Charlie M. Gardner v. Tony Parker, Warden
Petitioner, Charlie M. Gardner, appeals from the trial court's summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The State has filed a motion for this Court to affirm the judgment of the trial court pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals. Having reviewed the record, we find that the motion has merit and grant same. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
John E. Carter v. State of Tennessee
This matter is before the Court upon the State's motion to dismiss or in the alternative to affirm the judgment of the trial court by memorandum opinion pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The petitioner has appealed the trial court's order summarily dismissing his three petitions for writ of error coram nobis in which the petitioner alleged that newly-discovered evidence and his own diminished capacity mandated a new trial. Upon a review of the record in this case, we are persuaded that the trial court was correct in summarily dismissing the petitions for coram nobis relief and that this case meets the criteria for affirmance pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
White | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
William T. Yelton v. Robert Waller, Warden
Petitioner, William T. Yelton, filed a petition for habeas corpus relief attacking his Bedford County theft of property conviction. The trial court dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing. Petitioner has appealed, and the State has filed a motion pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals to affirm the judgment of the trial court. Finding the motion to have merit, we grant same and affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ronnie Jackson, Jr. v. Ricky J. Bell, Warden and State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Ronnie Jackson, Jr., appeals from the trial court's denial of his petition seeking 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. The State's motion is granted. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Lee A. Alderson v. State of Tennessee
This matter is before the Court upon the State's motion to affirm the judgment of the trial court by memorandum opinion pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The petitioner has appealed the trial court's order summarily dismissing the petition for the writ of habeas corpus. In that petition, the petitioner alleges that his judgment was void and that his sentence was illegal. 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 State's motion is granted, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Eric Fields
Following a jury trial, Defendant, Eric Fields, was convicted of the following offenses and received the following concurrent sentences: aggravated robbery of Yousef Nahhas, a Class B felony, twelve years; conspiracy to possess more than three hundred grams of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver, a Class A felony, twenty-five years; attempted second degree murder of Officer Dariet Wallace, a Class B felony, twelve years; aggravated robbery of Officer Wallace, a Class B felony, twelve years; and unlawful possession of a handgun, a Class E felony, two years. The trial court sentenced Defendant as a Range I, standard offender, for his conspiracy drug conviction, and as a Range II, multiple offender, for his remaining convictions. The convictions were the result of a jury trial, and the total effective sentence of twenty-five years was the result of a negotiated agreement of the parties done in lieu of a sentencing determination by the trial court. In his appeal, Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Andrea Spencer v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner was convicted of one count of aggravated rape, two counts of aggravated kidnapping, two counts of aggravated burglary, and one count of sexual battery and received an effective sentence of eighty-four years as a multiple offender. His convictions were affirmed and his sentence was reduced to eighty years on direct appeal by this court. State v. Andrea Spencer, No. W2002-01483-CCA-R3-CD, 2003 WL 22204526, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 18, 2003), perm. to appeal denied (Tenn. Jan. 5, 2004). On February 24, 2004, he filed a timely petition for post-conviction relief. Following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. On appeal, the petitioner argues that he was denied effective assistance at trial because his counsel failed to properly investigate and prepare the defense. Following our review, we affirm the dismissal of the petition. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Tyrus A. Rogers v. David Mills, Warden
The petitioner, Tyrus A. Rogers, appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief from his conviction for attempted second degree murder. Because the petitioner has failed to allege a cognizable claim for habeas corpus relief, we affirm the denial of the petition. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Eddie Gaston
The Defendant, Eddie Gaston, was convicted of premeditated first degree murder, two counts of attempted first degree murder, especially aggravated kidnapping, and especially aggravated robbery. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to life in prison for the first degree murder conviction and to twenty-five years for each of the other convictions, and it ordered that all the sentences be served consecutively. On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain any of his convictions; (2) the trial court erred when it ruled on several different evidentiary issues; and (3) the trial court committed sentencing errors. Finding that there exists no reversible error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Larry Peoples, alias
On appeal, the defendant, Larry Peoples, contends that: (1) the State improperly impeached defense witnesses by failing to request a jury-out hearing before cross-examining them regarding prior bad acts, pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Evidence 608; and (2) he was denied a fair trial when the trial court denied his request for a mistrial or a curative instruction. We conclude that, while the State certainly should have requested a jury-out hearing prior to impeaching the witnesses, the defendant waived the issue by failing to raise a timely objection. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Sterling Pollard v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner appeals the denial of post-conviction relief, contending that: (1) the post-conviction court erred in modifying the illegal probationary period rather than vacating it; and (2) his plea to a violation of the Motor Vehicle Offender Act was not knowingly and voluntarily entered. Upon thorough review, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief but modify the petitioner's probationary period from five hundred fifty-two days to five years, one hundred eighty-seven days. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Freddie Eugene Asbury
The defendant, Freddie Eugene Asbury, appeals the Sullivan County Criminal Court's order revoking his probation. On appeal, the defendant claims that although he violated his probation, the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his probation and ordering him to serve his sentence in confinement. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Mark Medley v. State of Tennessee
This is an appeal as of right from the denial of post-conviction relief. The Petitioner, Mark Medley, was convicted of one count of rape of a child pursuant to a guilty plea. He was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to fifteen years imprisonment. The Petitioner now appeals denial of his petition for post-conviction relief raising the single issue of ineffective assistance of counsel. He argues that his trial counsel's failure to inform him that the charge to which he pled guilty may have been time-barred amounted to deficient representation which resulted in prejudice to him. We reverse the post-conviction court's conclusions of law regarding the statute of limitations applicable to this case and remand for further findings of fact pertaining to the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. |
Cannon | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Fallon L. Tallent
The Defendant, Fallon L. Tallent, was convicted by a Wilson County Jury of two counts of first degree murder. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it: (1) allowed Kathleen Griffith, a witness not listed in discovery, to testify; and (2) ordered the Defendant's two life sentences to be served consecutively. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Wilson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Johnny Dee Roberts v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Johnny Dee Roberts, appeals from the Davidson County Criminal Court's dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief, in which the petitioner had attacked his 2002 convictions of aggravated rape and aggravated sexual battery. The post-conviction court determined that (1) the petitioner failed to establish either the deficient performance of trial counsel or that he was prejudiced by the actions of counsel and that (2) the issue of prosecutorial misconduct had been previously determined on direct appeal. Because the record supports the post-conviction court's ruling, we affirm the denial of relief. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ernie Lynnwood Eaton v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Ernie Lynnwood Eaton, filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief, as amended after the appointment of counsel, alleging that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel in connection with the negotiation and entry of Petitioner's plea of guilty to three counts of the sale of less than 0.5 grams of cocaine, a Class C felony. Petitioner also alleged that his effective sentence of four years and six months violates the provisions of Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-211(1) and is therefore illegal. After an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied Petitioner’s petition. In his appeal, Petitioner challenges only the post-conviction court’s finding that Petitioner’s sentence was authorized by law. After review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Tipton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Anthony D. Brown
Following a jury trial, Defendant, Anthony D. Brown, was convicted of one count of aggravated burglary, a Class C felony, and one count of carrying a knife with the intent to go armed, a Class C misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced Defendant to fifteen years for his aggravated burglary conviction and thirty days for his misdemeanor conviction. Defendant does not challenge the sufficiency of the convicting evidence or the trial court’s sentencing determinations. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court erred in not declaring a mistrial pursuant to Rule 31(d) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure when one of the jurors indicated to the trial court that she did not agree with the verdicts after the jury had been polled and discharged. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
McNairy | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James L. McCurry v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner appeals the Roane 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 file a motion to suppress his statement to police; (2) failed to schedule a hearing to set bond; (3) failed to obtain a second psychological evaluation for him; and (4) failed to file a motion for change of venue. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Roane | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joshua Parker
The Cocke County grand jury indicted the defendant, Joshua Parker, on one count of aggravated sexual battery. Following a jury trial, the defendant was found guilty as charged. He was sentenced to twelve years to be served at 100% as a Range II multiple offender. The defendant appeals this conviction. He argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and that the State committed prosecutorial misconduct in its closing argument. We have determined that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction for aggravated sexual battery. Therefore, we reverse and dismiss the judgment of conviction for that offense. However, the evidence is sufficient to support a conviction for attempt to commit aggravated sexual battery and we therefore reduce the conviction to that of attempted aggravated sexual battery, and remand for entry of judgment to that effect and re-sentencing. |
Cocke | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Robert Lee Roberts
A Sullivan County Criminal Court jury convicted the defendant, Robert Lee Roberts, of driving under the influence (DUI), and the trial court sentenced him to eleven months and twenty-nine days, suspending all but six months of the sentence. On appeal, the defendant contends the evidence is insufficient. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Leonard Maysonet v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Leonard Maysonet, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court's summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for carjacking, a Class B felony, and kidnapping, a Class C felony, and resulting concurrent sentences of twelve years in the Department of Correction. He claims the trial court erred in finding his petition was time-barred by the one-year statute of limitations. He asserts that Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), announced a new rule of constitutional law requiring retroactive application to his case. We affirm the trial court's summary dismissal of the petition. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Odessa Pope
The Dyer County Grand Jury indicted the defendant for attempting to obtain a controlled substance by misrepresentation fraud, forgery, deception or subterfuge. Following a jury trial on July 28, 2004, the defendant was found guilty as charged. The trial court sentenced the defendant to four years as a Range II multiple offender. The defendant filed a notice of appeal. On appeal, the defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction and that the trial court erred in allowing the prosecution to cross-examine her regarding her prior convictions contrary to Rule 609 of the Tennessee Rules of Evidence. We find that there was sufficient evidence and the trial court did not err in allowing the entry of the prior convictions into evidence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Lamario Sumner
The Appellant, Lamario Sumner, was convicted bya Shelby County jury of two counts of aggravated robbery and received an effective forty-year sentence. On appeal, Sumner has raised five issues for our review: (1) whether Sumner’s prior conviction for aggravated robbery was admissible for impeachment purposes; (2) whether the trial court erred by precluding examination of the police investigator regarding exculpatory statements made by Sumner; (3) whether the elements of a prior felony conviction, introduced solely for purposes of impeachment, may be developed through examination of the witness; (4) whether the trial court properly responded to a jury question regarding criminal responsibility; and (5) whether the evidence is sufficient to support the convictions. After review of the record, we find no error and affirm the convictions. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Tommy Nunley v. State of Tennessee - Concurring
While I concur in most of the majority opinion, I write separately to express my disagreement with a portion of the analysis by the majority. Specifically, I am not comfortable with the analysis pertaining to the trial court’s order requiring DNA testing. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Tommy Nunley v. State of Tennessee
The State appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s grant of post-conviction relief to the Petitioner, Tommy Nunley. In February 1998, Nunley was convicted by a Shelby County jury of aggravated rape and was sentenced to twenty-five years imprisonment. A petition for post-conviction relief was filed alleging grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel. Nunley’s principal claim asserts that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to seek state-funded expert assistance for “DNA testing of specimens collected” by the police. At the conclusion of one of the several hearings conducted by the post-conviction court, the court, on its own motion, directed DNA testing of biological specimens shown to be in the custody of the State. The court was subsequently informed that the specimens had been “misplaced and/or destroyed.” Upon learning of this fact, the post-conviction court granted Nunley’s petition for post-conviction relief concluding “that said evidence could and should have been tested at the time of [Nunley’s] trial, and that because said evidence has been lost and/or destroyed, petitioner’s constitutional right to a fair trial was violated.” Because we conclude that the proof fails to establish prejudice under the standards of Strickland v. Washington, the grant of post-conviction relief is reversed, and the judgment of conviction is reinstated. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals |
