Jerry Sandridge v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Jerry Sandridge, was convicted of two counts of aggravated robbery and, upon his direct appeal, this court modified one of the convictions to aggravated assault and remanded for resentencing. The resentencing was affirmed on direct appeal. On January 15, 2009, the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, asserting prosecutorial misconduct and denial of the effective assistance of counsel. Concluding that the petition was untimely, the post-conviction court dismissed it without a hearing, and this appeal resulted. Following our review, we affirm the dismissal. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jose Zacarias Quinteros v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Jose Zacarias Quinteros, filed a petition for post-conviction relief in which he alleges that his guilty plea was involuntary and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel after he pled guilty to driving without a license in Davidson County in April of 2007. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. We determine that Petitioner has failed to show that he received ineffective assistance or that his guilty plea was entered involuntarily. Accordingly, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Melvin Jerome Reed, Jr.
The defendant, Melvin Jerome Reed, Jr., pled guilty to possession of 300 grams or more of a Schedule I controlled substance with intent to sell or deliver, a Class A felony, in exchange for a Range I sentence of twenty years, to be served consecutively to two other sentences. As a condition of his guilty plea, the defendant reserved three certified questions of law pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2)(A) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure regarding the legality of the traffic stop, detention, and search of his vehicle on March 16, 2007. We conclude that the questions are properly certified and that the trial court ruled correctly in denying the motion to suppress. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Atavis Cortez Cunningham
The defendant, Atavis Cortez Cunningham, was convicted by a Dyer County Circuit Court jury of aggravated assault, a Class C felony, and sentenced to eight years as a Range II offender. On appeal, he argues that the jury was unconstitutionally empaneled and the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Robert J. Lewellen
The defendant, Robert J. Lewellen, pled guilty in two different cases to nineteen counts of burglary, thirteen counts of theft, five counts of vandalism, and one count of fraudulent use of a credit card and was sentenced to sixteen years, suspended to probation after service of twenty-four months in jail. On appeal, he argues that the trial court’s imposition of an effective sixteen-year was excessive. After review, we remand for entry of a judgment in Count 20 of Case Number 08-310 judgments of the trial court in all other respects. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Aldrick D. Lillard
Appellant, Aldrick D. Lillard, and two other individuals were indicted by the Rutherford County Grand Jury for first degree murder, felony murder, especially aggravated robbery, especially aggravated burglary, conspiracy to commit especially aggravated burglary, conspiracy to commit especially aggravated robbery, and theft of property in connection with the death of Randy Betts. After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of first degree murder, felony murder, especially aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, conspiracy to commit aggravated burglary, and conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery.1 The trial court merged the felony murder conviction into the first degree murder conviction. The jury sentenced Appellant to life without the possibility of parole for the murder conviction. On the remaining convictions, the trial court sentenced Appellant to an effective sentence of twenty-five years. The remaining sentences were ordered to be served concurrently with the life sentence. After the denial of a motion for new trial, Appellant initiated a timely appeal. On appeal, the following issues are presented for our review: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; (2) whether the Appellant was prejudiced because one judge ruled on pre-trial motions and a different judge presided over the trial; (3) whether the trial court improperly allowed the jury to view the trial exhibits in the jury room; (4) whether the trial |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jermaine Gwin
The Defendant-Appellant, Jermaine Gwin, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of one count of second degree murder, a Class A felony. He received a twenty-year sentence to be served at 100% in the Tennessee Department of Correction. In this appeal, Gwin challenges (1) the sufficiency of the evidence, (2) the admission of a prior bad act under Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b), (3) the admission of a photograph of the crime scene (4) the excessiveness of his sentence, and (5) the cumulative effect of the alleged errors. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Rex A. White
The defendant, Rex A. White, requested that the trial court accept a negotiated plea agreement, and the trial court obliged. Armed with new counsel, the defendant now appeals his agreed to sentences, claiming the trial court erred in sentencing him. This appeal is dismissed as the defendant waived his right to appeal his sentence when he entered a negotiated plea agreement. |
Hardin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Rickey Lee Beamon v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Rickey Lee Beamon, 1 appeals the denial of post-conviction relief in the Criminal Court for Hamilton County from his convictions for theft of property valued between $10,000 and $60,000, a Class C felony; two counts of burglary, a Class D felony; aggravated criminal trespass, a Class A misdemeanor; and three counts of theft of property valued at $500 or less, a Class A misdemeanor. For the felony theft, he received a sentence of fifteen years as a career offender. For the two burglaries, he received concurrent twelve-year sentences as a career offender, to be served consecutively to the felony theft sentence. The four misdemeanor sentences of eleven months, twenty-nine days, were ordered to run concurrently to the twelve-year burglary sentences, for an effective sentence of twenty-seven years in confinement. On appeal, he contends that the trial court erred in denying relief because: (1) counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to sever offenses in case 238463; (2) counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to include in the appellate record the transcript of the suppression hearing in case 245041; and (3) counsel provided ineffective assistance by waiving the issue of retained counsel of choice on appeal by failing to support his claim through argument, citation to authority, and references to the appellate record. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
John Johnson v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, John Johnson, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. Following our review, we conclude that the petitioner has not met his burden of demonstrating either that counsel was deficient or that any of the alleged deficiencies in representation prejudiced the outcome of his case. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of the petition. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Quartes Williams
The defendant, Quartes Williams, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of first degree felony murder and facilitation of especially aggravated robbery and was sentenced as a Range I offender to concurrent sentences of life imprisonment and nine years, respectively. On appeal, he argues that (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his statement to police; (2) the trial court erred in admitting autopsy photographs; (3) the trial court erred in allowing Captain David Cupp to testify as a handwriting expert; and (4) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Mario Marquis Gray v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Mario Marquis Gray, also known as Mario Marquis Grey, entered a best-interest plea in Davidson County to one count of aggravated burglary in exchange for a sentence of six years, to run consecutively to a prior conviction for which he was on probation at the time of his arrest. Petitioner sought post-conviction relief on the basis that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that his guilty plea was unknowing and involuntary. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. On appeal, Petitioner argues that he was improperly denied relief by the post-conviction court. After a review, we determine that Petitioner has failed to show that he received ineffective assistance of counsel or that his guilty plea was entered involuntarily. Accordingly, the judgment of the postconviction court is affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Joe Strawther v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Joe Strawther, pled guilty to aggravated robbery and attempted aggravated robbery in Rutherford County in exchange for an effective eight-year sentence. Petitioner filed a motion for post-conviction relief. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. Petitioner appeals the denial of the petition. However, the issue raised by Petitioner on appeal was not raised in his petition for post-conviction relief and, therefore, is not properly before this Court. The Petitioner has failed to show that he received ineffective assistance of counsel or that his guilty pleas were entered involuntarily. Accordingly, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Luiz Gomez and Franklin Delacruz v. State of Tennessee
Petitioners, Luiz Gomez and Franklin Delacruz, each pled guilty to second degree murder and two counts of aggravated arson in Warren County in exchange for effective sentences of thirty-six years. Petitioners then each filed timely petitions for post-conviction relief. After a joint hearing on the petitions for relief, the post-conviction court denied relief, finding that Petitioners did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel and that their guilty pleas were entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently. After a review of the record, we determine that Petitioners have failed to show that they received ineffective assistance of counsel or that their guilty pleas were entered involuntarily. Accordingly, the judgments of the post-conviction court are affirmed. |
Warren | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Nathan Brad Cornwell
A Hamblen County Criminal Court jury convicted the appellant, Nathan Brad Cornwell, of driving under the influence, third offense, a class A misdemeanor. He was sentenced to eleven months and twenty-nine days and fined one thousand, one hundred and ten dollars. The court also ordered that his driving license be suspended for three years. On appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hamblen | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Mark Allen v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Mark Allen, was convicted of one count of exhibition of materials harmful to a minor, one count of especially aggravated sexual exploitation, and one count of rape of a child, and sentenced to an effective sentence of twenty-four years. He filed a timely petition for post-conviction relief, asserting that trial counsel was ineffective. Following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court dismissed the petition. After our review of the record, we affirm the dismissal. |
Robertson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Carey Haynes, Jr.
The petitioner, Carey Haynes, Jr., was convicted of a Class B and a Class C felony involving the sale of cocaine and received an effective eighteen-year sentence. The only issue raised on direct appeal was ineffective assistance of counsel, which was deemed waived because it was not included in the motion for new trial. The petitioner has now filed seeking post-conviction relief, and the postconviction court has granted the petitioner a delayed appeal and ruled that his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was previously determined. As to the delayed appeal, we address whether the evidence was sufficient to support the petitioner’s convictions and whether the petitioner’s sentence was proper. We further address whether the post-conviction court properly denied relief. After careful review, we affirm the judgments from the lower courts. |
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John L. Trull
The defendant, John L. Trull, pled guilty in the Crockett County Circuit Court to driving under the nfluence (“DUI”), third offense, and was sentenced to eleven months, twenty-nine days, with all but 120 days suspended. As a condition of his guilty plea, he reserved the following certified question of law: “Whether the arrest of the defendant was unconstitutional in violation of Article I, Section 7 of the Tennessee Constitution and the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.” Upon review of the record, we agree with the State that the certified question of law does not clearly state the scope and limits of the legal issue the defendant sought to reserve for appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. |
Crockett | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ivory Gray
Defendant, Ivory Gray, was indicted in count one for the first degree premeditated murder of Derek Jones and in count two for the attempted first degree premeditated murder of Georglvekio Hampton. Following a jury trial, Defendant was found not guilty in count one of the indictment. The jury found Defendant guilty of attempted first degree premeditated murder in count two. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Defendant as a Range I, standard offender, to twenty years. On appeal, Defendant argues that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of attempted first degree premeditated murder; (2) the trial court erred in its instructions to the jury on the definition of “reasonable doubt;” (3) the trial court erred in restricting Defendant’s crossexamination of one of the State’s witnesses; and (4) the cumulative effect of these errors denied Defendant his constitutional right to a fair trial. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Richard Price
The defendant, Richard Price, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, and sentenced to twenty years as a Range II, multiple offender. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in declining to grant a mistrial after a witness testified that he attempted to speak to the defendant and challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and the sentence imposed by the trial court. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tremaine Letroy Paige
The Defendant-Appellant, Tremaine Letroy Paige (“Paige”), pled guilty to possession of over .5 grams of cocaine, a Schedule II controlled substance with the intent to sell. Pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37, Paige reserved as a certified question of law the issue of whether the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress. The certified question of law s “[w]hether Officer Anna McDowell had a legal basis for the traffic stop of the Defendant’s vehicle.” Following our review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Lamar Pritchett
The defendant, Michael Lamar Pritchett, presents for review a certified question of law as allowed by Rule 37(b)(2) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure. The defendant pled guilty to driving under the influence (DUI). As a condition of his guilty plea, the defendant reserved a certified question of law challenging the denial of his motion to suppress based upon his allegation that he was subjected to an unconstitutional investigative stop. Because the defendant failed to meet the requirements of reserving a certified question for review, we dismiss the appeal. |
Tipton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Barry Randy Hall
The Defendant, Barry Randy Hall, pled guilty to one count of facilitation to sell 0.5 grams or more of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school and one count of selling 0.5 grams or more of cocaine, both Class B felonies. The parties agreed to a ten-year sentence on the facilitation to sell conviction and an eight year sentence on the selling of 0.5 grams or more conviction, to be served concurrently. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court denied probation and alternative sentencing and ordered the Defendant to serve the entirety of sentence in confinement. The Defendant challenges the denial of alternative sentencing in this appeal. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the trial court properly sentenced the defendant and affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Rodney Lamont Love v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant appeals the trial court's dismissal of his petition for post conviction relief. The Appellant filed his petition outside the statute of limitations. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Rodney Lamont Love, pro se. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jerion Craft
The defendant, Jerion Craft, was convicted of separate counts of unlawful possession of cocaine with intent to sell and to deliver. The trial court merged the convictions and sentenced the defendant to serve eleven years as a standard offender. On appeal, the defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate that: he possessed cocaine with the intent to distribute it; the trial court interfered with his right to a fair trial; and the trial court erred in failing to declare a mistrial. After careful review, we affirm the judgments from the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals |
