Cedrick Mitchell v. State of Tennessee - Concurring
I agree with the result reached by the majority. It is my view, however, that the petitioner is not attacking the revocation of his probation, which, as the majority correctly points out, is not permitted. It is my understanding that the petitioner claims that he would not have entered guilty pleas to the two misdemeanor charges if he had known that he was not eligible for boot camp. He also claims that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to determine in advance of his plea that it was the policy of the Department of Correction to arbitrarily exclude from boot camp those offenders who had originally been charged with aggravated robbery by the use of a deadly weapon. |
Giles | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Cedrick Mitchell v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Cedrick Konard Mitchell, appeals from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. In his appeal, Petitioner contends that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel in connection with the negotiation and entry of Petitioner's best interest guilty plea to the charges of assault and driving on a suspended license, and that his guilty plea was not knowingly or voluntarily entered into. After a careful review of the record in this matter, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Giles | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William E. Pewitt
The Defendant, William E. Pewitt, pled guilty to one count of theft over $1000.00, one count of burglary, and one count of theft over $500.00. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective sentence of two years, and the Defendant appeals, contending that the trial court erred when it denied him alternative sentencing. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Mario Antoine Leggs v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Mario Antoine Leggs, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. In this appeal, he contends that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. In addition, he asserts that the ruling in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. __, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), renders his sentences invalid. The judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Scott McClain
The appellant, Scott McClain, pled guilty in the Washington County Criminal Court to driving under the influence (DUI) with a blood alcohol content greater than .20. He received a sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days incarceration in the Washington County Jail. As a condition of his plea, the appellant reserved certified questions of law concerning the suppression of the results of his blood alcohol test. Upon our review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Washington | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Mark Ray Delashmit
The defendant, Mark Ray Delashmit, entered pleas of guilt to manufacturing methamphetamine, a Schedule II drug, and to possessing methamphetamine with the intent to deliver. The trial court imposed concurrent, four-year sentences in a community corrections program. As part of the plea agreement, the defendant reserved a certified question of law pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2)(i) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure. The question that has been certified for review by the trial court is "[w]hether the search warrant executed upon Defendant’s residence was supported by probable cause. Specifically, whether there is an adequate showing of the reliability and credibility of the informant." The judgments are affirmed. |
Tipton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James Robert Wilson v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner appeals the denial of post-conviction relief, contending that trial counsel was ineffective in: (1) declining a curative instruction following a witness' characterization of the petitioner as "a robber;" (2) failing to object to the untimely disclosure of audiotapes containing statements made by the petitioner to a key prosecution witness; (3) failing to argue that the term "recklessly" was statutorily inapplicable to the petitioner, and because the term was included in the indictment, failing to get a jury instruction on reckless homicide. Upon review, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Harold Lindell Scharkley v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Harold Lindell Scharkley, filed a petition for post-conviction relief contending that his guilty pleas were involuntary and unknowing because he received ineffective assistance of counsel and because the trial court failed to follow the requirements of Rule 11 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied the Petitioner’s request for post-conviction relief. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Robertson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Johnny Quent Crudup
Defendant, Johnny Quent Crudup, was indicted on two counts of theft of property of more than $1,000 but less than $10,000, a Class D felony, and two counts of theft of property of more than $10,000 and less than $60,000, a Class C felony. Defendant filed an application for pretrial diversion which was subsequently denied by the district attorney general. The trial court denied the writ of certiorari and affirmed the district attorney general's decision. Defendant was granted permission to take an interlocutory appeal pursuant to Rule 9 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. Defendant contends that the district attorney general abused his discretion in denying Defendant's application, and that the denial was improperly made by an assistant district attorney instead of the district attorney. We affirm the trial court's order denying pretrial diversion. |
Wilson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ricky Thomas Hughes, II v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Ricky Thomas Hughes, II, appeals from the post-conviction court's denial of post-conviction relief. On appeal, he contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel when his trial counsel failed to properly investigate and prepare his case for trial and failed to advise him of the consequences of proceeding to trial. The petitioner also contends that his sentences are invalid under Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. ----, 124 S.Ct. 2531 (2004). Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court denying post-conviction relief. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Bobby Nelson
The Defendant, Bobby Nelson, upon his plea of guilty, was convicted of arson, a Class C felony. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court was to establish the length and manner of service of the Defendant's sentence. The sentence for arson was to be served concurrently with another sentence the Defendant was already serving for prior convictions. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court found the Defendant was a Range I, standard offender, sentenced him to four and a half years, and ordered the Defendant serve his entire sentence with the Tennessee Department of Correction (TDOC). On appeal, the Defendant argues two issues pertaining to sentencing: (1) the trial court erred by imposing an excessive sentence, and (2) the trial court erred in denying probation or alternative sentencing. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sequatchie | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Chris Edward Porter
The Appellant, Chris Edward Porter, appeals the sentencing decision of the Marshall County Circuit Court which resulted in the imposition of an effective ten-year sentence of incarceration. On appeal, Porter challenges the trial court's denial of alternative sentencing. After review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Darryl Ammons
The defendant, Darryl Ammons, was indicted and tried for one count of attempt to commit first degree murder and aggravated assault. He was subsequently convicted by a jury of attempted criminally negligent homicide and aggravated assault. The trial court merged the conviction for attempted criminally negligent homicide into the conviction for aggravated assault and sentenced the defendant to ten years as a Range II multiple offender. Upon review, we vacate the defendant's conviction for attempted criminally negligent homicide but affirm his conviction for aggravated assault. |
Dickson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Derek Bates
The Defendant, Derek Bates, was convicted by a jury of two counts of aggravated robbery, which the trial court subsequently merged into a single conviction. The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I, standard offender to nine years in the Department of Correction. In this direct appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and the constitutionality of his sentence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Carlos Eddings
The Defendant, Carlos Eddings, was tried and convicted for aggravated robbery, and the trial court sentenced the Defendant to ten years in prison. The Defendant appealed, and a majority of this Court concluded that his sentence must be modified to eight years pursuant to the United States Supreme Court case Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004). State v. Carlos Eddings, No. W2003-02255-CCA-R3-CD, 2004 WL 2266794, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, Oct. 8, 2004). The State filed an application for permission to appeal with the Tennessee Supreme Court pursuant to |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Johnnie M. Talley, III v. State of Tennessee
After a bench trial, the Williamson County Criminal Court convicted the petitioner, Johnnie M. Talley, III, of five counts of making a false report and sentenced him to an effective sentence of eight years in the Department of Correction (DOC). Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging (1) that his counsel was ineffective for failing to have him evaluated by a psychologist and (2) that he did not knowingly and voluntarily waive his rights to a jury trial or to testify. After an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court dismissed the petition, and the petitioner now appeals. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee s. William Harlon Adams
The appellant, William Harlon Adams, appeals his convictions for vandalism of less than five hundred dollars ($500) and criminal attempt to commit resisting arrest. The following issues are presented for our review: (1) whether the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress; (2) whether the trial court erred in instructing the jury on the offense of attempt to resist arrest; (3) whether the trial court erred in denying the motion to dismiss; (4) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for vandalism; and (5) whether the trial court correctly sentenced the appellant. After a thorough review, we determine that attempt to resist arrest is not a crime, thus, we reverse the appellant's conviction and remand the case for any further proceedings which may be necessary. We affirm the remainder of the judgment of the trial court, including the conviction for vandalism. |
Coffee | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jerome William Devereaux v. State of Tennessee - Dissenting
I respectfully disagree with the result reached in the majority opinion. I believe that the petitioner’s decision to plead guilty to the twelve-year sentence instead of the 7.2-year sentence resulted from inadequate advice. |
Jefferson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Paul Friedman
The Defendant, Paul Friedman, pled guilty to one count of promoting prostitution. Pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37, the Defendant reserved as a certified question of law the issue of whether Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-512 (2003), et seq., under which he was indicted, was unconstitutional. We conclude that this statute is constitutional, and the judgment of the trial court is therefore affirmed. |
Giles | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Gregory Eidson v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Gregory Eidson, filed a petition for wit of habeas corpus seeking relief from allegedly void judgments, which the trial court summarily dismissed. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the habeas corpus court erred when it dismissed his petition. Finding that there exists reversible error in the judgment of the habeas corpus court, we reverse its dismissal of the Petitioner's petition for habeas corpus relief, and we remand the case for the appointment of counsel and an evidentiary hearing. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Dennis Harmon v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Dennis Harmon, appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that his counsel was ineffective and that his guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered. After an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court dismissed the petition, and the petitioner appealed. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Overton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Shawnta Lamont Marsh
The defendant, Shawnta Lamont Marsh, pled guilty to six counts of sale or delivery of cocaine over .5 grams. The trial court merged all but three of the convictions and ordered the defendant to serve consecutive sentences of eight years and one month for each offense. The effective sentence is twenty-four years and three months. In this appeal of right, the defendant contends that the trial court erred by ordering consecutive sentencing. The judgments of the trial court are affirmed. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Larry C. Strong v. State of Tennessee
The pro se petitioner, Larry C. Strong, appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief as time-barred, arguing that he should have been afforded an evidentiary hearing to present proof of his timely filing of the petition. Following our review, we affirm the post-conviction court's summary dismissal of the petition. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Corey Huddleston
The appellant, Corey Huddleston, was convicted of multiple counts of theft of property valued under $500, vandalism of property valued under $500, and criminal trespass. He received sentences of eleven months and twenty-nine days for each of his theft and vandalism convictions and thirty days for each of his criminal trespass convictions. On appeal, the appellant challenges the trial court's imposition of consecutive sentencing. Upon our review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Dickson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Bingham
A Bedford County jury convicted the defendant, John Thomas Bingham, of robbery, a Class C felony. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced him as a Range I, standard offender to five years and six months in the Department of Correction. In this appeal, the defendant argues that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction and that the trial court erred in sentencing. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals |
