State of Tennessee v. Justin Genel Hill
An Obion County grand jury indicted the defendant, Justin Genel Hill, of two counts of first degree murder and one count of conspiracy to commit first degree murder. In a separate indictment, Clarence Carnell Gaston, Miqwon Deon Leach, and Mario Deangelo Thomas were also charged with crimes arising out of the same criminal episode. The defendant and these three men were tried in a single jury trial. The jury found Gaston, Leach, and Thomas guilty of conspiracy to commit first degree murder, second degree murder, and first degree felony murder and found the defendant guilty of facilitation to commit second degree murder. See State v. Clarence Carnell Gaston, No. W2001-02046-CCA-R3-CD, 2003 WL 261941, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Jackson, Feb. 7, 2003). For the defendant's conviction, the trial court sentenced him to serve a ten-year sentence in the Department of Corrections. The defendant now brings this appeal of his conviction, alleging that the evidence introduced at trial is insufficient to support his conviction. After reviewing the record and applicable law, we find that the defendant's allegation lacks merit and accordingly affirm the defendant's conviction. |
Obion | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Keith Dwayne Guthrie - Order
In this appeal the appellant was convicted of theft of property over $500 and sentenced to two (2) years on community corrections. Approximately three (3) months later he was convicted of vandalism of property valued under $500. At the time of his arrest on the vandalism charge the appellant was intoxicated. As a result of his conduct while on community corrections his sentence to this program was revoked. He was re-sentenced to one (1) year of continuous incarceration followed by one (1) year of community corrections. |
Henry | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Darrell Wentzel v. State of Tennessee
On December 6, 1996, the petitioner was convicted of armed robbery, aggravated burglary, and aggravated kidnaping. On direct appeal, those convictions were affirmed. The Tennessee Supreme Court denied permission to appeal on May 10, 1999. On June 21, 2001, the petitioner filed, pro se, a document titled "motion for extraordinary relief." The trial court dismissed the motion, characterizing it as a petition for post-conviction relief, and barred by the one-year statute of limitations. We affirm the dismissal from the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Timothy Roberts
The defendant originally pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to various theft and forgery offenses as a Range II multiple offender for an effective six-year sentence, most of which would be served on community corrections. At the time of the plea, he agreed his sentence would be increased to ten years if he violated the community corrections program. He was subsequently revoked and ordered to serve an effective ten-year sentence in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he contends the trial court failed to make sentencing findings and imposed illegal sentences above the authorized Range II punishment. We agree and, therefore, reverse and remand for a new sentencing hearing. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Glenn A. Saddler v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to imprisonment for twenty-five years as a Range I offender. Following an evidentiary hearing and the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief, the petitioner argues on appeal that prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance at his trial merit a new trial. We affirm the post-conviction court's dismissal of the petition. |
Wilson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Colico Walls
The defendant, Colico Walls, was convicted of aggravated robbery and aggravated assault. The trial court imposed a Range I sentence of 11 years for the aggravated robbery and a Range II sentence of 10 years for the aggravated assault. The sentences were ordered to be served consecutively. In this appeal of right, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. The judgment is affirmed as to the aggravated robbery. The aggravated assault is modified to simple assault, a Class A misdemeanor, having an 11-month, 29-day sentence. The sentences, as modified, shall be served consecutively. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Vickie Swift
The defendant, Vickie Swift, was convicted of one count of theft over $1000. The trial court imposed a sentence of three years to be served on probation. Later, probation was revoked. In this appeal, the defendant asserts that the trial court erred by revoking her probation and ordering her incarcerated for the balance of her sentence. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jeffrey Smith
The defendant, Jeffrey Smith, pled guilty to three counts of aggravated burglary, one count of aggravated robbery, one count of attempted robbery, and one count of theft under $500. The trial court imposed sentences as follows: six years for two of the aggravated burglaries and three years for the remaining aggravated burglary, twelve years for aggravated robbery, two years for attempted robbery, and eleven months and twenty-nine days for theft under $500. The trial court ordered that the twelve-year sentence for aggravated robbery be served consecutively to the sentence for aggravated burglary in Count 1 of case number 238391. The effective sentence is, therefore, eighteen years. In this appeal, the defendant complains that the sentence is excessive. Because consecutive sentences were not warranted, the judgments must be modified to reflect that all the sentences are to be served concurrently. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jonathan Thornton v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Jonathan Thornton, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief, alleging that the sentence imposed by this court on direct appeal is illegal. Because the sentence imposed by this court upon direct appeal is in direct contravention of a statute, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the petitioner's sentence is modified. With regard to the petitioner's felony conviction, we modify the sentence to a term of split confinement, with 7.2 months to be served in the local jail and the balance to be served on probation. The sentence for the misdemeanor sentence remains the same, 11 months and 29 days with thirty percent to be served in confinement. |
Greene | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joseph B. Thompson
The defendant, Joseph B. Thompson, was convicted of aggravated robbery and aggravated kidnapping. The trial court imposed consecutive sentences of twenty years for each offense for an effective sentence of forty years. In this appeal of right, the defendant asserts (1) that the trial court erred by denying his motion for judgment of acquittal; (2) that his convictions for both aggravated robbery and aggravated kidnapping violate the rule established in State v. Anthony; (3) that a pretrial photographic array was unduly suggestive; (4) that the trial court erred by the admission of photographs of the victim; (5) that the trial court erred by denying his motion for mistrial; (6) that the offenses should have been severed for trial; (7) that the trial court erred by refusing to dismiss the indictment when the state failed to disclose exculpatory information; (8) that the trial court erred by admitting a receipt that was not properly authenticated; (9) that the trial court impermissibly limited closing argument to forty minutes; and (10) that the sentence is excessive. The judgments of the trial court are affirmed. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Joann Gail Rosa v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner appeals the dismissal of her petition for post-conviction relief from her conviction for first degree murder, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in finding that she received effective assistance of trial counsel. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the petitioner failed to demonstrate either a deficiency in counsel's performance or a resulting prejudice to her case. Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of the petition. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Michael Anthony Scruggs v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Michael Anthony Scruggs, pled guilty to forgery and theft under $500. The trial court ordered concurrent sentences of six years for the forgery and eleven months, twenty-nine days, for the theft. No appeal was taken. Later, the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief, finding that the petitioner had failed to prove that his appointed counsel fell below the required level of competency. The judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Mario C. Estrada
The Appellant, Mario C. Estrada, appeals the sentencing decision of the Maury County Circuit Court imposing a sentence of twelve years incarceration in the Department of Correction. The sentence arose from guilty pleas by Estrada to one count of arson, eight counts of aggravated assault, and one count of possession of a prohibited weapon. The indictment returned against Estrada charged him with one count of aggravated arson, eight counts of attempted first degree murder, and one count of possession of a prohibited weapon. In this appeal, Estrada raises the issue of whether the trial court erred by ordering that his sentence be served in total confinement. After review, we find that plain error dictates that the convictions be vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings because aggravated assault is not a lesser included offense of attempted first degree murder. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Michael Lynn Walton v. State of Tennessee
|
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Sharon R. Hurt v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Sharon R. Hurt, was convicted by a jury of first degree murder and conspiracy to commit first degree murder. The trial court sentenced Petitioner to serve consecutive sentences of life imprisonment and twenty-four years. On direct appeal, this court affirmed Petitioner's convictions and sentences. State v. James Murray, Marcie Murray and Sharon R. Hurt, No. 01C01-9702-CR-00066, 1998 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 1323, 1998 WL 934578 (Tenn. Crim. App., filed at Nashville, Dec. 30, 1998), perm. to app. denied (Tenn., June 28, 1999). On September 4, 2001, Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, in which she alleged the existence of new scientific evidence establishing her actual innocence. The State sought to dismiss the petition. The trial court dismissed the petition, finding that Petitioner failed to show the existence of new scientific evidence, and the petition was therefore barred by the statute of limitations. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Cindy Gentry
The defendant was convicted of aggravated assault, a Class C felony, and was sentenced by the trial court as a Range I, standard offender to three years in the Department of Correction, with the sentence to be suspended and the defendant placed on probation after one year in the county workhouse. She raises two issues on appeal: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support her conviction; and (2) whether the trial court erred in ordering that she serve one year of her sentence in the county workhouse. Based on our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Dickson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Regionol L. Waters v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Reginol L. Walters, was convicted of aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, and two counts of aggravated rape and, while his direct appeal was pending, filed a petition pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-30-403 requesting forensic analysis of DNA evidence. The post-conviction court dismissed the petition, as well as a petition to reconsider, concluding that the petitioner could not proceed with his petition while his direct appeal was pending. Following our review, we conclude that the applicable statute does not prohibit the petitioner from proceeding simultaneously with a direct appeal and a petition for analysis of DNA evidence. Accordingly, we reverse the order of the post-conviction court and remand for consideration of the petition. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jason R. Garner
The Appellant, Jason R. Garner, appeals his conviction by a Shelby County jury of second degree murder and especially aggravated robbery. The convictions arose from Garner's involvement in the robbery and shooting of Charles Bledsoe. Garner received consecutive sentences of twenty years for second degree murder and twenty years for especially aggravated robbery. On appeal, Garner argues that: (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions; (2) the convictions are "irreconcilable;" (3) the trial court erred by allowing the State to file untimely notice of sentence enhancements; (4) the trial court erred by failing to submit an instruction with regard to accomplice testimony to the jury; and (5) his sentences were excessive and the imposition of consecutive sentences was error. After review, we find these issues without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Eric Gene Island
An Obion County jury convicted the defendant, Eric Gene Island, of attempt to commit robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery. The trial court sentenced him to concurrent sentences of four years for each conviction. On direct appeal, the defendant contends: (1) trial counsel was ineffective in failing to investigate the case and secure witnesses; and (2) he was denied his right to testify at trial. Upon reviewing the record, we conclude the failure to conduct a Momon hearing to determine whether the defendant personally waived his right to testify was plain error. Therefore, we remand the case to the trial court for a full hearing on the issue. |
Obion | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Dwayne Nelvis Slocum
The defendant appeals his effective ten-year community corrections sentence with a requirement of 160 days of jail time after pleading guilty to violating a habitual motor vehicle offender order, driving under the influence - 4th offense, and resisting arrest. The defendant filed no transcripts of the guilty plea submission hearing or sentencing hearing. These hearings are essential for appellate review. Therefore, we must presume that the trial court is correct. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Fayette | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Raymond Nicholus Wallace - Order
On August 27, 2001, pursuant to a bench trial, the Circuit Court of Tipton County found the defendant, Raymond N. Wallace, guilty of driving under the influence, second offense. For this offense, he received an effective sentence of eleven months, twenty-nine (29) days, suspended on the service of forty-five (45) days. The court fined the defendant $600.00 and suspended his license to drive for two years. The defendant contends that the evidence presented at his trial was insufficient to support the conviction for driving under the influence of intoxicating beverages. After a thorough review of the record before this Court, we affirm the trial court’s judgment pursuant to Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20. |
Tipton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Dennis J. Hughes v. State of Tennessee
Dennis J. Hughes appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. He claims on appeal that the lower court erred in (1) denying his claim that his constitutional rights were abridged by the state's failure to disclose evidence against him prior to trial as part of the bill of particulars, and (2) ruling that he could not impeach the prosecutor from the conviction proceedings with the prosecutor's own alleged prior bad acts. Because we are unpersuaded of reversible error, we affirm the post-conviction court's denial of relief. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Melissa Ann Brewer
The defendant appeals her sentence of three years imprisonment for the sale of less than .5 grams of cocaine, a Class C felony. The defendant argues she is a favorable candidate for alternative sentencing. The record supports the defendant's assertion that she is entitled to an alternative sentence. The defendant is sentenced to three years in split confinement, with thirty (30) days incarceration and the remainder on supervised probation. We remand this judgment to determine if the defendant continues to hold full-time employment. If the defendant is employed full-time, she is to serve her thirty (30) days in periodic confinement. |
Coffee | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Mario Starnes
The Appellant, James Mario Starnes, was indicted by the Bedford County Grand Jury for first degree murder and especially aggravated robbery. Starnes pled guilty to attempted second degree murder and especially aggravated robbery. Following a sentencing hearing, Starnes received concurrent sentences of ten years, nine months for attempted second degree murder and twenty-five years for especially aggravated robbery. Starnes now appeals his especially aggravated robbery conviction, contending that the evidence is insufficient to establish his guilt for that offense. Because the error complained of was waived as a matter of law by Starnes’ plea of guilty, this issue is not reviewable upon direct appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Thomas J. McKee v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Thomas J. McKee, appeals the Knox County Criminal Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his conviction for first degree premeditated murder and resulting life sentence. He contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial attorney failed (1) to request a mental evaluation for him; (2) to make a contemporaneous objection to the state's improper closing argument; and (3) to object to the inclusion of the phrase "moral certainty" in the jury's instruction on reasonable doubt. We affirm the trial court's denial of the petition. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals |
