Michael Lindsey v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Michael Lindsey, appeals the denial of his petition for writ of error coram nobis and the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. Because the petitioner has failed to allege appropriate grounds for coram nobis relief and because his petition for post-conviction relief is procedurally barred, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Lorenzo "Buster" Woods
The defendant, Lorenzo “Buster” Woods, pled guilty to one count of assault, a Class A misdemeanor, and received a sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days suspended upon the service of six months in the local jail. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in denying him full probation. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court, but we remand the case for entry of a corrected judgment reflecting misdemeanor community corrections supervision for five months and twenty-nine days. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Sidney Porterfield v. Rickey J. Bell, Warden, State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Sidney Porterfield, pro se, seeks habeas corpus relief from his 1986 Shelby County first degree murder conviction and death sentence, alleging his indictment was void because it was returned by a grand jury from which women had been systematically excluded as grand jury forepersons. He now appeals from the Davidson County dismissal of his petition. The State contends that this court is without jurisdiction to hear this appeal because the petitioner filed an untimely notice of appeal and offered no explanation and, further, that the petition does not meet all the criteria set forth in Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-21-107. Furthermore, the State contends that a void indictment does not deprive a trial court of jurisdiction, that the petitioner’s claim is not cognizable for habeas corpus relief because proof beyond the face of the judgment and record is required, and that our Supreme Court has rejected an identical claim regarding discrimination in the selection of a grand jury foreperson in State v. Bondurant, 4 S.W.3d 662 (Tenn. 1999). After careful review, we conclude that the notice of appeal is not jurisdictional and may be waived in the interest of justice. However, without explanation or request being filed, the interest of justice weighs against waiver; therefore, we dismiss this appeal. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Terrance Patterson
The Shelby County Grand Jury indicted Appellant for aggravated arson and vandalism over $10,000.00, but below $60,000.00. At the conclusion of a jury trial, Appellant was convicted as charged. The trial court sentenced Appellant to twenty-five years as a Range I Standard Offender for the aggravated arson conviction and eight years as a Range II Multiple Offender for the vandalism conviction. The trial court also ordered these sentences to be served consecutively. Appellant now appeals these judgments arguing that: (1) there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions; (2) evidence of impeachment by prior conviction was improperly admitted; (3) the trial court improperly allowed the amendment of the indictment; and that (4) the trial court erred in enhancing the sentence and in imposing consecutive sentences. We have thoroughly reviewed the record and affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jerome Mayo
This is an appeal as of right from a conviction on a jury verdict of aggravated robbery, and an appeal by the State from the sentencing decision. The Defendant originally received an enhanced sentence of eighteen years as a Range II, multiple offender, but his sentence was subsequently reduced to fifteen years by the trial court based upon Blakely v. Washington, 124 S.Ct. 2531 (2004). On appeal, the Defendant argues there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction for aggravated robbery. The State appeals the modified sentence, arguing the trial court erred in reducing the Defendant's sentence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court as to the conviction, but remand for re-sentencing in accordance with this opinion. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jerome Mayo
We first decided this appeal in 2005. Our decision was vacated by the United States Supreme Court and the case was remanded to us for reconsideration in light of Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S. --, 127 S. Ct. 856 (2007). We requested and received supplemental briefing from the parties addressing any Cunningham issues. When this case was previously before this Court, the Defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his aggravated robbery conviction. The Defendant received an enhanced sentence of eighteen years as a Range II, multiple offender for this conviction, but the trial court subsequently reduced his sentence to fifteen years based upon Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004). Originally, the State appealed the modified sentence, arguing that the trial court erred in reducing the Defendant’s sentence, and we agreed. Upon further consideration of the matter, we conclude, and the State now concedes, that sentencing was proper and affirm the judgment in its entirety. We reissue our previous opinion as follows with a new section dealing with the Cunningham issues. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Derry Lavelle Lovins v. State of Tennessee
Following a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to twentythree years in the Department of Correction. On direct appeal, this Court affirmed his conviction. State v. Derry Lavelle Lovins, No. W2003-00309-CCA-R3-CD, 2004 WL 224482, at *1 -7 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, Feb. 4, 2004), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Mar. 5, 2007). Petitioner then filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief. Petitioner was appointed counsel and an evidentiary hearing was held. The trial court subsequently denied the petition and a timely notice of appeal was filed. After a review of the record, this Court determined that Petitioner was entitled to a delayed appeal to our supreme court pursuant to Rule 11 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. The remaining post-conviction proceedings were stayed pending the delayed appeal. On March 5, 2007, the supreme court denied Petitioner’s delayed appeal. We now address Petitioner’s remaining claims for post-conviction relief. Petitioner argues that he is entitled to post-conviction relief because (1) he received ineffective assistance of counsel, (2) his constitutional rights were violated by the State’s failure to disclose physical evidence during discovery, (3) he was prejudiced by the trial judge’s facial expressions, and (4) the jury reached a compromised verdict. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Demario Tabb
A Shelby County jury found the Appellant, Demario Tabb, guilty of the first degree felony murder of Floricelda Reynoso Ambrocio; the first degree felony murder of the unnamed, viable fetus of Floricelda Ambrocio; and the attempted aggravated robbery of Rodrigo Ramirez. At the penalty phase of the trial, the jury fixed Tabb’s punishment at life without the possibility of parole for each murder conviction. Following a separate sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Tabb to five years imprisonment for his Class C felony conviction for attempted aggravated robbery and ordered that all sentences be served concurrently. On appeal, Tabb presents the following issues for ourreview: (1) whether his statement to police should have been suppressed because it was obtained inviolation of his constitutional right to counsel; (2) whether the statement was properly admitted asrebuttal proof; and (3) “whether [the trial] court erred in its use of curative instructions to [the] jury.”Following review, we find no error and affirm the judgments of conviction. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Billy John Kimmes
The defendant was convicted by a Madison County jury of theft of property valued at $10,000 or more, a Class C felony, and sentenced to five years in prison as a Range I, standard offender. On appeal, the defendant contends that the evidence produced at trial was insufficient to support the jury’s guilty verdict, and he also contends that his sentence was excessive, both in the length of the sentence and the trial court’s failure to impose an alternative sentence. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the evidence produced at trial was sufficient to support the defendant’s conviction, and that the sentence imposed by the trial court was appropriate. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kevin Rudd
The appellant, Kevin Rudd, was indicted for the first degree murder of his wife. After a jury trial, the appellant was found guilty of first degree murder and sentenced to life in prison. On appeal, the appellant argues: (1) the trial court improperly admitted propensity evidence in violation of Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b); (2) the trial court improperly denied a mistrial; and (3) the trial court improperly denied a motion in limine to exclude testimony that indicated the appellant engaged in shooting at other people. Because we determine that the trial court improperly admitted evidence in violation of Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b), we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for a new trial. The remaining issues are without merit. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Sandra Evans
The defendant, Sandra Evans, was convicted of first degree felony murder in the perpetration of theft and voluntary manslaughter (a Class C felony). The conviction for voluntary manslaughter was merged with the felony murder conviction, and the defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal, the defendant challenges the admissibility of hearsay testimony under the exceptions for excited utterances, and medical diagnosis and treatment. The defendant also contends that certain testimony violated her right to confrontation and that the evidence, as a whole, was insufficient to support the convictions. Upon review, we reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Milica Wilson
Appellant, Milica Wilson, was indicted for one count of attempted especially aggravated robbery. After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of facilitation of attempted especially aggravated robbery. He was found not guilty of felony murder and first degree murder. As a result, Appellant was sentenced on August 13, 2003, to serve eight years as a Range II, multiple offender in the Department of Correction. Appellant filed an untimely motion for new trial on September 25, 2003. Subsequently, Appellant filed two amended motions for new trial. The trial court conducted a hearing on the motions on February 27, 2006, at the conclusion of which the trial court denied the motion for new trial. Appellant filed an untimely notice of appeal. On appeal, Appellant contends: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction; (2) the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of co-defendant Frank Dowdy as there was no corroboration of the testimony; and (3) the trial court erred in giving a jury instruction on flight. Because Appellant filed an untimely motion for new trial, which resulted in the filing of an untimely notice of appeal, we must dismiss Appellant’s appeal. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William Joe Murphy
The defendant, William Joe Murphy, was convicted by a McNairy County Jury of aggravated assault, a Class C felony. Subsequently, he was sentenced to five years in confinement as a Range I offender. On appeal, the defendant presents two issues for review: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain his conviction; and (2) whether the trial court improperly enhanced his sentence. Upon review of the full record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
McNairy | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Maurice Emery
The defendant, Maurice Emery, appeals from his Gibson County Circuit Court convictions of possession with intent to sell one-half gram or more of cocaine, a Class B felony, possession of marijuana, a Class A misdemeanor, and possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor. See T.C.A. §§ 39-17-417, -418, -425. The defendant, a Range II multiple offender, is serving an effective twelve-year sentence in the Department of Correction for these convictions. He claims (1) that the trial court erred in denying his motion to sever his case from that of his co-defendant, (2) that his arrest was not supported by probable cause, and (3) that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. We hold that the defendant is not entitled to relief and affirm. |
Gibson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Cornell Poe v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Cornell Poe, proceeding pro se, appeals the Madison County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. In February 2006, the Petitioner filed a petition for postconviction relief collaterally attacking his convictions for aggravated burglary and Class D felony theft. The post-conviction court appointed counsel, and counsel filed an amended petition. Following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. Because the record before this court fails to indicate that the Petitioner’s court-appointed counsel was allowed to withdraw or that the Petitioner has waived his right to counsel on appeal, the judgment of the post-conviction court is vacated, and this case is remanded to the post-conviction court for reinstatement of the order denying post-conviction relief. Appointed counsel shall continue in her representation of the Petitioner on appeal, and the case shall proceed in accordance with the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Larry Davis
This is a delayed appeal from a conviction for driving under the influence of an intoxicant (DUI). For this conviction, the Defendant, Larry Davis, received a sentence of eleven months and twentynine days in the Shelby County Workhouse. In this appeal, the Defendant raises several issues relating to the sufficiency of the evidence, focusing on whether the evidence was sufficient for the jury to determine that he was driving on a public road. The Defendant also contends that the State committed prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument by relating the complete language of the DUI statute to the jury, including driving in an apartment house complex. The Defendant also alleges error by the trial court’s failure to take curative action after the State’s comments. Finally, the Defendant argues that his arrest was not supported by probable cause because the misdemeanor offense was not committed in the officer’s presence. Following a review of the record, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support the Defendant’s conviction for DUI and that the Defendant’s remaining issues are waived. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Robert Austin
A Shelby County jury found the Appellant, Robert Austin, guilty of two counts of first degree premeditated murder and one count of criminal attempt to commit first degree premeditated murder. Following the penalty phase of the trial, the jury sentenced Austin to two terms of life imprisonment without parole. At a subsequent sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Austin to forty years, as a Range II offender, for the attempted first degree murder and ordered that all of his sentences run consecutively. On appeal, Austin presents the following issues: (1) whether the trial court erred in disallowing expert testimony regarding Austin’s capacity to form the requisite intent for intentional or knowing offenses; (2) whether the evidence is sufficient to support the convictions; and (3) whether the trial court erred in ordering consecutive sentencing. With regard to issue (1), we conclude that the trial court erred in excluding expert testimony; however, the error was harmless. The remaining issues are without merit. Accordingly, the judgments of conviction and the imposition of consecutive sentences are affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Roy R. Williams v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Roy R. Williams, appeals the post-conviction court’s order dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief. The Petitioner argues that his conviction for murder during the perpetration of a felony should be set aside because his trial attorneys failed to properly investigate a possible insanity defense and because they coerced him to plead guilty by making him fearful of receiving the death penalty. Following our review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s order of dismissal. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jimmie Lee Hoyle v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Jimmie Lee Hoyle, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that it was error for the post-conviction court to deny relief without holding an evidentiary hearing, allowing him to amend his petition, or appointing counsel. Following our review, we conclude that the Petitioner stated a colorable claim in his petition. Accordingly, we reverse the post-conviction court’s order of dismissal and remand for further proceedings. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Randall Carver v. Tony Parker, Warden
Petitioner, Randall Carver, filed a pro se petition for writ of error coram nobis and/or habeas corpus relief. The trial court treated the petition as one for post-conviction and summarily dismissed the petition. On appeal, this Court affirmed the post-conviction court’s dismissal of the petition. See Randall Carver v. State, No. M2002-02891-CCA-R3-CO, 2003 WL 21145572 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, May 16, 2003). Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, alleging numerous claims for relief. The trial court denied the petition without a hearing, determining that because Petitioner failed to produce material to the court for consideration and that because Petitioner was being held by the State of Kentucky on Kentucky charges all of Petitioner’s issues were moot. Petitioner appealed. On appeal, this Court, without reaching the merits of Petitioner’s argument, remanded the case for determination of “why the counsel who represented the petitioner in the lower court is not representing the petitioner on appeal.” See Randall Carver v. Tony Parker, Warden, No. W2005-00522-CCA-R3-HC, 2006 WL 140408, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, Jan. 18, 2006). On remand, the trial court learned that Petitioner had been granted parole on his underlying sentences in the State of Tennessee, waived extradition and was transferred to the custody of the State of Kentucky. Subsequently, the trial court entered an order denying the petition for writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner filed a timely notice of appeal. He argues that he is entitled to request habeas corpus relief while being incarcerated in Kentucky and that this Court should transfer the petition to the court in which he was originally convicted. Because an out-of-state resident may seek habeas corpus relief in Tennessee from a Tennessee conviction, see State v. Church, 987 S.W.2d 855, 857-58 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998), and the supreme court recently determined in Joseph |
Lake | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Gamal Edham
The Defendant, Gamal Edham, appeals the trial court’s order denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea to one count of selling beer to a minor, arguing that because of his limited ability to understand English, his guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Margie Frances Hamby
A Blount County jury convicted the defendant, Margie Frances Hamby, of attempted theft of property valued under $500, and the trial court sentenced her to six months, with thirty days in jail and the balance to be served on supervised probation. On appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court erred in not granting her full probation. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William Joshua Harwood
The defendant, William Joshua Harwood, appeals as of right from his Hamilton County Criminal Court convictions for attempt to manufacture methamphetamine and two counts of theft of property valued at over one thousand dollars. On appeal, he argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions because they are based upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. The state concedes in its brief that the convictions should be reversed and dismissed for this reason. Following our review, we agree. Accordingly, the convictions are reversed and dismissed. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Robert S. Barnes
Following a jury trial, the petitioner, Robert S. Barnes, was convicted of reckless endangerment, attempted rape, robbery, aggravated burglary, and assault. For his convictions, the petitioner was sentenced as a career offender to an effective sentence of forty-five years for the felony convictions, plus consecutive sentences of eleven months and twenty-nine days for each of the two misdemeanor convictions. On direct appeal, this court affirmed the judgments of the trial court. State v. Robert Sanford Barnes, No. W2003-02967-CCA-R3-CD, 2005 WL 331376 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, Feb. 11, 2005). The petitioner filed a timely petition for post-conviction relief which the postconviction court subsequently denied after an evidentiary hearing. The petitioner now appeals. In this appeal, the petitioner contends that his trial counsel was ineffective. Following a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Neil Lincoln Miller v. Howard Carlton, Warden
The petitioner, Neil Lincoln Miller, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief. He contends that his sentence is illegal. Because the record and law establish that the petitioner is not entitled to habeas corpus relief, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Johnson | Court of Criminal Appeals |
