State of Tennessee v. Felicia Ann Lowery
The defendant, Felicia Ann Lowery, pled guilty to aggravated burglary, a Class C felony, and was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to six years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying her alternative sentencing or probation. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hardin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Kelley
The defendant, James Kelley, was convicted of reckless driving, a Class B misdemeanor, at a bench trial in the Shelby County Criminal Court. He was given a six-month sentence, of which he was ordered to serve thirty days in the workhouse. He appeals, claiming the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Devin Banks
A Shelby County jury found the Appellant, Devin Banks, guilty of the first degree premeditated murder of Kadhem Al-Maily and the Class A felonies of criminal attempt to commit first degree murder and especially aggravated robbery of Hussain Atilebawi. Following the penalty phase hearing, the jury found the presence of two statutory aggravating circumstances and imposed the sentence of death. In a separate sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Banks to twenty-five years for each of the Class A felonies and ordered them to be served consecutively to one another and to the sentence of death. Banks now seeks review by this court of both his convictions and resulting sentences, presenting the following issues for review: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain his convictions; (2) whether the trial court erred in admitting a photograph of the surviving victim; (3) whether the trial court erred in admitting Banks’ statements absent a ruling on the motion to suppress; (4) whether the trial court erred in admitting hearsay statements made by the victim; (5) whether the trial court failed to properly certify the Arabic translator; (6) whether the trial court failed to properly instruct the jury as to lesser included offenses; (7) whether the indictment failed to charge a capital offense; (8) whether the victim impact jury instruction was coercive; (9) whether the closing argument by the prosecutor was improper; (10) whether the sentences for the non-capital offenses are excessive; (11) whether Tennessee’s death penalty statutes are constitutional; and (12) whether the death sentence in this case is disproportionate to death sentences in other cases. Following review, we affirm Banks’ convictions for first degree murder, criminal attempt to commit first degree murder, and especially aggravated robbery. His sentences for the Class A felony convictions are also affirmed. We further conclude that the evidence does not support application of the (i)(6) statutory aggravating circumstance. and the sentence of death is affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joshua Eugene Anderson
A Knox County Criminal Court jury convicted the defendant, Joshua Eugene Anderson, of eight offenses involving victims Sampson Jonathan McGhee (“McGhee”) and George England (“England”). The convictions were: (1) first degree premeditated murder of McGhee; (2) felony murder (robbery) of McGhee; (3) felony murder (theft) of McGhee; (4) attempted especially aggravated robbery (by violence) of McGhee; (5) attempted especially aggravated robbery (by putting in fear) of McGhee; (6) attempted first degree murder of England; (7) attempted aggravated robbery (by violence) of England; and (8) attempted aggravated robbery (by putting in fear) of England. The trial court properly merged certain offenses and sentenced the defendant to serve an effective 25-year sentence in the Department of Correction consecutively to the life-without-parole sentence imposed by the jury. The defendant appeals on several grounds, including whether the trial court erred in: (1) failing to suppress the evidence that resulted from the warrantless search of the defendant’s home; (2) failing to suppress the defendant’s statement to police; (3) denying defendant’s motion to dismiss when the State failed to preserve his entire statement; (4) failing to exclude the defendant’s recorded statement when the entire statement could not be entered into evidence; (5) denying a new trial due to prosecutorial misconduct; and (6) declining to answer the jury’s question regarding the consequences of not reaching a unanimous verdict at sentencing. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Hugh Williams v. State of Tennessee
In 2005, the petitioner pled guilty to second degree murder and conspiracy to commit first degree murder and received an effective sentence of fifty years. Subsequently, he filed a timely pro se petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that his plea of guilty to the latter offense was unknowing and involuntary and that counsel who had represented him at the time of the plea was ineffective. Following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court dismissed the petition and this appeal followed. We affirm the dismissal. |
Greene | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Billy Harris v. State of Tennessee
The pro se petitioner, Billy Harris, appeals the summary dismissal of his pro se petition for postconviction relief, arguing that he was entitled to the appointment of counsel and an evidentiary hearing. Following our review, we reverse the judgment of the post-conviction court and remand for the appointment of counsel. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Dennis Pylant v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Dennis Pylant, appeals the denial of post-conviction relief by the Cheatham County Circuit Court after an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, the petitioner contends the trial court erred in: (1) suppressing hearsay testimony; (2) finding trial counsel effective; and (3) denying relief based on the cumulative effect of the alleged errors. After careful review, we affirm the postconviction court’s denial of relief. |
Cheatham | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Dennis Pylant v. State of Tennessee - Dissenting
The circumstances of the present case are unusual and demand an unusually circumspect analysis of the axioms of post-conviction review. The petitioner, who is serving a life sentence for first degree murder, declined a plea offer of three years as a Range I offender for reckless homicide based upon counsel’s advice to go to trial and pursue an “all or nothing” strategy. Although I do not quarrel per se with counsel’s recommendation in this respect, I do point to counsel’s failure to exploit at trial the indications of Ms. Davis’s sole responsibility for the victim’s death, and I view the failure as deficient performance of counsel that prejudiced the petitioner. Therefore, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s holding that the petitioner failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel. |
Cheatham | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Samuel L. Mangrum
The Defendant, Samuel L. Mangrum, was convicted by a Williamson County jury of driving under the influence, second offense. On appeal, he alleges the trial court erred in not declaring a mistrial after he objected to a portion of the videotaped stop that was played for the jury. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we find no error and affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Marquette Houston
The defendant, Marquette Houston, appeals as of right from his conviction of second degree murder for which he received a twenty-five-year sentence as a violent offender. In this appeal, the defendant contends that: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction; (2) the trial court erred in denying the admission of first aggressor evidence; (3) the trial court erred in admitting the defendant’s statement to police; and (4) the trial court erred in imposing an excessive sentence. Following our review of the record, parties’ briefs and applicable law, we affirm the defendant’s convictions. However, we vacate the sentence imposed by the trial court and remand this case for resentencing under the 1989 Sentencing Act with consideration of the constitutional restrictions upon enhancing the defendant’s sentence above the presumptive minimum. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James D. West v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, James D. West, appeals from the Madison County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. The petitioner claimed in his petition that he was entitled to relief from the state’s incarcerating him following an eleven-year delay in execution of his sentence. We hold that the petitioner stated a cognizable claim for post-conviction relief, reverse the trial court’s dismissal, and remand for appointment of counsel and a hearing on the allegations. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Donald D. Mathis a.k.a Michael D. Mathis a.k.a. Michael Lee Dixon
The defendant, Donald D. Mathis a.k.a. Michael D. Mathis a.k.a. Michael Lee Dixon, was convicted of robbery (Class C felony) by a Davidson County jury and was subsequently sentenced to serve fifteen years in the Tennessee Department of Correction as a Range III, persistent offender. On appeal he contends that: (1) there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction; (2) the trial court erred in not suppressing his confession to police; (3) the trial court erred in allowing introduction of a surveillance photo; (4) the trial court erred in denying a requested jury charge; (5) the trial court erred in approving the jury verdict as the thirteenth juror; and (6) the trial court erred in sentencing the defendant to the maximum within his range. After careful review, we find no error and affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. June LeeAnn Franks
The Defendant, June Leeann Franks, pled guilty to statutory rape. Her request for judicial diversion was denied by the trial court, who sentenced her to fifteen months to be served on probation. She appeals that decision. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Giles | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Atoya L. Every and Charlie Letez Fleming
The defendants, Atoya L. Every and Charlie Letez Fleming, were indicted for felony murder in the perpetration of aggravated child neglect resulting in the death of the two-year-old victim, Amber Cox Cody. A jury convicted the defendants of misdemeanor reckless endangerment (Class A misdemeanor). Both defendants were sentenced to eleven months and twenty-nine days. Defendant Every was placed on full probation. Defendant Fleming was sentenced to serve six weeks, with the remainder on probation. The defendants’ appeals of their convictions have been consolidated. Defendant Every poses two issues: 1) whether misdemeanor reckless endangerment is a lesser included offense of first degree murder in the perpetration of aggravated child abuse; and (2) whether the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction. Defendant Fleming contends that the trial court erred in its failure to grant (1) his pretrial motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action; and (2) his motion for judgment of acquittal for failure to “present sufficient facts to constitute felony murder.” After review, we affirm the defendants’ judgments of conviction. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Carl McIntosh v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Carl McIntosh, was convicted of one count of selling 0.5 gram or more of cocaine(Class B felony), one count of delivering 0.5 gram of cocaine (Class B felony), and two counts of simple possession (Class A misdemeanor). The convictions for selling and delivery were merged, and the counts of simple possession were merged. He was sentenced to twelve years in the Department of Correction for the Class B felony and to eleven months and twenty-nine days for the Class A misdemeanor, to be served consecutively to the Class B felony for a total effective sentence of twelve years, eleven months, and twenty-nine days. He appealed, and a panel of this court affirmed his convictions. State v. Carl McIntosh, No. W2003-02359-CCA-R3-CD, 2005 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 303, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Jackson, Mar. 30, 2005), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Aug. 29, 2005). Here, he appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of relief and contends that trial counsel was ineffective. The petitioner specifically contends that counsel did not meet with him prior to trial, failed to adequately investigate the confidential informant, failed to discuss the petitioner’s testimony with him prior to trial, and failed to object to a Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (TBI) forensic report used at trial. After review, we affirm the judgment from the postconviction court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Arthur Pirtle
In May 2005, the defendant, Arthur Pirtle, was indicted by a Marshall County grand jury on one count of possession of more than .5 gram of a Schedule II Controlled Substance (cocaine), a Class B felony, and one count of Simple Possession, a Class A misdemeanor. In June 2006, a jury trial was held in Marshall County Circuit Court. At the conclusion of the trial, the defendant was convicted of possession of a Schedule II controlled substance but acquitted on the simple possession charge. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the defendant to twenty-seven years in prison as a Range III, persistent offender. On appeal, the defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore affirm the ruling of the trial court. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Marquerite L. Tibbs
Defendant, Marquerite L. Tibbs, was charged with two counts of vehicular homicide, one count of possession of marijuana, and one count of driving on a revoked license. Each count of vehicular homicide involved the same victim, but alleged different theories of guilt. On February 16, 2005, Defendant pled guilty to one count of vehicular homicide and one count of possession of marijuana. In exchange for her plea, Defendant received eight years for the vehicular homicide conviction and eleven months, twenty nine days for the possession conviction, with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. An order of nolle prosequi was entered as to the remaining counts of vehicular homicide and driving on a revoked license. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Defendant to serve eight years in the Department of Correction for the vehicular homicide conviction and eleven months, twenty-nine days for the possession conviction, to be served concurrently. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying alternative sentencing. After a thorough review of the record, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for resentencing. |
Giles | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Mack Tremaine Jones
Following a jury trial, Defendant, Mack Jones, was convicted of one count of first degree murder and nine counts of attempted first degree murder. Defendant was sentenced to life in prison for the first degree murder conviction and twenty-two years for each of the nine counts of attempted first degree murder, with all sentences to be served concurrently. Defendant filed a motion for new trial which the trial court subsequently denied. In this appeal, Defendant argues that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support Defendant’s convictions for first degree murder and attempted first degree murder, and (2) the trial court erred in admitting evidence of ammunition discovered from Defendant’s residence; admitting testimony that the photo line up contained a “juvenile photo” of Defendant; and excluding testimony that Defendant received a social security disability stipend and had difficulty counting money. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Robert Franklin Delzell, III
The defendant, Robert Franklin Delzell, III, appeals from the judgment of the Stewart County Circuit Court, revoking his community corrections sentence and imposing confinement. Following our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Stewart | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Tyrone A. Walker v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Tyrone A. Walker, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that his guilty pleas were unknowing and involuntary and that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request an independent psychological examination. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition. |
Fayette | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jasper L. Vick
The defendant, Jasper L. Vick, appeals his sentencing classification as a Range II offender, arguing that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the criminal conduct leading to his South Carolina conviction for aggravated assault of a high and aggravated nature would have constituted a Class C felony in Tennessee. Following our review, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for the defendant to be sentenced as a Range I offender. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Chester Floyd Cole v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Chester Floyd Cole, appeals the denial of his motion to reopen his post-conviction petition, arguing that newly discovered evidence of his rape victim’s medical examination would have altered the outcome of his trial. Following our review, we dismiss the appeal. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Eldridge Hill
The defendant, Eldridge Hill, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of especially aggravated robbery, a Class A felony, and sentenced by the trial court as a violent offender to sixteen years at 100% in the Department of Correction. The sole issue he raises on appeal is whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain his conviction. Specifically, he argues that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his robbery victim suffered a serious bodily injury. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Anthony Allen
The defendant, Anthony Allen, was convicted in 2002 of seven counts of aggravated robbery, eight counts of aggravated rape, and one count of facilitation of aggravated rape which the trial court merged with one of the rape convictions, and received an effective sentence of 124 years. In State v. Anthony Allen, No. W2004-01085-CCA-R3-CD, 2005 WL 1606350, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. July 8, 2005), perm. to appeal denied (Tenn. Dec. 19, 2005), this court reversed one of the convictions for aggravated rape, remanding it for a new trial, and affirmed all of the remaining convictions but remanded the matter for a new sentencing hearing to determine whether consecutive sentencing was appropriate. Following the reconsideration by the trial court and the defendant’s being sentenced to an effective sentence of 104 years, the defendant appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in finding that he was a dangerous offender and that his criminal activity was extensive. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Anthony Tyrone Robertson
The Defendant, Anthony Tyrone Robertson, appeals from the order of the Montgomery County Circuit Court revoking his probation. In July of 2000, the Defendant pled guilty to sexual battery and received a six-year sentence as a Range III, persistent offender. The sentence was suspended following service of one year in the county jail, and the Defendant was placed on probation. On July 16, 2004, a warrant was issued, wherein it was alleged that the Defendant violated the conditions of his probation. The warrant was twice amended to include additional violations. After a hearing, the trial court concluded that the Defendant violated the conditions of his probationary sentence and ordered that his original six-year sentence to the Department of Correction be reinstated. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his probation and ordering that the remainder of his sentence be served in confinement. After a review of the record, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals |
