State of Tennessee v. Barry Singleton
The defendant, Barry Singleton, appeals his convictions for aggravated kidnapping and aggravated rape. The defendant was sentenced to twelve years as a Range I, standard offender for the aggravated kidnapping conviction and to twenty-five years as a violent offender for the aggravated rape conviction. The sentences were ordered to run consecutively for an effective sentence of thirtyseven years. On appeal, he contends that: the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; the trial court erred in allowing the State to introduce photographs into evidence that had not been provided to the defense prior to trial; it was error to allow a witness not provided to the defendant to testify; it was error to allow the victim to testify without providing the tape recording of her initial statement to police; and the court erred in imposing his sentence with regard to both the length and manner. After careful review, we affirm the judgments from the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Timothy D. Qualls v. Ricky J. Bell, Warden
In 2003, the Petitioner, Timothy D. Qualls, pled guilty to second degree murder, and the trial court sentenced him to serve eighteen years. The Petitioner file a petition for habeas corpus relief, and the habeas court denied his petition. On appeal, the Petitioner alleges the habeas court erred because: (1) the trial court sentenced the Petitioner in contravention of his constitutional rights; and (2) thetrial court sentenced the Petitioner in contravention of state statutes. After a thorough review of the record and relevant authorities, we affirm the judgment of the habeas court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Larry Frank
A Shelby County Criminal Court jury convicted the appellants, Larry Frank and Shurrod Towns, of attempted first degree premeditated murder in case number 04-01201 and first degree premeditated murder and four counts of attempted first degree premeditated murder in case number 04-01202. The trial court imposed life sentences for their murder convictions and twenty years for each attempted murder conviction, with the sentences to be served concurrently. On appeal,1 Frank contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions and that the trial court improperly imposed five-hundred-dollar fines. Towns argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions, that the trial court should have dismissed the indictments because he was denied his right to a preliminary hearing, that the trial court should have declared a mistrial when a State witness testified that Towns had an arrest record, and that the trial court should have granted his motion for a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the trial court improperly fined both appellants. However, judgments of the trial court are affirmed in all other respects. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Travis Knotts
The defendant, Travis Knotts, pled guilty to theft of property over $10,000, a Class C felony, and was sentenced to six years on probation. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in denying his request for judicial diversion. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Nancy Blue
The defendant, Nancy Blue, appeals as of right her jury convictions for two counts of rape of a child and two counts of incest. She received sentences of twenty-five years for each rape of a child conviction and six years for each incest conviction. 1 The rape of a child sentences were ordered to be served consecutively and the incest convictions were ordered to be served concurrently, for a effective sentence of fifty years. The defendant argues that the evidence is insufficient to support her convictions and that the trial court imposed an excessive sentence both in length and manner of service. Following our review, we affirm the convictions but remand for the entry of modified and corrected judgments consistent with this opinion. |
Haywood | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Derek Smith
The defendant, Derek Smith, pled guilty as a Range I, standard offender to aggravated burglary, a Class C felony, and assault, a Class A misdemeanor. He received sentences of three years and eleven months, twenty-nine days to be served consecutively in the community corrections program. After the defendant was charged with theft while in the community corrections program, the trial court found that the defendant violated the terms of his community corrections sentence, revoked the sentence, and imposed a new sentence of eleven years as a Range III, persistent offender. On appeal, the defendant contends the trial court erred in resentencing the defendant in a range higher than that of the original sentence. We agree, and we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for resentencing of the defendant as a Range I offender. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Mike Brotherton
The defendant, Mike Brotherton, pled guilty to the offense of driving under the influence, first offense, and reserved a certified question of law regarding the validity of the traffic stop that resulted in his arrest. After careful review, we conclude that the trooper lacked reasonable the traffic stop and dismiss the charge against the defendant. |
Carroll | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Charles Orlando Fields v. Henry Steward, Warden
The petitioner, Charles Orlando Fields, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief by the Lauderdale County Circuit Court. In his appeal, he contends that the indictment was void because: (1) it did not include all the essential elements for the offense for which he was convicted; (2) his sentencing range was illegal; and (3) the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to sentence him. After careful review, we conclude the petitioner has not established that he is entitled to habeas corpus relief. The judgment of the habeas corpus court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Earl Pinchon, Jr.
In 2008, the Defendant pled guilty to introduction of contraband into a penal institution, and the trial court sentenced him to serve four years and nine months in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The Defendant now appeals his sentence claiming that the trial court erroneously denied his request for alternative sentencing. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we conclude that the trial court properly sentenced the Defendant. |
Coffee | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Edward P. Porter v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Edward P. Porter, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for writ of error coram nobis. The petitioner pled guilty in 1998 to possession with intent to sell over .5 grams of cocaine, a Class B felony, and was sentenced to eight years in the Department of Correction. In 2007, the petitioner filed the instant petition, alleging that he was being restrained by an illegal sentence. The trial court summarily dismissed the petition because it was filed outside the statute of limitations and because it failed to state a cognizable claim. On appeal, the petitioner contends that the court erred in determining that the petition was time-barred, asserting that the one-year statute of limitations is not applicable and that his assertion of an illegal sentence in violation of Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 32 relief. Following review of the record, we find no error and affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Richard F. Stroud
The Defendant, Richard F. Stroud, was indicted on one count of driving under the influence, first offense, a Class A misdemeanor. After a motion to suppress was heard and denied, the Defendant entered a guilty plea. In the negotiated plea agreement, the parties purported to reserve a certified question of law pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2). After review, we conclude that the Defendant has failed to comply with the strict requirements of Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2). The appeal is dismissed. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Frank Lee Tate v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Frank Lee Tate, appeals the Circuit Court for Fayette County’s dismissal of his pro se petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for aggravated rape, a Class A felony, and incest, a Class C felony. He received concurrent sentences of sixty years for aggravated rape and fifteen years for incest. The trial court dismissed his petition without appointing counsel and without holding a hearing. On appeal, the petitioner lists over thirty claims. We affirm the dismissal of the petition for post-conviction relief. |
Fayette | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jeffrey Scott
The defendant, Jeffrey Scott, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of two counts of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony; conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery, a Class C felony; and conspiracy to commit robbery and attempted robbery, both Class D felonies. He was sentenced by the trial court to concurrent terms of ten years for the aggravated robbery convictions, three years for the conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery conviction, and two years each for the conspiracy to commit robbery and attempted robbery convictions. In a timely appeal to this court, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence and argues that the trial court erred indenying his motion to suppress his statement to police and in limiting defense counsel’s cross-examination of a witness. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Solon Atwell Brown v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Solon Atwell Brown, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief as time-barred. The State has filed a motion requesting that this court affirm the post-conviction court’s dismissal pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Because the petitioner has failed to establish that the petition was timely filed or that a recognized exception to the rule applies, we grant the State’s motion and affirm the judgment from the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Oliver J. Higgins v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Oliver J. Higgins, appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition for postconviction 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. |
Hardin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John Fred Howard
The defendant, John Fred Howard, was convicted of first degree premeditated murder by a Shelby County jury and subsequently sentenced to a term of life imprisonment. On appeal, he has raised eight issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence at trial was sufficient to support the verdict, specifically the jury’s rejection of his claim of self-defense and the element of premeditation; (2) whether the trial court erred in refusing to sequester the jury; (3) whether the trial court erred in failing to suppress graphic photographs of the deceased; (4) whether the trial court erred in admitting test results from two blood samples which the defendant did not get until the second day of trial; (5) whether the trial court erred in admitting certain evidence without the establishment of a valid chain of custody; (6) whether the trial court erred in allowing witness testimony which was highly prejudicial to the defendant; (7) whether the trial court erred by refusing to allow defense counsel to publish certain exhibits to the jury immediately after they were admitted, which minimized their impeachment value and violated the defendant’s right of cross-examination; and (8) whether the cumulative error at trial demands a reversal in the case. Following review of the record, we find no reversible error and affirm the judgment of conviction. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kenneth Ford
The appellant, Kenneth Ford, was convicted by a jury in the Madison County Circuit Court of three counts of aggravated assault and one count of reckless endangerment. Following the verdict, the trial court sentenced the appellant to a total effective sentence of twenty-two years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant challenges the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentencing. Upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Neil Thompson
The defendant, Neil Thompson, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of robbery and sentenced to three years, suspended after service of six months, followed by three years of probation. He appeals, arguing: (1) the trial court erred in failing to grant a mistrial due to a tainted jury, (2) the trial court erred in admitting a copy of the victim’s telephone records into evidence, (3) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction, (4) the trial court imposed an excessive sentence, and (5) he is entitled to relief due to cumulative error. After our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Kevin Lawrence v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Kevin Lawrence, was convicted of felony murder and was sentenced to life with the possibility of parole. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that his trial counsel were ineffective. The post-conviction court found that the petitioner’s counsel were not ineffective and denied the petition. On appeal, the petitioner challenges the court’s ruling. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Maurice Nash v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Maurice Nash, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in finding that he received effective assistance of trial counsel. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition. |
Tipton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Wiled McMillian
The appellant, Wiled McMillian,1 pled guilty in the Dyer County Circuit Court to one count of the sale of .5 grams or more of cocaine, and he received a sentence of ten years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Thereafter, the appellant filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The trial court denied the motion. On appeal, the appellant challenges the ruling of the trial court. Upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Zendall Edward Campbell
Appellant, Zendall Edward Campbell, was indicted by the Campbell County Grand Jury for one count of first degree murder and one count of aggravated assault. After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of second degree murder and aggravated assault. Appellant was sentenced to an effective sentence of twenty years. On appeal, Appellant complains that: (1) the trial court improperly denied Appellant the opportunity to admit the statements he gave to police immediately following the incident and after his arrest; (2) the trial court erred by failing to include reckless endangerment as a lesser included offense of aggravated assault; and (3) the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction for second degree murder. After a review of the record, we determine that the trial court properly excluded Appellant’s statements, instructed the jury properly on the lesser included offenses of aggravated assault, and the evidence was sufficient to support the second degree murder conviction. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Campbell | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jerry Jerome Primm v. State of Tennessee
A Davidson County jury convicted the Petitioner, Jerry Jerome Primm, of first degree felony murder, second-degree murder, and especially aggravated kidnapping. The trial court merged the second degree murder conviction with the felony murder conviction and ordered the Petitioner to serve a life sentence at one hundred percent as a violent offender. For his especially aggravated kidnapping conviction, the trial court sentenced the Petitioner to serve a twenty-year sentence consecutive to his life sentence. On direct appeal, this Court affirmed the Petitioner’s convictions and sentences. The Petitioner then filed a post-conviction petition claiming he received the ineffective assistance of counsel at his trial. The post-conviction court denied relief, and the Petitioner now appeals claiming the post-conviction court erred when it dismissed his petition. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Mullandric Webb
The defendant, Mullandric Webb, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of two counts of robbery, Class C felonies, two counts of aggravated robbery, Class B felonies, and one count of intentionally evading arrest, a Class D felony. After merger of the robbery and aggravated robbery convictions, the defendant was sentenced as a Range I offender to twelve years to be served in the Tennessee Department of Correction concurrently with a four year sentence for intentionally evading arrest. On appeal, the defendant raises the following issues: (1) whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to suppress his statement; (2) whether the evidence sufficient to sustain his convictions; and (3) whether the trial court imposed an excessive sentence. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. David F. Henning
The defendant, David F. Henning, appeals the order of the Dyer County Circuit Court revoking his probation. The defendant pled guilty to aggravated assault, a Class C felony, and received a three-year sentence, suspended to supervised probation except for ninety days to be served in the county jail. Subsequently, a probation violation warrant was filed, alleging numerous violations of the terms of the defendant’s probation. Following a hearing, his probation was revoked, and he was ordered to serve the balance of his sentence in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court abused it discretion when it found that he had violated the terms of his probation. Finding no abuse of discretion, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals |
