Rudolph Powers v. State of Tennessee (Tony Parker, Warden)
The Petitioner, Rudolph Powers, 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 comply with the procedural prerequisites for seeking habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal. |
Lake | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Billy R. Shelly v. Glen Turner, Warden
The Petitioner, Billy R. Shelly, 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 | |
State of Tennessee v. Naomi Lovell Preyer
The Appellant, Naomi Lovell Preyer, appeals the sentencing decision of the Tipton County Circuit Court. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Preyer pled guilty to identity theft and forgery, both Class D felonies. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed concurrent sentences of twelve years, as a career offender, for each conviction and ordered that the sentences be served in confinement. On appeal, Preyer asserts that the trial court’s denial of a community corrections sentence was error. Following review of the record, we affirm. |
Tipton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
William Miller v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, William Miller, pleaded guilty to sale of more than .5 grams of cocaine, a Class B felony, and two counts of sale of less than .5 grams of cocaine, Class C felonies, in exchange for an effective sentence of 12 years. On post-conviction appeal, the petitioner argues that his guilty plea was unlawfully induced and entered without an understanding of the consequences, that the prosecution failed to disclose favorable evidence, and that his trial counsel was ineffective by failing to investigate alibis and inform him of opportunities to appeal motions. Discerning no error, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief. |
Warren | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Peter Graves v. State of Tennessee
A Weakley County jury convicted the Petitioner, Peter Graves, of possession of both a schedule II and a schedule IV drug with intent to sell or deliver, and the trial court sentenced him to an effective sentence of fifteen years. The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which the post-conviction court denied. The Petitioner now appeals, claiming: (1) he was denied the right to a fair trial because the jury saw him in handcuffs and shackles; (2) he was denied the right to a fair trial because the trial court did not conduct a jury out hearing when jurors wanted to ask him questions; and (3) he was not afforded the effective assistance of counsel. Upon a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment. |
Weakley | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joey Dewayne Thompson
The defendant, Joey Dewayne Thompson, appeals from his Knox County Criminal Court jury convictions of second degree murder and voluntary manslaughter. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of 25 years to be served in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant claims that the conviction of second degree murder is unsupported by sufficient evidence, that the verdicts are contradictory, that the prosecution for and conviction of second degree murder violated principles of double jeopardy, and that the prosecution was barred by principles of collateral estoppel. Following our review, we affirm the convictions. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Alan Bates
The Appellant, James Alan Bates, appeals the order of the Sullivan County Criminal Court denying his petition for post-conviction relief in which he asserted ineffective assistance of counsel. Bates contends that trial counsel was ineffective based upon the following: (1) failing to call a DNA expert as a witness at trial; (2) failing to utilize an investigator to aid in locating potential defense witnesses; (3) failing to adequately communicate and report developments in preparation of the defense at trial and on appeal; (4) failing to file a motion for a speedy trial; and (5) failing to provide “street clothes” for incarcerated defense witnesses, who testified while wearing their jail uniforms. After review, we affirm. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
William Justin Brewster v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant, William Justin Brewster, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief by the Knox County Criminal Court. Brewster argues that the post-conviction court erred in denying him relief on his asserted claims of ineffective assistance of counsel both during trial and on appeal. Upon thorough review, we conclude that the post-conviction court correctly denied the petition and affirm. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Gary M. Carter
Defendant, Gary M. Carter, pled guilty to statutory rape, a Class E felony, with the length and manner of service of his sentence to be determined following a sentencing hearing. Defendant received a sentence of two years to be served in split confinement with nine months incarceration followed by four years probation. Defendant argues, on appeal, (1) that the trial court erred in denying full probation and (2) that the trial court abused its discretion in denying judicial diversion and not articulating the reasons on the record. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the denial of judicial diversion and reverse the imposition of the sentence of nine months incarceration and remand to the trial court for an entry of an amended judgment imposing 7.2 months incarceration followed by four years probation. |
DeKalb | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. David Harold Hammond
Appellant, David Harold Hammond, was convicted by a Madison County jury of one count of rape. As a result, the trial court sentenced Appellant as a Range II multiple offender to twelve years incarceration. Because Appellant was on probation at the time the rape was committed, the trial court ordered Appellant’s sentence to run consecutively to two existing felony sentences. Appellant complains on appeal that the evidence was insufficient to support the rape conviction and that the trial court improperly ordered him to serve his sentence for rape consecutively to his existing sentences. Because the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and the trial court properly sentenced Appellant, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Cameron Winselle
A Shelby County jury found the Defendant, Cameron Winselle, guilty of two counts of first degree murder, and the trial court sentenced him to two consecutive life sentences. On appeal, the Defendant claims the evidence does not sufficiently support his convictions. Finding no error, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Antonio Kendrick v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Antonio Kendrick, appeals the lower court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court dismiss the above-captioned appeal or, in the alternative, affirm the trial court pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner has failed to comply with the procedural requirements for seeking habeas corpus relief and has failed to allege any ground that would render the judgment of conviction void. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Faith Whitley
Faith Whitley, the defendant, was indicted for possession with intent to deliver over one-half ounce of marijuana, a Class E felony. After a motion to suppress was heard and denied, the defendant entered a guilty plea with an agreed sentence of one year on probation and a fine of $2000. The judgment purported to reserve certified questions 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. |
McNairy | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Freddie T. Inman, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Freddie T. Inman, Jr., sought post-conviction relief from his conviction of theft of property having a value of more than $1,000 but less than $10,000. The McNairy County Circuit Court denied relief after an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, the petitioner argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because trial counsel failed to subpoena and call three witnesses at trial. We affirm the denial of post-conviction relief. |
McNairy | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ronnie Henry
The defendant, Ronnie Henry, was convicted of four counts of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, and four counts of robbery, a Class C felony. The defendant received an effective sentence of seventy years. On appeal, the defendant presents three issues: (1) the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the convictions; (2) error in the limitation of the testimony of a defense witness; and (3) error in sentencing. After review, we affirm the convictions but remand the case for resentencing in compliance with the standards contained in this opinion. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Corey Finley
The Tennessee Supreme Court has remanded this case for further consideration of the defendant’s sentencing in light of State v. Gomez, 239 S.W.3d 733 (Tenn., Oct. 9, 2007). Although the defendant’s original 23-year sentence1 involved the use of enhancement factors that violated the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, we hold that the sentence of 23 years is not plain error. Accordingly, the 23-year sentence is affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Thomas Harville, Jr. - Concurring/Dissenting
In this case, the majority holds that the defendant failed to contest the question of Officer Cousins’s unavailability and, thus, under Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 36(a), is not entitled to relief on this issue. I respectfully disagree. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Thomas Harville, Jr.
In October 2004, a Sullivan County grand jury indicted the defendant, Thomas Harville, Jr., on one count of violating his status as a habitual motor vehicle offender, a Class E felony. Following a June 2005 jury trial in Sullivan County Criminal Court, the defendant was convicted on the sole count of the indictment and sentenced to two years as a Range I, standard offender, with the defendant to serve eighty days in jail and the balance of his sentence on community corrections. The defendant appeals, alleging that the trial court: (1) improperly admitted the preliminary hearing testimony of a police officer when the state failed to show that the witness was unavailable at trial; (2) improperly determined that the state could impeach the defendant with a prior felony conviction for evading arrest; and (3) improperly sentenced the defendant. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the defendant has waived the first issue on appeal and that the trial court committed no error as to the other two issues. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Corey Montez Rickman
The defendant, Corey Montez Rickman, pled guilty in 2002 to four counts of aggravated robbery and received an effective sentence of thirty-two years, with three years to be served in the Sumner County Jail and twenty-nine years on community corrections. In 2006 he acknowledged violating the terms of his community corrections sentence after testing positive for cocaine, and the trial court ordered that the remainder of his sentence be served in the Department of Correction, which the defendant appealed. We conclude that the defendant’s convictions for aggravated robbery disqualified him for community corrections and, accordingly, dismiss the appeal. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tab Virgil - Concurring
I join with the majority, but write separately for the following reasons. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tab Virgil
This matter is before the court upon the Defendant’s appeal from an order of the trial court denying the Defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. The Defendant now appeals, contending that: (1) the trial court erred when it denied his motion to withdraw his guilty pleas because his guilty pleas were not knowingly, voluntarily and understandingly entered; and (2) his intended sentences could not be achieved by operation of law. Because we conclude that the defendant’s guilty pleas were not knowingly, voluntarily and understandingly entered, we reverse the order of the trial court and remand to the trial court for further proceedings. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Travis Young
The Defendant, Travis Young, was convicted of two counts of aggravated robbery, three counts of aggravated assault, two counts of reckless aggravated assault, and one count of intentionally evading arrest. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective sixteen-year sentence. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it: (1) classified him as a Range II offender; (2) enhanced the Defendant’s sentences; and (3) imposed consecutive sentences. We affirm the judgments of the trial court as modified, and we remand the case for entry of judgments consistent with this opinion. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tony Galtelli, John B. Gardner, and Vance Plumoff
Appellees, Tony Galtelli, John Gardner and Vance Plumoff, all West Memphis, Arkansas police officers, were indicted for reckless homicide by the Shelby County Grand Jury after a high-speed chase. The chase resulted in the shooting death of Kelly Allen, a passenger in the vehicle involved in the chase. The district attorney general denied pretrial diversion for each officer. Subsequently, Appellees sought relief from the denial of pretrial diversion by filing a petition for writ of certiorari in the trial court. The petition alleged that the district attorney general abused his discretion by denying pretrial diversion. The trial court granted the writ of certiorari, ordering the district attorney general to place Appellees on pretrial diversion. The State sought both an interlocutory appeal and an extraordinary appeal. Both requests were denied. The State subsequently sought and was granted permission to file a late notice of appeal pursuant to Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure 3. On appeal, the State asserts that the trial court improperly concluded that the district attorney general abused his discretion by denying pretrial diversion and that the trial court erred by ordering the district attorney general to enter a memorandum of understanding to place Appellees on pretrial diversion. After a review of the record, we conclude that even though the trial court properly determined that the district attorney general abused his discretion by denying pretrial diversion, the trial court improperly ordered the district attorney general to place Appellees on pretrial diversion where the district attorney general failed to consider all relevant factors in denying diversion. According to State v. McKim, 215 S.W.3d 781 (Tenn. 2007), the trial court should have reversed the district attorney general’s denial of diversion and ordered the district attorney general to consider all the relevant factors in regard to granting or denying the applications for diversion. Therefore, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand the matter to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Bretran R. Thompson
The Defendant, Bretran R. Thompson, was disbarred in 1996. In 2004, the Defendant was indicted in two, two-count indictments each for impersonation of a licensed professional and theft, with a different victim in each indictment. In 2005, the Board of Professional Responsibility filed a petition for contempt against the Defendant alleging he violated his disbarment order from 1996. The Defendant pled guilty to contempt and was sentenced to fifty days in jail. He then moved to dismiss the two indictments in Shelby County Criminal Court. After argument, the trial court dismissed the two charges of impersonation of a licensed professional on double jeopardy grounds but refused to dismiss the two theft charges. The State sought interlocutory appeal under Rule 9 contesting the dismissal of the impersonation of a licensed professional charges, which was joined by the Defendant contesting the non-dismissal of the theft charges. After a thorough review of the facts and applicable law, we affirm in part and reverse in part the judgments of the trial court. We affirm the trial court’s judgment denying dismissal of the theft charges, but reverse the judgment of the trial court dismissing the charges of impersonation of a licensed professional. The case is remanded for further proceedings on both sets of charges. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jeffrey Lee Fields
The defendant, Jeffrey Lee Fields, appeals the order declaring him a motor vehicle habitual offender (MVHO) by default judgment. He contends, and the State agrees, that the Rules of Civil Procedure were not followed regarding service of process, notice of hearing, notice of default judgment, notice of entry and service of judgment. Further, he contends there were insufficient convictions to support a judgment declaring him a motor vehicle habitual offender. After review, we conclude that a conviction on appeal is a final conviction for the purpose of determining MVHO status; however, because the proper procedures were not followed in obtaining the judgment declaring the defendant a motor vehicle habitual offender, it should be vacated. |
Carroll | Court of Criminal Appeals |
