State of Tennessee v. James Spurling
|
McMinn | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Edward Jackson Thorpe
The defendant, Edward Jackson Thorpe, was convicted by a jury of the offense of aggravated vehicular homicide and leaving the scene of an accident involving death. He received sentences of twenty-two year's incarceration and two year's incarceration, respectively. In this appeal he maintains that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict. After a careful review of the record and the applicable law we must disagree and affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jerry James Hayes v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant, Jerry James Hayes, appeals as of right from the judgment of the Carroll County Circuit Court denying his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, the Appellant argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. After review of the record, dismissal of the petition is affirmed. |
Carroll | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Carlos Haynes
The Defendant, Carlos Haynes, pled guilty to possession of marijuana with the intent to sell, a Class E felony, and possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor. As part of his plea agreement, he expressly reserved with the consent of the trial court and the State the right to appeal a certified question of law pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2)(i). The certified question of law concerns the validity of a search warrant. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Tony E. Brown v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in finding that he received effective assistance of trial counsel. We conclude that the petitioner has failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of the petition for post-conviction relief. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Wayne L. Holt
Appellant, Wayne L. Holt, was indicted by the Davidson County Grand Jury on one count of first degree felony murder, one count of premeditated first degree murder, and one count of especially aggravated robbery. At the close of the State's case-in-chief, the trial court granted Appellant's motion for judgment of acquittal as to the count of first degree felony murder and to the count of especially aggravated robbery, but not as to the remaining count of premeditated first degree murder. Appellant was convicted by a jury of his peers of the lesser-included offense of second degree murder and was sentenced, as a Range II multiple offender, to thirty (30) years imprisonment. In this appeal of right, Appellant raises five (5) issues for our review. He contends that the trial court committed reversible error in: 1) denying Appellant's pretrial motion to suppress his statement; 2) denying Appellant's motion for judgment of acquittal as to the count of premeditated first degree murder at the close of the State's case-in-chief; 3) overruling Appellant's objection to the State's closing argument; and 4) granting the State's request for a flight instruction. He further contends that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Frederick Corlew
The defendant was convicted of aggravated robbery, attempted aggravated rape, both Class B felonies, and theft, which the trial court merged with the aggravated robbery conviction. The trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range II, multiple offender to fifteen years for aggravated robbery and twenty years for attempted aggravated rape. The sentences were imposed consecutively. The defendant argues on appeal that the evidence is insufficient to support a conviction of aggravated robbery because the victim's belief was unreasonable that the defendant was armed; the evidence is insufficient to support a conviction of attempted aggravated rape because the victim learned that the defendant was, in fact, unarmed prior to the rape; and his sentence of thirty-five years is excessive. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Dickson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Shane Mahoney
The defendant, Christopher Shane Mahoney, pled guilty to two counts of money laundering, a Class B felony, and one count of conspiracy to engage in money laundering, a Class C felony, receiving a three-year sentence and two eight-year sentences, and to promoting prostitution, a Class E felony, receiving a two-year sentence. All sentences were to be served concurrently for an effective sentence of eight years. He timely appealed, arguing that he was improperly sentenced, both as to the lengths of the sentences and the trial court's not placing him on probation or community corrections. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kelvin Hooks
A Shelby County jury convicted the defendant, Kelvin Hooks, of second degree murder and felony murder. The trial court merged the two convictions and sentenced the defendant to life on the felony murder conviction. In this appeal as of right, the defendant raises the following issues: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for second degree murder and felony murder; (2) whether the state improperly questioned the defendant regarding his alibi after he withdrew a Notice of Alibi; and (3) whether the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on self-defense. After reviewing the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Arthur R. Simpson
Defendant, Arthur R. Simpson, was indicted for the offense of aggravated assault, allegedly committed by causing the victim to reasonably fear imminent bodily injury by the use of a deadly weapon, to wit: a handgun. At the conclusion of a jury trial, the trial court charged the jury with aggravated assault, as alleged, and also charged the jury as to lesser-included offenses of felony reckless endangerment and misdemeanor assault. The jury found Defendant guilty of felony reckless endangerment. He was sentenced to serve one year in the workhouse, which was suspended and he was placed on probation. Defendant appeals, with his sole issue being that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction of felony reckless endangerment. While we find that the evidence presented would be sufficient to support a conviction for felony reckless endangerment, if that offense had been charged, we hold that under the supreme court's decision of State v. Moore, 77 S.W.3d 132 (Tenn. 2002), felony reckless endangerment is not a lesser-included offense of aggravated assault as charged in the indictment. Therefore, the conviction must be reversed and this case remanded for a new trial on the charge of misdemeanor assault. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Markus Lamont Willoughby v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner appeals the trial court's denial of post-conviction relief. He argues trial counsel's failure to investigate and present an alibi defense deprived him of the effective assistance of counsel at his original trial. We find no merit to his argument and affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Allen Prentice Blye
|
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Lakisha S. Thomas
The defendant, Lakisha S. Thomas, was convicted by a Davidson County Criminal Court jury of aggravated assault, a Class C felony, and reckless aggravated assault, a Class D felony. The trial court sentenced her as a Range I, standard offender to concurrent sentences of five years for the aggravated assault conviction and three years for the reckless aggravated assault conviction. The defendant appeals, claiming that the evidence is insufficient to support her convictions and that the trial court committed various sentencing errors. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Woodson Carter Criner
The defendant, Woodson Carter Criner, was convicted in the Lauderdale County Circuit Court of driving under the influence (DUI) and received a sentence of eleven months, twenty-nine days to be suspended after serving one hundred twenty days in jail and a fine of one thousand one hundred dollars. The state appeals, claiming that the defendant's DUI sentence is illegal because the defendant was convicted of felony DUI. Although we hold that the trial court could sentence the defendant to less than one year for a Class E felony, we remand the case to the trial court to clarify whether the defendant was convicted of felony or misdemeanor DUI, review the defendant's sentence, and reenter the judgment. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Reiko Nolen v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Reiko Nolen, appeals as of right the Dyer County Circuit Court's denial of his petition for acquittal and removal of his guilty plea. He pled guilty to possession of over .5 grams of cocaine with intent to sell, a Class B felony, and was sentenced to six months in the county jail and eight years on probation. The petitioner contends that (1) the state breached the plea agreement by not allowing him to serve a subsequent twenty-year sentence before his probationary sentence in this case and (2) his sentence is illegal because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to sentence him to a term of probation to be followed by a term of incarceration. We hold that the petitioner's sentence is legal and that he has no basis for an appeal. Therefore, we are constrained to dismiss the appeal because of the lack of jurisdiction. |
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Rickie Reed
The appellant, Rickie Reed, was convicted by a jury in the Shelby County Criminal Court of one count of second degree murder, one count of attempted second degree murder, and one count of reckless aggravated assault. The trial court merged the reckless aggravated assault conviction into the attempted second degree murder conviction. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a sentence of twenty-three years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction for the second degree murder conviction and a sentence of twelve years incarceration for the attempted second degree murder conviction, with the sentences to be served consecutively. In this appeal of right, the appellant alleges that the evidence was not sufficient to support his convictions of second degree murder and attempted second degree murder. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James Carter v. Fred J. Raney, Warden
Petitioner was denied habeas corpus relief by the trial court. He now appeals, claiming the trial court erred in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing and in failing to appoint counsel to assist him with his habeas corpus claim. We affirm the denial of habeas corpus relief. |
Lake | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Mark Allen Haskett
The Defendant pled guilty to aggravated burglary and assault. The Defendant received a sentence of six years for the aggravated burglary conviction and a sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days for the assault conviction. The trial court ordered that the six-year sentence for aggravated burglary be served concurrently with the sentence for assault, but consecutively to a sentence for evading arrest from another case. The Defendant's effective sentence in this case is six years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the length of his sentence for aggravated burglary and the manner of service of his sentences. Although the trial court misapplied certain enhancement factors, we conclude that the sentences imposed are appropriate and affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Kenneth P. Bondurant and Hugh Peter Bondurant v. State of Tennessee
The appellants, Kenneth P. Bondurant and Hugh Peter Bondurant, appeal from the dismissal of their post-conviction petitions following a hearing on the question of whether the petitions were filed within the time prescribed under Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-30-202(a). The trial court found from the evidence presented that the petitions were filed more than one year from the final action of the highest appellate court to which an appeal was taken and that the petitions were time barred. As a result the petitions were dismissed. In this appeal the appellants present two issues for our consideration. First, the appellants challenge whether the trial court erred in finding that the first post-conviction petitions filed by the appellants from prison were mailed beyond the applicable statute of limitations. Second, the appellants ask us to interpret Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-30-202(a) so as to begin the running of the statute of limitations from the date the highest appellate court's mandate is filed on direct appeal. We find no error in the findings of the trial court, and we decline to interpret Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-30-202(a) in the manner urged by the appellants. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Giles | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Antonio Young v. State of Tennessee
Antonio Young appeals the Hamilton County Criminal Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The lower court found his allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel unsupported by the evidence and denied relief. Because we are unpersuaded of error, we affirm. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Dianna Helton Hord
The Defendant, Dianna Helton Hord, pled guilty to driving under the influence and driving on a revoked license. As part of her plea agreement, she expressly reserved with the consent of the trial court and the State the right to appeal a certified question of law pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2)(i). The certified question of law stems from the trial court's denial of the Defendant's motion to suppress. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Frederick H. Gonzales, Jr.
A Williamson County jury convicted the defendant, Frederick H. Gonzales, Jr., of selling cocaine in an amount of .5 grams or more and assessed a fine of $50,000. The trial court sentenced the defendant to serve nine years as a Range I offender and reduced his fine to $5,000. The defendant now brings this appeal, challenging the trial court's failure to grant his motion for new trial on the basis that (1) evidence of a prior bad act committed by the defendant was improperly admitted at trial and that (2) the state improperly referred to the defendant's failure to call witnesses in closing arguments. Because we find that (1) the defendant opened the door to the prior bad act testimony and waived this issue by failing to object at trial and that (2) the prosecutor's reference to missing witnesses was harmless error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ronald Dotson
The defendant appeals his sentence of life imprisonment without parole as a repeat violent offender because he was not tried within 180 days of arraignment. Because the defendant did not prove that he suffered prejudice from the delay in bringing his case to trial, we affirm the decision of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State v. Kenneth Stewart
|
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State v. Jamey Cheek
|
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals |
