Earl David Crawford v. James Holloway, Warden
In 1986, the Petitioner, Earl David Crawford, was convicted of aggravated rape, aggravated kidnapping, and armed robbery, and he received two life sentences plus thirty-five years. In 1987, this Court affirmed the trial court's judgments on direct appeal. State v. Earl David Crawford, CCA No. 258, 1987 WL 19611, at *1-2 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxville, Nov. 10, 1987), perm. app. denied (Tenn. March 14, 1988). In 2014, the Petitioner filed a petition, his second, for a writ of habeas corpus, in which he alleged that his judgments of conviction were void because the trial court erred when it considered his "status as a parolee" to enhance his sentence. The habeas corpus court summarily dismissed the Petitioner's petition. We affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Roger Gordon Brookman, Jr.
The appellant, Roger Gordon Brookman, Jr., filed a motion in the Davidson County Criminal Court, seeking expunction of dismissed charges. The trial court denied the motion, and the appellant appeals. Upon review, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for expunction of the charges. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joshua L. Carter and Adonis Lashawn McLemore
Appellant Joshua L. Carter was convicted in case 2011-B-1648 of the sale of less than .5 grams of cocaine in a drug-free zone, a Class B felony; possession with the intent to sell or deliver more than .5 grams of cocaine in a drug-free zone, a Class A felony; simple possession of marijuana, a Class A misdemeanor; and evading arrest, a Class A misdemeanor. As a Range II, multiple offender, his effective sentence in case 2011-B-1648 was forty years. Appellant Carter was convicted in case 2011-D-3013 of felony murder; attempted especially aggravated robbery, a Class B felony; and voluntary manslaughter, a Class C felony that the trial court merged with the felony murder conviction. For these offenses, appellant Carter received an effective life sentence, consecutive to his effective forty-year sentence in case 2011-B-1648. Appellant McLemore was convicted in case 2011-D-3013 of facilitation of especially aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, and facilitation of felony murder, a Class A felony. Appellant McLemore, as a Range III, persistent offender, received an effective sentence of fifty years. On appeal, appellant Carter argues that evidence was insufficient to support his convictions in both cases and that in case 2011-D-3013, the trial court erred under Tennessee Rule of Evidence 609 by allowing the State to impeach him with a prior conviction for selling drugs. Appellant McLemore argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joshua L. Carter and Adonis Lashawn McLemore - Concurring opinion
I concur with the majority of the well-written majority opinion. However, based upon my reading of State v. Waller, 118 S.W.3d 368 (Tenn. 2003), I reach a different conclusion only as to the admissibility of the appellant’s 2005 conviction for selling 0.5 grams or less of a Schedule II controlled substance and its probative value for impeachment purpose. As the Waller court observed, a prior drug conviction does “not involve dishonesty or false statement as contemplated by Rule 609.” Id. at 371. In concluding that “prior felony drug convictions are, at best, only slightly probative” of a defendant’s credibility, the court recognized that it had “previously rejected a per se rule that permits impeachment by any and all felony convictions.” Id. at 373, 371. Therefore, I conclude that appellant Carter’s prior conviction was minimally, if at all, probative as to his credibility and that the probative value did not outweigh its prejudicial effect. As a result, I would have ruled it inadmissible. However, I conclude that the error in admitting the conviction was harmless, as appellant Carter has not shown that the error “more probably than not affected the judgment” or resulted “in prejudice to the judicial process.” State v. Rodriguez, 254 S.W.3d 361, 372 (Tenn. 2008). |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Lawrence Freeze v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Lawrence Freeze, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The petitioner pled nolo contendere to aggravated sexual battery and rape, both Class B felonies, and received an effective sentence of ten years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he contends that the court erred in denying his petition because he was denied effective assistance of counsel, which resulted in an unknowing and involuntary guilty plea. Specifically, he contends that trial counsel’s failure to be prepared for trial left him with no choice but to accept the agreement. Following review of the record, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief. |
Fentress | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Lamar Mandell Cullom
Appellant, Lamar Mandell Cullom, was convicted in Count I of the indictment of casual exchange of a controlled substance as a lesser-included offense of the indicted offense of sale of cocaine, a Schedule II controlled substance within 1,000 feet of a drug-free zone. He was convicted in Count II of delivery of 0.5 grams or more of cocaine, a Schedule II controlled substance, within 1,000 feet of a drug-free zone. The trial court sentenced him to consecutive terms of eleven months, twenty-nine days and fifteen years, respectively. Appellant now challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence and testimony of a law enforcement officer that allegedly implied that appellant had a prior criminal history. Following our review, we affirm appellant’s convictions. However, we remand for entry of a single judgment form indicating merger of the convictions. The judgment form should reflect that appellant is a Range II, multiple offender and that the mandatory minimum period of incarceration for appellant’s range is twelve years. The judgment form should also note that the “conviction offense name” is “violation – drug-free zone,” not “violation – drug-free school zone.” |
White | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jeremy S. Moore
The Defendant, Jeremy S. Moore, appeals the Dickson County Circuit Court’s order revoking his probation for his convictions for two counts of aggravated burglary and theft of property valued at $1000 or more but less than $10,000 and ordering him to serve the remainder of his effective six-year sentence in confinement. The Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his probation. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Dickson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jerald Jefferson
The defendant, Jerald Jefferson, was convicted of aggravated rape and sentenced to confinement for twenty-five years. On appeal, he argues that this court should utilize a plain error review to consider his claims that the trial court erred in its jury instructions regarding eyewitness testimony and admission by silence, that the State engaged in prosecutorial misconduct in its closing argument, and that the aggregate effect of trial errors entitles him to a new trial. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Scott Lee
The defendant, Scott Lee, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of first degree murder in the perpetration of attempted robbery; two counts of attempted second degree murder, Class B felonies; aggravated robbery, a Class B felony; employing a firearm during the commission of a felony, a Class C felony; and felon in possession of a firearm, a Class E felony. He was sentenced to an effective term of life plus forty-five years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues: (1) that the trial court erred in denying his motion in limine to keep his prior convictions listed in Count 6 of the indictment from being heard and seen by the jury, and (2) that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Scott Lee-Concurring
I respectfully agree with the conclusion reached by the majority in this case. Certainly, the better practice in all convicted felon in possession of a handgun cases is to have a pre-trial written stipulation agreeing that at the time of the offense the defendant had been previously convicted of a crime punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year. However, I write separately to emphasize that a formal stipulation to a defendant’s status as a convicted felon is not necessary to establish the predicate felony. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Preston Rucker v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Preston Rucker, seeking post-conviction relief, argued that trial/appellate counsel was ineffective because he failed to call a certain witness to contradict the victim's testimony and failed to request a jury instruction regarding the kidnapping charge against the petitioner. Following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court concluded that the petitioner failed to show that counsel was ineffective. We have carefully reviewed the matter and affirm the order denying relief to the petitioner. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Mousen Aden v. Brenda Jones Warden
The petitioner, Mousen Aden, appeals the denial of his petition for the writ of habeas corpus. The habeas corpus court dismissed the petition without appointing counsel or holding a hearing after finding that the indictment was valid, the judgment was not facially void, and that the petitioner's sentence had not expired. On appeal, the petitioner contends that his indictment was invalid because it did not vest the trial court with jurisdiction to enter a proper judgment and failed to provide him with adequate protection from double jeopardy. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Charles E. Jones v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Charles E. Jones, appeals the post-conviction court's denial of his petition for DNA testing pursuant to the Post-Conviction DNA Analysis Act of 2001, alleging that DNA testing of glass shards found at the crime scene would have resulted in a more favorable verdict or sentence. The post-conviction court summarily dismissed the petition. Perceiving no error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Larry Lenz
Appellant, Larry Lenz, pleaded guilty to five counts of theft: two counts of theft of property valued at $10,000 or more but less than $60,000, Class C felonies; two counts of theft of property valued at $1,000 or more but less than $10,000, Class D felonies; and one count of theft of property valued at $500 or more but less than $1,000, a Class E felony. He received the agreed-upon effective sentence of twelve years as a Range III, persistent offender, to be served at forty-five percent release eligibility. The trial court denied appellant’s request for alternative sentencing pursuant to the Community Corrections Act, and he appeals the denial. Upon our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Dwight Miller v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Dwight Miller, was convicted of first degree murder in 2001 and was sentenced to life in prison. Following an unsuccessful direct appeal, he now challenges his conviction and sentence, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to call three potential alibi witnesses at trial. Upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Haywood | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kevin Price
Aggrieved of his Shelby County Criminal Court jury convictions of aggravated burglary and theft of property valued at $1,000 or more but less than $10,000, the defendant, Kevin Price, appeals, claiming that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Adam Wayne Robinson
The Defendant, Adam Wayne Robinson, was convicted by a jury of three counts of aggravated sexual battery. The Defendant raises three issues on appeal: prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument, sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the convictions, and cumulative error. During closing argument, the prosecutor improperly commented upon the Defendant’s right not to testify and engaged in a persistent pattern of other improper prosecutorial argument. Following a thorough review, we conclude that the prosecutor’s comments on the Defendant’s right not to testify constitute reversible non-structural constitutional error. Moreover, the record establishes that the prosecutor engaged in a persistent pattern of other improper prosecutorial argument, the cumulative effect of which constitutes plain error. We, therefore, reverse the judgments of the trial court and remand the case for a new trial. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tyrone Leroy Watts
The Defendant, Tyrone L. Watts, appeals his conviction for attempted terrorism. He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and the trial court’s failure to provide complete jury instructions defining what would constitute an “imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.” Following our review, we conclude that the evidence is insufficient to support the Defendant’s conviction for attempted terrorism. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for sentencing on the Defendant’s alternative conviction for disorderly conduct in count one. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Michael White v. Bruce Westbrooks, Warden
The Petitioner, Michael White, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court’s dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief from his 2005 convictions for five counts of rape and his fifty-five-year sentence. The Petitioner contends that the habeas corpus court erred by summarily denying relief. He argues that his convictions are void because his constitutional right to a jury trial was violated by the trial court’s applying erroneous sentencing enhancement factors and that principles of double jeopardy were violated by the court’s merging his convictions. We affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Stanley Bernard Gibson
The defendant, Stanley Bernard Gibson, was charged with the possession of but convicted of facilitation of possession of .5 grams or more of cocaine with intent to deliver within 1000 feet of a drug-free school zone and sentenced, as a Range II, multiple offender, to twelve years at 100%. On appeal, he argues that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict and that the court erred in ordering that he serve his sentence at 100%. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Byron Becton v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Byron Becton, appeals the denial of post-conviction relief from his 2011 Shelby County Criminal Court jury convictions of aggravated rape, claiming that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Poncho Juan Delgado
The Defendant, Poncho Juan Delgado, appeals as of right his jury conviction for first degree premeditated murder. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-202. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the State failed to prove the element of premeditation. The State responds that ample evidence of premeditation was presented. Following our review, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to establish premeditation, and we therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Washington | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Phillip K. Adams
Defendant, Phillip K. Adams, was indicted by the Williamson County Grand Jury for driving under the influence of an intoxicant (DUI), driving while his blood alcohol concentration was .08 percent or more (DUI per se), and DUI, second offense. Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of DUI second offense and sentenced to 11 months and 29 days, to be suspended after serving 60 days in confinement. On appeal, Defendant contends that: 1) the trial court erred by not allowing Defendant to present the expert testimony of his co-worker Travis Adams at trial; 2) the trial court erred by not allowing Defendant to testify as an expert witness at trial; and 3) the trial court deprived Defendant of his right to due process by preventing him from presenting a defense. Having reviewed the record before us and the briefs of the parties, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kenneth Lee Boles
The defendant, Kenneth Lee Boles, was convicted by a Bedford County jury of the introduction of a controlled substance into a penal institution and the possession of a controlled substance in a penal institution, both Class C felonies. After merging the counts into a single conviction, the trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range II, multiple offender to ten years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred by not allowing him to present the testimony of his expert witness and by not instructing the jury on the defense of necessity. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Martez D. Matthews v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Martez D. Matthews, was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. His conviction was affirmed following his direct appeal. State v. Deangelo M. Moody and Martez D. Matthews, No. M2011-01930-CCA-R3-CD, 2013 WL 1932718, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. May 9, 2013), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Oct. 17, 2013). Subsequently, he filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis. The basis for the petition was the claim by a co-defendant, who pled guilty to second degree murder for the killing which resulted in the petitioner’s conviction, that the petitioner was not involved in the crime. Following an evidentiary hearing at which the co-defendant testified that the petitioner did not kill the victim, the court concluded the witness was not truthful in his testimony. Accordingly, the court denied the petition. Following our review, we affirm the order denying the petition. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals |
