State of Tennessee v. Randall Keith Reed
Defendant, Randall Kenneth Reed, was convicted by a Hamilton County Jury of four counts of the fraudulent use of a debit card, first degree premeditated murder, first degree felony murder, especially aggravated robbery, and theft of property less than $500.00. The trial court merged the premeditated murder conviction with the felony murder conviction and imposed a life sentence to be served concurrently with 25 years for especially aggravated robbery and 11 months, 29 days each for theft of property less than $500 and four counts of the fraudulent use of a debit card. The trial court further ordered the sentence to be served consecutively to a probation violation in an unrelated case. On appeal, Defendant argues as follows: (1) that the trial court erred by allowing Milo Geiger to testify that he agreed to take a lie detector test and that Defendant refused to take one; (2) that the trial court improperly admitted photographs of the victim; (3) that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of voluntary manslaughter; and (4) that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions for first degree premeditated murder, first degree felony murder, and especially aggravated robbery. After a thorough review of the record, we reverse the judgments of the trial court and remand for a new trial. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jacob Pearman
The Defendant-Appellant, Jacob Pearman, was convicted as charged by a Rutherford County Circuit Court jury of first degree premeditated murder, aggravated assault, and child abuse, and he received an effective sentence of life imprisonment plus five years. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-202(a)(1), -102(a)(1), -15-401(a). On appeal, Pearman argues: (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion for a change of venue; (2) the trial court abused its discretion in declining to strike a juror for cause; (3) the evidence is insufficient to show that he premeditated the victim’s killing; (4) the trial court erred in admitting the victim’s statements pursuant to the state of mind hearsay objection; (5) the State committed prosecutorial misconduct during its rebuttal closing argument; and (6) the trial court failed to properly exercise its role as the thirteenth juror.1 We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Paula Jean Lacommare
The Defendant, Paula Jean Lacommare, pled guilty to initiation of the manufacturing process of methamphetamine and was sentenced to eight years on probation. A violation of probation warrant was issued against the Defendant for testing positive for methamphetamine. Following a hearing, the trial court revoked the Defendant’s probation and ordered her to serve her sentence in prison. The Defendant appeals. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Putnam | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Desmond Eugene Davis
The Defendant, Desmond Eugene Davis, pled guilty to aggravated assault and was sentenced to eight years on probation. A violation of probation warrant was issued against the Defendant. Following a hearing, the trial court revoked the Defendant’s probation and ordered him to serve his sentence in prison. The Defendant appeals. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jeffrey Walton v. State of Tennessee
Jeffrey Walton (“the Petitioner”) was convicted of vandalism over the value of $10,000 and burglary of a building and received an effective sentence of twenty-seven years. He filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which the post-conviction court denied. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that second and third trial counsel’s performance was deficient because they (1) failed to prepare a trial strategy; (2) failed to investigate the background of Barrow-Agee Laboratories and discover a fatal variance in the indictment; (3) failed to properly cross-examine witnesses; and (4) failed to request jury instructions on the defenses of duress and necessity. The Petitioner asserts that he was prejudiced because absent these deficiencies, he would have likely been convicted of a lesserincluded offense or acquitted of the offenses. After a thorough review of the record and applicable case law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Christopher Lee Richardson v. State of Tennessee
A Bedford County jury convicted the Petitioner, Christopher Lee Richardson, of attempted theft of property valued at $1,000 or more but less than $10,000, disorderly conduct, possession of a schedule IV controlled substance for sale or delivery, resisting arrest, possession of a Schedule VI controlled substance, and promotion of methamphetamine manufacture. The trial court ordered an effective sentence of twelve years. On appeal, this Court affirmed the convictions and sentence. See State v. Christopher Lee Richardson, No. M2013-01178-CCA-R3-CD, 2014 WL 12651041, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, June 12, 2014), no perm. app. filed. The Petitioner filed a post-conviction petition, and following a hearing the post-conviction court denied relief. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. After review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Gwendolyn Hagerman v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Gwendolyn Hagerman, was convicted of five counts of rape of a child and sentenced to an effective sentence of sixty years. Subsequently, she sought post-conviction relief on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court denied relief and dismissed the petition. Petitioner appealed. After a review, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Heath Bell
The Defendant, Heath Bell, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of first degree premeditated murder and first degree felony murder. The trial court merged the convictions and sentenced the Defendant to life imprisonment. The Defendant raises the following five issues on appeal: (1) whether the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress tainted eyewitness identification testimony; (2) whether his due process rights were violated by the State’s withholding of exculpatory evidence of a possible third party perpetrator; (3) whether the trial court erred by not granting his request for a new trial based on the newly discovered exculpatory evidence; (4) whether the evidence was sufficient to establish his identity as one of the perpetrators; and (5) whether the trial court erred by limiting his closing argument. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jarvis Sherrod and Antonio Dodson
The Defendants, Jarvis Sherrod and Antonio Dodson, were each convicted by a Shelby County Jury of three counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, two counts of aggravated robbery, one count of aggravated rape, one count of aggravated burglary, and one count of employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. Sherrod was also convicted of one count of aggravated sexual battery and was sentenced to seventy-three years’ incarceration; Antonio Dodson was sentenced to forty-four years’ incarceration. In Jarvis Sherrod’s appeal, he argues that the trial court erred by: (1) denying his motion to sever his case from that of his co-defendant; (2) denying his right to a speedy trial; (3) improperly admitting a gun into evidence at trial; (4) allowing the victims’ prior consistent statements at trial; and (5) improperly exercising its duty as thirteenth juror. In Antonio Dodson’s appeal, he argues that the trial court erred by: (1) denying his motion to sever his case from that of his co-defendant; (2) finding that the evidence was sufficient to support two of his especially aggravated kidnapping convictions; (3) allowing improper closing argument by the State; (4) allowing the victims’ prior consistent statements at trial; (5) allowing improper expert witness testimony; and (6) denying his motion to dismiss count ten of the indictment for failure to provide sufficient notice of the charge. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
David E. Breezee v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, David E. Breezee, appeals the Benton County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions of rape of a child, rape, and two counts of incest and resulting effective thirty-four-year sentence. On appeal, he contends that he received the ineffective assistance of trial counsel, that the post-conviction court erred by denying his petition for a writ of error coram nobis, and that he is entitled to a second post-conviction evidentiary hearing due to post-conviction counsel’s deficient performance. Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Benton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joshua Hill-Williams
A Shelby County Criminal Court Jury convicted the Appellant of first degree premeditated murder, and the trial court sentenced him to life. On appeal, the Appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction, that the trial court erred by ruling that evidence of the victim’s gang affiliation was irrelevant to the Appellant’s claim of self-defense, that the trial court erred by admitting hearsay text messages into evidence, and that the trial court erred by giving a flight instruction to the jury. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Raymond Buford v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Raymond Burford, was convicted of premeditated first degree murder and received a life sentence. He appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of relief arguing that trial counsel was ineffective by (1) recalling a witness knowing that she would offer evidence of the Petitioner’s prior bad acts that had not been introduced in the State’s case in chief and (2) failing to adequately research diminished capacity as a defense. Upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Darryl Lee Davis v. State of Tennessee
Darryl Lee Davis, the Petitioner, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus claiming that his twenty-five year sentence had expired and that he was being illegally restrained of his liberty. The habeas corpus court found that the Petitioner’s sentence had not expired and summarily dismissed the Petition. We affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court. |
Lake | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Wayne Sellers v. State of Tennessee
Wayne Sellers (“the Petitioner”) appeals the denial of post-conviction relief from his 2013 Shelby County Criminal Court conviction for aggravated rape, for which he received a sentence of twenty-three years’ incarceration. In this appeal, the Petitioner contends that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel based on trial counsel’s failure to explain the defense strategy to the Petitioner and object to the victim’s in-court identification of the Petitioner. Discerning no error, we affirm the denial of postconviction relief. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jaymes Harrison
The Appellant, Jaymes Harrison, is appealing the trial court’s denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence. The State has filed a motion asking this Court to affirm pursuant to Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20. Said motion is hereby granted. |
Marion | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Terry Trammell
Defendant, Terry Trammell, was convicted of two counts of theft after a jury trial. The trial court merged the two counts and sentenced Defendant to a twelve-year sentence. On appeal, Defendant challenges the trial court’s denial of a continuance and the sufficiency of the evidence. After a review, we determine Defendant waived the issue with respect to the continuance for failure to raise the issue in a motion for new trial and failure to present an adequate record on appeal. Additionally, we determine the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ronald Turner
The Defendant, Ronald Turner, was convicted of three counts of attempted second degree murder when he fired a single shot through a glass door at his child, the mother of his child, and her roommate. The Defendant was also convicted of three counts of employing a firearm in the commission of a dangerous felony and one count of unlawful possession of a handgun with the intent to go armed in a public place where at least one person is present. The Defendant’s convictions for the three counts of attempted second degree murder and the conviction for possession of a handgun were enhanced after the jury found that the gang enhancement statute applied. The Defendant appeals, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and the constitutionality of the gang enhancement statute. We conclude that the evidence is insufficient to support two of the convictions for attempted second degree murder, and we reverse these convictions and the weapons offenses predicated on them. The Defendant raised the constitutional argument for the first time in the motion for a new trial, and the State argues that the issue is waived. We conclude that the statute is unconstitutional and that the Defendant is entitled to relief from the gang enhancement applied to his sentences. We affirm the judgments of the trial court in all remaining respects. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Henry Darnell Talley
The Defendant, Henry Darnell Talley, pleaded guilty to attempted first degree premeditated murder, employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, reckless aggravated assault, reckless endangerment, convicted felon in possession of a weapon, and violation of an order of protection. The plea agreement provided sentences for all of the convictions except for the attempted first degree murder conviction which was to be determined by the trial court. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered the Defendant to serve twenty-three years for the attempted first degree murder conviction. The trial court also ordered partial consecutive sentencing, resulting in a total effective sentence of thirty-three years. The Defendant appeals, asserting that the twenty-three year sentence imposed is excessive. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Thomas Antonio Ricketts
The Defendant, Thomas Antonio Ricketts, entered guilty pleas in the Davidson County Criminal Court to two counts of facilitation of aggravated child abuse and one count of facilitation of aggravated child neglect. The trial court imposed concurrent ten-year sentences for each count, to be served in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant argues that his sentence was excessive and that the trial court erred in denying an alternative sentence. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Bobby E. Lee
The Defendant, Bobby E. Lee, appeals his sentence of confinement after being convicted of two counts of delivery of Oxycodone, a Schedule II controlled substance. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to eleven months, twenty-nine days at seventy-five percent release eligibility. The Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing the maximum sentence and a term of incarceration. After thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Clay | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Justin Parliment v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Justin Parliment, was convicted of possession of a controlled substance in a penal institution and sentenced to eight years to be served consecutively to a previously-imposed twenty-three-year sentence for second degree murder. The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel, and the post-conviction court denied the petition. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Hickman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Robert Grisham
Following a jury trial, the Defendant, Robert Grisham, was convicted of observation without consent, unlawful photography, and especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor. In this appeal of right, the Defendant challenges the following: (1) the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress the deleted files retrieved from his cell phone using highly-sophisticated equipment; (2) the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction for especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor, arguing that there was insufficient proof of “sexual activity” by “lascivious exhibition” on the video; and (3) the trial court’s enhancement of his sentencing term for especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor to nine years by utilizing the abuse of private trust enhancement factor. In light of our supreme court’s recent decision in State v. Whited, 506 S.W.3d 416 (Tenn. 2016), we conclude that the proof was insufficient to support the element of sexual activity and are, therefore, required to reverse and vacate the Defendant’s conviction for especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor. However, because the proof is sufficient to support the lesser-included offense of attempted especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor, which was charged to the jury, we remand this matter to the trial court for entry of an amended judgment reflecting a conviction for attempt and for resentencing on this modified conviction. The Defendant’s convictions for unlawful photography and observation without consent are affirmed. Accordingly, the trial court’s judgments are affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case is remanded for a new sentencing hearing. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Octavius Flynn and Derrick Benson
The Defendants, Octavius Flynn and Derrick Benson, appeal their convictions for second degree murder and their respective sentences of twenty-five and twenty-four years. On appeal, the Defendants argue, either individually or collectively, that (1) the trial court erred in denying their motions to sever; (2) a witness’s identification of Mr. Flynn in a photographic array was unreliable and should have been suppressed; (3) the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions; (4) the trial court erred in denying Mr. Flynn’s motion to dismiss due to spoliation of evidence; (5) the jury failed to follow the trial court’s instructions and improperly compromised on a verdict of second degree murder; and (6) the sentences are excessive. Upon reviewing the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ronald Turner
The Defendant, Ronald Turner, was convicted of three counts of attempted second degree murder when he fired a single shot through a glass door at his child, the mother of his child, and her roommate. The Defendant was also convicted of three counts of employing a firearm in the commission of a dangerous felony and one count of unlawful possession of a handgun with the intent to go armed in a public place where at least one person is present. The Defendant’s convictions for the three counts of attempted second degree murder and the conviction for possession of a handgun were enhanced after the jury found that the gang enhancement statute applied. The Defendant appeals, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and the constitutionality of the gang enhancement statute. We conclude that the evidence is insufficient to support two of the convictions for attempted second degree murder, and we reverse these convictions and the weapons offenses predicated on them. The Defendant raised the constitutional argument for the first time in the motion for a new trial, and the State argues that the issue is waived. We conclude that the statute is unconstitutional and that the Defendant is entitled to relief from the gang enhancement applied to his sentences. We affirm the judgments of the trial court in all remaining respects. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re Travis H.
Father appeals the termination of his parental rights on grounds of: (1) failure to substantially comply with permanency plans; (2) abandonment by failure to establish a suitable home; (3) persistence of conditions, (4) abandonment by an incarcerated parent for wanton disregard; and (5) abandonment by an incarcerated parent for willful failure to support. We vacate the trial court’s determination regarding the ground of abandonment by an incarcerated parent for willful failure to support, but otherwise affirm the trial court’s determinations regarding the remaining grounds for termination. We likewise affirm the trial court’s determination that termination of Father’s parental rights is in the child’s best interest. Accordingly, we affirm the termination of Father’s parental rights. |
Jefferson | Court of Criminal Appeals |
