Anthony Lamont Singleton v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Anthony Lamont Singleton, appeals from the post-conviction court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. In his appeal, Petitioner argues that his Alford pleas in case No. S45,328 and case No. S47, 632 were involuntarily entered into, that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in connection with the negotiation and entry of his Alford pleas, and that the trial court improperly appointed trial counsel to represent him in case No. 47,632. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Patrick Deshun Paris v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Patrick Deshun Paris, filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which was subsequently amended. Following an evidentiary hearing, the petition for post-conviction relief was dismissed. On appeal, Petitioner argues that the post-conviction court erred in not stating its findings of fact and conclusions of law in its order denying Petitioner post-conviction relief. Petitioner also alleges that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal because his counsel (1) failed to request the removal of juror, Daisy Foster; (2) questioned Marco Brooks about his family's criminal history to the detriment of Petitioner's case; (3) failed to adequately investigate Petitioner's case and prepare for trial; and (4) failed to object to the prosecutor's leading questions during Mr. Brooks' direct examination. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Roger Knoblock
Defendant, Roger Knoblock, was convicted, following a jury trial, of aggravated sexual battery. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred by allowing evidence of a prior conviction for aggravated sexual battery to be introduced during Defendant's testimony on cross-examination. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. David Gene Hooper
A Hamilton County Criminal Court Jury convicted the defendant, David Gene Hooper, of rape, a Class B felony, and incest, a Class C felony, and the trial court sentenced him to concurrent terms of eight years for the rape and three years for the incest to be served on community corrections after serving eleven months and twenty-nine days in the county workhouse. The defendant appeals, claiming the trial court erred (1) in failing to grant a mistrial based upon the state's failure to disclose exculpatory evidence until the middle of trial and in prohibiting him from cross-examining the victim concerning the exculpatory evidence; (2) in repeatedly admitting testimony which bolstered the victim's complaint through multiple witnesses; (3) in allowing testimony from various witnesses concerning the fact that victims of sexual abuse frequently delay reporting an attack; (4) in allowing the state to cross-examine the defendant concerning his possession of marijuana on the day he was arrested, approximately two years after the crime; and (5) in failing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offenses of attempted rape, attempted sexual battery, and assault pursuant to State v. Burns, 6 S.W.3d 453 (Tenn. 1999). We conclude that although the trial court should have allowed the defendant to cross-examine the victim concerning the evidence the state failed to disclose until trial, the error was harmless. We affirm the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Michael W. Smith v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant, Michael W. Smith, proceeding pro se, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Smith was convicted of rape in Shelby County and received an eight-year Department of Correction sentence, to be served consecutively to a three-year Department of Correction sentence in a separate case. On appeal, Smith argues that the trial court erred in dismissing the petition because his eight-year sentence has expired. After review, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the petition on grounds that Smith has failed to establish that his sentence has expired. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Damion Carrick v. Tony Parker, Warden
The petitioner, Damion Carrick, appeals the trial court’s order summarily dismissing his petition for habeas corpus relief. In that petition, the petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus to release him from his sentences for two (2) counts of especially aggravated robbery based on the United States Supreme Court decision in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. ___, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). We are persuaded that the trial court was correct in summarily dismissing the habeas corpus petition and that |
Lake | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Gary Randall Yarnell v. State of Tennessee
Gary Randall Yarnell, the petitioner, appeals the Blount County Circuit Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The lower court found his allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel and unknowing and involuntary guilty pleas unsupported by the evidence and denied relief. Because we are unpersuaded of error, we affirm. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Bonzie Lavender v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Bonzie Lavender, appeals from the trial court's order dismissing his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The state has filed a motion requesting that this court affirm the trial court's denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The petitioner has failed to establish that he is entitled to habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, the state's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Eugene J. Kovalsky v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Eugene J. Kovalsky, appeals from the trial court's order dismissing his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The state has filed a motion requesting that this court affirm the trial court's denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The petitioner has failed to establish that he is entitled to habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, the state's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Morgan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Andy Brown
This matter is before the Court upon the State’s motion to affirm the judgment of the trial court by order pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The petitioner is appealing the lower court’s denial of habeas corpus relief. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Morris Lamonte Marsh
The defendant, Morris Lamonte Marsh, was convicted of four counts of first degree felony murder, two counts of second degree murder, two counts of attempted second degree murder, and one count of aggravated assault. After merging two of the first degree felony murder convictions and the two second degree murder convictions into the first two felony murder convictions and merging the aggravated assault conviction into one of the attempted second degree murder convictions, the trial court ordered the defendant to serve a total effective sentence of two life sentences plus forty years. On appeal, the defendant raises the following issues: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support his convictions; (2) whether the trial court erred in instructing the jury on the law governing criminal responsibility; and (3) whether the trial court erred in sentencing the defendant. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Marvin Norton - Concurring
I concur in all respects with the majority opinion save its view of the admissibility of the search warrant under Rule 41(c), Tenn. R. Crim. P. The defendant complains that his trial counsel failed to object to the state’s introduction of a copy of the search warrant into evidence. He asserts that the warrant states that “there is probable and reasonable cause to believe that Marvin O. Norton B/M is now in unlawful possession of the following . . . cocaine or derivatives of same . . . .” He argues that the content of the search warrant was objectionable because it contained hearsay, was irrelevant to the facts at issue, and made specific reference to the defendant as the individual in possession of the cocaine. |
Robertson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Marvin Norton
A Robertson County Circuit Court jury convicted the appellant, Marvin Norton, of possessing twenty-six grams of cocaine with the intent to sell, and the trial court sentenced him to twelve years in the Department of Correction. In this appeal, the appellant claims (1) that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction and (2) that he received the ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Robertson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Kevin White v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Kevin White, appeals the trial court's denial of post-conviction relief. In this appeal as of right, the petitioner presents one issue for review: whether the trial court erred in refusing to exclude his trial counsel from the courtroom during his testimony at the post-conviction hearing. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Antonio D. Jones - Concurring
I fully concur with Judge Hayes' notable and well-written opinion. Like Judge Hayes, I believe that the defendant was seized when the officer asked him to step out of his vehicle and that the seizure was not supported by reasonable suspicion or probable cause. I also agree that the defendant's consent to search his person was not sufficiently attenuated from the illegal seizure so as to be free from any taint. In consequence, the convictions for possession of cocaine and marijuana should be reversed and remanded for a new trial. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Antonio D. Jones - Dissenting
I respectfully dissent. Based upon my review of the record, the encounter leading up to Defendant’s consent to submit to a search was a brief police-citizen encounter requiring no objective justification. State v. Daniel, 12 S.W.3d 420, 424 (Tenn. 2000). Accordingly, I would affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Antonio D. Jones
Following a bench trial, the Appellant, Antonio D. Jones, was convicted of one count of Class B felony possession of cocaine, one count of simple possession of marijuana, and one count of criminal trespass. The Appellant was sentenced to twelve years for felony possession of cocaine, eleven months and twenty-nine days for possession of marijuana, and thirty days for trespassing. All sentences were ordered to run concurrently for an effective sentence of twelve years. On appeal, the Appellant argues that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to establish his guilt of possession of over .5 grams of cocaine with intent to sell. He also argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence seized during a warrantless search. After review, we conclude that the trial court erred in denying Jones’ motion to suppress. Accordingly, the judgments of conviction for possession of marijuana and felony possession of cocaine are reversed and remanded for a new trial. Jones’ conviction for criminal trespass is affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Gregory Bernard Grier
In Case No. 15207, the Bedford County Grand Jury charged Defendant, Gregory Bernard Grier, with the sale of less than 0.5 grams of cocaine in Count 1, and with delivery of the same cocaine in Count 2. Following a jury trial, he was convicted of both charges. The trial court merged the conviction in Count 2 with the conviction in Count 1, and, following a sentencing hearing, Defendant was sentenced to serve nine (9) years in the Department of Correction as a Range II multiple offender for his Class C felony conviction. Due to the unique procedural history of this case pertaining to the preparation of the record on appeal and the status of Defendant's former counsel at the time of filing a statement of the evidence in lieu of a verbatim transcript, we are compelled to reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this case to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kendrick D. Hutton
Following a revocation hearing, the trial court revoked the probation of Defendant, Kendrick D. Hutton, and ordered him to serve the remainder of his sentence in confinement. On appeal, Defendant requests this Court to remand the matter for a new probation revocation hearing because the trial court failed to follow the statutory procedure governing probation revocations. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Giles | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
John R. Black, a/k/a Rene J. Black v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, John R. Black, a/k/a Rene J. Black, filed a petition for post-conviction relief, as amended, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal. Following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied the petition. On appeal, Petitioner argues that trial counsel's assistance was ineffective (1) for failing to prepare an adequate record for appeal; (2) for failing to request an instruction on the lesser included offense of false imprisonment or raise the trial court's failure to do so on appeal; and (3) for failing to object to the prosecutor's improper questions and comments during Petitioner's cross-examination at trial and during closing argument. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jeffrey Casey v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Jeffrey Casey, appeals the trial court's dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The issue presented for review is whether the petition was properly dismissed without an evidentiary hearing. The judgment is affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Mark Medley v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Mark Medley, appeals from the Rutherford County Circuit Court's denial of post-conviction relief. In his petition, and now in this appeal, he alleges that he entered an involuntary guilty plea based upon the ineffective assistance of counsel. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Francis L. Sanschargrin v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Francis Sanschargrin, filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus relief. The trial court dismissed the petition, finding no grounds entitling Petitioner to habeas corpus relief. On appeal, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Carlos Cabellero-Grajeda In Re: E & W Bonding
Appellant, E & W Bonding Company, appeals the trial court's denial of its motion for relief of its obligation under a bail bond of $100,000 in the case of criminal defendant Carlos Albert Cabellero-Grajeda. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Roxa H. Perkins - Concurring
I concur in the result reached by the majority in this case, i.e., that the search of the defendant's car was permissible. However, I dissent to the extent that the majority opinion implies that probable cause existed upon the arrival of the described vehicle. I would not find probable cause had the driver, in a similar vehicle, been an individual not associated with Bobby Perkins, the target of this operation. |
Coffee | Court of Criminal Appeals |
