Travis Plummer v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant appeals the trial court's dismissal of his petition for a writ of error coram nobis and his motion to reopen post-conviction petition. The trial court properly concluded that the Appellant cannot prevail on the claims asserted in the two pleadings. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Erica Lynn Wyma - Concurring
I concur in the result and most of the reasoning in the majority opinion. I question, though, whether we can firmly say that the victim’s saying, “No, No,” and “Mommy hit me” was sufficiently relevant and not too prejudicial in the context of the trial. |
Hamblen | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Erica Lynn Wyma
The defendant, Erica Lynn Wyma, was convicted of attempted aggravated child abuse, a Class B felony, and sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to eleven years in the Department of Correction. She argues that the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction, the trial court erred in admitting a statement of the victim as an excited utterance, and her sentence is excessive. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hamblen | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Raymond McNeil
The defendant, Raymond McNeil, appeals from his Williamson County Circuit Court conviction of Class D felony evading arrest, alleging that the evidence was insufficient and that the trial court erred in the admission of certain evidence at trial. The defendant challenges neither his conviction of driving on a revoked license nor his 12-year effective sentence. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jason Clinard
A Stewart County Circuit Court jury convicted the defendant, Jason Clinard, of first degree premeditated murder and imposed a sentence of life imprisonment. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-202(a)(1); -204 (2006). In this appeal, the defendant asserts that the trial court erred by (1) not suppressing photographs of the victim, (2) allowing the State an independent psychological examination of the defendant, (3) failing to disqualify the District Attorney General’s Office, and (4) following the statutory sentencing scheme that resulted in the defendant’s life sentence. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Stewart | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Brian Davidson
The defendant, Brian Davidson, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of one count of manufacturing methamphetamine, two counts of possession of methamphetamine with the intent to sell and/or deliver, one count of possession of anhydrous ammonia, one count of possession of marijuana, two counts of possession of Hydrocodone, and two counts of possession of Alprazolam. After merging the manufacturing and possession of methamphetamine convictions, the possession of Hydrocodone convictions, and the possession of Alprazolam convictions, the trial court sentenced the defendant to five years for manufacturing methamphetamine, eighteen months for possession of anhydrous ammonia, and eleven months, twenty-nine days for each of the convictions for possession of Hydrocodone, Alprazolam, and marijuana, with the sentences to be served concurrently to each other but consecutively to the defendant’s sentences in a federal case. The defendant argues on appeal that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss based upon a violation of the speedy trial provision of the Interstate Compact on Detainers, in denying his motion to suppress a detective’s in-court identification of him, in denying his discovery request for the impeaching convictions of his codefendant, and in ordering that he serve his sentences consecutively to his federal sentences. Having reviewed the record and found no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Barry L. Price v. State of Tennessee
This matter is before the court upon the state’s motion to affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court by memorandum opinion pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The petitioner, Barry L. Price, appeals the post-conviction court’s dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief and argues that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. Upon review of the entire record, including petitioner’s Traverse To Appellee’s Answers filed on July 29, 2008, we are persuaded that the post-conviction court did not err in dismissing the petitioner’s post-conviction petition. This case meets the criteria for affirmance pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Therefore, we grant the state’s motion, and the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Clarence Dodson
The defendant, Clarence Dodson, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of aggravated burglary, Class C felony, and theft of property under $500, a Class A misdemeanor. He was subsequently sentenced to concurrent sentences of fifteen years and eleven months, twenty-nine days for the respective convictions. On appeal, he raises two issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to support the aggravated burglary conviction; and (2) whether the trial court erred in allowing prior convictions for aggravated burglary and misdemeanor theft of services to be used or impeachment purposes. Following review of the record, we find no error and affirm the judgments of convictions. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Robert Bonds
The defendant, Robert Bonds, was convicted of aggravated burglary, a Class C felony, and sentenced as a Range III offender to fifteen years in confinement. On appeal, the defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support 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 | |
Kelvin Jermaine Dowell v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Kelvin Jermaine Dowell, appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by presenting two inconsistent defense theories at his trial. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition. |
Tipton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Chad Lewis Monette
Following a bench trial in the Houston County Circuit Court, the defendant, Chad Lewis Monette, was convicted of one count of aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony, as a lesser-included offense of rape of a child. He was subsequently sentenced to eight years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant contends that his conviction should be reversed because aggravated sexual battery is not a lesser-included offense of rape of a child. He further challenges the admission and consideration of certain testimony and exhibits introduced as evidence at trial. Following review of the record, we conclude that aggravated sexual battery is a lesser-included offense of rape of a child; thus, no error occurred in the conviction. With regard to the evidentiary issues, we conclude that the defendant has waived consideration of the issues by his failure to contemporaneously object at trial, his failure to raise the issues in his motion for new trial, or his failure to cite to legal authority on appeal. Because the alleged evidentiary issues do not rise to the level of plain error, we decline review. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed. |
Houston | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. McKinley Wright
The defendant, McKinley Wright, appeals as of right his Shelby County jury conviction for unlawful possession with the intent to sell or deliver more than 15 grams of heroin, a Class B felony. 1The trial court sentenced the defendant to eleven years as a Range I, standard offender to be served consecutively to a previously imposed sentence. On appeal, the defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction, that the trial court improperly admitted evidence without establishing the chain of custody, that the trial court improperly admitted testimony regarding the timing of testing controlled substances recovered by Shelby County authorities, that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury regarding facilitation, that the trial court imposed an excessive sentence, and that all of the cumulative errors deprived the defendant of his right to a fair trial. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kevin Swift
In October 2005, the Shelby County Grand Jury indicted the defendant, Kevin Swift, on two counts |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Charles Ricky Pipkin, Jr.
The defendant, Charles Ricky Pipkin, Jr., pled guilty to charges of aggravated burglary and theft over $500. He also pled guilty in a separately charged case to initiation of a process to manufacture methamphetamine and possession of methamphetamine with the intent to deliver more than .5 grams. As a condition of his guilty pleas, the defendant properly reserved several certified questions of law, challenging the legality and validity of the search warrant. Specifically, the defendant argued that the affidavit for the search warrant did not satisfy both prongs of the Aguilar-Spinelli test and therefore failed for lack of probable cause. He further argued that information contained in the warrant was stale and insufficient. Finally, the defendant argued that if the search warrant was invalid in the first case, then any evidence and statements used against him in the second case must also be suppressed as fruits of an illegal search. Following our review of the parties’ briefs, the record, and the applicable law, we reverse the judgments of the trial court and dismiss the defendant’s convictions. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Michael Derrick Huskins v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Michael Derrick Huskins, appeals from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief wherein he challenged his 2006 Polk County Criminal Court conviction of felony murder. In this appeal, the petitioner contends that his guilty plea was involuntary and was the result of the ineffective assistance of his trial counsel. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Polk | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Leman Earl Russell, Jr.
The defendant, Leman Earl Russell, Jr., entered a plea of guilty, in January 2007, to three counts of selling a Schedule II controlled substance under .5 grams (Class C felony) and one count of possession of a Schedule II controlled substance over .5 grams with intent to sell or deliver (Class B felony), in exchange for a sentence of split confinement. For each Class C felony conviction, he was sentenced to six months in the county jail and four years on community corrections, with each sentence to be served concurrently. For the Class B felony, he was sentenced to six months in the county jail to be followed by nine years and five months on community corrections, also concurrent with the other sentences, for a total effective sentence of nine years and eleven months (six months in confinement followed by nine years and five months on community corrections). Here, the defendant appeals the revocation of his community corrections sentence. After review, we conclude that the trial court properly revoked the defendant’s community corrections sentence. |
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jack E. Thompson
The defendant, Jack E. Thompson, in this consolidated appeal, appeals from one judgment revoking his probation and another judgment sentencing him to three years to be served consecutively to the sentence for which his probation was revoked. On appeal, he argues that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his probation and ordering him to serve his sentence and that the trial court erred in enhancing his sentence to three years on his plea of guilty to burglary of a vehicle, a Class E felony. After review, we affirm both judgments from the trial court. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Rachel Didena Summers v. State of Tennessee
This matter is before the Court upon the State’s motion to affirm the judgment of the trial court by memorandum opinion pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Petitioner has appealed the trial court’s order dismissing the petition for post-conviction relief. Upon review of the record in this case, we are persuaded that the trial court was correct in dismissing the petition for post-conviction relief and that this case meets the criteria for affirmance pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Accordingly, the State’s motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Guy Louis Shaw
The defendant, Guy Louis Shaw, pleaded guilty to one count of driving on a revoked license (fourth offense), violation of the financial responsibility law, and violation of the motor vehicle light law. Subsequently, he was ordered to serve a sentence of eleven months, twenty-nine days in jail for his conviction for driving on a revoked license. It is this sentence from which the defendant appeals. On appeal, the defendant argues that he should have been sentenced to probation rather than incarceration. Following our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the trial court’s sentencing decision. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Shawn Hatcher
Appellant, Shawn Hatcher, was involved in a shooting which resulted in the death of one victim and the serious injury of two other victims. As a result of the incident, Appellant was convicted by a Shelby County jury of first degree felony murder, first degree premeditated murder and two counts of attempted first degree murder. The trial court sentenced Appellant immediately to a mandatory life sentence for the first degree murder convictions. Appellant filed a motion for new trial. The trial court held a joint sentencing hearing and hearing on the motion for new trial. The trial court merged the two convictions for first degree murder and sentenced Appellant to fifteen years for each attempted murder conviction to be served concurrently with each other. The trial court ordered the life sentence to be served consecutively to the fifteen-year sentence. The trial court also denied the motion for new trial and appointed new counsel at the conclusion of the hearing for sentencing and the motion for new trial. Newly-appointed counsel filed an amended motion for new trial more than thirty days after the trial court denied the original motion for new trial. The trial court held a hearing on the amended motion for new trial and denied the motion. Appellant appealed. On appeal, the State argues that this appeal is not properly before this Court. We have determined that the issues presented in the amended motion for new trial are not properly before this Court because it was not filed with thirty days from the trial court’s denial of the original motion for new trial. We have waived the timely-filing of the notice of appeal with regard to the original motion for new trial and address those issues on appeal. Therefore, the issues presented on appeal are that the evidence was insufficient to support the Appellant’s convictions, the trial court erred in allowing in photographs of the murder victim into evidence, the trial court erred in not allowing Appellant to present medical evidence of his injuries to support his theory of defense, and the trial court erred in instructing the jury on the special instructions Appellant presented. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Daniel Ronald Vengrin v. State of Tennessee
The appellant, Daniel Ronald Vengrin, pled guilty to vandalism in an amount greater than $500, a Class E felony. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced the appellant to one year and six months in the Tennessee Department of Correction and ordered that the appellant have no contact with the victim and pay restitution. Subsequently, the appellant was found guilty of twenty-one counts of criminal contempt for failing to comply with the terms of the no-contact order that was a condition of his plea agreement. The trial court sentenced the appellant to a total effective sentence of 210 days for his contempt convictions. On appeal, the appellant contends that the trial court did not have jurisdiction “to modify or otherwise enforce the terms and conditions of the [j]udgment in [the appellant’s] case.” Upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Howard Jefferson Atkins v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Howard Jefferson Atkins, appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, he argues that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel because: (1) trial counsel failed to pursue suppression of the petitioner’s statement to police on the basis that police did not have probable cause to effectuate his arrest; and (2) appellate counsel failed to challenge the petitioner’s transfer from juvenile court on appeal. After a thorough review of the record and the parties’ briefs, the judgment of the post-conviction court denying post-conviction relief is affirmed. |
Tipton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Leonard Ray Fitzgerald
The defendant, Leonard Ray Fitzgerald, was convicted of two counts of sale of over .5 grams of cocaine, a Class B felony, and sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to concurrent eight-year sentences, with seven years to be served on probation after one year in the Department of Correction. The jury assessed a $100,000 fine in each count, which the trial court imposed. On appeal, the defendant argues that the jury’s verdict was not unanimous, the fines were excessive, and he should have been sentenced as an especially mitigated offender and granted full probation. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Henry | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Almeko Chiffon Woods
On February 4, 2005, the defendant, Almeko Chiffon Woods, pled guilty to one count of forgery less than $200 and one count of fraudulent use of a credit card between $500 and $1000, both Class E felonies. The trial court sentenced the defendant to two years probation for each offense, with the sentences to run concurrently. On January 22, 2007, a probation violation report was prepared, alleging that the defendant failed to meet with her probation officer and failed to pay restitution and court costs. However, this report was not filed until February 20, 2007. On January 30, 2007, the trial court issued what the defendant considered a capias and the state considered an arrest warrant in connection with the alleged probation violation. Following a June 28, 2007 hearing, the trial court found the defendant in violation of her probation and extended her probation another year. That same day, an additional probation violation was filed with the trial court, alleging that the defendant violated her probation by being arrested for simple possession of a controlled substance and failing to report this arrest to her probation officer. In August 2007, the trial court revoked the defendant’s probation and ordered her to serve a two-year sentence in the Department of Correction. The defendant appeals, arguing that because the probation violation report was not filed until February 20, 2007, her probation expired on February 4, 2007. She further argues that because the document issued by the trial court in January 2007 was not an arrest warrant, the limitations period for filing the probation violation was not tolled, and therefore the trial court’s extension and revocation of her probation were nullities because her probation expired on February 4, 2007. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the expiration of the defendant’s probation was properly tolled and that the trial court acted properly in extending and subsequently revoking the defendant’s probation. As such, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jeffery Yates v. State of Tennessee, Tommy Mills, Warden
The Petitioner, Jeffery Yates, 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. |
Lake | Court of Criminal Appeals |
