State of Tennessee v. Thomas Mitchell
Defendant, Thomas Mitchell, was indicted by the Shelby County Grand Jury for burglary of a building other than a habitation, a Class D felony. Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted as charged and sentenced as a persistent offender to ten years and six months confinement. In this appeal as of right, Defendant presents a single issue, whether the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of facilitation. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Carlos Caudill
Defendant, Carlos Caudill, was indicted by the Claiborne County Grand Jury for second degree murder. On December 18, 2001, Defendant entered a guilty plea as a Range II multiple offender to voluntary manslaughter, with the length and manner of service of his sentence to be determined by the trial court. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Defendant to nine years imprisonment. Defendant appeals the length and manner of service of his sentence. We find no error and affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Claiborne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Dedrick Patton v. State
|
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Thomas D. Smith v. State of Tennessee
The state appeals the Robertson County Circuit Court's granting of post-conviction relief to the petitioner, Thomas D. Smith. The state contends the post-conviction court erred in granting relief based upon the original trial court's failure to reduce to writing its answer to a jury question posed during deliberations at the petitioner's trial. Upon review of the record and the applicable law, we reverse the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Robertson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Timothy Clayton Thompson
Defendant, Timothy Clayton Thompson, pled guilty to one count of especially aggravated kidnapping, a Class A felony, and one count of aggravated rape, a Class A felony, without a recommendation from the State as to sentencing. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Defendant to twenty-two years for each felony count and ordered the sentences to run consecutively. Defendant now appeals the length of his sentence and the trial court's imposition of consecutive sentences. After a careful review of the record in this matter, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jimmy Wayne Perkey
The defendant, Jimmy Wayne Perkey, pled guilty to aggravated vehicular homicide. The trial court subsequently sentenced the defendant to serve twenty-five years as a Range I standard offender and ordered the defendant to pay a $50,000 fine. The defendant brings the instant appeal challenging his sentence and the imposition of his fine. After reviewing the record, we find that none of the defendant's claims merit relief. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ronald C. Floyd
The defendant, Ronald C. Floyd, pled guilty to possession of Diazepam, a Schedule IV controlled substance, with the intent to sell or deliver, a Class D felony. Pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37, the defendant reserved as a certified question of law the issue of whether the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress. In this appeal, the issues presented are: (1) whether the failure to provide the defendant with a copy of the search warrant at or before the initiation of the search invalidated the search, and (2) whether the description of the property to be seized as stated in the warrant was so general as to render the warrant invalid. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Cumberland | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Melissa Lee Sholtz
The appellant, Melissa Lee Sholtz, pled guilty in the Hamilton County Criminal Court to one count of telephone harassment, a Class A misdemeanor. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the appellant was sentenced to eleven months and twenty-nine days in the county workhouse, with the sentence to be suspended and served on unsupervised probation. As a condition of probation, the appellant was ordered to have no contact with the victim. The trial court subsequently revoked the appellant's probation after finding that the appellant had violated the terms of probation by having contact with the victim. On appeal, the appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking her probation. Upon review of the record and the parties' brief, we reverse the judgment of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Darlene Renee Blackhurst
On January 10, 2000, defendant, Darlene Renee Blackhurst, pled guilty to a second offense of driving under the influence of an intoxicant ("DUI"), leaving the scene of an accident involving injury, and three counts of reckless aggravated assault. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed an effective sentence of three years, eleven months and twenty-nine days and ordered the sentence to be served on intensive supervised probation following a mandatory forty-five days in confinement for the DUI second offense. The State appealed the trial court's grant of full probation. After a de novo review, this Court reversed the trial court's judgment regarding the manner of service of defendant's sentence and remanded the matter to the trial court for the limited purpose of determining whether defendant should be incarcerated for the full term of her sentence, or, in the alternative, whether she should serve the balance of her sentence in split confinement. We directed the trial court to base its sentencing determination as to the manner of service of defendant's sentence on the current record without a further evidentiary hearing. State v. Blackhurst, 70 S.W.3d 88 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001). On remand, the trial court found that defendant was not entitled to alternative sentencing and ordered defendant to serve her sentence in confinement. Defendant now appeals her sentence arguing that (1) the trial court erred in denying defendant's request for alternative sentencing; (2) the trial court erred in not considering additional evidence concerning defendant's post-sentencing behavior; (3) that the trial court erred in not allowing defendant credit for the time served on probation prior to resentencing; and (4) that the trial court improperly weighed the applicable mitigating and enhancement factors in determining the manner of service of defendant's sentence. After a thorough review of the record in this matter, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Brandy D. Forrest
A Davidson County jury convicted the defendant, Brandy D. Forrest, of driving under the influence, first offense. The trial court imposed a sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days with twenty days incarceration followed by probation. On appeal, the defendant asserts the trial court erred by allowing irrelevant and prejudicial testimony and a videotape to be presented to the jury. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Mark Howard Russell
Defendant, Mark Howard Russell, was indicted by the Hamilton County Grand Jury for the following misdemeanor offenses: possession of cocaine, possession of methamphetamine, possession of drug paraphernalia, and operation of a motor vehicle without properly operating stop lights. Defendant sought to suppress evidence seized by a police officer during a traffic stop. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied Defendant's motion to suppress evidence. Defendant subsequently entered guilty pleas to three of the four counts. Defendant did not plead guilty to possession of methamphetamine. The charge was dismissed because the laboratory report was negative for that substance. Defendant reserved the right to appeal, pursuant to Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2), the issue of whether the warrantless search was constitutional. We conclude that Defendant's Fourth Amendment rights were not violated and affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Richard C. Rogers
Defendant, Richard C. Rogers, appeals his convictions in the Lauderdale County Circuit Court for burglary of a vehicle, a class E felony, and theft of property in an amount over $1,000 and less than $10,000, a class D felony. Following a jury trial, Defendant was sentenced as a career offender to six years for his burglary conviction and twelve years for his theft conviction, to be served concurrently. In this appeal as of right, Defendant contends that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support his convictions beyond a reasonable doubt. After review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Walter Sanchez, Jr.
The appellant, Walter Sanchez, Jr., pled guilty to violating an order declaring him to be an habitual motor vehicle offender. The plea agreement provided that the appellant would receive a sentence of two years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction and pay a $500.00 fine. The manner of service of the sentence was to be determined by the trial court. On appeal, the appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying him probation or some other form of alternative sentencing. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Terell Lawrence v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Terrell Lawrence, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for second degree murder, aggravated assault, and carjacking, arguing that his guilty pleas were not knowing, understanding, and voluntary and that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel during the plea process. The post-conviction court denied the petition and, following our review, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Frankie Ledbetter
The defendant was convicted of incest and rape of a child and sentenced to twenty-three years at 100% for the rape of a child conviction and eight years as a Range II, multiple offender for the incest conviction, the sentences to be served concurrently. The defendant was also fined $50,000 for the rape of a child conviction and $10,000 for the incest conviction. On appeal, the defendant presents the following claims: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; (2) the trial court erred in determining that the six-year-old victim was competent to testify and improperly vouched for the credibility of the child-victim; (3) the trial court erred in giving the expert witness instruction to the jury; and (4) the trial court denied the defendant a fair trial by refusing to let him conduct a voir dire examination of each juror individually and out of the presence of the other jurors. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court but remand for entry of corrected judgments to reflect that the defendant was convicted of Counts 3 and 4, rather than Counts 1 and 2, of the indictment and to reflect the defendant's fines which were omitted from the judgments. |
Marion | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Donald Wade Goff
The defendant appeals from jury-trial convictions for multiple counts of rape of a child, rape, incest, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and attempted rape. In this appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence related to his rape and contributing to the delinquency of a minor convictions, alleges that the trial court committed reversible error in failing to sever the charged offenses, and complains that his effective 80-year sentence is excessive. Based on our review, we find insufficient evidence to support the rape convictions, dismiss those convictions without prejudice to further prosecution on lesser-included offenses, reverse one conviction of contributing to the delinquency of a minor and dismiss that charge, and remand for modification of the defendant's sentences on the remaining convictions. |
Campbell | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Donald Wade Goff
The defendant appeals from jury-trial convictions for multiple counts of rape of a child, rape, incest, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and attempted rape. In this appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence related to his rape and contributing to the delinquency of a minor convictions, alleges that the trial court committed reversible error in failing to sever the charged offenses, and complains that his effective 80-year sentence is excessive. Based on our review, we find insufficient evidence to support the rape convictions, dismiss those convictions without prejudice to further prosecution on lesser-included offenses, reverse one conviction of contributing to the delinquency of a minor and dismiss that charge, and remand for modification of the defendant's sentences on the remaining convictions. |
Campbell | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Gerald W. McCullough v. State of Tennessee
The Defendant, Gerald W. McCullough, was convicted of aggravated sexual battery. This Court affirmed the Defendant's conviction on direct appeal. See State v. Gerald W. McCullough, No. M1999-01525-CCA-R3-CD, 2000 WL 1246432, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., Nashville, Aug. 18, 2000). The Defendant was represented at trial by the Public Defender's Office. On direct appeal, the Defendant was represented by Nashville attorney John E. Herbison. After the Defendant's conviction was affirmed on direct appeal, the Defendant filed for post-conviction relief. In this effort, the Defendant was again represented by John E. Herbison. The trial court, on its own motion, conducted an evidentiary hearing with respect to the conflict of interest inherent in Mr. Herbison's representation of the Defendant on post-conviction following his representation of the Defendant on direct appeal. Following the hearing, the trial court ordered Mr. Herbison removed from his representation of the Defendant on post-conviction, and further ordered Mr. Herbison to return the entire retainer fee he had been paid in conjunction with the post-conviction proceeding. The trial court's ruling is now before this Court pursuant to an interlocutory appeal. See Tenn. R. App. P. 9. We affirm the trial court's order removing Mr. Herbison from further representation of the Defendant in this case. We remand the trial court's ruling regarding the refund of Mr. Herbison's fee for further proceedings. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Anthony Nathaniel Guerard
In 1999, the Defendant was placed on judicial diversion for four years after pleading guilty to aggravated assault. In 2001, while the Defendant was on probation for aggravated assault, the Montgomery County Grand Jury indicted the Defendant for attempted first degree murder, attempted robbery, and aggravated kidnapping. In 2002, pursuant to a plea agreement, the Defendant pled guilty to reckless endangerment and nolo contendere to attempted robbery. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the Defendant to eleven months and twenty-nine days incarceration for reckless endangerment and to three years in the Tennessee Department of Correction for attempted robbery. The trial court also revoked the Defendant's judicial diversion probation for the 1999 aggravated assault charge, entered a judgment of conviction, and imposed a sentence of four years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. It ordered that the sentences for reckless endangerment and attempted robbery be served concurrently to each other but consecutive to the sentence for aggravated assault, resulting in an effective sentence of seven years. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant argues that his sentences are excessive and that the trial court erred by denying alternative sentencing. We conclude that the Defendant's sentences are proper and thus affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Sanders Caldwell
The Appellant was convicted of burglary of a building and vandalism in the Criminal Court for Shelby County, and was sentenced to a total of seven years of confinement by the trial court. The sole issue the Appellant raises on appeal is whether sufficient evidence was presented at trial to convict him of the charged offenses of burglary and vandalism. Finding no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Quinten M. Turnage
A Shelby County jury convicted the Defendant of escape, and the Defendant now appeals his conviction. The sole issue on appeal is the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. Concluding that the evidence is legally sufficient to support the Defendant’s conviction, we affirm the conviction. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Leslie Thurman Mitchell
The State of Tennessee appeals the Knox County Criminal Court’s suppression and exclusion of evidence in the second-degree murder prosecution of Leslie Thurman Mitchell. The evidence consists, first, of the defendant’s statements to law enforcement officers pertaining to the homicide following his arrest for an unrelated matter, and second, of the defendant’s wife’s testimony regarding marital communication pertaining to the alleged crime. We granted the state’s application for interlocutory appeal, see Tenn. R. App. P. 9, and upon review, we reverse the lower court’s rulings. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Walter Grooms
On March 4, 2002, the Hamblen County Grand Jury returned an indictment against the appellant, James Walter Grooms, charging him with driving with a blood alcohol concentration greater that .10% and child endangerment. After a bench trial the appellant was found guilty as charged, and a sentence was imposed of 11 months and 29 days for each count to be served concurrently. In addition, the trial court ordered the appellant driver's license to be suspended for one year, and he was ordered to attend DUI school. The appellant now challenges the lawfulness of his warrantless arrest and the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his driving under the influence conviction. After a review of the record we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hamblen | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James P. Hyde v. Howard Carlton, Warden, and State of Tennessee
The petitioner, James P. Hyde, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Because the petitioner has failed to state a claim for habeas corpus relief, the state's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Johnson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Vance E. Shelton v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant, Vance E. Shelton, appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief by the Greene County Criminal Court. In 1996, Shelton was convicted of one count of rape of a child and one court of aggravated sexual battery. Shelton collaterally attacks these convictions arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, which resulted in prejudice to his defense. After review, we conclude that Shelton was denied his right to the effective assistance of counsel, as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, with respect to his conviction for aggravated sexual battery. With regard to his conviction for rape of a child, we conclude no relief is warranted. Accordingly, Shelton's conviction and sentence for aggravated sexual battery is vacated and remanded for a new trial. |
Greene | Court of Criminal Appeals |
