James Wilson v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, James Wilson, appeals the Madison County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. 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 prove his allegations by clear and convincing evidence, we conclude that the State’s motion is well-taken. Accordingly, we affirm the lower court’s denial of post-conviction relief. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jonathan Bradford Dunn v. State of Tennessee
Appellant, Jonathan Bradford Dunn, was indicted by the Bedford County Grand Jury for one count of theft of property valued at more than $1,000 but less than $10,000, and one count of filing a false report. After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted on both counts as stated in the indictment. The trial court sentenced Appellant to three years as a Range II multiple offender for theft of property and six years as a Range II multiple offender for filing a false report. The sentences were ordered to run consecutively to each other and to the sentence in Bedford County Case Number 15560. After the denial of a motion for new trial, Appellant initiated the appeal herein, presenting the following issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for filing a false report; and (2) whether the sentence imposed by the trial court was excessive. We determine that the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction and that the trial court properly sentenced Appellant. Consequently, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Aquellis Quintez Tucker
A Hardeman County jury convicted the defendant, Aquellis Quintez Tucker, of one count of first degree felony murder, one count of first degree premeditated murder, one count of attempted first degree murder, one count of aggravated assault, and one count of especially aggravated burglary. The trial court merged the two first degree murder convictions, and it also merged the defendant’s attempted first degree murder and aggravated assault convictions. The trial court sentenced the defendant to life in prison on the first degree murder conviction, fifteen years on the attempted first degree murder conviction, and eight years on the especially aggravated burglary conviction, with all sentences to be served concurrently. The defendant appeals, asserting that the evidence produced at trial was insufficient to support his convictions. After reviewing the record, we conclude that no error exists with respect to the defendant’s allegations. However, we further conclude that the defendant’s especially aggravated burglary conviction was precluded by statute. Accordingly, we modify that conviction to one for aggravated burglary and remand the case to the trial court for sentencing on that offense. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Markese Alexander Brooks
The defendant, Markese Alexander Brooks, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of first degree felony murder and attempted especially aggravated robbery and was sentenced by the trial court to concurrent terms of life and ten years, respectively. In a timely appeal to this court, he challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence and argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his statement to the police and in allowing inadmissible hearsay testimony from a State’s witness. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Eddie Lee Douglas v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Eddie Lee Douglas, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his second degree murder conviction, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel and that his guilty plea was therefore unknowing and involuntary. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court denying the petition. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Deanthony M. Davis
The Defendant pled guilty in September 2005 to possession of .5 grams or more of a Schedule II drug with the intent to sell, which is a Class B felony. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to twelve years, and he was released to a community corrections program after serving one year of incarceration. Following a hearing, the trial court found the Defendant had violated his community corrections sentence, and it revoked the Defendant’s community corrections sentence and resentenced the Defendant to sixteen years of incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant claims the trial court erred when it revoked his community corrections sentence and re-sentenced him. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kim McBride Murphy
Following a bench trial in Cumberland County, the defendant, Kim McBride Murphy, was convicted of driving under the influence (DUI), a Class A misdemeanor, and sentenced to eleven months and twenty-nine days, with thirty days to be served in confinement. The defendant filed a timely motion for new trial, which the trial court orally denied. No written order of the denial is included in the record, however. On appeal, the defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support her conviction for DUI. After review of the record, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction in the case because the record contains no written denial of the motion for new trial. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. |
Cumberland | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Mohamed Omar Muse
The Appellant, Mohamed Omar Muse, appeals his convictions by a Davidson County jury and the resulting sentences imposed by the Davidson County Criminal Court for the offenses of sale of less than point five (.5) grams of cocaine and possession of point five (.5) grams or more of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver. On appeal, Muse argues: (1) that the evidence offered at trial was insufficient to support his convictions; (2) that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury regarding casual exchange; (3) that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence seized from his person at the time of his arrest; (4) that the trial court erred in denying his motion for recusal based upon alleged racial and religious prejudices of the trial court; and (5) as to sentencing, that the trial court erred in its weighing of mitigating and enhancement factors and in denying a probationary or community corrections sentence. Upon complete review of the record and the arguments of the parties, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Randall McClure
Defendant, Randall McClure, pled guilty to one count of the sale of less than .5 grams of cocaine and one count of the delivery of less than .5 grams of cocaine. The convictions were merged. The manner of service of the agreed upon five year sentence was to be determined by the trial court at a sentencing hearing. Defendant requested alternative sentencing and after conducting the sentencing hearing the trial court denied the request and sentenced Defendant to serve the five-year sentence incarcerated. On appeal, Defendant argues the trial court erroneously denied his request for alternative sentencing. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Lincoln | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Edward Farrar, Jr.
The defendant, James Edward Farrar, Jr., appeals from his Bedford County Circuit Court jury conviction of bribing a witness. He claims that the verdict is not supported by legally sufficient evidence and that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence a compact disc containing recorded telephone calls that the State failed to properly authenticate. Because we disagree, we affirm the judgment of the trial court |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. George Franklin
Following a jury trial Defendant, George Franklin, was convicted of the second degree murder of three-year-old Jessica Borner and the attempted murder of nine other people. Defendant was convicted under the theory of criminal responsibility for the conduct of another. It is undisputed that Defendant did not fire the shot that killed Jessica. Defendant was sentenced to twenty-five years at one-hundred percent for second degree murder and twelve years at thirty percent for each count of attempted murder. The trial court ordered the sentences to be served consecutively for an effective sentence of one-hundred and thirty-three years. On appeal, Defendant challenges: (1) the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain convictions of second degree murder and nine counts of attempted second degree murder; (2) whether the trial court properly refused to grant a mistrial when the assistant district attorney general referenced the statement of a co-defendant; (3) whether the trial court properly prohibited the defense attorney from eliciting information about the alleged dangerousness of the house; (4) whether the trial court properly excluded certain prior bad acts of witnesses; (5) whether the trial court properly applied enhancement factors in sentencing; and (6) whether the trial court properly imposed consecutive sentences. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgements of the trial court except the sentencing. Because of the improper use of enhancement factors in sentencing, we modify Defendant’s sentence from twenty-five years to twenty-one years for second degree murder and from twelve years to nine years for each of the nine convictions for attempted second degree murder. Otherwise the judgments are affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Nichlous Maxwell
Following a jury trial, Defendant, Nichlous Maxwell, was convicted of second degree murder. He was sentenced to twenty-five years’ incarceration. On appeal Defendant argues (1) the trial court committed reversible error by permitting the prosecutor to elicit a hearsay statement under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rules, (2) that the trial court erred in its response to jury questions regarding the instruction on criminal responsibility for the conduct of another, and (3) the trial court erred in enhancing Defendant’s sentence based on facts not found by a jury. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court as to the hearsay statements and the jury instruction and modify the judgment as to sentencing from twenty-five to twenty-three years. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Melvin Nettles
The defendant, Melvin Nettles, pleaded guilty to one count of sale of less than .5 grams of cocaine and was sentenced as a Range III offender in Davidson County Criminal Court to an effective 12-year term to be served in a community corrections program. On October 5, 2007, the trial court revoked the community corrections sentence and ordered the defendant to serve his sentence in the Department of Correction. From that order, the defendant appeals. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Timothy A. Summers
Following a bench trial in the Union County Circuit Court, the defendant, Timothy A. Summers, was found guilty of one count of driving on a revoked license, second offense (Class A misdemeanor). The trial court subsequently imposed a sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days, with forty-five days to be served. On appeal, the defendant raises the single issue of whether the trial court erred in failing to grant his motion to suppress. Specifically, he contends that the statements made by him on a videotape of the police stop, consisting of an admission that he was driving the vehicle, should have been suppressed because they were obtained as result of a custodial interrogation without the benefit of Miranda warnings. Following review, we conclude that the trial court properly denied the motion. |
Union | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Steven Davis
The defendant, Steven Davis, was convicted of one count of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, and sentenced to ten years in confinement. On appeal, the defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction. Following our review of the parties’ briefs, the record, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Leon Flannel
The defendant, Leon Flannel, was convicted by jury of one count of murder in perpetration of a theft and one count of premeditated murder. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for both convictions, which were merged. The defendant now appeals, arguing that: (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions and his conviction for murder in perpetration of a theft was unconstitutional; (2) the trial court failed to properly exercise its duty as thirteenth juror; (3) the trial court erred in failing to grant the defendant’s motion to suppress his statement to police; (4) the trial court erred in qualifying certain state witnesses as experts; (5) the trial court erred in admitting a letter into evidence without proof of chain of custody and proper authentication; (6) the trial court made improper comments regarding witness qualification and jury instruction; and (7) cumulative error in the trial proceedings requires relief. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Frank Smith v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Frank Smith, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of two counts of rape and sentenced to eight years on each count, to be served concurrently. He subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied his petition. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. David Pugh
The defendant, David Pugh, appeals the order of the Hardeman County Circuit Court revoking his probation. The defendant entered guilty pleas, in three separate cases, to four counts of delivery of a Schedule II controlled substance (Class B felonies) and one count of possession of contraband in a penal institution (Class C felony). He was subsequently sentenced to an effective sixteen-year sentence, which was to be served on probation following service of six hundred days in jail. Following his release to supervised probation, a violation warrant was filed in the three cases alleging numerous violations of the terms of the defendant’s probation. Following a hearing, the defendant’s probation was revoked, resulting in the reinstatement of his original sentences, which the trial court ordered to be served in confinement. On appeal, the defendant argues that the court erred in revoking his probation. Finding no abuse of discretion, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Michael Barnett Bills v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Michael Barnett Bills, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. He was convicted of one count of possession of 0.5 grams or more of a Schedule II controlled substance with intent to deliver, a Class B felony. He was sentenced to eighteen years in the Tennessee Department of Correction as a Range II, multiple offender. On appeal, he argues that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel because she did not file a motion to suppress and failed to object to the introduction of a letter into evidence. After careful review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Carl Junior Fritts
The defendant, Carl Junior Fritts, appeals the sentencing decision of the Rhea County Circuit Court. Following his guilty pleas to four counts of burglary (Class D felony), vandalism over $1000 (Class D felony), and evading arrest (Class E felony), the trial court imposed an eight-year sentence for each Class D felony conviction and a four-year sentence for the Class E felony. The court further ordered that all sentences be served concurrently with the exception of the vandalism conviction, which was to be served consecutively, resulting in an effective sentence of sixteen years. On appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court erred by: (1) imposing the maximum sentence within the range for each conviction, and (2) imposing partial consecutive sentencing. Following review of the record, we conclude that the trial court did not err and affirm the sentences as imposed. |
Rhea | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ronald Brown
Ronald Steven Brown, the defendant, was convicted of the following offenses under four separate indictments: No. 14233, attempted first degree murder (Class A felony); No. 14232, attempted second degree murder (Class B felony) and assault (Class A misdemeanor); No. 14235, aggravated assault (Class C felony); and No. 14231, felony evading arrest (Class E felony) and DUI, first offense (Class A misdemeanor). The defendant was sentenced as a standard offender to an effective sentence of forty-three years, consecutive to a ten-year federal sentence. On appeal, the defendant alleges error in four areas: (1) The failure of the State court reporter to preserve transcripts of the pretrial motions and sentencing hearing violated his right of due process: (2) The trial court imposed an excessive sentence; (3) The trial court permitted the State to amend an indictment over his objection after the jury was sworn; and (4) He was sentenced in violation of Gomez v. Tenn., 127 S.Ct. 1209 (2007). After careful review, we conclude that the defendant is not entitled to any relief and affirm the judgments from the trial court. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Sharon Virginia Hinkley
The defendant, Sharon Virginia Hinkley, appeals the revocation of her probation. After review, we conclude that the appellate record does not contain any documents pertaining to the conviction and sentence contested by the defendant. Therefore, we are compelled to dismiss this appeal. |
Dickson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jason Glen Jacobs
The defendant, Jason Glen Jacobs, pled guilty to the crime of child abuse, a Class D felony, in exchange for a three-year sentence with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. The crime occurred on September 17, 2004. Following a sentencing hearing on January 19, 2007, the trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range I offender to three years of probation. Additionally, the defendant was sentenced to serve the first six months in confinement and was required to complete parenting classes. On appeal, he argues that he should have been sentenced to serve the entire term on probation without confinement. After careful review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James Wayne Kimbrough v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, James Wayne Kimbrough, was convicted of first degree murder (Class A felony) and two counts of spousal rape (Class C felony) on October 17, 2002. He was sentenced to life without possibility of parole for the murder conviction and to fifteen years for the spousal rape conviction, to be served consecutive to the life sentence. On appeal, he argues that the post-conviction court erred in denying him relief. Specifically, he argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that he was denied due process because he was prosecuted with fabricated evidence and perjured testimony. After careful review, we affirm the judgment from the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Delmar K. Reed, a.k.a. Delma K. Reed
The defendant, Delmar K. Reed, was found guilty by a jury of ten counts of harassment (Class A misdemeanor), one count of attempted aggravated burglary (Class D felony), one count of vandalism over $1000 (Class D felony), one count of vandalism under $500 (Class A misdemeanor), and one count of setting fire to personal property (Class E felony). He was sentenced to an effective sentence of nineteen years as a Range II, multiple offender. On appeal, he argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions; the trial court improperly denied his motion for a mistrial; and his convictions for harassment should have been merged into two convictions. After careful review, we conclude that no error exists and affirm the judgments from the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals |
