COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OPINIONS

State of Tennessee v. Jody Lane Orr - Concurring
W2001-02075-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: Judge C. Creed McGinley
I concur with most of the majority opinion. I respectfully disagree with its conclusion that enhancement factor (5), regarding exceptional cruelty, does not apply. I believe that being duct taped, blindfolded, tied up, and made to wear a New Year’s party hat reflect mental abuse and degradation that goes above and beyond that inherently necessary for any aggravated rape. Although I do not believe that the weight of the two enhancement factors applied by the majority opinion should result in a maximum sentence of twenty-five years, I conclude that the sentence is appropriate because of the application of enhancement factor (5), as well.

Carroll Court of Criminal Appeals

State of Tennessee v. Jody Lane Orr
W2001-02075-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Trial Court Judge: Judge C. Creed McGinley
The Appellant, Jody Lane Orr, was convicted by a Carroll County jury of aggravated burglary, aggravated rape, and class E felony theft. He received an effective twenty-five-year sentence. On appeal, Orr raises the following issues for review: (1) whether the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress; (2) whether the State lost and/or mishandled a blood sample drawn by law enforcement after his arrest; (3) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the verdicts; and (4) whether his sentence was proper. After a review of the record, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

Carroll Court of Criminal Appeals

State of Tennessee v. Adrian Lumpkin
W2002-00648-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: Judge Carolyn Wade Blackett

The Defendant, Adrian Lumpkin, was indicted for aggravated assault. He pled guilty and agreed to a sentence of three years with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court granted the Defendant judicial diversion subject to several conditions. In this appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred by placing unreasonable conditions on its grant of judicial diversion. We conclude that the trial court had no legal authority to impose a term of incarceration as a condition of judicial diversion. However, with respect to the remaining conditions, we dismiss the Defendant's appeal because a defendant to whom judicial diversion was granted has no appeal as of right.

Shelby Court of Criminal Appeals

State of Tennessee v. David L. Baker
M2001-02025-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Trial Court Judge: Judge John J. Maddux

The defendant, David L. Baker, was convicted of driving under the influence, fourth offense, and sentenced to eleven months, twenty-nine days, with 210 days to be served in the county jail and the balance on supervised probation. He was ordered to pay a fine of $1100 and to complete an alcohol education safety program, and his driver's license was suspended for four years. He timely appealed, presenting as the single issue his claim that the evidence presented was insufficient to support the verdict. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of conviction.

Putnam Court of Criminal Appeals

State of Tennessee v. Ronnie K. Daniel and Jessica J. Echols
M2001-03092-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: Judge Donald P. Harris

A Williamson County jury convicted the defendants of DUI, first offense. Defendant Daniel was sentenced to eleven months and twenty-nine days, all suspended except for 90 days incarceration. Defendant Echols' eleven-month and twenty-nine day sentence was suspended after 30 days incarceration. The sole issue on appeal is whether their sentences are excessive. We find the defendants failed to file their notices of appeal within 30 days of the trial court's orders overruling their motions for new trial; therefore, their appeal is dismissed.

Williamson Court of Criminal Appeals

Lloyd E. Ferrell and Debra L. Ferrell v. State of Tennessee
W2001-01465-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Trial Court Judge: Judge C. Creed McGinley

The Appellants, Lloyd E. Ferrell and Debra L. Ferrell, appeal the denial of post-conviction relief by the Hardin County Circuit Court. On appeal, both contend that the post-conviction court erred by not finding ineffective assistance of counsel. In addition, Debra Ferrell asserts: (1) that she should be granted a new trial because the State failed to provide Brady/Bagley material: (2) that the postconviction court erred by not making written findings of fact on each issue raised in the petition, and (3) that the cumulative effect of all errors at trial, in addition to counsel’s ineffectiveness, deprived her of a meaningful defense. After review, we affirm the dismissal of the petitions.

Hardin Court of Criminal Appeals

State of Tennessee v. Carla Moten
W2001-01922-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas T. Woodall
Trial Court Judge: Judge Arthur T. Bennett

Defendant, Carla Moten, was indicted by the Shelby County Grand Jury for aggravated burglary and intentional aggravated assault. Defendant was convicted by a jury of the lesser-included offense of reckless aggravated assault. The jury also found Defendant guilty of aggravated criminal trespass as a lesser-included offense of aggravated burglary. Defendant was sentenced to two years for her reckless aggravated assault conviction and six months for her aggravated criminal trespass conviction, to be served concurrently. In her appeal as of right, Defendant argues that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support her conviction for reckless aggravated assault. We disagree, and affirm the judgment of the trial court regarding the conviction for reckless aggravated assault. However, we find plain error in the conviction for aggravated criminal trespass as a lesser-included offense of aggravated burglary and therefore reverse and dismiss the conviction for aggravated criminal trespass.

Shelby Court of Criminal Appeals

State of Tennessee v. Danial R. Willcutt
W2001-02743-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Trial Court Judge: Judge C. Creed McGinley
A Hardin County jury convicted the defendant, Danial R. Willcutt,1 of aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony. The defendant was sentenced as a Range I violent offender to twelve years in the Department of Correction. In this appeal as of right, the defendant raises the following issues: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction for aggravated sexual battery; and (2) whether his maximum Range I sentence is excessive. Upon review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Hardin Court of Criminal Appeals

State of Tennessee v. Danial R. Willcutt - Concurring
W2001-02743-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: Judge C. Creed McGinley
I write separately to express my concern over the continuing problem we see in appellate records where the record fails to explain witness demonstrations. Nevertheless, I find the evidence in this case sufficient to support the verdict regardless of this shortcoming. Thus, I do not reach the issue of which party has the burden of proof with regard to witness demonstrations.

Hardin Court of Criminal Appeals

State of Tennessee v. Olivia Williams
E2002-00687-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: Judge Ben W. Hooper, II

The defendant pled guilty to one count of Class D felony theft over $10,000, received an agreed three-year sentence, and agreed to allow the trial court to determine the manner in which her sentence would be served. The trial court ordered the sentence to be served in incarceration. In this appeal, the defendant argues the trial court erred in denying alternative sentencing. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Cocke Court of Criminal Appeals

Jesse Carter v. State of Tennessee
M2001-02496-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: Judge W. Charles Lee

The petitioner appeals the denial of his post-conviction relief petition. He argues: (1) his trial counsel was ineffective in advising him regarding the sentence agreement in which he waived his right to appeal; and (2) he did not knowingly and voluntarily waive his right to appeal. We conclude that although the post-conviction court erroneously stated that the uncorroborated testimony of the post-conviction petitioner "should be summarily struck," the post-conviction court, nevertheless, made proper and adequate findings which support the denial of relief. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Bedford Court of Criminal Appeals

State of Tennessee v. Anthony R. Parham
M2002-00007-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: Judge J. Randall Wyatt, Jr.

A Davidson County jury convicted the defendant, Anthony R. Parham, of sexual battery. In this appeal as of right, the defendant raises the issue of whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for sexual battery. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Davidson Court of Criminal Appeals

State of Tennessee v. Michael Tucker
W2000-02220-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: Judge Chris B. Craft
The Shelby County Grand Jury indicted the Defendant for felony murder in the perpetration of a robbery, first degree premeditated murder, and especially aggravated robbery. Following a trial, at which the Defendant was tried with his co-defendant, a Shelby County jury convicted the Defendant of second degree murder. The Defendant now appeals his conviction as of right, arguing that insufficient evidence was presented to support his conviction, that the trial court supplied the jury with improper supplemental instructions, and that the trial court improperly commented on the evidence at trial. Concluding that sufficient evidence was presented to support the Defendant’s conviction for second degree murder, that the trial court’s supplemental instructions to the jury were proper, and that the trial court did not improperly comment on the evidence, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Shelby Court of Criminal Appeals

State of Tennessee v. Michael Tucker - Concurring
W2000-02220-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Gary R. Wade
Trial Court Judge: Judge Chris B. Craft
I agree with the results reached in the lead opinion authored by Judge Wedemeyer. I write separately, however, because I believe that the dissent places too much emphasis on the supplemental instruction defining “adequate provocation” rather than the context of the entire charge to the jury. Here, the trial court instructed the jury, in pertinent part, as follows: “that the killing resulted from a state of passion produced by adequate provocation sufficient to lead a reasonable person to act in an irrational manner.” When the jury asked for a definition of “adequate provocation,” the trial court abbreviated a definition of provocation which was contained in Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Edition, and charged the jury that “adequate provocation is one that excites such anger as might obscure the reason or dominate the volition of an ordinary reasonable man.” In context, I do not view the instructions, even with the supplement, so narrowly as to so limit passion as being produced only by anger. This court has previously held that the term passion does not require definition because it is commonly used and “can be understood by people of ordinary intelligence.” State v. Mann, 959 S.W.2d 503, app. at 522 (Tenn. 1997) (quoting State v. Raines, 882 S.W.2d 376, 383 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994)). I would not classify the charge “review[ed] in its entirety and read . . . as a whole” as erroneous and join in the affirmance of the conviction. See State v. Hodges, 944 S.W.2d 346, 352 (Tenn. 1997).

Shelby Court of Criminal Appeals

State of Tennessee v. Michael Tucker - Dissenting
W2000-02220-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: Judge Chris B. Craft

I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion. I believe the trial court erred by limiting the definition of passion to anger relative to the adequate provocation necessary for voluntary manslaughter.

Shelby Court of Criminal Appeals

John Parker Roe v. State of Tennessee
W2000-02788-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: Judge Joseph B. Dailey

The Defendant, John Parker Roe, was convicted by a jury of first degree premeditated murder. His conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. See State v. John Parker Roe, No. 02C01-9702-CR-00054, 1998 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 39 (Jackson, Jan. 12, 1998), perm. appeal denied (Tenn., Jan. 4, 1999). The Defendant subsequently filed for post-conviction relief, alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. After an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. This appeal followed. We affirm.

Shelby Court of Criminal Appeals

State of Tennessee v. Derek T. Payne
W2001-00532-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Trial Court Judge: Judge James C. Beasley, Jr.

The defendant, Derek T. Payne, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of second degree murder, a Class A felony, and attempted especially aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, and was sentenced by the trial court to an effective sentence of thirty-seven years in the Department of Correction. In this appeal as of right, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence in support of his convictions, the sentences imposed, and the trial court's evidentiary rulings. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Shelby Court of Criminal Appeals

State of Tennessee v. George R. Croft
W2001-00134-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: Judge W. Otis Higgs, Jr.

A Shelby County jury found the Defendant guilty of especially aggravated robbery and felony murder in the perpetration of a robbery. The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I violent offender to life imprisonment for the felony murder conviction and to twenty-two years for the especially aggravated robbery conviction. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred by failing to give a requested jury instruction on lost or destroyed evidence, that the evidence presented by an accomplice was not sufficiently corroborated to support the convictions, and that the trial court erred in sentencing the Defendant for the especially aggravated robbery conviction by not including in the record specific findings regarding the enhancement and mitigating factors considered in sentencing him. We affirm the Defendant's convictions, but remand to the trial court for a new sentencing hearing for the especially aggravated robbery conviction.

Shelby Court of Criminal Appeals

Michael Edmondson v. State of Tennessee
W2002-00270-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: Judge Joseph B. Dailey

The petitioner, Michael Edmondson, appeals as of right the Shelby County Criminal Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. He challenges his convictions pursuant to guilty pleas contending that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial attorney failed to investigate and prepare his case for trial. We affirm the trial court's denial of the post-conviction petition.

Shelby Court of Criminal Appeals

Gary Eugene Aldridge v. State of Tennessee
M2001-02452-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: Judge Timothy L. Easter

The petitioner, Gary Eugene Aldridge, was convicted by a jury in the Circuit Court of Hickman County of one count of aggravated kidnapping, two counts of aggravated rape, one count of rape, and two counts of simple assault. The trial court sentenced the petitioner to an effective sentence of sixty years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction, followed by an effective consecutive sentence of seventeen months and twenty-nine days in the local workhouse. After an unsuccessful appeal of his convictions, the petitioner timely filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging, among other grounds, ineffective assistance of counsel. The petitioner now brings this appeal challenging the post-conviction court's denial of his petition. After reviewing the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Hickman Court of Criminal Appeals

State of Tennessee v. Lillie Fran Ferguson
W2002-00638-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge John Everett Williams
Trial Court Judge: Judge Roger A. Page

After entering a guilty plea, the defendant reserved certified questions for review: (1) whether the Terry search was justified, and (2) whether the incriminating nature of the contraband was immediately apparent. We hold that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to justify a Terry frisk and that the object felt was not immediately apparent as contraband. We reverse and dismiss the defendant's conviction.

Madison Court of Criminal Appeals

State of Tennessee v. Calvin T. Barham
W2002-00246-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge John Everett Williams
Trial Court Judge: Judge Roger A. Page

Defendant pled guilty to possession of cocaine with intent to sell, a Class C felony. Defendant's motion to suppress evidence was denied by the trial court. Defendant claimed that evidence found on him was the result of an illegal search and should have been suppressed. The suppression issue was certified for review. We affirm the trial court and hold the evidence was properly admissible.

Chester Court of Criminal Appeals

State of Tennessee v. Michael Douglas Willis
E2002-00769-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: Judge E. Shayne Sexton

The defendant, Michael Douglas Willis, was charged with DUI, violating the open container law, and violating the implied consent law. A jury convicted the defendant of violating the implied consent law but acquitted him of the other charges. The trial court subsequently overturned the jury's guilty verdict but nevertheless revoked the defendant's license for one year for violating the implied consent law. The defendant now appeals the trial court's revocation of his license. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Campbell Court of Criminal Appeals

Milton Lee Cooper v. State of Tennessee
E2001-01527-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: Judge Stephen M. Bevil

A Hamilton County jury convicted the petitioner of first degree felony murder and conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery. The petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder conviction and to eight years incarceration for the conspiracy conviction. This court affirmed the convictions, and the Tennessee Supreme Court denied permission to appeal. The petitioner then filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on direct appeal. Specifically, the petitioner alleged that counsel: (1) failed to request an alibi instruction at trial; (2) failed to raise the alibi instruction issue on direct appeal; and (3) failed to challenge an erroneous accomplice instruction at trial and on appeal. Also, the petitioner alleged that the trial court: (1) failed to instruct the jury on the defense of alibi, thus violating the petitioner's due process rights and his right to a jury trial; and (2) failed to instruct the jury on "the natural and probable consequences rule." Following a hearing, the post-conviction court denied the petition for post-conviction relief, and this appeal ensued. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Hamilton Court of Criminal Appeals

State of Tennessee v. Richard Lacardo Elliott
M2001-01990-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas T. Woodall
Trial Court Judge: Judge Michael R. Jones

Defendant, Richard Lacardo Elliott, appeals his convictions in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County for aggravated robbery and aggravated kidnapping. Defendant argues that his conviction for aggravated kidnapping may not stand pursuant to the Tennessee Supreme Court’s holding in State v. Anthony, 817 S.W.2d 299 (Tenn. 1991). He further contends that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support his convictions, and that the trial court should have granted a motion for mistrial based upon the State’s improper comments during closing argument. We disagree, and affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Montgomery Court of Criminal Appeals