State of Tennessee v. Terry Wayne Hawkins
The Defendant, Terry Wayne Hawkins, was convicted by a Monroe County jury of aggravated sexual battery and was sentenced to eleven years as a Range I, violent offender. In this appeal as of right, he contends that the trial court imposed an excessive sentence. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Monroe | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Antonio Hill
The defendant, Antonio Hill, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of robbery, a Class C felony, and attempted robbery, a Class D felony, as lesser included offenses of the indicted offenses of aggravated robbery and attempted aggravated robbery. The trial court subsequently sentenced the defendant to concurrent sentences of five years and three and one-half years for the respective convictions. On appeal, the defendant raises the single issue of whether his sentence is excessive. Specifically, he contends that the trial court erred in considering the enhancement factor that the defendant possessed or employed a firearm during the commission of the offenses based upon the jury’s rejection of the greater offenses, which included possession of a firearm as elements of the offense. Following review of the record and applicable sentencing law, we affirm the sentences as imposed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Cory Myers v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Cory Myers, appeals pro se from the Circuit Court 1 for Gibson County’s dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The judgment form in this case shows that Myers originally pled guilty to first degree murder for which he received a life sentence. However, in this appeal, Myers argues that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to sentence him because another form, entitled “Plea of Guilty and Waivers of Jury Trial and Appeal” (hereinafter “plea agreement form”), shows that he pled guilty to the offense of “felony homicide.” Based on the plea agreement form, Myers claims his conviction is void because “felony homicide” does not exist under Tennessee law. Upon review, we affirm the judgment dismissing the petition for writ of habeas corpus. |
Gibson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Amos Oyeleye
A Shelby County jury convicted the Defendant, Amos Oyeleye, of robbery, and the trial court sentenced him to five years of incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction and that the trial court erred when it set the length of his sentence. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Lance Murray
A Shelby County jury convicted the Defendant, Lance Murray, of facilitation of robbery. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Michael Joseph Grant v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Michael Joseph Grant, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for writ of error coram nobis. The petitioner claims the trial court should have held an evidentiary hearing and allowed evidence of witness statements that would have impacted the outcome of the proceedings. We conclude the writ of error coram nobis upon this record is not available to the petitioner because he pled guilty. The summary dismissal is affirmed. |
Bradley | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tywan Garcia Armstrong
The Defendant, Tywan Garcia Armstrong, was convicted by a jury in Marshall County of (Count 1) sale of a Schedule II Controlled Substance, a Class B Felony; (Count 2) delivery of a Scheduled II Controlled Substance, a Class B felony; (Count 3) possession with the intent to sell a Schedule II Controlled Substance, a Class B felony; (Count 4) possession with the intent to deliver a Schedule II Controlled Substance, a Class B felony; and (Count 5) possession of a deadly weapon with intent to employ it in the commission of an offense, a Class E felony. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant argues that: (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained from the search of his car; (2) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions for Counts 1, 2, and 5; and (3) the trial court erred in refusing to apply the mitigating factors submitted by the Defendant at the sentencing hearing. After reviewing the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Joby Lee Teal v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Joby Lee Teal, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his “Motion for Correction of Void Judgment.” 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, arguing that the petitioner’s motion should be treated as a petition for writ of habeas corpus and that he failed to state a cognizable claim because he is not “imprisoned or restrained of liberty.” We agree, grant the State’s motion, and affirm the judgment from the trial court pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Carlous Leon Clark
A Madison County grand jury indicted the Defendant, Carlous Leon Clark, for attempted first degree murder, two counts of aggravated assault, aggravated burglary, and assault. The Defendant moved to dismiss the charges, claiming that a trial would not comply with the speedy trial provisions of the United States and Tennessee constitutions. The trial court denied the Defendant’s motion to dismiss, and a Madison County jury convicted the Defendant of attempted first degree murder, assault, two counts of aggravated assault, and aggravated criminal trespass. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to dismiss based on a violation of his right to a speedy trial. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Curtis Daniel Hart v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Curtis Daniel Hart, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief and contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. He was initially convicted of second degree murder, simple possession of marijuana, and simple possession of Alprazolam, a Schedule IV controlled substance, and sentenced to thirty-five years in confinement as a Range II offender. On appeal, the petitioner argues that counsel was ineffective in a variety of areas but failed to prove any of the allegations. Therefore, we affirm the judgment from the post-conviction court. |
Tipton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Terry R. Cary
The defendant, Terry Cary, was convicted by a Madison County jury of promoting the manufacture of methamphetamine, a Class D felony, and sentenced as a career offender to twelve years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant raises the single issue of sufficiency of the evidence. Following review of the record, we affirm the judgment of conviction. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Herman Sowell, Jr.
Defendant, Herman Sowell, Jr., appeals the dismissal of his motion requesting the trial court to modify his sentence of confinement to a suspended sentence. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in finding no change in circumstances which would justify the requested modification. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ricky Eugene Scoville
A Marshall County jury convicted the defendant, Ricky Eugene Scoville, of two |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Collins Reed
The Defendant-Appellant, Michael Collins Reed, appeals his sentence following the revocation of his probation. He originally pled guilty to attempted aggravated robbery, a Class C felony, and was sentenced as a multiple offender to eight years of confinement in the Tennessee Department of Correction. This sentence was suspended to ten years of supervised probation. Because this was Reed’s third probation violation, the trial court placed his eight-year sentence for attempted aggravated robbery into effect. On appeal, Reed concedes the probation violation, but argues the trial court should have reinstated his probation or imposed a rehabilitative sentence that addressed his drug addiction. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Clarence Carnell Gaston v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Clarence Carnell Gaston, appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition to reopen his post-conviction petition. The State has filed a motion requesting that this court affirm the trial court’s denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Because the petitioner did not comply with the statutory requirements for seeking discretionary review of the denial of his motion, this court has no jurisdiction in this case. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. |
Obion | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joe Marvin Ellison
The defendant, Joe Marvin Ellison, pled guilty to aggravated assault, aggravated robbery, aggravated kidnapping, and rape for an effective sentence of twenty-five years in the Department of Correction. He subsequently filed a motion to withdraw his guilty pleas, which was denied by the trial court. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Thomas Christopher Hayes, alias Christopher Hayes
The Defendant, Thomas Christopher Hayes, appeals as of right his Hamilton County Criminal Court jury conviction for sexual battery, a Class E felony. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to four years as a Range II, multiple offender to be served in the Department of Correction. His sole issue on appeal is whether the evidence is sufficient to support his conviction. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Frankie E. Casteel v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Frankie E. Casteel, appeals the Hamilton County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for three counts of first degree murder. In this appeal, the Petitioner contends that the trial court erred in finding that he received the effective assistance of counsel. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Corey Lynn Clark v. State of Tennessee
|
Gibson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Dewayne Brown
|
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Marco Butler v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Marco Butler, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of post-conviction relief from his guilty pleas to first degree murder and especially aggravated robbery, a Class A felony, and his concurrent sentences of life and twenty-five years, respectively. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because trial counsel failed to communicate his release eligibility date. He also contends that his plea was involuntarily and unknowingly entered. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Johnny Menifee v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Johnny Menifee, was convicted in 2004 of Class D felony evading arrest with risk of injury, misdemeanor theft, Class E felony reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon, and resisting arrest. He received an effective sentence of eighteen years as a persistent offender. After his convictions and sentences were affirmed by this court in 2006, he filed a petition for post-conviction relief. Following an evidentiary hearing, the postconviction court denied the petition; and, after our review, we affirm that denial. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Suzanne D. Burkhart
The defendant, Suzanne D. Burkhart, appeals certified questions of law from the Sevier County Circuit Court, where she pleaded guilty to driving under the influence of an intoxicant (DUI) and violation of the implied consent law. The reserved certified question challenges on constitutional grounds a Sevierville police officer’s basis for stopping her vehicle and also his authority for doing so outside the City of Sevierville. We affirm the action of the trial court. |
Sevier | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jose E. Bejar, in Re: Liberty Bonding Company
The petitioner, Liberty Bonding Company, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of its request to return the $5000 paid as a final forfeiture on the bond for the defendant, Jose E. Bejar. The defendant violated his bond agreement in 1996, and the petitioner paid the final forfeiture in 1997. Some ten years later, the State dismissed the pending charges against the defendant. On appeal, the petitioner challenges the trial court’s denial because: (1) there was no written final order of forfeiture entered; and (2) the language of Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-11-133(c) (2006) prohibits the State from dismissing the underlying charges. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
David Cantrell v. Joe Easterling, Warden
In 1995, a Hickman County jury convicted the Petitioner of four counts of aggravated rape and one count of false imprisonment, and the trial court sentenced him as a Range II multiple offender to a total effective sentence of eighty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The Petitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus relief, claiming the trial court did not have statutory authority to sentence him as a Range II multiple offender. The habeas court dismissed the petition without a hearing, finding that “[h]abeas corpus relief is not appropriate.” After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the habeas court. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals |
