State of Tennessee v. Jack Clayton Moberly, Jr.
The defendant, Jack Clayton Moberly, Jr., was convicted by a Dickson County Circuit Court jury of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, conspiracy to commit robbery, a Class D felony, and aggravated assault, a Class C felony. The trial court sentenced him as a Range I, standard offender to concurrent sentences of ten years for the aggravated robbery conviction, two years for the conspiracy to commit robbery conviction, and four years for the aggravated assault conviction. The defendant appeals his aggravated robbery conviction, claiming that the indictment fails to allege that offense. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Dickson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Georgia Lucinda Hagerty
We granted an extraordinary appeal, pursuant to Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure 10(a), to consider the Washington County Criminal Court’s denial of the defendant’s ex parte motion seeking funds for expert services, as outlined in Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 13 and the holding in State v. Barnett, 909 S.W.2d 423 (Tenn. 1995). We stayed the trial court’s proceedings pending our consideration of this issue. Upon a thorough review of the record in this case, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we reverse the ruling of the trial court, remand for further proceedings consistent with our opinion, and lift the previously ordered stay so that trial court proceedings may resume. |
Washington | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kerwin Dowell - Order
|
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Campbell
The Appellant, Christopher Campbell, appeals the sentencing decision of the Shelby County Criminal Court following his jury conviction for aggravated robbery. At sentencing, the trial court ordered that Campbell's eight-year sentence in this case be served consecutively to three prior convictions for aggravated robbery. On appeal, Campbell argues that the trial court erred in ordering consecutive sentences. Because the trial court failed to recite any reasons for imposing consecutive sentences as required by Rule 32, Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure, we are unable to perform appellate review of the sentencing issue. Accordingly, the case is remanded for determination of consecutive sentencing as provided by Rule 32. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Wqyne Belcher
The defendant appeals his convictions for aggravated burglary and possession of burglary tools. After a review of the record, we conclude that the defendant was not prejudiced by the State’s failure to redact an obscure reference to the defendant’s probation status from an audio taped statement that was played at trial. However, we are unable to find sufficient evidence to establish that the defendant had a hammer and screwdriver in his automobile with the intent to commit burglary. Therefore, the defendant’s conviction for possession of burglary tools, a Class A misdemeanor, is reversed and dismissed. The aggravated burglary conviction is affirmed. |
Carter | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Hamadi G. Haley
The defendant, Hamadi G. Haley, was convicted of felony murder, especially aggravated robbery, and aggravated robbery. The trial court imposed a sentence of life with the possibility of parole for the felony murder, 17 years for the especially aggravated robbery, and eight years for the aggravated robbery, with all terms to be served concurrently. In this appeal of right, the defendant claims that he was denied access to material witnesses by the state and that he should have been granted a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. The judgments of the trial court are affirmed. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jackie William Crowe v. State of Tennessee
|
McMinn | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Nakia Rumph v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant, Nakia Rumph, appeals from the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. In 2000, Rumph pled guilty to two counts of aggravated sexual battery and was sentenced to eight years imprisonment on each count. On appeal, Rumph challenges the validity of his guilty plea upon grounds of: (1) voluntariness and (2) ineffective assistance of counsel. After review, we affirm the judgment of the Madison County Circuit Court dismissing the petition. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Elwood Jeffrey Barrigher
The Appellant, Elwood Jeffrey Barrigher, appeals the judgment of the Obion County Circuit Court revoking his placement in the Community Corrections program and reinstating his original nine-year sentence in the Department of Correction. Prior to his revocation, Barrigher was serving a nine-year Community Corrections sentence, which stemmed from his 1999 class B felony conviction for delivery of a Schedule II controlled substance. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm the revocation. |
Obion | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Johnny Moffitt
The defendant, Johnny Moffitt, entered a plea of guilt to second degree murder. The trial court imposed a Range I sentence of 10 years. By agreement, the defendant reserved a certified question of law. See Tenn. R. Crim. P. 37. The issue presented in this appeal is whether the trial court should have dismissed the charge due to the loss or destruction of evidence. The judgment is affirmed. |
Henderson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Bradley R. Fulcher
|
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jacky E. Jones
The appellant, Jacky E. Jones, was found guilty by a jury in the Blount County Circuit Court of one count of obtaining a controlled substance by fraud and was sentenced to three years incarceration in the Blount County Jail. The trial court later granted the appellant probation. Months into the service of his probationary sentence, the appellant stopped reporting to his probation officer. Subsequently, the trial court revoked the appellant's probation and sentenced him to serve his original sentence in confinement. On appeal, the appellant contends that the trial court erred in failing to sentence him to community corrections after revoking his probation. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Stephen Greene
The defendant appeals his convictions of rape of a child and incest. We conclude that the State did not improperly bolster the victim's testimony on direct examination. In addition, the defendant was not denied his constitutional right to confront witnesses against him or to an impartial jury when the trial court denied his request to question a non-witness about an alleged statement made out-of-court. Furthermore, the State was not obligated to disclose the contents of a Department of Human Services file requested by the defendant under Brady v. Maryland or Rule 16 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure. We must, however, reverse the defendant's conviction of incest and remand for a new trial on Count Two based upon the State's failure to make a proper election for the offense. We, therefore, affirm the rape of a child conviction, reverse the conviction of incest, and remand for a new trial. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Charles R. Deason
The defendant was convicted by a jury of DUI. After stipulating to two prior DUI convictions, he was sentenced for third offense DUI to eleven months and twenty-nine days, to be served in the county jail. We conclude that there is sufficient evidence to establish that the defendant was driving while intoxicated as charged in the indictment. Furthermore, the trial court permissibly ordered the defendant to serve eleven months and twenty-nine days in jail. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Dickson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
El Paso Pitts v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, El Paso Pitts, appeals the trial court's denial of post-conviction relief. In this appeal of right, the petitioner contends that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel and argues that the trial court erred by allowing his trial counsel to be present during the evidentiary hearing. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Andre Wilson v. State of Tennessee
|
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Andre Wilson v. State of Tennessee - Dissenting
I am unable to join with the majority in affirming dismissal of the petition upon grounds that it was time-barred. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Sylvester Ford
The defendant, Sylvester Ford, was tried by jury and found guilty of one count of rape of a child and one count of aggravated sexual battery. The trial court sentenced the defendant to serve twenty years as a Range I offender. The defendant filed a timely motion for new trial, which the trial court denied. The defendant now brings this appeal, alleging that he should receive a new trial because the trial court committed plain error by failing to require the state to elect which acts the jury should consider to support the defendant's indicted offenses. The defendant subsequently filed a writ of error coram nobis, and the trial court denied the defendant's petition, finding that the petition was untimely filed and did not allege information that would warrant a new trial. After reviewing the record, we find that the defendant's direct appeal claim has merit and warrants a new trial, and, therefore, we need not address the merits of the defendant's coram nobis petition. |
Chester | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tavarus Williams
The Defendant was convicted in 1991 of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. After his conviction was affirmed on direct appeal, the Defendant filed a post-conviction petition, and the trial court denied relief. However, on post-conviction appeal, this Court determined that the Defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and therefore reversed the trial court's decision, vacated the Defendant's conviction, and remanded the case for a new trial. The Defendant was tried a second time in 2000 before a Shelby County jury, and on this occasion, the jury found the Defendant guilty of second degree murder. The trial court sentenced him to twenty years incarceration. The Defendant now appeals his conviction and sentence, arguing (1) that insufficient evidence was presented at trial to support his conviction, and (2) that he was improperly sentenced. We conclude that sufficient evidence supports the jury's verdict and thus affirm the Defendant's conviction. However, we conclude that the trial court erred in sentencing the Defendant and therefore we remand for re-sentencing in accordance with this opinion. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Raines
The defendant was indicted for first degree murder. After a jury trial, he was convicted of the lesser-included offense of second degree murder and sentenced to twenty-two (22) years as a Range I standard offender. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support the second degree murder conviction. Although the defendant put on proof that he was acting in self-defense or that any irrational actions were the result of adequate provocation by the victim, both issues are questions for the jury and were resolved in favor of the State. The defendant failed to make an argument or cite to authority in support of his assertion that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the defendant's right to bear arms. In addition, there is no record of the defendant's request for such an instruction or the trial court's denial of such request. Therefore, the issue is waived. After a de novo review, we conclude that the trial court followed the correct sentencing procedure and applied the correct statutory enhancing and mitigating factors in sentencing the defendant to twenty-two (22) years. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Polk | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Glenn Bell
In 1992, pursuant to a plea agreement, the Defendant pleaded guilty to possession with intent to sell a Schedule I controlled substance, received an eight-year sentence, and was granted full probation. In 1998, the trial court revoked the Defendant's probation and ordered the Defendant to serve the eight-year sentence in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The Tennessee Department of Correction subsequently placed the Defendant in the special alternative incarceration unit program, and upon the Defendant's successful completion of the boot camp program, released the Defendant on supervision. A warrant was issued on September 6, 2000, alleging that the Defendant had violated the terms of his release. The trial court revoked the Defendant's release and ordered the Defendant to serve the remainder of his sentence in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The Defendant now appeals, arguing that because more than eight calendar years had passed from the date of his original sentence on July 10, 1992 to the date of the violation of probation warrant that was filed on September 6, 2000, the original eight-year probated sentence had expired. We conclude that because the service of the Defendant's eight-year sentence began on April 3, 1998, when his probation was revoked and he was ordered to serve the sentence, the sentence had not expired, and the September 6 warrant was thus timely. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Anderson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Brandy McQueen
|
Washington | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kevin Lane Farrar
|
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John Henry Sparrow, III - Concurring
For the reasons stated in my opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part in State v. Linnell Richmond, No. E2000-01499-CCA-R3-CD, 2001 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 830 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Knoxville, Oct. 15, 2001), I can only concur in the result reached by the majority in this case. |
Dickson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John Henry Sparrow, III
The Defendant, John Henry Sparrow, III, was convicted by a jury of attempted especially aggravated kidnapping, and sentenced to twelve years in the Department of Correction. In this direct appeal the Defendant raises three issues: whether the evidence is sufficient to support his conviction; whether |
Dickson | Court of Criminal Appeals |
