State of Tennessee v. Dustin Marshall Goforth
Defendant, Dustin Marshall Goforth, was serving a suspended eight-year sentence on supervised probation. Violation of probation warrants were filed, and his suspended sentence was revoked after an evidentiary hearing. The trial court ordered the sentence to be served by incarceration in the Department of Correction. In his sole issue on appeal, Defendant asserts that the trial court erred by denying Defendant’s motion for the judge to recuse himself in this case prior to the evidentiary hearing. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Lavario Devon Kibble
Defendant, Lavario Devon Kibble, entered guilty pleas to reckless endangerment and aggravated assault pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement. Under the agreement he received consecutive sentences of one year for reckless endangerment and four years for aggravated assault. The manner of service of the effective sentence of five years was left to determination by the trial court after a sentencing hearing. The trial court ordered the sentences to be served totally by incarceration. Defendant appeals, arguing that the trial court should have ordered an alternative sentence of either split confinement or periodic confinement. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Stephen Anthony Scott
Pursuant to this court’s opinion in Stephen Anthony Scott v. State, No. M2010-00448-CCA-R3-PC, 2011 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 632, at *5 (Nashville, Aug. 16, 2011), the Montgomery County Circuit Court resentenced the appellant, Stephen Anthony Scott, to the presumptive minimum sentence in the range for his convictions of aggravated robbery, attempted aggravated robbery, especially aggravated kidnapping, aggravated kidnapping, and attempted robbery. Six months later, the trial court found the appellant to be an especially mitigated offender and further reduced his sentences for count 3, especially aggravated kidnapping, and count 4, kidnapping, by ten percent. On appeal, the appellant contends that the trial court erred by not allowing him to be sentenced pursuant to the 2005 amendments to the Tennessee Sentencing Reform Act of 1989, that the trial court erred by failing to sentence him as an especially mitigated offender for all of the offenses, and that his sentences violate Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004). Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the trial court was without jurisdiction to classify the appellant as an especially mitigated offender and could not reduce his sentences by ten percent. Therefore, the case is remanded to the trial court for reinstatement of his previous sentences for counts 3 and 4. Regarding the issues raised on appeal, we conclude that the appellant is not entitled to relief and affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kevin Bell
The appellant, Kevin Bell, appeals the trial court’s revocation of his probationary sentence and challenges the imposition of the original sentence to be served in confinement. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Robertson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Darrell Carpenter
Appellant, Darrell Carpenter, was indicted by the Shelby County Grand Jury for second degree murder in November of 2007. At the conclusion of a jury trial, he was convicted of the offense as charged in the indictment and sentenced to twenty years in incarceration as a violent offender. After the denial of a motion for new trial, Appellant did not seek an appeal. Appellant subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief in which he sought a delayed appeal pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-30-113. The trial court granted the motion for delayed appeal. In this Court, Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence resulting in his second degree murder conviction. After a review of the record and the applicable authorities, we conclude that the evidence at trial was sufficient to support the conviction. Accordingly, Appellant is not entitled to relief, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Dameon Williams
Following a jury trial, the defendant, Dameon Williams, was convicted of voluntary manslaughter, a Class C felony, and sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to six years in the county workhouse. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in admitting an autopsy photograph of the victim’s skull and that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. Based upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee (Appellant) vs. Jay Hart Frier
Appellee, Jay Hart Frier, was indicted by the Williamson County Grand Jury for driving under the influence (“DUI”), DUI per se, DUI with a blood alcohol concentration of .20% or more, and DUI second offense. Prior to trial, Appellee filed a motion in limine to dismiss the last count of the indictment based on the fact that his prior DUI was facially invalid. The trial court held a hearing and denied the motion. Appellee filed a motion to reconsider. The trial court ultimately granted the motion in limine and dismissed the last count of the indictment. The State sought reconsideration of the ruling. The trial court declined to reconsider. The State sought an interlocutory appeal. The trial court denied the application. The State then sought an extraordinary appeal pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. This Court granted the application. On appeal, after a review of the record and applicable authorities, we determine that the trial court improperly dismissed the indictment where Appellant sought to collaterally attack his previous conviction rather than seeking review of the underlying conviction via a writ of habeas corpus. As a result, thedecision of the trial court is reversed. On remand, the indictment should be reinstated and the matter set for further proceedings. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Venus L. Viera vs. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Venus L. Viera, plead guilty in the Davidson County Criminal Court to one count of aggravated robbery. Pursuant to her plea agreement, Petitioner agreed to a sentence of eight years to be served at eighty-five percent incarceration. Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief in which she argued that she was afforded ineffective assistance of counsel and that she entered her guilty plea unknowingly and involuntarily. The post-conviction court held an evidentiary hearing and subsequently entered a written order denying the petition. Petitioner appeals to this Court. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the denial of the petition should be affirmed. However, in our review of the record, we have discovered that the judgment form provides that the sentence is eight years to be served at 100 percent. Therefore, in addition to affirming the denial of the petition for post-conviction relief, we remand for the entry of a corrected judgment. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Antoinette Hill v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Antoinette Hill, appeals the Knox County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of her petition for a writ of error coram nobis. She asserts that newly discovered evidence, namely an addiction to alcohol and pills by the trial court judge who presided over her trial for first degree premeditated murder, warrants a new trial. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the coram nobis court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William Albert Kelly
The Defendant, William Albert Kelly, appeals the Sumner County Criminal Court’s order revoking his probation for perjury and attempted failure to report as a sex offender and ordering his effective two-year, eleven-month, and twenty-nine-day sentence into execution. The Defendant contends that the trial court (1) abused its discretion by revoking his probation and (2) illegally recommended that he not be eligible for release after serving thirty percent of his sentence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Dante Devon Omar Truitt
The Defendant, Dante Devon Omar Truitt, pled guilty to explosive weapon possession with an agreed eight-year sentence as a Range I, standard offender. At a subsequent sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the Defendant to serve the eight-year sentence in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The Defendant appeals, asserting that the trial court erred when it denied alternative sentencing. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we find no error in the trial court’s judgment. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Timothy R. Chatmon v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Timothy R. Chatmon, filed in the Hamilton County Criminal Court a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, seeking relief from his two convictions for possession of cocaine with the intent to sell. The habeas corpus court denied the petition, and the petitioner appeals. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Stephan L. Beasley, Sr. v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Stephan L. Beasley, Sr., filed for habeas corpus relief from his conviction for first degree murder. The habeas corpus court denied the petition, and the petitioner appeals. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jason Clark v. Avril Chapman, Warden
The Petitioner, Jason Clark, appeals the Wayne County Circuit Court’s dismissal of his petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus. The Petitioner contends that the habeas corpus court erred when it dismissed his petition without providing a reason for the dismissal in its order, depriving the Petitioner of an opportunity to respond. Upon a review of the record in this case, we are persuaded that the habeas court properly dismissed the petition for habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, the judgment of the habeas corpus court is affirmed. |
Wayne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ako Hassan Nejad v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Ako Hassan Nejad, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his 2008 convictions for conspiracy to commit first degree murder and attempt to commit second degree murder and his effective Range I, thirty-seven-year sentence. The Petitioner contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel because counsel failed to call a material witness and failed to present a defense. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
|
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Kevin D. McMillan v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Kevin D. McMillan, pled guilty to the sale of a controlled substance, less than 0.5 grams of cocaine. The trial court sentenced the Petitioner to three years of incarceration, to be served consecutively to two other convictions, in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The Petitioner filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which the habeas court summarily dismissed. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the habeas court erred when it summarily dismissed his petition. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the habeas corpus court’s judgment. |
Hickman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joseph W. Jones
Appellant, Joseph W. Jones, pleaded guilty to sale of a Schedule II controlled substance and received a three-year sentence, suspended to probation. A violation of probation warrant was subsequently filed, alleging that he had violated a condition of his probation by testing positive for methamphetamine on a drug screen. The trial court revoked his probation, and this appeal follows. Appellant now alleges that the trial court erred in admitting the laboratory report of his drug test without the proper chain of custody and that the trial court should have extended his probation rather than ordering execution of his sentence. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Clay | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jarrell A. Campbell v. State of Tennessee
This matter is before the Court upon the State’s motion to dismiss or in the alternative to affirm the judgment of the trial court by memorandum opinion pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Petitioner, Jarrell Antonio Campbell, has appealed the habeas corpus court’s order dismissing his petition for writ of habeas corpus in which Petitioner alleged that his conviction for possession of less than .5 grams of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver was void because it was not ordered to be served consecutively to a previous conviction for which he was on parole at the time he committed the offense. Upon a review of the record in this case, we are persuaded that the trial court was correct in dismissing the petition for habeas corpus relief and that this case meets the criteria for affirmance pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Accordingly, the State’s motion is granted, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Wayne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Norman G. Page
The defendant, Norman G. Page, was convicted by a Williamson County Circuit Court jury of theft of property valued over $1,000 but less than $10,000, a Class D felony, and was sentenced to twelve years as a career offender in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ronnie Joe Stokes
The defendant, Ronnie Joe Stokes, was convicted by a Cumberland County Criminal Court jury of robbery, a Class C felony, and sentenced to twelve years as a persistent offender in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in overruling his motion for new trial because a juror was exposed to extraneous prejudicial information. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Cumberland | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Nora Hernandez
Appellant, Nora Hernandez, was convicted by a jury of two counts of felony failure to appear. The trial court merged the convictions and sentenced her to two years, suspended after service of twenty-five days. On appeal, appellant argues that: (1) her action in failing to report to the jail to serve a delayed sentence did not constitute the criminal offense of failure to appear; (2) the trial court erred by failing to dismiss the indictment based on prosecutorial vindictiveness; (3) her conviction should be dismissed because the jury only found her guilty of the elements of misdemeanor failure to appear, an offense for which the statute of limitations had passed; and (4) the trial court erred in sentencing. Following our review, we affirm appellant’s convictions, but we vacate the two failure to appear judgments and remand the case for entry of a single judgment reflecting the merger of these convictions |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Zachary Carlisle
The Defendant, Zachary Carlisle, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of voluntary manslaughter and employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, Class C felonies. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-211, 39-17-1324 (2010). The trial court sentenced him as a Range III, persistent offender to fifteen years’ confinement for the voluntary manslaughter conviction and to a consecutive fifteen years’ confinement as a violent offender for the firearm conviction. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the indictment for the firearm conviction failed to charge an offense, (2) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions, (3) the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on self-defense, and (4) the trial court committed plain error by instructing the jury that the Defendant’s statements could qualify as a confession. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Malcolm McKoy
The Defendant, Malcolm McKoy, pled guilty to theft of property valued over $500 and burglary. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to concurrent four-year and six-year terms, suspended to be served on unsupervised probation. These sentences were to run consecutively to another sentence unrelated to this appeal. After two subsequent probation violations based on new arrests, the Defendant was arrested for aggravated assault. A probation violation warrant was issued based upon this arrest, and, after a hearing, the trial court revoked the Defendant’s probation. On appeal, the Defendant contends that there was insufficient evidence to warrant a revocation of his probation. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kenneth L. Anderson
Following a jury trial, the Defendant, Kenneth L. Anderson, was convicted of one count of selling less than .5 grams of cocaine, a Class C felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-417 (2010). The trial court sentenced the Defendant to twelve years as a Range III, persistent offender. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends (1) that his right to confront one of the State’s witnesses was violated; (2) that his right to present witnesses in his defense was violated; (3) that one of the State’s witnesses, Penny Webber, was not competent to testify at trial; (4) that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress a recorded phone conversation between himself and Ms. Webber and video recordings of the drug buy; (5) that he was denied his right of access to the courts; (6) that the jury venire did not represent a fair cross-section of the community; (7) that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction; (8) that he was entitled to a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence; and (9) that his sentence was excessive. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Marco Blanch
In 2011, the Shelby County Grand Jury indicted Appellant, Marco Blanch, for aggravated rape based upon bodily injury sustained by the victim. A jury convicted Appellant of the lesser included offense of rape. Appellant was sentenced as a Range I, violent offender to an eleven-year sentence at 100 percent. On appeal, Appellant argues that the evidence presented by the State at trial was insufficient to support his conviction because the victim consented to sexual activity. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court and conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support Appellant’s conviction. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals |
