State of Tennessee v. Gerraldo White
The Defendant, Gerraldo White, was charged with one count of first degree premeditated murder and one count of felony murder. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-202(a)(1), (2). He was also charged with one count of especially aggravated robbery, a Class A felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-403(b). Following a jury trial, he was convicted of one count of felony murder, one count of especially aggravated robbery, and one count of second degree murder, a Class A felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-210(c). The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I, standard offender to fifteen years for second degree murder and fifteen years for especially aggravated robbery. It also sentenced him to life in prison for felony murder. The trial court ordered that the Defendant serve his sentences concurrently with one another, for a total effective sentence of life in the Department of Correction. In this direct appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress a statement he made to police; and (2) the State presented evidence insufficient to convict him of felony murder, second degree murder or especially aggravated robbery. After our review, we affirm the Defendant’s conviction for first degree felony murder. We direct that the second degree murder conviction be merged into the first degree murder conviction. We modify the conviction for especially aggravated robbery to a conviction for aggravated robbery, and we remand for sentencing on the aggravated robbery conviction. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Carlos Hardy v. State of Tennessee
A Davidson County jury convicted Petitioner, Carlos Hardy, of second degree murder, and the trial court sentenced him to twenty-five years as a Range I, violent offender. State v. Carlos Hardy, No M2004-02249-CCA-R3-CD, 2006 WL 359677, at *6 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Feb. 10, 2006), perm. app. denied, (Tenn. Jul. 3, 2006). Petitioner was unsuccessful in his appeal to this Court. Id. at *15. He filed a petition for post-conviction relief raising a number of issues including an allegation that he was afforded the ineffective assistance of counsel. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied the petition. On appeal, Petitioner argues that the post-conviction court erred in denying his petition with regard to the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel. We have reviewed the record on appeal and conclude that the post-conviction court did not err in denying the petition. Therefore, we affirm the decision of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kenneth Ray Kilpatrick
The defendant, Kenneth Ray Kilpatrick, appeals from his Wayne County Circuit Court jury conviction of simple possession of a Schedule IV controlled substance, a Class A misdemeanor. He claims on appeal that the evidence convicting him was legally insufficient. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Wayne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Randy Ralph
The Defendant, Randy Ralph, appeals from his conviction by a jury in the Circuit Court for Warren County for driving an unregistered vehicle, a Class C misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to serve thirty days in jail and imposed a fine of $50. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to convict him, that he should have been convicted under a different Code section, that he was improperly tried in the circuit court for a small offense, and that he should not have been sentenced to jail. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Warren | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Maurice Williams
The defendant, Maurice Williams, was convicted of carjacking and aggravated robbery, both Class B felonies, and sentenced to consecutive terms of twenty-eight years and twenty-five years, respectively. On appeal, he argues that the trial court should have granted a new trial because of a variance between the allegations of the indictment and the trial proof; the proof was insufficient to sustain his convictions; and the trial court erred in application of an enhancement factor and ordering consecutive sentencing. Following review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kenneth Ray Willis
|
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Lynda Beth Chandler-Camp v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Lynda Beth Chandler-Camp, appeals the post-conviction court’s summary dismissal of her petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that she made a prima facie showing of incompetence to toll the statute of limitations on the period for filing a petition for post-conviction relief. After review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s summary dismissal of the petition. |
Crockett | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tammy L. McDonald
The Defendant, Tammy L. McDonald, appeals her conviction upon a guilty plea in the Blount County Circuit Court for theft of property over $60,000, a Class B felony. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the Defendant received a Range I, ten-year sentence with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered the Defendant to serve the sentence in confinement. The Defendant appeals, contending that the trial court erred in denying alternative sentencing. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael D. Sweat
The Defendant, Michael D. Sweat, was convicted by a jury in the Knox County Criminal Court of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, and was sentenced by the trial court as a Range II, multiple offender to seventeen years in the Department of Correction. The Defendant appeals, contending (1) that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction, (2) that he was denied his constitutional right to a fair trial when the State suborned perjury, (3) that the State impermissibly shifted the burden of proof to the Defendant when it questioned why additional alibi witnesses were not called, (4) that the trial court erred when it allowed the admission into evidence of his prior convictions, (5) that the trial court erred when it failed to allow the Defendant to poll the jury, and (6) that he was denied a fair trial because the verdict was based on juror misconduct. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Stephen Louis Young
A Decatur County jury found the defendant, Stephen Louis Young, guilty of one count of rape of a child, a Class A felony, and one count of aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony. The court sentenced the defendant to twenty-five years for rape of a child to be served concurrently with twelve years for aggravated sexual battery at 100% in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant argues that (1) the district attorney’s comments during closing arguments constituted prosecutorial misconduct; (2) the trial court erred in sentencing the defendant; and (3) the trial court erred in ruling that the defendant’s confession was voluntary. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Decatur | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Derek T. Payne v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Derek T. Payne, appeals as of right the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The Petitioner was convicted by a jury of second degree murder and attempted especially aggravated robbery, and he received an effective sentence of thirty-seven years. On appeal, he argues that the denial of his petition was error because he did not receive the effective assistance of counsel at trial or on appeal. Specifically, he contends that counsel failed to raise or challenge certain jury instruction issues, failed to fulfill promises made during the opening statement, failed to introduce evidence of the victim’s past conduct to show that the victim was the first aggressor, and failed to object to the State’s improper closing argument. Additionally, he contends that his sentence was unconstitutionally imposed based on Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004). Following our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the Petitioner has not shown that he is entitled to relief. The judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Abby L. Mills
This case is before the court upon the Tennessee Supreme Court’s remand for further consideration in light of its opinion in State v. Saine, 297 S.W.3d 199 (Tenn. 2009). The defendant, Abby L. Mills, was indicted by the Lauderdale County Grand Jury for possession of a Schedule II controlled substance, cocaine, with the intent to deliver; possession of a Schedule III controlled substance, Hydrocodone, with the intent to deliver; and possession of a Schedule VI controlled substance, marijuana, with the intent to deliver over .5 ounces. After a hearing, the trial court granted defendant’s motion to suppress evidence of items found in the defendant’s home. On appeal, the state asserted that the trial court erred in suppressing the evidence obtained as a result of a valid search warrant. This court initially affirmed the trial court’s suppression of evidence based on lack of probable cause to support the issuance of a search warrant. Upon review, we hold that the warrant to search the defendant’s home was supported by probable cause. We therefore reverse the judgment of the trial court. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re: Tyrone A. Byrd, D/B/A A Alpha Bail Bond Agency v. State of Tennessee
The appellant, Tyrone A. Byrd, acting pro se, appeals from an order revoking his right to issue bail bonds in the Twenty-Fifth Judicial District. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in suspending his right to issue bonds. After careful review, we affirm the order from the trial court. |
Fayette | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Randall Gene Reynolds a.k.a Randy Reynolds
The Appellant-Defendant, Randall Gene Reynolds, pled guilty in the Circuit Court of Lake County to flagrant nonsupport of a minor child, a Class E felony. He was sentenced to five years of probation and was ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $13,440. Pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37, Reynolds reserved as a certified question of law the issue of whether the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss the indictment. Reynolds contends the order setting child support was invalid, and therefore his failure to comply with the order cannot form the basis of prosecution. Following our review of the record, we conclude that the certified question is not dispositive of this case, and thus we lack jurisdiction to review this appeal. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Lake | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Asata D. Lowe v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant, Asata D. Lowe, appeals the trial court's dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The Appellant fails to assert a cognizable claim for which habeas corpus relief may be granted. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Hickman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jamie Lee McKinney
The Defendant-Appellant, Jamie Lee McKinney, appeals the revocation of his probation. He pled guilty in the Circuit Court of Henry County to attempt to commit aggravated sexual battery, a Class C felony. He was sentenced to six years supervised probation after nine months of confinement. On appeal, he claims: (1) the probation condition prohibiting marriage to someone with a minor child is unconstitutional; and (2) the trial court abused its discretion by revoking McKinney’s probation because he left Henry County without his probation officer’s permission. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Henry | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Michael Angelo Coleman v. State of Tennessee
|
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tallie Riley
A Knox County Criminal Court jury convicted the defendant, Tallie Riley, of aggravated kidnapping, kidnapping, and aggravated criminal trespass. On appeal, the defendant avers that the trial court erred in permitting the assistant district attorney general to question the defendant about inadmissible prior bad acts, see Tenn. R. Evid. 404(b), and in denying his motion for mistrial. Further, the defendant alleges prosecutorial misconduct. After a careful review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Mark Alan Deakins
The defendant, Mark Alan Deakins, appeals the revocation of his probation, claiming that the State failed to establish a probation violation by substantial evidence. Because the record establishes that the defendant violated the terms of his probationary sentence, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Eric Tyreese Davis v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Eric Tyreese Davis, appeals the post-conviction court’s dismissal of his postconviction petition in which Petitioner alleged that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of trial counsel in connection with the entry of his pleas of guilty, and that his guilty pleas were not voluntarily or knowingly entered. After a thorough review we affirm |
Wilson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Richard Ferrell
After a jury trial, the Defendant, Richard Ferrell, was convicted of driving on a suspended license. The trial court subsequently sentenced the Defendant to a term of six months, with sixty days of the sentence to be served in the county jail followed by supervised probation. In this direct appeal, the Defendant argues that the evidence is insufficient as a matter of law to support his conviction and that the trial court erred by ordering him to serve sixty days in incarceration. Following a review of the sparse record presented on appeal, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Warren | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Deborah Jo Orr
The Defendant, Deborah Jo Orr, was charged with one count of driving under the influence (fourth offense), one count of driving on a revoked license (first offense), one count of violating the implied consent law, and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia. Following a jury trial, she was convicted as charged. In this direct appeal, she contends that the State presented evidence insufficient to convict her of driving under the influence. After our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Dickson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Mark Anthony Haynes
The defendant, Mark Anthony Haynes, pled guilty in the Bedford County Circuit Court to three counts of violation of the sex offender registry law, a Class E felony, and was sentenced to consecutive terms of one year, six months for each offense, for a total effective sentence of four years and six months in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred by denying his request for alternative sentencing. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Michelle Tipton v. State of Tennessee
A Sevier County jury convicted the Petitioner, Michelle Tipton, of felony murder, robbery, and second-degree murder, and the trial court imposed a life sentence. On direct appeal, this Court reversed the second-degree murder conviction, merged the robbery conviction with the felony murder conviction, and affirmed the life sentence. The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief claiming she received the ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court denied relief after a hearing, and the Petitioner now appeals. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Sevier | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Rudolph Powers v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant, Rudolph Powers, appeals the trial court's summary dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The Appellant failed to assert a cognizable claim for which habeas corpus relief may be granted. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Wayne | Court of Criminal Appeals |
