State of Tennessee v. Jerry Dale Tigner, Jr.
The defendant, Jerry Dale Tigner, Jr., was indicted for second degree murder, a Class A felony, and was convicted by a jury as charged and sentenced as a Range I, violent offender to seventeen years in confinement. The defendant appeals his conviction and sentence, claiming that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction; (2) the sequential jury instructions on second degree murder and voluntary manslaughter are unconstitutional; (3) the trial court erred in sentencing by failing to consider all mitigating factors; and (4) the State committed Brady violations with regard to a witness. Upon review, we find no reversible error and affirm the conviction and sentence. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Darrell Toomes
Following a jury trial, Defendant, Darrell Toomes, was convicted of delivery of less than 0.5 grams of cocaine. He was sentenced to seven years in the Department of Correction as a Range II, multiple offender. The trial court denied Defendant’s motion for new trial. On appeal, Defendant argues that |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Bobby Shane Hurley
Convicted by a jury of possession of cocaine with intent to manufacture, sell, or deliver, a Class B felony, and sentenced to a Department of Correction term of ten years as a Range I offender, the defendant, Bobby Shane Hurley, appeals, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, the severity of his sentence, and the failure of the trial court to grant a sentencing alternative to incarceration. We affirm the judgment of the trial court |
Hardin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Eric Rice
The defendant, Eric Rice, pled guilty to one count of statutory rape, a Class E felony, and applied for judicial diversion pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-313. The trial court denied the application for judicial diversion and sentenced the defendant as a standard offender. On |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Lynn Hoosier
A Montgomery County Circuit Court jury convicted the defendant, Christopher Lynn Hoosier, of possession with the intent to sell one-half gram or more of cocaine, a Class B felony, simple possession of marijuana, a Class A misdemeanor, and possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor, and the trial court sentenced him as a Range II, multiple offender to concurrent terms of twenty years for the cocaine conviction and eleven months and twenty-nine days for each of the misdemeanor convictions. The defendant appeals, claiming the trial court erred in sentencing him by finding enhancement factors that were not submitted to a jury or proven beyond a reasonable doubt and by failing to apply a factor in mitigation. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Robert Hood
Capital Defendant, Robert Hood, appeals as of right his conviction of first degree murder and sentence of death resulting from the 2001 murder of Toni Banks. A Shelby County grand jury charged the defendant by indictment with one count of felony murder, one count of premeditated murder, two counts of misdemeanor theft of property, and two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping. On May 6, 2004, a Shelby County jury found the defendant guilty of both counts of homicide and guilty as to both counts of misdemeanor theft. The jury acquitted the defendant on both counts of aggravated kidnapping. After a separate sentencing hearing, the jury unanimously found the presence of one statutory aggravating circumstance, that the defendant had previously been convicted of a violent felony offense. The jury further determined that this aggravating circumstance outweighed any mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt and imposed a sentence of death. The trial court approved the sentencing verdict. The defendant appeals presenting for our review the following issues: (1) whether the trial court erred by denying the defendant’s request to proceed pro se, (2) whether the trial court erred by refusing to permit defense counsel to withdraw, (3) whether the presence of uniformed detention response team members sitting on either side of the defendant throughout trial was prejudicial error, (4) whether the evidence is sufficient to support a verdict of premeditated murder, (5) whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence involving prior bad acts of the defendant, (6) whether the trial court’s instruction that the defendant’s prior offenses were offenses whose statutory elements involved the use of violence violated the United States Constitution, (7) whether the death penalty imposed in this case violated due process because the indictment failed to allege the aggravators relied upon by the state, and (8) whether Tennessee’s |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Larry W. Timberlake v. State of Tennessee
The defendant, Larry W. Timberlake, appeals his probation revocation and imposition of his original seven-year sentence. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Shirley Annette Rudd
An Obion County jury found the defendant, Shirley Annette Rudd, guilty of facilitating the manufacture of methamphetamine, possession of methamphetamine with intent to sell or deliver, and conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-11-403, -12-103, -17-417 (2003). Pretrial, the defendant had moved to suppress methamphetamine seized from her person. The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing and concluded that the evidence had been legally seized. The defendant challenges that ruling on appeal. After reviewing the record, applicable authorities, and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Obion | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Christopher Jerome Taylor v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant, Christopher Jerome Taylor, appeals the Fayette County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, Taylor argues that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel. After review of the record, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief. |
Fayette | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jerry Bell
The appellant, Jerry Bell, was convicted by a jury in the Shelby County Criminal Court of two counts of aggravated robbery and one count of aggravated burglary. The appellant received a total effective sentence of twenty years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions and the sentences imposed for those convictions. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Eric B. Blakemore v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition, in which he asserted that trial counsel was ineffective in: (1) failing to secure an independent mental evaluation; and (2) failing to demand a speedy trial. Upon review, we conclude that the evidence does not preponderate against the findings of the post-conviction court; therefore, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Anthony Leon Moore v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Anthony Leon Moore, appeals from the post-conviction court’s denial of post-conviction relief. On appeal, he contends that the post-conviction court erred in finding that he received the effective assistance of counsel. Following our review, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ronnie Woodall
The defendant, Ronnie Woodall, was convicted of rape of a child by a Shelby County jury and sentenced as a violent offender to twenty-two years in the Tennessee Department of Correction at one-hundred percent. On appeal, the defendant challenges: (1) the sufficiency of the convicting evidence, and (2) the trial court’s application of a sentencing enhancement. Following our review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Karl Blake
The Appellant, Karl Blake, was convicted by a Rutherford County jury of three counts of child rape and one count of aggravated sexual battery, resulting in an effective forty-year sentence. On appeal, Blake raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether the trial court erred in excluding a statement made by the victim at an in camera hearing; (2) whether the trial court should have granted a mistrial based on juror misconduct; (3) whether the trial court should have granted a new trial based on newly discovered evidence; and (4) whether his sentence violates Blakely v. Washington. After review of the record, we affirm. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
William Patrick Roberson v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, William Patrick Roberson, appeals from the post-conviction court’s denial of post-conviction relief. On appeal, he contends that his statements to police were taken in violation of his constitutional rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the postconviction court denying post-conviction relief. |
Carroll | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Craig Everett Shears
Following a jury trial, Defendant, Craig Everett Shears, was convicted of first degree felony murder and especially aggravated robbery. Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment for the first degree felony murder conviction. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Defendant as a Range I, standard offender, to twenty years for the especially aggravated robbery conviction, and ordered Defendant to serve this sentence concurrently with his life sentence. In this appeal, Defendant argues (1) that the trial court erred in denying Defendant's motion to suppress his statement to police officers and (2) that the evidence was insufficient to support Defendant's convictions. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Dexter L. Williams v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Dexter Williams, was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. This Court affirmed his conviction on appeal. State v. Dexter Lee Williams, No. 03C01-9312-CR-00390, 1995 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 9 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxville, Jan. 9, 1995). A Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 11 application for permission to appeal was filed ten months later, but was dismissed as time-barred. Petitioner's pro se petition for post-conviction relief was also dismissed without a hearing. On appeal, this Court remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing. Dexter L. Williams v. State, No. E1999-00871-CCA-R3-PC, 2000 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 22 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxville, Jan. 11, 2000). On appeal to the Tennessee Supreme Court, the State argued that the petition was untimely and should have been dismissed. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Criminal Appeals and remanded the case to the trial court for a further evidentiary hearing to determine the circumstances surrounding Petitioner's untimely filing of his post-conviction petition, holding that due process concerns might prevent strict application of the statute of limitations. Williams v. State, 44 S.W.3d 464 (Tenn. 2001). Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court again dismissed the petition for post-conviction relief. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Rodney J. Campbell
The defendant, Rodney J. Campbell, was indicted for premeditated first degree murder, felony murder, and especially aggravated kidnapping. He was convicted by jury of kidnapping and two counts of second degree murder. As a result of these convictions, he was sentenced to a total effective sentence of thirty-one years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant raises four issues for our review: (1) whether the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal; (2) whether the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions; (3) whether the trial court properly instructed the jury; and (4) whether the trial court erred in imposing an excessive sentence. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Andrew Christian v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief in which he asserted various instances of ineffective assistance of counsel. Upon review, we conclude that the evidence does not preponderate against the findings of the post-conviction court. Therefore, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Roosevelt Morris
The Defendant, Roosevelt Morris, was convicted by a jury of two counts of attempted first degree premeditated murder. The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I, standard offender to two consecutive terms of twenty-five years in the Department of Correction for an effective sentence of fifty years. In this direct appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and contends that his sentence is excessive. We affirm the Defendant’s convictions. We modify the Defendant’s effective sentence to forty-seven years. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Kenneth Gaines v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Kenneth Gaines, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of post-conviction relief. Because we discern no error in the post-conviction court’s proceedings and because the record supports that court’s determinations, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Steven Van Tucker v. State of Tennessee
In case number 7563, the petitioner, Steven Van Tucker, pled guilty in the Lauderdale County Circuit Court to theft of property valued between five hundred and one thousand dollars, and the trial court sentenced him to four years and six months in confinement. In case number 7577, the petitioner pled guilty to burglary, car burglary, theft of property valued more than one thousand dollars but less than ten thousand dollars, and two counts of misdemeanor theft, and the trial court sentenced him to an effective sentence of four years in confinement. The trial court ordered that the sentence in case number 7577 be served consecutively to the sentence in case number 7563 for an effective sentence of eight years and six months. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, claiming that he received the ineffective assistance of trial counsel and that his guilty pleas were not voluntarily and intelligently entered. The trial court denied the petition for post-conviction relief. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Nash
The Defendant, Michael Nash, was convicted by a jury of one count of aggravated robbery. After a hearing, the trial court sentenced him as a Range II, multiple offender to twelve years in the Department of Correction. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and contends that he should have been sentenced as a Range I, standard offender. We affirm the Defendant’s conviction. We reverse the order of the trial court sentencing the Defendant as a Range II, multiple offender. We remand this matter for a new sentencing hearing. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ronald L. Davis v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Ronald L. Davis, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for writ of error coram nobis. 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. We find the State's motion has merit. Accordingly, the motion is granted and the appeal is affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jessica Renee Richards v. State of Tennessee and Jennifer Lynne Horine v. State of Tennessee
In this consolidated appeal, the petitioners challenge the denial of post-conviction relief, contending that their respective trial counsel were ineffective in failing to advise them of authority that indicated that their conduct fell outside the scope of the statute. On appeal, the State concedes that the petitioners received ineffective assistance of counsel. Following thorough review, we agree. Therefore, we reverse the denial of post-conviction relief, set aside the judgments, and remand the matter to the trial court. |
Cumberland | Court of Criminal Appeals |
