COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OPINIONS

State vs. Robert Mallard
M2000-00351-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas T. Woodall
Trial Court Judge: J. Steve Daniel
In a two count indictment, Defendant was charged in Rutherford County Circuit Court with attempting to tamper with or fabricate evidence, and with resisting arrest. Following a jury trial, he was convicted of both offenses. In this appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence and he further asserts that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction for attempting to tamper with or fabricate evidence. After a review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

State vs. Ernest E. Pride
M2000-00319-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: Seth W. Norman
The appellant, Ernest E. Pride, was convicted by a jury in the Davidson County Criminal Court of one count of tampering with evidence, a class C felony; one count of possession of less than .5 grams of cocaine with the intent to sell, a class C felony; one count of simple possession of marijuana, a class A misdemeanor; one count of criminal trespass, a class C misdemeanor; one count of resisting arrest, a class B misdemeanor; and one count of unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, a class A misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced the appellant, as a Range II offender, to the following terms of incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction: eight years for the tampering with evidence conviction, eight years for the possession of cocaine with intent to sell conviction, eleven months and twenty-nine days for the possession of marijuana conviction, thirty days for the criminal trespass conviction, and six months for the resisting arrest conviction. Additionally, the trial court ordered the appellant to serve all of the sentences concurrently. The trial court entered a verdict of not guilty for the possession of drug paraphernalia. The appellant raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence contained in the record is sufficient to support a finding by a rational trier of fact that the appellant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of possession of less than .5 grams of cocaine with intent to sell and tampering with the evidence as charged in the indictment; and (2) whether the trial court imposed excessive sentences for the convictions of tampering with evidence and possession of less than .5 grams of cocaine with intent to sell. Based upon our review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State vs. Andre L. Mayfield
M1999-02415-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: Seth W. Norman
In 1999, the Defendant was tried by a Davidson County jury and found guilty of aggravated robbery, aggravated rape, rape, and two counts of aggravated kidnapping for crimes perpetrated on two victims. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective sentence of fifty years. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant argues that (1) the trial court erred by failing to sever the offenses against one victim from those against the second victim; (2) the trial court erred by failing to admonish the jury not to view, listen to, or read any news coverage of the case during trial; (3) the trial court erred by failing to grant his two motions for a mistrial; (4) the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his convictions; (5) the trial court erred by allowing the State to introduce evidence of the age of one victim; (6) the trial court erred by allowing into evidence altered documents and by instructing the jury that the documents were altered to remove inadmissible evidence; (7) the trial court erred by allowing into evidence inadmissible hearsay statements; (8) the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on lesser-included offenses requested by the defense; and (9) the trial court sentenced him improperly. Having thoroughly reviewed the record in this case, we affirm the judgment of the trial court, as modified to indicate that the Defendant was sentenced as a Range II Multiple Rapist for the rape conviction.

James Dubose vs. State
M2000-00478-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: Donald P. Harris
The petitioner, James DuBose, was convicted by a jury in the Williamson County Circuit Court of one count of first degree felony murder with the underlying felony being aggravated child abuse. The trial court sentenced the petitioner to life imprisonment in the Tennessee Department of Correction. This court and the Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the petitioner's conviction. The petitioner subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied the petitioner's request for relief. On appeal, the petitioner raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether the State engaged in prosecutorial misconduct during the course of the petitioner's trial; (2) whether petitioner's trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel; (3) whether the trial court erred in failing to give curative jury instructions; and (4) whether the petitioner was charged pursuant to a faulty indictment. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

State vs. Joey Salcido
M1999-00501-CCA-R3-CD
Trial Court Judge: Jim T. Hamilton
Defendant Joey L. Salcido was indicted by the Giles County Grand Jury for three counts of incest and three counts of rape of a child. Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of three counts of aggravated sexual battery as a lesser-included offense of child rape and acquitted of the charges of incest. On March 15, 1999, the trial court sentenced Defendant as a violent 100% offender to a term of twelve years for each of his three convictions and ordered that all sentences be served consecutively. On April 15, 1999, thirty-one days after Defendant's judgment was entered, Defendant filed an untimely motion for new trial. The motion was nevertheless heard on April 19, 1999 and denied on April 20, 1999. On April 23, 1999, Defendant filed a notice of appeal which was also untimely due to the late filing of Defendant's motion for new trial. On May 25, 2000, Defendant filed a motion to waive the timely filing of his notice to appeal and on June 7, 2000, this Court granted Defendant's motion. In this appeal Defendant raises the following issues: (1) whether the Defendant's conviction of aggravated sexual battery, an offense which was neither charged in the indictment nor a lesser-included offense of the offenses charged, was error; (2) whether, assuming aggravated sexual battery is determined to be a lesser-included offense of child rape, the trial court erred in its jury instruction regarding the mental state necessary to convict him; (3) whether the trial court erred when it admitted certain evidence over Defendant's objections; (4) whether the cumulative effect of the trial court's errors renders the trial fundamentally unfair so as to offend Defendant's due process guarantees; and (5) whether the trial court erred when it imposed consecutive sentences. Defendant asserts that his first issue concerns subject matter jurisdiction and, therefore, must be heard by this Court pursuant to Tenn. R. App. P. 13(b). Defendant also urges this Court to exercise its discretion under Tenn. R. Crim. P. 52(b) or Tenn. R. App. P. 13(b) and consider the remaining four issues. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we find no errors requiring reversal and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State vs. Joseph Miles
M1998-00682-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas T. Woodall
Trial Court Judge: Robert W. Wedemeyer
Defendant Joseph Miles was convicted by a Robertson County jury of second degree murder. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Defendant as a Range II violent offender to forty years. On appeal, Defendant raises the following issues: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to support his conviction for second degree murder, (2) whether the sentence imposed by the trial court is excessive, and (3) whether a finding of plain error pursuant to Tenn. R. Crim. P. 52(b) justifies a dismissal of charges on the ground that the State participated in a conspiracy to kill Defendant. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State vs. Larry Coulter
M1999-00784-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: J. Steve Daniel
The appellant, Larry Coulter, appeals his conviction by a jury in the Rutherford County Circuit Court of one count of first degree premeditated murder. For his offense, the appellant received a sentence of life imprisonment in the Tennessee Department of Correction. In this appeal, the appellant presents the following issues for our review: (1) whether the trial court erred in failing to disqualify the office of the District Attorney General for the Sixteenth Judicial District from participating in the appellant's case; (2) whether the trial court erred in denying the appellant's pre-trial motion to suppress a statement that he made to officers of the La Vergne Police Department following his offense; (3) whether the trial court erred in denying the appellant's pre-trial motion to suppress the fruits of a warrantless search of his home by officers of the La Vergne Police Department; (4) whether the trial court erred in denying the appellant's pre-trial motion to exclude from evidence notes and letters written by the appellant to the victim prior to this offense; (5) whether the trial court erred in denying the appellant's pre-trial motion to exclude from evidence any proof of the victim's plans to move away from the Coulters' mobile home; (6) whether the trial court erred in overruling the appellant's objection to testimony by Sybil Victory concerning a telephone conversation; (7) whether the trial court erred in overruling the appellant's Tenn. R. Evid. 615 objection to testimony by Fawn Jones; (8) whether the trial court erred in overruling the appellant's objection to testimony by the State's firearms identification expert concerning a bullet recovered from the victim's body; (9) whether the trial court erred in permitting each member of the jury to "dry-fire" the murder weapon during the State's case-in-chief; (10) whether the trial court erred in permitting a State's witness to testify by deposition pursuant to Tenn. R. Crim. P. 15; (11) whether the trial court erred in permitting the State to impeach the appellant's psychologist with a "learned treatise" without satisfying the requirements of Tenn. R. Evid. 618; (12) whether the trial court erred in overruling the appellant's objection to rebuttal testimony by the State's psychologist that violated Tenn. R. Crim. P. 12.2(c); (13) whether the trial court erred in failing to charge the jury with certain special instructions requested by the appellant; (14) whether the trial court erred in permitting the State to alter or amend an exhibit immediately prior to the jury's deliberations; (15) whether the evidence adduced at trial is sufficient to support the jury's verdict; and (16) whether the cumulative effect of any errors requires the reversal of the appellant's conviction and the remand of this case for a new trial. Following a review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Phyllis McBride vs. State
M2000-00034-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: James K. Clayton, Jr.
The Petitioner, Phyllis McBride, was convicted by a Rutherford County jury of first degree murder. On appeal, this Court affirmed the conviction. The Petitioner filed an application for permission to appeal to the Tennessee Supreme Court which was denied. The Petitioner then filed a petition for post-conviction relief. Following a hearing, the petition was dismissed. The Petitioner now appeals the trial court's denial of post-conviction relief. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Charles A. Reynolds
M2000-00087-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: Buddy D. Perry

State vs. Joseph Faulkner
W1999-00223-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Trial Court Judge: Carolyn Wade Blackett
The appellant presents this appeal following dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. Faulkner entered guilty pleas to one count of aggravated rape and three counts of aggravated robbery in the Shelby County Criminal Court. Pursuant to his negotiated plea agreement, the appellant was sentenced to an effective sentence of twenty-five years. The plea agreement further provided that his state sentences were to be served concurrently with outstanding federal sentences and that all sentences would be served in federal custody. After pleading guilty to the state charges, the federal government refused to accept Faulkner into federal custody. Faulkner now asserts that his trial counsel was ineffective for providing erroneous advice and, as a result, his guilty pleas were not knowingly and voluntarily entered. Based upon the unfulfilled bargain of his negotiated plea agreement, he asks that his guilty pleas be set aside and that his case be remanded for trial or other appropriate relief. The State concedes that Faulkner is entitled to post-conviction relief. Finding Faulkner's request for post-conviction relief meritorious, we reverse the judgment of the post-conviction court and remand to the Shelby County Criminal Court for further proceedings.

John Haws Burrell vs. State
E1999-02762-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: James B. Scott, Jr.
The Defendant, John Haws Burrell, appeals as of right from the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. The trial court dismissed his petition without an evidentiary hearing as barred by the statute of limitations. The Defendant argues on appeal that the statute of limitations should not have expired until one year after certiorari had been denied by the United States Supreme Court. We affirm the judgment of the trial court dismissing the Defendant's post-conviction petition as time-barred.

State vs. Randy Lee Bowers
E2000-00585-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge John Everett Williams
Trial Court Judge: R. Jerry Beck
After entering guilty pleas to possession of a Schedule VI controlled substance (marijuana); driving under the influence, third offense; and driving while his license was revoked, after a second or subsequent conviction for driving under the influence, the Criminal Court for Sullivan County conducted a sentencing hearing and then sentenced the defendant. The defendant contends that the trial court erred in ordering consecutive sentences and in failing to place him on probation after the service of the minimum sentence of one hundred-twenty days for DUI third offense. After careful review, we interpret the defendant's sentence to be three hundred-eighteen (318) days of full incarceration followed by four hundred fifty-five (455) days on supervised probation. Further, we affirm the denial of alternative sentencing.

State vs. Jerry L. Johns
E2000-00505-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: Ray L. Jenkins
The Defendant, Jerry L. Johns, appeals from the order of the trial court dismissing his "Motion to Vacate Judgment" as barred by the statute of limitations. The trial court apparently treated the Defendant's motion as a petition for post-conviction relief. We hold that the trial court properly treated the Defendant's motion as a petition for post-conviction relief and that the motion was properly dismissed because it was barred by the statute of limitations, because another post-conviction petition had already been filed and resolved on the merits, and because the grounds for relief alleged by the Defendant had been previously determined. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State vs. Matau Goins
E2000-01159-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge John Everett Williams
Trial Court Judge: James E. Beckner
The petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, the petitioner alleges that when his attorney informed him that a particular witness was going to testify against him he was scared into pleading guilty. We agree with the post-conviction court's findings that the plea was voluntarily, understandably, and intelligently made. We affirm the post-conviction court's dismissal of the petition.

Kenneth Lee Weston vs. State
E1999-02095-CCA-R3-CO
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: E. Eugene Eblen
The Defendant, Kenneth Lee Weston, appeals as of right from the summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. He asserts that his convictions are void because the trial judge did not sign the court minutes reflecting the judgment. We hold that the failure of the trial judge to sign the court minutes does not render a judgment of conviction void. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State vs. Lester Parker
E2000-00282-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Acree
Trial Court Judge: D. Kelly Thomas, Jr.
The defendant appeals from a jury trial conviction for criminal attempt to possess Schedule II controlled substance with intent to deliver. In the appeal, the defendant alleges that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's verdict, the trial court erred in allowing a positive drug test of the defendant to be admitted into evidence, and the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion to remand the case to the General Sessions Court for a preliminary hearing. We conclude that the issues presented for appeal are without merit and affirm the trial court.

State vs. Ronald Byrd
E2000-00118-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: Phyllis H. Miller
The Defendant, Ronald W. Byrd, was convicted of criminal trespass, a Class C misdemeanor. In this appeal as of right, he asserts that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction. We hold that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State vs. Carlos Demetrius Harris
E2000-00718-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: Stephen M. Bevil
The Defendant, Carlos Demetrius Harris, appeals as of right from his reckless homicide conviction. On appeal, he presents the following six issues: (1) whether the trial court erred by granting the State's motion to amend the indictment from voluntary manslaughter to reckless homicide; (2) whether the trial court erred by allowing inadmissible items into evidence; (3) whether the trial court erred by not allowing testimony by the Hamilton County Medical Examiner that an ordinary person would be unaware that one blow to the head would cause death; (4) whether the trial court erred by granting the State's jury instruction request regarding causation and intent; (5) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction; and (6) whether the trial court erred by sentencing the Defendant to a term of six years and by denying the Defendant alternative sentencing. We find no reversible error; accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State vs. John Lee Dockery
E2000-00753-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: Richard R. Baumgartner
The Defendant, John Lee Dockery, was convicted after a bench trial of fourth offense driving under the influence (DUI) and driving on a revoked license. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred by admitting into evidence statements the Defendant made to the arresting officer before Miranda warnings were given and that the evidence was insufficient to support the DUI conviction. We conclude that the statements made by the Defendant were properly admitted and that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

State vs. Jeffrey Arch Carter
E2000-00738-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge John Everett Williams
Trial Court Judge: Phyllis H. Miller
The defendant, after pleading guilty to two counts of aggravated assault, DUI second offense, and violation of seat belt law, sought alternative sentencing. A sentencing hearing was held and the trial court denied the defendant any form of alternative sentence. The defendant now appeals that denial, asserting that the trial court erred in denying him an alternative sentence. After review, we affirm the trial court's denial of an alternative sentence.

State vs. Christopher Knighton
E2000-00746-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Acree
Trial Court Judge: D. Kelly Thomas, Jr.
The defendant was convicted by a jury of aggravated rape, aggravated burglary and theft. In his direct appeal, he presents six issues for review. Three of those issues concern the jury selection process, one issue is an evidentiary issue, and the other issues concern the sufficiency of the indictment and the sufficiency of the evidence. With respect to the jury selection process, we hold: the failure to raise the issue of a "Batson violation" during jury selection constitutes a waiver of that issue; the failure to swear the jury before voir dire is not reversible error unless it is shown that a juror did not truthfully answer the questions as the result of not being sworn; and the trial court did not abuse his discretion in refusing to dismiss two jurors for cause. Additionally, we hold that felony drug crimes are relevant to the issue of credibility under Tenn.R Evid. 609, and that under the facts of this case, the unfair prejudicial effect did not outweigh the probative value of the impeaching convictions. Finally, we hold that the indictment charging the defendant with aggravated rape was legally sufficient, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict of the jury for that offense.

Wardell Lewis vs. State
E2000-01735-CCA-R3-CD
Trial Court Judge: E. Shayne Sexton
The petitioner appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. The trial court dismissed the petition because it was not filed within one year of the date on which the judgments became final. We affirm the trial court.

State vs. Robby Cox
E1999-00159-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge John Everett Williams
Trial Court Judge: Phyllis H. Miller
The defendant pled guilty to facilitation of the sale of cocaine under Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-17-417. The defendant was sentenced to a six-year term at the Department of Correction, as a Range I offender, and fined $2000. The defendant requested alternative sentencing but, after a review of the defendant's background by the trial court, the request was denied. The defendant now appeals his sentence contending that the trial court erred by denying him alternative sentencing. After a thorough review of the record, we find that the trial court did not err in denying the defendant alternative sentencing. The defendant's sentence is affirmed.

State vs. Nicholas Robert Brown
E1999-00110-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: Richard R. Vance
The Defendant, Nicholas Roberts Brown, pleaded guilty to one count of statutory rape. Pursuant to his plea agreement, he received a sentence of one year, with the manner of service of the sentence to be determined by the trial court. After a sentencing hearing, the Defendant was ordered to serve sixty days in jail, with the remainder of his sentence to be served in community corrections. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant argues that he should have been placed on immediate probation. We hold that the Defendant failed to establish his suitability for full probation, but we modify the his sentence to sixty days incarceration followed by supervised probation because the Defendant is statutorily ineligible to participate in the community corrections program. The case is remanded for the trial court to determine the conditions of probation.

State vs. Ezra Ervin & Andrew McKinney
E1999-00287-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Acree
Trial Court Judge: Rebecca J. Stern
The defendants were found guilty of robbing a Krystal restaurant in Chattanooga. In this direct appeal, they allege four errors. They contend the evidence was insufficient to support their convictions; the trial court erred in allowing certain items of clothing found in one of the defendant's vehicle to be admitted into evidence because the clothing could not be positively identified as clothing worn by the people robbing the restaurant; the trial court erred in failing to suppress a statement made by one of the defendants at the time of his arrest because the defendant had not been given Miranda warnings; and the trial court erred in failing to declare a mistrial after the jury reported improper verdicts. We conclude there was no error made by the trial court, and the judgments below are affirmed.