State of Tennessee v. Gary Rollins
Gary Rollins, Defendant, was charged with one count of rape of a child and two counts of aggravated sexual battery in September of 2020. At the conclusion of the first trial, the jury found Defendant not guilty of rape of a child but could not reach a verdict on the lesser-included offenses of rape of a child. The jury could not reach a verdict on either count of aggravated sexual battery. The trial court granted a mistrial for the remaining lesser-included offenses of rape of a child and the two counts of aggravated sexual battery. In a second trial on the same presentment, Defendant was again tried for rape of a child. The jury found Defendant guilty of rape of a child and two counts of aggravated sexual battery. At sentencing, Defendant challenged the rape of a child conviction for the first time on the basis that it violated double jeopardy. The trial court agreed, entering a judgment for the lesser-included offense of attempted rape of a child. The trial court sentenced Defendant to twenty years for the attempted rape of a child conviction and fifteen years for each aggravated sexual battery conviction. The trial court ordered the sentences to run consecutively, for a total effective sentence of fifty years. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the State to introduce evidence of a prior bad act in violation of Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b), that his second trial for rape of a child violated his right against double jeopardy, and that the trial court had no authority to modify the conviction on the jeopardy-barred offense to attempted rape of a child. Because the Defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability that he would not have been convicted of the attempted rape of a child absent the presence of the charge of rape of a child and because the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the State to introduce evidence of a prior bad act, we affirm the convictions. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tony Brasfield
The Defendant, Tony Brasfield, was convicted by a Madison County Circuit Court jury of violating the rules of community supervision for life, a Class A misdemeanor; and violating the sexual offender registry for failing to register or report in person within 48 hours of establishing or changing a primary or secondary residence, a Class E felony. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence for his felony conviction of violating the sexual offender registry, arguing that a plain reading of the statute shows that the State failed to prove the essential elements of the offense. We agree with the Defendant. Accordingly, the Defendant’s misdemeanor conviction for violating community supervision is affirmed, but we reverse and vacate his felony conviction for violating the sexual offender registry. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Mario Albanese
The Defendant, Mario Albanese, pleaded guilty to three counts of reckless aggravated |
Hawkins | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Nicholas Cornelius Conner
Defendant, Nicholas Cornelius Conner, pled guilty to one count of the sale of 0.5 grams or more of cocaine, a Schedule II drug. He received a nine-year community corrections sentence which was later transferred to probation. Thereafter, Defendant was arrested for new drug offenses. After a hearing, the trial court revoked Defendant’s probation and ordered him to serve his original sentence incarcerated. Defendant appeals, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by fully revoking his probation and by denying credit for time he successfully served on probation. Upon review of the record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Lincoln | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Johnny Tate v. Grady Perry, Warden
Petitioner, Johnny Tate, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Following our review of the entire record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court. |
Wayne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kimberly M. Smart
The Defendant, Kimberly M. Smart, was convicted by a Hamilton County Jury of reckless aggravated assault, for which she received a sentence of three years' incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant argues that (1) the trial court erred in admitting extrinsic evidence of a witness's prior inconsistent statement for impeachment, (2) the trial court erred in admitting a body camera recording depicting the victim shortly after she was stabbed, and (3) the prosecutor committed misconduct by attempting to shift the burden of proof to the Defendant during closing and rebuttal arguments. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Casey Lee Anderson v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Casey Lee Anderson, pled guilty to second degree murder and received a sentence of nineteen years’ imprisonment. He later filed a petition for post-conviction relief, claiming that the State had violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), by failing to disclose a witness statement before he entered the plea. After a hearing, the post-conviction court granted relief, finding that the State had violated Brady by failing to disclose the statement. On appeal, the State argues that the post-conviction court erred in granting relief, asserting that the Petitioner failed to prove that the statement was material. Upon our de novo review, we agree with the State. As such, we respectfully reverse the post-conviction court’s judgment and remand the case to reinstate the Petitioner’s conviction. |
Bledsoe | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Bryant Ward v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Bryant Ward, pleaded guilty to second degree murder, in exchange for a twenty-year sentence. The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective and that he was on a medication that inhibited his ability to enter a knowing and voluntary guilty plea. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. After review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Victor Valle v. State of Tennessee
A Shelby County jury convicted the Petitioner, Victor Valle, of rape of a child, and the trial court sentenced him to a term of twenty-two years imprisonment. Thereafter, he filed a petition for post-conviction relief, asserting that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. In relevant part, the Petitioner alleged that his attorneys were ineffective by (1) calling the victim’s mother and his former spouse as witnesses at trial; (2) failing to explain his right to testify and advising him not to testify; and (3) failing to advise him of his right to have the jury instructed regarding lesser-included offenses. The Petitioner also asserted that he was entitled to relief due to cumulative error. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief, and the Petitioner appealed. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Derek Morse
Defendant, Derek Morse, was convicted by a Hamilton County jury of three counts of premeditated first degree murder and one count of attempted premeditated first degree murder. Defendant was sentenced to three terms of life imprisonment without parole for the first-degree murder convictions, and he was ordered to serve a concurrent sentence of fifteen years for the attempted first degree murder conviction. In this direct appeal, Defendant contends that: 1) the evidence at trial was insufficient to sustain his convictions because the State failed to establish his identity as a shooter; 2) the trial court erred by allowing evidence of a prior bad act; 3) the State failed to establish a proper chain of custody for evidence of gunshot residue on Defendant's clothing; 4) the trial court should have granted a new trial based on newly discovered evidence; 5) the trial court should have granted a new trial based on proof that a State's witness gave false testimony that he did not receive favorable treatment from the State for his testimony against Defendant; 6) the State made improper comments during its opening statement and closing argument; and 7) the cumulative effect of these errors entitles Defendant to a new trial. Having reviewed the entire record and the briefs and arguments of the parties, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William Joel Lauper
The Defendant, William Joel Lauper, was convicted by a Rutherford County Jury of especially aggravated kidnapping, four counts of aggravated assault, domestic assault resulting in a bodily injury, and preventing another from making an emergency call, for which he received an effective sentence of fifty years, eleven months, and twenty-nine days of confinement. In this direct appeal, the sole issue presented for our review is whether the State established the essential element of serious bodily injury to sustain the especially aggravated kidnapping conviction. After review, we affirm. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Billie Joe Chapman v. State of Tennessee
In 2021, the Petitioner, Billie Joe Chapman, pleaded guilty in separate cases to multiple burglary, vandalism, and weapon charges for which he received an effective sentence of thirteen years of incarceration. The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging the ineffective assistance of counsel, and the trial court denied him relief. This court affirmed the denial. Chapman v. State, No. W2022-01333-CCA-R3-PC, 2023 WL 5572932, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 29, 2023), no perm. app. filed. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, and the trial court entered an order summarily dismissing the petition. We affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ernest Butler v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Ernest Butler, was convicted of first degree felony murder and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, for which he received an effective sentence of life imprisonment plus fifteen years. This court affirmed Petitioner’s convictions and sentences on direct appeal. Petitioner then filed a petition for post-conviction relief in which he claimed ineffective assistance of counsel, and the post-conviction court denied the petition after a hearing. On appeal, Petitioner asserts that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the State’s methods for refreshing and impeaching a testifying witness, and for failing to request a jury instruction on voluntary intoxication. He also argues cumulative error deprived him of a fair trial. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jason Steven Molthan v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Jason Steven Molthan, appeals from the trial court’s summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence related to his misdemeanor convictions for stalking and harassment, for which he received consecutive sentences of eleven months and twenty-nine days. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion without the appointment of counsel and a hearing; that the trial court improperly imposed consecutive sentencing by finding that his history of criminal activity was extensive; and that he received ineffective assistance of appellate counsel in his direct appeal. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jonathan Ellerbasch, Alias
Defendant, Jonathan Ellerbasch, Alias, pleaded guilty in the Knox County Criminal Court |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James Anthony Andrews v. State of Tennessee
James Anthony Andrews, Petitioner, pleaded guilty in this case to two counts of aggravated assault. At the same hearing, Petitioner pleaded guilty to additional charges in another case. As part of his plea agreement, Petitioner agreed to concurrent eight-year sentences for the aggravated assault charges to run consecutively to a two-year sentence for the charges in the other case—for a total effective sentence of ten years—with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. The trial court accepted Petitioner’s guilty pleas, and Petitioner applied for probation, which the State opposed. The trial court denied Petitioner’s request for probation, requiring him to serve his ten-year sentence in incarceration. Petitioner subsequently petitioned for post-conviction relief, asserting that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to adequately investigate the case and that his guilty pleas were not knowingly and voluntarily made. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied Petitioner’s amended petition. After review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Christopher David Hodge v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Christopher David Hodge, appeals from the summary dismissal of his petition for writ of error coram nobis, which was filed approximately twenty years after his conviction for second degree murder. Because the evidence that Petitioner claims is newly discovered does not show that Petitioner is actually innocent of the underlying crime for which he was convicted, he is not entitled to equitable tolling of the statute of limitations. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the coram nobis court. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Larry McKee, Jr.
Defendant, Larry E. McKee, appeals his Bradley County conviction for theft of property valued at more than $1,000, but less than $2,500. He contends on appeal that the trial court abused its discretion and committed reversible error by (1) prohibiting Defendant's trial counsel from cross-examining two witnesses as to the manner in which the landlord of the burglarized property received rent payments from the tenants, (2) refusing to allow trial counsel to explain the relevancy of said line of questioning, and (3) threatening to hold the trial counsel in contempt for continuing to ask the witnesses about such payment methods after the trial court ruled them irrelevant. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Bradley | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Darrel Hochhalter v. Christopher Brun, Warden
The Petitioner, Darrel Hochhalter, who is serving a twenty-two-year sentence for convictions of six counts of sexual battery by an authority figure and one count of rape, appeals from the Hickman County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for the writ of habeas corpus. He contends on appeal that the habeas corpus court erred in summarily dismissing his petition. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court. |
Hickman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Vana Mustafa v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Vana Mustafa, appeals from the post-conviction court’s summary dismissal of his amended petition for post-conviction relief. He contends that, although his claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel was litigated in his motion for new trial and on direct appeal, he is nonetheless entitled to post-conviction relief based on new grounds of trial counsel’s alleged ineffectiveness. In addition, he argues that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to include these new grounds on direct appeal. After review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ashley Bianca Ruth Kroese
Defendant, Ashley Bianca Ruth Kroese, appeals the denial of her motion to correct clerical errors in her judgments. On appeal, she claims the trial court erred by summarily denying her motion and failing to enter corrected judgments to include jail credit for the time she was on home confinement pending trial. Because the record is inadequate for meaningful review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Natasha Lynn Bryant Fults
Defendant, Natasha Lynn Bryant Fults, was indicted by a Warren County Grand Jury on two counts of tampering with evidence. See T.C.A. § 39-16-503. Pursuant to a plea agreement, she pled guilty to both counts with the trial court to determine the length and manner of service. The trial court sentenced Defendant as a Range I offender to serve five years incarcerated. Defendant appeals, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by not sentencing her to split confinement or alternative sentencing. Following our review of the record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Warren | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Anthony T. Braden
Defendant, Anthony T. Braden, was convicted by a Humphreys County jury of two counts of aggravated sexual battery. The trial court imposed an effective ten-year sentence. Defendant appeals, arguing that the trial court committed plain error in finding that the victim had properly authenticated the video-recorded forensic interview under Tennessee Code Annotated section 24-7-123(b)(1). Upon our review of the entire record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Humphreys | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Shavone D. Page
Pro se Petitioner, Shavone D. Page, appeals the summary denial of his Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 motion to correct an illegal sentence. After review, we agree with the trial court that Petitioner has not raised a colorable claim under Rule 36.1, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jayson Keith Johnson
A Benton County jury convicted the Defendant, Jayson Keith Johnson, of reckless homicide and introduction of contraband into a penal institution. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court found that the Defendant was a Range III, persistent offender. It also found that consecutive sentences were appropriate and sentenced the Defendant to an effective term of twenty years. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court improperly imposed consecutive sentences. He also asserts that the State did not provide adequate pretrial notice that he would be subject to Range III sentencing. Upon our review, we hold that the trial court acted within its discretion in imposing consecutive sentences. However, we respectfully remand the case for the trial court to resentence the Defendant as a Range II, multiple offender. |
Benton | Court of Criminal Appeals |
