State of Tennessee v. Jarvis Nichols
The defendant, Jarvis Nichols, appeals the judgment of the Blount County Circuit Court, revoking his probation and imposing service of the remainder of his sentence in confinement. In this appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering service of the balance of the sentence in confinement when less severe sanctions were available. Upon a thorough review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the decision of the trial court. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Alton Walton
A jury convicted the defendant, James Alton Walton, of aggravated burglary, a Class C felony, and theft of property $500 or less, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced him to an effective ten-year sentence. On appeal, the defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions and that the trial court erred in sentencing the defendant. After reviewing the record, the parties’ briefs, and applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Timmy Reagan v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Timmy Reagan, was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life in prison. After an unsuccessful direct appeal, Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief. See State v. Timmy Reagan, No. M2002-01472-CCA-R3-CD, 2004 WL 1114588 (Tenn. Crim. App, at Nashville, May 19, 2004). The post-conviction court denied relief. Petitioner appealed. See Timmy Reagan v. State, No. M2007-01396-CCA-R3-PC, 2009 WL 230355 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Feb. 2, 2009). On appeal, this Court questioned the timeliness of the petition for post-conviction relief and remanded the case to the post-conviction court “for a determination of whether the petition was filed within one year of this court’s opinion affirming the petitioner’s conviction or whether due process requires the tolling of the one-year statute of limitations in this case.” Id. at *1. On remand, the post-conviction court first determined that Petitioner’s post-conviction petition was untimely. Then, the post-conviction court held that trial counsel failed to withdraw pursuant to Rule 14 of the Rules of the Tennessee Supreme Court and that his failure to withdraw or pursue an appeal was a misrepresentation to Petitioner of his intent to seek permission to appeal. Id. Based on this finding, the post-conviction court determined that trial counsel’s actions denied Petitioner the opportunity to seek post-conviction relief in a timely manner. The post-conviction court held that the statute of limitations for filing Petitioner’s petition should have been tolled. Then the post-conviction court reviewed the post-conviction petition and the transcript from the previous post-conviction hearing as well as the trial record, and agreed with the prior determination of the post-conviction court that Petitioner was not entitled to post-conviction relief. On appeal from the denial of post-conviction relief, we determine: that the post-conviction court properly determined that Petitioner’s petition was untimely but improperly determined that due process required the tolling of the statute of limitations for Petitioner’s post-conviction petition. Therefore, the post-conviction court improperly addressed the merits of the petition for post-conviction relief. Accordingly, the judgment of the post-conviction court is reversed, and the petition for post-conviction relief is dismissed. |
Overton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Brian Eric McGowen v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Brian Eric McGowen, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for first degree felony murder, especially aggravated robbery, and attempted especially aggravated robbery and resulting effective sentence of life plus forty years to be served at one hundred percent. The petitioner contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Jake Reynolds
Appellant, Christopher Jake Reynolds, was indicted by the Giles County Grand Jury in October of 2003 for two counts of selling .5 grams or more of cocaine. After a jury trial in June of 2005, Appellant was found not guilty of Count One and guilty of the lesser included offense of possession of .5 grams or more of cocaine with the intent to sell in Count Two. Appellant was sentenced to thirty years as a Career Offender. A motion for new trial was denied. Nearly one and a half years later, Appellant sought a delayed appeal and postconviction relief on the basis he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel had been disbarred. The trial court found that it was without jurisdiction to consider Appellant’s claims. Appellant seeks relief in this Court. After a review of the record, we conclude that Appellant’s claims are barred by the statute of limitations and that he has failed to establish a reasonable explanation for the delay that would justify the tolling of the statute of limitations for purposes of a delayed appeal or post-conviction relief. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Giles | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Billy Ray Irick v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Billy Ray Irick, appeals from the Knox County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for writ of error coram nobis, which challenged his 1987 convictions of felony murder and aggravated rape and resulting death sentence. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the coram nobis court erred by ruling that due process considerations did not toll the oneyear statute of limitations applicable to coram nobis petitions, see T.C.A. § 27-7-103 (2000), and that the newly discovered evidence “would not have” resulted in a different verdict had it been presented to the convicting jury. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the coram nobis court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Frederick A. Miller v. State of Tennessee
A Hamilton County Criminal Court Jury convicted the Petitioner, Frederick A. Miller, of first degree murder, attempted first degree murder, and especially aggravated robbery, for which he received an effective sentence of life plus sixty years. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed for post-conviction relief, alleging his trial and appellate counsel were ineffective by failing to object to the “show-up” identification procedure, failing to preserve and pursue the Petitioner’s speedy trial motion, and failing to properly cross-examine and impeach the State’s witnesses. Further, the Petitioner alleged that the State denied the Petitioner’s due process rights by failing to disclose the results of fingerprint analysis and gunshot residue tests. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied the petition, and the Petitioner now appeals. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Dyron Norm Yokley
The Defendant, Dyron Norm Yokley, was convicted of second degree murder, for which he received a thirty-five-year sentence as a Range II, violent offender. The Defendant appeals, contending that (1) the evidence is not sufficient to support the conviction, (2) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his four pretrial statements, (3) the State violated his due process rights by failing to update its discovery responses, (4) the trial court erred in allowing the jury to view the scene, (5) the trial court erred in admitting evidence of the Defendant’s affiliation with the Vice Lords gang, and (6) the trial court erred in imposing a lengthy sentence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Virgil Campbell
Following a jury trial, the Defendant, Virgil Campbell, was convicted of two counts of aggravated assault, a Class C felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-102(e)(1). The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I, standard offender to five years for each count and ordered that the terms run consecutively. In this direct appeal, the Defendant raises the following issues: (1) The trial court erred when it denied his motion to sever the two offenses; and (2) The trial court erred when it sentenced him to consecutive sentences. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Bledsoe | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Demetria Nance
Following a jury trial, the Defendant, Demetria Nance, was convicted of one count of second degree murder, a Class A felony, and one count of possession of a deadly weapon, a Class E felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-13-210(c), -17-1307(d)(3). In this appeal, she raises the following issues for our review: (1) The State presented insufficient evidence to support her conviction for second degree murder; and (2) The trial court erred by not declaring a mistrial after a writing from the Defendant to the victim, which had not been given to the defense during pre-trial discovery, was mentioned in front of the jury. After our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court but remand for entry of a corrected judgment for the Defendant’s conviction of possession of a deadly weapon. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Eugene Taylor
The Defendant, Eugene Taylor, entered a plea of guilty to possession of cocaine for resale and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Under the terms of the plea agreement, the Defendant received concurrent terms of four years as a Range I, standard offender for these convictions. As part of the plea agreement, the Defendant reserved a certified question of law challenging the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress the evidence resulting from his traffic stop. After our review, we affirm the judgments of the Hamilton County Criminal Court. We remand for the entry of a corrected judgment. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Mario Antowine Middlebrooks
The defendant, Mario Antowine Middlebrooks, was convicted by a Hardeman County jury of aggravated robbery, three counts of aggravated kidnapping, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, and theft under $10,000. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed sentences of ten years for the robbery, ten years for each kidnapping, ten years for the possession of a firearm, and two years for the theft. The court further determined that partial consecutive sentencing was warranted and imposed an effective sentence of forty years to be served in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant has raised three issues for our review: (1) whether his convictions for aggravated kidnapping violate due process and are, thus, precluded under State v. Dixon; (2) whether the evidence is sufficient to support his kidnapping convictions; and (3) whether the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences. Following review of the record, we conclude that the defendant’s three aggravated kidnapping conviction are violative of due process principles and, thus, must be vacated. Moreover, we conclude that the trial court did not follow the mandates of our caselaw in its imposition of consecutive sentencing. As such, the case is remanded to the trial court for reconsideration of consecutive sentencing. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Triplett McNeal v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Triplett McNeal, pled guilty to aggravated robbery, especially aggravated kidnapping, and especially aggravated robbery and agreed to an effective sentence of thirty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. He filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Lauderdale County Circuit Court, and the habeas corpus court dismissed the petition. The Petitioner now appeals the denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief and, after a review of the record in this case, we conclude that the Petitioner’s notice of appeal is untimely. As such, we dismiss the Petitioner’s appeal. |
Court of Criminal Appeals | ||
William Wilson v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, William Wilson, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to adequately advise him of the consequences of not testifying at trial. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Thomas J. Tucker v. State of Tennessee
A Marshall County jury found the Petitioner, Thomas J. Tucker, guilty of facilitation of aggravated robbery and facilitation of aggravated burglary, and the trial court sentenced him to an effective sentence of thirteen years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which the post-conviction court denied after a hearing. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred when it dismissed his petition because he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Willie Bob King v. State of Tennessee
This matter is before the Court on the State’s motion to affirm the judgment of the trial court by memorandum opinion pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner, Willie Bob King, filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which the post-conviction court denied, and this Court affirmed on appeal. Thereafter, the Petitioner did not file for permission to appeal to the supreme court. After the period in which to file such an application expired, the Petitioner filed a second petition for post-conviction relief, seeking a delayed appeal to the supreme court. The post-conviction court denied this petition without a hearing and refused the Petitioner’s request to reconsider its decision. The Petitioner appeals the post-conviction court’s dismissal of his second petition for post-conviction relief. Upon our review of the record in this case, we conclude that the Petitioner is not entitled to a delayed appeal and that this case meets the criteria for affirmance pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Accordingly, the State’s motion is granted and the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed. |
Warren | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ricky Johnson, aka Russell Wellington, #122766 v. Howard Carlton, Warden & State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Ricky Johnson, aka Russell Wellington, #122766, appeals the summary dismissal of his second petition for habeas corpus relief from his 1989 convictions for burglary of an automobile and grand larceny. He claimed that his convictions were void because venue in the convicting county was not proved. Because the Petitioner has not shown that he is restrained of his liberty as a direct consequence of these convictions, we affirm the order of the Johnson County Circuit Court dismissing the petition. |
Johnson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Carlton Horton, aka Carlton Leavon Horton
The Defendant, Carlton Horton, aka Carlton Leavon Horton, pleaded guilty in the Hamilton County Criminal Court to domestic aggravated assault as a Range I, standard offender. After a sentencing hearing, he received a five-year sentence. The trial court ordered him to serve eleven months and twenty-nine days; the sentence thereafter to be suspended, and the Defendant placed on probation for a period of eight years. The trial court also ordered the Defendant to pay $4,048.10 in restitution to the victim. The Defendant now appeals the restitution award, arguing that the trial court did not consider the Defendant’s financial resources or ability to pay as required by statute. We conclude that the trial court made inadequate findings concerning the Defendant’s financial resources and his future ability to pay. We therefore reverse and remand for reconsideration of the restitution award based upon the required findings. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Geoffrey Alexander
The Defendant-Appellant, Geoffrey Alexander, appeals the revocation of his probation. In this appeal, Alexander argues that (1) the trial court erred by revoking his probation and (2) the trial court should have granted his request for a continuance. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Eric D. Wallace v. Stephen Dotson, Warden
The Petitioner, Eric D. Wallace, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of felony murder and attempted first degree murder. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for the felony murder conviction and to a consecutive fifteen-year sentence as a Range I, standard offender for the attempted first degree murder conviction, for an effective sentence of life plus fifteen years. He subsequently filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Hardeman County Circuit Court, which was summarily dismissed. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that he is entitled to habeas corpus relief because (1) he asserts that he is “actually innocent” of the charges, (2) his indictments are defective, and (3) the trial court improperly instructed the jury on flight. Upon review, we affirm the judgment summarily dismissing the petition for writ of habeas corpus. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kelly Walker
The defendant, Kelly Walker, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of facilitation of first degree premeditated murder, a Class A felony, and aggravated assault, a Class C felony. He was sentenced as a Range I offender to twenty-five years and six years, respectively, to be served consecutively in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his statements and challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and the sentences imposed by the trial court. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James Dubose v. Jim Worthington, Warden
The Petitioner, James DuBose, appeals the Morgan County Circuit Court’s dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief from his 1993 conviction for first degree murder by aggravated child abuse. He claims his judgment of conviction is void because the indictment was invalid and charged him with violating a statute that did not exist at the time of his offense. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Macon | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John Richard Sprouse
The defendant, John Richard Sprouse, appeals the Sevier County Circuit Court’s revocation of his probation. On appeal, he contends that the trial court erred by ordering him to serve his six-year sentence in incarceration. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sevier | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jennifer Renee Dennis
The appellant, Jennifer Renee Dennis, admitted in the Bedford County Circuit Court that she violated probation sentences she was serving for two felony theft convictions, and the trial court ordered her to serve her original twelve- and three-year sentences in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant contends that the trial court erred by ordering her to serve her sentences in confinement and that the trial court should have reinstated her probation. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Felix Tamayo
The Defendant, Felix Tamayo, pled guilty to five counts of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, with the sentence to be determined by the trial court. The trial court imposed consecutive sentences of 12 years as a Range I, standard offender for each count, for a total effective sentence of 60 years. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred in setting the length of his sentences and in ordering consecutive sentencing. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals |
