State vs. Stacy Allen Bullard
|
Bradley | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Darrell Baker
|
Hickman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Rudy Wendell Myers vs. State
|
Franklin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. James Matthew Lawrence
|
Wilson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Vincent Sims
|
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Vincent Sims
|
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Tony Martin
|
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. James Hankins
|
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Kelly Haynes
|
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Pamela Hopper
|
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Jeffery Ray Jennings
|
Greene | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
03C01-9803-CR-00118
|
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
E1999-01465-CCA-R3CD
|
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
M1998-00118-CCA-R3-CD
|
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Jeffrey Eugene Wright, a.k.a Jeffrey Eugene Arnell
|
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Henry DeQuan Rhodes
|
Wilson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Kawaski Taylor
|
Gibson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Jerry Travis
|
Henry | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. La Southaphanh
The appellant, La Southaphanh, appeals his jury convictions for aggravated burglary and theft over $1,000. The trial court imposed, as a Range II offender, a nine year sentence for aggravated burglary and a concurrent seven year sentence for theft. On appeal, the appellant’s sole challenge is the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. Following review, we affirm. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Samantha Heard
The appellant, Samantha Heard, appeals from a judgment of conviction entered by the Davidson County Criminal Court. The appellant pled guilty to one count of sale of cocaine in excess of .5 grams, a class B felony. As a condition of the plea agreement, the appellant reserved the right to appeal, as a certified question of law, the trial court's denial of her motion to suppress.1 See Tenn. R. App. P. 3(b); Tenn. R. Crim. P. 37(b). Specifically, she asserts that the facts alleged in the affidavit of the search warrant are insufficient to support a finding of probable cause for the search of her person. After review of the record, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion to suppress and affirm the judgment of conviction. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Khanh V. Le
The lead opinion of Judge Ogle, the separate concurring opinion of Judge Welles, and the separate opinion of Judge Woodall concurring in part and dissenting in part, filed in this case on March 6, 2000, are withdrawn. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Khanh V. Le
On November 10, 1997, the appellant, Khanh V. Le, was convicted by a jury in the Shelby County Criminal Court of first degree murder. The trial court sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment in the Tennessee Department of Correction. In this appeal as of right, the appellant presents the following issues for our review: (I) Whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain the appellant’s conviction of first degree murder; (II) Whether the trial court erred by refusing to charge any lesser included offenses to first degree murder; (III) Whether the trial court erred by denying the appellant’s motion to suppress identification testimony. Following a review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Khanh V. Le - Concurring and Dissenting
I concur with Judge Ogle’s opinion concerning the issue of sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction for first degree murder and the issue regarding the suppression of identification testimony. I concur that the trial court did not err by refusing to charge voluntary manslaughter as a lesser-included offense. I also concur that the trial court erred by failing to charge second degree murder as a lesser-included offense. However, I dissent from the majority opinion’s conclusion that this error was not reversible error. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Gregory Austin
The appellant, Gregory Austin, appeals his jury conviction for first degree premeditated murder. The appellant was originally indicted for felony murder in the perpetration of attempted robbery and first degree premeditated murder. Because the State did not seek a sentence of death or life without parole, the trial court imposed a life sentence. On appeal, the appellant argues the trial court erred in failing to: (1) suppress the appellant’s statement to the police; (2) permit redaction of portions of appellant’s statement to the police prior to its admission; and (3) contemporaneously instruct the jury regarding prior inconsistent statements. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. David Remus
The appellant, David Remus, appeals the jury verdict of the Shelby County Criminal Court finding him guilty of burglary of a building, a Class D felony.. The trial court imposed a sentence of three years and three months in the county workhouse. On appeal, the appellant challenges (1) the sufficiency of the evidence; (2) the jury’s viewing of the appellant while “shackled;” and (3) the trial court’s application of an enhancement factor in determining the appellant’s sentence. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals |
