State of Tennessee v. James Clark McKenzie
Defendant, James Clark McKenzie, was convicted by a jury of possession with the intent to sell, deliver, or manufacture more than 0.5 grams of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a drugfree zone, unlawful possession of a firearm by a person previously convicted of a felony drug offense, unlawful possession of a firearm by a person previously convicted of a violent felony, possession of a firearm with the intent to go armed during the commission of a dangerous felony, and tampering with the evidence. The trial court imposed a total effective sentence of fifteen years. On appeal, Defendant contends the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction for possession with the intent to sell more than 0.5 grams of cocaine within a drug-free zone and that the trial court erred in sentencing him under the 2019 version of the Drug-Free School Zone Act. Following our review of the record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. However, we conclude that the trial court erroneously sentenced Defendant in count two, possession of a firearm by a person with a previous felony drug conviction, and remand for entry of an amended judgment as to that count only. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Toby Michael Holmes
A Grundy County grand jury indicted the Defendant, Toby Michael Holmes, for voluntary manslaughter. A jury convicted him of the lesser-included offense of criminally negligent homicide. The Defendant sought judicial diversion. The trial court denied judicial diversion and sentenced the Defendant to three years of probation, with 1,768 hours of community service to be performed at a local drug recovery center. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that: (1) he was not properly convicted of the lesser-included offense of criminally negligent homicide; (2) the trial court improperly denied judicial diversion; and (3) the amount of community service was excessive. After review, we conclude that the trial court erred by denying judicial diversion and grant the Defendant’s request. The trial court’s judgment is affirmed in all other respects. |
Grundy | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Anthony E. Barnett v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Anthony E. Barnett, appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief as untimely. Because the record establishes that the incarcerated petitioner did not submit his petition to the appropriate prison official for mailing within one year of the final action of the supreme court on his direct appeal, we affirm the ruling of the post-conviction court. |
Lawrence | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Henry Russell v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Henry Russell, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, which petition challenged his 2012 Davidson County Criminal Court Jury convictions of three counts of rape and three counts of statutory rape by an authority figure, arguing that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Vana Mustafa
Defendant, Vana Mustafa, was convicted by a jury of first-degree premeditated murder and received a life sentence. On appeal, Defendant argues that: the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction; the trial court failed to fully charge the jury as to the law concerning self-defense; the trial court erred by requiring him to provide his list of witness’s statements to the State at the close of the State’s proof; that he was denied the constitutional right to present a defense because the trial court excluded testimony by his expert witness; the trial court erred by excluding his expert witness from the courtroom during trial; the trial court erred by limiting impeachment of a State’s witness; the trial court erred in failing to grant a mistrial; he should be granted a new trial based on newly discovered evidence; his life sentence is unconstitutional; he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial; and he is entitled to a new trial because the cumulative effect of errors denied him a fair trial. Following our review of the entire record, oral argument, and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Verchaunt J. Williams v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Verchaunt J. Williams, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, which petition challenged his convictions of first degree murder, tampering with evidence, and abuse of a corpse, alleging that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. Discerning no error, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Otto Karl Appelt
The Appellant, Otto Karl Appelt, was convicted in the Bradley County Criminal Court of vandalism of property valued more than $1,000 but less than $2,500, a Class E felony. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced him as a Range I, standard offender to two years to be served as four months in confinement followed by supervised probation and ordered that he pay $2,000 in restitution. On appeal, the Appellant contends that he was denied his right to counsel because the trial court failed to consider whether his waiver of counsel was knowing and intelligent; that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction; that the trial court erred by sentencing him to the maximum punishment in the range and by not granting his request for full probation; and that the trial court erred by setting his amount of restitution at $2,000 and by not considering his ability to pay. The State concedes error in the trial court’s restitution order. Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ briefs, we reverse the trial court’s order that the Appellant pay $2,000 in restitution and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in all other respects. |
Bradley | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Timothy M. Dawson
The Defendant, Timothy M. Dawson, pled guilty to possession of drug paraphernalia before he was found guilty of simple possession of methamphetamine by a jury. The Defendant was also convicted of theft in two separate, unrelated cases. Following a consolidated sentencing hearing on all three cases, the trial court sentenced the Defendant to consecutive terms of eleven months and twenty-nine days for his two Class A misdemeanor convictions in this case, finding that the Defendant was a professional criminal and that he had an extensive criminal history. The Defendant appeals, challenging the trial court’s consecutive sentencing determination based upon aspects of the consolidated nature of the sentencing hearing. Following our review, we affirm. |
McMinn | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Anthony Lee Moosman v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Anthony Lee Moosman, appeals the denial of his petition for post conviction relief, which petition challenged his |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Javier C. Perez
A Washington County Criminal Court convicted the Appellant, Javier C. Perez, of possessing .5 grams or more of methamphetamine, a Schedule II controlled substance, with the intent to sell, a Class B felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-434. The trial court sentenced the Appellant to eight years of incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Appellant raises the following issues for review: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain his conviction; (2) whether the trial court erred by instructing the jury pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-17-419 that they could infer the intent to sell based upon the amount of drugs possessed; (3) whether the trial court erred in denying the Appellant’s motion for mistrial after Officer Curtis testified regarding “drug mules”; (4) whether the trial court committed plain error by allowing the State to “vouch against the Appellant’s credibility in its closing arguments”; and (5) whether the trial court erred in denying the Appellant’s motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Washington | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jonathan Everett
The Defendant, Jonathan Everett, was convicted of second degree murder, attempted voluntary manslaughter, and reckless endangerment, and he received an effective sentence of twenty-nine years, eleven months, and twenty-nine days. He filed a motion pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 alleging that his sentence was illegal because the trial court erred by misapplying enhancement factors, by imposing the maximum sentence within the sentencing range for second degree murder, and by imposing consecutive service. The trial court summarily dismissed the motion for the failure to state a colorable claim. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred by summarily dismissing his motion. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Olajowon D. Smith
The Defendant, Olajowon D. Smith, entered guilty pleas to one count of possession of 0.5 ounces or more of marijuana with the intent to deliver, a Class E felony, and one count of unlawful possession of a weapon, a Class C misdemeanor. Although the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (“TBI”) provided a certification that the Defendant had no prior convictions disqualifying him from eligibility for diversion, the trial court found that he had previously served time in confinement for a Class A misdemeanor and that he was accordingly ineligible for diversion. The court sentenced the Defendant to an aggregate eighteen-month sentence, with sixty days to be served in confinement and the remainder on probation. The Defendant appeals, challenging the trial court’s determination that his prior conviction was a Class A rather than a Class C misdemeanor and its failure to weigh the appropriate diversionary factors. We conclude that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s findings and that the trial court was not required to consider the diversionary factors once it determined the Defendant was ineligible for diversion, and we affirm the judgment. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Willie Nolan v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Willie Nolan, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition seeking post-conviction relief from his convictions of attempted reckless endangerment, aggravated assault, reckless aggravated assault, felony reckless endangerment, and vandalism by a Shelby County jury, claiming he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. State v. Willie Nolan, No. W2014-00990-CCA-R3-CD, 2015 WL 5838739, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Oct. 7, 2015), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Feb. 18, 2016). Upon review, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Joseph Sanford McNair, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Joseph Sanford McNair, Jr., filed a petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions of possession of cocaine with intent to deliver, possession of cocaine with intent to sell, and possession of marijuana and the accompanying effective twelve-year sentence. In the petition, the Petitioner alleged that trial counsel was ineffective (1) by failing to pursue a Sixth Amendment claim regarding the racial composition of the jury pool; (2) by failing to pursue a claim regarding the “constructive amendment in the indictment”; and (3) by failing to fully pursue the Petitioner’s Fourth Amendment rights during a motion to suppress. The Petitioner also raises two free-standing claims: (1) his Sixth Amendment right to a jury composed of a fair cross-section of the community was violated because black people were underrepresented in the jury pool; and (2) his rights against double jeopardy were violated when the trial court allowed the indictment to be constructively amended after the jury rendered its verdict. The post-conviction court denied the petition, and the Petitioner appeals. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Casey Colbert v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Casey Colbert, appeals the denial of post-conviction relief from his convictions for first degree felony murder and attempted aggravated robbery, alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that the State committed prosecutorial misconduct depriving him of his right to a fair trial. After review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kacy Rose
Defendant, Kacy Rose, appeals from the revocation of his probationary sentence. On appeal, Defendant argues that (1) the trial court abused its discretion in failing to consider a potential conflict of interest, (2) the trial court erred in denying his motion to correct a clerical error in the order revoking Defendant’s probation, and (3) his right to a speedy trial was violated. Following our review of the record and briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
George Campbell, Jr. v. Bert Boyd, Warden
The Petitioner, George Campbell, Jr., acting pro se, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his second petition for habeas corpus relief. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Douglas Cody Gass
Douglas Cody Gass, Defendant, entered an open guilty plea to reckless aggravated assault (Count 10), felony evading arrest (Count 11), and vehicular homicide (Count 12); and the remaining nine counts were dismissed. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a total effective sentence of twenty years—four years to serve in Count 10, six years to serve in Count 12, and four years suspended to ten years’ probation in Count 11— and aligned the sentences consecutively. Defendant claims that the trial court erred in setting the length of his sentences, in imposing consecutive sentences, and in denying alternative sentencing in Counts 10 and 12. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ebony Marshall v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Ebony Marshall, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for two counts of robbery and his effective twenty-five-year sentence. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred by determining that his petition was untimely and by summarily dismissing his petition. We conclude that the petition for relief was timely filed. We reverse the judgment of the post-conviction court and remand for further proceedings. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Darrin Keith Ward
Aggrieved of his Dyer County Circuit Court jury convictions of possession with intent to sell or deliver more than 300 grams of cocaine and possession of a firearm with the intent to go armed during the commission of a dangerous felony, the defendant, Darrin Keith Ward, appeals, arguing that the trial court erred by failing to dismiss for cause a juror who was sleeping during trial and committed plain error by permitting a police officer to testify as an expert in narcotics trafficking. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Daniel Leon McCaig
Daniel Leon McCaig, Defendant, pled guilty to several offenses in 2018 and received a sentence to be served on Community Corrections. After a partial revocation of his alternative sentence in 2020, Defendant was arrested for new charges two separate times in 2021. As a result of the new charges, two probation violation reports were filed. After a hearing, the trial court revoked Defendant’s probation and reinstated his eight-year sentence with credit for time served. Defendant appeals the revocation. After a de novo review, we affirm the revocation of probation. |
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Robert Smith v. State of Tennessee
In November of 2018, Petitioner, Robert Smith, pleaded guilty to three counts of aggravated rape in exchange for an effective 18-year sentence. The crimes were all committed in 1986. Petitioner filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of plea counsel. At the evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court heard testimony and arguments on the ineffective assistance of counsel claim and whether Petitioner freely and voluntarily entered his guilty plea. The post-conviction court denied relief. On appeal, Petitioner argues that he did not freely and voluntarily enter his guilty plea. After review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. David Stewart Cowles, Jr.
Defendant, David Stewart Cowles, Jr., entered an open guilty plea to theft of property valued at $10,000 but less than $60,000 with the manner and length of the sentence to be determined by the trial court. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a sentence of split confinement, with seven months to be served in the county jail and the remainder of the sentence on supervised probation. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing a sentence of split confinement and in denying a community corrections sentence. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Greene | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Charles Hardy, Jr.
The Defendant, Charles Hardy, Jr., alias, appeals his convictions for first degree premeditated murder and tampering with evidence, for which he received an effective sentence of life imprisonment. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions. Upon reviewing the parties’ briefs, the record, and the applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Quincy Scott v. State of Tennessee
Quincy Scott (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for post-conviction relief claiming that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at his probation revocation hearing. The postconviction court dismissed the petition based on the holding of Young v. State, 101 S.W.3d 430, 433 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2002), that the Post-Conviction Procedure Act “does not permit the filing of a petition . . . to attack collaterally the validity of a proceeding to revoke the suspension of sentence and/or probation.” We affirm. |
Bradley | Court of Criminal Appeals |
