State of Tennessee v. Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III
The Defendant-Appellant, Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III, was indicted by the McMinn County Grand Jury for harassment, aggravated perjury, stalking, and extortion. The trial court granted the defense's motion for judgment of acquittal as to the stalking charge after the close of the State's proof at trial, and it was dismissed. The jury convicted Fitzpatrick of aggravated perjury and extortion, Class D felonies, but found Fitzpatrick not guilty of harassment, a Class A misdemeanor. T.C.A. §§ 39-16-703; 39-14-112; 39-17-308. The trial court sentenced Fitzpatrick to concurrent sentences of three years with a release eligibility of thirty percent for his aggravated perjury and extortion convictions and ordered these sentences to be served consecutively to his misdemeanor convictions in Monroe County for disrupting a meeting and resisting arrest in case number 10-213, resisting arrest in case number 11-018, and tampering with government records in case number 12-108.1 On appeal, Fitzpatrick argues: (1) the trial court lacked jurisdiction over his case because a grand jury member voting to indict him was disqualified by reason of interest, and (2) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
McMinn | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Howard Lavelle Tate v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Howard Lavelle Tate, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. After review, we affirm the denial of the petition. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Anesha McKinnon
The Petitioner, Anesha McKinnon, filed a petition for post-conviction relief in the Shelby County Criminal Court, alleging that her trial counsel was ineffective and that her guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered. The post-conviction court denied the petition, and the Petitioner appeals. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Patrick James O'Brien, Jr.
Patrick James O'Brien, Jr., (“the Appellant”) pleaded guilty to reckless homicide and possession of a schedule II drug. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the Appellant was sentenced to concurrent, four-year sentences. The trial court denied alternative sentencing. The Appellant filed an appeal alleging that the trial court erred in denying him alternative sentencing. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Hamblen | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Anthony B. Whitaker
Following a jury trial, Anthony B. Whitaker (“the Defendant”) was convicted of aggravated statutory rape. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred when it did not give the jury a missing witness instruction. Additionally, the Defendant claims that the language in the presentment was deficient because the presentment did not include “recklessly” as a culpable mental state. After review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Roderick D. Tate v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Roderick D. Tate, appeals from the denial of post-conviction relief by the Criminal Court for Knox County. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the Petitioner entered guilty pleas to six drug-related offenses, for which he received an effective twenty-one-year sentence. On appeal, he argues that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel in relation to his guilty pleas because counsel misinformed him regarding the applicable range of punishment. Upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Anthony Phillip James, Sr.
Anthony Phillip James, Sr. (“the Appellant”) was convicted by a Montgomery County jury of aggravated child abuse. On appeal the Appellant alleges that the evidence presented at his trial was insufficient to prove that he knowingly injured the child. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joseph John Volpe
The Defendant, Joseph John Volpe, was found guilty by a Hamilton County Criminal Court jury of attempt to commit second degree murder, a Class B felony, aggravated assault, a Class C felony, and reckless endangerment, a Class E felony. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-210 (2014) (second degree murder), 39-12-101 (2014) (criminal attempt), 39-13-102 (2010) (amended 2011, 2013) (aggravated assault), 39-13-103 (2010) (amended 2011, 2012, 2013) (reckless endangerment). The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I, standard offender to concurrent sentences of ten years for attempted second degree murder, three years for aggravated assault, and one year for reckless endangerment. The court ordered the Defendant to serve eleven months, twenty-nine days in confinement and suspended the remainder of his sentence to probation. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions, (2) the trial court erred by denying his motions to suppress evidence, (3) the trial court erred by admitting inadmissible hearsay in evidence at the trial, (4) the trial court erred by admitting photographs at the trial, and (5) the prosecutor engaged in misconduct during closing argument. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.
|
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Kevin Lewis v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Kevin Lewis, appeals as of right from the Hamilton County Criminal Court’s partial denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to argue to the jury that the State did not prove the element of “sexual contact” accompanying his conviction for aggravated sexual battery and for failing to impeach a witness. In response, the State asserts that the post-conviction court erred when it vacated and dismissed the Petitioner’s conviction for aggravated kidnapping after concluding that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to mount a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence on direct appeal. The State also responds that the post-conviction court did not err when it denied the Petitioner’s remaining claims. Following our review, we reverse the post-conviction court’s ruling dismissing the aggravated kidnapping charge against the Petitioner because we conclude that the court should have vacated the judgment without dismissing the charge in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-30-111. In all other respects, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joseph R. Vibbert
The Defendant, Joseph R. Vibbert, was indicted for two counts of sexual battery by an authority figure, a Class C felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-527. The Defendant pled guilty to one count of sexual battery, a Class E felony, and the second count was dismissed. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-505. The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I, standard offender to two years to be served in confinement. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends (1) that the trial court erred by denying his request for judicial diversion; and (2) that the trial court erred by denying his request for an alternative sentence. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Overton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Billy Jeremy Jones
The Defendant, Billy Jeremy Jones, entered an open guilty plea to felony failure to appear. The trial court, thereafter, sentenced him to four years, as a Range II, persistent offender, and ordered that sentence to run consecutively to the eight-year sentence on the underlying conviction for which the Defendant failed to appear. The sole issue presented for our review is whether the effective twelve-year sentence is excessive. Discerning no abuse of discretion, we affirm the sentencing decision of the Bedford County Circuit Court. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Michael George Medina v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Michael George Medina, appeals from the denial of post-conviction relief by the Criminal Court for Smith County. He was convicted of first degree murder of his wife and sentenced to life imprisonment in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Smith | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Lesergio Duran Wilson
The Defendant-Appellant, Lesergio Duran Wilson, was charged with first degree premeditated murder, and the State filed its notice of intent to seek the death penalty. Wilson then filed a notice of intent to introduce expert testimony regarding his mental diseases, defects, and other mental conditions bearing on his guilt for the charged offense, and the State filed a motion to exclude this expert testimony. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court granted the State’s motion. In this interlocutory appeal, Wilson argues that the trial court erred in ruling that he could not present expert testimony during the guilt/innocence phase of trial regarding his incapacity to form the requisite culpable mental states for the offense. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court and remand this matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Tremaine Roberson v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Termaine Roberson, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. Petitioner contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel based on his trial counsel’s failure to adequately prepare for trial, including failing to call two witnesses at trial and failing to obtain DNA testing of a ski mask worn by one of the perpetrators. Having reviewed the record before us and the briefs of the parties, we conclude that the evidence does not preponderate against the post-conviction court’s findings. Accordingly, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Dennis Lee Arnold
The Defendant, Dennis Lee Arnold, was convicted by a Davidson County Criminal Court jury of two counts of aggravated sexual battery, Class B felonies, and solicitation of a minor, a Class C felony. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-504, 39-13-522, 39-12-102 (2014). The trial court sentenced the Defendant to consecutive terms of eleven years for the aggravated sexual battery convictions at 100% service and five years for the solicitation conviction, for an effective twenty-seven-year sentence. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erroneously admitted prior bad act evidence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b). We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Dennis Lee Arnold - Separate Concurring Opinion
I write separately to highlight the trial court's copious references to “completing the story of the crime” as a basis for allowing testimony that was challenged pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b). |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Eddie James Bright
The defendant, Eddie James Bright, pled guilty to initiation of the process to manufacture methamphetamine, a Class B felony, and, following a sentencing hearing, was sentenced to ten years and one day incarceration. On appeal, he argues that the State breached its contractual obligations to him by mentioning his pending charges at the sentencing hearing, contrary to the plea agreement’s preclusion of the mention of such charges at sentencing. After review, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for a new sentencing hearing. |
Putnam | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Thomas Paul Gagne, Jr.
The petitioner, Thomas Paul Gagne, Jr., appeals the denial of his motion, filed pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1, to correct what he believes to be an illegal sentence. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Billy Drew Massengill v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Billy Drew Massengill, appeals the denial of post-conviction relief from his 2013 Cocke County Circuit Court guilty-pleaded convictions of the sale of less than 0.5 grams of cocaine, the sale and delivery of Oxymorphone, driving on a revoked license, theft of $500 or less, and failure to appear, for which he received an effective sentence of eight years. In this appeal, the petitioner contends that his guilty pleas were not knowingly and voluntarily entered and that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Cocke | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
George Hardin v. State of Tennessee and Eric Qualls, Warden
The Petitioner, George Hardin, appeals the Bledsoe County Circuit Court’s denial of his third petition for habeas corpus relief from his 1988 conviction for first degree murder and his life sentence. He contends that (1) although he has filed two previous petitions for habeas corpus relief, the arguments contained in the petitions were not considered and (2) the 1990 judgment and a 1996 order are void because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter them. We affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court. |
Bledsoe | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tabitha Gentry aka Re Bey
The Defendant, Tabitha Gentry aka Abka Re Bey, appeals as of right from her Shelby County jury convictions for two counts of aggravated assault and one count of intentionally evading arrest in an automobile. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-13-102, -16-603. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred by: (1) imposing the maximum sentences for each of her convictions; (2) ordering each of her sentences be served consecutively; (3) denying judicial diversion; and (4) denying all other forms of alternative sentencing. Following our review, we conclude that the trial court improperly applied the dangerous offender classification when ordering consecutive sentences. After conducting a de novo review, we conclude that the Defendant’s sentences should have been ordered to run concurrently, rather than consecutively. In all other respects, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Daetrus Pilate
A Shelby County jury convicted the Defendant, Daetrus Pilate, of aggravated assault by use of a deadly weapon and evading arrest in a motor vehicle creating a high risk of death or injury, and the trial court sentenced him to a total effective sentence of nine years of incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions; (2) the trial court erred when it excluded photographs of him taken during his hospitalization after being shot during this incident; and (3) his sentence is excessive. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable authorities, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jarrod Reese Spicer
Defendant, Jarrod Reese Spicer, was convicted by an Obion County jury of second degree murder and aggravated robbery and sentenced to serve concurrent sentences of twenty-five and twelve years, respectively, as a standard offender. On appeal, Defendant argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions and that the trial court abused its discretion by sentencing him to the maximum sentence for each conviction. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Obion | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Curtis Dewayne Staggs
The Appellant, Curtis Dewayne Staggs, is appealing the order of the trial court denying his motion to correct a clerical error in the judgments of conviction. The State has filed a motion asking this Court to affirm pursuant to Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20. Said motion is hereby granted. |
Lawrence | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Hawkins
Defendant, James Hawkins, appeals from his Shelby County Criminal Court jury convictions of premeditated first degree murder, see T.C.A. 39-13-202(a)(1); initiating a false report, see id. 39-16-502, a Class D felony; and abuse of a corpse, see id. 39-17-312, a Class E felony. The jury sentenced Defendant to death for the first degree murder conviction based upon its findings that the defendant was previously convicted of one (1) or more felonies whose statutory elements involve the use of violence to the person, see id. ' 39-13-204(i)(2); and that the defendant knowingly mutilated the body of the victim after death, see id. 39-13-204(i)(13); and that these aggravating circumstances outweighed any mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. For the remaining felonies, the trial court imposed an effective sentence of 18 years' incarceration to be served consecutively to the death sentence. On appeal, Defendant alleges that (1) the trial court erred by denying Defendant's motion to suppress his statements given to the police; (2) the trial court erred by refusing to accept Defendant's guilty pleas to counts two and three of the indictment; (3) the trial court erred by admitting statements made by the victim through the victim's children, through Melvin Gaither, and through an application for order of protection; (4) the trial court erred by admitting evidence of other acts in violation of Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b); (5) the trial court erred by admitting photographs of bone fragments taken from the victim;(6) the trial court erred by admitting crime scene photographs that had not been provided during pretrial discovery; (7) the trial court erred by permitting improper closing argument by the State; (8) the evidence is insufficient to support Defendant's conviction of first degree murder; (9) the trial court erred by not requiring the State to provide discovery concerning an ongoing investigation of sexual abuse committed by Defendant's father against Defendant's sisters for use in the penalty phase of the trial; (10) the trial court erred by denying Defendant's special jury instruction request to charge the jury on the presumption that any sentence imposed for the first degree murder conviction would be carried out according to the laws of this State; (11) myriad aspects of Tennessee's death penalty statutes and procedure are unconstitutional in general and as applied to Defendant; (12) the trial court imposed an excessive sentence in both length and manner of service relative to the sentences for filing a false report and abuse of a corpse; and (13) the cumulative effect of these errors violated Defendant's right to due process. As an additional issue, Defendant alleges that the trial court erred by denying his petition for writ of error coram nobis. Following oral argument at the Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law at the University of Memphis and this court's full consideration, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals |
