Gary Leon Cureton v. State of Tennessee
On May 21, 1999, Gary Leon Cureton, the Petitioner and Appellant, pled guilty in the Greene County Criminal Court to two counts of rape and two counts of sexual battery and waived his right to appeal. Following the guilty plea, the trial court sentenced the Petitioner to serve seventeen years incarceration. On May 25, 2000, the Greene County Court Clerk received a post-conviction petition from the incarcerated pro se Petitioner and stamped the document to indicate that it had been filed on that date. On June 2, 2000 the trial court issued a preliminary order dismissing the petition on the ground that it was not timely filed. On June 12, the trial court received a pro se motion to reconsider the dismissal of the petition, but the trial court denied the motion on June 19, 2000. On August 2, 2000, this Court ordered the trial court to address the Petitioner's request for the appointment of counsel, and the trial court subsequently appointed counsel to assist with the Petitioner's appeal. The Petitioner appeals the trial court's dismissal of his petition and subsequent denial of his motion to reconsider, arguing that he carried his burden of proving that the petition was timely filed. Because the Petitioner was never afforded an opportunity to prove that he timely filed his petition, we remand for a hearing to determine whether the Petitioner's petition was timely filed. |
Greene | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Lamont Kelso
The grand jury for Monroe County charged the defendant with one count of possession of cocaine with intent to resell and one count of felony evading arrest. The defendant went to trial, and the jury acquitted him of the narcotics offense but found him guilty of Class D evading arrest. The trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range II, multiple offender, to five years incarceration in the Department of Correction. In this direct appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence, the state's misuse of his post-arrest silence, the flight instruction given to the jury, and his classification as a Range II offender. Unpersuaded by the defendant's contentions, we affirm the trial court's judgment and sentence. |
Monroe | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Earl Jefferson
The defendant was convicted by a Shelby County jury of premeditated first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. In this appeal, the defendant challenges the admission of three alleged hearsay statements and the sufficiency of the evidence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Shawn Tolliver v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner appeals his denial of post-conviction relief and asserts that the post-conviction court incorrectly found that he received effective assistance of counsel and, thus, knowingly and voluntarily pled guilty. After review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Nathaniel T. Williams
The defendant was convicted by a Davidson County Criminal Court jury of second degree murder and the possession of a weapon by a convicted felon for shooting a man to death in an automobile shop. The sole issue on appeal is whether the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction of second degree murder. Specifically, the defendant contends that the State failed to offer sufficient proof of the victim's cause of death. In support of his claim, he argues that the autopsy report, which states the cause of death as multiple gunshot wounds, was improperly admitted into evidence, that the medical examiner never directly testified that the victim died of gunshot wounds, and that no other evidence was presented to prove cause of death. After a thorough review, we conclude that the defendant waived any objection to the admission of the autopsy report by his failure to object at trial, and further, that sufficient evidence, other than the autopsy report, was presented to show that the victim died as the result of gunshot wounds. Consequently, the evidence at trial was sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of second degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Sharon Leming
This is Defendant, Sharon Leming's, second appeal as of right to this Court. See State v. Leming, 3 S.W.3d 7 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998). In both Defendant's first and second trial, a Humphreys County jury convicted her of premeditated first degree murder. After the Defendant's initial appeal, this Court reversed and remanded the case for a new trial due to the erroneous admission of testimony regarding statements made by the victim as to his fear of the Defendant. Following a second trial, the Defendant received a sentence of life imprisonment to be served in the Tennessee Department of Correction. In this second appeal as of right, the Defendant presents the following issues for our review:1) whether the trial court erred in ruling that the Defendant was mentally competent to stand trial; 2) whether the evidence was sufficient to convict the Defendant of first degree murder; 3) whether the trial court erroneously admitted statements by the Defendant that she would kill her husband before she would allow him to leave her; 4) whether the trial court erred in excluding testimony that the Defendant had stated that she needed a gun to protect herself from friends of the deceased; and 5) whether the trial court erred in denying Defendant's request for a mistrial, when the trial court declined to instruct the jury that a sentence of life with the possibility of parole would require that the Defendant serve a minimum of fifty-one years. Based upon our review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Humphreys | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Roderick D. Cobb v. State of Tennessee
The issue raised in this appeal is whether the trial court properly denied the Appellant/Petitioner's post-conviction petition? After a review of the record in this cause, the briefs of the parties and applicable law, we affirm the trial court's judgment. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Danny Ray Lacy v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner appeals the post-conviction court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. After review, we hold that the record supports the post-conviction court's finding that trial counsel was not ineffective in failing to obtain the 911 tape; was not ineffective in preparing a defense; was not ineffective for failing to introduce fingernail samples taken from the petitioner; and was not ineffective for failing to adequately develop the victim's mother as a suspect. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jerry Maxwell
Defendant, the attorney for the Dyer Industrial Development Board, was convicted by a Gibson County jury of theft over $60,000 and theft over $1,000. On appeal, he contends the evidence was insufficient to establish guilt. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Gibson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Charles Edward Taylor v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner appeals the post-conviction court's dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. Following his jury conviction of aggravated robbery, the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging, among other things, that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. At the conclusion of an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court dismissed the petition, finding that the petitioner failed to meet his burden of showing ineffective assistance of trial counsel. After a careful review, we affirm the post-conviction court's dismissal of the petition. |
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Michael Russo v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner appeals the post-conviction court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, raising the sole issue of whether the post-conviction court erred in finding that he had effective assistance of counsel at trial. The petitioner was convicted by a jury of first degree murder for shooting his wife to death, and sentenced to life imprisonment. In his post-conviction petition, the petitioner asserted a number of grounds for relief, including ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court denied the petition, finding, with regards to the ineffective assistance of counsel claim, that many of the petitioner's allegations did not constitute a deficiency in counsel's performance, and further, that the petitioner had failed to meet his burden of showing that any of the alleged deficiencies of counsel prejudiced the outcome of his case. After a thorough review of the record, we reverse the judgment of the post-conviction court as to the effect of trial counsel's misplacing of photographs which were not located until after the trial and the post-conviction hearing and remand for an additional hearing. As to the other issues, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Terrance B. Burnett v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that it was error for the post-conviction court to dismiss his petition without holding an evidentiary hearing. The petitioner pled guilty to two counts of felony murder, two counts of attempted first degree murder, and one count of especially aggravated burglary. In a pro se petition for post-conviction relief, the petitioner alleged that his trial counsel induced him to plead guilty just prior to the start of trial by showing him a videotape of a television show chronicling the final hours of a death row inmate's life. After appointing counsel, the post-conviction court dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing, ruling that the petition failed to present a colorable claim for relief. Based upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James L. Roberson, aka James Robinson, aka "Blookie"
The defendant, James L. Roberson, was charged with attempted second degree murder for the repeated stabbing of a female acquaintance and was convicted of the offense, following a bench trial. He testified that he was under the influence of drugs at the time of the offense and could not remember what had happened. He appealed the conviction, arguing that, as the result of his mental state, the proof was insufficient to sustain the conviction. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Orlando Crenshaw
The defendant challenges his conviction for attempted first degree murder, contending that the evidence was insufficient, the trial court should have granted a change of venue due to pervasive pretrial publicity, the trial court should have accepted the jury's statement that it could not return a unanimous verdict after it revealed its numerical division, and the jury was tainted by extraneous information. We affirm the judgment of conviction. |
Lawrence | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Michael E. Waldron v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. Having been indicted by a Davidson County Grand Jury on three counts of rape of a child and one count of aggravated sexual battery, the petitioner pled guilty to two counts of rape of a child, a Class A felony, and the remaining counts were dismissed. In this appeal, petitioner raises three issues: (1) whether he received effective assistance of counsel; (2) whether the State and the trial court should have requested forensic psychological evaluation of the petitioner and a competency hearing; and (3) whether his plea was constitutionally valid. The judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ronald Haynes
The defendant was indicted by a Davidson County Grand Jury for especially aggravated robbery and attempted first degree murder. Following a two-day jury trial, the defendant was found guilty of especially aggravated robbery, a Class A felony, and attempted second degree murder, a Class B felony. A sentencing hearing was held on September 29, 1999, at the conclusion of which the trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range I offender to twenty-one years at 100% for the especially aggravated robbery conviction and ten years for the attempted second degree murder conviction. The sentences were ordered served concurrently in the Tennessee Department of Correction. In this appeal as of right, the defendant presents three issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to support his convictions for especially aggravated robbery and attempted second degree murder; (2) whether the trial court erred in failing to charge the jury on certain lesser-included offenses; and (3) whether the sentence is excessive. Having reviewed the entire record on appeal, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Leonard Edward Baugh, Jr., Damian Lamar Owes and Marquez Donnell Crenshaw
The co-defendants, Leonard Edward Baugh, Jr., Damian Lamar Owes, and Marquez Donnell Crenshaw, were indicted by the Davidson County Grand Jury on one count of especially aggravated robbery, five counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, one count of aggravated burglary, and one count of aggravated assault. Baugh was additionally indicted on one count of resisting arrest and one count of unlawful possession of a weapon by a convicted felon. The counts of aggravated assault were later dismissed. Following their joint trial, all co-defendants were found guilty of especially aggravated robbery, five counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, and aggravated burglary. Baugh was also convicted of unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon. On appeal, each of the co-defendants challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence, arguing that the State failed to offer sufficient proof of identity. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. The matter is remanded to the trial court for correction of clerical errors in the judgments. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Alkita M. Odom
This is an interlocutory appeal by the State pursuant to Rule 9 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. The Defendant, Alkita M. Odom, was indicted for the offenses of forgery and criminal simulation, each in the amount of $250,000. The indictment reflected that each offense was a Class B felony. Upon the Defendant's motion, the trial court dismissed the indictment to the extent that it reflected Class B felonies because the court found that for the crime to be anything other than Class E felonies, the Defendant would have had to have actually obtained goods or services. The court then granted the State's motion to amend the indictment to reflect Class E felonies for the purposes of appeal. The State argues on appeal that the trial court improperly dismissed the indictment based on the grade of the offense charged. We agree. Accordingly, we reverse the dismissal of the indictment and reinstate it as originally returned by the Grand Jury. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Frankie L. Richardson
The Defendant, Frankie L. Richardson, appeals as of right from the revocation of his probation. He argues that the trial judge abused his discretion by revoking probation. We find no abuse of discretion; thus, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Paul Dennis Reid, Jr.
Paul Dennis Reid, Jr. was found guilty by a jury of two counts of first-degree murder and one count of especially aggravated robbery. Reid’s convictions stem from the execution style murders of two Captain D’s employees and the especially aggravated robbery of one of the employees. The jury returned a sentence of death for each of the homicides based upon its finding of three aggravating factors, i.e., (i)(2), prior violent felony; (i)(6), murder committed for the purpose of avoiding prosecution; and (i)(7), murder committed during commission of robbery. The Davidson County Criminal Court subsequently imposed a twenty-five-year sentence for the especially aggravated robbery conviction and ordered this sentence to be served consecutively to the two death sentences. In this appeal as of right, Reid presents numerous issues for our review, including (1) issues arising from suppressed evidence; (2) challenges to the selection of jurors; (3) the sufficiency of the convicting evidence; (4) the admission and exclusion of evidence at both the guilt and penalty phases; (5) the propriety of the prosecution’s closing argument during the guilt phase; (6) the failure to instruct on lesser-included offenses; (7) the trial court’s act of holding court into late hours of the evening without cause; (8) the admissibility in general and the introduction of specific victim impact evidence; (9) prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument; (10) the propriety of the jury instructions; (11) whether application of the (i)(7) aggravator violates State v. Middlebrooks; (12) |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Paul Dennis Reid, Jr. - Concurring
I fully concur in Judge Hayes’s thorough, incisive opinion. With respect to a portion of the analysis of the especially aggravated robbery sentencing issues, I concur merely in the results. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kenneth Anderson
The Defendant, Kenneth Anderson, appeals as of right from the revocation of his probation by the trial court. On appeal, he asserts that the trial court erred by ordering him to serve the balance of his sentence in incarceration after finding that he had violated his probation. We find no error; thus, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joseph Darryl Taylor
Defendant, Joseph Darryl Taylor, was convicted of attempt to commit sexual battery, attempt to commit rape, and aggravated kidnapping. In this appeal as of right, Defendant contends that the evidence adduced at trial concerning all three offenses was insufficient to find him guilty and that the trial court erred when it sentenced Defendant. Following a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court in part and reverse in part. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. David D. Bottoms
The defendant pled guilty in Davidson County Criminal Court to one count of arson, a Class C felony, based on his setting fire to a rental house. According to a plea agreement with the State, he received a four-year sentence as a Range I, standard offender. A sentencing hearing was held to determine the manner of service of his sentence and the amount and manner of payment of any restitution. The trial court ordered that the defendant serve his entire sentence in confinement in the workhouse and that he pay $10,000 in restitution to the victim. In this appeal as of right, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying any alternative sentence and in ordering restitution in the amount of $10,000. Having reviewed the record on appeal, we affirm the judgment of the trial court as to the manner of service. As to restitution, we reverse and remand to the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Pittman
After a jury trial, the Defendant, Michael Pittman, was convicted of aggravated robbery. He was subsequently sentenced to twenty years incarceration as a Range II, multiple offender. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and that the trial court abused its discretion by ruling that his prior convictions for robbery and theft were admissible to impeach his credibility should he elect to testify. We conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by ruling that the Defendant's prior convictions were admissible. Thus, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals |
