State of Tennessee v. Jacob Scott Hughes
The Defendant, Jacob Scott Hughes, was convicted of first degree felony murder and aggravated child abuse, for which he was sentenced, respectively, to life and twenty-five years, to be served consecutively, as a result of the death of the sixteen-month-old daughter of his girlfriend. On appeal, he raises three issues: (1) the trial court erred in ruling that he could not refer to his co-defendant, who was the mother of the child, as his "co-defendant," as well as to the fact that she had entered a guilty plea to lesser-included offenses; (2) the trial court erred in not redacting from his Facebook message a racial slur, which previously had been ruled inadmissible; and (3) whether autopsy photographs were properly admitted as exhibits during the testimony of the medical examiner. Following our review, we conclude that the issues raised on appeal are without merit and arrim the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Donnell V. Booker v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Donnell V. Booker, appeals as of right from the Trousdale County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. He claims entitlement to habeas corpus relief, alleging that his eight-year sentence for Class B felony cocaine possession is illegal because it should have run consecutively to his prior sentences, rather than concurrently, as was agreed to in his plea agreement. Following our review, we affirm the trial court’s summary dismissal of the petition but do so on a different ground—the Petitioner has failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that his sentence is illegal. See Mike Settle v. Ricky Bell, Warden, No. M2007-02743-COA-R3-CV, 2008 WL 4725599, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Oct. 28, 2008) (affirming using similar procedure). |
Trousdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Andre Hill
The Defendant, Andre Hill, appeals the Knox County Criminal Court’s revocation of his probation. On appeal, the Defendant argues that (1) the admission of a witness’s statements at the revocation hearing violated his right of confrontation; and (2) the trial court abused its discretion by ordering him to serve his original sentence in confinement. Upon review, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Holly N. Hilliard
This is a consolidated appeal by the State. Holly N. Hilliard (“Ms. Hilliard”), Brian K. Reynolds (“Mr. Reynolds”), and Joseph A. Tester, II (“Mr. Tester”) (collectively, “the Defendants”) were charged, via presentment, with conspiracy to manufacture over .5 grams of methamphetamine within 1,000 feet of a school. The presentment also charged Ms. Hilliard and Mr. Reynolds with one count of manufacturing greater than .5 grams of methamphetamine within 1,000 feet of a school, two counts of attempted aggravated child neglect, one count of maintaining a dwelling where controlled substances are used or sold, and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia. The Defendants moved to suppress evidence found in a warrantless search of their residence. Following a suppression hearing, the trial court found that the officers’ subjective reasons for entering the house were inconsistent, that there were not sufficient exigent circumstances to justify a protective sweep, and that the officers’ entry into the residence was an illegal warrantless search. The trial court granted the motions and suppressed the evidence found in the residence. Upon review, we conclude that the trial court erred by using a subjective rather than objective test in finding that the exigent circumstances were not sufficient to justify the officers’ entering the residence to perform a protective sweep. However, we determine that the police officers’ knocking on the front door for ten to fifteen minutes while announcing their badge of authority rendered the encounter with Ms. Hilliard nonconcensual and the knock and talk investigation unlawful. The subsequent warrantless entry of the residence therefore violated the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizure under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and article 1 section 7 of the Tennessee Constitution. The subsequent consent to search given by Ms. Hilliard was not voluntary and resulted from an exploitation of the prior illegality. We, therefore, affirm the judgments of the trial court suppressing the evidence in these three cases. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Robert Lamar Kelley
Following the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress, the Defendant-Appellant, Robert Lamar Kelley, entered a guilty plea in the Wilson County Criminal Court to the charged offense of possession of more than ten pounds of marijuana, a Class D felony, for which he received a sentence of four years, with service of six months in confinement and the remainder on supervised probation. See T.C.A. §§ 39-17-417(a)(4), (g)(2). As a condition of his guilty plea, Kelley properly reserved two certified questions of law pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2) regarding the stop and search of his vehicle. After reviewing the record, we find no error in the denial of the motion to suppress and affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Wilson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Anzar McFarland v. State of Tennessee and Randy Lee, Warden
The Petitioner, Anzar McFarland, appeals as of right from the Johnson County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. He claims entitlement to habeas corpus relief, alleging that his judgment of conviction for class A felony rape of a child was void because he was not granted pretrial jail credit. Following our review, we affirm the habeas corpus court’s summary dismissal of the petition. |
Johnson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Mark Thornton
The State appeals as of right from the Cocke County Circuit Court’s grant of the Defendant’s, James Mark Thornton’s Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 motion to correct an illegal sentence. The State contends that the trial court erred because the challenged sentence was not illegal. We agree with the State and dismiss the Defendant’s Rule 36.1 motion. |
Cocke | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Smith
The pro se defendant, Michael Smith, appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct clerical errors on the face of an order suspending a forty-month sentence for a felony escape conviction. The defendant argues the trial court actually resentenced him to one year, time served, and the order did not accurately reflect this ruling. The defendant further argues the trial court should have entered an amended judgment reflecting the resentencing. On review, we conclude the record is insufficient to support the defendant’s arguments and affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Mark Harold Lullen aka Luellen
We granted this interlocutory appeal to review the trial court’s order granting the motion of the defendant, Mark Harold Lullen a.k.a. Luellen, to suppress his statement because officers did not give Miranda warnings. Upon review, we conclude Miranda warnings were unnecessary because the defendant was not in custody when questioned by law enforcement, so the trial court erred when granting the defendant’s motion to suppress on that basis. Despite arguments by the defendant that he did not voluntarily give his statement because he was under the influence of prescription drugs, the trial court failed to make findings of fact in this regard. Accordingly, we remand for full hearing and additional findings as to whether the defendant’s statement was voluntary. |
Fayette | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Danielle Chandria Jensen
Following the trial court’s denial of an interlocutory appeal pursuant to Rule 9 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, the State sought and was granted permission for an extraordinary appeal pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. In this appeal, the State argues that the trial court erroneously dismissed a burglary count in a superseding indictment against the Defendant, Danielle Chandria Jensen, who had previously been charged with theft of property valued at $500 or less, assault, and criminal trespass involving the same conduct. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-101(a)(1), 39-14-103, -105(a)(1), -402(a)(3), -405 (Supp. 2014). We affirm the judgment of the trial court dismissing the burglary count. |
Putnam | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Anthony T. Brandon v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Anthony T. Brandon, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for possession with intent to sell .5 grams or more of cocaine and simple possession of marijuana. Petitioner argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Upon our review of the record and the briefs of the parties, we determine that Petitioner has waived his claim for failing to present an adequate argument in his appellate brief. Waiver notwithstanding, we also determine that Petitioner failed to prove his claim by clear and convincing evidence. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Edward Nolan Lee Thomas
The Defendant, Edward Nolan Lee Thomas, pleaded guilty to aggravated burglary and theft of property valued at less than $500. By agreement, the Defendant’s sentence was four years for the burglary conviction, concurrent with a sentence of eleven months, twenty-nine days for the theft conviction, with the trial court to determine the manner of service. The trial court subsequently ordered the Defendant to serve the sentences in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it denied him judicial diversion and imposed a sentence of continuous confinement. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Steven Woodrow Johnson v. State of Tennessee
A Davidson County jury convicted the Petitioner, Steven Woodrow Johnson, of first degree felony murder, especially aggravated burglary, aggravated burglary, aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, and the trial court sentenced him to an effective sentence of life in prison. This court affirmed the Petitioner’s convictions on appeal, save the especially aggravated burglary conviction, which we modified to aggravated burglary. State v. Steven Woodrow Johnson, M2011-00859-CCA-R3-CD, 2012 WL 3877787, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Sept. 7, 2012), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Feb. 13, 2013). In 2013, the Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging that he had received the ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court held a hearing on the petition and denied relief. On appeal, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Corey E. Huddleston
Defendant, Corey E. Huddleston, pleaded no contest to sexual battery on February 8, 2016. As a result of the no contest plea, he was sentenced to one year of incarceration and placed on the sex offender registry. Defendant sought to withdraw his no contest plea, and the trial court denied the motion. Defendant appeals the denial of his motion to withdraw his plea. We affirm the trial court’s decision. |
Dickson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James W. Burton
A Fentress County jury convicted the Defendant of perjury, and the trial court sentenced him to serve eleven months and twenty-nine days on supervised probation. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that the evidence is insufficient to support the jury’s verdict against the Defendant for perjury. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Fentress | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kalpesh Patel and Patikkumar v. Patel
The Defendants, Kalpesh Patel and Pratikkumar V. Patel, were each convicted of one count of conspiracy to commit first degree murder, a Class A felony, and one count of solicitation to commit first degree murder, a Class B felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-12-102, -103, -107. The trial court merged the solicitation convictions into the conspiracy convictions and sentenced each Defendant to fifteen years as Range I, standard offenders. On appeal, the Defendants raise the following issues: (1) both Defendants contend that the evidence was insufficient to sustain their convictions for conspiracy to commit first degree murder; (2) both Defendants contend that the trial court erred in denying their motions to suppress evidence retrieved during warrantless searches of their cell phones; (3) Defendant Kalpesh contends that the trial court erred by not sentencing him as an especially mitigated offender; (4) Defendant Kalpesh contends that a new trial is warranted based on newly discovered evidence impeaching the State’s primary witness; (5) Defendant Pratikkumar contends that the State withheld exculpatory evidence; and (6) Defendant Pratikkumar contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel from his trial counsel. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Edward Joseph Benesch, II
The Defendant, Edward Joseph Benesch II, stands convicted by a Dickson County jury of aggravated child neglect and voluntary manslaughter, for which the trial court sentenced him to an effective term of eighteen years’ incarceration. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant raises the following allegations of error: (1) that the trial court erred by denying the Defendant’s motion to suppress his statement to police after he first requested an attorney and that request did not need clarification in the Defendant’s opinion; (2) that the evidence was insufficient to support the Defendant’s convictions because he did not intentionally neglect the victim and because the element of adequate provocation was absent; (3) that the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted photographs of the victim taken at the crime scene and during the victim’s autopsy given their gruesome nature; (4) that trial court erred by allowing a paramedic to testify as an expert about the “significance of the force” that caused the victim’s injuries; (5) that it was improper for the trial court to allow two witnesses, Shannon Edmonson and Shara Tisdale, to testify about the Defendant’s alleged drug usage and drugs being found in his home; (6) that the trial court should not have allowed testimony from the Defendant’s next-door neighbor that bore “no indicia of reliability and was completely unverifiable”; (7) that the trial court’s refusal to allow the Defendant’s “mitigation expert” to testify regarding how the Defendant told her he fell on the victim violated the Defendant’s constitutional right to present a defense; and (8) that the trial court erred when it allowed the State to play, as a prior inconsistent statement, the video recording of Judith Lane’s interview with law enforcement. Following our review of the record and the applicable authorities, we must conclude that the evidence was insufficient to support the Defendant’s conviction for voluntary manslaughter because the Defendant was not adequately provoked by the eighteen-month-old victim, and therefore, that conviction is reversed and vacated. However, because the proof is sufficient to support the lesser-included offense of reckless homicide, we remand this matter to the trial court for entry of an amended judgment reflecting a reckless homicide conviction and imposition of a consecutive, four-year sentence for that conviction. The Defendant’s remaining issues do not entitle him to relief, and his conviction for aggravated child neglect is affirmed. Accordingly, the trial court’s judgments are affirmed in part and reversed in part. |
Dickson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jeanet Marie Covington
A Davidson County jury convicted the Defendant, Jeanet Marie Covington, of aggravated arson, and the trial court sentenced her to serve fifteen years in the Department of Correction. The Defendant timely filed a motion for new trial, which the trial court denied. The Defendant appeals the trial court’s denial of her motion, maintaining that the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction. We affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Maurice O. Byrd, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
A Montgomery County jury convicted the Petitioner, Maurice O. Byrd, Jr., of aggravated robbery, first degree felony murder, and premeditated first degree murder, and the Petitioner received an effective sentence of life. On appeal, this court affirmed the judgments. See State v. Maurice O. Byrd, No. M2010-02405-CCA-R3-CD, 2012 WL 5989817, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Nov. 29, 2012), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Dec. 11, 2013). The Petitioner filed a post-conviction petition, and the post-conviction court denied relief following a hearing. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he received the ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. After review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Raymond Deshun Ross
The defendant, Raymond Deshun Ross, appeals the dismissal of his motion, filed pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1, to correct what he believes to be an illegal sentence imposed for his 2005 Henderson County Circuit Court jury convictions of aggravated assault, carjacking, felony theft, and misdemeanor reckless endangerment. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Henderson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William Christopher Davis
Upon the request of the Department of Safety, the State filed a petition to declare William Christopher Davis, the Defendant, a “habitual offender” pursuant to Motor Vehicle Habitual Offenders Act (“the MVHO Act”). The trial court dismissed the petition after concluding that the MVHO Act was ambiguous regarding when the State had a duty to file a petition. On appeal, the State argues that it has an appeal as of right under Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c) from the dismissal of its petition and that the trial court erred in dismissing its petition on the grounds that the MVHO Act was ambiguous and penal in nature. The Defendant argues that the State does not have an appeal as of right from the dismissal of its petition and that the trial court correctly dismissed the petition. After a thorough review of the facts of this case and applicable case law, we conclude that the State does not have an appeal as of right from the dismissal of a motor vehicle habitual offender petition, and thus we dismiss the State’s appeal. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jonquarius Cunningham
The Defendant, Jonquarius Cunningham, was convicted of one count of attempted second degree murder, one count of reckless endangerment, two counts of employing a firearm during the attempt to commit a dangerous felony, and two counts of aggravated assault. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective sentence of twenty-three years’ incarceration. On appeal, he argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions and that the trial court erred by ordering consecutive sentences. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tarell D. Lewis
The defendant, Tarell D. Lewis, appeals his Davidson County Criminal Court guiltypleaded convictions of two counts of the sale of heroin, one count of the possession with intent to sell heroin, and one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm, claiming that the trial court erred by ordering a fully-incarcerative sentence. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Tony Britton v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Tony Britton, appeals pro se from the summary dismissal of his 2015 petition for post-conviction relief, which challenged his 2011 guilty-pleaded conviction of second degree murder. Because the petition was filed well beyond the applicable statute of limitations and because the petitioner failed to prove a statutory exception to the timely filing or a due process tolling of the statute of limitations, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Errol Johnson
The defendant, Errol Johnson, was convicted of two counts of aggravated child neglect, a Class A felony, and two counts of criminally negligent homicide, a Class E felony. The trial court merged the two aggravated child neglect convictions and sentenced the defendant as a violent offender to twenty-two years in the Department of Correction. The trial court also merged the defendant’s convictions for criminally negligent homicide and sentenced him to two years. The defendant’s sentences were ordered to be served concurrently for an effective sentence of twenty-two years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions for aggravated child neglect and that the trial court imposed an excessive sentence. We conclude that the evidence is sufficient to sustain the jury’s verdict and affirm the judgments of the trial court. However, because aggravated child neglect is not an enumerated offense included in Tennessee Code Annotated § 40-35-501(i)(2), the trial court erred in its applying the statute and sentencing the defendant as a violent offender at 100% release eligibility. Therefore, we remand the matter for a new sentencing hearing. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals |
