State of Tennessee v. James Phillip Rickman
A Lake County jury convicted the Defendant, James Phillip Rickman, of one count of attempted first degree premeditated murder resulting in serious bodily injury, one count of employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, and three counts of aggravated assault. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of twenty-one years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions for attempted first degree murder with serious bodily injury and one count of aggravated assault; and (2) the trial court erred when it dismissed his motion to suppress. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. |
Court of Criminal Appeals | ||
State of Tennessee v. Brandon M. Jones
Defendant Brandon M. Jones was convicted by a jury of seventeen counts of a twenty-seven-count indictment. The offenses involved the possession of methamphetamine, marijuana, drug paraphernalia, and a firearm. He was sentenced as a Range II offender to a total effective sentence of thirty-five years. On appeal, Defendant contends the trial court erred in allowing the jury to deliberate late into the evening before reaching a verdict in a bifurcated trial in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial. Following our review of the entire record, the briefs of the parties, and applicable authority, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Steven Mitchel Ambrose
The Defendant, Steven Mitchel Ambrose, appeals his jury convictions for four counts of rape of a child and his resulting effective sentence of sixty years. On appeal, he argues: (1) the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress his statements made to law enforcement; (2) the State provided an insufficient election of offenses which deprived him of a verdict by a unanimous jury; (3) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions; (4) his sentence is excessive; and (5) the multiple “procedural errors and constitutional violations” that occurred in the trial court violated his right to due process and entitle him to relief under the cumulative error doctrine. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Christopher A. Duncan v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Christopher A. Duncan, appeals from the Cheatham County Circuit |
Cheatham | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Andrew James Skaalerud
The Defendant, Andrew James Skaalerud, appeals from the Davidson County Criminal Court’s probation revocation of the three-year sentence he received for his guilty-pleaded conviction for possession with intent to sell or to deliver alprazolam. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his probation and ordering him to serve the remainder of his sentence in confinement. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Derrick Lee Johnson
Derrick Lee Johnson, Defendant, appeals from the Rutherford County Circuit Court’s judgment revoking his probation and ordering him to serve the balance of his probationary sentence of eight years in confinement. On appeal, Defendant argues the trial court abused its discretion by improperly considering Defendant’s indicted charges instead of the ones for which he was ultimately convicted, and by failing to consider whether alternative sentencing would serve the ends of justice. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Eric Lee Hoosier, Sr.
The defendant, Eric L. Hoosier, Sr., was found guilty by a Montgomery County jury of criminal attempt to commit first-degree murder, criminal attempt to commit second-degree murder, employment of a firearm during a dangerous felony, reckless endangerment, and reckless endangerment firing a deadly weapon. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of seventy years in confinement. On appeal, the defendant contends the trial court erred in excluding character evidence of a victim, in denying the defendant’s motions for judgment of acquittal and new trial, and in sentencing the defendant to the maximum sentence within the range. The defendant also contends the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his convictions. Following our review, we affirm. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Gregory Cornielus Thompson
The Defendant, Gregory Cornielus Thompson, pled guilty to two counts of robbery. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of eight years and placed the Defendant on probation. Thereafter, the Defendant was arrested and convicted of driving under the influence of an intoxicant and felony evading arrest. Following a hearing, the trial court revoked his suspended sentences in full and ordered the original sentences into execution. On appeal, the Defendant argues that a complete revocation of his sentences was an abuse of discretion. We respectfully disagree and affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Dedrick Wiggins
The pro se Defendant, Dedrick Wiggins, appeals the summary denial of his Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure 36.1 motion to correct an illegal sentence. Because the Defendant has not raised a colorable claim for Rule 36.1 relief, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Marshall G. Tate v. State of Tennessee
After remand by the Tennessee Supreme Court, we reconsider Petitioner’s, Marshall G. Tate’s, appeal from the Franklin County Circuit Court’s order denying him post-conviction relief. On appeal, Petitioner argues he received ineffective assistance of counsel when he pleaded guilty to driving with a blood alcohol concentration of .08 percent or more (DUI per se). Petitioner also argues counsel’s ineffective assistance rendered his guilty plea unknowing and involuntary. Following our review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Franklin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jermaine Mitchell Gray
The Appellant, Jermaine Mitchell Gray, appeals his conviction of the sale of 0.5 grams or more of methamphetamine for which he received a sentence of ten years’ imprisonment. He argues: (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction; (2) the State failed to reveal the existence and identity of a second confidential informant in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); and (3) the trial court denied his right of allocution before sentencing. We additionally deny appointed counsel’s July 18 motion to withdraw as counsel in this case. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Hardin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Noah Rashad Lyles
The defendant, Noah Rashad Lyles, pleaded guilty to theft of property between $1,000 and $2,500, and the trial court imposed a sentence of three years’ incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant argues the trial court erred in denying his request for alternative sentencing. After reviewing the record and considering the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Cedric Price a/k/a Cedric Hopgood
The Defendant appeals as of right his jury conviction of reckless homicide for which he received a sentence of twelve years’ incarceration. The sole issue presented for our review is whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. Upon our review, we affirm. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Randy Scott Bible
A Hamblen County jury convicted the Defendant, Randy Scott Bible, of aggravated |
Hamblen | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Shanada Nicole Snipes
The Defendant, Shanada Nicole Snipes, pled guilty in the Madison County Circuit Court to aggravated robbery, aggravated assault, and multiple drug offenses. After a sentencing hearing, she received an effective ten-year sentence to be served in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant claims that the trial court erred by failing to apply mitigating factor (13) to her convictions. Upon review, we conclude that the trial court properly sentenced the Defendant. However, we also conclude that the Defendant’s conviction of possession of a Schedule II controlled substance with intent to sell in count three must be reversed and vacated because the Defendant was not charged with that offense and that the case must be remanded to the trial court for correction of the judgment in count four to reflect that the Defendant received a ten-year sentence for possession of a Schedule II controlled substance with intent to deliver. The Defendant’s convictions and effective ten-year sentence are affirmed in all other respects. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jamie Rebecca Ryan
Defendant, Jamie Rebecca Ryan, pleaded guilty in Bedford County Circuit Court to one count of possession of 0.5 grams or more of methamphetamine with intent to sell, a Class B felony. The parties agreed to an eight-year sentence, with the manner of service of sentence left to the trial court’s discretion. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered Defendant to serve her full sentence in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Correction (TDOC), consecutive to a five-year sentence for a prior unrelated offense. On appeal, Defendant argues the trial court abused its discretion in ordering Defendant to serve a sentence of full incarceration and in imposing consecutive sentences. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Trevor Rachell Cullom
The Defendant, Trevor Rachell Cullom, appeals from the Knox County Criminal Court’s |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Cortney R. Logan v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Cortney R. Logan, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for writ of error coram nobis as untimely. Following our review of the entire record, briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the coram nobis court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
LaNorris O'Brien Chambers v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, LaNorris O’Brien Chambers, appeals as of right from the Williamson County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his pro se petition for post-conviction relief, wherein he challenged his guilty-pleaded convictions for robbery and fraudulent use of a credit or debit card between $1,000 and $2,500 and resulting fifteen-year sentence. After appointed post-conviction counsel filed a notice that no amended petition would be filed, the post-conviction court found that Petitioner had raised a colorable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; however, the court summarily dismissed the petition, reasoning that Petitioner had “fail[ed] to demonstrate any actual prejudice whatsoever” because he sought to be resentenced rather than rescind his guilty pleas and proceed to trial. On appeal, Petitioner asserts that he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing based upon his claims of having entered an unknowing and involuntary guilty plea after receiving ineffective assistance of counsel. Following our review, we affirm. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Richard Caldwell
Following a trial, a jury found Defendant, Richard Caldwell, guilty of felony evading arrest, reckless driving, and driving on a revoked or suspended license, for which Defendant received an effective two-year sentence. On appeal, Defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his request for a jury instruction regarding the State’s duty to preserve evidence. After a thorough review of the record and applicable case law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Isaiah Jamal Simmons
The Defendant, Isaiah Jamal Simmons, appeals from his guilty-pleaded convictions in the |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Buford Dudley Creighton
Defendant, Buford Dudley Creighton, claims that the evidence presented at his bench trial was insufficient to support his conviction for identity theft. We determine that the proof was sufficient to show that Defendant used the personal identifying information of another with the intent to avoid criminal prosecution and affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Sedrick Darnell Cummings
The Defendant, Sedrick Darnell Cummings, appeals as of right from his misdemeanor domestic assault conviction, for which he received a sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days probation after service of ten days in jail. The Defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and that the trial court erred in admitting alleged prior bad acts. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Coffee | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Brandon L. Holliday
A Madison County jury convicted the Appellant, Brandon L. Holliday, on multiple counts for evading arrest in a vehicle with risk of death or injury to innocent bystanders, disobeying a traffic signal, violating financial responsibility law, reckless driving, violation of duty upon striking a fixture upon a highway, and driving with a revoked license, for which he received an effective sentence of twelve years’ confinement. On appeal, the Appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of evading arrest because it did not establish that bystanders were at risk of death or injury during his flight. Upon review, we affirm. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Dewey Huggins
The Appellant, Dewey Huggins, was convicted of aggravated domestic assault and sentenced to fourteen years’ imprisonment. The sole issue presented in this appeal is whether Assistant District Attorney General Falen Chandler should have been disqualified from prosecuting this case based on her prior representation of the Appellant in a separate criminal case in 2014. After review, we determine that no conflict of interest existed and affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Fayette | Court of Criminal Appeals |
