State of Tennessee v. Austin Wells
Defendant, Austin Wells, appeals his conviction for driving under the influence (“DUI”) and reckless driving, arguing that his warrantless arrest for the offenses was not supported by probable cause and that there is insufficient evidence to support his convictions. We conclude that Defendant has waived both of these issues and that he is not entitled to plain error relief. Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tracy Eugene Harris
The Petitioner, Tracy Eugene Harris, appeals from the Hamilton County Criminal Court's order denying his motion for pretrial jail credit pursuant to Rule 36.1 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the trial court erred by overruling his motion for pretrial jail credit. The State responds that the Petitioner's argument is waived for failure to file a timely notice of appeal and that the trial court properly denied the Petitioner's motion. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tapo T. Tabb and Douglas Ingram
The Defendant-Appellants, Tapo T. Tabb and Douglas Ingram, were convicted by a Williamson County jury of burglary and theft of property valued over $60,000. The trial court sentenced the Defendants to 12 years’ confinement for their burglary convictions and 25 years’ confinement for their theft of property convictions, to be served consecutively for effective sentences of 37 years’ confinement. On appeal, the Defendants argue that the trial court erred by (1) denying their motion to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to search warrants; (2) failing to instruct the jury on facilitation as a lesser-included offense of burglary; and (3) sentencing the Defendants to 37 years’ confinement. In addition, Defendant Ingram argues that his right to a speedy trial was violated. Upon our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James Drew Freeman v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, James Drew Freeman, appeals from the denial of post-conviction relief by the Criminal Court for White County. He was convicted of second degree murder of his mother and sentenced to seventeen years’ imprisonment. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because trial counsel failed to locate and call a witness. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
White | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jonathan T. Deal
The defendant, Jonathan T. Deal, appeals the dismissal of his motion, filed pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1, to correct his illegal sentence. In this appeal, the defendant asserts that the trial court erred by declaring his motion moot because his sentence had been served and had expired and that the court erred by concluding that the illegal sentence alignment was not a bargained-for element of his plea agreement. Because, under the circumstances of this case, Rule 36.1 cannot avail the defendant of meaningful relief, we affirm the judgment of the trial court declaring the motion moot. |
Polk | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Travis Davison
The Petitioner, Travis Davison, appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Rule 36.1 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure. 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 | |
State of Tennessee v. Jonathan T. Deal - concurring
I concur with the results of the majority, but I believe the trial court properly dismissed Defendant’s 36.1 request for exactly the right reason—Defendant’s sentence has long since expired. I respectfully disagree that a motion to correct an illegal sentence pursued via Rule 36.1 may not be dismissed soley because the sentence has been served and has expired. See Philander Butler v. State, W2014-01366-CCA-R3-CO, 2015 WL 4240256, at *3 (Tenn. Crim. App. July 14, 2015), perm. app. filed. I would have dissented from the orginal holding remanding the matter back to the trial court after the original trial judge summarily dismissed Defendant’s motion without conducting a hearing.1 See State v. Jonathan T. Deal, No. E2013-02623-CCA-R3-CD, 2014 WL 2802910 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 17, 2014), no perm. app. filed. |
Polk | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Adrian Antonio Jones
The Defendant, Adrian Antonio Jones, pleaded guilty to several drug and other offenses occurring between 1992 and 1994. According to plea agreements, he was granted concurrent sentencing. In 2014, the Defendant filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 alleging that his concurrent sentencing for two of his pleas was illegal and that, since any subsequent sentencing was based upon his illegal sentence that those sentences are also “illegal.” The trial court agreed that one of his convictions was statutorily required to run consecutively, and it granted his Rule 36.1 relief as to case number 8775. The trial court held, however, that the other sentences were not illegal as they did not violate any statute. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Franklin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Twain Demario Vaughn v. State of Tennessee
A Davidson County jury convicted the Petitioner, Twain Demario Vaughn, of one count of reckless homicide, one count of first-degree felony murder, one count of aggravated robbery, and two counts of attempted aggravated robbery. The trial court merged the reckless homicide conviction with the felony murder conviction and sentenced the Petitioner to an effective sentence of life in prison. This Court affirmed his convictions and sentence on appeal. State v. Twain Demario Vaughn, No. M2006-01659-CCA-R3-CD, 2008 WL 110094, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Jan. 9, 2008), no Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application filed. The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that he had received the ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court dismissed the petition as time barred. It then reversed its ruling, appointed counsel, and held a hearing after which it dismissed the Petitioner’s petition. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred because his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to: (1) introduce the victim’s toxicology report; (2) request more time to review videotaped statements that called into question the eye witnesses’ credibility; and (3) have the Petitioner’s competency evaluated. After review, we conclude that the Petitioner’s petition was not filed within the statute of limitations and that he has not shown a statutory or due process ground for the tolling of the statute of limitations. As such, we dismiss the petition as time barred. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Aaron D. Ostine
A Cheatham County jury convicted the Defendant, Aaron D. Ostine, of first degree premeditated murder, first degree felony murder, and aggravated robbery. The trial court merged the two murder convictions and imposed a life sentence. The court then sentenced the Defendant to twelve years for the aggravated robbery conviction. On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions; (2) the trial court erred when it denied a motion to suppress his statements to police; and (3) the State engaged in prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, this Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment. See State v. Aaron D. Ostine, No. M2013-00467-CCA-R3-CD, 2014 WL 2442988 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, May 28, 2014). The Defendant filed a Rule 11 application, pursuant to the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, to the Tennessee Supreme Court. Our Supreme Court granted the application and remanded the case to this Court for reconsideration in light of State v. Jackson, 444 S.W.3d 554 (Tenn. 2014). After considering the facts and circumstances of this case as compared to those in Jackson, we again affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Cheatham | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Antonious Jamal Brown v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Antonious Jamal Brown, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his first degree murder and aggravated assault convictions, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court denying the petition. |
Gibson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Randy Cary
A Carroll County Criminal Court Jury convicted the appellant, Randy Cary, of especially aggravated kidnapping, a Class A felony, aggravated rape, a Class A felony, aggravated assault, a Class D felony, and evading arrest, a Class A misdemeanor. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court merged the aggravated assault conviction into the aggravated rape conviction and sentenced the appellant as a Range III, career offender to an effective sentence of 120 years to be served at 100%. On appeal, the appellant claims that the trial court erred by denying a motion in which he requested that private counsel be allowed to assist with his trial, that the victim's injuries did not qualify as “serious bodily injury,” and that his effective sentence is excessive. Based upon the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Carroll | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
William Ford v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, William Ford, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his conviction for first degree murder. Petitioner argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that the trial court erred when it denied his motion for a continuance in order to be able to retain private counsel. Upon our review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Felix Hall
Appellant, Felix Hall, was convicted of theft of property valued at $10,000 or more but less than $60,000; burglary of a building other than a habitation; and theft of property valued at $500 or less. The trial court sentenced him to an effective term of twenty-seven years. On appeal, appellant contends that the trial court should have granted a mistrial during the State's rebuttal closing argument and that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Andrew Hall
Following a jury trial, Defendant, Andrew Hall, was found guilty of driving under the influence of intoxicants (DUI). He had been charged in the same indictment with violation of the implied consent law, and the trial court found him guilty of that offense in a bench trial. Prior to the jury trial, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the charges because no lawful prosecution was initiated within the applicable statute of limitations. After a hearing, the motion was denied. Defendant’s sole issue on appeal is that the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Roane | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
John Ivory v. State of Tennessee
Following the apparent denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, the Petitioner, John Ivory, filed a pro se motion to reconsider the denial of relief, which the post-conviction court denied without a hearing. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to reconsider the denial of post-conviction relief. Because the Petitioner does not have an appeal as of right from the denial of such motion, we dismiss the appeal. |
Gibson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Frederick Alexander Avery v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Frederick Alexander Avery, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in finding that he received effective assistance of trial counsel. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Dennis Haughton Webber
A jury convicted the defendant, Dennis Haughton Webber, of driving with a suspended license, a Class B misdemeanor; disorderly conduct, a Class C misdemeanor; failure to display his registration plates, a Class C misdemeanor; and failure to carry a registration, a Class C misdemeanor. The defendant on appeal challenges the jurisdiction of the trial court. We interpret his other issues to be challenges to the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. We conclude that the trial court had jurisdiction to impose its judgments on the defendant. However, we reverse the defendant’s conviction for disorderly conduct because the evidence was not sufficient to support it as it was charged in the indictment. We affirm the remaining judgments of the trial court. |
Perry | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Frederick L. Moore v. State of Tennessee
Frederick L. Moore (“the Petitioner”) filed his second petition for writ of error coram nobis, presenting “newly discovered evidence” in the form of expert testimony regarding cell phone towers accessed by the Petitioner's cell phone at the time of the offense. The coram nobis court denied relief without a hearing, finding that the Petitioner's claim was time-barred, that the evidence was not newly discovered, and that it was not the type of evidence which might have produced a different result at trial. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the coram nobis court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Scott L. Bishop
The Madison County Grand Jury indicted Scott L. Bishop (“the Defendant”) with four counts of aggravated sexual battery. Following a jury trial, the Defendant was convicted as charged, and the trial court ordered concurrent sentences for an effective sentence of eleven years' incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant argues that: (1) the trial court erred in denying the Defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal; (2) the trial court failed to act as a thirteenth juror; (3) the trial court should have granted the Defendant a new trial based on newly discovered alibi and impeachment evidence; (4) the trial court abused its discretion when it allowed the prosecutor to ask leading questions during the direct examination of the nine-year-old victim; (6) a juror's sleeping during the jury instructions requires a new trial; (7) the sentence imposed by the trial court was excessive; and (8) cumulative error necessitates granting a new trial. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Carl Brown
The defendant, Carl Brown, sought relief pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 to vacate and correct what he believes to be an illegal sentence, the judgments in question not stating whether they were to be served concurrently or consecutively. The trial court concluded the motion was without merit, and, following our review, we affirm the court’s order denying the motion for relief, pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Adrianne Kiser v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Adrianne Kiser, appeals the post-conviction court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for two counts of attempted voluntary manslaughter and one count of employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. On appeal, he asserts that: (1) the post-conviction court applied an incorrect standard in evaluating trial counsel's performance and the resulting prejudice, and (2) if the post-conviction court applied the correct standard, then the court's interpretation of that standard renders Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-30-106(e) and Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 13 section 5(a)(2) unconstitutional as applied to him. After review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Seddrick Curry
The defendant, Seddrick Curry, pled guilty to two counts of aggravated burglary, a Class C felony; one count of theft of property valued at $10,000 or more but less than $60,000, a Class C felony; and one count of theft of property valued at $1000 or more but less than $10,000, a Class D felony. He was sentenced as a career offender to serve an effective sentence of thirty years at 60%. Subsequently, he filed a motion to withdraw his pleas of guilty, which was denied following a hearing. He appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion to withdraw the pleas. Following our review, we affirm the order of the trial court denying the motion. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jordan Thomas Peters
Defendant, Jordan Thomas Peters, was convicted of one count of delivery of psilocin, a Schedule I controlled substance, and one count of delivery of psilocin within 1000 feet of a school. Defendant received a total effective sentence of fifteen years to serve at 100%. On appeal, Defendant raises the following issues: (1) whether a retrial for delivery of a controlled substance violated the constitutional protection against double jeopardy after Defendant was originally acquitted of sale of a controlled substance; (2) whether the trial court erred in denying his motion to compel discovery of the case names and files of other cases in which the confidential informant had been involved; (3) whether the trial court erred by giving acquittal-first jury instructions, precluding the jury from considering the inference of casual exchange; (4) whether the trial court erred in not giving a specific instruction with regard to the defense of entrapment by luring into a school zone; (5) whether the evidence was sufficient to support his convictions; and (6) whether his sentence was grossly disproportionate to the crime committed and therefore unconstitutional. Upon our thorough review of the arguments, record, and authorities, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jordan Thomas Peters - concurring
Given the clear and apparently controlling case law concerning convictions enhanced pursuant to the Drug Free School Zone Act (the Act), I must reluctantly concur. However, I write separately to set forth my ever increasing concern regarding enhancement of convictions under the Act. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals |
