State of Tennessee v. Deborah N. Cotter
The appellant, Deborah N. Cotter, was convicted by a jury in the Hamblen County Criminal Court of aggravated robbery and was sentenced to ten years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, she argues that the evidence is insufficient to support her conviction, particularly because no witness identified her in court as the robber. She also contends that the trial court erred in arriving at her sentence. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hamblen | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Bryant C. Overton
A Rutherford County jury convicted the Defendant, Bryant C. Overton, of aggravated kidnapping, aggravated robbery, attempted first degree murder, and conspiracy to commit kidnapping. The trial court ordered the Defendant to serve an effective sentence of sixty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgments in part, but we reverse them in part based upon a sentencing error. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Alvin T. McGee v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Alvin T. McGee, filed for post-conviction relief from his convictions for attempted burglary and vandalism between $500 and $1000, alleging that his guilty pleas were not knowingly and voluntarily entered. The post-conviction court denied the petition, and the Petitioner now appeals. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Mitzi Rollins
The appellant, Mitzi Rollins, pled guilty in the Moore County Circuit Court to one count of initiating a false report under Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-16-502. The plea agreement provided that she would be sentenced to two years and ten months, with the trial court to determine the manner of service. After a hearing, the trial court denied the appellant’s request for alternative sentencing, citing her lengthy criminal history and the repeated unsuccessful attempts to use less restrictive sentencing. The appellant contends the trial court erred by ordering her to serve her sentence in confinement. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Moore | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v Charles E. Lowe-Kelley
A Maury County Circuit Court jury convicted the defendant, Charles E. Lowe-Kelley, of two counts of first degree premeditated murder, two counts of first degree felony murder, and nine counts of attempted first degree murder. At sentencing, the trial court imposed consecutive sentences of life with the possibility of parole for each first degree premeditated murder conviction, merged the first degree felony murder convictions into the first degree premeditated murder convictions, and imposed concurrent sentences of 15 years’ incarceration for each attempted first degree murder conviction to be served concurrently with the life sentences. On appeal, in addition to contesting the sufficiency of the evidence, the defendant contends that the trial court erred by (1) denying his motion for a continuance, (2) allowing a juror to remain on the jury who expressed an opinion about the case, (3) admitting evidence without establishing a proper chain of custody, (4) admitting a taperecorded conversation between the defendant and a separately-tried co-defendant, and (5) imposing consecutive sentences. Because the defendant failed to file a timely motion for new trial, all issues except the sufficiency of the evidence and sentencing are waived. Furthermore, the untimely motion for new trial rendered the notice of appeal untimely. In the interest of justice, however, we waive the timely filing of the notice of appeal and review the remaining issues. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Douglas Wayne Young
A Sullivan County Criminal Court Jury convicted the appellant, Douglas Wayne Young, of aggravated rape and sentenced him to twenty-two years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant claims that the trial court erred in (1) admitting the appellant’s nine millimeter handgun into evidence; (2) admitting scientific evidence from a DNA and serology expert; (3) finding that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction; (4) giving the jury an instruction concerning flight; and (5) imposing a sentence of twenty-two years. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Brent Blye
Following a jury trial, the Defendant, Brent Allen Blye, was convicted in Case Number S50,833 of possession with intent to sell 26 grams or more of cocaine, a Class B felony, and two Class A misdemeanors and was sentenced by the trial court pursuant to an agreement by the parties. At the sentencing hearing, the Defendant pled guilty to several felony and misdemeanor charges in three unrelated cases and was sentenced pursuant to a plea agreement to an effective term of 30 years. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends that (1) his pro se motions should be considered as a motion for new trial in Case Number S50,833; (2) the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to sustain his convictions in Case Number S50,833; (3) the trial court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty pleas in Case Numbers S46,736, S48,639, and S51,239; (4) his right to a speedy trial was violated in Case Number S46,736; (5) the trial court erred in sentencing him; and (6) the trial judge who presided over the sentencing hearing for all four cases should have recused herself. Following our review, we affirm the convictions but remand the case for the entry of corrected judgments consistent with this opinion. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Deadrick Garrett
The defendant, Deadrick Garrett, was convicted of first degree premeditated murder and sentenced to life with the possibility of parole in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and that the trial court erred in excluding evidence regarding the victim’s prior convictions and parole status. After careful review, we affirm the judgment from the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Lloyd Andra Webb
The Defendant, Lloyd Andra Webb, pled guilty to possession with intent to sell twenty-six grams or more of cocaine, a Class B felony, and to possession of marijuana, a Class A misdemeanor. See T.C.A. §§ 39-17-417 (2010); 39-17-418 (2010). He was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to nine years for the possession with intent to sell conviction and to eleven months, twenty-nine days for the misdemeanor possession conviction, to be served concurrently. He was order to serve fifteen weekends in the Blount County Jail with the balance of his sentences on community corrections. The Defendant’s plea agreement reserved a certified question of law regarding the legality of the traffic stop that led to his arrest. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tony Chester McNally
The Defendant, Tony Chester McNally, pled guilty to introducing contraband into a penal institution, a Class C felony. See T.C.A. § 39-16-201 (2010). He was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to three years’ confinement, to be served consecutively to sentences he was serving at the time of this offense. The Defendant’s plea agreement reserved a certified question of law regarding the legality of the questioning that led to his conviction. Because we conclude that the certified question is not dispositive of the case, we dismiss the appeal. |
Hawkins | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v Patrick Rico Edwards
Defendant, Patrick Rico Edwards, was indicted by the Davidson County Grand Jury for murder in the perpetration of a theft and first-degree premeditated murder, both in violation of Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-202. After a jury trial began on August 21, 2008, the trial court granted a mistrial. On March 19, 2009, Defendant pleaded guilty to the lesser-included offense of second degree murder. Following a sentencing hearing on May 12, 2009, Defendant was sentenced to serve 21 years in confinement at 100 percent. In this appeal, Defendant challenges the length of his sentence. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that Defendant’s sentence is not excessive and affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jamie W. Stanfill
The Defendant, Jamie W. Stanfill, pled guilty to three counts of theft of property between $10,000 and $60,000, Class C felonies; one count of theft of property between $1000 and $10,000, a Class D felony; and five counts of burglary of a motor vehicle, Class E felonies. The Defendant agreed to a ten-year sentence, with the trial court to determine the manner of service of his sentence. After a hearing, the trial court ordered him to serve his sentence in confinement. The Defendant appeals, contending the trial court improperly denied his request for an alternative sentence. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Bennie E. Massey
Following a Montgomery County bench trial, the Defendant, Bennie E. Massey, was convicted of five counts of sexual battery by an authority figure, a Class C felony, and sentenced to six years, to be served on probation. The trial court also ordered the Defendant to serve forty-eight hours in jail every two weeks for the first year of his sentence. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions because the evidence presented by the State is based solely upon the victims’ testimony and those victims, he asserts, are accomplices to the sexual battery in that they consented to the unlawful touching. Further, he asserts that the trial court improperly imposed consecutive sentencing. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we conclude that the victims were not accomplices, in that their consent was coerced by the Defendant, and that the evidence, therefore, supports the Defendant’s convictions. We further conclude that the trial court properly sentenced the Defendant. As such, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Dewitt William Stickle, III
The Defendant, Dewitt William Stickle III, was charged with two counts of aggravated assault. Following a jury trial, he was convicted of one count of the lesser-included offense of assault, a Class A misdemeanor. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-101(b)(1). In this direct appeal, the Defendant, who maintained that he hit the victim in self-defense, contends that the trial court erred when it excluded testimony intended to corroborate his theory that the victim was the first aggressor. After our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Jackson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Shawn Blair v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Shawn Blair, appeals the post-conviction court’s dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief from his two convictions for simple possession of marijuana and resulting sentences of eleven-months, twenty-nine days for each conviction to be served consecutively. The post-conviction court summarily dismissed the petition without appointing counsel or conducting a hearing on the basis that the Petitioner had filed it while his direct appeal was pending. The Petitioner argues that he is entitled to post-conviction relief because he did not plead guilty knowingly and voluntarily and because he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. The State contends that the post-conviction court improperly dismissed the petition because the Petitioner did not file it prematurely. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we reverse the judgment of the post-conviction court and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Andrew Colin Hicks
The Defendant, Andrew Colin Hicks, appeals as of right from the trial court’s denial of judicial diversion following his guilty plea to facilitation of attempted aggravated arson, a Class C felony. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a sentence of three years probation. The Defendant contends that the trial court erred by denying his application for judicial diversion. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Robert Conley
Defendant, Robert Conley, filed a pro se notice of appeal which was timely as to the trial court’s order denying Defendant’s motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 35. The trial court subsequently appointed counsel to represent Defendant. In his brief on appeal, Defendant challenges the trial court’s order revoking his community corrections sentence and ordering service of the fourteen-year sentence by incarceration, in addition to arguing that the trial court erred by denying his Rule 35 motion. We conclude that the issue regarding revocation of the community corrections sentence is waived by Defendant’s failure to timely appeal that order. Further, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Defendant’s Rule 35 motion, and, accordingly affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Sonny Wayne Smith
Defendant, Sonny Wayne Smith, was indicted by the Marshall County Grand Jury for harassment, a class E felony, in violation of Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-308. Defendant entered a guilty plea to the offense as charged. Following a sentencing hearing, Defendant was sentenced as a Range I standard offender to serve two years in confinement, and his sentence was ordered to be served consecutively to a misdemeanor sentence. In this direct appeal, Defendant challenges the length of his sentence and the consecutive sentencing. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Willie Long, Jr.
A Madison County Circuit Court Jury convicted the appellant, Willie Long, Jr., of two counts of the sale or delivery of a Schedule I drug and one count of simple possession/casual exchange of a Schedule I drug. The trial court imposed a total effective sentence of eleven years in the Tennessee Department of Correction (TDOC) and ordered the appellant to serve eleven months and twenty-nine days of his felony sentences in the county jail “day for day” prior to being released on community corrections. On appeal, the appellant argues that the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to sustain his convictions, that the trial court erred in enhancing the appellant’s felony sentences to eleven years, and that the trial court erred in ordering the appellant to serve eleven months and twenty-nine days of his felony sentences in the county jail “day for day.” The State concedes that the trial court erred in imposing “day for day” confinement in the county jail but argues the judgments should be affirmed in all other respects. Upon review, we affirm the appellant’s convictions and the length of the sentences imposed but remand for a correction of the judgments to provide that the appellant is entitled to earn good conduct credits while serving eleven months and twenty-nine days of his felony sentences in jail. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James Paul Hurt v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, James Paul Hurt, was convicted by a Marshall County jury of selling 0.5 grams or more of cocaine and delivery of 0.5 grams or more of cocaine. The trial court merged the convictions, and on direct appeal, this court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. State v. James Paul Hurt, No. M2006-02381-CCA-R3-CD, 2007 WL 4552987 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville, Dec. 27, 2007), no perm. to app. filed. Subsequently, Petitioner timely filed a petition for post-conviction relief. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied relief and dismissed the petition. Petitioner appeals, arguing that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel. Following review of the briefs and the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction trial court. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Levi Battle III v. State of Tennessee
A Davidson County jury convicted the Petitioner, Levi Battle, III, of possession of twenty-six grams or more of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver, and the trial court sentenced him to thirty years, at 60%, in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The Petitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus relief, in which he alleged that his sentence was illegal because he was sentenced outside of his sentencing range. The habeas corpus court dismissed the petition, and the Petitioner appeals the habeas corpus court’s judgment. After careful review, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court. |
Hickman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Donald Ray Jones v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Donald Ray Jones, pleaded guilty to two counts of first degree murder and received concurrent terms of life with the possibility of parole. The Petitioner filed a timely petition for post-conviction relief and, after a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. In this appeal, the sole issue that the Petitioner raises is that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his Trial Counsel failed to request insanity and competency evaluations. After our review, we conclude that the Petitioner’s appeal should be dismissed because his notice of appeal was not timely filed. |
Hancock | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ivan Charles Graves
A Knox County Criminal Court jury convicted the appellant, Ivan Charles Graves, of first degree premeditated murder and felony murder committed during the perpetration of a kidnapping. Immediately after the jury’s verdict, the trial court merged the convictions and sentenced the appellant to life in prison. On appeal, the appellant contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support the premeditated murder conviction because the State failed to show he premeditated killing the victim; (2) the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions because the testimony of one of the witnesses was irreconcilable with the physical evidence; (3) the State’s use of his recorded jail conversations during its case-in-chief violated his constitutional rights; (4) the trial court committed plain error by allowing the jury to have transcripts of the recorded conversations during its deliberations; (5) the trial court erred by dismissing a potential juror for cause and failing to dismiss another juror for cause; and (6) the trial court erred by allowing a State witness to testify about the appellant’s prior bad acts. Although the trial court erred with regard to the transcripts, the errors do not warrant reversal, and we affirm the appellant’s convictions. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Martha Patlan
A Davidson County jury convicted the defendant, Martha Patlan, of aggravated child abuse, a Class A felony, and first degree felony murder during the perpetration of aggravated child abuse. The trial court sentenced the defendant to a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment for the murder conviction and, consecutive to the life sentence, twenty years for the aggravated child abuse conviction both to be served in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant argues that (1) the evidence was insufficient to convict her of aggravated child abuse and felony murder; (2) her felony murder conviction is unconstitutional; (3) the trial court erred when it failed to require the state to elect an incident of neglect; (4) the trial court erred when it refused to allow testimony regarding bruises on the defendant’s face; (5) the trial court erred when it allowed certain photographs into evidence; (6) the trial court erred in overruling the defendant’s objection to the use of the term Battered Child Syndrome; and (7) the trial court erred by ordering that the defendant serve her sentences consecutively. After reviewing the record, the parties’ briefs, and applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Collins
The Defendant, Christopher Collins, was indicted by the Lawrence County grand jury on three counts of felony child neglect, a Class E felony. The Defendant waived his right to trial by a jury and was convicted by the trial court of two counts of felony child neglect and one count of misdemeanor child neglect. The Defendant received concurrent sentences of 18 months in the Tennessee Department of Correction for the felony convictions and a concurrent sentence of 11 months and 29 days in the county jail for the misdemeanor conviction. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions and that in the alternative, he should have been convicted of attempted child neglect. Following our review, we conclude that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the Defendant’s convictions. As there was sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction of attempted child neglect, we reverse and vacate the Defendant’s convictions of felony and misdemeanor child neglect and impose two convictions of attempted felony child neglect, a Class A misdemeanor, and one conviction of attempted child neglect, a Class B misdemeanor. The case is remanded for a new sentencing hearing. |
Lawrence | Court of Criminal Appeals |
