State of Tennessee v. Virgil Calvin Howell
Appellant, the State of Tennessee, appeals after the Hardeman County Circuit Court granted a motion to dismiss the indictments against Appellee, Virgil Calvin Howell. Appellee was indicted by the Hardeman County Grand Jury for three counts of contracting without a license in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated sections 62-6-103 and 62-6-120. After a hearing, the trial court dismissed the indictments. On appeal, the State insists that the trial court improperly determined that Appellee was not a contractor because Appellee was supervising more than $25,000 of improvements to buildings that he owns and are intended for public use. After a review of the record and applicable authorities, we determine that the trial court improperly dismissed the indictments where the plain language of the statute indicates that the actions performed by Appellee amounted to contracting as defined by the statute. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Damien O. Armstrong
The defendant, Damien O. Armstrong, was convicted by a Dyer County Circuit Court jury of possession of .5 grams or more of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver, a Class B felony, and sentenced to eight years, with one year of confinement and the remainder on probation. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence found in his home because the search warrant was defective. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Roger Joseph v. David Sexton, Warden
Roger Joseph (“the Petitioner”) filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, asserting, among other claims, that, due to mental illness, he could not have formed the requisite intent for first degree murder. The habeas corpus court dismissed his petition without a hearing. The Petitioner now appeals. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the habeas corpus court’s judgment dismissing the Petitioner’s habeas corpus petition. |
Bradley | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. David Earl Freeman
Appellant, David Earl Freeman, pled guilty to three counts of theft of property and three counts of misapplication of funds in Hamilton County. He was sentenced to an effective sentence of sixteen years and placed on probation. He was also ordered to pay restitution to the victims. Subsequently, Appellant pled guilty to one count of theft of property and one count of passing a worthless check. A four-year sentence was imposed and ordered to run consecutively to the sixteen-year sentence. The new sentence was to be served on probation, and Appellant was ordered to pay restitution to the victims. A probation violation warrant was filed based in part on Appellant’s failure to pay restitution payments and the fact that he was convicted of several new charges in North Carolina. The trial court revoked Appellant’s probation and ordered him to serve the remaining fourteen years of his sentence in incarceration. After a review of the record and authorities, we determine that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Appellant’s probation as there was evidence to support the conclusion of the trial court that a violation of the conditions of probation occurred. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jeremy Bo Eaker
In September of 2006 in exchange for an eight-year sentence, Appellant, Jeremy Bo Eaker, pled guilty to possession of over .5 grams of cocaine with the intent to sell. Appellant was released to probation with credit for time served. Subsequently, Appellant was arrested for possession of cocaine and hallucinogenic mushrooms. A violation of probation warrant was filed. Appellant pled guilty to possession of over .5 grams of cocaine and received a sentence of nine years, to be served concurrently to the eight-year sentence for which he was already on probation. Appellant’s probation was revoked, and Appellant was ordered to serve twelve months in incarceration with the trial court reserving the right to suspend the balance of the sentence upon Appellant’s entry into a drug treatment program. Following Appellant’s release from incarceration and reinstatement to probation, numerous probation violation warrants were filed against Appellant on the basis of among other things new criminal charges and positive drug screens. As a result of these various probation violations, Appellant’s probation was partially revoked, he was ordered to enter into and complete a drug treatment program, and he was ordered to community corrections. This appeal arises following a violation of probation warrant filed in response to Appellant’s January 17, 2013 arrest for possession of methamphetamine and failure to report the arrest to his probation officer. After a hearing, the trial court revoked Appellant’s probation and ordered him to serve the remainder of his effective nine-year sentence in incarceration. Appellant appeals, challenging the trial court’s decision to revoke probation. After a review of the record, we determine the trial court did not abuse its discretion. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Sequatchie | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
George Anthony Braddock v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, George Anthony Braddock, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The petitioner was convicted of first degree premeditated murder and sentenced to life in prison. On appeal, he contends that the denial of his petition was in error because he was denied his right to the effective assistance of counsel. Specifically, he contends that trial counsel was ineffective by: (1) failing to investigate the petitioner’s psychological, mental, and physical health history and to present proof of such at trial in an attempt to negate the petitioner’s culpable mental state; (2) failing to file a motion to suppress the petitioner’s statement to law enforcement; and (3) failing to fulfill his duty of loyalty and to zealously advocate on behalf of the petitioner because of a familial relationship with the district attorney general. Following review of the record, we conclude that the petition was properly denied and affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Houston | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Timothy Christopher Pillow v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Timothy Christopher Pillow, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court’s denial of post-conviction relief from his conviction for especially aggravated robbery. In this appeal, the Petitioner argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Terrell B. Johnson
The Defendant, Terrell B. Johnson, was found guilty by a Knox County Criminal Court jury of selling one-half gram or more of cocaine in a drug-free zone, a Class B felony. See T.C.A. § 39-17-417, -432 (2010). The Defendant was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to eight years at 100% service. See id. § 39-17-432 (2010) (enhanced penalties for offenses committed in drug-free zones). On appeal, he contends that the trial court erred (1) by allowing evidence at the trial that was not included in the State’s discovery package and (2) by limiting his closing argument. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Teddy R. Robbins, Jr.
Appellant, Teddy Russell Robbins, Jr., was indicted by the Scott County Grand Jury for domestic assault, aggravated assault, especially aggravated kidnapping, and aggravated rape based on acts committed against his wife. After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of all the offenses as charged in the indictment. As a result, he was sentenced to an effective sentence of fifty years in incarceration. After the denial of a motion for new trial, Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. On appeal, Appellant argues: (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain the convictions for especially aggravated kidnapping and rape; and (2) the trial court erred by refusing to grant a mistrial. After our review, we determine that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a mistrial where the juror in question was dismissed from the jury pool and the trial court issued a curative instruction. Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed. |
Scott | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Robert Edward Fritts
The Defendant-Appellant, Robert Edward Fritts, appeals his conviction for first degree premeditated murder, for which he received a sentence of life without parole. On appeal, he argues that (1) the trial court erred in allowing the State to introduce expert testimony regarding Fritts’s gang affiliation, and (2) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. Upon review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Anderson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Perley Winkler, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Perley Winkler, Jr., appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his 2008 Monroe County Criminal Court convictions of two counts of attempted first degree murder and one count of attempted aggravated arson, claiming that the State withheld material evidence at trial, that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial, and that the post-conviction court erred by refusing to allow the petitioner to treat his trial counsel as an adverse party. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Monroe | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tavaruus Montrel Moss
Charged by the Hamilton County Criminal Court grand jury with aggravated robbery, the defendant, Tavaruus Montrel Moss, pleaded guilty to facilitation of aggravated robbery and agreed to a three-year sentence of split confinement consisting of 11 months and 29 days in jail with credit for time served and the balance of the sentence to be served on supervised probation. The trial court entered the judgment on August 9, 2012, but on January 17, 2013, the State obtained a probation revocation warrant that alleged that the defendant had incurred new criminal charges, that he had failed to report his arrest to his probation officer, that he had failed to provide proof of lawful employment, that he had failed to report for probation, that his whereabouts were unknown, and that he had failed to pay his probation fees. Following a hearing, the trial court revoked the defendant’s probation and ordered him to serve his sentence in confinement. In his timely appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court erred by revoking his probation and ordering him into confinement. Because the record supports the trial court’s order, we affirm. |
Court of Criminal Appeals | ||
State of Tennessee v. Elgie Sykes
Following a retrial, the defendant, Elgie Sykes, was convicted of first degree premeditated murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal, he argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. Based upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jamaal L. Byrd
The defendant, Jamaal L. Byrd, appeals from his Hamilton County Criminal Court jury conviction of voluntary manslaughter, claiming error in the jury instructions provided by the trial court and in the trial court’s failure to admit certain evidence. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Johnny L. McGowen, Jr.
The appellant, Johnny L. McGowen, Jr., pled guilty in the Davidson County Criminal Court to aggravated assault and received an eight-year sentence to be served in confinement. On appeal, he contends that the trial court erred by refusing to grant his motion to reduce his sentence to probation. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Grico Clark, Jordan Curry, and Deangelo White
Appellants, Grico Clark, Jordan Curry, and Deangelo White, were each indicted by the Madison County Grand Jury for two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, two counts of aggravated robbery, one count of aggravated burglary, one count of employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, and one count of evading arrest. Deangelo White was also indicted for one count of possession of more than one-half ounce of marijuana with the intent to sell and one count of possession of more than one-half ounce of marijuana with intent to deliver. After a jury trial, Clark, Curry, and White were found guilty of two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, two counts of aggravated robbery, and one count of aggravated burglary. Clark and Curry were found guilty of employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. White was found not guilty of the firearm charge and convicted of the lesser included offenses of simple possession of marijuana. The trial court sentenced Clark and Curry each to effective sentences of forty-four years and White to an effective sentence of forty years. The trial court denied motions for new trial. In this consolidated appeal, we are asked to determine whether under the holding of State v. White, 362 S.W.3d 559 (Tenn. 2012), the evidence supported convictions for both especially aggravated kidnapping and aggravated robbery. Additionally, we must determine whether the State was required to make an election of offenses and whether the trial court properly imposed consecutive sentencing. After a review of the record and applicable authorities, we determine that the trial court properly instructed the jury as mandated in White and that the evidence supported convictions for both especially aggravated kidnapping and aggravated robbery. Further, we determine that the State was not required to elect offenses. In addition, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing White to an effective sentence of forty years and Clark and Curry each to an effective sentence of forty-four years. Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Daniel Antonio Payne
In case number 6994, the Defendant, Daniel Antonio Payne, who was on bond pending the resolution of his charges, pled guilty to one count of driving while license suspended, one count of felony evading arrest, and two counts of theft over $1000.00. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to concurrent sentences of ten years for each of the theft convictions, six years for the felony evading arrest conviction, and six months for the driving while license suspended conviction. At the conclusion of the sentencing hearing, the trial court revoked the Defendant’s bond in case number 6994. As the Defendant was being taken into custody, he was found in possession of marijuana, which resulted in the charges in case number 7515. Subsequently, in case number 7515, the Defendant pled guilty to felony possession of marijuana. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to six years, to be served concurrently with his sentence in case number 6994. On appeal, the State contends that the trial court erred in not imposing mandatory consecutive sentences for case numbers 6994 and 7515. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities, we conclude that consecutive sentencing was mandatory. We reverse the trial court’s judgment in case number 7515 and remand for sentencing consistent with this opinion. |
Tipton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Michael Ricardo Martin v. State of Tennessee
This matter is before the Court upon the State’s motion to affirm the judgment of the trial court by memorandum opinion pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner, Michael Ricardo Martin, appeals the trial court’s dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that his petition was erroneously transferred to the Criminal Court for Davidson County without a judgment entered, and, thus, the Petitioner was deprived of his right to object to the transfer. Upon a review of the record, we agree that the lower court was correct that the Petitioner is not entitled to relief. This case meets the criteria for affirmance pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Accordingly, the State’s motion is granted, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jeremie Alan Thomas v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Jeremie Alan Thomas, appeals from the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. Petitioner sought relief from his convictions for two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, one count of especially aggravated robbery, and one count of aggravated robbery. Petitioner pled guilty to these charges as a result of a negotiated plea agreement, and he received all concurrent sentencing with an effective sentence of 20 years of incarceration. On appeal Petitioner asserts that his guilty pleas were not knowingly and voluntarily entered due to ineffective assistance of trial counsel. After a thorough review of the briefs and the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Stephan L. Beasley v. Avril Chapman, Warden
Petitioner’s third habeas corpus petition attacking his conviction for first degree murder, with a sentence of life without parole, was dismissed by the trial court without an evidentiary hearing. Petitioner argues on appeal that he is entitled to relief because (1) the trial court failed to require the State to make an appropriate election of offenses; (2) the indictment was erroneously amended; (3) Petitioner was never given notice of the offense he was charged with; and (4) a final ground that can only be accurately described by a direct quote from Petitioner’s brief: “whether the unanimity of the verdict was decided upon imparcially [sic] due to multiple offenses that have never been recognized by the Grand Jury that has always been a Constitutional right of any citizen born in the United States that have alleged to have committed an offense.” We affirm the judgment of the trial court pursuant to Rule of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeal 20. |
Wayne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Mathis T. Vaughn v. Arvil K. Chapman, Warden and State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Mathis L. Vaughn, was convicted in 1993 of first degree murder during the perpetration of a robbery. His conviction was affirmed on appeal. See State v. Mathis T. Vaughn, No. 01C01-0312-CR-00425, 1994 WL 256993, at *1 (Tenn., June 9, 1994). Subsequently, Petitioner unsuccessfully sought post-conviction relief on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel. See Mathis T. Vaughn v. State, No. M2007-00755-CCA-R3-PC, 2001 WL 303034, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Mar. 29, 2001), perm. app. denied, (Tenn. Sept. 17, 2001). Petitioner first sought habeas corpus relief in 2006; it was denied. See Mathis T. Vaughn v. James Worthington, Warden, No. E2007-00808-CCA-R3-HC, 2008 WL 58956, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxville, Jan. 4, 2008). Petitioner again seeks habeas relief, arguing that his judgment is void because it lists his conviction offense as first degree murder when the jury actually convicted him of first degree felony murder. The habeas corpus court dismissed the petition. Petitioner appeals. After a review, we determine that the habeas corpur court properly dismissed the petition where Petitioner failed to establish that the judgment was void or that his sentence had expired. Consequently, the judgment of the habeas corpus court is affirmed. |
Wayne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John Nolan Sunde
Appellant, John Nolan Sunde, was indicted by the Williamson County Grand Jury for aggravated assault and domestic assault. After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of both charges. The trial court merged the convictions into a single conviction for aggravated assault and sentenced Appellant to three years in incarceration. The trial court suspended the sentence “on time served” and ordered Appellant to attend an anger management class and ordered him to have no contact with the victim. Appellant’s motion for new trial was denied, and he initiated this appeal. On appeal, he argues: (1) that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction because the State failed to prove serious bodily injury; (2) the trial court erred in admitting multiple photographs of the victim; and (3) the trial court erred in sentencing Appellant to anger management class. After a review of the record, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support the jury’s finding that the victim suffered serious bodily injury to sustain the conviction for aggravated assault; the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting photographs of the victim’s injuries at trial; and the trial court properly ordered anger management classes as a condition of probation. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James R. Lening v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, James R. Lening, appeals the Circuit Court for Lauderdale County’s denial of his pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus. The State has filed a motion requesting that this court affirm the trial court’s judgment pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Following our review, we grant the State’s motion and affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Patrick Stanton
Appellant, Patrick Stanton, was convicted of one count of aggravated burglary, a Class C felony, and one count of theft of property valued at $500 or less, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced appellant as a Range III, persistent offender to fifteen years for his felony conviction and eleven months and twenty-nine days for his misdemeanor conviction. On appeal, appellant argues that the evidence at trial was insufficient to prove that he had the requisite intent to commit a theft prior to entering a habitation or that he actually committed a theft. Following our review of the parties’ briefs, the record, and the applicable law, we affirm appellant’s convictions. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Levester Taylor
The Defendant, Levester Taylor, was convicted by a Davidson County jury for multiple counts of aggravated sexual battery and rape of a child. The trial court imposed a sentence of 10 years at 100% for each aggravated sexual battery and 20 years at 100% for each rape of a child, and ordered the sentences to run consecutively for an effective sentence of 200 years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions and that the trial court erred imposing an effective sentence of 200 years. Upon review, the Defendant’s judgments of conviction are affirmed, the sentences imposed by the trial court are vacated, and the case is remanded for a resentencing hearing, following the Defendant’s election to proceed under the pre-2005 sentencing act or the amended sentencing act accompanied by the Defendant’s written waiver of his ex post facto protections. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals |
