James Aaron Earnest v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, James Aaron Earnest, appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to reopen his petition for post-conviction 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. Because this Court is without jurisdiction to entertain this appeal, the above-captioned matter is dismissed. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Eric Carter v. Warden Glen Turner
This matter is before the Court upon the State’s motion to affirm the judgment of the trial court by opinion pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner is appealing the trial court's denial of habeas corpus relief. A review of the record reveals that the Petitioner is not entitled to habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Mark Grimes v. Stephen Dotson, Warden
The Petitioner, Mark Grimes, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Harry McLemore v. David Mills
This matter is before the Court upon the State’s motion to affirm the judgment of the trial court by opinion pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner is appealing the trial court's denial of habeas corpus relief. A review of the record reveals that the Petitioner is not entitled to habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Lester P.Parker, III v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Lester P. Parker, III, appeals the Blount County Circuit Court's denial of post-conviction relief. His post-conviction relief petition attacked his 1997 conviction of attempt to possess cocaine with intent to deliver, as a result of which he received a two-year suspended sentence. His post-conviction claims of the state's suppression of exculpatory evidence and of ineffective assistance of trial counsel are spiced with allegations that the prosecution was the result of conspiratorial retaliation for his championing a fight against corruption in the Alcoa Police Department. The post-conviction court denied relief, and we affirm. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Teresa C. Graves
The defendant, Teresa C. Graves, was convicted of theft of property over $1,000 but less than $10,000, a Class D felony, for which she was sentenced as a Range III, persistent offender, to nine years in the Department of Correction. The defendant was granted a delayed right of appeal and raises two issues: (1) whether she should be given a new trial because of ineffective assistance of counsel; and (2) whether the evidence is sufficient to support her conviction. The State also appeals and raises two issues: (1) whether the delayed appeal is time barred by the post-conviction statute of limitations; and (2) whether the trial court erred by not sentencing the defendant as a career offender. Following our review, we conclude that (1) the defendant's delayed appeal is not barred by the post-conviction statute of limitations; (2) the defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim is not properly before this court; (3) the evidence is sufficient to support the defendant's conviction; and (4) the defendant should have been sentenced as a career offender. Therefore, we remand to the trial court for resentencing as a career offender. |
Loudon | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Gary Stephen Mayes
The defendant, Gary Stephen Mayes, was indicted by the Knox County Grand Jury on two counts of especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor, a Class B felony, and one count of stalking, a Class E felony. The trial court dismissed one of the sexual exploitation counts at the end of the State's proof; and, at the conclusion of the trial, the jury convicted the defendant of the remaining sexual exploitation count but acquitted him of the stalking count. The trial court subsequently sentenced the defendant as a repeat, violent offender to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, pursuant to the provisions of Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-120. In a timely appeal to this court, the defendant raises the following issues: (1) whether the trial court erred by not severing the stalking count of the indictment; (2) whether the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress the videotape he made of the child victims; and (3) whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain his conviction. Following our review, we conclude that the trial court committed harmless error by not severing the stalking offense, that it properly denied the defendant's motion to suppress the videotape, and that the evidence is sufficient to sustain the defendant's conviction. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kelly Michael Pickett
After a bench trial, the Davidson County Criminal Court convicted the appellant of eleven counts of sexual exploitation of a minor, a Class E felony. The trial court sentenced him to an effective four-year sentence to be served as ninety days in the county workhouse at one hundred percent and the remainder on probation. The appellant appeals, claiming (1) that the sexual exploitation of a minor statute is unconstitutional, (2) that the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions because the State failed to prove that he "possessed" pornographic images as required by the statute and because the State failed to prove that the images were real as opposed to virtual; (3) that his convictions are multiplicitous; and (4) that the trial court erred by not sentencing him to full probation and by not granting him judicial diversion. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we conclude that the offenses are multiplicitous and reverse the appellant's convictions for counts two through eleven. We also modify the sentence for count one to reflect that the appellant is eligible to receive applicable statutory credits. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Debra Elaine Kirk
Defendant, Debra Elaine Kirk was indicted on one count of aggravated child abuse and one count of felony murder. Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of aggravated child abuse of a child less than six years old, a Class A felony, and criminally negligent homicide, a Class E felony, and lesser included offense of felony murder. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Defendant as a Range I standard offender to twenty-five years for the aggravated child abuse conviction and two years for the criminally negligent homicide conviction. The trial court ordered Defendant to serve her sentences concurrently. In this appeal, Defendant argues (1) that the length of sentence imposed for her aggravated child abuse conviction violated the principles set forth in the recent United States Supreme Court's decision in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531, 159 L. Ed. 2d 403 (2004); (2) that the trial court erred in denying Defendant's motion to suppress her statement and in allowing Defendant's statement to be introduced into evidence; (3) that the trial court erred in allowing the admission of evidence of Defendant's prior drug use; (4) that the trial court erred in allowing Dr. Darinka Mileusnic to testify about certain toxicology test results; and (5) that the jury's verdicts were inconsistent. Because we determine that reversible error occurred in the trial court's admission of evidence at trial of Defendant's prior drug use, we reverse the judgments of the trial court and remand for a new trial. |
Cocke | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Anthony Griffin - Concurring
I concur in the result regarding the trial court’s failure to instruct on the lesser offense of Class E evading arrest. In my view, the legislature was empowered to enact the 2001 amendment (effective 2002) to Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-18-110. As a result, the defendant’s failure to make a timely objection or request for a special instruction equates to a waiver of the issue on appeal. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Anthony Griffin
The appellant, Anthony Griffin, was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault and felony evading arrest. After the trial, the trial court set aside the conviction for aggravated assault. The appellant was sentenced to twelve (12) years as a career offender for the Class D felony evading arrest conviction. After the denial of a motion for new trial, this appeal ensued. On appeal, the appellant argues that the trial court failed to properly instruct the jury on the lesser-included offenses of evading arrest and that he was improperly sentenced as a career offender. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Adam Dewey Householder
The appellant, Adam Dewey Householder, pled guilty to theft over $10,000, a Class C felony. He received a four year sentence, with nine months to be served in the county jail and the remainder on supervised probation. In addition, he was ordered to pay $26,820.00 in restitution. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in denying judicial diversion and in ordering a sentence of split confinement. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kerry D. Hewson
The defendant, Kerry D. Hewson, appeals from his Williamson County Circuit Court convictions of aggravated assault, for which he received an incarcerative sentence of six years, and reckless endangerment, for which he received a concurrent incarcerative sentence of two years. On appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence, the lack of a jury instruction on reckless driving as a lesser included offense of reckless endangerment, and the trial court's sentencing determinations. Following our review, we affirm the convictions but modify the sentencing determinations. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Steven Bradley Heflin
The defendant, Steven Bradley Heflin, was originally indicted for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, a Class C felony. The defendant entered an open plea of guilty to reckless aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, a Class D felony, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-102(a)(2)(B), as a Range I, standard offender. The defendant was sentenced to four years, to serve nine months with the remainder on probation. The defendant now appeals the sentence, contending that certain enhancement factors were applied in error and that one mitigating factor was improperly rejected. After review, we remand the cause to modify the sentence to three years, to serve nine months and the remainder on probation. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Lajun M. Cole, Sr.
This is an appeal from convictions on a jury verdict of criminal trespass of a habitation, especially aggravated kidnapping, misdemeanor reckless endangerment, and theft of property over $1,000. The Defendant was sentenced to eleven months and twenty-nine days for his misdemeanor trespass and reckless endangerment convictions, two years for his theft conviction, and twenty years as a violent offender for his especially aggravated kidnapping conviction. All of the sentences were to be served concurrently for an effective twenty year term of incarceration in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant challenges only his conviction for especially aggravated kidnapping, asserting there is insufficient evidence to support a conviction for this offense. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Patrick Hyder
A Washington County Criminal Court jury convicted the defendant, Patrick Hyder, of two counts of aggravated sexual battery, a class B felony, and the trial court sentenced him to eight years for each count to be served concurrently in the Department of Correction. The defendant appeals, contending that the trial court erred in reassembling the jury to announce its verdict and polling the jury after it had been discharged. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Washington | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joe Shelton Berry
The defendant, Joe Shelton Berry, pled no contest to one count of rape. The trial court sentenced the defendant to eight years at 100%, but suspended service of the sentence and placed him on supervised probation. Thereafter, the trial court revoked the defendant's probation and placed his entire sentence into effect. On appeal, the defendant challenges the trial court's revocation of his probation. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Harvey Lillard Webb
The defendant, Harvey Lillard Webb, was indicted for premeditated first degree murder. He was convicted by a jury of the lesser-included offense of second degree murder. He was sentenced to twenty years in confinement as a violent offender. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Dennis Hodges
A Shelby County Criminal Court jury convicted the appellant, Dennis Hodges, of two counts of voluntary manslaughter. The trial court merged the first count into the second count and sentenced the appellant to fifteen years as a Range III, persistent offender. In this appeal, the appellant claims (1) that the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions, (2) that the State made improper closing argument, and (3) that his sentence is excessive. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Herman Parham
The defendant, Herman Parham, was convicted of two counts of second degree murder. The trial court merged the convictions and imposed a sentence of twenty-five years. In this appeal, the defendant asserts that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction, that the trial court erred by instructing the jury on flight, and that the sentence is excessive. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Joseph Miles v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Joseph Miles, appeals from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The single issue presented for review is whether the petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel. The judgment is affirmed. |
Robertson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jay Homer Chambers v. State of Tennessee
The pro se petitioner, Jay Homer Chambers, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that the post-conviction court erred by dismissing his petition without appointing counsel or holding an evidentiary hearing. Following our review, we reverse the summary dismissal of the petition and remand for reconsideration of the petitioner's claim that appellate counsel was ineffective. |
Scott | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Rolando Contreras v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Rolando Contreras, appeals the denial of post-conviction relief. The single issue presented for review is whether the petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel. The judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Antowan Antonio Williams
The defendant, Antowan Antonio Williams, pleaded guilty to attempted aggravated robbery. After conducting a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered the defendant to serve a 2.7 year probationary sentence as a mitigated offender but denied the defendant's request for judicial diversion. The defendant now brings the instant appeal challenging the trial court's denial of judicial diversion. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Wayne E. Mitchell v. Ricky Bell, Warden
The Defendant, Wayne E. Mitchell, appeals from the trial court's dismissal of his petition seeking habeas corpus relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court's dismissal of the petition 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 |
