Robert M. Sneed v. State of Tennessee
The Defendant was convicted of DUI, second offense, and driving on a revoked license, second offense. His convictions were affirmed on direct appeal, and he subsequently filed for post-conviction relief, which was denied. In this appeal, the Defendant contends that the post-conviction court erred in denying his request for post-conviction relief, arguing that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial; that he was denied a fair trial because the trial judge refused to recuse himself; and that the post-conviction court erred in refusing to admit certain evidence. We affirm the denial of the Defendant's request for post-conviction relief. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Norman B. Thompson
The Defendant, Norman B. Thompson, appeals as of right from the revocation of his probation. We find no abuse of discretion in the revocation; thus, we affirm the judgment of the trial court revoking the Defendant’s probation. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Milburn L. Edwards v. State of Tennessee
In 1982, the Petitioner pled guilty in Shelby County to two counts of rape, three counts of robbery, one count of robbery with a deadly weapon, four counts of burglary, one count of attempted burglary, one count of first degree criminal sexual conduct, one count of assault with intent to commit criminal sexual conduct, and one count of a crime against nature. The Petitioner received an effective sentence of ten years. In 1991, the Petitioner was convicted in Davidson County of twenty-one counts of rape, one count of aggravated rape, two counts of first-degree burglary, one count of second-degree burglary, two counts of aggravated burglary, one count of robbery, and one count of assault with intent to commit rape. In 1997, the Petitioner filed a post-conviction petition challenging his 1982 convictions and sentence. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court concluded that the Petitioner's petition for post-conviction relief was barred by the statute of limitations. The Petitioner now appeals the trial court's ruling. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tyrone Pierce
The defendant pled guilty to criminal attempt to commit aggravated sexual battery, a Class C felony. Pursuant to a plea agreement he agreed to a three-year sentence as a Range I Standard Offender, with the manner of service to be determined after a hearing by the trial court. The trial court sentenced the defendant to serve 270 days in the workhouse on weekends ("day for day") from 7:00 p.m. on Fridays to 7:00 p.m. on Sundays and five years probation with a 10:00 p.m. curfew on weekdays. The defendant contends he should have received full probation or some other less restrictive form of alternative sentencing. We affirm the trial court's denial of full probation but modify the time of service in the workhouse on weekends to 104 days. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
George Thurman Haynie, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, George Thurman Haynie, Jr., filed a petition for post-conviction relief attacking a felony conviction for passing a worthless check and a misdemeanor conviction for passing a worthless check. The Circuit Court of Williamson County dismissed the petition and Petitioner now appeals. After a thorough review of the record, the pro se brief filed by the Appellant, the brief filed by the State, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Stephen Lester Thomas
The defendant was charged in the Williamson County Circuit Court with DUI, first offense, after a police officer observed him operating his vehicle in an erratic fashion. A videotape was made and admitted into evidence of the defendant's taking field sobriety tests, upon which the officer testified that he did poorly. Following his conviction for this offense, the defendant timely appealed. In his appeal, he raised several issues, including the refusal of the trial court to instruct as to a lesser-included offense, complaints about the admission of evidence, the conduct of the trial, and rulings of the trial court. Based upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Patrick E. Simpson v. State of Tennessee
|
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Pharez N. Price
The defendant was convicted by a Lewis County jury of criminal responsibility for facilitation of a felony and possession of drug paraphernalia. The underlying felony conviction was for possession of cocaine in an amount of .5 gram or more with intent to sell or deliver. The defendant's brother pled guilty to this felony, a Class B felony. The defendant was sentenced as a Range II, multiple offender to nine years in continuous confinement on the facilitation conviction and eleven months and twenty-nine days in the workhouse on the drug paraphernalia conviction, with the sentences to be served concurrently for an effective sentence of nine years. In this appeal as of right, the defendant contends that his sentence on the facilitation conviction was inappropriate both as to length and manner of service. Having reviewed the limited record, we conclude that the sentence is appropriate and therefore affirm the decision of the trial court. |
Lewis | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Donnie Wheeler, et al. v. State of Tennessee
ThePetitioners filed pro-se petitions for post-conviction relief on September 25, 1997, in accordance with the Post Conviction Relief Act. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-101. Amended petitions were subsequently filed by court appointed counsel on November 14, 1997. The Petitioners’ petitions were later dismissed and this appeal followed. In this appeal, the Petitioners set forth several grounds upon which they claim that post-conviction relief should have been granted. Specifically, the Petitioners allege ineffective assistance of counsel, claiming that counsel: failed to file a motion for judgment of acquittal; failed to appeal the judgment of conviction for second degree murder; failed to dismiss two jurors who were alleged to be biased against the Petitioners, which resulted in a denial of their right to a fair and impartial jury; failed to interview and cross-examine a witness of the State’s; and failed to file a motion to suppress photographs that were entered into evidence. Petitioner Donnie Wheeler also contends that post-conviction relief should have been granted because counsel failed to request an instruction on the lesser-included offense of criminal responsibility for the facilitation of a felony, and because the trial court failed to charge the jury with the same lesser-included offense. After careful examination of the issues set forth herein, we affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of post-conviction relief to the Petitioners. |
DeKalb | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Donnie Wheeler, et al. v. State of Tennessee - Concurring
I join the court's opinion and agree with its holding in affirming dismissal of the petition; however, because I do so for different reasons, I write separately. |
DeKalb | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Donnie Wheeler, et al. v. State of Tennessee - Concurring
I concur in the results reached by the majority on all of the issues and in the rationales employed to reach the results in all but one issue, that being the ineffectiveness of counsel regarding the failure to instruct the jury on the lesser offense of facilitation. I respectfully would have taken a different approach in resolving this issue. |
DeKalb | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
George Milton Brooks v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, George Milton Brooks, appeals as of right from the Dyer County Circuit Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. Petitioner contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel during his pre-trial proceedings when counsel: (1) failed to investigate all apparent substantial defenses on Petitioner's behalf; (2) failed to assert certain Fourth Amendment violations during the hearing on Petitioner's motion to suppress; and (3) incorrectly advised Petitioner whether he could properly reserve two questions of law for appellate review. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John Edward Johnson, Jr. - Dissenting
I am unable to join with my colleagues in concluding that “restoration of citizenship rights” to a felon convicted of a crime of violence restores to the felon his right to possess a handgun. My reasons are twofold. |
Obion | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John Edward Johnson, Jr.
The defendant pled guilty to felonious possession of a handgun for an agreed sentence of one year. The parties reserved a certified question of law; namely, whether an individual, who was previously convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon but subsequently had his full citizenship rights restored pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-29-101--105, can lawfully possess a handgun. We conclude that a convicted felon, otherwise prohibited from possessing a handgun under Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1307(b)(1)(A), may lawfully possess a handgun in his residence after his “full citizenship rights” have been restored. |
Obion | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
George Todd v. Warden Fred Raney - Order
The Petitioner, George Todd, appeals from the Lake County Circuit Court's denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. In 1985, the Petitioner entered into a negotiated plea agreement and pled guilty to second degree murder. As part of the plea agreement the Petitioner received a forty-five year sentence as a Range II offender. The Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The petition was denied and the Petitioner appealed the denial of his petition to this Court. On December 21, 1989, this Court affirmed the lower court's denial of the Petitioner's petition for post-conviction relief. On August 24, 2000, the Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Lake County Circuit Court, alleging that the passage of the Criminal Sentencing Reform Act of 1989 served to void his sentence and all other sentences in the State of Tennessee, and was the equivalent of a pardon. The Lake County Circuit Court denied the Petitioner's petition. |
Lake | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William P. Brooks
The defendant, William P. Brooks, was convicted of driving on a revoked license, third offense, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court imposed a sentence of 11 months and 29 days, requiring 90 days to be served in jail and the balance to be served on supervised probation. In this appeal of right, the defendant argues that the trial court erred by refusing to suppress evidence and by imposing an excessive sentence. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James Perry Hyde v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, James Perry Hyde, 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 at trial. The judgment is affirmed. |
Hamblen | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Michael Wayne Dean v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner challenges the trial court's dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief. He contends that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter a judgment for second degree murder because that offense is not a lesser included offense of felony murder with which he was indicted. We affirm the trial court's dismissal of the habeas corpus petition. |
Bledsoe | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ali Mohsenzadeh
The Defendant was convicted by a jury of DUI and sentenced to thirty days, suspended upon the service of five days, and eleven-months, twenty-nine days probation. The Defendant now appeals, contending that the arresting officer had no reasonable suspicion to pull him over or probable cause to arrest him; that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction; that the State failed to prove venue; and that his sentence is excessive. We affirm the defendant's conviction and modify his sentence. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Lawrence Wyatt
The defendant appeals from his convictions for conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery and facilitation of aggravated robbery. He contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions and that his sentences are excessive. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Robert N. Rogers
The defendant contends that the trial court erroneously ordered service of his original sentences upon the revocation of his probation. We affirm the trial court's judgment. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Suzanne C. Douglas
The defendant appeals from her conviction for driving under the influence, contesting the sufficiency of the indictment. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Dickson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Osborne
A Williamson County jury convicted the defendant of attempted first degree murder and felony reckless endangerment. The trial court sentenced him to concurrent sentences of twenty-four years and two years, respectively, as a Range I standard offender. In this appeal, the defendant alleges (1) the attempted first degree murder presentment was defective; (2) the proof was insufficient to sustain his attempted first degree murder conviction; (3) the trial judge erroneously failed to satisfy his "thirteenth juror" role; and (4) his sentence is excessive. Upon review of the record, we find no reversible error and affirm the judgments and sentences imposed by the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. C. Curtis Brown
The defendant, after having his authority to write bonds in the 30th Judicial District revoked, appeals the trial court's decision and asserts that there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court's findings. Furthermore, the defendant asserts that the trial court's action was excessive. After review, we affirm the trial court in all respects. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Richard Crawford - Dissenting
Our law provides: “A person charged with an offense has no burden to prove his innocence.” TENN.CODE ANN.§39-11-201(c). Because I am unable to disregard this most basic principle of law, I am also unable to affirm the judgment of conviction in this case. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals |
