State of Tennessee v. John Lindsey, III
Appellant was indicted by the Hamilton County Grand Jury for one count of resisting arrest, for one count of vandalism over $1,000, and for one count of theft over $10,000. At the conclusion of a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of one count of resisting arrest, one count of vandalism over $1,000, and the lesser included offense of theft over $1,000 but less than $10,000. The trial court sentenced Appellant to an effective sentence of twelve years. On appeal, Appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions of vandalism over $1,000 and resisting arrest. In addition, he argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to declare a mistrial. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that there was ample evidence to support his convictions and that the trial court did not err in denying his motion to declare a mistrial. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Marcus Pope
Appellant, Marcus Pope, was indicted by a Shelby County grand jury for aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, and employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. The trial court granted appellant’s motion for judgment of acquittal on the charge of employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, and a jury convicted him of aggravated robbery and aggravated burglary. The trial court sentenced him to concurrent sentences of ten years for aggravated robbery and six years for aggravated burglary. Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence and the length of his sentences. Discerning no reversible error in the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jasper Pugh
Jasper Pugh (“the Defendant”) was convicted after a jury trial of two counts of theft of property of $1,000 or more but less than $10,000. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the Defendant as a career offender to twelve years on each count. The trial court ordered each count to run consecutively, for an effective sentence of twenty-four years. The Defendant appeals, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence for both counts and the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences. Upon our thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Bennie Osby
The defendant, Bennie Osby, appeals his Shelby County Criminal Court jury convictions of especially aggravated kidnapping, attempted second degree murder, aggravated robbery, and employing a firearm during the commission of a felony, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Allen Ward and Gregory Darryl Want
Defendant Ward pled guilty to one count of initiating a process intended to result in the manufacture of methamphetamine, a Class B felony, and Defendant Want pled guilty to one count of initiating a process intended to result in the manufacture of methamphetamine, a Class B felony, and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor. Defendant Ward was sentenced to eight years, and Defendant Want was sentenced to eight years for the initiation conviction and to a concurrent eleven months and twenty-nine days for the possession conviction, for a total effective sentence of eight years. Both defendants reserved a certified question of law concerning the legality of a search conducted by police. On appeal, both defendants claim that the trial court erred by failing to suppress items seized pursuant to the warrantless search of Defendant Ward’s premises. After carefully reviewing the record and the arguments of the parties, we conclude that the certified question as phrased is not dispositive of the case, and we dismiss the appeals accordingly. |
Hamblen | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joseph Thomas Blakely
The defendant, Joseph Thomas Blakely, was charged with two counts of rape of a child. A jury found him guilty of the first count but was unable to reach a unanimous decision on the second count. The defendant was sentenced to twenty years of imprisonment with a release eligibility of one hundred percent. The defendant appeals, challenging only the sufficiency of the evidence. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Gibson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Laquenton Monger v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, LaQuenton Monger, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. The petitioner was convicted by a jury of first degree felony murder in the perpetration of aggravated child abuse and of aggravated child abuse. On direct appeal, the conviction for first degree murder was ultimately reversed and remanded for a new trial because the trial court failed to charge lesser included offenses. The petitioner pled guilty to second degree murder. The petitioner brought a pro se post-conviction petition asserting various errors, and the post-conviction court dismissed the petition based on the statute of limitations. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Robert Lee Yates v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Robert Lee Yates, appeals the Warren County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The petitioner was convicted by a jury of one count of aggravated robbery and sentenced to thirty years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he contends he was denied his right to the effective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal. Following review of the record, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief. |
Warren | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael E. Fischer
A Lewis County Circuit Court jury convicted the defendant, Michael E. Fischer, of misdemeanor reckless endangerment, see T.C.A. § 39-13-103; driving under the influence (“DUI”), fifth offense, see id. § 55-10-401; driving while his license was revoked (“DWLR”), fifth offense, see id. § 55-10-504; and violation of the open container law, see id. § 55-10-416. At sentencing, the trial court imposed a total effective sentence of three years’ incarceration by the agreement of the parties. In addition to challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction of DUI, the defendant also argues that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Lewis | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Lynn Gary Fryer v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Lynn Garry Fryer, appeals the Lake County Circuit Court’s denial of his pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus. 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. |
Lake | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
David Kyle Gilley v. State of Tennessee
After a trial by jury, the petitioner was found guilty of first degree (premeditated) murder, and he was sentenced to life in prison. His conviction was affirmed by this court on direct appeal. The petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which was denied by the post-conviction court following an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the post-conviction court erred by: (1) ruling that the State did not violate the petitioner’s due process right to favorable evidence by failing to provide information related to the testimony of a State witness; (2) ruling that the petitioner did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel at this trial, and (3) denying his request for post-conviction DNA analysis. After carefully reviewing the record and the arguments of the parties, we conclude that the evidence does not preponderate against the post-conviction court’s finding that the State in fact provided the petitioner with access to the favorable evidence in question and that the trial court did not err in its conclusion that the petitioner received effective assistance of counsel at trial. We further conclude that the post-conviction court was within its discretion in denying the petitioner’s request for additional DNA analysis. Consequently, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joseph Darryl Taylor
A Bedford County Circuit Court jury convicted the defendant, Joseph Darryl Taylor, of two counts of rape, see T.C.A. § 39-13-503(a)(1), (2); one count of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, see id. § 37-1-156; and one count of simple possession of marijuana, see id. § 39-17-418(a). At sentencing, the trial court merged the rape convictions into a single judgment of conviction and imposed an effective sentence of 20 years plus 11 months and 29 days’ incarceration for the offenses. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions, the trial court’s allowing his impeachment by prior convictions of aggravated assault and statutory rape, and the trial court’s sentencing determination. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Deonte Matthews
Appellant, Deonte Matthews, was convicted by a Davidson County jury of especially aggravated robbery and the trial court sentenced Appellant to seventeen years at 100%. After the denial of a motion for new trial, Appellant initiated this appeal challenging the sufficiency of the evidence. Reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, we conclude that the proof supports the conviction for especially aggravated robbery. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Billy J. Blankenship
A Campbell County jury convicted the Defendant- Appellant, Billy J. Blankenship, of robbery, a Class C felony, and theft of property valued at $1000 or more but less than $10,000, a Class D felony. He received a sentence of four years for robbery and three years for theft, to be served concurrently in the Department of Correction. On appeal, Blankenship argues that the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions because the State failed to prove the particular allegations of the indictments. Upon review, we reverse and vacate the judgment for robbery, and remand for a new trial as to the robbery offense. The judgment for theft, however, is affirmed. |
Campbell | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ronnie Ingram
A Shelby County Criminal Court jury convicted the defendant, Ronnie Ingram, of aggravated burglary, see T.C.A. § 39-14-403; theft of property valued at more than $500 but less than $1,000, see id. § 39-14-103, 105(2); criminal exposure to human immunodeficiency virus (“HIV”), see id. § 39-13-109; evading arrest, see id. § 39-16-603; and resisting arrest, see id. § 39-16-602. The trial court imposed a total effective sentence of 32 years plus 11 months and 29 days’ incarceration. On appeal, the defendant challenges only the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction of criminal exposure to HIV. Because we determine that the State failed to establish an element of the offense, we reverse the defendant’s conviction of criminal exposure to HIV and dismiss that charge. In lieu thereof, we impose a conviction of attempt to expose one to HIV and remand for sentencing on this modified conviction. Because the defendant raises no challenge to his remaining convictions, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed in all other respects. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Abron Spraggins v. State of Tennessee
Much aggrieved by his convictions of aggravated assault and felony reckless endangerment, the petitioner, Abron Spraggins, sought post-conviction relief in the Shelby County Criminal Court, alleging that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. Following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. On appeal, the petitioner contends that trial counsel performed deficiently by failing to introduce alibi evidence at trial and by failing to object to a police officer’s testimony concerning his knowledge of the petitioner and that these omissions inured to his detriment. Discerning no error, we affirm the order of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Anthony Williams
Following his Shelby County Criminal Court jury convictions of premeditated murder, felony murder, and especially aggravated robbery, for which he received an effective sentence of life imprisonment, the defendant, Anthony Williams, appeals to this court, challenging only the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions. Discerning no paucity in the evidence, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jerry D. Carney II v. Dwight Barbee, Warden
The Petitioner, Jerry D. Carney, II, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus, in which he contended that his life sentence for his first degree premeditated murder conviction was illegal and void. On appeal, the Petitioner challenges the summary dismissal of the petition. His primary claim is that his life sentence is illegal because the statute governing his release eligibility does not allow for the possibility of parole. Following our review, we affirm. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Danny Ray Hensley
The Defendant, Danny Ray Hensley, pleaded guilty to robbery, a Class C felony. See T.C.A. § 39-13-401 (2010). He was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to eight years’ confinement. On appeal, he contends that the trial court erred in denying an alternative sentence. Because the trial court did not consider a presentence report, we reverse its judgment and remand for resentencing. |
Hawkins | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
MIchael J. Denson v. David A. Sexton, Warden
The petitioner, who stood convicted following a guilty plea to numerous crimes including aggravated kidnapping, brought a petition for habeas corpus claiming that the trial court was without jurisdiction to enter a pretrial order amending one count of his indictment from a charge of especially aggravated kidnapping to a charge of aggravated kidnapping. Consequently, he urged that his conviction for aggravated kidnapping was void. The habeas corpus court granted the State’s motion to dismiss the petition on the grounds that the petitioner’s claims, if sustained, would merely render his judgment voidable, not void. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the trial court violated his due process right to fair and impartial review by failing to accurately grasp the merits of his claims and including nongermane material in its order. After review, we conclude that the habeas corpus court’s order did fairly address his claims and did not violate his due process rights. Consequently, the judgment below is affirmed. |
Johnson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kelley Elizabeth Cannon
After a trial by jury, the defendant was found guilty of the first degree (premeditated) murder of her spouse and was sentenced to life in prison. On appeal, the defendant raises numerous challenges to her conviction, claiming that: (1) the evidence used to convict her was insufficient, (2) the trial court erred by failing to suppress certain evidence found by the police during a warrantless search of the residence that she formerly shared with the victim, (3) the trial court erred by admitting certain expert testimony, (4) the trial court erred by failing to suppress certain statements she made to police,(5) the trial court erred by admitting evidence relating to a prior domestic disturbance between the defendant and the victim, and (6) the trial court erred by failing to grant a mistrial. After carefully reviewing the record and the arguments of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William Franklin Robinette
William Franklin Robinette (“the Defendant”) appeals his jury convictions for theft of property of $1,000 or more but less than $10,000 and theft of property of $10,000 or more but less than $60,000. He was sentenced as a multiple offender to an effective sentence of ten years and was fined $10,000. On appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions and the length of his sentence. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the Defendant’s convictions and sentences. |
Greene | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. David L. Brummitt
A Sullivan County Criminal Court Jury convicted the appellant, David L. Brummitt, of especially aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, and reckless aggravated assault, and the trial court sentenced him to twenty-four, six, and four years, respectively. The trial court ordered that the appellant serve the six- and four-year sentences concurrently on probation but consecutively to the sentence of twenty-four years in confinement. On direct appeal, this court modified the appellant’s especially aggravated robbery conviction to aggravated robbery and remanded the case for sentencing as to that offense. State v. David L. Brummitt, No. E2009-01358-CCA-R3-CD, 2010 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 875, at *2 (Knoxville, Oct. 14, 2011), perm. to appeal denied, (Tenn. 2011). On remand, the trial court sentenced the appellant to twelve years for the aggravated robbery conviction. The trial court also ordered that the appellant serve the six- and four-year sentences in confinement, consecutively to each other, and consecutively to the twelve-year sentence. On appeal, the appellant contends that his twelve-year sentence for the aggravated robbery conviction is excessive and that the trial court’s resentencing him for the aggravated burglary and reckless aggravated assault convictions exceeded the scope of this court’s direct appeal opinion. Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the trial court properly sentenced the appellant for the aggravated robbery conviction but that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to resentence the appellant for the remaining convictions. Therefore, the appellant’s original sentences for aggravated burglary and reckless aggravated assault remain in effect. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ronnie Lee Johnson v. State of Tennessee
After a trial by jury, the petitioner was found guilty of possession of over .5 grams of cocaine with intent to sell, a Class B felony, and possession of dihydrocodeinone, a Class A misdemeanor. He was sentenced to seventeen years for possession of cocaine and to a consecutive eleven months and twenty-nine days for possession of dihydrocodeinone, for a total effective sentence of almost eighteen years. His convictions were affirmed by this court on direct appeal. The petitioner filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief and was appointed counsel. Following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied all claims for relief. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the post-conviction court erred in denying his motion for recusal and erred in ruling that the petitioner had not received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. After carefully reviewing the record and the arguments of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Putnam | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Johnny Leon Hatcher
The defendant, Johnny Leon Hatcher, appeals the sentencing decision of the Humphreys County Circuit Court following the revocation of his probationary sentence. The defendant pled guilty to six counts of manufacturing, delivery, sale, or possession of methamphetamine and received an effective six-year sentence, one year to be served in confinement and the balance on community corrections. A violation report was filed and, following a hearing, the trial court revoked the defendant’s sentence and ordered the balance of the original sentence to be served in confinement. On appeal, the defendant does not contest the trial court’s revocation but argues that the court erred in ordering him to serve the sentence in confinement. After review, we conclude no error occurred and affirm the decision of the trial court. |
Humphreys | Court of Criminal Appeals |
