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 | |
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 | |
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. 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. 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 | |
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. Kevin Lane Farrar
|
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John R. Black
A Davidson County grand jury indicted the defendant for one count of aggravated kidnapping, one count of aggravated rape, three counts of aggravated assault, and one count of assault. At the close of a jury trial, he stood convicted of aggravated kidnapping, two aggravated assaults, and one simple assault. He subsequently received a sixteen year sentence for the aggravated kidnapping; seven years each for the two aggravated assaults; and eleven months and twenty-nine days for the assault. The trial court also set count one to run consecutively to count five resulting in an effective sentence of twenty-three years.1 The case is presently before this Court following the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion for a new trial. Through this appeal the defendant avers that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction for aggravated kidnapping; (2) the trial court erred in allowing the State to present photographic evidence to the jury; and (3) the trial court erred by permitting the State to amend for a second time the indictment charging him with aggravated rape. After reviewing these issues, we find that none merit relief but remand the case for correction of the judgments. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Keith A. Otey
The Defendant, Keith A. Otey, was convicted one count of driving on a revoked license and one count of possession of .5 grams or more of crack cocaine with the intent to sell or deliver. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I standard offender to ten days for the revoked license conviction and ten years and a $2,000 fine for the drug conviction. The sentences were to be served concurrently. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred in (1) denying the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized from and a statement made by the Defendant as a result of an illegal stop; (2) allowing the State to introduce evidence of a prior cocaine sale made by the Defendant; (3) allowing hearsay evidence regarding the Defendant's prior cocaine sale; and (4) ruling that a ten-year-old incident involving the Defendant giving a false name to a police officer could be used to impeach the Defendant if he chose to testify. We reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Lynch
The defendant appeals the revocation of his probation. After a review of the record, we conclude that the defendant stipulated to the violation at the revocation hearing. Furthermore, the defendant had actual notice of an alleged violation based on two positive drug screens. Therefore, the court properly found a probation violation on that basis. Finally, the defendant's failure to pay court costs and restitution as ordered by the court was not due to an inability to pay but was a willful refusal to pay. As such, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking the defendant's probation. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Donald King, Jr.
The Defendant, Donald King, Jr., pled guilty to three drug offenses (one Class C felony, one Class D felony, and one Class A misdemeanor), two habitual motor vehicle offender offenses, driving under the influence, and felony reckless endangerment. The plea agreement included an effective five year sentence, with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. After a hearing, the trial court denied an alternative sentence and ordered the Defendant to serve his sentence in the Department of Correction. The Defendant now appeals, contending that the trial court erred in denying him an alternative sentence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Bonnie Stillwell Proffitt Godfrey
|
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Albert Yarbrough
The defendant was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of rape, a Class B felony, and sentenced by the trial court to fourteen years, at 100% as a violent offender, in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The sole issue he presents on appeal is whether the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction. Based upon our review of the record, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find him guilty of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Gregory Ozier
The defendant, Gregory Ozier, an inmate at the Whiteville Correctional Facility, appeals an order transferring his custody to Illinois to face a charge of first degree murder in the Criminal Division of the Circuit Court of Cook County. Because the trial court properly granted the petition by the State of Illinois for custody of the defendant, the judgment is affirmed. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Mickey G. White
Following a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of aggravated burglary and sentenced as a Range II, multiple offender to nine years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. He timely appealed, arguing that the evidence presented was insufficient and that the trial court erred in instructing the jury as to criminal trespass as a lesser-included offense of aggravated burglary. Based upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
McNairy | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kenneth Anthony Henderson
The Defendant, Kenneth Anthony Henderson, was convicted by a jury of second degree murder, attempted second degree murder, and aggravated assault. The trial court merged the attempted second degree murder and the aggravated assault convictions. The Defendant was sentenced to twenty-three years for the murder, and to eleven years for the attempted murder, with the terms to run consecutively. In this direct appeal the Defendant raises two issues: whether the evidence in support of his murder conviction is sufficient, and whether the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on certain lesser-included offenses. Finding that the trial court committed reversible error in failing to charge certain lesser-included offenses, we reverse the Defendant's convictions and remand this matter for a new trial. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Steven Kelly Mezo
The defendant, Steven Kelly Mezo, who was charged with two counts of the aggravated sexual battery of his daughter, A.M., was convicted of one count of aggravated sexual battery and one count of assault. The trial court ordered concurrent sentences of eight years and 11 months and 29 days, respectively. In this appeal of right, the defendant asserts that (1) he was denied his constitutional right of assistance of counsel of his choosing; (2) he was denied the effective assistance of counsel with regard to a pre-trial settlement offer; (3) the evidence was insufficient; and (4) the trial court erred by admitting hearsay statements. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John Charles Johnson
Defendant, John Charles Johnson, was convicted by a Davidson County jury of second degree murder, especially aggravated robbery, and facilitation of aggravated kidnapping. The trial court sentenced him to consecutive sentences of twenty-five years for second degree murder and five years for facilitation of aggravated kidnapping, to be served concurrently with a twenty year sentence for especially aggravated robbery. On appeal, our Court affirmed the conviction and the lengths of each sentence, but reversed the order of consecutive sentencing and remanded to the trial court for a new hearing solely on the issue of consecutive or concurrent sentencing. See State v. John Charles Johnson, No. M2000-00529-CCA-R3-CD, 2000 WL 208512, Davidson County (Tenn. Crim. App., Nashville, March 1, 2001) perm to appeal denied (Tenn. 2001). On remand, the trial court resentenced Defendant to consecutive sentences of twenty five years for second degree murder and five years for facilitation of aggravated kidnapping. In this appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court erred by again ordering the sentences to be served consecutively. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Antione Harbison v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Antione Harbison, appeals the denial of post-conviction relief from the Davidson County Criminal Court. The petitioner pled guilty on August 13, 1999, to aggravated rape and attempted first degree murder. For the aggravated rape charge, the petitioner waived his sentence range, and the court sentenced him as a violent offender to thirty years with 100% of the sentence to be served. For the attempted first degree murder charge, the court sentenced the petitioner as a Range 1, standard offender and imposed a concurrent fifteen-year sentence. The petitioner appeals his denial of post-conviction relief, claiming that (1) his "defense counsel at the time of the plea was ineffective in failing to investigate [petitioner's] mental health and his ability to understand the nature of the charges against him, the guilty plea he entered, and the sentence he was to serve" and (2) the post-conviction court "erred in the post-conviction proceeding by denying [petitioner] an ex parte mental evaluation of the [petitioner's] competency by a private expert." |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Desi Boyd
Defendant pled guilty to two counts of unlawful possession of a Schedule VI controlled substance with intent to sell and deliver. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it imposed a sentence of incarceration. Defendant also appeals the admission of certain hearsay evidence. We conclude there was no error and thus, affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals |
