State of Tennessee v. David Michael Blevins
Appellant, David Michael Blevins, was convicted by a Sullivan County jury of three counts of aggravated sexual battery as lesser-included offenses of the indicted charges, rape of a child. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed three consecutive sentences of ten years each. Appellant raises three issues in this appeal: (1) whether aggravated sexual battery is a lesser-included offense of rape of a child; (2) sufficiency of the convicting evidence; and (3) challenges to the length and alignment of his sentences. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Randall Scott McCoy
Randall Scott McCoy (“the Defendant”) pleaded guilty to one count of sexual exploitation of a minor, a Class B felony, and was sentenced to eight years’ incarceration. The Defendant reserved a certified question of law concerning the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence. Upon our thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Rodricko O. Thomas v. Jerry Lester, Warden
The petitioner, Rodricko O. Thomas, filed a petition for habeas corpus relief in the Lauderdale County Circuit Court. The habeas corpus court summarily dismissed the petition for failure to state a basis on which relief could be granted. On appeal, the petitioner challenges the dismissal, contending that the habeas corpus court should have appointed counsel and held a hearing. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Wilder
The defendant, Michael Wilder, was convicted by a Madison County Circuit Court jury of robbery, a Class C felony, and sentenced by the trial court as a Range III, persistent offender to fourteen years in the Department of Correction. He raises three issues on appeal: (1) whether the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his statement to police; (2) whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain his conviction; and (3) whether the trial court imposed an excessive sentence by misapplying enhancement and mitigating factors and erroneously classifying him as a persistent offender. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Terrence Justin Feaster - concurring in part; dissenting in part
I agree with the majority opinion’s conclusion that the evidence was sufficient to convict appellant. Likewise, I agree with the conclusion that State v. Watkins, 362 S.W.3d 530 (Tenn. 2012), provides the current double jeopardy analysis and that the analysis announced in Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1932), applies retroactively. I respectfully disagree, though, with the majority opinion’s conclusion that a separate due process analysis is unnecessary in the present case, and I believe the separate convictions should be merged. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Terrence Justin Feaster
Appellant, Terrence Justin Feaster, stands convicted of attempted voluntary manslaughter, aggravated assault, and false imprisonment, for which he received consecutive sentences of twelve years as a career offender, fourteen years as a persistent offender, and eleven months, twenty-nine days, respectively. In this appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence underlying his convictions for attempted voluntary manslaughter and aggravated assault. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ronald Bernard Anderson, III
Following a jury trial Defendant, Ronald Bernard Anderson, II, was found guilty as charged of four counts of the Class C felony offense of sexual battery by an authority figure. The trial court imposed a sentence of thee years for each conviction. A combination of concurrent and consecutive sentencing resulted in an effective sentence of six years. As to the manner of service of the sentences, the trial court ordered split confinement: three months incarceration and the balance of the six-year sentence suspended, with supervised probation for twelve years. In this appeal Defendant presents two issues for review. He claims the trial court erred by granting the State’s motion to amend each of the four counts of the indictment over Defendant’s objection because the indictment was defective, and he asserts the evidence was legally insufficient to support the convictions. After review of the entire record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Thomas Paul Gagne Jr. v. Michael Donahue, Warden
The Petitioner, Thomas Paul Gagne, Jr., appeals the Hardeman County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief from his 1998 convictions for two counts of felony murder, aggravated burglary, and two counts of theft of property valued at $500 or less and his effective life sentence. The Petitioner contends that the trial court erred by dismissing his petition without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Sandra Perez
The defendant, Sandra L. Perez, appeals a jury verdict of guilty of Tenn Care fraud, asserting insufficient evidence upon which to base a verdict of guilty. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Wayne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jimmy R. Griffin
The defendant, Jimmy R. Griffin, appeals his Madison County Circuit Court conviction of theft of property valued at more than $1,000 but less than $10,000, challenging the sentence imposed by the trial court. We affirm the denial of alternative sentencing but remand the case for a determination of the proper amount of restitution. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jimmy R. Griffin-Concurring In Part, Dissenting In Part
I respectfully dissent from that portion of the majority opinion which sets aside the order of restitution and remands for another hearing. I disagree that this is an appropriate case to observe “plain error” and would accordingly affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Donquarius Person
The defendant, Donquarius Person, appeals his Shelby County Criminal Court jury convictions of first degree murder, aggravated assault, and two counts of attempted first degree murder, challenging the admission of certain hearsay testimony that was admitted pursuant to the excited utterance exception and the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Cordell Bufford
The defendant, Cordell Bufford, appeals his Shelby County Criminal Court jury conviction of rape of a child, claiming that the trial court erred by refusing to enforce a plea agreement with the State, by denying his request for funds to hire an expert witness, by denying his motions to exclude certain evidence, by prohibiting cross-examination of the victim’s mother about the victim’s previous sexual abuse pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Evidence 412, and by denying his request for a special jury instruction. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Leslie Dean Ritchie, Jr.
A Carter County Criminal Court jury convicted the Defendant-Appellant, Leslie Dean Ritchie, Jr., of two counts of soliciting sexual exploitation of a minor, a Class B felony. See T.C.A. § 39-13-529(a) (Supp. 2009). The trial court sentenced Ritchie as a Range I, standard offender to concurrent sentences of ten years in confinement. Ritchie’s sole issue on appeal is that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his two convictions. Upon review, we remand the case for entry of a corrected judgment in count two to reflect that the jury convicted Ritchie of the offense of soliciting sexual exploitation of a minor rather than that Ritchie entered a guilty plea to this offense and to reflect that the sentence in count two is concurrent with the sentence in count one. In all other respects, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Carter | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James Frederick Hegel v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, James Frederick Hegel, appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of relief from his convictions for rape of a child and incest. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the postconviction court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John Jackson
John Jackson (“the Defendant”) was convicted by a jury of two counts of facilitation of aggravated robbery, one count of aggravated sexual battery, one count of aggravated burglary, and one count of facilitation of theft over $500. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective term of twenty years’ incarceration, to be served at 100%. In this direct appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his pre-trial motion to suppress; erred in failing to determine whether the Defendant’s prior convictions were admissible; erred in failing to grant a continuance after finding error in the State’s notice of intent to seek enhanced punishment; erred in failing to instruct the jury on theft as a lesser-included offense of aggravated robbery; that the evidence was not sufficient to support his conviction of aggravated sexual battery; that the trial court failed to act as thirteenth juror; and that he should not have been sentenced as a Range III offender. Upon our thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Linda Garvin
The defendant, Linda Garvin, pleaded guilty to two counts of the sale of cocaine in the amount of .5 grams or less, Class C felonies. She received two four-year sentences to be served consecutively on probation for an effective sentence of eight years. She admitted to violating the terms of her probation. After a probation revocation hearing, the trial court found that the defendant had violated the terms of her probation and ordered her to serve the remainder of her sentence in the penitentiary. The defendant now appeals, arguing that her right to due process was violated because the trial court revoked her probation without making a sufficient statement as to the evidence relied upon and the reasons for revoking probation and that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking her probation. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Cheryl A. King
Appellant, Cheryl A. King, entered a no contest plea to arson, a Class C felony, and applied for judicial diversion. The trial court denied diversion and sentenced her to three years, suspended to probation. Appellant now appeals from the denial of judicial diversion. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Johnathan R. Johnson
Johnathan R. Johnson (“the Defendant”) was convicted on two counts of driving on a suspended driver’s license, one count of possession of .5 grams or more of a substance containing cocaine with intent to sell or deliver, one count of possession of contraband in a penal institution, and one count of simple possession of marijuana. In this direct appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the trial court erred when it denied his motions to suppress certain evidence; (2) the trial court erred when it admitted evidence of a Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (“TBI”) lab report which the Defendant alleges was not provided in discovery; (3) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for possession of .5 grams or more of a substance containing cocaine with intent to sell or deliver; and (4) the trial court erred in denying alternative sentencing. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgements of the trial court. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Russell Leaks
The defendant, Russell Leaks, pleaded guilty to theft of property over $1,000, burglary of a motor vehicle, and two counts of identity theft and received an effective sentence of twelve years in the Tennessee Department of Correction to be served as a career offender at 60%. The defendant later filed a petition requesting that the trial court suspend the remainder of his sentence and place him on community corrections. The trial court denied the petition, and the defendant appeals. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Craig Thomas
Appellant, James Craig Thomas, was convicted by a Johnson County jury of aggravated assault, a Class C felony. The trial court sentenced him to serve twelve years in the Tennessee Department of Correction as a persistent offender. On appeal, appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, that the assistant district attorney general committed prosecutorial misconduct during his closing argument, and that the trial court’s sentencing was inappropriate. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Johnson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Terence Dewayne Borum, aka "Measle"
The defendant, Terence Dewayne Borum, pleaded guilty to burglary, theft over $1,000, and vandalism over $500 with the sentence to be determined by the trial court. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court found the defendant to be a persistent offender and imposed an effective ten-year sentence to be served on probation. The State appeals contending that the trial court erred in finding the defendant to be a persistent, rather than a career, offender. Based upon our review of the record and the applicable law, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Tipton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Clint Sims v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Clint Sims, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that both his waiver of appointed counsel and his pro se guilty pleas were unknowing due to his mental health issues and the conditions he endured at the jail. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court denying the petition. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tray Dontacc Chaney
The defendant was indicted for first degree premeditated murder, attempted first degree murder, carjacking, aggravated assault, employing a firearm in the commission of a dangerous felony, and felony evading arrest. After the defendant was determined to be competent to stand trial, counsel filed a motion asking that the defendant be allowed to present expert proof of a mental disease or defect to show that he could not form the requisite state of premeditation. The State objected to the introduction of this evidence, and the defendant responded by asserting that, while the expert witness could not state unequivocally that he could not form the requisite intent, the testimony was admissible as bearing on the defendant’s intent. Following a hearing, the trial court denied the State’s motion to bar this testimony. The State then requested, and the trial court granted, the filing of a Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 9 appeal, which this court granted. Following our review, we agree with the State that the proferred evidence is inadmissible, reverse the order of the trial court, and remand this matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Arthur Crutcher
A Shelby County Criminal Court Jury convicted the appellant, Arthur Crutcher, of aggravated robbery. The trial court sentenced the appellant to ten years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant asserts that the trial court erred by ruling that the State could use a prior conviction to impeach the appellant without giving proper notice. The State contends that the appellant’s notice of appeal was untimely and that the appeal should be dismissed. We agree with the State and conclude that the interests of justice do not require waiver of the timely filing of the notice of appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals |
