Ronnie Bradfield v. Tony Parker, Warden
The petitioner, Ronnie Bradfield, appeals the Lauderdale County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal 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 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Because the petitioner has failed to establish that his conviction is void or his sentence illegal, we conclude that the State’s motion is well-taken. Accordingly, we affirm the lower court’s summary dismissal of the petition. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Oliver J. Higgins v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Oliver J. Higgins, appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief as time-barred, arguing that the post-conviction court erred by summarily dismissing the petition without holding an evidentiary hearing or making adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law. The State has responded with a motion that we affirm the summary dismissal pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Because the petitioner filed his petition well outside the statute of limitations and has not shown any reason why the limitations period should be tolled, we affirm the summary dismissal of the petition. |
Hardin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joseph May
The defendant, Joseph May, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of first degree premeditated murder for which he received a sentence of life imprisonment. On appeal, he contends that the evidence was insufficient to prove he committed a premeditated and intentional murder. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Tony Jamerson v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Tony Jamerson, appeals the judgment of the Shelby County Criminal Court denying post-conviction relief. The petitioner was convicted of first degree premeditated murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. On appeal, the petitioner argues that: (1) his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to fully investigate police techniques used in obtaining the petitioner’s confession, and (2) the trial court and counsel failed to ensure proper jury instruction. The petitioner also asserts in brief that he is entitled to relief based on cumulative error. After review, the judgment of the court denying post-conviction relief is affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Richard D. Baker
The defendant, Richard D. Baker, appeals the revocation of his six-year probationary sentence. He contends that the trial court erred by revoking his probation before the commencement of the probationary term and by ordering incarceration. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ontrell James
A Madison County jury convicted the defendant, Ontrell James, of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, and resisting arrest, a Class B misdemeanor. On appeal, the defendant argues that the evidence produced at trial was insufficient to support his aggravated robbery conviction because the evidence did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly obtained or exercised control over the property of another. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction and therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Junior Aldridge
A Shelby County jury found the defendant, Junior Aldridge, guilty of one count each of first degree murder, second degree murder, and especially aggravated robbery. The trial court merged the two murder counts and imposed concurrent sentences of life in prison for the first degree murder conviction and forty years as a Range II, multiple offender for the especially aggravated robbery conviction. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court’s exclusion of testimony regarding statements made by the victim denied the defendant his right to present a defense. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the trial court properly excluded the testimony and affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jairie Pierce
The defendant, Jairie Pierce, was convicted by a jury in the Criminal Court for Shelby County of theft of property valued over $1000, a Class D felony, and theft of property valued over $500, a Class E felony. He received respective sentences of four years and two years to be served concurrently in the Shelby County Correctional Center. On appeal, the defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of theft of property valued over $1000 and that it was only sufficient to convict him of unauthorized use of a vehicle, a Class A misdemeanor. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Lamario Hill
A Shelby County jury convicted the defendant, Lamario Hill, of first degree felony murder, attempted especially aggravated robbery, and aggravated assault. The trial court imposed concurrent sentences of life in prison for the defendant’s murder conviction, nine years for his attempted especially aggravated robbery conviction, and four years for his aggravated assault conviction. On appeal, the defendant argues that the evidence produced at trial was insufficient to support his convictions. After reviewing the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Darrell Johnson
The defendant, Darrell Johnson, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, and sentenced to thirty years as a career offender. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in sentencing him as a career offender. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ronald Eugene Hall v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Ronald Eugene Hall, was convicted by a Davidson County Jury of two counts of second degree murder. The convictions were merged into a single count of second degree murder, for which Petitioner received a twenty-year sentence to be served at one-hundred percent incarceration. On direct appeal, this Court affirmed Petitioner’s conviction and sentence. See State v. Ronald Eugene Hall, M2003-02326-CCA-R3-CD, 2005 WL 292432, at *16 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Feb. 8, 2005). Petitioner then sought post-conviction relief. After an evidentiary hearing, the postconviction court denied relief. Petitioner appeals the judgment of the post-conviction court. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court because Petitioner has failed to establish that he received ineffective assistance of counsel or that he was incompetent to stand trial. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Chaurice Bagley v. Stephen Dotson, Warden (State of Tennessee)
The Petitioner, Chaurice Bagley, appeals the lower court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner has failed to allege any ground that would render the judgment of conviction void. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Matthew M. Jackson v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Matthew M. Jackson, appeals the lower court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner has failed to allege any ground that would render the judgment of conviction void. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal. |
Lake | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennesse v. Michael Eugene Chittum
The Defendant, Michael Eugene Chittum, was charged with one count of reckless vehicular homicide, a Class C felony. His application for pretrial diversion was denied by the district attorney general and that denial was upheld by the Criminal Court of Trousdale County. In this appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred in upholding his denial of pretrial diversion because the district attorney general considered an irrelevant factor in his denial memorandum. On appeal, the State concedes that the district attorney general impermissibly considered an irrelevant factor and asks us to remand this case to the district attorney general for reconsideration. The Defendant, in response, asks us to reverse the decision of the trial court and remand to the trial court for entry of an order granting him pretrial diversion. After our review, we reverse, remand, and direct the entry of an order granting the Defendant pretrial diversion. |
Trousdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Robert Charles Taylor
Defendant was indicted for rape of a child, a Class A felony. Following a jury trial, Defendant, Robert Charles Taylor, was convicted of the lesser included offense of attempted rape of a child, a Class B felony. The trial court sentenced Defendant as a Range III, Career Offender, to thirty years. On appeal, Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Bradley | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Alfred C. Whitehead
Appellant, Alfred C. Whitehead, pled guilty to possession of more than .5 ounces of marijuana with the intent to sell or deliver. As part of the guilty plea, Appellant reserved the following certified question of law for appeal pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure to determine whether the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress. We determine that the trial court properly denied the motion to suppress where the initial seizure occurred after police officers entered the residence based on consent. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Anthony H. Dean v. Joe Easterling, Warden (State of Tennessee)
The Petitioner, Anthony H. Dean, appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. 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. We conclude that the State’s motion is meritorious. Accordingly, we grant the State’s motion and affirm the judgment of the lower court. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Curtis Lee Majors - Dissenting
Respectfully, I dissent from the majority view that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction of tampering with evidence. The evidence did not establish the defendant’s guilt of this offense beyond a reasonable doubt. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Curtis Lee Majors
The Davidson County Grand Jury indicted the defendant, Curtis Lee Majors, on one count of possession with intent to sell or deliver less than 0.5 grams of cocaine within 1000 feet of a school, a Class B felony, and one count of tampering with evidence, a Class C felony. After a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of the lesser included offense of misdemeanor possession of cocaine, a Class A misdemeanor.1 The jury also convicted the defendant of evidence tampering as charged in Count 2 of the indictment. The trial court sentenced the defendant to fifteen years in the Department of Correction as a Range III, persistent offender. On appeal, the defendant contends that: (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction for tampering with evidence; (2) the trial court gave an erroneous jury instruction regarding tampering with evidence; and (3) the trial court refused to apply one of the mitigating factors proposed by the defendant at his sentencing hearing. After reviewing the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
De'Andre Kendall v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, De’Andre Kendall, appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. 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. The petition for post-conviction relief fails as it is barred by the statute of limitations. Accordingly, we grant the State’s motion and affirm the judgment of the lower court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Tony Martin v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Tony Martin, appeals the dismissal of his motion to reopen his petition for post-conviction relief. The petitioner claims on appeal that State v. Gomez, 239 S.W.3d 733 (Tenn. 2007) (Gomez II) established a previously unrecognized constitutional right to have a jury, rather than the trial judge, determine the existence of facts necessary to enhance his sentence. The state has filed a motion requesting that this court affirm the Shelby County Criminal Court’s dismissal of the motion to reopen pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. We grant the state’s motion and affirm the judgment of the criminal court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Quinton Sanders
The defendant, Quinton Sanders, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of murder in the perpetration of a felony. For his conviction, the defendant was sentenced to life in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant raises the following issues: (1) whether the trial court erred in denying a motion to exclude evidence of the defendant’s gang affiliation; (2) whether the trial court properly found that a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination by the state in the exercise of peremptory challenges had not been established; and (3) whether the trial court erred in denying a motion to grant a mistrial. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ronald Donnell Moore v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Ronald Donnell Moore, appeals the judgment of the Shelby County Criminal Court denying post-conviction relief. In 1994, the petitioner was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. In seeking post-conviction relief on appeal, the petitioner argues that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel. Specifically, the petitioner asserts that his counsel was ineffective: (1) in failing to seek proper jury instruction on the burden of proof; (2) in failing to request jury instruction on the lesser-included offenses of first degree murder, in particular, the offenses of reckless homicide and criminally negligent homicide; and (3) in failing to object to the presence of a mannequin in the courtroom. After review, the judgment of the court denying post-conviction relief is affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Evelyn Holly v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Evelyn Holly, appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of her petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, she argues that she received the ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, she argues that her trial counsel was ineffective in failing to investigate the effects of her mental condition and medication which precluded her from meaningful participation in her own defense. Additionally, the petitioner asserts that trial counsel failed to hire an expert to contradict the testimony of the medical examiner and failed to call a witness who would have exonerated her. 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. William Lee Smith
The Defendant, William Lee Smith, pled guilty in the Sullivan County Criminal Court to four counts of reckless aggravated assault and one count of driving under the influence (DUI). Pursuant to the plea agreement, the Defendant agreed to serve two years of his sentence on supervised probation; the manner of service of the remaining four years of his sentence was left to the determination of the trial court which ordered it served in incarceration. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends that he should have been granted full probation or some other alternative sentence for the four-year sentence. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals |
