State of Tennessee v. Joe L. Patrick, Sr.
This is an appeal by the State of Tennessee as to whether the trial court erred in granting the Appellee/Defendant's motion to award program credits toward his release date from the Department of Corrections. After docketing of this case on May 8, 2001, for disposition of the State's appeal, the State filed a motion to consider post-judgment fact pursuant to Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedures 14(a). After a review of the motion and the attached affidavit in support of the motion, we granted the State's motion. After a review of the entire record, and the motion for post-judgment of fact, we find that the Defendant has been released from the Department of Corrections and, thus, this appeal is dismissed. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Anthony E. Brasfield v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant, Anthony E. Brasfield, appeals from the dismissal by the Weakley County Circuit Court of his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, Brasfield asserts that the trial court erred in finding that his trial counsel was not ineffective by failing to preserve in his direct appeal the issues of (1) the trial court's suppression of his confession to the police and (2) the trial court's failure to charge misdemeanor escape as a lesser-included offense of felony escape. With regard to the first issue, we find that although trial counsel was deficient, no prejudice resulted. With regard to Brasfield's second issue, we find that misdemeanor escape is not a lesser-included offense of felony escape; therefore, no error occurred. Accordingly, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed. |
Weakley | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Gregory Scott Caudill v. State of Tennessee
A Cocke County grand jury indicted the petitioner on four counts of aggravated robbery and two counts of aggravated assault. On November 28, 1994, the petitioner pled guilty to all six counts. Following a sentencing hearing, he received twelve years on each aggravated robbery and six years on each aggravated assault. The trial court then ran some of the sentences consecutively resulting in an effective sentence of thirty years as a Range I, standard offender. On direct appeal this Court modified the sentence to twenty-four years. State v. Gregory Scott Caudill, No. 03C01-9510-CC-00338, 1997 WL 7009 at *7 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Knoxville, January 9, 1997). The petitioner's application for permission to appeal to the Tennessee Supreme Court was denied. Thereafter, he filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief alleging errors made with regard to his plea. Counsel was appointed to assist him; an amended petition was filed; and the trial court conducted a hearing thereon. At the conclusion of this hearing, the trial court dismissed the petition. Through this appeal the petitioner avers that the trial court failed to comply with Rule 11 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure in taking his plea. More particularly, he alleges that the trial court did not advise him of the mandatory minimum and maximum penalties that he could potentially receive. After reviewing the record, we find that the petitioner's specific claim lacks merit. However, through its brief the State observes that constitutionally mandated advice concerning the petitioner's confrontation rights was not provided by the trial court in its colloquy at the time of the petitioner's plea. Therefore, the State requests that this Court remand the case for a hearing to determine if this omission was harmless. We agree and remand the matter for this purpose. |
Cocke | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Christopher Stacy Long v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner pled guilty to first degree felony murder and to forgery, receiving concurrent sentences of life with the possibility of parole and one year's incarceration, respectively. The Petitioner subsequently petitioned the trial court for post-conviction relief. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied post-conviction relief. The Petitioner now appeals this decision. He argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when he entered his pleas of guilty, causing him to enter his pleas involuntarily and unknowingly. Having reviewed the record, we conclude that the Petitioner's representation was not deficient and thus affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hamblen | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Zan Ray McCracken
The defendant appeals from his Sullivan County Criminal Court conviction and sentence for driving under the influence (DUI), second offense, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced the defendant to eleven months and 29 days, with a six-month period of confinement, 45 days of which had to be served in continuous confinement. After the six-month confinement period, the defendant would serve the balance of the sentence on supervised probation. The trial court approved a $1,200 fine recommended by the jury. In this direct appeal, the defendant complains that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support his conviction, that the trial court committed reversible error in the guilt phase by allowing the jury to be informed that the defendant previously had been convicted of DUI, and that his sentence is excessive. We affirm the judgment of the trial court but remand for entry of a conforming judgment. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Anthony P. Jones v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Anthony P. Jones, pled guilty in the Davidson County Criminal Court to three counts of aggravated sexual battery and received consecutive sentences of ten years for each count for a total effective sentence of thirty years. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief claiming that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that his guilty pleas were involuntary and unknowing. The post-conviction court denied his petition. Consequently, the petitioner presents the following issue for our review: whether the post-conviction court erred in denying his claim for post-conviction relief. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Damien Marcess Jackson
The Defendant, Damien Marcess Jackson, was indicted for first degree murder and two counts of attempted first degree murder. A jury convicted the Defendant of second degree murder and two counts of attempted second degree murder. He was subsequently sentenced as a Range I offender to twenty-five years for the murder and twelve years for each of the attempted murders, all to run consecutively. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant challenges the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress; the trial court's refusal to order the State to disclose the identity of a confidential informant; the sufficiency of the evidence; and the length and manner of service of his sentences. We affirm the trial court's judgment. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Earnest Cunningham
The defendant appeals, via certified question of law, the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress cocaine seized as a result of a warrantless search of the defendant's pockets. Because the officer made a lawful full custodial arrest of the defendant and searched the defendant incident to this lawful full custodial arrest, we affirm the trial court's denial of the defendant's motion to suppress. |
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kathleen Malley
The Defendant, Kathleen Malley, entered a guilty plea to theft of over $60,000, a Class B felony, in exchange for an agreed sentence of eight years incarceration. Following a sentencing hearing to determine the manner of service of that sentence, the Defendant was ordered to serve six months in jail followed by twelve years of probation. She was also ordered to pay $100,000 in restitution. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred by refusing to grant her full probation. We find no error. Thus, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Lisa Ann Avery
The Defendant was indicted by the Carroll County Grand Jury for one count of introduction of drugs into a penal institution. The Defendant moved for pretrial diversion, but the request was denied by the District Attorney General. The Defendant filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the trial court to review the denial. The trial court denied the petition, finding that the District Attorney General did not abuse his discretion in denying the Defendant's request for pretrial diversion. The Defendant then pled guilty to one count of introduction of drugs into a penal institution and requested judicial diversion. The trial court denied judicial diversion and sentenced the Defendant as a Range I, standard offender to four years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction, suspended after sixty days confinement. The Defendant now appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in denying her pretrial diversion, judicial diversion or full probation. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Carroll | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Douglas C. Carr
The appellant, Douglas C. Carr, pled guilty in the Shelby County Criminal Court to one count of driving while an habitual motor vehicle offender. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the petitioner was sentenced as a standard Range I offender to eighteen months incarceration in the Shelby County Correction Center with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. The trial court denied the appellant alternative sentencing, and, on appeal, the appellant raises the following issue for our review: whether the trial court erred in denying the appellant alternative sentencing. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Anthony Perry
The defendant appeals his convictions for first degree felony murder, especially aggravated kidnapping, and conspiracy to commit felony murder. After careful review, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support the defendant's convictions for first degree felony murder and especially aggravated kidnapping. Further, we hold that conspiracy to commit felony murder is not a recognizable offense in Tennessee. Therefore, we affirm the defendant's convictions for first degree felony murder and especially aggravated kidnapping. We reverse and dismiss the defendant's conviction for conspiracy to commit felony murder. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ronald Donnell Moore v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner was originally convicted by a Shelby County jury of first degree murder and received a sentence of life imprisonment. His conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. The petitioner filed a pro se post-conviction petition, counsel was appointed, and the petition was denied. In this appeal, the petitioner alleges that this matter should be remanded to the post-conviction court for a new hearing since he was unable to present his claim for relief. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the petitioner is entitled to a new post-conviction hearing. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Marcus D. Polk
The petitioner, Marcus D. Polk, pled guilty in the Shelby County Criminal Court to criminal attempt to commit first degree murder, especially aggravated robbery, and first degree murder and received a total effective sentence of life imprisonment plus twenty years. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging the ineffective assistance of his plea counsel, which petition was denied by the post-conviction court. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ronald Shipley v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner was originally convicted by a Shelby County jury of rape of a child. The conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. The petitioner sought post-conviction relief, which was denied by the post-conviction court. In this appeal as a matter of right, the petitioner contends that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the trial court correctly denied post-conviction relief. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher M. Flake
The defendant was indicted for attempted first degree murder. A Shelby County jury convicted the defendant of the lesser-included offense of attempted voluntary manslaughter, and the trial court sentenced him to four years imprisonment. In this appeal, the defendant alleges: (1) his insanity defense was established by clear and convincing evidence; (2) the trial court erroneously admitted statements made by the defendant and a weapon seized from his vehicle; (3) the trial court erroneously restricted the testimony of a psychiatrist by disallowing his statement that the defendant was committable if found not guilty by reason of insanity, while allowing him to testify that the defendant stated he believed he would be free to go home within 60 to 90 days if adjudicated not guilty by reason of insanity; (4) the trial court erroneously allowed the state to call a psychiatrist because the defense was not notified pre-trial that he would be an expert witness; (5) the trial court improperly found that a psychiatrist was qualified to testify as an expert; and (6) the trial court erroneously refused the defendant's request to have the opening and rebuttal closing arguments. After a through review of the record, we reverse the judgment of conviction, modify the judgment to “Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity,” and remand for further proceedings pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 33-7-303. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Laverne Long
The Defendant, Laverne Long, entered a guilty plea to reckless homicide, a Class D felony, in exchange for a two year sentence as a Range I, standard offender. Following an evidentiary hearing on the Defendant's motion to suspend her sentence, the trial court denied alternative sentencing. The Defendant now appeals as of right from the denial of alternative sentencing. We find no error; thus, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James Richard Bishop v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, James Richard Bishop, was convicted of felony murder, especially aggravated kidnapping and aggravated burglary. Following a sentencing hearing, Petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment for the felony murder and concurrent sentences of twenty years and five years respectively for the especially aggravated kidnapping and aggravated burglary. On appeal, this Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. State v. James Richard Bishop, No. 03C01-9308-CR-00268, 1994 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 536, at *1, Knox County (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, August 18, 1994), perm. to appeal denied (Tenn. 1994). Petitioner filed a Petition for Post-Conviction Relief in the Knox County Criminal Court, which the post-conviction court subsequently denied. He challenges the denial of his petition, raising the following issue: whether the trial court erred in dismissing his Petition for Post-Conviction Relief, based upon a ruling that Petitioner's allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel were without merit. Based upon our review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kelly Layne
The defendant, Kelly Layne, appeals his conviction for selling a counterfeit controlled substance, a Class E felony, for which he was sentenced to one year, eight months, all but ninety days to be served in a community corrections program, and fined $2,500. He contends that venue was not proven and that his sentence is excessive. We affirm the conviction and sentence, except we reduce the fine to $1,500. |
Marion | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Daniel Thomason
Daniel Thomason appeals from the aggravated robbery conviction he received at a jury trial in the Davidson County Criminal Court. Thomason is serving an eight-year sentence in the Department of Correction for his crime. In this appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence that he accomplished the robbery “by display of any article used or fashioned to lead the victim to reasonably believe it to be a deadly weapon.” Because the record before us is does not contain all of the relevant evidence presented at trial, we are precluded from reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence and therefore affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Corwyn E. Winfield
The defendant was convicted of second degree murder by a Shelby County jury in the shooting death of his girlfriend. He was sentenced to twenty years as a standard offender, with his sentence to be served without parole eligibility in the Tennessee Department of Correction. In this appeal as of right, the defendant raises one issue: whether the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of the mother of the victim concerning a prior alleged assault on the victim by the defendant. We conclude that the evidence was admissible, having satisfied all three conditions for admissibility of evidence of prior bad acts pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b)(1)-(3). The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Darrin Bryant
After a jury trial, Defendant, Darrin Bryant, was convicted of attempted first degree murder. Subsequently, he was sentenced to twenty-five (25) years, Range I, Standard Offender in the Department of Corrections. In this appeal as of right, Defendant asserts that the trial court erred in sentencing Defendant to the maximum sentence of twenty-five (25) years by inappropriately applying an enhancement factor; and the State failed to present sufficient evidence to justify a rational trier of fact in finding beyond a reasonable doubt, that the assault was an attempt to commit premeditated murder. We conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and that the trial court did not err in sentencing Defendant to the maximum of twenty-five (25) years in the Department of Corrections. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Michael Thomas v. State of Tennessee
The Defendant, Michael Thomas, appeals as of right from the denial of post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, he asserts that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary and that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. We find no merit to the Defendant's assertions; thus, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William J. Clouse - Concurring
I join with Judge Ogle in concluding that the Appellant's double jeopardy rights were not violated. I would also make the observation that, similar in purpose to the DUI statute, the stated public policy purpose in enacting the Motor Vehicle Habitual Offender Act was to remove from the highways those offenders who have "demonstrated their indifference to the safety and welfare of others." Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-10-602(2). |
Court of Criminal Appeals | ||
State of Tennessee v. David Scarbrough
The defendant, David Scarbrough, was convicted of two counts of felony murder, two counts of theft, and aggravated burglary. The trial court imposed sentences of life imprisonment with the possibility of parole for each of the murders, a sentence of six years for the aggravated burglary and sentences of 11 months, 29 days for each of the thefts. All sentences are to be served consecutively. In this appeal of right, the defendant presents the following issues for review: (1) Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; (2) whether the defendant's statement to police was made knowingly and voluntarily; (3) whether the trial court erred by denying the defendant's challenge for cause of a juror; (4) whether the trial court erred by denying defendant's motion for continuance; (5) whether the trial court erred by refusing a jury instruction on facilitation of felony murder; (6) whether the trial court erred by admitting photographs of the crime scene; (7) whether the trial court erred by refusing to permit a private investigator to testify; (8) whether the trial court properly refused to allow the testimony of a psychologist during the guilt phase of trial; (9) whether the sentences were excessive; and (10) whether the trial court erred by denying the defendant's motion for a writ of error coram nobis based on newly discovered evidence. Because the trial court erred by failing to instruct on the lesser included offense of facilitation of felony murder and because such error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, the felony murder convictions are reversed and the causes are remanded for a new trial. The remaining convictions are affirmed. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals |
