Bryant D. Millen v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Bryant D. Millen, appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, he asserts that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, he argues that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to interview and investigate witnesses. He further asserts that trial counsel failed to impeach the testimony of a witness with a prior inconsistent statement. After a thorough review of the record and the parties’ briefs, the judgment of the post-conviction court denying post-conviction relief is affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Vincent Ricco
The defendant was convicted by jury of rape of a child and aggravated sexual battery. He was |
Henderson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Anderson
The defendant, Christopher Anderson, was convicted by a Shelby County jury on one count of aggravated burglary, a Class C felony, and two counts of aggravated robbery, Class B felonies. The defendant received sentences of three years for aggravated burglary and eight years for each count of aggravated robbery to be served concurrently in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant raises the following issues: (1) whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to sever his cases from the cases of his co-defendant; (2) whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal as to Count III, charging aggravated robbery; (3) whether the evidence presented at the trial was sufficient to support the defendant’s convictions; and (4) whether the trial court erred in excluding defense counsel’s inquiry on cross-examination of the co-defendant regarding bias. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Cris R. Woods
The defendant, Cris R. Woods, appeals his conviction by a jury in the Criminal Court for Union County for reckless endangerment, a Class E felony. He contends that the evidence was insufficient to convict and that the trial court improperly denied his motion for acquittal. We agree and reverse the judgment of the trial court, and we vacate the conviction. |
Union | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Glenn Eugene Armes
Defendant, Glenn Eugene Armes, presents for review a certified question of law pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2). Defendant entered a plea of guilty to arson and simple possession of a controlled substance. The trial court sentenced defendant to nine years for arson and eleven months and twenty-nine days for simple possession to be served consecutively. As a condition of his guilty plea, defendant properly reserved a certified question of law as to whether he was subjected to an unconstitutional traffic stop. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Roane | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Talmadge Wayne Bradley
Appellant, Talmadge Wayne Bradley, pled guilty in Lawrence County to one count of possession of a Schedule III substance with intent to sell. The trial court held a separate sentencing hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court determined that enhancement factor (14), abuse of a position of public trust applied to appellant. Appellant was sentenced to four years, one year to be served in incarceration and the remainder to be served on probation. Appellant appeals arguing |
Lawrence | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Raymond Carlton
The defendant, Raymond Carlton, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of felony murder, premeditated first degree murder, attempted especially aggravated robbery, attempted first degree murder, and attempted aggravated robbery. The trial court merged the two murder convictions and sentenced the defendant to life imprisonment plus twenty-two years. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in allowing questions concerning his prior convictions and arrests, and he challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Bert Newby
The defendant, Bert Newby, was convicted of one count of first degree murder, and one count of aggravated assault, a Class C felony. He was sentenced to consecutive sentences of life for the first degree murder charge and three years for the aggravated assault. The defendant raises three issues for appeal: 1) whether the late-filed notice of appeal should be waived in the interest of justice and judicial economy; 2) whether the trial court erred in consolidating the indictments for trial; and 3) whether the evidence was sufficient to support his murder conviction. After careful review, we conclude that no reversible error exists and affirm the judgments from the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Brandon Johnson
The defendant, Brandon Johnson, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of first degree felony murder and second degree murder for shooting a man to death during an attempted robbery. The trial court merged the second degree murder conviction into the felony murder conviction, for which the defendant received a life sentence. In a timely appeal to this court, the defendant raises the following issues: (1) whether the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his statement to police; (2) whether the trial court erred in granting the State’s motion for a sequestered jury; (3) whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions; and (4) whether the cumulative effect of the various alleged errors deprived him of his constitutional rights to a fair trial. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Donald Mays v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Donald Mays, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The petitioner has previously been granted a remand to the post-conviction court for consideration of the issues that he now appeals: (1) whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to allege in his motion for new trial that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on robbery as a lesser included offense of aggravated robbery; and (2) whether appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise on appeal that it was plain error for the trial court not to instruct on robbery as a lesser included offense of aggravated robbery. After careful review, we affirm the judgment from the post conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John Brunner
The defendant, John Brunner, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of second degree murder and domestic assault. He was sentenced as a Range I, violent offender to concurrent terms of twenty-three years, six months and eleven months, twenty-nine days. On appeal, he argues that (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction for second degree murder; (2) the trial court erred in admitting the victim’s eviction letter to the defendant into evidence; (3) the trial court imposed an excessive sentence; (4) the trial court erred by failing to merge the domestic assault conviction with the second degree murder conviction; and (5) cumulative error entitles him to relief. After our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Phillip Gray Stewart
The Defendant, Phillip Gray Stewart, was convicted in the Franklin County Circuit Court of driving under the influence, second offense. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to eleven months and twenty-nine days, with forty-five days to be served in the county jail. In this direct appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. Following a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Franklin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Marlos Shields
The defendant, Marlos Shields, was indicted on charges of aggravated robbery and aggravated burglary. After a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of the charged offenses. The trial court imposed a sentence of twelve years for the aggravated robbery conviction and six years for the aggravated burglary conviction and ordered the sentences to run consecutively for an effective sentence of eighteen years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant argues that: (1) the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion for a mistrial; (2) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions; and (3) the trial court erred in imposing an excessive sentence. Following our review of the parties’ briefs, the record, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Carlos Cooper
The defendant, Carlos Cooper, appeals from the judgment of the Madison County Circuit Court, revoking his probation and reinstating his original sentence of eight years. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Marvin Anthony Matthews v. Henry Steward, Warden
The petitioner, Marvin Anthony Matthews, appeals the lower court’s denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The state has filed a motion requesting that this court affirm the lower court’s denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. We grant the state’s motion and affirm the judgment of the lower court. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William Harold Jones, Alias
The Defendant, William Harold Jones, appeals the revocation of his enhanced probation sentences in the Criminal Court for Knox County. He pled guilty to two charges of theft, a Class D felony, for which he received two consecutive, suspended sentences of four years; theft, a Class E felony, for which he received a consecutive suspended sentence of three years; and reckless endangerment, a Class E felony, for which he received a suspended sentence of two years, with a total effective sentence of eleven years of enhanced probation as a Range II, multiple offender. On appeal, the Defendant contends the trial court erred in revoking his probation and ordering him to serve his sentences in confinement. We affirm the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
William M. Putnam v. Ricky Bell, Warden
The pro se petitioner, William M. Putman, challenges the summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Following our review, we affirm the dismissal of the petition. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Taurus Merriweather
The Defendant-Appellant, Taurus Merriweather (“Merriweather”), was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of second degree murder and was subsequently sentenced to twenty-five years in confinement. Merriweather’s sole issue on appeal is whether the evidence was sufficient to establish his identity as the shooter in this case. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Johnny L. Burns
The Defendant, Johnny L. Burns, was originally tried and convicted of one count of selling less than .5 grams of cocaine within 1000 feet of a school, a Class B felony. Due to an error in jury instructions, this Court reversed and remanded his case for a new trial. See State v. Johnny L. Burns, No. M2005-01945-CCA-R3-CD, 2007 WL 595632, (Tenn. Crim. App., Nashville, Feb. 26, 2007). The Defendant was retried and again convicted of one count of selling less than .5 grams of cocaine within 1000 feet of a school. In this appeal, he contends that the trial court erred because it: (1) denied his request for supplementary police reports that he claims contain exculpatory information; (2) refused to admit into evidence a photograph used by the defense in cross-examination; (3) denied his motion for a mistrial due to improper remarks made by the prosecutor during closing argument; and (4) failed to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of attempted sale of less than .5 grams of cocaine within 1000 feet of a school. After our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jesse Wade Glover
Defendant, Jesse Wade Glover, was indicted in count one for initiation of a process to manufacture methamphetamine by beginning the extraction of an immediate methamphetamine precursor from a chemical product, a Class B felony, in count two for promotion of methamphetamine manufacture by possessing more than 9 grams of an immediate methamphetamine precursor with the intent to manufacture methamphetamine, a Class D felony; in count three for promotion of methamphetamine manufacture by acquiring a chemical and an ingredient that could be used to produce methamphetamine knowing that it would be used to produce methamphetamine, a Class D felony; and in count four for possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor. Defendant was tried jointly with co-defendant, Britt Alan Ferguson. Co-defendant Ferguson’s case is not part of this appeal. Following a jury trial, Defendant was found not guilty of the charges in counts one, two, and four, and guilty of the lesser-included offense of facilitation of the promotion of methamphetamine manufacture, a Class E felony, in count three. The trial court sentenced Defendant as a Range II, multiple offender, to four years. On appeal, Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of facilitation of promotion of methamphetamine manufacture. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Obion | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Craig Abston
Defendant, following a jury trial, was convicted of one count of second degree murder and two counts of attempted second degree murder. The trial court sentenced Defendant to twenty years for Count 1, second degree murder, twelve years for Count 2, attempted second degree murder, and eight years for Count 3, attempted second degree murder. Counts 1 and 2 were ordered to run concurrently to each other but consecutively to Count 3 for a total effective sentence of twenty-eight years. On appeal, Defendant argues: (1) the trial court erred in its remarks to the jury venire; (2) the trial court erred in allowing the testimony of Sergeant Berryman that Defendant had two gold teeth at the time he was interviewed; and (3) the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentencing. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the convictions. We reduce the sentence in Count 2 from twelve years to eight years. Further, we reverse the judgments only insofar as they order consecutive sentencing, and remand for a new sentencing hearing solely to determine whether consecutive sentencing should be imposed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Marico Fowler
Following a jury trial, Defendant, Marico Fowler, was convicted of aggravated assault, a Class C felony, reckless endangerment, a Class A misdemeanor, reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon, a Class E felony, and vandalism, a Class A misdemeanor. At the conclusion of the sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Defendant to concurrent sentences of eleven months, twenty-nine days for vandalism, eleven months, twenty-nine days for reckless endangerment, three years for reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon, and ten years for aggravated assault, for an effective sentence of ten years. The felony sentences are as a Range II multiple offender. The trial court ordered Defendant to serve his sentences in confinement. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his request for alternative sentencing. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Demetry Fitzgerald Conley - Dissenting
I respectfully depart from the majority’s determination that Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-501(a)(3)’s mandate for release of a defendant operates upon the aggregate sentencing from two or more counties. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Demetry Fitzgerald Conley
The defendant, Demetry Fitzgerald Conley, pled guilty in four separate cases to multiple counts of forgery and theft. In Lincoln County case number S0700004, the defendant pled guilty to two counts of forgery between $500 and $1000 (Class E felony). In Lincoln County case number S0700062, the defendant pled guilty to one count of forgery between $500 and $1000. For these three convictions, the defendant was sentenced to concurrent two-year sentences, with 365 days to serve in the county jail. In Marshall County case number 17437, the defendant pled guilty to thirty-two counts of forgery up to $1000 (Class E felony). In Marshall County case number 17438, the defendant pled guilty to thirty-four counts of forgery up to $1000 (Class E felony), fifteen counts of theft under $500 (Class A misdemeanor), and two counts of theft of property between $500 and $1000 (Class E felony). The court subsequently imposed a sentence of one-year and six-months for each forgery conviction and eleven months and twenty-nine-day sentences for each theft. Based upon the imposition of partial consecutive sentencing, the effective sentence in the two Marshall County cases was six years, with 365 days to serve. The court further ordered that the Marshall and Lincoln County cases be served consecutively to each other for a total effective sentence of eight years, with two terms of 365 days to be served in the local county jail. The balance of the sentence was to be served on community corrections. On appeal, the defendant raises two issues for our review: (1) whether the trial court erred by ordering a sentence of split confinement rather than a full community corrections sentence and whether the sentence of confinement, as imposed, violates Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-501(a)(3); and (2) whether the trial court erred in sentencing the defendant to the maximum sentence within the range in the Lincoln County cases based upon the application of enhancement factors in violation of the defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights. Following review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court with the following exceptions: 1) remand for entry of corrected judgments as identified supra; and 2) remand for resentencing with regard to the two Class E felony thefts in Marshall County case number 17438 as discussed infra. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Derrann William Estill
A Davidson County Criminal Court jury convicted the appellant, Derrann William Estill, of aggravated kidnapping, and the appellant pled guilty to domestic assault. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced him to concurrent sentences of seventeen years and eleven months, twenty-nine days, respectively. On appeal, the appellant contends that (1) the trial court erred by failing to define “possession” adequately when the jury requested a definition during deliberations, (2) the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction for aggravated kidnapping, and (3) his sentence for aggravated kidnapping is excessive. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals |
