George T. Haynie, Jr. v. Ricky Bell, Warden, and the State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, George T. Haynie, Jr., appeals the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The Petitioner, serving a sentence of nine years for two convictions for passing worthless checks, alleges that his judgments of conviction are void because (1) the affidavit in support of the arrest warrant failed to disclose that the Petitioner had made partial payment towards the debt, (2) the indictment failed to make any reference to written notice, (3) accepting partial payment from the Petitioner constituted an election to pursue the matter civilly, and (4) the State engaged in prosecutorial misconduct. After a review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Calvin Lewis Hill v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Calvin Lewis Hill, was convicted of car jacking, theft of property valued over $1000.00, and forgery, and his convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. He petitioned for post-conviction relief claiming that he had received the ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. The post-conviction court dismissed the post-conviction petition, and we affirm that judgment. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Joey Salcido v. State of Tennessee
Wayne County- The Petitioner, Joey Salcido, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The habeas court denied relief, and the Petitioner filed a timely notice of appeal. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the habeas corpus court erred because: (1) the trial court lacked jurisdiction to convict him because of a defective indictment; and (2) the delay in the disposition of his post-conviction petition has deprived him of due process of law. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the habeas court. |
Wayne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jeremy Wayne Pittard v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Jeremy Wayne Pittard, was indicted on one count of rape of a child, a Class A felony. Petitioner entered a best interest plea to the offense of attempted rape of a child, a Class B felony, and agreed to a sentence of twelve years as a Range I standard offender. Petitioner argues on appeal that the trial court erred in denying him post-conviction relief. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William Thomas Heckart
The defendant, William Thomas Heckart, pled guilty in the Sullivan County Criminal Court to reckless endangerment, a Class E felony; two counts of aggravated assault, a Class C felony; misdemeanor violation of the sex offender registry, a Class A misdemeanor; and felony violation of the sex offender registry, a Class E felony, and was sentenced as a Range I offender to an effective six-year sentence in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in denying his request for probation or other alternative sentencing. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court but remand for entry of a corrected judgment form in count two of case number S50,856 to reflect that the conviction offense was a Class C felony. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Betty Chumbley
The defendant, Betty R. Chumbley, pled guilty to two counts of theft between $10,000 and $60,000, a Class C felony; three counts of official misconduct, a Class E felony; and one count of destruction of and tampering with governmental records, a Class A misdemeanor. The theft counts were merged and the official misconduct counts were merged. She received an effective five-year sentence on probation. On appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying her judicial diversion. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Rashad Jamal Chandler v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Rashad Jamal Chandler, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his conviction for first degree premeditated murder and resulting life sentence. He contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial attorney (1) failed to interview witnesses who would have helped his case and (2) should have argued a different theory of defense. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of the petition for post-conviction relief. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Carri Chandler Lane v. State of Tennessee - Dissenting
I am, respectfully, unable to join in the majority’s reversal of the trial court’s denial of the Appellant’s motion to modify court-ordered restitution. The majority notes, and I completely agree, that there is no proper avenue of appeal to this Court via Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(b). However, in my view, this case is not a proper application of the Court’s power to grant a writ of certiorari. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Carri Chandler Lane v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant, Carri Chandler Lane, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of her motion to modify court-ordered restitution. The State responds that the denial of a request to modify restitution is not appealable under Tenn. R. App. P. 3(b), and, even if appealable, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. While we agree that Rule 3(b) does not provide for an appeal as of right from a trial court’s denial of a motion to modify restitution, we, nonetheless, conclude that the Appellant’s issues are entitled to a review as the appeal may be treated as a writ of certiorari. See T.C.A. § 27-8-101 (2006). After review of the Appellant’s motion on the merits, we conclude that material changes in circumstances have occurred since the order and, further, that it would be unjust to require adherence to the restitution order currently in effect. Accordingly, the trial court’s order denying modification is reversed, and this case is remanded for a hearing to determine, following consideration of the Appellant’s present financial resources and her future ability to pay or perform, the proper amount and method of payment of restitution to be made. See T.C.A. § 40-35-304(d) (2006). |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Latarsha R. Wheeler
The defendant, Latarsha R. Wheeler, was convicted of theft of property valued at $1,000 or more, but less than $10,000, a Class D felony, for money stolen from her employer, Back Yard Burgers. See T.C.A. § 39-14-105(3). The defendant was sentenced as a Range I offender to three years with forty days of periodic confinement in the workhouse coupled with probation. In this appeal, we consider her claims of error due to insufficient corroboration of accomplice testimony, lack of a jury charge on facilitation, denial of judicial diversion, and error in imposing the amount of restitution. We hold that the trial court did not err and affirm its judgment. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Hollis G. Williams v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Hollis G. Williams, who is serving a life sentence without possibility of parole for first degree murder, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for postconviction relief and motion to reopen his prior post-conviction proceedings. We hold that we are without jurisdiction to consider the petitioner’s appeal from the trial court’s denial of the motion to reopen. We also hold that we have jurisdiction to consider the trial court’s denial of relief on the petitioner’s other post-conviction claims, and we affirm its judgment on those claims. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joshua Glenn Trivette
The defendant, Joshua Glenn Trivette, pled guilty to two counts of auto burglary, theft over $1000, five counts of vandalism over $1000, vandalism over $500, felony evading arrest, driving under the influence, driving on a revoked license stemming from one indictment (Case No. S50,046), and to driving on a revoked license second offense, violation of the seat belt law, and failure to provide proof of financial responsibility from a separate indictment (Case No. S50,045), with the trial court to determine the length and manner of service. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a sentence of eleven months, twenty-nine days in Case No. S50,045 and an effective six-year sentence in Case No. S50,046, to be served consecutively in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court erred by misapplying enhancement and mitigating factors, ordering consecutive sentences, and denying an alternative sentence. After careful review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Keith D. Williams
The defendant, Keith D. Williams, entered guilty pleas in the Criminal Court of Davidson County to sale of cocaine in an amount less that .5 grams in case number 2005-C-1660 and to sale of cocaine in an amount less than .5 grams in case number 2005-C-2147. He was sentenced to six years as a Range II, multiple offender for each count, to be served consecutively, for a total effective sentence of twelve years. The trial court ordered split confinement with the bulk of the defendant’s sentences to be served in the community corrections program. The defendant served a mere eleven days of his community corrections sentence when he was charged with violating the terms of his community corrections sentence. After a full hearing, the trial court found that the defendant had violated the terms of his community corrections sentence, revoked the sentence and resentenced the defendant to a term of eighteen years as a Range II, multiple offender to be served in the custody of the Department of Corrections. The defendant now appeals the revocation and resentencing. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Caroline White
The appellant, Caroline White,1 pled guilty to aggravated assault and robbery, and she received a total effective sentence of three years intensive probation. Subsequently, the trial court revoked the appellant’s probation and ordered her to serve her sentence in confinement. On appeal, the appellant challenges the revocation and argues that she should have been given another probationary sentence. Upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Chester | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Brandon Mobley
The Defendant, Brandon Mobley, was convicted by a Knox County jury of two counts of first degree murder, especially aggravated robbery, and setting fire to personal property, and the trial court sentenced him to two consecutive life sentences plus twenty-two years. On appeal, he alleges: (1) there is insufficient evidence upon which to convict him on either count of first-degree murder; (2) there is insufficient evidence upon which to convict him of especially aggravated robbery; (3) the trial court erred in initially prohibiting testimony from a defense expert, which caused a violation of his Fifth Amendment rights; and (4) the trial court erred in sentencing him. After reviewing the record and applicable law, we affirm the Defendant’s convictions, but we conclude the Defendant was improperly sentenced. Thus, we modify the Defendant’s sentences for his convictions for especially aggravated robbery and setting fire to personal property from twenty to eighteen years and from two years to one year, respectively. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kamiko T. Clark
A Davidson County jury convicted the Defendant, Kamiko T. Clark, of six counts of child abuse, a class A misdemeanor. On appeal, the Defendant alleges that the trial court erred when it: (1) allowed her statement to the police into evidence; (2) refused to merge her three child abuse convictions for each victim into one conviction for each victim; and (3) imposed sentences that were consecutive and involved partial confinement. Following review, the judgments of conviction are affirmed. However, because the trial court failed to make findings of fact with regard to consecutive sentencing, we remand the case to the trial court for a determination of whether consecutive sentencing is warranted in this case. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joann Craddick
The Defendant, Joann Craddick, pled guilty to two counts of vehicular assault, and the trial court sentenced her to concurrent two year sentences for each conviction, with eight months to be served in jail, followed by supervised probation. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it denied her full probation. Concluding that there exists no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Hickman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Eric Lumpkins
The defendant, Eric Lumpkins, appeals from his Shelby County Criminal Court jury convictions of first degree murder, attempt to commit first degree murder, and two counts of aggravated assault. He challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence, the selection of the trial jury, the admission and exclusion of evidence, prosecutorial remarks made during closing argument, and his aggregate sentence of life plus ten years. We hold, inter alia, that the convicting evidence is legally sufficient and, in so holding, decline to apply the physical facts rule, and we hold that consecutive sentencing may be imposed by the trial judge without the participation of a jury. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tommy L. Holmes
The defendant, Tommy L. Holmes, was convicted of aggravated rape, a Class A felony, and sentenced as a violent offender to twenty-four years in the Department of Correction. He presents six issues on appeal: (1) whether he forfeited his right to counsel; (2) whether the jury was properly instructed on lesser-included offenses; (3) whether the evidence was sufficient to establish the bodily injury element of aggravated rape; (4) whether the trial court erred in answering the jury’s question regarding what constitutes bodily injury; (5) whether there was prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument; and (6) whether the trial court erred by excluding certain evidence the defendant offered. Following our review, we conclude that his claims are without merit. However, we additionally conclude that, before determining that the defendant had forfeited his right to counsel, the trial court should have conducted an evidentiary hearing. Accordingly, we remand to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing as to this claim. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Howard Lee Coleman v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant, Howard Lee Coleman, appeals the judgment of the Shelby County Criminal Court denying post-conviction relief. Coleman was convicted of first degree murder and especially aggravated robbery and was sentenced by the jury to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. He also received a concurrent sentence of twenty years for his especially aggravated robbery conviction. Coleman filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief in 2001, alleging multiple deficiencies underlying his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, including the failure to perfect a direct appeal of his convictions. After the appointment of counsel, the post-conviction court heard evidence on all the allegations and granted a Rule 3 delayed appeal to this court. The remaining post-conviction issues were stayed pending the outcome of the appeal, which was subsequently denied. Following the denial of second tier review, Coleman, proceeding pro se, filed an amended post-conviction petition in 2005. The attorney appointed to represent Coleman in his post-conviction challenge was the same attorney appointed to him in the direct appeal of the case. The postconviction court subsequently denied post-conviction relief. On appeal, Coleman argues that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel, specifically arguing that trial counsel was ineffective by failing to properly investigate and prepare the case. Following review, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed with regard to all allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. However, plain error review of the record reveals an actual conflict of interest in that counsel appointed to perfect the direct appeal was also appointed to represent the Appellant in the amended portion of the post-conviction proceeding. Because the |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Edmund Zagorski vs. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Edmund George Zagorski, appeals from the dismissal of his post-conviction relief petition. He was previously convicted of two (2) counts of first degree murder and sentenced to death by electrocution. Zagorski contends the trial court erred in dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief and presents to this Court the following issues for review: (1) whether the jury charge on the “heinous, atrocious or cruel” aggravating circumstance was unconstitutional; (2) whether he received effective assistance of counsel regarding the motion to suppress his statements; (3) whether he received effective assistance of counsel due to the failure of counsel to present mitigating evidence at his sentencing hearing; (4) whether the trial court’s denial of certain expert services and the failure of trial counsel to request other expert services violated his constitutional rights; and (5) whether the state withheld exculpatory evidence from trial counsel. Finding that the petition for post-conviction relief was properly dismissed, we AFFIRM the judgment of the trial court. |
Robertson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Rod Mills
In January 2004, a Sevier County grand jury indicted the defendant, Rod Mills, on one count of theft over $10,000, a Class C felony. The defendant waived his right to a jury trial. In May 2006, a bench trial was held and the defendant was found guilty on the sole count of the indictment. The trial court sentenced the defendant to five years in prison as a Range I, standard offender. The defendant appeals, alleging that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. We conclude that the evidence was insufficient to prove that the defendant possessed the requisite mental state and therefore reverse the judgment of the trial court and dismiss the case. |
Sevier | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Daniel Lynn Owens v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Daniel Lynn Owen, pled guilty to arson (Class A felony) and setting fire to personal property (Class E felony), agreeing to a concurrent sentence of ten years for arson and two years for setting fire to personal property, as a Range II, multiple offender. The original judgment incorrectly listed the conviction for arson as a Class B felony rather than a Class C felony, and the trial court later amended the judgment to correctly indicate the petitioner had been convicted of a Class C felony. The petitioner filed this appeal to contest the amended judgment. We conclude that correcting a clerical mistake does not trigger a Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 3 appeal as of right. No error exists, and the appeal is dismissed. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Carlos Sommerville v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Carlos Sommerville, was convicted of first degree felony murder, second degree murder, and attempted first degree murder. The murders were merged, and the petitioner is serving an effective life sentence. The petitioner appeals from the trial court’s summary dismissal of his post-conviction petition. He contends his petition contained an allegation of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, which should have protected the petition from summary dismissal. After review, we conclude the post-conviction court improperly summarily dismissed the petition because it did state a basis to support the petitioner’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Frank Brzezowski
The defendant, Frank Brzezowski, was convicted of two counts of aggravated assault and three counts of aggravated rape and was sentenced to an effective term of twenty-two years to be served at 100%. On appeal, he argues that: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; (2) the trial court erred in denying his motion for new trial; and (3) the trial court erred in its sentencing determination. Upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the defendant’s convictions, but remand for a new sentencing hearing. |
Benton | Court of Criminal Appeals |
