State of Tennessee v. Derek Paul Whytsell
A Hamilton County jury convicted the Defendant of DUI and imposed a $500 fine. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to eleven months and twenty-nine days in the penal farm, which was suspended after service of forty-eight hours. The trial court further ordered the Defendant to perform fifty days of community service, imposed a fine of $510, revoked his license for a year, and required him to attend DUI school. The Defendant now appeals, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him. After a careful review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Edward Peden
The defendant, James Edward Peden, appeals his Lincoln County Circuit Court jury conviction of failure to appear, a Class E felony. He challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence and the trial court's ruling that allowed evidence of certain prior convictions to impeach his testimony. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. |
Lincoln | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ricky Lamont Brigman
The Appellant, Ricky Lamont Brigman, was convicted by a Davidson County jury of three counts of rape of a child, one count of attempted rape of a child, two counts of aggravated sexual battery, three counts of rape, one count of attempted rape, one count of sexual battery, one count of attempted sexual battery, and one count of sexual exploitation involving six minor male victims. For these convictions, he received an effective sentence of ninety-one years. On appeal, Brigman challenges both his convictions and sentences upon the following grounds: (1) with respect to certain convictions, a material variance exists between the indictments and the convicting evidence; (2) the "cancellation" rule requires dismissal of his conviction for sexual battery; (3) the trial court provided improper jury instructions with regard to the "cancellation" rule and the requisite mental states; (4) the sentences are excessive due to the trial court's failure to apply mitigating factors at sentencing; and (5) the improper imposition of consecutive sentences. After review, we find no reversible error and affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. David S. Eads
The Appellant, David S. Eads, pled guilty to possession of marijuana with intent to deliver and possession of drug paraphernalia. As a condition of the plea agreement, Eads reserved the right to appeal, as a certified question of law, the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress. See Tenn. R. App. P. 3(b); Tenn. R. Crim. P. 37(b). On appeal, he asserts that the search warrant was invalid because: (1) the facts alleged in the affidavit supporting the search warrant were insufficient to support a finding of probable cause, and (2) the warrant was based on information obtained from an illegal warrantless search by a confidential informant. Finding that the issues presented are without merit, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion to suppress. |
McNairy | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ricky Flamingo Brown, Sr. v. State of Tennessee
|
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ricky Flamingo Brown, Sr. v. State of Tennessee - Concurring
|
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Aaron Stenberg
The trial court sentenced the defendant to an effective term of six years with 120 days incarceration followed by probation as a result of the defendant's guilty pleas to three counts of vandalism over $10,000, one count of vandalism over $1,000, one count of vandalism over $500, and one count of vandalism under $500. In this appeal, the defendant argues: (1) his sentence is excessive; (2) the trial court erred in denying him full probation; and (3) the trial court erred in denying judicial diversion. We remand for correction of clerical errors in some of the judgments but otherwise affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jerry W. Yancy
On April 12, 1999, the Williamson County Grand Jury returned a five-count indictment charging Defendant, Jerry W. Yancy, Jr., with two counts of aggravated assault and three counts of felony reckless endangerment. The district attorney general denied Defendant's request for pretrial diversion. In a writ of certiorari, Defendant asked the trial court to review the district attorney general's denial of pretrial diversion. Following a hearing, the trial court denied certiorari. The trial court also denied Defendant's motion to file an interlocutory appeal pursuant to Rule 9, Tenn. R. App. P. Defendant applied for an extraordinary appeal pursuant to Rule 10, Tenn. R. App. P., which this Court denied. Defendant entered guilty pleas to two counts of felony reckless endangerment and was convicted by a jury of two counts of aggravated assault. He was acquitted on the remaining count of felony reckless endangerment. The trial court sentenced Defendant to serve sixty days in confinement and four years on probation. On direct appeal, this Court affirmed the trial court's judgments. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted permission to appeal and held that this Court erred by looking to the entire record in deciding whether the denial of pretrial diversion was proper. State v. Yancey, 69 S.W.3d 553 (Tenn. 2002). The supreme court remanded the case back to the trial court for application of the proper standard of review. Id. On remand from the supreme court, the trial court entered an order affirming the denial of pretrial diversion. Defendant appeals that decision. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Alphonzo Chalmers v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant, Alphonzo Chalmers,1 appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, Chalmers argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. After review of the record, we find that Chalmers’ brief fails to provide any argument in support of the issue presented. Due to his procedural default, the appeal is dismissed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Delbert Eugene Orey
The defendant, Delbert Eugene Orey, was convicted of DUI, third offense, and driving while license suspended, fifth offense, and was sentenced, respectively, to eleven months and twenty-nine days, with all but 180 days suspended, and six months, with all but forty-five days suspended, the sentences to be served concurrently. On appeal, he argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for DUI, third offense, and that his sentence is excessive. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Carroll | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. George C. Peery, III
Defendant, George C. Peery, III, appeals his sentence of split confinement imposed upon his plea of guilt to aggravated burglary, a Class C felony, and theft under $500, a Class A misdemeanor. In his appeal, Defendant requests full probation and challenges the imposition of a one-year period of confinement followed by two years probation in the community corrections program for his felony conviction. Defendant does not challenge his misdemeanor sentence. We affirm the trial court's denial of full probation but reverse the one-year period of confinement and remand for modification of the judgment to reflect a period of confinement of 10.8 months to be served in the local jail or workhouse. In addition, because there is a conflict between the transcript and the judgment, we remand this case for correction of the judgment. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tiffany D. Oates
The defendant pled guilty to aggravated burglary, a Class C felony, in exchange for a six-year, one-month sentence as a Range I, standard offender, with the manner of service to be left to the trial court's later determination. Following the sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered that the defendant serve her sentence in continuous confinement. The defendant appeals, arguing that the record does not support a sentence of full confinement and that the trial court erred in denying her request for probation or other alternative sentencing. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Howard Keith Lightsey
The appellant, Howard Keith Lightsey, was indicted by the Williamson County Grand Jury, on one count of possession of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver, one count of possession of marijuana, and one count of drug paraphernalia. The appellant entered a plea agreement and pled guilty to one count of simple possession of cocaine, one count of possession of marijuana and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia. Following a sentencing hearing on February 19, 2002, the trial court ordered another sentencing hearing for April 19, 2002. At that sentencing hearing the court sentenced the appellant to eleven months twenty-nine days on each count. This sentence was suspended except for twenty days and an aggregate fine of $1,150. The appellant now brings this appeal claiming that the trial erred in denying him full probation. We find the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Abel Caberra Torres
The defendant, Abel Caberra Torres, was convicted of attempted especially aggravated robbery, two counts of attempted second degree murder, aggravated assault, and attempted aggravated assault. The trial court merged the last two offenses into the attempted second degree murder convictions and ordered consecutive sentences of twelve years for each offense, for an effective sentence of thirty-six years. In this appeal of right, the defendant asserts (1) that the evidence was not sufficient; (2) that the trial court erred by failing to suppress his statements to police; (3) that the trial court erred in its instructions to the jury; and (4) that the sentence was excessive. The judgments of conviction are affirmed. Because of the misapplication of enhancement factors, each of the sentences are modified to ten years. The cause is remanded to the trial court for further findings on the consecutive sentencing issue. |
Warren | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Clinton Wayne Lynch v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Clinton Wayne Lynch, appeals from the order of the trial court denying his petition requesting forensic DNA analysis of evidence related to the investigation and prosecution which resulted in the petitioner's conviction for second degree murder entered upon his plea of guilty in 1986. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Giesela Robinson
The Defendant pled guilty to one count of facilitation of the possession of over .5 grams of cocaine with the intent to sell or deliver, a Class C felony. In accordance with her plea agreement, she was sentenced to a term of six years, with the manner of service of the sentence to be determined by the trial court. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered her sentence to be served in the Department of Correction. In this appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred by not granting her probation or some other form of alternative sentence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Putnam | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Thomas L. Jackson
A Lauderdale County Jury convicted the Appellant, Thomas L. Jackson, of possession of contraband in a penal institution, a class C felony. On appeal, Jackson argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. After review, we conclude that the proof is sufficient to establish that Jackson knowingly possessed the marijuana found in his cell. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jonathan Dean
In a bench trial, the Obion County trial court convicted the defendant, Jonathan Dean, of sexual battery and sentenced him to two years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant contends (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, and (2) his sentence is excessive. Upon review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Obion | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Joyce M. Lindsey v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner was originally convicted of second degree murder, aggravated kidnapping, forgery, and theft and received an effective thirty-three-year sentence. In this appeal from the denial of post-conviction relief, the petitioner argues the post-conviction court erred in finding she failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Raymond Writer
|
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Raymond Writer - Concurring
|
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Robert Lee Fox
The Appellant, Robert Lee Fox, appeals the sentencing decision of the Hamilton County Criminal Court. Fox entered a Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(e)(1)(B) "open" plea to conspiracy to commit first degree murder and was sentenced to twenty-two years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, Fox argues that the sentence is improper because (1) it is disparate to the sentence received by his co-defendant and (2) four enhancement factors were erroneously applied. After review, we find no error and affirm the decision of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tracy Larenzo Goodwin, alias Lawanda Carter
A Hamilton County Criminal Court jury convicted the defendant, Tracy Larenzo Goodwin, of two counts of reckless aggravated assault, a Class D felony; one count of reckless endangerment, a Class E felony; and one count of criminally negligent homicide, a Class E felony. The trial court sentenced him as a Range III, persistent offender to concurrent sentences of twelve years in the Department of Correction (DOC) for the reckless aggravated assault convictions. For the reckless endangerment and criminally negligent homicide convictions, the defendant received six-year sentences to be served concurrently to each other but consecutively to the reckless aggravated assault sentences for an effective sentence of eighteen years. The defendant appeals, claiming (1) that the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions; (2) that the trial court erred by denying his motion to sever the aggravated assault offenses from the reckless endangerment and criminally negligent homicide offenses; (3) that his convictions for reckless endangerment and criminally negligent homicide violate protections against double jeopardy; and (4) that his sentences are excessive. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Walter Clyde Rainey, Jr.
The appellant, Walter Clyde Rainey, Jr., was convicted by a jury in the Wayne County Circuit Court of seven counts of sexual battery by an authority figure and seven counts of statutory rape. The trial court sentenced the appellant to a total effective sentence of four years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain his convictions; (2) whether the trial court erred by consolidating the offenses for trial; (3) whether the trial court erred in its ruling regarding the admissibility of the testimony of prosecution witness Tabitha Smith; (4) whether the prosecution's closing argument was improper; and (5) whether the trial court erred in sentencing the appellant. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Wayne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Oscar Reynolds
The defendant was found guilty of robbery. His sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of theft. Theft is a lesser included offense of robbery. However, we conclude the failure to instruct the jury was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals |
