Mario Thomas v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Mario Thomas, appeals the Obion County Circuit Court’s denial of his motion to reopen post-conviction proceedings. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the post-conviction 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 post-conviction court. |
Obion | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Chris Allen Dykes v. David Sexton, Warden
The Petitioner, Chris Allen Dykes, appeals as of right from the Johnson County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Petitioner contends (1) that the habeas corpus court erred by dismissing his petition on procedural grounds and (2) that the judgments against him are void because they reflect a conviction of criminal responsibility for first degree murder when he was indicted for criminal responsibility for attempted first degree murder. Following our review, we conclude that the habeas corpus court erred by summarily dismissing the petition on the grounds stated in its order. However, we affirm the summary dismissal based upon other grounds stated in this opinion. |
Johnson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Kenneth Ford v. State of Tennessee
A Madison County Jury convicted Petitioner of three counts of aggravated assault and one count of reckless endangerment resulting from an altercation Petitioner had with his live-in girlfriend and her three daughters. State v. Kenneth Ford, No. W2007-02149-CCA-R3-CD, 2009 WL 1034522, at *1-3 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, Apr. 17, 2009). The trial court sentenced Petitioner to an effective sentence of twenty-two years. Id. at *3. Petitioner was unsuccessful in his direct appeal of his sentence to this Court. Id. at *1. Petitioner filed a timely petition for post-conviction relief arguing that he was afforded the ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court held a hearing and denied the petition. Petitioner now appeals the denial of his petition. After a thorough review of the record, we determine that the evidence does not preponderate against the post-conviction court’s findings. In addition, several issues raised by Petitioner were not raised in front of the post-conviction court. In addition they were not raised during direct appeal but could have been and are now waived; or were addressed on direct appeal. Therefore, we affirm the denial of the petition. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tyeshia Stewart
The defendant was convicted in a jury trial of voluntary manslaughter, a Class C felony, for killing her boyfriend following an altercation. She was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to six years, split one year in jail with the balance to be served on probation. The defendant now appeals her conviction and sentence, claiming that the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction and that the trial court erred by failing to sentence her to the minimum sentence. After carefully reviewing the record and the arguments of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v, Tyrone Ralph Wright
A Coffee County jury convicted the Defendant, Tyrone Ralph Wright, of one count of theft of property under $500 and one count of forgery over $1000. The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a career offender to an effective sentence of twelve years. The Defendant appeals, arguing that: (1) the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress evidence obtained during the search of a vehicle in which the Defendant was a passenger; (2) the trial court erred when it admitted evidence of an uncharged forgery; (3) the trial court erred when it failed to charge the jury on a lesser included offense; (4) the identification of the Defendant submitted at trial violated the “physical facts rule;” (5) the evidence at trial was insufficient to sustain his convictions; (6) he was denied his right to allocution at the sentencing hearing; and (7) the trial court erred when it sentenced him. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we conclude that there is no error in the judgments of the trial court, and we affirm the trial court’s judgments. |
Coffee | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher M. Foster
The appellant, Christopher M. Foster, pled guilty in the Blount County Circuit Court to robbery and received a five-year sentence to be served on supervised probation. Subsequently, the trial court revoked his probation and ordered that he serve his sentence in confinement. On appeal, the appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by not granting him another alternative sentence. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Khalfani S. Marion v. State of Tennessee
The pro se petitioner, Khalfani Marion, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that he should have been afforded an evidentiary hearing to consider whether due process tolled the statute of limitations in his case. The State concedes that an evidentiary hearing should have been held to determine whether the statute of limitations should be tolled due to the petitioner’s trial counsel’s having failed to timely inform him of our supreme court’s denial of his application for permission to appeal. We agree. Accordingly, we reverse the summary dismissal of the petition and remand for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the circumstances require that the statute of limitations be tolled in this case. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Gerald Lee Powers v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Gerald Lee Powers, appeals the judgment of the Shelby County Criminal Court denying his petition for post-conviction relief. In 1998, he was convicted of first degree felony murder and aggravated robbery. His convictions and death sentence were affirmed on direct appeal by the Tennessee Supreme Court. See State v. Powers, 101 S.W.3d 383, 387 (Tenn. 2003), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 1038, 123 S. Ct. 2083 (2003). On appeal, the petitioner presents a number of issues: trial counsel were ineffective in selection of jurors; the trial court erred in not allowing individual voir dire and limiting counsel’s voir dire questioning; trial counsel were ineffective because they had excessive caseloads and did not object to long trial days; trial counsel failed to investigate certain evidence; trial counsel were ineffective as to expert witnesses; trial counsel were ineffective in presentation of other suspects to the homicide; trial counsel were ineffective in their witness interviews and failed to locate certain relevant witnesses; the trial court erred in instructing the jury as to reasonable doubt; the State failed to produce exculpatory evidence and to preserve certain evidence; the trial court should have disqualified itself; trial counsel failed to object to the applicability of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-204(c); and imposition of the death penalty is unconstitutional. We have carefully reviewed each of these claims and conclude, as did the post-conviction court, that they are without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the order of that court denying the petition for post-conviction relief. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Charles Jackson and Willis Holloway
A Shelby County Criminal Court Jury convicted each of the appellants, Charles Jackson and Willis Holloway, of two counts of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony; two counts of aggravated kidnapping, a Class B felony; and one count of aggravated burglary, a Class C felony. After a sentencing hearing, they received effective forty-four-year sentences. On appeal, the appellants contend that (1) the trial court erred by refusing to allow them to cross-examine a co-defendant about her engaging in prostitution before the crimes; (2) the trial court erred by admitting the co-defendant’s complete written statement into evidence; (3) the trial court erred by giving each juror a copy of the statement; (4) the trial court erred by failing to redact the statement; and (5) the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions. Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the trial court erred by admitting the co-defendant’s complete statement into evidence but that the error was harmless. Therefore, the appellants’ convictions are affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Tony Scott Walker v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Tony Scott Walker, appeals the Circuit Court of Gibson County’s dismissal 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. |
Gibson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Terry Maples
A Blount County jury convicted the Defendant of theft of properly valued between $1,000 and $10,000, and the trial court sentenced him to three years on supervised probation. The Defendant’s probation officer filed a probation violation warrant, alleging that the Defendant had violated his probation by, among other things, committing new offenses. The trial court agreed and ordered him to serve 90 days in jail and then return to probation. The Defendant then pled guilty to forgery and identity theft and, pursuant to a plea agreement, was sentenced to probation. The Defendant’s probation officer then filed another probation violation warrant alleging that the Defendant had violated his probation in both cases by, among other things, committing theft. Following a hearing, the trial court revoked the Defendant’s probation and ordered him to serve his sentences in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant contends the trial court erred when it ordered him to serve his sentences in confinement. After reviewing the record, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Angela M. Merriman
The State of Tennessee appeals as of right the Warren County Circuit Court’s dismissal of three counts of an indictment charging the defendant, Angela M. Merriman, with driving under the influence (DUI), second offense; felony reckless endangerment; and reckless driving. Following our review of a destruction of evidence issue under an abuse of discretion rather than a de novo standard, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Warren | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jamaal M. Mayes v. State of Tennessee
In 2006, the Defendant, Jamaal M. Mayes, pled guilty to one count of attempted second degree murder and one count of especially aggravated robbery, and the trial court entered the agreed upon sentence of fifteen years in the Tennessee Department of Correction, to be served as a multiple offender. In 2011, the Defendant filed a pro se “motion; application to void the judgment.” The trial court denied the motion, finding that it lacked jurisdiction. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it denied his motion. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Grover L. Parks
A Polk County jury convicted the Defendant, Grover L. Parks, of theft of property valued over $10,000 and less than $60,000, and the trial court sentenced him to five years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant contends: (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction; and (2) the trial court erred when it failed to disqualify the special prosecutor from prosecuting the case. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities, we conclude there exists no error. We, therefore, affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Polk | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Thomas W. Meadows
The Defendant, Thomas W. Meadows, appeals as of right from his conviction for one count of indirect criminal contempt. The Defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Shane Springer - Concurring In Part and Dissenting In Part
I agree with the portion of the lead opinion by Judge Bivins which holds that Defendant is not entitled to relief pursuant to Article III of the IAD. I also agree and concur with the section of the lead opinion headed “Other Arguments.” I disagree with and therefore dissent from the remaining part of the lead opinion, which addresses Defendant’s claim pursuant to Article IV of the IAD. |
Gibson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Shane Springer - Concurring In Part and Dissenting In Part
I agree with the conclusion of the lead opinion that certain of the issues raised by the defendant are beyond the scope of this certified question. However, I would go a step further and hold that the certified question itself is deficient, meaning that this court is without jurisdiction and the appeal should be dismissed. |
Gibson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. LeDarren S. Hawkins
A Madison County jury convicted the Defendant, LeDarren S. Hawkins, of first degree murder and tampering with evidence, and the trial court sentenced him to serve an effective life sentence in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions and that the trial court refused to instruct the jury regarding the defense of a third person as an affirmative defense. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Myron McNeal
A Shelby County Criminal Court jury found the appellant, Myron McNeal, guilty of attempted second degree murder and employing a firearm during a felony. For the convictions, the trial court imposed a total effective sentence of thirty-eight years. On appeal, the appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions and the sentences imposed by the trial court. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Shane Springer
The Defendant pled guilty to two counts of rape of a child and reserved the following certified question: “Whether the Trial Court erred in failing to grant the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss alleging the State violated the provisions of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (T.C.A. 40-31-101 et seq, U.S. Code Title 18-App) and the anti-shuttling provisions therein pursuant to Alabama v. Bozeman, 5[3]3 U.S. 146 (2001).” For differing reasons, the majority of this panel affirms the Defendant’s convictions. |
Gibson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ashlee N. Appleton
A Marion County jury convicted the Defendant, Ashlee N. Appleton, of tampering with evidence, and the trial court sentenced her to four years, to be served on community corrections after six months of incarceration. The Defendant appeals, contending that the State failed to establish the corpus delicti of the crime for which she was convicted. The State concedes the error, and both parties assert that this case be reversed. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities, we agree with the parties. Accordingly, we reverse and dismiss the Defendant’s conviction. |
Marion | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Emoe Zakiaya Mosi Bakari
A Davidson County Criminal Court Jury convicted the appellant, Emoe Zakiaya Mosi Bakari, of attempted rape of a child, a Class B felony, and the trial court sentenced him as a Range I, standard offender to twelve years in confinement. On appeal, the appellant contends that the trial court erred by (1) allowing a State witness to testify about “delayed disclosure” in child sexual abuse cases; (2) allowing a police detective to give testimony suggesting the appellant was uncooperative during the investigation; (3) allowing the State to introduce a photograph of the victims into evidence; and (4) allowing the prosecutor during rebuttal closing argument to give personal examples in an attempt to vouch for the victims’ credibility. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the trial court erred by allowing a State witness to testify about “delayed disclosure,” by allowing a police detective to give testimony suggesting the appellant was uncooperative during the investigation, and by allowing the prosecutor to give personal examples in an attempt to vouch for the victims’ credibility. Moreover, we conclude that the cumulative effect of the errors warrants reversal of the appellant’s conviction. Therefore, the appellant’s conviction of attempted rape of a child is reversed, and the case is remanded to the trial court for a new trial. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Allison Elizabeth McLean
In this extraordinary appeal, the Defendant, Allison Elizabeth McLean, appeals the Williamson County Circuit Court’s order affirming the Assistant District Attorney’s (“ADA”) denial of pretrial diversion and the trial court’s refusal to grant an interlocutory appeal of it’s denial of her pretrial diversion request. On appeal, the Defendant argues that (1) the trial court erred in denying the Defendant’s petition for writ of certiorari because the Assistant District Attorney (“ADA”) abused her discretion by (a) failing to support her decision with “substantial evidence;” (b) failing to consider and give proper weight to the Defendant’s amenability to correction; (c) giving weight to the circumstances of the case and the need for deterrence without supporting it with evidence; (d) considering improperly the victim’s age to “enhance” the circumstances of the offense; and (e) giving “little or no weight” to the Defendant’s lack of criminal record and her eight-year marriage; and (2) the trial court erred in denying the Defendant’s application for interlocutory appeal. After a thorough review of the record and relevant authorities, we conclude that the trial court properly affirmed the ADA’s denial of pretrial diversion. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ian Zraik McClellan
The Defendant, Ian Zraik McClellan, pled guilty to an indictment against him. The State alleged that the indictment charged the Defendant with aggravated vehicular homicide, and the Defendant contended the indictment sufficiently charged him with only vehicular homicide. At the time he entered his plea, the Defendant agreed to allow the trial court to determine whether the indictment sufficiently charged him with aggravated vehicular homicide. After a hearing, the trial court determined the indictment sufficiently charged the Defendant with aggravated vehicular homicide. On appeal,the Defendant contends first that the indictment was not sufficient to charge him with aggravated vehicular homicide and only sufficiently charged him with vehicular homicide and second that his guilty plea was not validly entered. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities, we affirm the Defendant’s conviction for aggravated vehicular homicide. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Daryl J. Carter
The defendant, Daryl J. Carter, was convicted after a trial by jury of one count of rape of a child, a Class A felony. The defendant appeals his conviction, claiming that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress a statement made to police and by prohibiting his defense counsel from cross-examining the defendant’s ex-wife concerning her love life. In addition, the defendant claims that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction and that the prosecution engaged in misconduct during its closing argument. After reviewing the record and the arguments of the parties, we conclude that: (1) the trial court did not err by declining to suppress the defendant’s pretrial statement; (2)the trial court did not abuse its discretion by limiting the defendant’s cross-examination of his ex-wife; and (3) the evidence is sufficient to support his conviction. While we agree with the defendant that the prosecutor made an inappropriate statement in his closing argument, we do not believe that this inappropriate statement prejudiced the defendant to the degree necessary to warrant the reversal of his conviction. The judgment of the trial court is accordingly affirmed. |
Bledsoe | Court of Criminal Appeals |
