State of Tennessee v. Teena Marie Bright
The Defendant, Teena Marie Bright, pleaded guilty to possession of .5 gram or more of a methamphetamine with intent to manufacture, sell, or deliver. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced the Defendant to eight years as a Range I, standard offender. The sentence was suspended to supervised probation after 158 days in confinement. A violation of probation warrant was subsequently issued, and, after a hearing, the trial court revoked the Defendant’s probation and ordered service of the balance of the sentence in confinement. The Defendant appeals the trial court’s order that she serve her sentence in confinement. We affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Franklin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Darryl Wilkins Burton
The Defendant-Appellant, Darryl Wilkins Burton, entered a guilty plea to driving under the influence (DUI) in exchange for a sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days to be served on probation after the service of forty-eight hours in the Williamson County jail. The Defendant reserved a certified question of law challenging the denial of his motion to suppress, which was based upon an unconstitutional seizure. Because the Defendant failed to properly reserve the certified question, we dismiss the appeal. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tazarius Jay Vond Leach
A Davidson County Criminal Court Jury convicted the Appellant, Tazarius Jay Vond Leach, of two counts of aggravated robbery and one count of carjacking. The trial court imposed a total effective sentence of fifteen years. On appeal, the Appellant argues that the State’s providing “a hypothetical using the facts of the case” to explain criminal responsibility during voir dire violated his right to a fair trial and impartial jury. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Dean Hodges
The Davidson County Grand Jury indicted the Appellant, Michael Dean Hodges, of aggravated child abuse in counts one through three and aggravated child neglect in count four. After a jury trial, the Appellant was acquitted in count one but convicted as charged in counts two and three and convicted of knowing aggravated assault as a lesser-included offense of aggravated child neglect in count four. The trial court merged the aggravated assault conviction into the aggravated child abuse convictions and sentenced the Appellant to an effective twenty-five-years in confinement to be served at 100%. On appeal, the Appellant claimed that the trial court erred by failing to sever the charge of aggravated child abuse in count one from the remaining two counts of aggravated child abuse; that the trial court erred by allowing the jury to hear a portion of his statement in which he admitted to prior bad acts; that the trial court erred by giving the jury a supplemental instruction on “knowingly” that failed to include language about non-accidental conduct; and that cumulative error warranted a new trial. This court concluded that the trial court erred by allowing the jury to hear that the Appellant had been “in trouble” previously but that the error was harmless; however, we concluded that the Appellant’s conviction of aggravated assault had to be reversed because knowing aggravated assault was not a lesser-included offense of aggravated child neglect. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted the Appellant’s application for permission to appeal and remanded the case to this court for reconsideration in light of the court’s recent opinion in State v. Howard, 504 S.W.3d 260 (Tenn. 2016), regarding lesser-included offenses. Upon reconsideration, we again conclude that knowing aggravated assault is not a lesser-included offense of aggravated child neglect as charged in this case and modify the conviction to reckless endangerment. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Christopher Locke v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Christopher Locke, pleaded guilty to one count of incest and received a three-year sentence of probation after the trial court denied judicial diversion. State v. Christopher Locke, No. E2010-01965-CCA-R3-CD, 2011 WL 3446442 (Tenn. Crim. App., Aug. 9, 2011), perm. app. denied (Tenn., Nov. 16, 2011). Petitioner appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief as being untimely. Additionally, Petitioner asserts that the trial court erred by failing to conduct an independent inquiry regarding a conflict of interest between trial counsel and post-conviction counsel. Having reviewed the record, the applicable law, and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Aaron Malone v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Aaron Malone, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his conviction for first degree felony murder. He asserts that the court erred in denying relief because he received the ineffective assistance of counsel and his due process rights were violated by the State’s failing to preserve unedited footage from “The First 48” television show. After review, we affirm the denial of the petition. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Mitchell Garner v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Mitchell Garner, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his conviction of aggravated sexual battery and resulting twelve-year sentence. On appeal, the Petitioner claims that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. Based upon the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Orlando Malone v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Orlando Malone, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus, which petition challenged his 1999 Bradley County Criminal Court jury convictions of attempted especially aggravated robbery and aggravated robbery. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Wayne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Yelsin A. Cruz
The defendant, Yelsin A. Cruz, appeals his Maury County Circuit Court jury conviction of rape of a child, claiming that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress his pretrial statement to the police, that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, and that the 27-year sentence is excessive. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Casey J. Lawson v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Casey J. Lawson, pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a weapon by a convicted felon and theft of property valued at $1,000 or more but less than $10,000. He timely filed a petition for post-conviction relief; following a hearing on the petition, the post-conviction court denied relief. On appeal, the Petitioner alleges that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because trial counsel’s advice to plead guilty was deficient and because trial counsel failed to argue several pending motions before the Petitioner pled guilty. He also argues that his pleas were unknowing and involuntary because the State coerced him into pleading guilty by moving to revoke his bail and because trial counsel moved to withdraw from the representation. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Smith | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Marcus Boales
The defendant, Marcus Boales, appeals from the trial court’s dismissal of his motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 for failure to assert a colorable claim. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Henderson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Willie Morgan
The defendant, Willie Morgan, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, and was sentenced to a term of eleven years. On appeal, the defendant argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction and that the trial court erred in excluding testimony about the victim’s compensation fund. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Charles Macklin
The defendant, Charles Macklin, appeals the trial court’s dismissal of his motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 for failure to assert a colorable claim. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Moriarco Montrell Lee
The Defendant, Moriarco Montrell Lee, and his co-defendant, Dequevion Lamar Lee, were indicted by a Madison County Grand Jury for attempted first degree murder and aggravated assault. Following a jury trial, the Defendant was convicted as charged, and the trial court merged the aggravated assault conviction into the attempted first degree murder conviction and sentenced the Defendant to twenty-two years to be served in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court but remand for entry of a judgment form as to count two reflecting that the Defendant’s aggravated assault conviction was merged with count one. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Eric Bledsoe v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Eric Bledsoe, appeals as of right from the denial of his petition for postconviction relief, wherein he challenged his conviction for aggravated rape, aggravated burglary, and theft of property valued at $1,000 or more but less than $10,000. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-13-502; -14-103; -14-403. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that his attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to call potential defense witnesses during trial and failing to adequately investigate the Petitioner’s mental health history. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Mary L. Vaughn v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Mary L. Vaughn, appeals the denial of her petition for post-conviction relief, which petition challenged her 2014 Hawkins County Criminal Court guilty-pleaded convictions of second degree murder and aggravated child abuse, arguing that she was denied the effective assistance of counsel and that her guilty pleas were not knowingly or voluntarily entered. Discerning no error, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief. |
Hawkins | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ronald Turner
Defendant, Ronald Turner, appeals his convictions stemming from various drug and firearm offenses. He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and argues that the criminal gang enhancement of some of his offenses pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-121(b) was unconstitutional in light of State v. Bonds, 502 S.W.3d 118 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2016). Upon review, we determine that the evidence is sufficient to support Defendant’s convictions. However, because Defendant is entitled to retroactive application of the holding in Bonds, we vacate the sentences of the underlying convictions to which the enhancement was applied and remand those convictions for resentencing. Additionally, we conclude that the trial court committed plain error by improperly applying the Drug-Free School Zone Act and remand for resentencing on this basis. We also remand for correction of clerical errors. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Walter Townsend
After groping his twenty-five-year-old neighbor's crotch, eighty-two-year-old Walter Townsend, the Defendant, entered a plea of nolo contendere to the offense of sexual battery, a Class E felony. The trial court placed the Defendant on judicial diversion pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-313, and deferred prosecution for a period of eighteen months of supervised probation. Significantly, the trial court did not require the Defendant to register as a sexual offender under the Tennessee Sexual Offender and Violent Sexual Offender Registration, Verification and Tracking Act of 2004 (the “Act”), pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated sections 40-39-201 to -218. In this State appeal, the sole issue presented for our review is whether the trial court abused its discretion by not ordering the Defendant to register as a sexual offender. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Dennis M. Dykes v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Dennis M. Dykes, appeals from the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. After a review, we determine Petitioner waived his issues by failing to present them on direct appeal. As a result, the judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed. |
Grundy | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Alexander Johnson and Michael F. Williams
In this interlocutory appeal, the defendants, Alexander Johnson and Michael F. Williams, challenge the ruling of the Knox County Criminal Court granting the State’s motion to quash subpoenas duces tecum issued to four State’s witnesses. The State challenges that portion of the court’s ruling denying its motion to quash subpoenas duces tecum issued to various electronic communications service providers. Because the State lacks standing to challenge any of the subpoenas issued in this case, we reverse that portion of the court’s ruling granting the State’s motion to quash the subpoenas issued to the witnesses. We affirm that portion of the trial court’s ruling that the State lacks standing to challenge the subpoenas issued to the service providers. In the interest of judicial economy and to facilitate further appellate review, we have examined the preempted issues related to the subpoenas duces tecum issued in this case and have concluded that: (1) although nothing prevents the defendants in this case, generally, from obtaining the type of electronic communications at issue via a subpoena issued under the terms of Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 17 to the witnesses themselves, the defendants have failed to establish entitlement to all of the requested communications as discussed more fully below; and (2) under the terms of the Stored Communications Act, see 18 U.S.C. §§ 2701 - 2703, the defendants cannot obtain the contents of the electronic communications from any of the service providers via a Rule 17 subpoena duces tecum. Accordingly, the trial court’s November 3, 2015 order relative to the subpoenas duces tecum issued in this case is affirmed in part and reversed in part. The case is remanded to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jerry Kirkpatrick v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Jerry Kirkpatrick, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, which petition challenged the petitioner’s Knox County Criminal Court jury conviction of theft of property valued at $1,000 or more but less than $10,000. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joseph Durward Watson, II
The Defendant, Joseph Durward Watson II, was charged with possession with the intent to sell more than one-half ounce but less than ten pounds of marijuana. See T.C.A. § 39- 17-417 (2014). He filed a motion to suppress the evidence recovered from the search of the home in which the marijuana was found. The trial court granted the motion, determining that the police exceeded the scope of a levy issued for the collection of unpaid court costs and fines. On appeal, the State contends that the trial court erred by granting the motion to suppress because the Defendant disclaimed any expectation of privacy in the home, depriving him of standing to challenge the search. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joseph Durward Watson, II - Dissenting Opinion
Only a person who has a legitimate expectation of privacy in an invaded place has standing to claim the protection of the Fourth Amendment and may seek to have illegally obtained evidence excluded. See Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 133-34 (1978); Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 389 (1968); State v. Willis, 496 S.W.3d 653, 720 (Tenn. 2016); State v. Cothran, 115 S.W.3d 513, 520-21 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2003). Because of his conduct, Defendant is not such a person. I believe that Defendant’s actions in this case fall squarely within the rule established by our supreme court in State v. Ross, 49 S.W.3d 833 (Tenn. 2001). Defendant disclaimed and abandoned whatever interest he may have had in the property, thus losing a subjective expectation of privacy. Therefore, I respectfully dissent. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Darrell Jennings v. Michael Parris, Warden
The Petitioner, Darrell Jennings, filed a petition in the Lake County Circuit Court seeking habeas corpus relief from his first degree felony and second degree murder convictions and resulting life sentence, alleging that he is entitled to relief because he was convicted of an offense that was not alleged in the indictment and because the trial court failed to instruct the jury on lesser-included offenses. The habeas corpus court summarily denied the petition, and the Petitioner appeals. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court. |
Lake | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Warren Hildred v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Warren Hildred, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his conviction of second degree murder and resulting seventeen-year sentence. On appeal, the Petitioner claims that he received the ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Based upon the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals |
