State of Tennessee v. Dee Thompson
The appellant, Dee W. Thompson, was convicted by a jury in the Davidson County Criminal Court of three counts of aggravated rape. He was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. On appeal, the appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions, the trial court's rulings regarding the admissibility of prior testimony, and the qualification of a witness to testify as an expert. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In re: Guy James Bonding
The appellant, Guy James Bonding, appeals the order of the Rutherford County Circuit Court denying its petition for reimbursement of a forfeited bail bond in the case of criminal defendant Valissa Granderson. Following a review of the record and the parties' briefs, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for a hearing at which the trial court shall determine to what relief, if any, the appellant is entitled. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Charles Orlando Fields v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Charles Orlando Fields, was found guilty by a jury in the Obion County Circuit Court of one count of selling .5 grams or more of a substance containing cocaine within one thousand feet of a school zone. The petitioner was sentenced to thirty-three years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that he received the ineffective assistance of trial counsel. After an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court found that the petitioner’s claims were waived and that regardless of waiver, the petitioner failed to prove prejudice. The petitioner appeals. Upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Obion | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Ward, II
The Defendant, Michael Ward, II, was convicted by a jury of attempted second degree murder, aggravated spousal rape, especially aggravated kidnapping, aggravated robbery, and aggravated burglary. In this direct appeal, the Defendant raises five issues: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain his five convictions; (2) whether double jeopardy bars multiple convictions that all require proof of the element of serious bodily injury; (3) whether the trial court erred by admitting evidence of the Defendant's prior bad acts; (4) whether the Defendant was prejudiced by the State's failure to provide him with discovery items; and (5) whether the Defendant is entitled to a new trial based on the cumulative effect of the alleged trial errors. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Coffee | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
William Osepczuk v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, William Osepczuk, was convicted of attempted first degree murder and sentenced to confinement for twenty-five years. After his conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal, he filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that trial counsel had been ineffective. Following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied the petition, and this timely appeal resulted. After review, we affirm the denial of the petition. |
Lawrence | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Charles Jones v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Charles William Jones, appeals the denial of post-conviction relief relating to his conviction for second degree murder. On appeal, the petitioner contends the trial court erroneously instructed the jury regarding the definition of "knowingly" as applied to second degree murder. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Frank Sumner v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Frank Sumner, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for 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 Petitioner fails to assert a cognizable claim for which habeas corpus relief may be granted. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Hickman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Mandrall Porter v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Mandrall Porter, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for 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. After a review of the record, this court determines that petitioner's claims must fail. Petitioner has failed to present any evidence that his sentence has expired or that his conviction for especially aggravated robbery is void. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Wayne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Timothy Taylor v. Kevin Myers, Warden
The defendant was convicted in 1998 of a series of felonies, receiving an effective sentence of five years and six months. He was released on parole in 1999, and his parole was revoked in 2002, resulting in his reincarceration. Subsequently, he filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, asserting that his five-year-six-month sentence had expired. The post-conviction court dismissed the petition; and, following our review, we affirm the dismissal. |
Wayne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Brandon Mottern
The defendant pled guilty to two counts of automobile burglary and one count of theft under $500. The Washington County Criminal Court ordered the defendant to serve an effective sentence of five years of incarceration as a Range II multiple offender. During the same hearing, the trial court revoked the defendant's probation from numerous prior convictions and ordered the defendant to serve an effective three-year sentence on those cases. The guilty plea cases and the revocation cases were consolidated on appeal. On appeal, the defendant contends: (1) upon revoking his probation for the prior convictions, the trial court erred by ordering him to serve his original sentences in confinement; and (2) the trial court erred in denying alternative sentencing regarding his new convictions. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Washington | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jeffery Bowers
The defendant, Jeffery Bowers, appeals his misdemeanor speeding convictions in the Fayette County Circuit Court, claiming that the trial court improperly denied his request for time to obtain an attorney and, therefore, that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Fayette | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. David L. Taylor
A Campbell County jury convicted the defendant of driving under the influence, third offense. On appeal, the defendant contends the state failed to establish venue. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Campbell | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Richard A. Siters
On February 28, 2002, the defendant, Richard A. Siters, pled guilty to four counts of attempted rape, a Class C felony; one count of sexual battery, a Class E felony; and one count of attempted sexual battery, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced the defendant to six years, suspended, and placed him on intensive supervised probation. On appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court erred in revoking his probation. We disagree and affirm the revocation. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Darian Sparks
The defendant, Darian Nigel Sparks, pled guilty in the Knox County Criminal Court to robbery and the attempted sale of a Schedule I controlled substance, Class C felonies. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the defendant received consecutive sentences of eight years for each offense, with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court denied the defendant's request for alternative sentences and ordered that he serve his sentences in the Department of Correction. The defendant appeals, claiming that the trial court erred by ordering that he serve his sentences in confinement. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Christopher Brown v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner appeals the denial of post-conviction relief relating to his convictions for attempted first degree murder and attempted second degree murder. On appeal, the petitioner contends: (1) he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal; and (2) the trial court erroneously instructed the jury on the definition of the "knowing" mens rea for attempted second degree murder. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jon Brewbaker
The Defendant, Jon Brewbaker, pled guilty to second degree murder, a Class A felony. After a hearing, the trial court sentenced the Defendant to twenty-three years in the Department of Correction. The sole issue on appeal is whether the sentence imposed by the trial court is excessive. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Bradley | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jonathan W. Susman
The Defendant, Jonathan W. Susman, pled guilty to driving while under the influence of an intoxicant. As part of his plea agreement, he expressly reserved with the consent of the trial judge and the State the right to appeal a certified question of law pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2)(i). The question is whether there were sufficient specific and articulable facts to justify a police officer detaining the Defendant in order for him to perform field sobriety tests. We conclude that there were, and we affirm the trial court's judgment. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Danny Williamson
The defendant, Danny Williamson, pled guilty in the Cocke County Criminal Court to possession of a Schedule VI controlled substance with intent to sell, a Class D felony. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the defendant received a two-year sentence as a Range I, standard offender with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court held that the need for deterrence warranted the defendant's serving his entire sentence in confinement. The defendant appeals, claiming that the trial court erred by denying his request for full probation. We affirm the defendant's sentence but remand the case for entry of a corrected judgment. |
Cocke | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joe King
The defendant, Joe King, appeals the sufficiency of evidence to support his conviction for theft and the amount of restitution ordered by the trial court. After review of the entire record in this cause, we conclude that the evidence amply supported the defendant's conviction. The issue of restitution is waived pursuant to Rule 10(b) of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. |
Franklin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Hubert Nard
The defendant, in this appeal of right, challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions for driving under the influence (DUI) and disorderly conduct. After a careful review of the record, we affirm both convictions. The disorderly conduct conviction is remanded for modification of judgment to conform to the statutory maximum sentence. |
Franklin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John Lemont Pierce,a.k.a. James Owens, a.k.a. John Lamonte Pierce
The defendant, John Lemont Pierce, indicted for two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, three counts of aggravated assault, and simple assault, entered a guilty plea to one count of aggravated assault. The trial court imposed a fifteen-year sentence to be served consecutively to a prior six-year sentence. In this appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court erred by ordering a maximum sentence of 15 years and requiring consecutive service. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Ray Bartlett
The defendant, James Ray Bartlett, appeals the trial court's denial of his request for credit for time served in community corrections. Because the defendant has no appeal as of right under Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(b), the cause is dismissed. |
Lincoln | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
William Houston v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner was convicted by a Giles County jury for several drug-related offenses and was given an effective sentence of 72 years. In his direct appeal to this Court, his conviction was affirmed, and his sentence was reduced to 46 years. Petitioner then filed a Petition for Post-conviction Relief. The post-conviction court denied the petition. Petitioner appeals the decision of the post-conviction court and argues three issues on appeal: (1) Whether the post-conviction court erred in finding that trial counsel was effective; (2) whether the post-conviction court erred in its decision with respect to the trial judge's presence in the jury room; and (3) whether newly-discovered evidence of officer/witness's wrong doing and character mandates a new trial. We affirm the decision of the post-conviction court. |
Giles | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Richard Dewayne Jordan
A Rhea County jury convicted the defendant, Richard Dewayne Jordan, of two counts of aggravated sexual battery and one count of incest, for which he received an effective twelve-year sentence. On appeal, the defendant argues: (1) the trial court improperly allowed the state to amend the indictment to charge a different date of commission of the offenses; and (2) the indictment failed to inform him of the charges with sufficient particularity. We remand for correction of a clerical error in the judgment but otherwise affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Rhea | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Barry Ray Long
The Weakley County Grand Jury indicted the defendant for manufacturing not less than .5 ounce or more than 10 pounds of marijuana. The Weakley County Sheriff’s Department found the marijuana pursuant to a search of the defendant’s home based on a search warrant. The sheriff’s department received the search warrant based on information garnered in a non-consensual warrantless search of a portable shed behind the defendant’s home. Due to previous drug-related charges which were later dismissed, the portable shed had been the subject of forfeiture proceedings in 2000. The defendant made no efforts to contest the forfeiture, but the sheriff’s department also made no efforts to remove the portable shed. The defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence found as a result of the search of the portable shed. After a hearing, the trial court denied the motion. The defendant then entered a plea of guilty and purported to reserve this certified question for appeal: Whether or not the search of the storage shed predicated on a search warrant was preceded and based upon a prior warrantless search. Because of the ambiguity of the certified question as presented, we dismiss the appeal. |
Weakley | Court of Criminal Appeals |
