State of Tennessee v. Anthony John Silva
The defendant, Anthony John Silva, was arrested on suspicion of driving while intoxicated. He filed a motion to suppress the evidence, which the trial court granted. The State now appeals, arguing that the defendant’s arrest was sufficiently supported by probable cause. Following our review of the briefs, the record, and the applicable law, we reverse the judgment of the trial court granting the defendant’s motion to suppress, and we remand for further proceedings. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Anthony John Silva - Dissent
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s holding that the evidence preponderates against the findings of the trial court, thereby finding the Defendant’s warrantless arrest was sufficiently supported by probable cause. I agree with the trial court that the facts and circumstances known to the officer at the time of the arrest were not sufficient to lead a prudent person to believe that the Defendant committed or was committing a DUI offense. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jordan Mansfield Looper v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Jordan Mansfield Looper, pleaded guilty to attempted second degree murder, and the trial court sentenced him to twelve years in confinement. State v. Jordan Mansfield Looper, No. M2012-02523-CCA-R3-CD, 2013 WL 4647629, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 26, 2013). Petitioner unsuccessfully appealed his twelve-year sentence. Id. Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief, and he now appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of relief. Petitioner argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his trial counsel “abandoned” his case and when trial counsel told him that he would receive probation during sentencing. Petitioner further argues that these errors, in addition to his grief after viewing pictures of the victim’s injuries for the first time, resulted in his guilty plea not being knowingly and voluntarily entered. Following our thorough review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Carlos Campbell
Appellant, Carlos Campbell, stands convicted of two counts of aggravated assault, for which the trial court sentenced him to an effective term of six years' incarceration. On appeal, appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions and that his statement to the police should have been suppressed. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joshua Sammy Steadman
The Defendant-Appellant, Joshua Sammy Steadman, appeals the trial court’s order revoking his community corrections sentence. He argues that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his community corrections sentence and ordering him to serve his original sentence in confinement. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Alex Hardin Huffstutter
In conjunction with the entry of a nolo contendere plea to first offense driving under the influence (“DUI”), Defendant, Alex Hardin Huffstutter, reserved a certified question for appeal pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2)(A) in which he asked this Court to determine whether Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-313 excluded DUI as an offense for which judicial diversion was available. On appeal, this Court determined that the question was not dispositive and dismissed the appeal. State v. Alex Hardin Huffstutter, No. M2013-02788-CCA-R3-CD, 2014 WL 4261143, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 28, 2014), no perm. app. filed. Subsequently, Defendant filed a motion in the trial court seeking reconsideration of his eligibility for judicial diversion. The trial court considered the motion and issued an order denying relief. Defendant appeals the denial of the motion to reconsider. After a review, we determine that the appeal is not properly before this Court. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Anthony Bobo
Prior to his indictment, the defendant entered into a written and signed plea agreement with the State in general sessions court, where he waived his right to a preliminary hearing and presentment to the grand jury and indicated he intended to plead guilty to one count of aggravated burglary. After the matter was transferred to criminal court but before the court could accept the plea agreement, the State indicated that it would refuse to abide by the terms. The defendant was ultimately granted a preliminary hearing and indicted, and he then entered an open guilty plea to one count of aggravated burglary, a Class C felony, one count of vandalism of property valued at $10,000 or more, a Class C felony, and one count of theft of property valued at $1,000 or more, a Class D felony. The trial court sentenced the defendant to serve four years on supervised probation for each conviction, with all the sentences to be served concurrently. In entering his guilty pleas, the defendant reserved a certified question of law asking this court to decide whether a written plea agreement, executed in general sessions court, was binding on the State prior to its acceptance by the criminal court. We conclude that the certified question is not dispositive of the defendant‘s aggravated burglary conviction, and accordingly dismiss the appeal of that offense. We further hold that such an agreement is not enforceable absent detrimental reliance by the defendant, and we conclude that the trial court did not err in remanding for a preliminary hearing and indictment rather than granting the defendant specific performance of the agreement. The judgments of the trial court are affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Quinton Sanders v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Quinton Sanders, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, the petitioner argues that the post-conviction court failed to make adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding one of his claims, and he argues that trial counsel was ineffective. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Roscoe Graham v. State of Tennessee
In August 2013, Roscoe Graham (“the Petitioner”) was convicted of aggravated sexual battery and sentenced to ten years' incarceration. Thereafter, he filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which was denied after a hearing. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by: (1) failing to assert a viable defense; (2) coercing the Petitioner to waive filing of a motion for new trial and direct appeal; and (3) operating under an actual conflict of interest. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Donte Dewayne Watson
Donte Dewayne Watson, the Defendant, was sentenced to eight years on community corrections under the supervision of the Davidson County Drug Court Program (“DCIV”). Following the issuance of a warrant alleging violations of the drug court agreement order and an amended warrant alleging as an additional ground an arrest for a criminal offense, the Defendant filed a request that his case be transferred back to the court that sentenced him to drug court. The criminal court judge, who also presided over DCIV, denied the request. Following a hearing, the criminal court revoked community corrections, resentenced the Defendant to nine years, and ordered the sentence to be served in the Department of Correction. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court revoking the Defendant’s community corrections. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Timothy L. Diggs, Sr. v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Timothy L. Diggs, Sr., appeals the Montgomery County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for aggravated child abuse and felony murder and his effective life sentence. The Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred by denying relief on his due process and ineffective assistance of counsel claims. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Donquise Tremonte Alexander
The Defendant, Donquise Tremonte Alexander, pleaded guilty pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement to second degree murder and received a thirty-year sentence. More than three years later, the Defendant filed a motion pursuant to Tennessee Criminal Procedure Rule 36.1 requesting that the trial court correct an illegal sentence because his sentence exceeds the sentencing range for a Range I offender convicted of a Class A felony. The trial court summarily dismissed the motion after determining that the Defendant knowingly and voluntarily pleaded guilty and agreed to a sentence outside the appropriate sentencing range pursuant to Hicks v. State, 945 S.W.2d 706 (Tenn. 1997). On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred in dismissing his motion. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Antonio M. Crockett
A Davidson County jury found the Defendant, Antonio M. Crockett, guilty of first degree felony murder, for which the Defendant received a life sentence. On appeal from his conviction, the Defendant contends that (1) the trial court erred in denying the Defendant’s motion to sever his case from that of his co-defendant; (2) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction; (3) the trial court erred in admitting the statement of the victim under the dying declaration hearsay exception; and (4) the trial court erred in ordering the Defendant’s life sentence to be served consecutively to a prior sentence. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Shuan Terrell Marsh
The defendant, Shuan Terrell Marsh, appeals his Marshall County Circuit Court jury conviction of third offense possession of a controlled substance, claiming that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Courtney Wesley v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Courtney Wesley, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his 2013 Shelby County Criminal Court jury convictions of aggravated burglary and theft of property valued at $1,000 or more, alleging that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jay Earl Haynes v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Jay Earl Haynes, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his two rape convictions, arguing he received ineffective assistance of counsel. After review, we affirm the denial of the petition. |
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Marlon Yarbro v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Marlon Yarbro, was convicted of selling .5 grams or more of a Schedule II controlled substance within 1000 feet of a school zone, a Class A felony; simple possession of a controlled substance, a Class A misdemeanor; and possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor. He was sentenced to twenty-five years at 100% for the Class A felony; two years for the simple possession conviction, and eleven months and twenty-nine days for the drug paraphernalia conviction, with all sentences to be served concurrently. On direct appeal, this court affirmed the convictions and remanded for correction of the judgment for simple possession to reflect the conviction as a Class A misdemeanor and a sentence of eleven months, twenty-nine days. Following his convictions, but while his direct appeal was pending, he filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, arguing, as best we can understand, that he was being illegally detained because his Class A felony conviction should be served at 35%, rather than 100%; the indictment was defective in stating the offenses with which he was charged; the indictment was defective because it failed “to state the facts of the crime scene;” the judgment violates the plain language requirement of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 17; and the judgment is “absent of Counsel,” resulting in the trial court’s losing jurisdiction and voiding the judgment. The trial court dismissed the motion, determining that the petitioner could not simultaneously maintain a direct appeal and a petition for writ of habeas corpus. We agree and affirm the dismissal of the petition, according to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. |
Hardin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Anthony Hill
In 1991, the Defendant, Anthony Hill, pleaded guilty to two counts of unlawful possession of more than 26 grams of cocaine with intent to sell, in case numbers 90-09874 and 90-15702, with agreed concurrent sentences of 7.2 years’ incarceration for each of the two convictions. In 2014, the Defendant filed a motion pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 seeking to correct an illegal sentence, and the trial court held a hearing on the motion. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court held the Defendant’s sentences should have been ordered to run consecutively and thus were illegal. The trial court denied the Defendant’s 36.1 motion, holding that his sentences had expired which rendered the issue moot. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred because he should have been allowed to withdraw his guilty plea because his illegal sentence was a material component of his plea agreement. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities, and in accordance with the Tennessee Supreme Court’s recent holding in State v. Adrian R. Brown, __ S.W.3d __, No. E2014-00673-SC-R11-CD, 2015 WL 7748275, at *7 (Tenn. Dec. 2, 2015), we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Gary W. Robinson, III v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Gary W. Robinson, III, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. He contends that the post-conviction court erroneously found that his petition was untimely filed. Following our review of the briefs of the parties, the record, and the applicable law, we conclude that the post-conviction court erred by dismissing the petition. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John W. Smith
Defendant, John W. Smith, appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion for correction of an illegal sentence under Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure Rule 36.1. Because Defendant has failed to state a colorable claim for relief, we affirm the dismissal of the motion. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Charles Everett Lowe-Kelley v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Charles Everett Lowe-Kelley, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. He also argues that his consecutive life sentences violate Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455, 2469 (2012). We conclude that Petitioner has not proven that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that his effective sentence does not violate Miller. Accordingly, the decision of the post-conviction court is affirmed. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Bobby Joe Campbell
The Defendant, Bobby Joe Campbell, entered guilty pleas to two counts of aggravated assault, a Class C felony, and two counts of failure to appear, a Class E felony, with the manner and service of his sentence to be determined by the trial court. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-102, -13-111, -16-609(e). The trial court merged the aggravated assault convictions and imposed a consecutive term of five years’ incarceration for aggravated assault and one and a half years’ incarceration for each count of failure to appear. Each count of failure to appear was also ordered to be served consecutively to the other for an effective sentence of eight years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The sole issue presented in this appeal is whether the Defendant’s sentence is excessive and contrary to law. Upon our review, we must remand this matter to the trial court for a new sentencing hearing for the limited purpose of considering the factors outlined in State v. Wilkerson, 905 S.W.2d 933 (Tenn. 1995), and determining the propriety of consecutive sentencing for the failure to appear convictions. In all other respects, we affirm the sentence imposed by the trial court. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Courtney R. Logan v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Courtney R. Logan, filed a petition for the writ of habeas corpus challenging the legality of his extradition from Tennessee to Mississippi nearly four years after the extradition. The trial court summarily dismissed the petition, and the petitioner now appeals. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jurico Readus v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Jurico Readus, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, which petition challenged his Shelby County Criminal Court jury convictions of felony murder and attempted especially aggravated robbery. Discerning no error, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Travis Seiber
Aggrieved of his Shelby County Criminal Court jury convictions of three counts of aggravated robbery, the defendant, Travis Seiber, appeals, arguing that he was deprived of the right to a trial by a fair and impartial jury, that the trial court erred by permitting the State to use as a demonstrative aid a gun that had not been entered into evidence, and that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals |
