State of Tennessee v. Christopher Lynn Inman
The Defendant-Appellant, Christopher Lynn Inman, was convicted by a Benton County jury of coercion of a witness, a Class D felony. He was sentenced to two years in the Tennessee Department of Correction and assessed a $5,000 fine. On appeal, Inman claims the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Benton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John Hall
A Cocke County Circuit Court Jury found the appellant, John Hall, guilty of assault, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court imposed a sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days, thirty percent of which the appellant would be required to serve in the county jail. On appeal, the appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and the sentence imposed by the trial court. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court but remand for entry of a corrected judgment. |
Cocke | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Willie Clark Bennett
The defendant, Willie Clark Bennett, appeals the trial court’s revocation of his probation. In this appeal, he contends that the trial court erred by failing to suppress evidence obtained during a search of his person. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Travis Dean Jackson v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Travis Dean Jackson, appeals the Hardeman County Circuit Court’s dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief from his 2008 conviction for rape of a child. He claims his conviction is void because his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary and was the result of misrepresentations that he would receive sentence reduction credits that were not applicable to his conviction. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Cornelius O'Brien Love
The Defendant, Cornelius O’Brien Love, pled guilty to aggravated burglary, a Class C felony, and theft of property worth at least $500 but less than $1,000, a Class E felony. See T.C.A. §§ 39-14-403, 39-14-103, 39-14-105(2) (2010). He was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to four years’ incarceration for aggravated burglary and two years’ incarceration for theft, with the sentences to be served concurrently. He was ordered to pay $1,906.06 in restitution to the victims. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred by imposing confinement. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Elton Crawford
The defendant, Elton Crawford, entered an Alford guilty plea in the Shelby County Criminal Court to the attempted rape of his daughter and was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to four years in the county workhouse. The sole issue he raises on appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying his request for probation. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Wanda Elaine Brock
The defendant, Wanda Elaine Brock, appeals her Sullivan County jury convictions of two counts of aggravated child abuse of a child less than eight years of age and two counts of aggravated child neglect of a child less than eight years of age, Class A felonies. At sentencing, the trial court merged the convictions into one count of aggravated child abuse and imposed a Range I sentence of 20 years to be served at 100 percent by operation of law. See T.C.A. § 40350501(i)(1), (2)(k). On appeal, the defendant challenges (1) the sufficiency of the convicting evidence, (2) the trial court’s exclusion of extrinsic evidence concerning an inconsistent statement made by the victim, (3) the length of the sentence imposed, and (4) the trial court’s denial of her petition for a writ of error coram nobis. On appeal, we conclude that the evidence is insufficient to support the defendant’s convictions of aggravated child neglect. In consequence, with respect to counts three and four, the judgments of conviction are reversed, the verdicts are vacated, and the charges are dismissed. We further conclude, that the trial court erred by excluding extrinsic evidence of the victim’s prior inconsistent statement. Accordingly, we reverse the judgments of conviction in counts one and two and remand those counts for a new trial. Concerning the trial court’s denial of coram nobis relief, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the petition for a writ of error coram nobis and affirm the trial court’s order with respect to the coram nobis petition. In summary, the judgments of the trial court in counts three and four are reversed, and the charges are dismissed; the judgments of the trial court in counts one and two are reversed, and the case is remanded for a new trial on those counts; and the order of the trial court denying coram nobis relief is affirmed. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Young Bok Song v. Howard Carlton, Warden
The petitioner, Young Bok Song, appeals from the trial court’s summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner alleges that he was denied the opportunity to contact the Korean Consulate General in violation of Article 36 of the Vienna Treaty; therefore, he asserts that his judgments of conviction for seven counts of rape of a child and four counts of aggravated sexual battery are void. We conclude that the petition fails to state a cognizable claim, and, therefore, the petition is a proper subject for summary dismissal. The judgment from the trial court is affirmed. |
Johnson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Antonio Bonds v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Antonio Bonds, appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief as time-barred. The petitioner asserts that he is entitled to a tolling of the post-conviction statute of limitations. We have reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs. Because the facts of this case do not warrant a tolling of the statute of limitations, we affirm the decision of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Charles Phillip Maxwell
Defendant-Appellant, Charles Phillip Maxwell, was convicted by a Davidson County Criminal Court jury of driving on a suspended license, a Class B misdemeanor. The trial court imposed a six-month sentence, with Maxwell to serve forty-eight hours in jail prior to serving the remainder of his sentence on probation. In Maxwell’s appeal, he argues that the trial court erred: (1) in failing to appoint counsel to represent him at trial; and (2) in orally denying his interlocutory appeal for the appointment of competent counsel. The State has conceded that the trial court committed reversible error in refusing to appoint counsel for Maxwell prior to trial. We reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand for a new trial following the appointment of counsel. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jay Bean
Defendant, Jay Bean, filed a “Motion to Furlough Defendant” from his sentence of incarceration in order for him to be admitted to a drug treatment program. The trial court denied the motion and Defendant filed a notice of appeal. Among other assertions, the State argues that the appeal should be dismissed because Defendant’s chosen avenue to seek review of the trial court’s order, Tennessee Rule of Appellant Procedure 3(b), does not permit an appeal as of right in this case. We agree with the State and dismiss the appeal. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jeffrey Gaylon Douglas
The defendant, Jeffrey Gaylon Douglas, was convicted by a Madison County Circuit Court jury of rape, a Class B felony, and sexual battery, a Class E felony, and sentenced to concurrent terms of ten and two years, respectively. On appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Terry Robinson
The defendant, Terry Robinson, was convicted by a Madison County Circuit Court jury of theft of property over $10,000, a Class C felony, and sentenced to ten years in the Department of Correction as a Range II offender. On appeal, he argues that the State committed prosecutorial misconduct in its rebuttal closing argument, and he challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Antonio Kendrick v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Antonio Kendrick, appeals the Criminal Court of Shelby County’s dismissal of his pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus. The State has filed a motion requesting that this court affirm the trial court’s dismissal pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Following our review, we grant the State’s motion and affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Maria Maclin v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Maria Maclin, appeals from the Criminal Court of Shelby County’s dismissal of her petition for post-conviction relief. The State filed a motion requesting this court to affirm the post-conviction court’s order pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Upon review, we grant the State’s motion and affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kenneth Clay
A jury convicted the defendant, Kenneth Clay, of two counts of facilitation of the sale of less than .5 gram of cocaine, Class D felonies. The trial court sentenced the defendant, as a career offender, to concurrent twelve-year sentences for each count. On appeal, the defendant argues that (1) the evidence was insufficient to convict him of facilitation of the sale of a Schedule II narcotic less than .5 gram; (2) the court erred by admitting evidence of the defendant’s prior convictions for the sale of Schedule II narcotics; and (3) the statutes under which the court sentenced him are unconstitutional as applied to him. After reviewing the record, the parties’ briefs, and applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Lake | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Lakeith Humphrey
The defendant, LaKeith Humphrey, was convicted of premeditated first degree murder. He was sentenced to life with the possibility of parole. On appeal, he argues that: the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction; the trial court erred in granting a special jury instruction; the trial court abused its discretion by allowing some testimony and limiting other testimony; the trial court erred in admitting the murder weapon into evidence; and the cumulative effect of these errors suffices to justify a new trial. After careful review, we affirm the judgment from the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Terry D. Sneed v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Terry D. Sneed, aggrieved of his convictions of aggravated robbery, aggravated kidnapping, aggravated rape, and two counts of aiding and abetting aggravated rape for which he received sentences totaling 124 years’ incarceration, filed a timely pro se petition for post-conviction relief. Following multiple appointments of counsel, amendments to the petition, and other procedural matters spanning over nine years, the post-conviction court denied relief after a full evidentiary hearing. On appeal, the petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred by (1) denying his motion to sever his post-conviction hearing from that of his co-defendant, (2) denying his motion to continue the evidentiary hearing based upon the unavailability of two witnesses, and (3) denying relief for his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based upon the single allegation that trial counsel failed to introduce evidence of a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) laboratory report at trial. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Johnson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James Gregory Watson v. Howard Carlton, Warden & State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, James G. Watson, entered guilty pleas to theft, felony reckless endangerment, and two counts of aggravated assault in the Knox County Criminal Court. He subsequently filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Johnson County Criminal Court, which was summarily dismissed. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that he is entitled to habeas corpus relief because the probationary sentence he received for his theft conviction expired before the trial court revoked his probation. Upon review, we affirm the judgment dismissing the petition for writ of habeas corpus. |
Johnson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Elgene Porter aka “Twin”
Following a jury trial, the Defendant, Elgene Porter aka “Twin,” was convicted of conspiracy to commit aggravated burglary, aggravated burglary, attempted aggravated robbery, aggravated rape, and two counts of aggravated kidnapping. For these convictions, he received an effective sentence of forty-two years at 100% in the Department of Correction. In this direct appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress statements he made to police; (2) the trial court erred in failing to immediately remove a juror once a potential conflict was identified; (3) the trial court erred in setting the length of his sentences; and (4) the trial court erred in ordering partial consecutive sentences. After our review of the record and the applicable authorities, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Calvin Demetrius Shaw
A Maury County Circuit Court jury convicted the appellant, Calvin Demetrius Shaw, of simple possession of cocaine, a Class A misdemeanor. During a sentencing hearing, the trial court determined that the appellant had two prior convictions for simple possession and sentenced him to twenty months in confinement for simple possession as a Class E felony pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-17-418(e). On appeal, the appellant contends that the trial court erred by sentencing him for a Class E felony when the jury found him guilty of a misdemeanor and that Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-17-418(e) is unconstitutional because it allows for enhanced punishment without prior notice. The State concedes that the trial court improperly sentenced the appellant for a Class E felony. We agree and conclude that the case should be remanded to the trial court for resentencing. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Bobby Joe Rollins v. State of Tennessee
Following a jury trial, the Petitioner, Bobby Joe Rollins, was convicted of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, and sentenced as a Range III, persistent offender to twenty-eight years. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-402 (aggravated robbery defined). This Court affirmed his conviction and sentence on direct appeal. See State v. Bobby Joe Rollins, No. M2008-00284-CCA-R3-CD, 2008 WL 5427733 (Tenn. Crim. App., Nashville, Dec. 31, 2008) (mem.), perm. to appeal dismissed, (Tenn. Mar. 23, 2009). The Petitioner filed a timely petition for post-conviction relief and, after a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. In this appeal, the Petitioner claims that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because: (1) Trial Counsel misadvised the Petitioner with respect to whether he should testify at his trial; (2) Trial Counsel failed to undertake any meaningful trial preparations with the Petitioner; and (3) Trial Counsel failed to object and request a mistrial when a witness stated that the Petitioner had been in “the pen.” After our review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of relief. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Mark Alan Deakins v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Mark Alan Deakins, appeals pro se the Lauderdale County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief from his conviction for especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor, a Class B felony. The Petitioner contends that the trial court erred by finding that the judgment was not void and by dismissing his petition without an evidentiary hearing and without appointment of counsel. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Gussie Willis Vann
Pursuant to Rule 9 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, the State appeals the trial court’s order denying jury instructions on lesser included offenses at the Defendant Gussie Willis Vann’s retrial for felony murder. See T.C.A. §39-13-202(a)(2) (1991). The Defendant was originally convicted by a McMinn County jury of felony murder committed in the perpetration of aggravated rape and two counts of incest. He was sentenced to death plus six years’ incarceration. In affirming his convictions on direct appeal, this court, see State v. Gussie Willis Vann, No. 03C01-9602-CC-00066, 1997 WL 309320 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxville, June 10, 1997), and the Tennessee Supreme Court, see State v. Vann, 976 S.W.2d 93 (Tenn. 1998), rejected the Defendant’s claim that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offenses of felony murder. The Defendant subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief, and the post-conviction court ordered a new trial on grounds unrelated to the issue presented in this appeal. Prior to retrial, the Defendant moved to dismiss his indictment and bar instructions on the lesser included offenses of felony murder arguing, among other things, (1) that principles of double jeopardy, collateral estoppel, and judicial estoppel precluded the State from prosecuting the Defendant on any lesser included offense of felony murder because the “explicit statements” of both this court and the Tennessee Supreme Court “on direct appeal that the trial record was ‘devoid of evidence’ of lesser included offenses were factual determinations, necessary to valid final judgments, from which the government is prohibited from seeking an inconsistent determination” and (2) that “the [original] trial judge’s refusal to instruct on such lesser included offenses was a qualitative determination of the evidence, tantamount to an acquittal and triggering traditional double jeopardy and res judicata [as] to those charges.”Following a hearing, the trial court agreed in part with the Defendant and actually barred retrial on any lesser included offenses of felony murder. The State sought and we granted Rule 9 review to determine “whether constitutional double jeopardy protections bar at the trial the inclusion of lesser included offenses of first degree felony murder.” Upon our review, we reverse the decision of the trial court and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
McMinn | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James F. Mason
This is a direct appeal from a guilty plea pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure. The Defendant, James F. Mason, pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine with the intent to deliver. As part of his plea agreement, the Defendant attempted to reserve a certified question of law, challenging the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress the evidence seized during the search of his residence. Because the Defendant has failed to properly certify his issue for review, the appeal is dismissed. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals |
