Demorris Marcel Childress v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Demorris Marcel Childress, pled guilty in Bedford County to two counts of possession of a Schedule II substance for resale, both Class B felonies, on two separate dates. Subsequently, Petitioner filed two petitions for post-conviction relief, in which he argued that he had ineffective assistance of counsel and that his guilty pleas were unknowing and involuntary. The post-conviction court dismissed the petitions after a hearing. We determine that 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. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Joe Ervin Hunter v. Cherry Lindamood, Warden
Petitioner, Joe Ervin Hunter, pled guilty to possession of less than .5 gram of a controlled substance with intent to sell. In March 2008, Petitioner filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus which was summarily dismissed by the habeas corpus court. On appeal, he argues that the habeas corpus court erred in summarily dismissing his application. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that Petitioner did not comply with the procedural requirements as set out by statute and that he did not base his plea for habeas corpus relief upon a cognizable claim. Therefore, we affirm the summary dismissal of his application. |
Wayne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
George Scott Mason v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, George Scott Mason, appeals the judgment of the Bedford County Circuit Court denying post-conviction relief. In this appeal, the petitioner argues that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel which caused him to enter an unknowing and involuntary guilty plea. After review, the judgment of the court denying post-conviction relief is affirmed. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jordan Hill v. State of Tennessee
After a trial by jury, the Petitioner, Jordan Hill, was convicted of criminal attempt: aggravated robbery and convicted felon in possession of a handgun by a Shelby County jury. He now appeals the denial of post-conviction relief claiming “[t]he post-conviction court erred when it denied the Appellant’s Petition for Post-Conviction Relief and effectively placed its imprimatur on trial counsel’s performance as effective although the proof irrefutably showed that trial counsel had not meaningfully conferred with the Defendant prior to trial[.]” Upon our review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Danny Ray Anderson
The defendant, Danny Ray Anderson, pled guilty on January 31, 2008, to two counts of felony murder and was sentenced to two concurrent sentences of life without parole. On February 5, 2008, he filed a motion to withdraw his pleas of guilty based upon his claims that the pleas were the result of fear and misunderstanding and were not knowingly, understandingly, or voluntarily entered. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied the motion. Following our review, we affirm the order of the trial court denying the motion to withdraw the pleas of guilty. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Bruce Smiley v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Bruce A. Smiley, pled guilty in the Hamilton County Criminal Court to one count of rape of a child and one count of especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor. Pursuant to the plea agreement, he received a total effective sentence of twenty-three years. Subsequently, the Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective and that his guilty pleas were not knowingly and voluntarily entered. The post-conviction court denied the petition, and the Petitioner appeals. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. David A. Ferrell
The pro se defendant, David A. Ferrell, was convicted of failure to display a license, violation of the seatbelt law, and two violations of the vehicle registration law. The convictions arose from two indictments separated by five months. He was sentenced to thirty days in the county jail for his first violation of the registration law and for failure to display a license and to twenty days for his second violation of the registration law. Additionally, a $20.00 fine was imposed for his seatbelt law violation. His sentences were ordered to run consecutively. On appeal, he argues that the trial court did not have jurisdiction over his cases. After careful review, we affirm the judgments from the trialcourt. |
Warren | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Franklin
The defendant, Christopher Franklin, appeals from his Bedford County Circuit Court jury conviction |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Steven Watson
The defendant, Steven Watson, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of aggravated assault, a Class C felony, and sentenced to a term of six years. He was ordered to serve six months in the Shelby County Correctional Center, with the balance of his sentence on probation. The defendant was also ordered to pay $8800 in restitution to the victim. On appeal, the defendant has raised five issues for review: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction; (2) whether the trial court erred in allowing the defendant to be questioned regarding a sixteen-year-old prior conviction; (3) whether the court erred in its application and weighing of enhancing and mitigating factors; (4) whether the court erred in denying the defendant’s request for full probation; and (5) whether the court erred by ordering restitution in the amount of $8800 be paid to the victim without proof of his medical bills or lost wages. Because of an untimely filed motion for new trial, the defendant has waived review of his evidentiary issue regarding the prior conviction. After review, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient and that the sentence imposed, with regard to length and manner of service, is proper. With regard to the order of restitution, we conclude that, while the amount of restitution ordered was properly established, remand is necessary for a determination of thedefendant’s ability to pay as required by statute. The judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed in all other respects. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Steven Watson
The defendant, Steven Watson, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of aggravated assault, a Class C felony, and sentenced to a term of six years. He was ordered to serve six months in the Shelby County Correctional Center, with the balance of his sentence on probation. The defendant was also ordered to pay $8800 in restitution to the victim. On appeal, the defendant has raised five issues for review: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction; (2) whether the trial court erred in allowing the defendant to be questioned regarding a sixteen-year-old prior conviction; (3) whether the court erred in its application and weighing of enhancing and mitigating factors; (4) whether the court erred in denying the defendant’s request for full probation; and (5) whether the court erred by ordering restitution in the amount of $8800 be paid to the victim without proof of his medical bills or lost wages. Because of an untimely filed motion for new trial, the defendant has waived review of his evidentiary issue regarding the prior conviction. After review, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient and that the sentence imposed, with regard to length and manner of service, is proper. With regard to the order of restitution, we conclude that, while the amount of restitution ordered was properly established, remand is necessary for a determination of the defendant’s ability to pay as required by statute. The judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed in all other respects. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Reginald Almo v. Henry Steward, Warden
The petitioner, Reginald Almo, appeals pro se the dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief in the Lauderdale County Circuit Court from his conviction for second degree murder, a Class A felony. The petitioner alleged that: counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel; his guilty plea was entered unknowingly and unintelligently; and he was sentenced outside of his range. The habeas corpus court determined that his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were not cognizable claims for relief in a habeas corpus proceeding and that his sentencing issue had previously been determined. After careful review, we affirm the dismissal of the petition for habeas corpus relief. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Elroy Gaines v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Elroy Gaines, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. Following a jury trial, he was convicted of aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony, and was subsequently sentenced as a career offender to thirty years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the petitioner argues that he was denied his right to the effective assistance of counsel based upon counsel’s failure to: (1) properly investigate the case and prepare for trial; (2) adequately communicate with the petitioner; and (3) properly preserve appellate issues. Following review of the record, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Samuel T. Anderson
The issue is who has authority and jurisdiction to establish terms and conditions of a defendant’s |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Charles David Smithson
Appellant, Charles David Smithson, was convicted by a Lawrence County jury of two counts of attempted first degree murder and one count of aggravated assault. Appellant was sentenced to an effective sentence of forty-five years as a result of his convictions. Appellant appeals his convictions for attempted first degree murder, arguing that the evidence did not show premeditation. Following a review of the record, we determine that the evidence introduced at trial was sufficient to establish that Appellant committed attempted first degree murder. As a result, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed. |
Lawrence | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Marquette Houston
The defendant, Marquette Houston, was convicted of second degree murder and was sentenced as a Range I, violent offender to twenty-five years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On direct appeal, this court affirmed the defendant’s conviction, but remanded the case for resentencing under the 1989 Sentencing Act with consideration of the constitutional restrictions on enhancing the defendant’s sentence above the presumptive minimum. On remand, the trial court again sentenced the defendant to twenty-five years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in imposing an excessive sentence. After a thorough review of the record and the parties’ briefs, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v.Timothy Preston Russell
The Defendant, Timothy Preston Russell, pled guilty to one count of theft of property valued $10,000 or more but less than $60,000, a Class C felony, and three counts of theft of property valued $1,000 or more but less than $10,000, a Class D felony. He was sentenced to eight years as a Range II, multiple offender for the Class C felony and six years as a Range II, multiple offender for each Class D felony. Two six-year sentences were to be served concurrently to each other but consecutively to the eight-year sentence, to which another six-year sentence ran concurrently, for an effective fourteen-year sentence. The trial court denied probation and imposed incarceration. Appealing the denial of his motion to withdraw the four guilty pleas, the Defendant contends that he should be able to withdraw his guilty pleas to correct manifest injustice and that the trial court erred in not advising him that he would not be able to withdraw the guilty pleas if the court did not accept the plea agreement. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Eddie D. Johnson
The defendant, Eddie D. Johnson, appeals from his Hamilton County bench trial conviction of driving under the influence. He challenges the legal sufficiency of the conviction evidence. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Timothy Jerome Washington, Alias Timothy Jerome Hughlett
The Defendant, Timothy Jerome Washington, alias Timothy Jerome Hughlett, appeals the revocation of his two community corrections sentences by the Criminal Court for Hamilton County. The defendant initially pled guilty to theft of property valued over $1,000, a Class D felony, for which he received a two-year suspended sentence in the community corrections program. While on community corrections, he pled guilty to theft of property valued over $10,000, a Class C felony, and he received a four-year suspended sentence to be served in community corrections consecutively to the two-year sentence. The trial court found that he violated the terms of both community corrections sentences, revoked the defendant’s sentences, and ordered him to serve the effective six-year sentence in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court was without jurisdiction to revoke the two-year sentence and that the trial court erred in revoking the sentences because the defendant did not “willfully” violate the terms of his sentence. We affirm the judgment revoking the defendant’s community corrections sentence in case 258929, vacate the judgment revoking the community corrections sentence in case 255487 because the sentence had expired, and remand the case for correction of the amended judgment in case 258929. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Alfonzo Williams v. State of Tennessee - Dissenting
In the present case, the majority concludes that the trial court’s answer to the jury’s question regarding the self-defense jury instruction fairly instructed the jury and did not mislead them as to the applicable law, and therefore “the Petitioner has failed to show that he was prejudiced by the performance of counsel in his lack of objection during the trial and failure to preserve the issue on appeal.” For the reasons stated below, I must respectfully dissent from this conclusion. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Alfonzo Williams v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Alfonzo Williams, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of post-conviction relief from his conviction for second degree murder and sentence of twenty years in the Department of Correction. The Petitioner argues that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel at trial in failing to object to the trial court’s self-defense jury instruction, failing to request a supplemental instruction, failing to object to the trial court’s answer in response to a jury question, and failing to raise the issue in his motion for new trial. He also argues that he received the ineffective assistance of appellate counsel because counsel did not address these issues on appeal. We conclude that the Petitioner failed to prove that his counsel was ineffective. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Orlando Smith
The Defendant-Appellant, Orlando Smith (“Smith”), appeals the revocation of his probation and community corrections sentences by the Madison County Circuit Court. He contends that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking both of his alternative sentences. Following our review, we find no abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the orders of the trial court are affirmed. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Willie Douglas Johnson
A Knox County Criminal Court jury convicted the defendant, Willie Douglas Johnson, of attempted second degree murder, two counts of aggravated assault, and three counts of unlawful possession of a weapon. After merging the aggravated assault convictions into the conviction of attempted second degree murder and the weapon possession charges into a single conviction, the trial court imposed consecutive sentences of 25 years for attempted second degree murder and six years for unlawful possession of a weapon. In this appeal, the defendant asserts that the trial court erred by ruling that the State would be permitted to impeach his testimony through the use of prior felony convictions and that the trial court erred by enhancing his sentence on the basis that he showed no hesitation in committing the crimes when the risk to human life was high. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Sam Avery Wilhoite
The defendant, Sam Avery Wilhoite, was indicted on ten counts of forgery involving five forged checks. A Bedford County Circuit Court jury convicted him of eight counts of forgery and lesserincluded charges on two of the counts. The trial court merged five of the counts, including the lesser-included convictions, with the five other counts and sentenced the defendant to an effective term of eight years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and the sentence imposed by the trial court. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Marcie Lynn Pursell
The Defendant, Marcie Lynn Pursell, aka Marcie Pursell Frazier, was indicted in the Davidson County Criminal Court for three counts of aggravated child abuse. Thereafter, the Davidson County Juvenile Court concluded that the State had not proved allegations, in a dependent and neglect petition, that the defendant had injured her child or allowed the child to be injured. The defendant sought to dismiss the felony child abuse charges in criminal court on collateral estoppel grounds. The trial court denied her motion. The trial court and this Court granted her Rule 9 application for an interlocutory appeal. Following our review of the record, the judgment of the Davidson County Criminal Court finding that the State was not collaterally estopped from pursuing criminal prosecution against the defendant is affirmed. This case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jecory J. Leonard
The appellant, Jecory J. Leonard, pled guilty in the Montgomery County Circuit Court to facilitation of second degree murder and facilitation of attempted first degree murder, Class B felonies. The plea agreement provided that the length and manner of service of the sentences would be determined by the trial court. Following a sentencing hearing, the appellant was sentenced to concurrent sentences of ten years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant challenges the |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals |
