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. Maurice Leonard and Kenneth Shondale Mason
In this consolidated appeal, the Appellants, Maurice Leonard and Kenneth Shondale Mason, appeal their convictions by a Bedford County jury. Following a joint trial, Leonard and Mason were convicted of aggravated burglary, attempted robbery, assault, and false imprisonment. As a result of these convictions, Leonard received an effective sentence of four years, as a Range I offender, and Mason received an effective sentence of sixteen years as a Range II offender. On appeal, Leonard and Mason each raise two issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to support the convictions; and (2) whether the sentences imposed by the trial court are excessive. Following review, we affirm the judgments of conviction and resulting sentences. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
William H. Stitts v. State of Tennessee
Aggrieved of his robbery convictions, the petitioner, William H. Stitts, sought post-conviction relief, which was denied by the Circuit Court of Madison County after an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, the petitioner presses his claim that appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to ensure that a trial exhibit, a videotape of one of the robberies, was included in the appellate record on direct appeal. We affirm the denial of post-conviction relief. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Eric Maxie
Indicted for rape of a child, the defendant, Eric Maxie, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of aggravated sexual battery. He appeals and challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. Because the record supports the jury’s verdict, we affirm the conviction. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Michael Henderson v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Michael Henderson, 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 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. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher W. Norwood
The defendant, Christopher W. Norwood, was convicted by a Williamson County jury of conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery, a Class C felony, and evading arrest, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court imposed a sentence of 2.7 years as a mitigated offender to be served on probation after the service of sixty days incarceration for the conspiracy offense and a concurrent sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days for the evading arrest offense. The defendant argues on appeal that the trial court abused its discretion in denying him judicial diversion. Upon a full review of the record, arguments of counsel and applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kascey Marquis Campbell
A Shelby County jury convicted the Defendant, Kascey Marquis Campbell, of first degree premeditated murder, two counts felony murder, robbery, and aggravated burglary. On appeal, he contends that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions and that he acted under duress. Finding no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Johnny Baxter
The defendant, Johnny Baxter, was convicted by a McMinn County jury of rape of a child, a Class A felony, for which he received a sentence of twenty years in the Department of Correction. In this appeal, he argues that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction, that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on child abuse as a lesser included offense, and that the trial court failed to account for mitigating proof in its sentencing determination. We hold that no error exists, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
McMinn | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tommy Lee Henry
The defendant, Tommy Lee Henry, was convicted by a Sullivan County jury of tampering with evidence, a Class C felony, and a third offense of possession of cocaine, a Class E felony. The defendant was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to four years for the tampering conviction and two years for the possession conviction to be served concurrently in the Department of Correction. In this appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. He claims that the police illegally detained him when they found him inside a parked car with two other individuals in a high-crime area at approximately 3:00 a.m. and that they illegally seized evidence during the detention. We hold that the trial court properly denied the motion, and we affirm its judgments. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Donnie E. Johnson v. State of Tennessee
In 1985, the Petitioner, Donnie E. Johnson, was convicted of the first degree murder of his wife, Connie Johnson. See State v. Johnson, 734 S.W.2d 154, 155 (Tenn. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 994, 108 S. Ct. 1303 (1988). The jury imposed and the trial court approved a sentence of death. Id. The conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal by both the Court of Criminal Appeals and the Tennessee Supreme Court. The Petitioner later sought post-conviction relief, which was unsuccessful. See Donnie E. Johnson v. State, No. 02C01-9111-CR-00237, 1997 WL 141887, at * 1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, Mar. 27, 1997), perm. to appeal denied, (Tenn. Sept. 8, 1997); Donnie Edward Johnson v. State, No. 02C01-9111-CR-00237, 1995 WL 603159 (Tenn., Oct. 9, 1995); Donnie Edward Johnson v. State, No. 02C01-9111-CR-00237, 1994 WL 90483, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, Mar. 23, 1994); Donnie Edward Johnson v. State, No. 02-S-01-9207-CR- 00041, 1993 WL 61728, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, Mar. 8, 1993). On June 9, 2006, Petitioner Johnson filed a petition to compel testing of biological evidence as provided by the Post- Conviction DNA Analysis Act of 2001. The post-conviction court denied the petition on October 9, 2006. Upon review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Eric D. Wallace v. Stephen Dotson, Warden
The petitioner, Eric D. Wallace, appeals from the circuit court’s summary dismissal of his second pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus. Following our review of the parties’ briefs and applicable law, we affirm the circuit court’s judgment. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Heath Baldwin
The defendant, Heath Baldwin, pled guilty to misdemeanor assault and received an agreed eleven month, twenty-nine day sentence with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. Following a sentencing hearing, the court ordered that the defendant serve his sentence in confinement. On appeal, the defendant challenges the denial of an alternative sentence, specifically the denial of probation. After our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the Shelby County Criminal Court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Dodrick Losame Houston
The defendant, Dodrick Losame Houston, pled guilty to burglary and violating the motor vehicle habitual offender law, Class D and E felonies respectively. He was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to two years for the former and one year for the latter, with the sentences to be served consecutively, for an effective sentence of three years. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred by denying probation. Following our review, we affirm the sentences ordered by the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Edgar White, Jr.
The defendant, Edgar White, Jr., was convicted of driving under the influence (first offense) (DUI) and simple possession of marijuana, both Class A misdemeanors, and was sentenced to eleven months, twenty-nine days in jail for each, suspended to thirty days, to be served concurrently. On appeal, the defendant challenges both the sufficiency of the evidence that formed the basis of his convictions and the length of his sentence. We conclude that the evidence was sufficient to sustain both convictions, and we affirm the convictions. We also affirm the sentence imposed by the trial court. |
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Lee Turner - Dissenting
Because I conclude that the trial court committed reversible error in giving its instructions to the jury, I am unable to join the majority’s affirmance of the appellant’s sentence and respectfully dissent. |
Marion | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Lee Turner
The State charged the appellant, Lee Turner, with misdemeanor assault, and a Marion County Circuit Court jury convicted him of that offense. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the appellant to eleven months, twenty-nine days to be served at seventy-five percent. On appeal, the appellant contends (1) that the trial court erred by giving the jury an improper “dynamite” or Allen charge after the jury announced it was deadlocked; (2) that the trial court erred by refusing to admit the victim’s prior juvenile conviction into evidence for impeachment purposes; and (3) that the trial court relied on unsubstantiated facts in determining the appellant’s sentence. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Marion | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Joseph Hough v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Joseph Hough, appeals the trial court's denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The State has filed a motion requesting that this court affirm the trial court's order pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The petition presents no cognizable claim for habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Johnson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Billy Alfred Mathes
The Defendant, Billy Alfred Mathes, was convicted by a Greene County jury of burglary. On appeal, he alleges there was insufficient evidence for any rational jury to convict him of that crime and that his sentence of six years was excessive. Finding no error exists, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Greene | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Edgar Lewis Ries
A Marshall County jury convicted the Defendant, Edgar Lewis Ries, of attempted first degree murder and conspiracy to commit first degree murder. The Defendant was sentenced to concurrent terms of twenty years for his convictions. On appeal, he alleges there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions and that the trial court erred when it sentenced him. Finding no error exists, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jerral D. Parris v. State of Tennessee
The Defendant, Jerral D. Parris, was indicted on two counts of extortion. A Warren County jury convicted the Defendant of two counts of attempted extortion. On appeal, the Defendant alleges the following: (1) attempted extortion is not a crime in Tennessee; (2) there was insufficient evidence to convict the Defendant of attempted extortion; (3) the trial court improperly denied a motion for a change of venue; (4) the trial court erred in refusing to allow the Defendant to test and inspect audio tape evidence; (5) the trial court erred in not declaring a mistrial after the Defendant was compared to a notorious murderer; (6) the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury as to the affirmative defense to extortion; and (7) the trial court erred in sentencing the Defendant. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we determine that attempted extortion is a crime in Tennessee and that there was sufficient evidence to convict the Defendant of this crime. His conviction, however, must be reversed because the trial court improperly refused to allow a jury instruction on an applicable affirmative defense. Thus, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Warren | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Nathaniel Richardson
The Defendant, Christopher Nathaniel Richardson, pled guilty to one count of possession of a controlled substance with the intent to deliver, and he was sentenced as a Range II multiple offender to seven years of supervised probation, with the first year to be served on intensive probation. After two probation violation warrants were issued based upon two arrests and other violations, the trial court revoked the Defendant’s probation and ordered him to serve his sentence in confinement. It is from this judgment that the Defendant now appeals, contending that, while the trial court was within its discretion to revoke his probation, his violation does not warrant the imposition of his entire sentence. Concluding there exists no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jerome Sawyer v. State of Tennessee
Following a jury trial, Petitioner, Jerome Sawyer, was convicted of aggravated sexual battery and sentenced to eighteen years in the Department of Correction as a Range II, multiple offender. This Court affirmed his conviction. Petitioner then filed a petition for post-conviction relief. After appointing counsel and conducting several hearings, the trial court denied his petition for post-conviction relief. In his appeal, Petitioner argues that he is entitled to post-conviction relief because (1) trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel, and (2) the post-conviction court improperly allowed trial counsel to be examined outside of Petitioner’s presence. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Rickey Hogan v. Tony Parker, Warden
Petitioner, Rickey Hogan, appeals the order dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, raising two issues: (1) whether his concurrent, forty-year sentences, imposed in 1985 for robbery with a deadly weapon and second degree murder, are void; and (2) whether the Department of Correction has miscalculated the expiration date of his sentences. Following our review, we affirm the habeas corpus court’s order of dismissal. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Michael J. Hart v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant, Michael J. Hart, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief by the Madison County Circuit Court. Hart pled guilty to first degree felony murder, aggravated robbery, and felony evading arrest, and received an effective sentence of life without parole. On appeal, Hart contends that his pleas were not knowingly and voluntarily entered due to trial counsel’s ineffectiveness during the pre-plea proceedings. Following review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Chet Allen Walker v. State of Tennessee
Aggrieved of his convictions of first degree premeditated murder, setting fire to personal property, and abuse of a corpse, the petitioner, Chet Allen Walker, sought post-conviction relief, which was denied by the Hamilton County Criminal Court after an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, the petitioner argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because trial counsel failed to call a particular character witness. We affirm the denial of post-conviction relief. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals |
