State of Tennessee v. Charles Vantilburg, III
The defendant, Charles Vantilburg III, was originally convicted of second degree murder in 2002 and sentenced to 20 years’ incarceration. On direct appeal, this court reversed the defendant’s conviction and remanded the case for a new trial on the basis of the trial court’s giving an erroneous definition of the term “knowingly.” See State v. Charles Vantilburg, No. W2002-01480-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App., Jackson, Jan. 13, 2004). After a second trial, the defendant was again convicted of second degree murder, and the trial court imposed a 22-year sentence. In this appeal, the defendant asserts that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction, (2) the trial court erred by admitting into evidence a “memorandum of understanding” signed by the parties, (3) the trial court erred by permitting the state to play a videotape of the recovery of the victim’s body, (4) the trial court erred by instructing the jury on flight, and (5) the sentence is excessive. The sentence is modified to 20 years; otherwise, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ricky Flamingo Brown v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Ricky Flamingo Brown, was convicted in 1986 of rape of his twelve year old daughter. The trial court sentenced him in abstentia to life in prison after he escaped from jail. After his capture in 1990, he began to serve his sentence. Upon agreement by the State, the Petitioner proceeded with a delayed direct appeal, which this Court dismissed. The Petitioner subsequently filed a number of collateral appeals, all of which were denied by the trial court, with some of those judgments appealed and affirmed in this Court. In 2006, the Petitioner then filed this habeas corpus petition alleging a void sentence. The habeas corpus court denied the petition without a hearing. After a thorough review of the applicable record and law, we affirm the judgment of the habeas court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Timothy R. Bouton - Dissenting
The majority, after finding plain error, remands for re-sentencing to conform with the requirements of Blakely v. Washington. I must respectfully dissent. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Timothy R. Bouton
The Defendant, Timothy R. Bouton, appeals from the sentencing decision of the Hamilton County Criminal Court. The Defendant pled guilty to vehicular homicide and reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon. At a subsequent sentencing hearing, the trial court followed the pre-2005-revision sentencing law and imposed an effective ten-year sentence as a Range I, standard offender in the Department of Correction. In this appeal, the Defendant argues, for the first time, that the United States Supreme Court’s Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), decision precludes enhancement of his vehicular homicide sentence above the presumptive minimum of eight years. The Defendant also argues that the trial court erred by ordering a sentence of total confinement. After a review of the record, we conclude that the trial court did not err in denying the Defendant an alternative sentence. However, we must notice as plain error that the trial court improperly enhanced the Defendant’s sentence by applying factors that were not determined by a jury. Because we cannot determine from the record before us the proper sentence to be imposed, this matter is remanded to the trial court for further resentencing in accordance with this opinion. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Courtney Perry v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Courtney Perry, sought post-conviction relief from his conviction of felony murder and especially aggravated robbery. The Shelby County Criminal Court denied relief after an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, the petitioner argues he received ineffective assistance of counsel because trial counsel failed to raise a proper defense of duress and failed to address why the petitioner was present at the murder scene. We affirm the denial of post-conviction relief. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William Keith Gillum
Defendant, William Keith Gillum, was charged in count one of the indictment with first degree premeditated murder, and in count two with aggravated assault. Defendant entered a best interest plea of guilty in count one to the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter, a Class C felony, and the State dismissed count two of the indictment. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Defendant to seven years. The trial court ordered Defendant to serve three months in the county workhouse, with Defendant placed on probation for the balance of his sentence. On appeal, Defendant challenges the length of his sentence, arguing that the trial court erred in the weight assigned to the one enhancement factor and the three mitigating factors. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Paul Graham Manning v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Paul Graham Manning, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing his petition for writ of error coram nobis. The trial court dismissed the petition because it was not timely filed and because the petition did not allege newly discovered evidence or make allegations which had not been previously raised or litigated. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
DeKalb | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Anthony Sales
The defendant, Michael Anthony Sales, pleaded guilty to two counts of violating an habitual traffic offender order and was sentenced to consecutive terms of five years and six months in the Department of Correction for each offense. On appeal, the petitioner argues that the sentence he received is excessive and contrary to law. We affirm the sentence of the trial court. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Marcus Richards
Defendant pled guilty to misdemeanor possession of cocaine. Prior to his plea, Defendant filed and the trial court heard a suppression motion. The trial court, after the hearing and submission of briefs by the parties, denied the motion. Defendant properly preserved a certified question of law. After a thorough review of the record, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and dismiss the charge against Defendant. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Triston Lee Harris - Dissenting
I respectfully dissent from the conclusion that probable cause did not exist for the search of the defendant. I would hold that the canine’s positive alert on the defendant’s car provided the authorities with probable cause to search the defendant, the car’s driver. |
Lawrence | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Triston Lee Harris
The defendant, Triston Lee Harris, appeals a certified question of law following his Lawrence County Circuit Court June 12, 2006 conviction of possession of cocaine with intent to sell, for which he received a six-year Department of Correction sentence. The defendant challenges the circuit court’s denial of his motion to suppress. We hold that although the defendant’s vehicle was subject to a search following a proper canine sweep, the contraband which was found on the defendant’s person should have been suppressed, and we reverse the judgment of the trial court. |
Lawrence | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Charles G. Summers v. James Fortner, Warden
The petitioner, Charles G. Summers, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. He contends that his sentence is illegal and that his judgment is, therefore, void. The petitioner has established that his sentence for escape was imposed in direct contravention of a statute, and is, therefore, illegal and void. Because the petitioner has made a threshold showing that he is entitled to habeas corpus relief, the judgment of the habeas corpus court is reversed, and the case is remanded for the appointment of counsel and an evidentiary hearing to determine the scope of the remedy available to the petitioner. |
Hickman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James David Johnson
The defendant, James David Johnson, was convicted of premeditated first degree murder; felony first degree murder; aggravated robbery, a Class B felony; and theft over $10,000, a Class C felony. The felony first degree murder conviction was merged with the premeditated first degree murder, and a life sentence was imposed. The defendant was sentenced to eighteen years as a multiple offender for aggravated robbery and to fifteen years as a career offender for theft over $10,000. The theft offense was set as concurrent to the aggravated robbery, but the two, together, were consecutive to the life sentence. This resulted in an effective sentence of life imprisonment plus eighteen years. On appeal, the defendant submits three issues: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions; (2) the trial court erred in failing to suppress the defendant’s statements; and (3) the trial court erred in admitting hearsay testimony. After review, we affirm the convictions. |
Tipton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Bobby A. Davis v. Howard Carlton, Warden
The pro se petitioner, Bobby A. Davis, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus, arguing that his aggravated rape and aggravated robbery convictions are void due to various defects in the indictments. Following our review, we affirm the summary dismissal of the petition. |
Johnson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
David Wayne Smart v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, David Wayne Smart, was convicted in 2001 of first degree premeditated murder and sentenced to life in prison. We affirmed that judgment on direct appeal, and the Tennessee Supreme Court denied permission to appeal. The Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court denied the petition after a hearing. Upon a thorough review of the applicable record and law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Christopher Keyln Dearing v. Howard Carlton, Warden - Dissenting
I respectfully dissent from the majority based upon my conclusion that the trial court erred in summarily dismissing the petition for a writ of habeas corpus that, in my view, presents a cognizable claim for relief. The record reflects that the petitioner pled guilty to theft of property valued between $1,000 and $10,000 and evading arrest, and that he received concurrent sentences of two years and one day and one year, respectively. In his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Relief, the petitioner alleges that the judgment for the theft conviction is void because he did not agree to a sentence of two years and one day and that such a sentence “is void, as obtained through misrepresentation and [an] unfulfilled promise [of] a total two (2) year sentence.” Additionally, he alleges that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary because he did not agree to the two year and one day sentence. In support of this allegation, the petition further asserts that both the technical record and the transcript of the guilty plea proceedings reflect that the sentence imposed should have been two years. However, neither the technical record nor the transcript of the guilty plea were attached to the petition in the habeas court. Attached to the petition for the habeas court’s consideration is the judgment of conviction reflecting a sentence of two years and one day for the theft conviction. |
Johnson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Christopher Keyln Dearing v. Howard Carlton, Warden
The Appellant, Christopher Keyln Dearing, proceeding pro se, appeals the Johnson County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for the writ of habeas corpus. Dearing is currently an inmate at Northeast Correctional Complex in Johnson County as a result of his convictions for Class under the terms of his plea agreement, he pled guilty to Class D theft in exchange for a sentence of two years; however, the judgment form and Department of Correction records show that the actual length of the sentence he is serving is two years and one day. Dearing argues that, because the State has breached the plea agreement, his sentence of two years and one day is void. After review, we agree with the trial court that Dearing’s petition fails to state a cognizable claim for habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Johnson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Christopher Keyln Dearing vs. Howard Carlton, Warden - Order
|
Johnson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Paul T. Davis v. State of Tennessee - Order
The State of Tennessee has filed a petition requesting this court to rehear its opinion filed on December 3, 2007. In its petition, the State requests that the court reconsider our holding that Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 59 is not applicable to State habeas corpus proceedings brought by petitioners who are incarcerated as a result of criminal convictions in state courts. The State also takes issue with this Court’s direction that upon remand, the trial court should appoint counsel to represent the petitioner during further proceedings. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Paul T. Davis v. State of Tennessee - Concurring and Dissenting
I concur in the result that this court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal, but respectfully, I disagree with the holding that the habeas corpus petition was filed in an appropriate court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Paul T. Davis v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Paul Tobias Davis, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief. In his petition, the Petitioner asserted that his sentence is illegal because he was denied pretrial jail credits. The habeas corpus court summarily dismissed the petition because the petition did not state a sufficient reason for not being filed in the county nearest to the Petitioner. On appeal, the Petitioner raises two issues: (1) whether a motion filed in the habeas corpus court to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Rule 59.04 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure can operate to limit the jurisdiction of this Court; and (2) whether the fact that the convicting court possesses relevant records relating to a petitioner’s sentence and retains the authority to correct an illegal sentence at anytime is a sufficient reason under Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-21-105 to file a habeas corpus petition in the convicting court rather than the court closest in point of distance to a petitioner. Following our review, we hold that motions filed pursuant to Rule 59 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure do not affect the jurisdiction of this Court in actions for habeas corpus relief and that the Petitioner presented a sufficient reason for filing his petition in the Davidson County Criminal Court. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the habeas corpus court and remand for the appointment of counsel and further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Cedric Terry v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Cedric Terry, 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 trial counsel. After a thorough review of the record and the parties’ briefs, the judgment of the post-conviction court denying post-conviction relief is affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Karl Daniel Forss - Dissenting
I agree with the majority, for the reasons outlined in its opinion, that it was error for the trial court to apply T.C.A. § 40-35-114(10) (2006) to enhance the defendant’s sentence in this case. However, I respectfully disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the trial court did not consider the mitigating factors proposed by the defendant. In my view, the sentencing hearing transcript establishes that the trial court not only considered the mitigating factors urged by the defendant, it also applied them. The record also establishes that the defendant had a record of illegal drug use, four DUI convictions, and a theft conviction. Thus, the trial court’s conclusion, after weighing the enhancing and mitigating factors, that the enhancement factors greatly outweighed the mitigating factors was supported by the record. |
Cocke | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Karl Daniel Forss
The Appellant, Karl Daniel Forss, appeals the sentencing decision of the Cocke County Circuit Court. Under the terms of a plea agreement, Forss entered “open” pleas of guilty to the offenses of attempted aggravated robbery, aggravated assault, and aggravated criminal trespass. The plea agreement provided that the length and manner of the sentences would be determined by the trial court, that Forss would be sentenced as a Range I, standard offender, that the aggravated assault conviction would merge with the attempted aggravated robbery conviction, and that the misdemeanor sentence for the aggravated criminal trespass conviction would run concurrently with the attempted aggravated robbery conviction. Following the sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed an effective sentence of six years in confinement. Forss now appeals the length and manner of his six-year felony sentence. After a thorough review of the record and the arguments of the parties, we modify Forss’ six-year sentence for attempted aggravated robbery to reflect a sentence of four years. We affirm the denial of alternative sentencing. We remand to the trial court for entry of an amended judgment to reflect this sentencing modification. |
Cocke | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Alonzo Eugene Terrell
The defendant, Alonzo Eugene Terrell, was convicted of domestic assault, a Class A misdemeanor, and was sentenced to eleven months and twenty-nine days, to be served on probation. He filed a motion for new trial, which was denied, and this appeal followed. On appeal, he raises seven issues. First, he argues the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction of domestic assault. He also argues that the trial court erred in allowing the State to introduce certain evidence and erred in denying both his motion to dismiss for violation of his right to speedy trial and his motion for acquittal. Additionally, he contends the court erred in refusing to allow two specific lines of questioning to the victim and a police officer during the trial. Our review reveals that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and that no error exists. The judgment from the trial court is affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals |
