State of Tennessee v. Rita Ellis
The Defendant, Rita Ellis, was convicted upon a jury verdict of theft under the value of five hundred dollars, a Class A misdemeanor. She was sentenced to eleven months and twenty-nine days in the county jail, but her sentence was suspended, and she was placed on probation. She was fined two hundred and fifty dollars. The Defendant presents two issues for review, which she states as follows: (1) failure of counsel to request recording of proceedings denied right of effective appeal; and (2) appellant denied ability to properly argue that verdict was against the weight of the evidence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Monroe | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Brandon Charles Cain
The Defendant, Brandon Charles Cain, was convicted by a jury of attempted first degree murder, a Class A felony. In this direct appeal, the Defendant raises two evidentiary issues: (1) whether the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress statements he gave to law enforcement officers; and (2) whether the trial court erred by allowing the State to show the jury a videotape in which the victim's injuries were depicted. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Quincy L. Goodine v. State of Tennessee
In September 1998, the Petitioner pled guilty to attempted rape, three counts of reckless endangerment, three counts of forgery, and three counts of theft of property. The trial court sentenced the Petitioner to an effective sentence of nine years, with eleven months and twenty-nine days of confinement followed by eight years of probation. The Petitioner served approximately six months of his sentence in jail and was released on probation. In December 1999, the trial court revoked the Petitioner's probation on seven of the ten felony charges based upon the Petitioner's acquisition of new charges, failure to pay restitution, failure to attend counseling, and violation of curfew. The Petitioner did not appeal the trial court's revocation of his probation. In September 2002, the Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief. The post-conviction court dismissed the petition without a hearing, and this appeal ensued. Concluding that the Petitioner has failed to state a proper claim for post-conviction relief and that the post-conviction petition is barred by the applicable statute of limitations, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Carvin Lamont Thomas
|
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Carvin Lamont Thomas - Dissenting
|
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Fredrick Robinson
The defendant was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of aggravated burglary, a Class C felony, and sentenced by the trial court as a Range III, persistent offender to fifteen years in the Department of Correction. In this appeal as of right, he raises two issues: whether the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction and whether the trial court committed reversible error by failing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of facilitation. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Theron Davis
The defendant was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of especially aggravated robbery and criminal attempt to commit second degree murder for his role with a codefendant in robbing and shooting the owner of a Memphis jewelry store. He was sentenced by the trial court to consecutive terms of twenty-three years at 100% for the especially aggravated robbery conviction and twelve years at 30% for the attempted second degree murder conviction. In a timely appeal to this court, the defendant raises the following four issues: (1) whether the trial court erred by overruling his motion to suppress the victim's identification testimony; (2) whether the trial court erred by denying his request for a special jury instruction; (3) whether the trial court committed plain error in its instruction of the definition of "knowingly"; and (4) whether the trial court erred by ordering consecutive sentencing. Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Robert Tyler Haynes
In this direct appeal, the defendant argues the trial court erred in revoking his probation and requiring him to serve his four-year sentence in the Department of Correction. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jason Lewis Adams v. State of Tennessee
On January 5, 2001, the petitioner pled guilty to filing a false police report, aggravated burglary, theft over $1000, vandalism, carjacking, two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, and two counts of aggravated robbery and received a fifteen-year sentence. On February 2, 2001, he filed a motion to withdraw his guilty pleas, which was determined to be untimely and was treated as a petition for post-conviction relief. Because of the subsequent decision of our supreme court in State v. Green, __ S.W.3d __ (Tenn. 2003), we conclude that the petitioner's motion to withdraw his pleas of guilty was timely and should have proceeded pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(f), Withdrawal of Plea of Guilty. We reverse the order of the post-conviction court and remand for the petitioner's motion to withdraw his pleas of guilty to be considered as timely. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Brian Webb
The State appeals the ruling of the Cocke County Circuit Court amending its judgments pertaining to the sentencing of Defendant, Brian Webb, pursuant to Rule 36 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure. Under the terms of a plea agreement involving Defendant's four theft convictions in Cocke and Jefferson counties, the trial court sentenced Defendant on January 8, 2001 to an effective three-year sentence to be served concurrently with Defendant's federal sentence of twenty-four months arising out of the same incident. The trial court's judgment was entered on January 30, 2001 following Defendant's incarceration in federal prison on January 29, 2001. On August 22, 2002, Defendant filed a motion to correct a mistake in the trial court's judgment. After a brief hearing, the trial court granted Defendant's motion and ordered that Defendant's state sentences be modified to time served and the balance served on probation to reflect the trial court's understanding at the time of sentencing that Defendant's sentences would run "coterminous" rather than "concurrently" with his federal sentence. The State argues that the record in this matter does not contain any clerical errors, and the trial court was without jurisdiction to modify Defendant's sentence. After a careful review of this matter, we reverse the judgment of the trial court, and this case is remanded for reinstatement of the judgments of conviction as originally entered. |
Cocke | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Steve A. White
The defendant, Steve A. White, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of attempted first degree premeditated murder, a Class A felony; theft of property valued $10,000 or more but less than $60,000, a Class C felony; and violating the sales tax law, a Class E felony. The trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range I, standard offender to an effective sentence of thirty-one years in the Department of Correction. The defendant appeals, claiming (1) that the evidence is insufficient; (2) that the trial court erred by denying his motion for a bill of particulars; (3) that the trial court erred by denying his motion to exclude evidence; (4) that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury after the prosecution asked a witness an inappropriate question; (5) that the trial court improperly excluded impeachment evidence; (6) that the trial court made several errors regarding the victim's testimony; (7) that the trial court improperly restricted the defense expert's testimony; and (8) that the trial court improperly allowed the state to make inappropriate comments during its closing argument. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Clint Ray McCoy
The Defendant, Clint Ray McCoy, pled guilty to twelve counts of theft: one Class C felony, nine Class D felonies, one Class E felony, and one Class A misdemeanor. Sentencing was left to the discretion of the trial court. The trial court ordered the Defendant to serve an effective sentence of eight years, with one year to be served in confinement and the balance to be served in the Community Corrections program. In this direct appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred by enhancing his sentences and by ordering him to serve one year in confinement. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Henry | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jeremiah Wiseman
The Appellant, Jeremiah Wiseman, pled guilty to carjacking, a class B felony, and was sentenced as a mitigated offender to the Department of Correction for a term of 7.2 years. On appeal, the Appellant argues that the trial court erred by denying him a probated sentence. Finding no error in the record, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jeffery W. Alexander
Convicted of burglary and theft of property valued at more than $1,000 but less than $10,000, the defendant, Jeffery W. Alexander, claims on appeal that the convictions are unsupported by sufficient evidence, that the trial court erred in admitting copies of photographs of the crime scene, and that the trial court erroneously sentenced him as a career offender. Because our review of the record, the briefs, and the applicable law exposes no reversible error, we affirm. |
McNairy | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Stephon Harden
The Appellant, Stephon Harden, appeals from the judgment of the Sullivan County Circuit Court revoking his probation and remanding him to the Department of Correction. In March of 1999, Harden pled guilty to two counts of class E felony theft, one count of forgery, aggravated burglary, and failure to appear. He received an effective six-year sentence to be served in the Department of Correction. Harden was released following completion of the "boot camp" program and was administratively granted probation by the Commissioner of Correction. Warrants alleging violations of his probationary sentence were issued on February 21st and 28th of 2002. Following a hearing, he was found in violation of his probation and resentenced to the Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred by failing to consider alternatives to revocation. Finding no merit to Harden's claim, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Steve Kyger v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant, Steve Kyger, appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief by the Rutherford County Circuit Court. On December 21, 1987, Kyger was convicted of first degree murder, armed robbery, and joyriding, and received a sentence of life imprisonment plus thirty-five years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, Kyger challenges these convictions raising the single issue of ineffective assistance of counsel. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Christopher Curry v. Fred Raney, Warden
The petitioner, Christopher Curry, filed in the Lake County Circuit Court a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, alleging that his confinement was illegal due to the expiration of his sentence. The habeas corpus court summarily dismissed the petition and the petitioner appealed. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we reverse the dismissal of the petition for habeas corpus relief and remand to the habeas corpus court for the appointment of counsel and an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the petitioner's sentence has expired. |
Lake | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Thurman G. Ledford
Thurman G. Ledford appeals a certified question of law whether the strong odor of ammonia emanating from his residence supported probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant, which resulted in his arrest for drug-related activities. Because we conclude that the issue is not dispositive of the defendant's case, we dismiss his appeal. |
Hamblen | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Bruce Hollars
The Overton County Criminal Court revoked the probation of the defendant, Bruce Hollars, and ordered his original sentences of two consecutive terms of eleven months and twenty-nine days be served in confinement. On appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court erred by requiring him to serve the entire sentence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Overton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Michael J. Bailey v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Michael J. Bailey, filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. Following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief and the petitioner timely appealed. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Mario Antoine Leggs
The Defendant, Mario Antoine Leggs, was convicted by a jury of theft, robbery, two counts of reckless endangerment, aggravated robbery, two counts of evading arrest, three counts of reckless aggravated assault, leaving the scene of an accident, and driving on a suspended license. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered the Defendant to serve an effective sentence of twenty-three years, eleven months, and twenty-eight days in the Department of Correction. In this direct appeal, the Defendant raises the following issues: (1) whether the trial court erred by denying the Defendant's motion to sever the offenses; (2) whether the trial court erred by admitting prior identification testimony; (3) whether the Defendant is entitled to a new trial based upon improper remarks made by the prosecutor during closing argument; (4) whether the trial court erred by not reducing the Defendant's three convictions for reckless aggravated assault to simple assault; (5) whether the trial court erred by not merging one of the Defendant's convictions for evading arrest with his conviction for leaving the scene of an accident; and (6) whether the trial court properly sentenced the Defendant. We hold that the trial court erred by not severing the offenses that occurred on November 16, 2000. However, we deem the error harmless. Because we find insufficient evidence to support the Defendant's second conviction for evading arrest, we reverse it and dismiss that charge. In all other respects, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Sandra Ann Whaley, alias Sandy Ann Whaley
The appellant, Sandra Ann Whaley, was convicted by a jury in the Hamilton County Criminal Court of driving under the influence (DUI) and assault. The trial court imposed a total effective sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days incarceration in the workhouse, to be suspended upon service of thirty days in confinement. On appeal, the appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting her DUI conviction and she also complains about the sentences imposed. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Tracy Lebron Vick v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant, Tracy Lebron Vick, appeals the Hamilton County Criminal Court's dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. Vick pled guilty to second-degree murder and received a forty-year sentence, as a range II multiple offender. On appeal, Vick challenges the validity of his guilty plea upon grounds of voluntariness and ineffective assistance of counsel. Following a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court dismissing the petition. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Clara Jean Neblett
Appellant, Clara Jean Neblett, was indicted by the Robertson County Grand Jury for aggravated assault and unlawful possession of a weapon. A jury found Appellant guilty of both counts. Appellant was sentenced to four years for her aggravated assault conviction and thirty days for her possession of a weapon conviction, to be served concurrently. In this appeal, Appellant challenges: (1) the trial court's ruling that defense counsel could not impeach the victim's testimony using extrinsic evidence of a prior bad act; (2) the trial court's denial of post-trial diversion; and (3) the trial court's refusal to apply mitigating factors to Appellant's sentence. After a careful review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Robertson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Hughes D. Cadwell
Defendant, Hughes D. Cadwell, was convicted in the Williamson County General Sessions Court for driving on a suspended license on December 23, 1997. He received a ninety-day suspended sentence and six months probation. On June 22, 1998, a probation violation warrant was issued, alleging that Defendant had failed to maintain monthly contact with his probation officer and that he had failed to pay probation fees and respond to a written request for action. Defendant was not arrested on the warrant until February 6, 2002. At the February 13, 2002, hearing in Williamson County General Sessions Court, Defendant pled true to the probation violation, and the court ordered him to serve the ninety-day sentence. Defendant appealed to the Williamson County Circuit Court on February 15, 2002. The circuit court conducted a hearing to determine whether to reinstate Defendant's probation. The court then dismissed the appeal on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction because Defendant had pled true to the probation violation. We conclude that the circuit court had jurisdiction to hear Defendant's appeal from the general sessions court, de novo, and therefore, we remand the case to the circuit court for proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals |
