State of Tennessee v. Vincent Hatch
One day before his scheduled jury trial for first degree murder, the appellant sought and was granted the right to represent himself. He now appeals from his conviction by a Shelby County jury for the offense of first degree murder, asserting that the convicting evidence was insufficient and that the trial court denied him his constitutional right to the assistance of counsel. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. George Osborne Wade
An Obion County jury convicted the defendant for one count of felony evasion of arrest, one count of felony reckless endangerment, and one count of misdemeanor evasion of arrest. The trial court sentenced the defendant to six (6) years as a Range II multiple offender for his conviction for felony evasion of arrest, which was merged with his conviction for reckless endangerment. The trial court also sentenced the defendant to eleven (11) months and twenty-nine (29) days for his conviction for misdemeanor evasion of arrest, to be served concurrently with his sentence for his felony conviction. The defendant filed for a motion for new trial, and the trial court held a hearing on that motion on the same date that it held the sentencing hearing. Subsequently, the defendant filed a second motion for new trial, which the court treated as an amended motion for new trial. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence at trial, his sentence, and the trial court's refusal to grant his motion for new trial based on the threatening statements made to jurors during a break in their deliberations. After reviewing the record, we find that none of these claims merit relief and therefore affirm the defendant's conviction. |
Obion | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Parrish L. Jones v. James M. Davis, Warden
The petitioner, Parrish L. Jones, appeals the denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus, claiming that his sentences are illegal and void. Because the convicting court had no jurisdiction to impose an agreed upon sentence in excess of the statutory limits, the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for the grant of habeas corpus relief. |
Wayne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Clarence N. Baird and Cathy M. Fisher
This is a state appeal from the dismissal of an indictment based upon a violation of mandatory joinder Rule 8(a) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure. The defendants, Baird and Fisher, and other individuals were first indicted on July 23, 1999, for aggravated gambling promotion. The indictment alleged the illegal activity occurred from August 1998 through December 1998. On October 18, 1999, the defendants pled guilty to aggravated gambling promotion. The defendants and other individuals were again indicted for aggravated gambling promotion on March 21, 2000. This indictment alleged the illegal activity occurred from January 1999 through June 1999, which was prior to the return of the first indictment. The trial court dismissed the second indictment, finding that it violated Rule 8(a) requiring joinder. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Blackburn
The defendant appeals his convictions for first degree premeditated murder, first degree felony murder, and aggravated robbery. He contends that (1) insufficient evidence exists to support his convictions; (2) the trial court erred by not allowing into evidence the guilty plea of co-defendant Dickerson; (3) the trial court erred by not allowing into evidence statements made by co-defendant Dickerson; and (4) the trial court erred in ordering consecutive sentences. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Franklin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Alan Leonard Smith
The Defendant was convicted of driving under the influence (D.U.I.) second offense, sentenced to fifty days in jail, and ordered to pay a $2,500.00 fine. The Defendant now appeals, arguing the following: (1) that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of D.U.I., (2) that the trial court erred in admitting the breath alcohol results, and (3) that the trial court erred in not granting a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Anderson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Daynelle M. Kyle v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner was convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to sell and sentenced to twelve years in confinement. His conviction was affirmed by this court on direct appeal. He then filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging, inter alia, that trial counsel was ineffective. Following a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief, and the petitioner appealed. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Barry N. Waddell v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant, Barry N. Waddell, proceeding pro se, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court's summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. The post-conviction court found Waddell's petition was time-barred. On appeal, Waddell argues that: (1) his petition was timely filed, and (2) alternatively, if the petition was untimely filed, the statute of limitations was tolled under the holding of Dexter Williams v. State, 44 S.W.3d 464 (Tenn. 2001). After review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court dismissing the petition. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jamal Cooper v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief from his conviction for voluntary manslaughter, alleging that his guilty plea was involuntary and that he was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel. Following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court dismissed the petition. In a timely appeal to this court, the petitioner raises the issue of whether the post-conviction court erred in finding that he received the effective assistance of trial counsel. After a careful review, we affirm the dismissal of the petition for post-conviction relief. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Sigifredo Ruiz
A Williamson County grand jury indicted the defendant on one count of possession of not less than ten pounds, one gram of marijuana nor more than seventy pounds of marijuana with intent to sell or deliver. Through counsel the defendant filed a motion to suppress any evidence or statements resulting from the allegedly unconstitutional search of the defendant's vehicle. When the motion to suppress was denied, the defendant waived his right to a trial by jury and pled guilty as charged. For this offense the trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range I, standard offender to two years, which would be suspended after the service of one hundred days, day for day; placed him on supervised probation for a period of four years; and fined him five thousand dollars. According to the Negotiated Plea Agreement form, there was also an agreement with the State that the defendant would later submit a certified question of law to this Court. Through this appeal the defendant asks us to consider two search related issues. However, the State asserts that the defendant did not properly reserve the certified questions, and, thus, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider them. Finding the State's position has merit, we, therefore, dismiss this appeal. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael J. McCann
The Defendant, Michael J. McCann, was convicted by a jury of one count of aggravated criminal trespass on a habitation; two counts of assault; two counts of aggravated assault; one count of aggravated sexual battery; and two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping. After a hearing he was sentenced as a Range II multiple offender on the aggravated assaults, and as a Range I offender on the remaining convictions, to an effective sentence of thirty years. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends that his kidnapping convictions must be reversed and dismissed as violative of his due process rights under State v. Anthony; that the trial court erred in not requiring the State to elect between the proof presented in support of two sexual offenses charged; that the Defendant’s two assault convictions should have been merged into one of the aggravated assault convictions; that |
Lewis | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Randall Ray Mills
The defendant, Randall Ray Mills, was convicted in the Marshall County Circuit Court of one count of rape of a child, three counts of aggravated sexual battery, and one count of casual exchange. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court merged all of the defendant's convictions of aggravated sexual battery into the conviction of rape of a child and sentenced the defendant to a total effective sentence of twenty years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions. Additionally, the State challenges the trial court's merger of the aggravated sexual battery convictions into the rape of a child conviction and further contends that the trial court erred in sentencing the defendant. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the trial court and remand for resentencing. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ernest Edward Wilson
A Davidson County Grand Jury indicted the defendant for premeditated first degree murder. The defendant was convicted of the lesser-included offense of second degree murder and sentenced to 24 years as a violent offender. In this appeal, the defendant contends: (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction; (2) the trial court erroneously neglected to charge the jury on the lesser-included offenses of reckless homicide and criminally negligent homicide; and (3) the defendant's sentence is excessive. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude the failure to charge the lesser-included offenses of reckless homicide and criminally negligent homicide was, at most, harmless error. The defendant's remaining allegations of error are without merit; thus, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ernest Edward Wilson - Concurring and Dissenting
Although I agree with Judge Welles that it is problematic to use voluntary |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ernest Edward Wilson - Dissenting
I respectfully dissent from the majority's holding that the trial court’s erroneous failure to instruct the jury on reckless homicide and criminally negligent homicide as lesser-included offenses of first degree murder is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee, Respondent/Appellee v. Edward Alan Scarbrough, alias, Defendant; International Fidelity Insurance Company, Petitioner/Appellant
The defendant, Edward Alan Scarbrough, failed to appear for a scheduled court date on September 21, 1999. Conditional forfeiture was taken on bail bonds in the total amount of $125,000.00. The surety for these bail bonds was International Fidelity Insurance Company, which was obligated through its agent, Gary's Bail Bonds, Inc. Defendant was not returned to custody until after the time period for final forfeiture had expired. International Fidelity Insurance Company filed a timely petition to be granted full exoneration. The trial court, after a hearing, granted partial exoneration and ordered International Fidelity Insurance Company to pay $55,000.00. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Daniel Ray Styles
The defendant, Daniel Ray Styles, was convicted of felony escape, aggravated assault, aggravated robbery, theft over $1,000, and aggravated criminal trespassing. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of fourteen years. On appeal, Defendant raises the following issues: (1) whether the trial court erred by failing to dismiss his case on the ground that his right to a speedy trial was violated; (2) whether the trial court erred in allowing the State to amend the indictments; (3) whether the indictment charging felony escape was facially void because it was unsigned; and (4) whether the trial court erred by failing to require the State to make an election between aggravated assault and aggravated robbery. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court regarding Defendant's convictions and sentences for aggravated robbery, felony escape, and aggravated criminal trespassing. However, we reverse and dismiss Defendant's convictions for aggravated assault and theft as violative of constitutional prohibitions against double jeopardy. |
Cocke | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Arhonda Rice
The Defendant pled guilty to theft over $1,000.00, a Class D felony, and the trial court sentenced her to two years incarceration as a Range I standard offender. The trial court suspended the Defendant’s sentence and placed her on seven years probation. The trial court also ordered the Defendant to serve one hundred weekends at the Shelby County Correctional Center, perform five hundred hours of community service, and pay $8,400.00 in restitution. The Defendant now appeals, arguing (1) the trial court erred in denying her judicial diversion, and (2) that the trial court erred in denying her full probation. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jeffrey E. Dunlap v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Jeffrey E. Dunlap, appeals the trial court's denial of post-conviction relief. The single issue presented for review is whether the petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial. The judgment is affirmed. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Steve Barber, a.k.a. Vernon S. Barber
The defendant was convicted by a Sullivan County Criminal Court jury of driving under the influence, third offense, a Class A misdemeanor, and driving while license suspended, revoked, or cancelled, third offense, a Class B misdemeanor. On appeal to this court, he argues, inter alia, that the trial court erred in denying his request for a mistrial and in admitting expert testimony on breath alcohol testing devices. After a careful review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. However, we remand for entry of corrected judgment forms to reflect that the defendant's convictions resulted from jury verdicts, rather than guilty pleas. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Marion Lee Chapman
A Carroll County jury convicted the appellant, Marion Lee Chapman, of one (1) count of driving under the influence of an intoxicant. The trial court sentenced the appellant to eleven (11) months and twenty-nine (29) days, suspended after serving ten (10) days in confinement. On appeal, the appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a continuance on the day of trial. We hold that the appellant has waived this issue for failing to prepare an adequate record for this Court's review. In addition, we conclude that, based on the limited record before us, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a continuance. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Carroll | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Daniel Thomason
Daniel Thomason appeals from the aggravated robbery conviction he received at a jury trial in the Davidson County Criminal Court. Thomason is serving an eight-year sentence in the Department of Correction for his crime. In this appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence that he accomplished the robbery “by display of any article used or fashioned to lead the victim to reasonably believe it to be a deadly weapon.” Because the record before us is does not contain all of the relevant evidence presented at trial, we are precluded from reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence and therefore affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Anthony Jerome Stokes v. State of Tennessee
In 1995, the petitioner entered pleas of guilty to two counts of murder. Subsequently, he filed a petition for post-conviction relief attacking his sentence. Relief was denied by both the post-conviction court and this court. His post-conviction counsel neither withdrew nor filed an application for permission to appeal. Subsequently, he filed a number of other pleadings of various types, including a second petition for post-conviction relief, the dismissal of which is the basis for this appeal. Through that petition, he sought to file an application for permission to appeal to the supreme court the judgment of this court affirming dismissal of his first petition for post-conviction relief. Based upon our review, we remand the matter to the post-conviction court for an evidentiary hearing. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ricky Eugene Cofer - Concurring and Dissenting
I concur fully in the lead opinion with respect to the attempted murder convictions of both defendants. I also concur fully with Judge Woodall’s opinion in all other respects save for the issue concerning the failure of the trial court to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offenses of robbery and attempted robbery to the aggravated robbery indictment and the attempted aggravated robbery indictment. For the reasons stated below I would find this failure to instruct with respect to these lesser-included offenses constituted reversible error. A reading of the recent cases of State v. Bowles, ___ S.W.3d ___(Tenn. 2001); and State v. Ely & Bowers, 48 S.W.3d 710 (Tenn. 2001); leads one to the inescapable conclusion that our high court has mandated that lesser-included offense instructions be given anytime the evidence is sufficient to support a conviction for these offenses. This means that anytime the proof is sufficient for a conviction of the indicted offense, the proof will a fortiori be sufficient for a conviction of the lesser-included offenses. See Bowles ___ S.W.3d at ____. As a practical matter, this in turn means that it will almost always be error to fail to instruct the jury as to all lesser-included offenses of the indicted offense.1 Thus, the only real inquiry, in my opinion, in virtually all of the cases raising the lesser-included offense issue is whether the error in failing to instruct on the lesser offenses can be said to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. It should be noted at the outset of this discussion that although defendant Richmond raised |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Linnell Richmond and Shervon Johnson - Concurring
I concur with Judge Woodall's lead opinion as to the defendant Johnson and would affirm in all respects. I disagree with Judge Smith that this court should reverse Johnson's aggravated robbery and attempted aggravated robbery convictions on a plain error basis for failure to instruct on the lesser offenses of robbery and attempted robbery. Johnson did not present the issue on appeal. Five factors determine whether the failure to charge lesser included offenses qualifies as reversible, plain error: 1. The record must clearly establish what happened in the trial court; |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals |
