COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OPINIONS | Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts

County

Authoring Judge

Originating Judge

Date Filter

Case Number

Case Name

Keyword Search

Sort by

Order

03C01-9403-CR-00094 03C01-9403-CR-00094 Trial Court Judge: Leon C. Burns, Jr.	Cumberland	Court of Criminal Appeals	02/12/96
03C01-9405-CR-00188 03C01-9405-CR-00188 Trial Court Judge: Ben W. Hooper, II	Cocke	Court of Criminal Appeals	02/12/96
03C01-9406-CR-00226 03C01-9406-CR-00226	Knox	Court of Criminal Appeals	02/12/96
Thomas Hebron v. State of Tennessee 01CO1-9510-CC-00349 Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes Trial Court Judge: Judge Cornelia A. Clark The appellant, Thomas Hebron, appeals the dismissal by the trial court of his “Petition for Habeas Corpus/Petition for Post-Conviction Relief.” The appellant is currently serving a sentence of life imprisonment pursuant to a conviction on August 24, 1984, for first degree murder. On November 21, 1985, this court affirmed his conviction. State v. Hebron, No, 84-231-III (Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville), perm. to appeal denied, (Tenn. 1986). In 1987, the appellant unsuccessfully sought federal habeas corpus relief. Subsequently, on March 6, 1989, he filed his first petition for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. Following appointment of counsel and an evidentiary hearing, the trial court dismissed the petition. Finally, on February 22, 1994, the appellant filed the instant pro se petition, alleging an erroneous jury instruction on premeditation and deliberation, in violation of the supreme court’s opinion in State v. Brown, 836 S.W.2d 530 (Tenn. 1992). On March 15, 1994, the trial court appointed counsel to represent the appellant and, on May 18, 1995, conducted a hearing. At the hearing, the trial court treated the petition as one seeking post-conviction relief. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-108 (1990). The trial court then concluded that the petition was barred by the applicable statute of limitations, Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-102 (1990), and, moreover, failed to state a ground for relief of constitutional magnitude, Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-105 (1990). We agree.	Hickman	Court of Criminal Appeals	02/05/96
State of Tennessee v. Catherine Ward 01C01-9307-CC-00224 Authoring Judge: Judge Penny J. White Trial Court Judge: Judge Henry Denmark Bell Appellant, Catherine Ward, was convicted of promoting prostitution, a Class E felony, by a jury. The trial court found that appellant was a standard offender and imposed a Range I sentence consisting of a fine of $3,000 and confinement for one year in the Department of Correction.	Williamson	Court of Criminal Appeals	02/02/96
State of Tennessee v. Jefferson Pennington - Dissenting 01C01-9307-PB-00219 Authoring Judge: Judge Joseph M. Tipton Trial Court Judge: Judge James R. Everett, Jr. I dissent. I agree with the majority opinion that the twelve-hour detention without allowing bond under the policy stipulated by the parties to exist constituted punishment. In this respect, I believe that the policy would result in serious violations of an arrestee's statutory and constitutional rights, from illegal detention through illegal denial of bail into fundamental violation of due process. However, I do not believe that the Double Jeopardy Clause of either the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution or Article I, Section 10 of the Tennessee Constitution is implicated in this case.	Davidson	Court of Criminal Appeals	02/01/96
State of Tennessee v. Nathan Daniel Baiocco 01C01-9505-CC-00139 Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Joe B. Jones Trial Court Judge: Judge Cornelia A. Clark This Court granted the appellant's Rule 9 interlocutory appeal to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the appellant's petition for the writ of certiorari to review the district attorney general's denial of pretrial diversion. The appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion. The state contends that the trial court properly affirmed the district attorney general's decision to deny pretrial diversion. Since this Court finds that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.	Hickman	Court of Criminal Appeals	02/01/96
03C0l-9406-CR-002l3 03C0l-9406-CR-002l3	Knox	Court of Criminal Appeals	01/31/96
03C01-9505-CR-00137 03C01-9505-CR-00137 Trial Court Judge: Douglas A. Meyer	Hamilton	Court of Criminal Appeals	01/31/96
03C01-9409-CR-00355 03C01-9409-CR-00355 Trial Court Judge: Lynn W. Brown	Johnson	Court of Criminal Appeals	01/31/96
Hon. Wil v. Doran 02C01-9503-CR-00079	Shelby	Court of Criminal Appeals	01/31/96
02C01-9505-CR-00121 02C01-9505-CR-00121	Shelby	Court of Criminal Appeals	01/31/96
02C01-9505-CR-00121 02C01-9505-CR-00121	Shelby	Court of Criminal Appeals	01/31/96
02C01-9505-CR-00143 02C01-9505-CR-00143 Trial Court Judge: Arthur T. Bennett	Shelby	Court of Criminal Appeals	01/31/96
02C01-9505-CR-00144 02C01-9505-CR-00144	Shelby	Court of Criminal Appeals	01/31/96
And Our Supreme Court'S Opinion In State v. Adams, 864 S.W.2D 31 (Tenn. 1993), The 02C01-9506-CC-00178	Hardeman	Court of Criminal Appeals	01/31/96
02C01-9506-CC-00178 02C01-9506-CC-00178	Hardeman	Court of Criminal Appeals	01/31/96
I Agree With Judge Welles' Analysis In The Majority Opinion. State v. Adams, 02C01-9506-CC-00178	Hardeman	Court of Criminal Appeals	01/31/96
02C01-9507-CC-00180 02C01-9507-CC-00180	Fayette	Court of Criminal Appeals	01/31/96
02C01-9507-CC-00195 02C01-9507-CC-00195	Madison	Court of Criminal Appeals	01/31/96
02C01-9507-CR-00186 02C01-9507-CR-00186	Shelby	Court of Criminal Appeals	01/31/96
02C01-9410-CR-00219 02C01-9410-CR-00219	Hardeman	Court of Criminal Appeals	01/31/96
02C01-9411-CR-00257 02C01-9411-CR-00257	Shelby	Court of Criminal Appeals	01/31/96
02C01-9503-CC-00058 02C01-9503-CC-00058 Trial Court Judge: Joe G. Riley. Jr.	Lake	Court of Criminal Appeals	01/31/96
02C01-9503-CC-00069 02C01-9503-CC-00069 Trial Court Judge: Whit A. Lafon	Madison	Court of Criminal Appeals	01/31/96