State of Tennessee v. Steven T. Wall
The defendant was convicted by a Montgomery County jury of driving under the influence of an intoxicant (DUI) and vehicular assault. In this appeal as of right, the defendant raises two issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support his convictions; and (2) whether both convictions can stand without violating his right to be protected against double jeopardy. Having reviewed the entire record, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support convictions for DUI and vehicular assault, but that both convictions cannot stand without violating principles of double jeopardy. The conviction for DUI is, therefore, vacated. The remaining conviction for vehicular assault and the sentence imposed by the trial court are affirmed. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Brian Russell Webb
The Defendant, Brian Russell Webb, was charged with driving under the influence (DUI), reckless driving, violation of the implied consent law, speeding, evading arrest, theft of property valued at more than $10,000 and vandalism. He pled guilty to the DUI, and upon motion of the State, the trial court dismissed the charges for reckless driving and violation of the implied consent law. The Defendant filed an application for pretrial diversion for the remaining charges, which the prosecutor subsequently denied. The Defendant then filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, seeking review of the prosecutor's denial of his application for diversion. After a hearing, the trial court found that the State had abused its discretion and ordered the Defendant placed on pretrial diversion. In this appeal, pursuant to Tenn. R. App. P. 9, the State contends the trial court erred in finding that the prosecutor abused his discretion in denying pretrial diversion. We reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Marvin D. Brown, a/k/a Melvin Taylor
The defendant, Marvin D. Brown, a/k/a/ Melvin Leroy Taylor, was convicted by a jury in the Davidson County Criminal Court of theft of property, a Class D felony. The trial court sentenced Defendant as a career offender to twelve years and ordered that it be served consecutive to a previously imposed sentence, for which parole had been revoked. In this appeal, Defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to convict him for theft but, rather, the proof supported a conviction of joyriding, a Class A misdemeanor. Based upon applicable law and a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ammon B. Anderson
The defendant was indicted for aggravated sexual battery for engaging in sexual contact with a ten-year-old girl with Down's Syndrome. He filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, based on the loss of the tape recording of his interview with a Department of Children's Services caseworker and a police officer, and a motion to suppress his one paragraph statement of admission, consisting of the officer's summary of the interview. Following the trial court's denial of the motions, the defendant entered a plea of nolo contendere to attempt to commit aggravated sexual battery, reserving as a certified question of law, pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2)(i) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure, whether the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss based on the loss of the tape recording of the interview. Arguing that the statement of admission is subject to misinterpretation when taken out of the context of the entire interview, the defendant contends that his right to a fair trial was compromised by the loss or destruction of the tape recording. After a thorough review of the record and of applicable law, we conclude that the loss of the tape recording did not unfairly prejudice the defendant's case. Accordingly, we affirm the defendant's conviction of attempt to commit aggravated sexual battery. |
Cheatham | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joseph M. Stone
The defendant, Joseph M. Stone, was indicted on six counts of burglary, three Class D felony thefts, two Class E felony thefts, and two misdemeanor thefts. After the defendant entered pleas of guilt to six counts of burglary and one Class E felony theft, the trial court imposed Range III sentences of 10 years on each burglary and five years on the theft. Because two of the sentences for burglary were ordered to be served consecutively, the effective sentence is 20 years. In this appeal of right, the defendant argues that the trial court had no authority to impose consecutive sentencing. The judgment is affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Steven Nunley
The defendant, Christopher Steven Nunley, was convicted of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court imposed a Range I sentence of 11 months and 29 days at 75%. In this appeal of right, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. The judgment is affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
John Bates v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner appeals pro se the summary denial of his third petition for post-conviction relief arising out of his 1982 conviction for first degree murder. He asserts that his trial counsel and previous post-conviction counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel in that they did not raise the issue of the trial court's failure to instruct the jury as to the defense of alibi. We conclude this petition is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Therefore, we affirm the post-conviction court's summary dismissal of this petition. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James R. Britt v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, James R. Britt, seeks correction of an alleged illegal sentence. He claims that he is serving an illegal and void sentence because he was sentenced as a Range III offender, even though he qualified for no more than Range I classification. Because we agree with the lower court that the petitioner's sentence is not illegal or void, we affirm the lower court's order dismissing the petition. |
Bledsoe | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jeremy Taylor
The defendant was indicted by a Blount County Grand Jury for casual exchange of a controlled substance, marijuana, and found guilty following a bench trial. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the defendant to eleven months and twenty-nine days in jail. As to the manner of service of the sentence, the first ninety days were ordered served in confinement with the option of serving the last thirty days in an inpatient drug abuse program. The balance of the sentence was ordered served on probation. In this appeal as of right, the defendant presents two issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction; and (2) whether the manner of service of his sentence was appropriate. We affirm both the conviction and sentence. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Llewelyn D. Larmond
Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, the defendant pled guilty to two counts of selling 0.5 grams or more of cocaine, possession of marijuana, and the sale of counterfeit cocaine. He received an effective sentence of sixteen years. The manner of service of his sentences was left to the discretion of the trial court. Defendant now contends the trial court erred in denying his request for alternative sentencing. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Wesley Lee Williams
Wesley Lee Williams appeals the denial of his claim for post-conviction relief. He claims that his guilty pleas were not knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered because he was mentally impaired and taking prescription medication at the time he entered the pleas. He further claims that the trial court committed error of constitutional dimension in failing to inquire about his mental condition and the effect of his medication on his mental state. We conclude, as did the lower court, that the petitioner has failed to carry his burden of proof. Accordingly, we affirm the lower court's denial of post-conviction relief. |
Cocke | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. David Pryor Gilliard
A Montgomery County jury convicted Defendant, David Pryor Gilliard, of theft of property under $500 in value, and burglary of an automobile. As a result of these convictions, the trial court found the Defendant was in violation of a previously imposed four-year Community Corrections sentence. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Defendant as a Range II multiple offender to four (4) years for the burglary and eleven (11) months and twenty-nine (29) days for the theft with the sentences to run concurrently. The trial court also ordered that the theft and burglary sentences run consecutively to Defendant's Community Corrections violation, for an effective sentence of eight years. Defendant appeals as of right and challenges the length and manner of service of his sentence. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Thomas Hicks
The Defendant was convicted by a Davidson County jury of aggravated robbery and sentenced by the trial court to twenty-two years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred in failing to suppress the Defendant's confession. The confession had been videotaped by police detectives, but the video tape was accidentally erased prior to trial. Finding no error by the trial court, we affirm the Defendant's conviction. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jeffrey McMahan
The Defendant was convicted of DUI, fourth offense. He appeals, contending that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. We affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Sevier | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Perry Thomas Randolph
The State appeals from the Putnam County Criminal Court’s order granting the Defendant’s motion to suppress. The Defendant, Perry Thomas Randolph, was charged by indictment with one count of theft, one count of aggravated assault, one count of burglary, and one count of resisting arrest. The Defendant filed a motion to suppress, challenging his initial stop and seizure by the police. The trial court found the Defendant’s seizure illegal because it failed to meet the minimal requirements of Terry v. Ohio. After review, we find it unnecessary to examine the issue of whether the officer had sufficient articulable facts to justify stopping the Defendant because we find no such stop occurred. The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion. |
Putnam | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Richard M. Far, Jr.
On August 5, 1998, Richard M. Far, Jr., the Defendant and Appellant, was indicted by a Rutherford County Grand Jury for one count of arson and one count of setting fire to personal property. The Defendant was tried in absentia. At the close of the State's proof, the trial court granted the Defendant's motion for acquittal regarding setting fire to personal property. Following trial, the jury convicted the defendant of arson. After a subsequent sentencing hearing, also conducted in absentia, the trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range III, persistent offender to fourteen years incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant argues (1) that the trial court erred in excluding him from his trial, and (2) that the trial court erroneously sentenced the defendant. Because we find that rule 43 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure prohibits trial in absentia when the defendant is not present at the beginning of trial, we reverse the judgement of the trial court and remand for a new trial. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Thorsten John Boger
Thorsten John Boger appeals from the sentencing decision of the Montgomery County Circuit Court following his guilty pleas to two counts of class B felony sale of cocaine. Boger was sentenced to nine years in the Department of Correction on each count, with the sentences to be served concurrently. On appeal, he argues that he should have received the minimum sentence of eight years. Finding no error, we affirm. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Carl Johnson and Derrick Sutton
The defendants, Carl Johnson and Derrick Sutton, were each convicted by a jury of especially aggravated robbery. Johnson raises three issues on appeal: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction for especially aggravated robbery; (2) whether the trial court erred in denying his motion for severance; and (3) whether the trial court erred in sentencing him to the maximum sentence of twenty-five years. Sutton challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Eddie Erwin
The Defendant, Eddie Erwin, was convicted by a jury of the sale of cocaine, a Class C felony. He was sentenced as a Range III, persistent offender to twelve years incarceration. In this appeal as of right, he agues (1) that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction; (2) that the trial court erred by convicting the Defendant based on the original indictment rather than the re-indictment; (3) that the trial court erred by failing to suppress a videotape containing statements the Defendant made while talking on a telephone in the jail; (4) that the trial court erred by admitting into evidence a photographic lineup; and (5) that the trial court erred by enhancing the Defendant's sentence based on three prior Illinois felony convictions and based on post-offense conduct. We conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, that the Defendant was not convicted based on the wrong indictment, and that the trial court did not err by admitting the videotape and the photographic lineup into evidence; thus, we affirm the Defendant's conviction. We do, however, find that the trial court erred by sentencing the Defendant as a Range III, persistent offender, based on three prior Illinois felony convictions, because those convictions would have been misdemeanors under Tennessee law. We therefore modify the Defendant's sentence to ten years as a Range II, multiple offender. We also remand for correction of the judgment, which contains a clerical error reflecting an incorrect offense date. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Anthony Ray Lawson
Anthony Ray Lawson appeals his conviction of especially aggravated robbery and contests the sufficiency of the evidence. Upon review, we hold that the evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction and therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Charlie M. Gardner
The Defendant, Charlie M. Gardner, was found guilty by a Davidson County jury of one count of first degree premeditated murder and two counts of reckless aggravated assault. The jury sentenced the Defendant to life without the possibility of parole for the first degree murder conviction, and the trial court sentenced the Defendant to four years for each reckless aggravated assault conviction, all sentences to be served consecutively. In this appeal, the Defendant challenges (1) the admissibility of hearsay statements as falling within the excited utterance exception, (2) the sufficiency of the evidence as to all three convictions and (3) the fatal variance between the allegations in count two of the indictment and the proof offered at trial. Based upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Mathis T. Vaughn v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Mathis T. Vaughn, filed a Petition for Post-Conviction Relief in the Montgomery County Circuit Court, which the post-conviction court subsequently denied. Petitioner 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. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the trial court's denial of the Petitioner's Petition for Post-Conviction Relief. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Tyrone V. Turner v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Tyrone V. Turner, appeals the trial court's denial of post-conviction relief. The issue presented for review is whether the petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel on direct appeal. The judgment is affirmed. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Timothy McKinney
We affirm the defendant’s convictions of first degree murder and attempted second degree murder and the death sentence imposed on the murder charge, despite the defendant’s claims that: (1) the trial court erroneously disallowed expert testimony on the reliability of eyewitness identification; (2) the jury’s capital sentencing verdict was infirm; (3) the trial court erroneously allowed the impeachment of a defense character witness during the penalty phase of the trial; (4) the trial court erred in allowing victim impact evidence that related to the impact of the victim’s death on persons or institutions other than the victim’s family; (5) the trial court erroneously limited the defendant’s argument to the jury during the penalty phase; (6) cumulative errors require reversal of the death sentence; (7) the Tennessee death penalty statute is, for various reasons, unconstitutional. We find no error and hold that the death penalty in this case was proportionate to the death penalty imposed in similar cases, the sentence was not arbitrarily imposed, and the evidence supports the jury’s finding of a statutory aggravating circumstance and its finding that the aggravating circumstance outweighs any mitigating circumstances. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206(c)(1) (1997). |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Donald Johnson, Jr.
Defendant was convicted by a Shelby County jury of felony murder and received a life sentence. In this appeal, defendant alleges: (1) the trial court erred in failing to suppress both his oral and written statements given to authorities; and (2) the state improperly exercised its peremptory challenges based upon race and gender. Upon our review, we are unable to resolve the suppression issue due to inadequate findings of fact and, therefore, remand for further findings regarding the oral and written statements. We conclude the trial court correctly ruled that there were legitimate race and gender-neutral reasons for the peremptory challenges. The judgment of the trial court is vacated, and the case is remanded for further findings and/or proceedings. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals |
