George Timmons v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, George Timmons, appeals from the Hamilton County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The Petitioner contends that trial counsel was ineffective (1) for failing to present a defense based on the Petitioner’s “mental instability”; and (2) for failing to properly advise the Petitioner that he would be sentenced as a repeat violent offender to life without the possibility of parole upon his conviction at trial. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Rebecca Michelle Robinson
A Lawrence County jury convicted the Defendant, Rebecca Michelle Robinson, of vehicular homicide by intoxication, reckless endangerment, and failure to exercise due care while operating a motor vehicle. The trial court sentenced her to an effective sentence of eight years of incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it denied her an alternative sentence and ordered that she serve her sentence in confinement. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. |
Lawrence | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Robert C. Clanton v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Robert C. Clanton, appeals from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Macolm Orlando Witherow v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Malcolm Orlando Witherow, appeals the Hamilton County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his 2011 conviction for first degree premeditated murder and his life sentence. The Petitioner contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tracy Lebron Vick
The Defendant, Tracy Lebron Vick, pleaded guilty to second degree murder and received a forty-year, Range II sentence to be served at 85%. Nineteen years after his sentencing, he filed a motion pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 alleging that his sentence was illegal because 100% service was statutorily mandated but that the trial court imposed 85% service in his case. The trial court summarily dismissed the motion on the basis that it failed to state a colorable claim. We affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Eugene Tolle
In this appeal, the State challenges the trial court’s decision to apply the amended version of Code section 39-14-105, which provides the grading of theft offenses, to modify the class of the defendant’s conviction offense and the corresponding sentence following the revocation of the defendant’s probation. No appeal right lies for the State pursuant to either Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 3, Code section 40-35-402, or Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 35 under the circumstances in this case. Because we have concluded that the trial court exceeded its authority by the application of the amended version of Code section 39-14-105, however, we have elected to treat the improperlyfiled appeal as a petition for the common law writ of certiorari. Accordingly, we vacate the order of the trial court and remand the case for proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Lavonte Dominique Simmon
The Defendant, Lavonte Dominique Simmon, appeals as of right his jury convictions for first degree premeditated murder and two counts of aggravated assault. On appeal, the Defendant alleges the following errors: (1) that the Defendant was deprived of his right to present a viable defense when the trial court permitted Charles Maples to assert the privilege against self-incrimination and, thereafter, refused to allow defense counsel to withdraw so that defense counsel could testify about Mr. Maples’ past statements; (2) that the trial court improperly denied the Defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment after the State failed to preserve exculpatory evidence in the form of Mr. Maples’ testimony; (3) that the trial court should have granted the Defendant’s motion to suppress his statement to the police in light of testimony that the Defendant suffered a brain injury causing intellectual impairment, that the Defendant invoked his right to counsel, and that the Defendant did not voluntarily waive his Miranda rights; (4) that the trial court erred by allowing the State to introduce numerous photographs of weapons, weapons-related items, and ammunition found during the search of the home where the Defendant was apprehended; (5) that the evidence was insufficient to support the Defendant’s convictions because the State failed to prove that the Defendant was the person who shot the murder victim or that the Defendant acted with premeditation; and (6) that the trial court should have instructed the jury on diminished capacity.Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Damarko D. Clay
The Defendant, Damarko D. Clay, appeals as of right from his convictions for possession of marijuana with intent to sell, possession of marijuana with intent to deliver, possession of drug paraphernalia, possession of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, and being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm. The Defendant argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Allen Craft v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Allen Craft, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The Petitioner contends that trial counsel was ineffective (1) for not filing a motion to sever his case from his codefendant; and (2) for failing “to introduce expert testimony which would tend to negate the requisite mental state required for the offense.” Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Joseph Ellison v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Joseph Ellison, appeals from the Knox County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The Petitioner contends that his guilty pleas were not knowingly and voluntarily entered because “there was no factual basis for” them. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Mario Antoine Leggs
Mario Antoine Leggs, the Defendant, filed a motion requesting an ex parte injunction and hearing, arguing that the judgments in his case were invalid because they did not have a file stamp date. The trial court denied the Defendant’s motion because the judgments were signed by the trial court and entered on November 29, 2001. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying relief. The State contends that the Defendant does not have an appeal as of right under Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 3 from the denial of a motion requesting injunctive relief. Additionally, the State argues that the lack of a file stamp date does not invalidate the Defendant’s judgments. After a thorough review of the facts and applicable case law, we dismiss the Defendant’s appeal. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Christopher L. Williams v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Christopher L. Williams, filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis. The coram nobis court summarily denied his petition on the grounds that it was untimely filed. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the petition was timely filed and that the coram nobis court erred in denying relief without a hearing. After a thorough review of the facts and applicable case law, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Charles Keese
In this appeal, the State challenges the trial court’s decision to apply the amended version of Code section 39-14-105, which provides the grading of theft offenses, when calculating the defendant’s sentence. The defendant asserts that the State has no right to appeal the ruling of the trial court and, in the alternative, that the trial court correctly applied the amended statute in this case. The defendant also appeals the judgment of the trial court, claiming that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions because the State failed to adequately establish the value of the stolen property. We agree with the defendant that no appeal of right lies for the State pursuant to either Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 3 or Code section 40-35-402. Because we have concluded that the trial court exceeded its authority by the application of the amended version of Code section 39-14-105 before the effective date, we could treat the improperly-filed Rule 3 appeal as a common law petition for writ of certiorari. We need not do so, however, because, pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 13, this court acquired jurisdiction of the State’s claim when the defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. Following our review of the issues presented, we hold that sufficient evidence supports the defendant’s conviction but that the trial court erred by applying the amended version of Code section 39-14-105. Accordingly, we affirm the defendant’s conviction but vacate the six-year sentence imposed by the trial court and remand the case for the entry of a modified judgment reflecting a 12-year sentence for a Class D felony conviction of theft of property valued at $1,000 or more but less than $10,000. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Deandrey Peterson
The Defendant, Deandrey Peterson, appeals his convictions for aggravated rape, aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony for which he received an effective thirty-year sentence. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions and that the trial court violated Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b) in allowing the State to present evidence of offenses committed against other victims. We conclude that the trial court committed reversible error in admitting evidence of other criminal offenses. Accordingly, we reverse the judgments of the trial court and remand the case for a new trial. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Deandrey Peterson
The Defendant, Deandrey Peterson, appeals his convictions for aggravated rape, aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, and possession of a firearm with the intent to go armed during the commission of a dangerous felony, and his effective thirty-year sentence. The Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions and that the trial court violated Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b) in admitting evidence of other offenses. We affirm the Defendant’s convictions but remand the case to the trial court for a new sentencing hearing for the firearm conviction. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Timothy R. Maness
The Defendant, Timothy R. Maness, appeals his convictions for one count of rape, one count of misdemeanor assault, one count of incest, and two counts of sexual battery, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. The Defendant filed an untimely notice of appeal, and the interest of justice does not support waiver of the timely filing requirement. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. |
McNairy | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Steven W. Davis
A Bedford County jury convicted the Defendant, Steven W. Davis, of attempted rape and attempted incest. The trial court imposed an effective six-year sentence. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it sentenced him by misapplying an enhancement factor and by denying his request for alternative sentencing. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Hugh Everret Burt
After a bench trial, the trial court found the Defendant, Hugh Everret Burt, guilty of sexual exploitation of a minor for knowingly possessing less than fifty sexual images of minors. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to two years and six months, with six months to be served in jail and the remaining served through Community Corrections. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the evidence against him is insufficient and that the trial court erred when it ordered him to serve a portion of the sentence in jail. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Melissa L. Lopez
An Anderson Circuit Court Jury convicted the Appellant, Melissa L. Lopez, of aggravated child neglect, and the trial court sentenced her as a Range I, standard offender to twenty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Appellant contends that the evidence was insufficient to sustain her conviction, arguing that the State failed to prove her neglect resulted in the victim’s injuries. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Anderson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Alex Parrish
The Appellant, Alex Parrish, appeals from the trial court’s denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1. The State has filed a motion requesting that this court affirm the trial court’s judgment pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Following our review, we grant the State’s motion and affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Brian Caswell McGrowder v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Brian Caswell McGrowder, appeals from the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief as untimely. The Petitioner contends that due process concerns should toll the one-year statute of limitations to allow review of his underlying claims. Upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Rickey Bell v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Rickey Bell, appeals from the post-conviction court’s dismissal of Petitioner’s post-conviction petition following an evidentiary hearing. Petitioner asserts that he is entitled to relief because he received ineffective assistance of counsel in the proceedings leading to his convictions for one count of rape of a child, one count of aggravated sexual battery, one count of rape, and two counts of sexual battery by an authority figure. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Patric Pope
The pro se Defendant, Patric Pope, appeals from the trial court’s denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Randy Timothy Jones
A Lawrence County jury convicted the Defendant, Randy Timothy Jones, of DUI per se, reckless driving, violation of the seatbelt law, violation of the due care law, and failure to maintain his lane, and the trial court sentenced him to eleven months and twenty-nine days of probation after he served forty-eight hours in jail. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it did not exclude the blood alcohol report because the State did not adequately establish the proper chain of custody. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. |
Lawrence | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Kevin Schipp
Defendant, Michael Kevin Schipp, was convicted of one count of burglary of an automobile and one count of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and received a total effective sentence of fifteen years. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on self-defense with regard to his aggravated assault conviction. After a thorough review of the record and relevant authorities, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Putnam | Court of Criminal Appeals |
