State of Tennessee v. Terrance Rogers
Defendant, Terrance Rogers, appeals the revocation of his community corrections sentence. Defendant contends that the court erred by revoking his sentence for failing to report a new arrest, and for the alleged possession of cocaine. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Cornelius Michael Hyde
The Defendant, Cornelius Michael Hyde, was convicted of aggravated child abuse of a child under seven years old and appealed as of right on numerous grounds, including the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offenses of aggravated assault and assault. Judge Welles held that the trial court's failure to so charge the jury was error, but harmless under State v. Williams, 977 S.W.2d 101, 105 (Tenn. 1998). Judge Wedemeyer concurred, finding the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; Judge Tipton dissented, finding that the State failed to carry its burden of demonstrating that the trial court's error in not instructing the jury on the lesser-included offenses was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See State v. Cornelius Michael Hyde, No. E2000-00042-CC-R3-CD, 2000 WL 1877490, at *11 (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, Dec. 28, 2000). Our supreme court subsequently granted the Defendant's application to appeal this case for the purpose of remanding it to us for reconsideration in light of that court's opinions in State v. Honeycutt, 54 S.W.3d 762 (Tenn. 2001) and State v. Ely, 48 S.W.3d 710 (Tenn. 2001). We now conclude that the trial court's error in failing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of reckless aggravated assault is reversible error, and therefore remand this case to the trial court for a new trial. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Mark Christopher Davis
|
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Darrell M. Scales
The Defendant, Darrell M. Scales, was convicted by a jury of three counts of aggravated robbery and three counts of aggravated sexual battery. The trial court subsequently sentenced the Defendant to nine years on each of the robberies and to nine years on each of the sexual batteries. The court ordered the sentences to be run partially consecutive, for an effective sentence of twenty-seven years. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant raises the following five issues: (1) whether the trial court erred by refusing to suppress identification testimony; (2) whether the evidence is sufficient to support his convictions; (3) whether the trial court erred in failing to require the State to elect from two separate incidents of aggravated sexual battery against one of the victims; (4) whether the trial court erred in failing to charge the jury on lesser-included offenses of aggravated sexual battery; and (5) whether the trial court erred in ordering partially consecutive sentences. We hold that the trial court committed reversible error when it failed to require the State to elect offenses, and that it committed reversible error when it failed to instruct the jury on all lesser-included offenses of aggravated sexual battery. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for retrial the Defendant's convictions for aggravated sexual battery. In all other respects the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Timothy Allen Moore
The Defendant, Timothy Allen Moore, pled guilty to two counts of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony. The trial court subsequently sentenced the Defendant as a Range I standard offender to the minimum sentence of eight years on each count. The trial court ran the sentences concurrently to each other, but consecutively to a sentence the Defendant had received in another county. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant challenges the trial court's imposition of consecutive sentences. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Humphreys | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jeffrey K. Shaw
On February 5, 2001, the Defendant, Jeffery K. Shaw, entered a plea of guilty to felony weapon possession. Pursuant to Rule 37 (b)(1)(i) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Defendant sought to reserve a certified question of law to be reviewed by this Court. In this appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence and statements obtained as a result of the Defendant's arrest in the home of a third party. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Alfonzo E. Anderson
Alfonzo E. Anderson appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court's denial of his petition for the writ of habeas corpus. He claims that the indictment charging him with first degree felony murder is insufficient to allege the offense because it does not allege a factual basis for the underlying felony, attempted aggravated robbery. Because we agree with the lower court that the indictment sufficiently alleges the crime of first degree felony murder, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Perdido Cook
The Appellant, Perdido Cook, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of especially aggravated robbery, aggravated robbery, and attempted aggravated robbery. The trial court sentenced Cook to serve 25 years for the especially aggravated robbery conviction, 8 years for the aggravated robbery conviction, and 3 years for the attempted aggravated robbery conviction. All sentences were to be served concurrently. On appeal, Cook raises the following issues for our review: (1) Whether the evidence is sufficient to support the convictions; and (2) whether the imposition of the maximum sentence of 25 years for especially aggravated robbery is justified in view of the trial court's misapplication of certain enhancement factors. After review, we find no reversible error and affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Gregory W. Clements v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Gregory W. Clements, pled guilty in the Shelby County Criminal Court to one count of second degree murder and was sentenced as a Range II offender to thirty-five years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that his sentence is illegal. The post-conviction court dismissed the petition, due to the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations. The petitioner now appeals. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John D. Sneed
The defendant pled guilty in 1998 to delivery of over 0.5 grams of cocaine for an agreed fine of $2,000 and an eight-year sentence, as a Range I standard offender, with the manner of service of the sentence to be determined by the trial court. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court denied alternative sentencing. In this appeal, the defendant contests this denial. After review, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jeffery Bowers
The Defendant, Jeffery Bowers, was convicted in the Circuit Court of Fayette County of speeding . He now appeals to this Court alleging that his conviction should be reversed due to a conflict of interest in the Somerville City Court. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Fayette | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Livergest Mickens
Defendant, Livergest Mickens, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of aggravated burglary, and theft of property under five hundred dollars in value. On appeal, Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the convictions. After a review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Paul C. Michael
On October 19, 2000, the appellant, Paul C. Michael, was convicted by a McNairy County jury of violating the provisions of Tennessee Code Annotated Section 55-10-616, a section of the Motor Vehicle Habitual Offender Act. On November 22, 2000, he was sentenced to two years incarceration suspended after service of ninety days. He brings this appeal claiming his conviction is invalid because the order declaring him an habitual motor vehicle offender was not properly entered pursuant to Tennessee Rule Civil Procedure 58. We hold that an individual must utilize the provisions of Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02 to challenge an order declaring the individual an habitual motor vehicle offender. Because the appellant herein did not mount his attack on such an order pursuant to Rule 60.02 the appellant cannot obtain relief. Moreover, the unreasonable amount of time the appellant waited to mount his challenge after having actual notice of the order declaring him an habitual motor vehicle offender precludes relief pursuant to Rule 60.02. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
McNairy | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Kenneth W. Nesbitt v. State of Tennessee
The Defendant, Kenneth W. Nesbitt, was convicted of two counts of selling cocaine by a Carroll County jury and sentenced to eight years on each count to be served concurrently. He appealed his convictions and this Court affirmed the convictions and the sentences, and our supreme court denied the Defendant's application for permission to appeal. The Defendant then filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court dismissed the petition. The Defendant now appeals to this Court alleging that the trial court erred in denying him relief. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Carroll | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Kerry Joe Bradley v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner appeals from the denial of his post-conviction relief petition. The trial court found that the petitioner failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that his guilty plea was not voluntary or that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The judgment from the trial court is affirmed. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jarrett Sherrard Sibert
The Defendant, Jarrett Sherrard Sibert, was convicted of attempted first degree murder by a Warren County jury. After a sentencing hearing on January 14, 2000, the trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I standard offender to 24 years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant argues that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and (2) the trial court improperly sentenced the Defendant. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Warren | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Thomas A. Street v. Howard Carlton, Warden, and State of Tennessee
The petitioner was convicted of first degree murder for a killing that occurred in 1985, and was unsuccessful both in a direct appeal of his conviction and a petition for post-conviction relief. Subsequently, he filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, the denial of which is the basis for this appeal. In that petition, he claimed, as he had in his earlier petition for post-conviction relief, that his conviction should be reversed because the jurors were allowed to separate during the trial. Based upon our review, we affirm the post-conviction court's dismissal of the petition. |
Johnson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Charles Wilburn Taylor
A petition to declare the defendant a motor vehicle habitual offender was filed and served on him. He did not appear at the hearing, where a default judgment was entered. Subsequently, he filed a motion to set aside the default order, arguing that the service of the order on him was inadequate. The trial court denied the motion, and we affirm that denial. |
Roane | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jerry Ray Davidson
The appellant, Jerry Ray Davidson, was found guilty by a jury of premeditated first degree murder and aggravated kidnapping. Thereafter, the jury sentenced the appellant to death based upon the finding of three aggravating circumstances: the appellant had previously been convicted of one or more violent felonies; the murders were knowingly committed while the appellant was engaged in committing a felony, i.e., aggravated kidnapping; and the appellant knowingly mutilated the body of the victim after death. The appellant received a consecutive twenty year sentence for the kidnapping conviction. On appeal, the appellant raises the following issues: (1) Whether the trial erred when it denied the appellant's motions to change venue, strike the venire and grant additional peremptory challenges; (2) Whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain the convictions; (3) Whether a witness for the prosecution should have been allowed to offer opinion testimony; (4) Whether the trial court correctly instructed the jury about the unanimity of its verdict; (5) Whether the jury's verdict is proper; (6) Whether the prosecutor has unlimited discretion in seeking the death penalty; (7) Whether the death penalty is imposed in a discriminatory manner; and (8) Whether Tennessee courts employ an adequate proportionality review. Having thoroughly considered all of these issues and having fully reviewed the appellate record in this case, we affirm the convictions and the sentence of death imposed for first degree murder. |
Dickson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joseph S. Hayes
The defendant, Joseph S. Hayes, appeals the Sullivan County Criminal Court's denial of alternative sentencing in the defendant's three Class B misdemeanor convictions of assault. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jason Michon v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief after the trial court found it was barred by the statute of limitations. We conclude that due process considerations may have tolled the running of the statute of limitations if trial counsel misled petitioner concerning his intention to pursue an appeal. We, therefore, reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of tolling. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Anthony Hunter v. State of Tennessee
This is an appeal from the denial of post-conviction relief. The petitioner contends he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel which led to an involuntary guilty plea. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Thomas Wayne Shields
The appellant, Thomas Wayne Shields, challenges both his conviction by a jury in the Circuit Court of Henry County of one count of assault and his consequent sentence. Following a thorough review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court, concluding that (1) the evidence adduced at trial is sufficient to support the appellant's conviction of assault; (2) the appellant waived any objection to the trial court's response to a question posed by the jury during deliberations, and the trial court's remarks do not constitute plain error within the meaning of State v. Smith, 24 S.W.3d 274 (Tenn. 2000); and (3) the trial court properly denied the appellant full probation. |
Henry | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Derrick Williams v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Derrick Williams, pled guilty to three counts of simple robbery, a Class C felony, and one count of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony. The trial court sentenced Petitioner as a Range III persistent offender to fifteen years for each of the simple robbery convictions and twenty-five years for the aggravated robbery conviction, with the sentences to be served concurrently for an effective sentence of twenty-five years. Thereafter, Petitioner filed a pro se petition, with one amendment filed by appointed counsel, for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court denied Petitioner relief, which resulted in this appeal wherein Petitioner claims ineffective assistance of counsel based on the following: (1) counsel failed to argue that the indictment concerning aggravated robbery was insufficient whereas it did not allege an essential element of the offense, i.e., that Petitioner used a deadly weapon to commit the crime; and (2) counsel pressured Petitioner to plead guilty, which coercion caused his plea to be involuntary and, therefore, constitutionally infirm. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Donald W. Branch
After Defendant was convicted of two counts of aggravated vehicular homicide and one count of driving while license revoked, the trial court imposed an effective sentence of forty-nine years in confinement. On appeal, Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the convictions for aggravated vehicular homicide, the trial court's instructions to the jury were erroneous, the blood alcohol test results were admitted in error, the State's closing argument was improper, and his sentence is excessive. After a thorough review of the record, we find that the trial court improperly applied two enhancement factors. However, the errors affect only Defendant's sentence for one count of aggravated vehicular homicide and, therefore, we reduce this sentence by six months. We affirm the judgment of the trial court in all other aspects. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals |
