twelve counts of unlawful possession of a firearm while subject to an order of protection and twelve counts of violating an order of protection by possessing a firearm, all Class A misdemeanors. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-113 (2014) (violation of an order of protection or restraining order), 39-17-1307 (Supp. 2012) (amended 2014) (unlawful carrying or possession of a weapon). On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying her motion to suppress the evidence found during a search of her house and that the evidence is insufficient to support her convictions. We vacate the Defendant’s convictions and dismiss the charges. |
Coffee | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III
The Defendant-Appellant, Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III, was indicted by the McMinn County Grand Jury for harassment, aggravated perjury, stalking, and extortion. The trial court granted the defense's motion for judgment of acquittal as to the stalking charge after the close of the State's proof at trial, and it was dismissed. The jury convicted Fitzpatrick of aggravated perjury and extortion, Class D felonies, but found Fitzpatrick not guilty of harassment, a Class A misdemeanor. T.C.A. §§ 39-16-703; 39-14-112; 39-17-308. The trial court sentenced Fitzpatrick to concurrent sentences of three years with a release eligibility of thirty percent for his aggravated perjury and extortion convictions and ordered these sentences to be served consecutively to his misdemeanor convictions in Monroe County for disrupting a meeting and resisting arrest in case number 10-213, resisting arrest in case number 11-018, and tampering with government records in case number 12-108.1 On appeal, Fitzpatrick argues: (1) the trial court lacked jurisdiction over his case because a grand jury member voting to indict him was disqualified by reason of interest, and (2) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
McMinn | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Howard Lavelle Tate v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Howard Lavelle Tate, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. After review, we affirm the denial of the petition. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Anesha McKinnon
The Petitioner, Anesha McKinnon, filed a petition for post-conviction relief in the Shelby County Criminal Court, alleging that her trial counsel was ineffective and that her guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered. The post-conviction court denied the petition, and the Petitioner appeals. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Patrick James O'Brien, Jr.
Patrick James O'Brien, Jr., (“the Appellant”) pleaded guilty to reckless homicide and possession of a schedule II drug. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the Appellant was sentenced to concurrent, four-year sentences. The trial court denied alternative sentencing. The Appellant filed an appeal alleging that the trial court erred in denying him alternative sentencing. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Hamblen | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Anthony B. Whitaker
Following a jury trial, Anthony B. Whitaker (“the Defendant”) was convicted of aggravated statutory rape. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred when it did not give the jury a missing witness instruction. Additionally, the Defendant claims that the language in the presentment was deficient because the presentment did not include “recklessly” as a culpable mental state. After review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Roderick D. Tate v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Roderick D. Tate, appeals from the denial of post-conviction relief by the Criminal Court for Knox County. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the Petitioner entered guilty pleas to six drug-related offenses, for which he received an effective twenty-one-year sentence. On appeal, he argues that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel in relation to his guilty pleas because counsel misinformed him regarding the applicable range of punishment. Upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Anthony Phillip James, Sr.
Anthony Phillip James, Sr. (“the Appellant”) was convicted by a Montgomery County jury of aggravated child abuse. On appeal the Appellant alleges that the evidence presented at his trial was insufficient to prove that he knowingly injured the child. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joseph John Volpe
The Defendant, Joseph John Volpe, was found guilty by a Hamilton County Criminal Court jury of attempt to commit second degree murder, a Class B felony, aggravated assault, a Class C felony, and reckless endangerment, a Class E felony. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-210 (2014) (second degree murder), 39-12-101 (2014) (criminal attempt), 39-13-102 (2010) (amended 2011, 2013) (aggravated assault), 39-13-103 (2010) (amended 2011, 2012, 2013) (reckless endangerment). The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I, standard offender to concurrent sentences of ten years for attempted second degree murder, three years for aggravated assault, and one year for reckless endangerment. The court ordered the Defendant to serve eleven months, twenty-nine days in confinement and suspended the remainder of his sentence to probation. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions, (2) the trial court erred by denying his motions to suppress evidence, (3) the trial court erred by admitting inadmissible hearsay in evidence at the trial, (4) the trial court erred by admitting photographs at the trial, and (5) the prosecutor engaged in misconduct during closing argument. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.
|
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Kevin Lewis v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Kevin Lewis, appeals as of right from the Hamilton County Criminal Court’s partial denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to argue to the jury that the State did not prove the element of “sexual contact” accompanying his conviction for aggravated sexual battery and for failing to impeach a witness. In response, the State asserts that the post-conviction court erred when it vacated and dismissed the Petitioner’s conviction for aggravated kidnapping after concluding that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to mount a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence on direct appeal. The State also responds that the post-conviction court did not err when it denied the Petitioner’s remaining claims. Following our review, we reverse the post-conviction court’s ruling dismissing the aggravated kidnapping charge against the Petitioner because we conclude that the court should have vacated the judgment without dismissing the charge in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-30-111. In all other respects, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joseph R. Vibbert
The Defendant, Joseph R. Vibbert, was indicted for two counts of sexual battery by an authority figure, a Class C felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-527. The Defendant pled guilty to one count of sexual battery, a Class E felony, and the second count was dismissed. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-505. The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I, standard offender to two years to be served in confinement. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends (1) that the trial court erred by denying his request for judicial diversion; and (2) that the trial court erred by denying his request for an alternative sentence. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Overton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Billy Jeremy Jones
The Defendant, Billy Jeremy Jones, entered an open guilty plea to felony failure to appear. The trial court, thereafter, sentenced him to four years, as a Range II, persistent offender, and ordered that sentence to run consecutively to the eight-year sentence on the underlying conviction for which the Defendant failed to appear. The sole issue presented for our review is whether the effective twelve-year sentence is excessive. Discerning no abuse of discretion, we affirm the sentencing decision of the Bedford County Circuit Court. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Michael George Medina v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Michael George Medina, appeals from the denial of post-conviction relief by the Criminal Court for Smith County. He was convicted of first degree murder of his wife and sentenced to life imprisonment in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Smith | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Lesergio Duran Wilson
The Defendant-Appellant, Lesergio Duran Wilson, was charged with first degree premeditated murder, and the State filed its notice of intent to seek the death penalty. Wilson then filed a notice of intent to introduce expert testimony regarding his mental diseases, defects, and other mental conditions bearing on his guilt for the charged offense, and the State filed a motion to exclude this expert testimony. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court granted the State’s motion. In this interlocutory appeal, Wilson argues that the trial court erred in ruling that he could not present expert testimony during the guilt/innocence phase of trial regarding his incapacity to form the requisite culpable mental states for the offense. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court and remand this matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Tremaine Roberson v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Termaine Roberson, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. Petitioner contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel based on his trial counsel’s failure to adequately prepare for trial, including failing to call two witnesses at trial and failing to obtain DNA testing of a ski mask worn by one of the perpetrators. Having reviewed the record before us and the briefs of the parties, we conclude that the evidence does not preponderate against the post-conviction court’s findings. Accordingly, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Dennis Lee Arnold
The Defendant, Dennis Lee Arnold, was convicted by a Davidson County Criminal Court jury of two counts of aggravated sexual battery, Class B felonies, and solicitation of a minor, a Class C felony. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-504, 39-13-522, 39-12-102 (2014). The trial court sentenced the Defendant to consecutive terms of eleven years for the aggravated sexual battery convictions at 100% service and five years for the solicitation conviction, for an effective twenty-seven-year sentence. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erroneously admitted prior bad act evidence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b). We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Dennis Lee Arnold - Separate Concurring Opinion
I write separately to highlight the trial court's copious references to “completing the story of the crime” as a basis for allowing testimony that was challenged pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b). |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Eddie James Bright
The defendant, Eddie James Bright, pled guilty to initiation of the process to manufacture methamphetamine, a Class B felony, and, following a sentencing hearing, was sentenced to ten years and one day incarceration. On appeal, he argues that the State breached its contractual obligations to him by mentioning his pending charges at the sentencing hearing, contrary to the plea agreement’s preclusion of the mention of such charges at sentencing. After review, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for a new sentencing hearing. |
Putnam | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Thomas Paul Gagne, Jr.
The petitioner, Thomas Paul Gagne, Jr., appeals the denial of his motion, filed pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1, to correct what he believes to be an illegal sentence. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Billy Drew Massengill v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Billy Drew Massengill, appeals the denial of post-conviction relief from his 2013 Cocke County Circuit Court guilty-pleaded convictions of the sale of less than 0.5 grams of cocaine, the sale and delivery of Oxymorphone, driving on a revoked license, theft of $500 or less, and failure to appear, for which he received an effective sentence of eight 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. |
Cocke | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
George Hardin v. State of Tennessee and Eric Qualls, Warden
The Petitioner, George Hardin, appeals the Bledsoe County Circuit Court’s denial of his third petition for habeas corpus relief from his 1988 conviction for first degree murder and his life sentence. He contends that (1) although he has filed two previous petitions for habeas corpus relief, the arguments contained in the petitions were not considered and (2) the 1990 judgment and a 1996 order are void because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter them. We affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court. |
Bledsoe | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tabitha Gentry aka Re Bey
The Defendant, Tabitha Gentry aka Abka Re Bey, appeals as of right from her Shelby County jury convictions for two counts of aggravated assault and one count of intentionally evading arrest in an automobile. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-13-102, -16-603. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred by: (1) imposing the maximum sentences for each of her convictions; (2) ordering each of her sentences be served consecutively; (3) denying judicial diversion; and (4) denying all other forms of alternative sentencing. Following our review, we conclude that the trial court improperly applied the dangerous offender classification when ordering consecutive sentences. After conducting a de novo review, we conclude that the Defendant’s sentences should have been ordered to run concurrently, rather than consecutively. In all other respects, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals |
