State of Tennessee v. James Brent Wall
The Defendant, James Brent Wall, pled guilty to the sale of a controlled substance and two counts of TennCare fraud. The trial court imposed an effective six-year sentence, which it suspended to probation. The State later alleged that the Defendant violated the conditions of his probation by refusing to submit to drug screening, failing to pay restitution, and absconding from supervision. Following a hearing, the trial court revoked the suspended sentences and ordered the Defendant to serve the remainder of his sentences in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to revoke his probation because the court clerk retired the case, recalled the violation warrants, and issued an alias capias. Upon our review, we agree. Accordingly, we respectfully reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand the case with instructions to dismiss the proceedings. |
Dickson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Kenn Baker
Defendant, Christopher Kenn Baker, pleaded guilty to solicitation of a minor to commit aggravated statutory rape for which he received a sentence of two years’ confinement. On appeal, Defendant argues the trial court erred in denying judicial diversion. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Russell Matthew Morgan
A Monroe County jury found the Defendant, Russell Matthew Morgan, guilty of solicitation of a minor to commit aggravated statutory rape and solicitation of sexual exploitation of a minor by electronic means. On appeal, the Defendant raises three issues: (1) whether the evidence is legally insufficient to support his conviction for solicitation of sexual exploitation of a minor by electronic means; (2) whether Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-528 prohibits solicitation of a minor to commit aggravated statutory rape; and (3) whether the trial court erred in admitting hearsay testimony. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Monroe | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Daniel J. Dreaden
The Rutherford County Grand Jury indicted Defendant, Daniel J. Dreaden, for three counts of rape. On the State’s motion, the trial court dismissed Count 3. Defendant waived a jury trial, and following a bench trial, Defendant was convicted on the remaining two counts. The trial court sentenced Defendant to a total effective sentence of eight years, with ten months to serve and the balance to be supervised on probation. Defendant appeals his convictions, asserting 1) that his confrontation right was violated when the trial court prohibited him from cross-examining the victim, Defendant’s then-wife, about her extra-marital affair to establish her motive for the allegations of rape; and 2) that the evidence was insufficient to establish that Defendant raped the victim. We affirm the judgments of the trial court, but remand for entry of a judgment form in Count 3 to reflect dismissal of that count. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Bobby V. Summers v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Bobby V. Summers, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for writ of error coram nobis as untimely. Following our review of the entire record, briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the coram nobis court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Joe Cunningham
Defendant, Michael Joe Cunningham, pled guilty in two separate cases to one count of making a false report and one count possession of twenty-six grams or more of methamphetamine. He received an effective fourteen-year community corrections sentence that was later transferred to probation. Following a hearing on a warrant for violation of his probation based on Defendant’s arrest for new offenses, 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 rather than ordering treatment for his drug addiction. Upon review of the record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Franklin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Brendan T. Negron
The Defendant, Brendan T. Negron, appeals from his conviction for aggravated domestic assault. Specifically, he contends that evidence adduced at trial was sufficient to establish only a conviction for misdemeanor domestic assault because the barstool utilized in the assault did not constitute a deadly weapon. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Wilson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tylar Scott Johnson
A Knox County jury convicted the Defendant, Tylar Scott Johnson, of four counts of rape and one count of aggravated kidnapping, for which he received an effective sentence of thirty-six years in confinement at a one hundred-percent service rate. On appeal, the Defendant contends the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his convictions, that improper argument by the State affected the verdict, and that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentencing. After review, we affirm. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James David Duncan v. State of Tennessee
In January 2019, the Petitioner, James David Duncan, pled guilty to possession with the intent to sell .5 grams or more of methamphetamine. The trial court sentenced the Petitioner to serve ten years and placed him on supervised probation. In January 2020, the trial court revoked the Petitioner’s probation sentence. On appeal, this court affirmed the revocation. State v. Duncan, No. E2020-00827-CCA-R3-CD, 2021 WL 3403152, at * 1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 4, 2021), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Nov. 17, 2021). In December 2021, the Petitioner filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief that was amended with the assistance of counsel in July 2023. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court concluded that the Petitioner’s petition for post-conviction relief was barred by the statute of limitations. After review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment. |
Anderson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Rex A. Martin
The defendant, Rex A. Martin, was convicted by a Rutherford County Circuit Court jury of two counts of aggravated kidnapping, two counts of aggravated assault, assault, preventing another from making an emergency call, possession of a firearm while under a court order, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, for which he was sentenced to an effective term of fifteen years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence as to seven of his eight convictions - aggravated kidnapping, aggravated assault, assault, preventing another from making an emergency call, and possessing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. Following a thorough review of the record, the briefs, and oral arguments of the parties, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Leavy L. Johnson v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Leavy L. Johnson, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing the post-conviction court erred in finding he received the effective assistance of counsel. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William Martinez
A Williamson County trial court, over objection from the State of Tennessee, granted the defendant’s motion to depose a witness for discovery purposes. This Court granted the State’s application for an extraordinary appeal under Rule 10 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. Upon our review, we conclude the trial court erred in its decision to grant the defendant’s motion and remand the case to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Eddie Harris v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Eddie Harris, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his 2016 convictions of two counts of first degree premeditated murder, two counts of first degree murder in the perpetration of a robbery, and one count of possession of a handgun by a convicted felon. On appeal, the Petitioner argues the post-conviction court erred by failing to find that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel due to trial counsel’s failure to (1) present a witness in support of his defense, (2) cite favorable law during an evidentiary hearing or make an offer of proof following the trial court’s adverse ruling, and (3) object to alleged inconsistencies in the grand jury process. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
John Patrick Tracy, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, John Patrick Tracy, Jr., pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated sexual battery and two counts of attempted aggravated sexual battery, and the trial court imposed the agreed upon effective sentence of fifteen years in the Tennessee Department of Correction, followed by an additional fifteen years to be served on Community Corrections. The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, claiming that he had received the ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and that his guilty pleas were not voluntary. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to file essential motions, failed to investigate, and misrepresented his legal experience. He also argues that his guilty pleas were unknowingly and involuntarily entered. He further contends that the cumulative effect of his attorney’s errors entitles him to relief. After review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Douglas E. Alvey v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Douglas E. Alvey, appeals from the denial of his petition seeking post-conviction relief from his conviction of first degree murder. On appeal, he argues: (1) trial counsel were ineffective in failing to present expert testimony negating the mens rea; and (2) that he did not knowingly understand the nature of his constitutional right to testify at trial. After review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Rhea | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Curtis Keller v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Curtis Keller, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for writ of error coram nobis as “utterly devoid of accuracy.” Following our review of the entire record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the coram nobis court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Richard Townsend v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Richard Townsend, appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in denying his claim that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel and that his plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered. Following our review of the entire record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Decatur | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Cameron Henderson
Defendant, Cameron Henderson, appeals his Shelby County convictions for sexual battery and aggravated sexual battery for which he received an effective sentence of 7.2 years of confinement as an especially mitigated offender to be served at a rate of 100 percent. On appeal, Defendant contends that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of other bad acts pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b), in declining to instruct the jury on child abuse and neglect as a lesser included offense of aggravated sexual battery, and in ordering him to serve 100 percent of his sentence. Because Defendant failed to file a timely motion for new trial and a timely notice of appeal, we dismiss the appeal. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. HARLAN V. FERGUSON
A Knox County jury convicted Defendant, Harlan V. Ferguson, alias Harley T. Martin, of two counts of vehicular homicide, evading arrest, reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon, driving under the influence (“DUI”), DUI per se, and failure to drive within a single lane of traffic. The trial court merged the vehicular homicide and DUI convictions into one vehicular homicide conviction and imposed an effective ten-year sentence with one year to be served in confinement followed by probation. While Defendant’s direct appeal was pending in this court, he filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis, in which he alleged that newly discovered evidence may have resulted in a different judgment. The trial court denied the petition, and this court consolidated Defendant’s direct appeal of his convictions and his appeal from the denial of coram nobis relief. On appeal, Defendant challenges (1) the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress his statements to law enforcement; (2) the State’s failure to establish the chain of custody of Defendant’s blood samples; (3) the trial court’s denial of his motion to dismiss due to the destruction of evidence; (4) the trial court’s admission of lay testimony regarding the cause of the victim’s injuries; (5) the trial court’s admission of Defendant’s medical records; (6) the trial court’s exclusion of defense evidence; (7) the trial court’s failure to issue a missing witness instruction; (8) the State’s comments during closing arguments; (9) the State’s failure to disclose evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); and (10) the trial court’s denial of Defendant’s petition for writ of error coram nobis. Defendant also argues that the cumulative effect of the errors entitles him to relief. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Reggie Horton v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Reggie Horton, was found guilty in an October 2016 trial of the offenses of attempted voluntary manslaughter, aggravated kidnapping, and simple assault related to conduct occurring on April 27, 2015. State v. Horton, No. W2017-00676-CCA-R3-CD, 2018 WL 1598895 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 29, 2018), no perm. app. filed. On April 27, 2023, while post-conviction proceedings were pending, the Petitioner filed a writ of error coram nobis petition challenging only his conviction of aggravated kidnapping, claiming newly discovered evidence entitled him to a new trial on this offense. The Petitioner appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s dismissal of his petition for writ of error coram nobis, arguing he is entitled to due process tolling of the statute of limitations and the merits of his claim warrant relief. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the coram nobis court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Juwan Jaheim Gaines
The Defendant, Juwan Jaheim Gaines, appeals from his convictions for attempted first degree premeditated murder wherein the victim suffered serious bodily injury, employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, and reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon. He asserts that the trial court’s refusal to instruct the jury on self-defense constitutes reversible error, that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions, and that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing an excessive sentence. After review, we remand the case to the trial court for entry of corrected judgment forms. In all other respects, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Kenneth Brown v. State of Tennessee
In October 2012, a jury convicted Petitioner, Kenneth Brown, of one count of first degree premeditated murder, twelve counts of criminal attempt to commit first degree murder, twelve counts of aggravated assault, one count of employment of a firearm during a dangerous felony, and one count of reckless endangerment, for which he received an effective sentence of life imprisonment plus 308 years. In August 2023, Petitioner filed pro se petitions for post-conviction DNA and fingerprint analysis and a petition for writ of error coram nobis. The post-conviction court summarily dismissed the petitions. On appeal, Petitioner asserts that the post-conviction court improperly dismissed the petition for post-conviction fingerprint analysis and the petition for writ of error coram nobis. Following a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tra'Shawn Glass
Defendant, Tra’Shawn Glass, entered guilty pleas to three counts of vehicular homicide, four counts of drag racing resulting in serious bodily injury, and two counts of reckless aggravated assault resulting in serious bodily injury. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court merged various convictions and imposed an effective twelve-year sentence to be served in confinement. On appeal, Defendant contends that the trial court erred in ordering him to serve a sentence of full confinement and in imposing consecutive sentences. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jonnella Risharra Hambrick
The Defendant, Jonnella Risharra Hambrick, was convicted by a Davidson County Criminal Court jury of attempted second degree murder, employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, and two counts of aggravated assault and received an effective twenty-year sentence. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred by denying her the right to counsel at the trial and by imposing a sentence without her being present. Because we agree that the Defendant was denied her right to counsel and that she had a constitutional right to be present for sentencing, we reverse the judgments of the trial court and remand for a new trial. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Flamini, Jr.
The lead opinion considers the Defendant to have preserved for appeal his constitutional issue concerning the admission of the civil forfeiture order, although it ultimately subjects the issue to a relevancy analysis. I respectfully disagree that the constitutional claim on appeal was preserved in the trial court. The Defendant’s non-contemporaneous reference to his right to remain silent arguably preserved a Fifth Amendment self-incrimination claim. The problem for the Defendant, however, is that he raises a Fourteenth Amendment due process claim on appeal that was never presented to or ruled upon by the trial court. As such, the issue concerning the admission of the civil forfeiture order is waived, and the Defendant is not otherwise entitled to relief. For this reason, I concur only in the result of the lead opinion as to this issue. I fully join the lead opinion as to the other issues raised by the Defendant. |
Court of Criminal Appeals |
