State of Tennessee v. Jairo Jesus Canales Garcia
The defendant, Jairo Jesus Canales Garcia, was convicted of first degree (premeditated) murder; first degree (felony) murder, burglary, a Class D felony; attempted especially aggravated robbery, a Class B felony; and theft of property, a Class D felony. He received an effective sentence of life plus twenty years. On appeal, he argues that: the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; the jury was selected improperly; and the trial court erred in allowing certain testimony. After careful review, we affirm the judgments from the trial court. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ronnie Cortez Akins
The defendant, Ronnie Cortez Akins, was convicted of first degree felony murder, a Class A felony; criminally negligent homicide, a Class E felony; and especially aggravated robbery, a Class A felony. He was sentenced as a Range I, violent offender to life in the Tennessee Department of Correction for the murder conviction and to twenty years on the robbery conviction, with the sentences to be served concurrently. On appeal, the defendant asserts that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions and that the trial court erred in denying his motions to suppress a gun found during a protective sweep of his room and his statement to the authorities. After careful review, we affirm the convictions from the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
John Biaselli v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, John Biaselli, pleaded guilty to one count of possession of a Schedule II controlled substance for resale and one count of possession of a Schedule II controlled substance for delivery, both Class B felonies. The trial court merged the two counts and sentenced the petitioner to eleven years in the Tennessee Department of Correction at thirty percent. The petitioner appealed his sentence to this court, which affirmed the trial court. The petitioner now appeals the judgment of the Bedford County Circuit Court denying post-conviction relief. The petitioner asserts that he |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Mario Pisani v. State of Tennessee
A jury convicted the petitioner, Mario Pisani, of seven counts of rape of a child, seven counts of rape, eight counts of sexual battery by an authority figure, seven counts of aggravated sexual battery, and seven counts of incest. The trial court sentenced him to forty-two years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On direct appeal, this court upheld the convictions. The petitioner now appeals the judgment of the Rutherford County Circuit Court denying post-conviction relief and asserts that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, the petitioner argues that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to impeach the victim with a prior inconsistent statement. After review, we affirm the judgment denying post-conviction relief. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Ray Boles
The appellant entered pleas of nolo contendere to two counts of statutory rape by an authority figure, and he pled guilty to one count of statutory rape by an authority figure. The trial court imposed a sentence of three years for each conviction and ordered that two of the sentences be served consecutively for a total effective sentence of six years. On appeal, the appellant challenges the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentencing. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Tipton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Tony Samuel v. State of Tennessee
A Lauderdale County jury found the petitioner guilty of aggravated rape and aggravated kidnapping. The trial court sentenced the petitioner to an effective thirty-five year sentence in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The petitioner appealed his convictions to this court, which affirmed the convictions and sentence. The petitioner then sought post-conviction relief on the theory that he received ineffective assistance of counsel during the trial, inter alia. The post-conviction court dismissed the petition. The petitioner now appeals. Following our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. David Wayne Gray
The post-conviction court dismissed the petition, finding that the petition was time barred and that no due process consideration existed to toll the statute of limitations. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the post-conviction court’s dismissal of the petition as time barred. |
Wilson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Keith Collins v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Keith Collins, pled guilty to possession of more than 0.5 grams of cocaine with the intent to sell, a Class C felony, and aggravated assault, a Class C felony. He was sentenced to concurrent sentences of three years on probation as a Range I, standard offender. His probation was later revoked, and a petition for post-conviction relief followed. On appeal, he argues counsel was ineffective and that his guilty pleas were not knowingly and voluntarily entered. After careful review, we affirm the judgment from the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Richard Ellis Stapleton
The Defendant, Richard Ellis Stapleton, was convicted on his guilty pleas of attempted especially aggravated robbery, a Class B felony; especially aggravated burglary, a Class B felony; and two counts of facilitation of especially aggravated kidnapping, a Class B felony. The trial court imposed concurrent, Range I, twelve-year sentences to be served in the Department of Correction. In this appeal, the Defendant challenges the length of the sentences. We modify the sentences for attempted especially aggravated robbery and especially aggravated burglary to eleven years each and modify the sentences for facilitation of especially aggravated kidnapping to nine years each. |
Jefferson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Raymond Bailey v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Raymond Bailey, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of postconviction relief from his convictions for especially aggravated kidnapping, a Class A felony, and carjacking, a Class B felony. For the especially aggravated kidnapping conviction, he received a sentence of twenty-eight years at one hundred percent. For the carjacking conviction, he received a sentence of twelve years at thirty-five percent. These two sentences were to be served consecutively for an effective sentence of forty years in confinement. In his appeal, the petitioner argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because (1) trial counsel failed to challenge his dual convictions as violating due process under State v. Anthony, 817 S.W.2d 299 (Tenn. 1991) and State v. Dixon, 957 S.W.2d 532 (Tenn. 1997); and (2) trial counsel failed to investigate and call William Isom to testify at trial. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tarik Robertson
The Defendant-Appellant, Tarik Robertson, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of observation without consent, a Class A misdemeanor. He received the maximum sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days, with four months to be served in a county workhouse. On appeal, he claims: (1) the insufficiency of the evidence; (2) the trial court did not properly exercise its role as the thirteenth juror; (3) the State committed prosecutorial misconduct in its closing argument; and (4) the trial court erred in imposing both the length and manner of his sentence. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Delawrence Williams
The defendant, Delawrence Williams, was convicted by a Dyer County jury of possession of .5 grams or more of cocaine with the intent to deliver or sell, a Class B felony, and assault, a Class A misdemeanor. He was subsequently sentenced by the trial court to fourteen years for the drug possession offense and eleven months, twenty-nine days for the assault offense, with the sentences to be served concurrently to each other and concurrently to his sentence in a federal case but consecutively to his sentence in another Dyer County case. The sole issue the defendant raises in this appeal is whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Lionel E. Sherron
A jury convicted the defendant, Lionel E. Sherron, of attempted voluntary manslaughter, reckless aggravated assault, and reckless endangerment by use of a deadly weapon. The trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range II, multiple offender to an effective nine-year sentence in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient for a jury to find him guilty. After review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Jackson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. G. Mike Holden
The defendant, G. Mike Holden, was convicted by a Madison County jury of one count of sale of beer to a minor, a Class A misdemeanor. He was subsequently sentenced to a term of eleven months and twenty-nine days, to be suspended following service of one hundred twenty days in the county jail. On appeal, the defendant raises the single issue of sufficiency of the evidence. However, the defendant has failed to include in the appellate record a transcript of the evidence from his trial. The defendant has submitted a statement of the evidence, pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(c)-(d). However, it was not timely filed pursuant to the rules. Because the issue submitted is not meritorious as a matter of law, we conclude that it is not in the interest of justice to waive the timeliness requirement. As such, the judgment of conviction is affirmed. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Loroy Salter
The defendant, Loroy Salter, was found to be in violation of his probationary sentence in the Dyersburg City Court and was sentenced to twenty days in jail and ninety days of community service. The defendant subsequently appealed the decision to the Dyer County Circuit Court, which affirmed the violation and the resulting sentence. On appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering revocation, based upon the defendant’s failure to pay costs and fines, without conducting a hearing on his ability to pay. Following review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Timothy Tylus Sorrells
Following a jury trial, Defendant, Timothy Tylus Sorrells, was convicted of first degree premeditated murder and abuse of a corpse. Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole for his murder conviction and one year as a Range I offender for abuse of a corpse, to be served concurrently. On appeal, Defendant argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions. Following our review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Vincent Roger Harris v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Vincent Roger Harris, appeals the dismissal of his post-conviction petition in which Petitioner alleged that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel in connection with the entry of his pleas of guilty, and that his guilty pleas were not voluntarily or knowingly entered. After a thorough review we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Abdirizak Omar Yussuf
Appellant, Rader Bonding Company, Inc., appeals the judgment of the Davidson County Criminal Court ordering complete forfeiture of the bail bond in the case of Defendant, Addirizak Omar Yussuf. Appellant argues that the State’s refusal to seek extradition of Defendant, who had fled to Sweden, constituted an extreme case under State v. Frankgos, 114 Tenn. 76, 85 S.W. 79, 80-81 (Tenn. 1905) which relieved Appellant of its responsibility under the bond agreement. Following a review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
George R. Croft v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, George R. Croft, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The petitioner was found guilty of especially aggravated robbery and felony murder in the perpetration of a robbery. He was sentenced as a Range I, violent offender to life imprisonment for the felony murder conviction and to twenty-two years for the especially aggravated robbery conviction. On appeal, he contends that his counsel were ineffective and that he should be granted a new trial because trial counsel did not conduct voir dire pursuant to Momon v. State, 18 S.W.3d 152 (Tenn. 1999), with regard to his desire to testify at trial. After careful review, we affirm the judgment from the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher R. Rickman
The defendant, Christopher R. Rickman, was convicted by a McNairy County jury of theft of property greater than $1000, a Class D felony, and possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor. He was subsequently sentenced to concurrent sentences of three years, to be suspended following service of ninety days, and eleven months and twenty-nine days. On appeal, the defendant raises two issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence presented was sufficient to support the convictions; and (2) whether the trial court erred in denying a sentence of full probation. Following review of the record, we find no error and affirm the convictions and resulting sentences. |
McNairy | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Darrell Walls v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Darrell Walls, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief and argues that counsel was ineffective for failing to adequately investigate his case. The petitioner entered a best interest plea to voluntary manslaughter, a Class C felony, and aggravated assault, a Class C felony. He was sentenced as a Range II, multiple offender to eight years in confinement. After careful review, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief by the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Gregory Allen Cathey v. State of Tennessee - Order
|
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jonathan Scott Lemay
The defendant, Jonathan Scott Lemay, entered best interest pleas to robbery and aggravated assault, Class C felonies, in Sullivan County Criminal Court. The trial court imposed two concurrent five- year sentences to be served in the custody of the Department of Correction. In this appeal as of right, the defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying him alternative sentencing and by imposing sentences beyond the statutory minimum. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Patrick Harris v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Patrick Harris, was convicted by a jury of one count of first degree murder. His conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. See State v. Patrick Harris, No. W2004-00469-CCA-R3-CD, 2005 WL 468324 (Tenn. Crim. App., Jackson, Feb. 25, 2005). He filed a timely petition for post-conviction relief. He was appointed counsel and filed an amended petition alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. The Criminal Court of Shelby County denied his petition for post-conviction relief after two evidentiary hearings. He now appeals this denial. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Lontrell Williams
The defendant, Lontrell Williams, appeals the revocation of his probation, arguing that the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard when finding that he had violated the terms of his probation. He, therefore, requests that this court remand for a new probation revocation hearing. The State concedes that the trial court applied an incorrect standard and joins in the defendant’s request for a new revocation hearing under the appropriate standard. We agree that the trial court erroneously based the revocation of the defendant’s probation on a probable cause, rather than a preponderance of the evidence, standard. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for a new probation revocation hearing. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals |
