I must respectfully dissent because, while I agree that the appellant’s confession to the police should have been suppressed, I do not believe that the trial court’s admission of the confession at trial constituted reversible error.
Defendant appeals his jury convictions on two counts of premeditated first degree murder for which he received concurrent life sentences. The following issues are presented for our review: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; (2) whether the trial court erred in disallowing impeachment evidence against a state witness; (3) whether the trial court erroneously admitted evidence of defendant being a beneficiary of life insurance policies on one of the victims; (4) whether the trial court erroneously admitted inflammatory evidence relating to the crime scene; (5) whether the trial court erred in allowing evidence of alleged threats made by the defendant; (6) whether the trial court erred in allowing evidence of a prior argument between the defendant and one of the victims; and (7) whether the trial court erred in disallowing evidence of defendant's failure to flee and avoid arrest. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.
The appellant, Phillip Shead Jr., appeals from the order of the Madison County Circuit Court revoking his probation and reinstating his original eight year sentence in the Department of Correction. We affirm the judgment of the trial court pursuant to Rule 20, Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. R
State vs. Dyron H. Yokley M1999-00290-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry Smith
Trial Court Judge: Robert L. Jones
Pursuant to a plea agreement, Dyron Yokley, the defendant and appellant, entered "best interest" pleas to four (4) counts of aggravated robbery. The plea agreement provided that the "[d]efendant is to receive an [eight] 8 year package with a sentencing hearing to determine any alternative sentencing, if applicable." Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the defendant to eight years for each count, concurrently, as provided in the plea agreement. Relying primarily on the defendant's criminal history and previous sentences of probation, the court ordered the defendant to serve his sentence in the Tennessee Department of Corrections. The defendant now appeals, arguing that all parties were unaware that the defendant was statutorily ineligible for probation and that his plea was thus involuntarily given. Because we find this matter is a post-conviction issue rather than one properly raised at this time, we affirm the judgment of the trial court
Lawrence
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Douglas Canady M1999-02135-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: Timothy L. Easter
Defendant, Douglas Canady, appeals his conviction for aggravated robbery, for which he received a sentence of ten years in the Department of Correction. The sole issue in this appeal is whether the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict. Finding the evidence sufficient, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Hickman
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. George O. Mears M1999-01229-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: Don Ash
The appellant, George O. Mears, appeals his conviction in the Cannon County Circuit Court of driving under the influence of an intoxicant, second offense. Pursuant to the appellant's conviction, the trial court imposed a sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days incarceration in the Cannon County Jail, suspending all but six months of the appellant's sentence and placing him on probation. On appeal, the appellant presents the following issues for our review: (1) whether the trial court erred in permitting the prosecutor to comment to the jury about the appellant's failure to call a witness and in providing a "missing witness" instruction to the jury; (2) whether the evidence adduced at the appellant's trial is sufficient to support the jury's verdict of guilt; and (3) whether the trial court erred in sentencing the appellant. Following a review of the record and the parties' briefs, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this case for a new trial.
Cannon
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Damon Theodore Marsh M1999-01879-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: W. Charles Lee
Defendant, Damon Theodore Marsh, appeals his conviction for second degree murder, for which he received a sentence of 23 years and 6 months. On appeal, the defendant raises the issue of sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction. We conclude that the issue raised by the defendant in this appeal is without merit. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Bedford
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Michael A. Janosky M1999-02574-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Trial Court Judge: Cheryl A. Blackburn
Michael Janosky appeals from his conviction of driving under the influence. In this direct appeal, he challenges his conviction based upon (1) erroneous admission of breath alcohol test results which he contends were involuntarily obtained and (2) the results of the breath test were not administered in accordance with the requirements of State vs. Sensing. As to issue (1), we hold that, absent a motorist's express refusal, consent to a breath test is deemed voluntary as a matter of law. With reference to issue (2), the improper administration of the breath test, we find this issue waived because it was not included in the appellant's motion for new trial. Tenn. R. App. P. 3(e). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment entered by the trial court.
Davidson
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Richard Allan Frye E1999-01564-CCA-R9-RL
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Trial Court Judge: Phyllis H. Miller
This appeal arises from the order of the Sullivan County Criminal Court upholding the district attorney general's refusal to accept the application of the defendant for pretrial diversion. The defendant asserts that the trial court erred in failing to determine that the district attorney general abused his discretion by relying on facts not supported by the evidence and by failing to consider all relevant factors. We conclude that substantial evidence was before the district attorney general to support the validity of each of the four factors relied on in denying pretrial diversion and that the district attorney general considered all relevant factors. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Sullivan
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Joy A. Stinson E1999-02082-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Trial Court Judge: James B. Scott, Jr.
The defendant was convicted of one count of theft of property over $1,000 for her unauthorized charge of items at a retail store to her former employer's account. The trial court sentenced her to four years imprisonment, with three years suspended. On appeal, the defendant presents the issues of whether the trial court erred in allowing the State to introduce the testimony of an alibi rebuttal witness whom the State did not identify as a witness prior to trial, and in allowing the State to present evidence which she alleges tied her to an uncharged crime. Based upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Anderson
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Raymond Jackson Collins E1999-00233-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge John Everett Williams
Trial Court Judge: R. Jerry Beck
The defendant appeals from his conviction of, and four-year sentence for, violation of a habitual traffic offender order, failure to stop for a red light, and violation of the seat belt law. He asserts that insufficient evidence supported the verdict, that the imposed sentence was excessive, and that the trial court improperly denied alternative sentencing. We affirm the convictions and sentence, holding that sufficient evidence supported the verdict and that the trial court properly sentenced the defendant.
Sullivan
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Chris Wilson a/k/a Calvin Clark M1998-00395-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Trial Court Judge: John H. Gasaway, III
Following a "best interest" plea to one count of aggravated burglary, the appellant was sentenced to a term of five years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he challenges (1) the length of the sentence and (2) the imposition of a sentence of total confinement. After review, we affirm.
State vs. Tracy L. Fry E1999-02758-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry Smith
Trial Court Judge: Lynn W. Brown
Tracy Fry, the Defendant and Appellant, pled guilty to driving under the influence, second offense. With the State's and trial court's agreement, however, she specifically reserved the right to appeal a dispositive question of law pursuant to Tenn. R. Crim. P. 37(b)(2)(1). The issue reserved for review is whether Officer Kyte "had reasonable suspicion based on specific and articulable facts, to approach and subsequently seize the defendant leading to the arrest of the defendant." We conclude that the initial encounter between Officer Kyte and the Defendant was not a seizure, that the encounter provided reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify an investigatory detention of the Defendant, and that sufficient probable cause to arrest the Defendant developed during the course of the brief investigatory detention. Thus, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Washington
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. James E. Harman, Jr. E2000-00437-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry Smith
Trial Court Judge: R. Jerry Beck
In October of 1999, the defendant pled guilty to one count of theft over one-thousand dollars ($1,000.00) and one count of possession of less than .5 ounces of marijuana. His plea form indicated that he agreed to receive concurrent sentences of five and one-half years as a Range II, multiple offender for the former offense and eleven months and twenty-nine days for the latter. Subsequently, the trial court conducted a hearing to determine the manner in which these sentences were to be served. At the conclusion of such hearing, the trial court denied the defendant any form of alternative sentencing, and it is this denial that the defendant contests through his appeal. However, after having reviewed the record and applicable authorities, we find this contention to be without merit and, therefore, affirm the trial court's sentence.
Sullivan
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. James E. Harman, Jr. E2000-00437-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry Smith
Trial Court Judge: R. Jerry Beck
In October of 1999, the defendant pled guilty to one count of theft over one-thousand dollars ($1,000.00) and one count of possession of less than .5 ounces of marijuana. His plea form indicated that he agreed to receive concurrent sentences of five and one-half years as a Range II, multiple offender for the former offense and eleven months and twenty-nine days for the latter. Subsequently, the trial court conducted a hearing to determine the manner in which these sentences were to be served. At the conclusion of such hearing, the trial court denied the defendant any form of alternative sentencing, and it is this denial that the defendant contests through his appeal. However, after having reviewed the record and applicable authorities, we find this contention to be without merit and, therefore, affirm the trial court's sentence.
Sullivan
Court of Criminal Appeals
John E. Carter vs. Howard Carlton E2000-00406-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge J. Curwood Witt, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Robert E. Cupp
John E. Carter seeks the writ of habeas corpus. He claims that he is entitled to immediate release from his two 1981 convictions for the first degree murder of his grandparents. Carter alleges that he is being illegally restrained because he had inadequate notice of the charges against him, because the trial court excluded relevant evidence at his trial, and because the jury instructions given at his trial were flawed. We agree with the court below that these issues do not entitle Carter to issuance of the writ of habeas corpus. Accordingly, we affirm the lower court's dismissal of the petition.
Johnson
Court of Criminal Appeals
Michael Bailey vs. State E2000-00432-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry Smith
Trial Court Judge: R. Jerry Beck
A Sullivan County jury convicted the petitioner of one count of second degree murder involving the death of his son. For this offense the petitioner received a sentence of twenty years as a Range I, standard offender, and a $50,000 fine. He unsuccessfully brought a direct appeal challenging both his conviction and sentence. Subsequently, he filed a pro se post-conviction petition and was appointed counsel from the public defender's office. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court took this matter under advisement and later issued a detailed order dismissing the petition. Thereafter, the petitioner requested that his appointed attorney withdraw from the case and that he be allowed to bring his appeal pro se. The trial court granted this motion, and the petitioner now brings this appeal raising three issues. More specifically, he asserts that (1) the jury instructions, when viewed overall, effectively denied him "a fair trial and a reliable verdict;" (2) the State engaged in misconduct and denied him a fair trial by withholding exculpatory material; and (3) the prosecuting officer made the result of the petitioner's trial unreliable because the officer perjured himself. After reviewing these issues, we find that all have been waived and/or lack merit. We, therefore, affirm the trial court's denial of post-conviction relief.
Sullivan
Court of Criminal Appeals
Michael E. Christian vs. State E2000-00922-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: R. Jerry Beck
The petitioner, Michael E. Christian, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. He contends that he did not voluntarily enter his guilty pleas because he was experiencing panic attacks and confusion, which was a side effect of his medication, at the time he entered the pleas. He also claims that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorneys did not investigate the effects of his medication on his competency and scared him into pleading guilty. We affirm the trial court's denial of the petition.
Sullivan
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. William Terrell Hampton E2000-00582-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: Carroll L. Ross
The defendant appeals his conviction for aggravated sexual battery, contending that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction, the trial court erred in admitting evidence of a fresh complaint, and the trial court erred in imposing a nine-year sentence. We affirm the defendant's conviction and sentence.
Bradley
Court of Criminal Appeals
State sv. Marcus Anthony Parram E2000-00581-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: James B. Scott, Jr.
The defendant appeals his convictions for aggravated robbery and aggravated burglary, contending that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions, that the trial court erred in allowing hearsay statements into evidence, and that the trial court erred in allowing evidence of a prior robbery committed by the defendant. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.
Anderson
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Ricky Lee Netherton E2000-01016-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: Lillie Ann Sells
The defendant appeals his conviction for especially aggravated robbery, contesting the validity of the indictment and the length of his sentence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Cumberland
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Bobby Wells E2000-01496-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry Smith
Trial Court Judge: R. Steven Bebb
A Monroe County jury convicted the defendant of the sale of .5 grams or more of cocaine and of a separate offense involving the sale of less than .5 grams of cocaine. For these crimes the trial court sentenced him to nine years and four years respectively as a Range I, standard offender. These sentences were ordered to run concurrently with one another. Furthermore, the jury assessed the defendant a fifteen thousand dollar fine on each conviction. At a subsequent hearing the trial court denied his new trial motion and revoked his probation from previous offenses. Appealing these decisions, the defendant raises the following six issues: 1) whether the trial court erred by permitting the State to introduce transcripts of taped conversations allegedly transpiring between the defendant and informant when such transcripts were admitted through a police officer who neither heard nor electronically monitored the involved conversations; 2) whether the trial court erred by permitting the prosecution to play and introduce the aforementioned tapes through the same officer; 3) whether the State failed to prove chain of custody because it neither called the lab technician who placed the evidence in the vault at the crime laboratory nor complied with Tennessee Rule of Evidence 803(6); 4) whether the trial court erred in refusing to grant the defendant a new trial based on newly discovered evidence involving the informant's motive for testifying against the defendant; 5) whether sufficient evidence existed to support the conviction; and 6) whether the defendant's probation revocation should stand when such was based upon the above-outlined new convictions and not the defendant's failure to report as was alleged in the probation violation warrant and when the convictions forming the basis for the revocation are allegedly not supported by sufficient evidence. After a review of the record, we find these claims to lack merit and, therefore, affirm the lower court's actions.
Monroe
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Bernard K. Johnson E2000-00009-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge J. Curwood Witt, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Ray L. Jenkins
The defendant appeals to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions of sexual battery and aggravated kidnapping and the propriety of the felony sentences imposed by the trial court. We affirm the convictions, but upon notice of plain error, we reverse a misdemeanor conviction of aggravated criminal trespass. Finding the misapplication of some enhancement factors, we modify some of the sentences.
