State of Tennessee v. Tony Samuel
The Defendant, Tony Samuel, was convicted by a Lauderdale County jury of burglary and Class E felony theft. He received an effective seven-year sentence for these convictions. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant argues that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions and (2) his sentences are excessive. After a review of the record, the judgments of conviction and resulting sentences are affirmed. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Clifford Leon Farra v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Clifford Leon Farra, appeals from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. In this appeal, he asserts that the post-conviction court erred by proceeding with an evidentiary hearing even though the state had failed to file an answer to his original pro se petition. The judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Daniel Gordon v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner pled guilty in the Shelby County Criminal Court to one count of rape of a child on May 1, 2002. On October 7, 2002, the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief asserting that he was afforded ineffective assistance of counsel at his guilty plea. Following a hearing, the post-conviction court denied the petition on May 19, 2005. The petitioner appeals to this Court. After a review of the record, we affirm the decision of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Welister L. White v. David Mills, Warden
The petitioner, Welister L. White, pled guilty to one count of felony murder in 1979 in exchange for a sentence of life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. In August of 2005, the petitioner sought habeas corpus relief on the basis that his sentence was illegal given the holding in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004). The trial court dismissed the petition, and this appeal followed. Upon a review of the record in this case, we are persuaded that the trial court was correct in summarily dismissing the habeas corpus petition and that this case meets the criteria for affirmance pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Carey B. Haynes, Jr.
The appellant, Carey Haynes, Jr., was indicted by the Dyer County Grand Jury for one count of selling less than .5 grams of cocaine and one count of selling more than .5 grams of cocaine. After a jury trial, the appellant was convicted on both counts. The trial court sentenced the appellant to six years for the conviction for the sale of less than .5 grams of cocaine and twelve years for the conviction for the sale of more than .5 grams of cocaine. The trial court ordered the sentences to run concurrently to each other, but consecutively to several sentences for which the appellant was on probation at the time he committed the present offenses. After the denial of a motion for new trial, the appellant sought an appeal, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jerry Ward And Rosanne K. Ward
The Benton County Grand Jury indicted the defendants, Jerry and Roseanne K. Ward, for crimes against revenue officers and tampering with governmental records. The defendants and the District Attorney General agreed to pretrial diversion. When the trial court refused to approve the agreement for pretrial diversion, the defendants filed an application for an appeal pursuant to Rule 9 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. We have reviewed the record and conclude that the trial court erred in withholding its approval of the pretrial diversion agreement. Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Benton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Marcus Nixon v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Marcus Nixon, was convicted in Lauderdale County of rape of a child and sentenced to serve twenty-one years in the Department of Correction. His conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. The petitioner filed a petition seeking a DNA analysis. The trial court initially granted an order requiring the petitioner to submit a blood sample to be compared to DNA collected at the scene. After a response from the State, the trial court entered a second order requiring the petitioner to provide a biological specimen for inclusion in the DNA database compiled by the State, but denying the petitioner’s request for DNA analysis because no “exculpatory results” would come from the analysis. The petitioner then sought a writ of mandamus requiring the State to comply with the trial court’s second order, and also filed a motion seeking permission to file an interlocutory appeal to appeal the trial court’s denial of his petition requesting DNA analysis. The petitioner filed a timely notice of appeal. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Riels
The appellant, James Riels, appeals his sentences of death imposed by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury. On September 18, 2003, a Shelby County Grand Jury charged the appellant with one count of first degree felony murder for the death of Mary Jane Cruchon, one count of first degree premeditated murder for the death of Mary Jane Cruchon, one count of first degree felony murder for the death of Franchion Pollack, one count of first degree premeditated murder for the death of Franchion Pollack, one count of especially aggravated robbery of Franchion Pollack, one count of attempted especially aggravated robbery of Mary Jane Cruchon, and one count of aggravated burglary of the habitation of Mary Jane Cruchon. On August 9, 2004, the appellant entered guilty pleas to all seven counts. The trial court merged the felony murder convictions with the premeditated murder convictions, resulting in two convictions for first degree murder. A jury was impaneled for the sentencing phase, and on August 13, 2004, the jury imposed the death penalty for the murder of each victim. In the death of Mary Jane Cruchon, the jury unanimously found the presence of three statutory aggravating circumstances. In the death of Franchion Pollack, the jury unanimously found the presence of four statutory aggravating circumstances. The jury further determined that the aggravating circumstances outweighed any mitigating circumstances. The trial court approved the sentencing verdict. In a separate sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed an effective thirty-five-year sentence for the remaining noncapital convictions. The appellant appeals, presenting for our review the following issues: (1) whether the trial court erred by overruling his motion to suppress, (2) whether the trial court erred by permitting the State to cross-examine him regarding the circumstances of the offenses, (3) whether the trial court erred by permitting the introduction of a post-mortem photograph of one of the victims, (4) whether the trial court’s instruction that the appellant’s prior offenses were offenses whose statutory elements involved the use of violence violated the United States Constitution, (5) whether the trial court’s instruction on victim impact evidence constituted a coercive jury instruction, and (6) whether Tennessee’s death penalty scheme is unconstitutional. Finding no errors requiring reversal, we affirm the appellant’s sentences of death. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael W. Belcher
The defendant, Michael W. Belcher, was convicted by a Sullivan County jury of two counts of aggravated assault by reckless conduct, for which he received an effective 24-year sentence as a career offender. Aggrieved of his convictions, the defendant brings the instant appeal challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support his two convictions. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we hold that the evidence is sufficient to support the convictions and accordingly affirm the judgments of the lower court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ronald Eugene Gilmore v. Kenneth Locke, Warden
The petitioner, Ronald Eugene Gilmore, appeals the trial court's dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief. In this appeal, he alleges that (1) his judgment of conviction for assault with intent to commit murder is void because the indictment was defective; (2) the state failed to disclose exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); (3) the trial court erred by failing to properly instruct the jury; and (4) the trial court erred by not appointing counsel. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Cornelius Marshall v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Cornelius Marshall, appeals the Fayette County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from two counts of attempted first degree murder, one count of facilitation to commit aggravated arson, and resulting effective twenty-five-year sentence. He contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel and that he did not plead guilty knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Fayette | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Clarice Perkins
This is an appeal from the order of the trial court denying the Defendant’s motion to withdraw guilty pleas and motion to dismiss all charges. The Defendant, Clarice Perkins, was convicted of two counts of aggravated assault pursuant to entry of guilty pleas. She received an effective eight-year sentence to be served on probation. After sentencing, but before the judgments became final, the Defendant filed pro se motions to withdraw her guilty pleas and to dismiss all charges. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied both motions. On appeal, the Defendant raises two issues: the trial court erred in denying (1) the Defendant’s motion to withdraw her guilty pleas, and (2) the Defendant’s motion to dismiss all charges. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Joseph Jackson v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Joseph Jackson, appeals the ShelbyCounty Criminal Court’s dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for two counts of attempted first degree murder and resulting twenty-year concurrent sentences. On appeal, the defendant claims that his convictions violate the Double Jeopardy provision of the federal constitution, that his indictments were constitutionally defective, and that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Javier Soto-Hurtado v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Javier Soto-Hurtado, has filed a pro se appeal of the post-conviction court's refusal to reopen an earlier post-conviction petition which had been dismissed. He claims that he is entitled to relief based upon the ruling in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004). The judgment is affirmed and the appeal dismissed. |
Henry | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James O. McCarson, Jr.
The Defendant, James O. McCarson, Jr., was convicted of one count of stalking, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to eleven months and twenty-nine days, to be served on probation. On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction for stalking; and (2) the trial court erred when it denied him judicial diversion. Finding that there exists no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Humphreys | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Thomas Earl Bradshaw
The Defendant, Thomas Earl Bradshaw, pled guilty to one count of aggravated burglary and one count of especially aggravated robbery, and the trial court sentenced him as a multiple offender to an effective sentence of thirty-six years imprisonment. The Defendant filed a motion to withdraw his guilty pleas, which the trial court denied. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to withdraw his pleas. Finding that there exists no reversible error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ricky Northern v. State of Tennessee, Stephen Dotson, Warden
The Petitioner, Ricky Northern, 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 allege any ground that would render the judgment of conviction void. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Darwin Theus v. David Mills, Warden
The Petitioner, Darwin Theus, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court's denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Petitioner has failed to allege any ground that would render the judgments of conviction void. Accordingly, we grant the State's motion and affirm the judgment of the lower court. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Burnette
The Appellant, Michael Burnette, was convicted by a Roane County jury of aggravated robbery and sentenced to ten years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, Burnette raises two issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction; and (2) whether his sentence is excessive. After review, the judgment of conviction and resulting sentence are affirmed |
Roane | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Roger Alan Lawson
The Appellant, Roger Alan Lawson, appeals the sentencing decision of the Sullivan County Criminal Court following the revocation of his suspended sentences. While on supervised probation, a violation warrant was issued alleging that Lawson had failed to obey the law by driving on a revoked license. After a revocation hearing, Lawson was found to be in violation of his probation, and his original effective eight-year sentence to the Department of Correction was reinstated. On appeal, Lawson argues that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering confinement of the eight-year sentence instead of reinstating his probation. After review, we find no error and affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
John C. Johnson v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, John C. Johnson, filed a petition for post-conviction relief and a petition for a writ of error coram nobis. After an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied the petition for post-conviction relief. The petition for writ of error coram nobis was dismissed without a full evidentiary hearing. In this consolidated appeal, the petitioner challenges the post-conviction court’s rulings on both petitions.1 Upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the dismissal of the petition for a writ of error coram nobis. However, we reverse the denial of post-conviction relief and remand for a new trial. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jasper L. Vick
Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of one count of especially aggravated kidnapping, a Class A felony, two counts of aggravated kidnapping, a Class B felony, and one count of sexual battery, a Class E felony. The trial court merged Defendant’s two convictions for aggravated kidnapping into his conviction for especially aggravating kidnapping. The trial court sentenced Defendant as a Range II, multiple offender, to thirty-six years for his especially aggravated kidnapping conviction and four years for his sexual battery conviction. The trial court ordered the sentences to be served consecutively, for an effective sentence of forty years. Defendant does not challenge the imposition of consecutive sentencing. In his appeal, Defendant argues (1) that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions; (2) that the trial court erred in denying Defendant’s motion for a continuance; (3) that the trial court erred in classifying Defendant as a Range II multiple offender; and (4) that the trial erred in its application of enhancement factors. After a thorough review, we affirm Defendant’s convictions of especially aggravated kidnapping and sexual battery. However, we remand the case to the trial court for resentencing in accordance with this opinion. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Bills
A Madison County Circuit Court jury convicted the defendant, Michael Bills, of one count of possession with the intent to sell one-half gram or more of cocaine, a Class B felony, and one count of possession with the intent to deliver one-half gram or more of cocaine, a Class B felony, and the trial court merged the defendant’s convictions and sentenced him as a Range II, multiple offender to sixteen years in the Department of Correction. The defendant appeals, claiming the evidence is insufficient. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Steve Allen Click
The defendant, Steve Allen Click, was convicted of three counts of aggravated rape and one count of evading arrest. The trial court imposed consecutive sentences of forty years for each aggravated rape and a concurrent sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days for evading arrest. The effective sentence is, therefore, 120 years. In this appeal, the defendant asserts (1) that the trial court erred by failing to merge two of the aggravated rape convictions; (2) that the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions for aggravated rape; (3) that the prosecutor's closing argument was improper; and (4) that the trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences. The judgments of the trial court are affirmed. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Courtney Means
Defendant, Courtney Means, was convicted of three aggravated robberies and sentenced to twelve years in each case, with two of the sentences to be served consecutively. On appeal, he argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the convictions; the trial court erred in allowing the hearsay statement of a deceased victim to be admitted as an excited utterance; and the court erred in sentencing. Following our review, we affirm the judgments. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals |
