Brandon Mobley v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Brandon Mobley, appeals from the Knox County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief challenging his 2005 convictions of two counts of premeditated first degree murder, especially aggravated robbery, and setting fire to personal property for which he is now serving two consecutive life sentences plus 19 years in the custody of the Department of Correction. On appeal, the petitioner contends that the postconviction court erred by denying his petition for post-conviction relief based upon allegations that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel and other constitutional deprivations. Because we determine that the petitioner is entitled to relief on the issue of the ineffective assistance of counsel concerning the use of expert testimony, we reverse the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Brandon Mobley v. State of Tennessee - Concurring/Dissenting
I concur in the holding of the majority that the allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel save for the failure to ask the expert witness whether Petitioner could premeditate do not have merit. However, I dissent from the holding that counsel was ineffective in failing to ask the defense’s expert the ultimate question of whether Petitioner could have “premeditated” the murders for which he was convicted. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Darrel Watson
Defendant-Appellant, Darrel Watson, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of first degree premeditated murder and was subsequently sentenced to life imprisonment. The sole issue presented for our review is whether the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Bankston
A Shelby County jury convicted the Defendant-Appellant, Christopher Bankston, of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony. He was sentenced to a twelve year term of imprisonment in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The sole issue presented for our review is whether the evidence is sufficient to support his conviction. Upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. George Tucker
A Shelby County Criminal Court jury convicted the appellant, George Tucker, of theft of property valued one thousand dollars or more but less than ten thousand dollars, a Class D felony, and the trial court sentenced him as a Range III, career offender to twelve years in confinement. On appeal, the appellant claims that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Willie Hampton
A Shelby County jury convicted the Defendant-Appellant, Willie Hampton, of theft of property in excess of $10,000, a Class C felony. The Defendant-Appellant was sentenced as a Range III, persistent offender, to a term of fifteen years imprisonment in the Tennessee Department of Correction. In this appeal, the sole issue presented for our review is whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the Defendant-Appellant’s conviction of theft over $10,000. Upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Quincy Bryan Banks
The Defendant, Quincy Bryan Banks, was convicted by a Davidson County Criminal Court jury of two counts of aggravated rape and one count of especially aggravated kidnapping, class A felonies. He was sentenced as a violent offender to twenty years’ confinement for each conviction. The kidnapping conviction was ordered to be served consecutively to the rape convictions, for an effective forty-year sentence. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred by ordering consecutive sentences. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Michael D. O'Guin v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Michael D. O’Guin, appeals as of right from the Wayne County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The Petitioner contends (1) that his sentence is illegal because it is in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-523(b) and (2) that his sentence has expired because he has served 85 percent of it. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court |
Wayne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Issac Eugene Jones, III v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Isaac Eugene Jones, III, appeals as of right from the Hamilton County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The Petitioner was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to 25 years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. In this appeal as of right, the Petitioner contends that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to ensure that he was given the opportunity to testify at trial and for failing to object to his statement in which he said that he had molested his cousin. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Stephen Anthony Scott v. State of Tennessee
The defendant, Stephen Anthony Scott, appeals the sentencing decision of the Montgomery CountyCircuit Court. The defendantwas convicted of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony; attempted aggravated robbery, a Class C felony; especially aggravated kidnapping, a Class A felony; aggravated kidnapping, a Class B felony; and attempted robbery, a Class D felony. The defendant was originally sentenced to an effective term of thirty-seven years in the Department of Correction. After multiple appeals and new filings in both state and federal courts, the defendant’s case was eventually sent back to the trial court for re-sentencing in accordance with Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004). A resentencing hearing was held, and the trial court determined that one enhancement factor was applicable, that being that the defendant had juvenile adjudications which would have been felony convictions if they had occurred when the defendant was an adult. As such, the trial court, applying partial consecutive sentencing, resentenced the defendant to an effective sentence of thirty-four years and six months. On appeal, the defendant raises multiple sentencing issues for our review: (1) whether the imposed sentences are still in violation of Blakely, based upon the application of the single enhancement; (2) whether the imposed sentences are illegal as the State failed to file notice of intent to seek enhancement factors; (3) whether the court erred in imposing consecutive sentencing; (4) whether the court erred in treating a juvenile adjudication as a felony conviction for enhancement purposes; and (5) whether the court erred in failing to offer the defendant the right to waive his ex post facto rights and be sentenced pursuant to the 2005 amendments to the Sentencing Act. Following review of the record, we conclude that the trial court erred in applying the enhancement factor to the defendant’s sentences. Accordingly, we conclude that the presumptive minimum sentences for each conviction must be imposed in this case, and we remand to the trial court for entry of corrected judgments to so reflect. Additionally, we conclude that the defendant’s others issues are not meritorious and that no relief is warranted. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James C. Osborne, IV v. State of Tennessee
|
Wilson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Maurice Johnson
A Bradley County jury convicted the Defendant, Maurice Johnson, of one count of especially aggravated robbery and three counts of first degree murder in the perpetration of an especially aggravated robbery. He was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole for each of the felony murder convictions and to twenty-five years for the especially aggravated robbery conviction. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions, that the district attorney engaged in repeated instances of misconduct substantially prejudicing the jury against him, and that the lead detective’s wrongdoing warrants a new trial. Following our review, we affirm the Defendant’s convictions and sentences for first degree murder during the perpetration of or attempt to perpetrate an especially aggravated robbery. The Defendant’s conviction for especially aggravated robbery is reversed and dismissed. |
Bradley | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Donald A. Jahr, Jr.
The Defendant, Donald A. Jahr, Jr., appeals as of right from the Blount County Circuit Court’s revocation of his probation and order of incarceration. The Defendant contends that the trial court erred by ordering the previously imposed sentence to be served in confinement. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Matthew Garrett
The Defendant-Appellant, Matthew Garrett, was indicted by a Rutherford County Grand Jury for aggravated assault. He was subsequently convicted by a jury of the lesser included offense of reckless aggravated assault, a Class D felony. The Defendant-Appellant was sentenced to three years imprisonment, which was suspended after service of six months. The sole issue presented for our review is whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant-Appellant’s conviction. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Quincy Mills
The appellant, Quincy Mills, appeals the trial court’s revocation of the appellant’s probation for failure to comply with the terms of release. The appellant contends that the trial court violated his due process rights by failing to reduce its findings to writing and by admitting unreliable hearsay at the revocation hearing. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Broderick Joseph Smith
|
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Varion Johnson
A Sevier County Circuit Court jury convicted the appellant, Varion Johnson, of facilitation of aggravated robbery. The trial court imposed a sentence of nine years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence sustaining his conviction. Upon review, we reverse the judgment of the trial court. |
Sevier | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Myron Taylor
Defendant, Myron Taylor, was charged with rape of a child. Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of the lesser included offense of aggravated sexual battery. He was sentenced to twelve years in the Department of Correction as a violent offender. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court erred by allowing the victim’s sister to testify about an incident that she witnessed where Defendant pulled a cover off of the victim while she was sleeping. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Lisa Marie Butler v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Lisa Marie Butler, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of post-conviction relief from her convictions for first degree felony murder and aggravated child abuse. On appeal, she contends that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to exclude irrelevant evidence of the victim’s earlier injuries and that appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to argue on appeal that the evidence should have been excluded. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Nakia Bohanan
A Shelby County Criminal Court jury convicted the defendant, Nakia Bohanan, of aggravated burglary, see T.C.A. § 39-14-403 (2006), and the trial court sentenced the defendant to serve 15 years’ incarceration as a Range III, persistent offender. On appeal, the defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction and that the trial court erred in its application of an enhancement factor to determine the length of his sentence. Discerning no infirmity in the evidence but that the trial court erred at sentencing, we affirm the defendant’s conviction and modify the sentence to 14 years’ incarceration. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Rickie Sipes
The defendant, Rickie Sipes, was convicted of first degree premeditated murder and sentenced to life imprisonment in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal and for a new trial because the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Michael Wise
The defendant, James Michael Wise, was convicted by a Sumner County jury of three counts of sexual battery by an authority figure, two counts of solicitation to commit rape, thirteen counts of rape, and thirteen counts of incest. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the defendant to an effective forty-eight-year sentence in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sentences imposed. Specifically, he contends that the trial court erred in failing to impose the minimum sentences within the range and in its application of consecutive sentencing. Following review of the record, we find no error and affirm the sentences as imposed |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Marquis Devereaux Hall
Appellant, Marquis Devereaux Hall, pled guilty to aggravated assault, reckless endangerment, possession of cocaine, simple possession and casual exchange of marijuana, and theft under $500. The trial court sentenced him to an effective sentence of ten years on community corrections. After his arrest for possession of a weapon,felon carrying a firearm, and theft, his supervisor filed a violation warrant. The trial court held a hearing and concluded that Appellant had violated the conditions of his community corrections sentence. The trial court imposed Appellant’s sentence of ten years. Appellant appeals the trial court’s revocation of his community corrections sentence. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s revocation of Appellant’s community corrections sentence. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Derek Williamson
A Sumner County jury convicted the Defendant, Derek Williamson, of first-degree premeditated murder, and he was sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred by commenting on possible sentencing options during voir dire, that the trial court erred by not granting a mistrial based on prejudicial testimony from a witness, that the trial court erred in allowing the testimony of the responding police officer about the appearance of evidence found at the scene, that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting two autopsy photographs, that the trial court improperly instructed the jury on flight, that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction, that the trial court improperly denied his request for a self-defense instruction, and that he is entitled to a new trial because of cumulative error. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Justin Kenneth Boldus
The defendant, Justin Kenneth Boldus, pleaded guilty in Dickson County Circuit Court to one count of vehicular homicide by recklessness, see T.C.A. § 39-13-213(a)(1) (2006), and one count of leaving the scene of an accident involving death, see id. § 55-10-101. The trial court imposed consecutive sentences of four years and one year to be served in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences and by denying alternative sentencing. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court |
Dickson | Court of Criminal Appeals |
