Richard Joe Fitten v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Richard Joe Fitten, appeals pro se from the denial of post-conviction relief by the Criminal Court for Hamilton County. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Fitten resolved case numbers 255275, 261292, and 261403. In case number 255275, Fitten agreed to the revocation of his probation and the imposition of a six-year sentence. He also agreed to plead guilty to filing a false police report, case number 261292, and retaliation for past action, case number 261403. He received a two-year sentence on the false reporting offense, and one year on the retaliation offense, to be served consecutively. However, the effective three-year sentence was suspended to unsupervised probation, to be served consecutively to the six-year sentence. Although not entirely clear from his handwritten brief, Fitten claims: (1) his conviction for retaliation for past action should be dismissed because it resulted from an illegal arrest under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; and (2) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions for retaliation for past action and filing a false police report. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Erica Harrison and Alexis Harrison
The Defendants-Appellants, Erica Harrison and Alexis Harrison, each entered an open guilty plea to one count of theft of property valued at more than five hundred dollars ($500) but less than one thousand dollars ($1,000), a Class E felony, with the length and manner of service of the sentence to be determined by the trial court. Both requested judicial diversion, which the court denied. The trial court sentenced Erica Harrison as a Range I, standard offender to 180 days in the Tennessee Department of Correction with the balance of her two-year sentence to be served on supervised probation and sentenced Alexis Harrison as a Range I, standard offender to 90 days in the Tennessee Department of Correction with the balance of her sentence to be served on supervised probation. On appeal, Erica and Alexis Harrison argue that the trial court abused its discretion by (1) denying judicial diversion and (2) denying full probation. Upon review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments but remand for a new sentencing hearing. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Daniel Livingston v. State of Tennessee,
|
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Johnny Villalobos
A Shelby County jury convicted the defendant, Johnny Villalobos, of robbery, a Class C felony. The trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range I offender to four years in the workhouse. On appeal, the defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Delwin O'Neal v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Delwin O'Neal, appeals as of right from the Marshall County Circuit Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief attacking his guilty plea convictions for multiple drug offenses for which he received an effective sentence of twenty-three years as a Range II, multiple offender. At the post-conviction evidentiary hearing, the Petitioner requested a reduction of sentence, and the trial court ruled that it was without jurisdiction to modify the sentence. In this appeal as of right, the Petitioner contends that the trial court erred in ruling that it could not modify the sentence. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jason Allen Ruiz
The Defendant, Jason Allen Ruiz, pled guilty to one count of sale of cocaine and one count of delivery of cocaine, both Class B felonies. The trial court merged the convictions and imposed an effective sentence of eight years as a Range I, standard offender to be served on probation following an 11 month and 29 day period of confinement in the local jail on work release. Following the filing of a revocation warrant and an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found that the Defendant had violated the conditions of his probation and ordered him to serve his sentence in incarceration. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering him to serve his sentence in confinement. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jeffery Boyd Trusty
The defendant, Jeffery Boyd Trusty, was convicted by a Smith County jury of first degree premeditated murder, first degree felony murder, especially aggravated kidnapping, and theft of property over $1000. The trial court merged the two first degree murder convictions and sentenced the defendant to concurrent terms of life imprisonment for the first degree murder conviction, twenty-five years as a violent offender for the especially aggravated kidnapping conviction, and four years as a Range I offender for the theft of property over $1000 conviction, for an effective sentence of life in the Department of Correction. The defendant raises essentially eight issues on appeal, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the first degree murder and especially aggravated kidnapping convictions, that the State failed to prove venue in Smith County beyond a reasonable doubt and the trial court improperly instructed the jury on the State's burden to prove venue, and that the trial court erred by denying the defendant's requests for special jury instructions, allowing hearsay testimony that the victim feared the defendant, allowing irrelevant and prejudicial evidence about the search procedures employed to locate the victim's body and the evidence uncovered during those searches, allowing a police officer to offer legal opinions and conclusions, allowing irrelevant and prejudicial evidence about the defendant's possession and movement of firearms, and not allowing each of the defendant's counsel to deliver a separate closing argument. Having reviewed the record and found no reversible error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Smith | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Anthony Douglas Dansby
The Defendant, Anthony Douglas Dansby, pled guilty to driving under the influence ("DUI"), violation of the implied consent law, violation of the seatbelt law, violation of the open container law, and possession of a Schedule VI controlled substance. In accordance with Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37, the Defendant reserved as a certified question of law the issue of whether the stop of his vehicle, which led to his indictment and guilty plea, was constitutional. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities, we conclude that the stop of the Defendant's vehicle was constitutional; therefore, we affirm the trial court's judgments. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Timothy Mark Agee, II
The Defendant, Timothy Mark Agee, II, appeals his conviction upon a guilty plea in the Davidson County Criminal Court for second degree murder, a Class A felony. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to serve twenty-three years. The Defendant appeals, contending that the sentence imposed is too lengthy. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Hector Diaz Pena In Re: Aaron Bonding Company, T Bonding Company & Around the Clock Bonding Company, LLC
The appellants, Aaron Bonding Company, T Bonding Company, and Around the Clock Bonding Company, LLC, appeal the order of a final forfeiture against them, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in issuing the order. Following our review of the record, we dismiss this appeal as being premature and remand the case to the trial court to issue an order of final disposition appellants may then appeal. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kenneth Miller and Ray Junior Turner
The Defendants, Kenneth Miller and Ray Junior Turner, were convicted by a Davidson County jury of conspiracy to deliver 300 grams or more of cocaine and delivery of 300 grams or more of cocaine. Additionally, the Defendant Miller was found guilty of possession with intent to deliver 300 grams or more of cocaine. All convictions are Class A felonies. See Tenn. Code Ann. _ 39-17-417(j)(5). Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the Defendant Miller to an effective sentence of one hundred and twenty years as a Range II, multiple offender; the trial court ordered all three of his forty-year sentences to be served consecutively to one another. As for the Defendant Turner, the trial court imposed an effective sentence of sixty years as a career offender, running both of his sixty-year sentences concurrently with one another. On appeal, the Defendant Miller presents the following issues for our review: (1) whether the trial court erred in not suppressing the evidence gathered via wiretaps; (2) whether it was error to allow a State's witness to "field-test" a substance found on an exhibit; (3) whether the evidence was sufficient to support verdicts for conspiracy and delivery of 300 grams or more of cocaine; and (4) whether the trial court committed sentencing errors. The Defendant Turner, in addition to challenging the sufficiency of the evidence in support of his convictions, argues that: (1) the trial court erred by admitting into evidence certain "drug ledgers" found in his apartment; and (2) the telephone calls intercepted during the wiretap investigation, purported to contain the Defendant's voice, were, in fact, inadmissible hearsay. After a review of the record, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Hector Diaz Pena in re: Aaron Bonding Company, T Bonding Company & Around the Clock Bonding Company, LLC - Dissenting
I respectfully disagree with the majority’s conclusion that this appeal should be |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Matthew I. Tart - Concurring
I join in the results reached by the majority. I write separately to note that the sentence imposed by the trial court does not comport with the sentencing guidelines and to further analyze a difference between Tennessee Code Annotated sections 40-35-306 and 40-35-501. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Roderick Samuel Chadwick
A Davidson County jury found the Defendant, Roderick Sammual Chadwick, guilty of attempted voluntary manslaughter and aggravated assault. The trial court imposed concurrent terms of twelve years and fifteen years, respectively, for these convictions. Under the same indictment, the Defendant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a weapon. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to six years for this conviction, to be served consecutively to the effective fifteen-year sentence, for a total effective sentence of twentyone years in the Department of Correction. In this direct appeal, the Defendant asserts that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions and that consecutive sentencing was improper. Because the record on appeal does not include the necessary transcripts of what transpired in the trial court, we conclude that the Defendant has waived the issues argued on appeal. We must presume that the evidence was sufficient to support his convictions and that the sentencing ruling of the trial court was correct; therefore, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jermaine Hughey v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Jermaine Hughey, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that he was denied the effective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Steven Murphy v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Steven Murphy, was convicted of first degree premeditated murder and first degree felony murder, which the trial court merged, and two counts of theft of property valued at more than $ 1000, which the court also merged. He was sentenced to an effective life sentence. This court affirmed his convictions and sentences, and the supreme court denied his application for permission to appeal. State v. Steven Murphy, No. W2004-02899-CCA-R3-CD, 2006 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 171, 2006 WL 432388 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 22, 2006), perm. to appeal denied [*2] 2006 Tenn. LEXIS 834 (Tenn. Sept. 5, 2006). He filed a timely petition for post-conviction relief, asserting that trial counsel was ineffective. Following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied the petition; and, upon review, we affirm that denial. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Tommy Lee Clark v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Tommy Lee Clark, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to improper cross-examination and for not investigating the petitioner's mental competency. The State argues that the petitioner has waived appellate review of these issues by not including them in his petition for post-conviction relief. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Matthew I. Tart
The defendant, Matthew I. Tart, appeals from the Sullivan County Criminal Court's denial of alternative sentencing following his pleas of guilty to charges of violating the motor vehicle habitual offender law, speeding, and leaving the scene of an accident. Upon our review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court, but we remand for the trial court to consider amendments to the judgments. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. George Ward
The defendant, George Ward, appeals his resentencing following the revocation of his eight-year community corrections sentence, arguing that the trial court erred by imposing the maximum twelve-year sentence for his Class B felony drug offense of possession of cocaine with the intent to sell. Following our review, we affirm the twelve-year sentence imposed by the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Hyman E. Miller
Appellant, Hyman E. Miller, pled guilty in Rutherford County to vehicular assault and second offense driving under the influence ("DUI"). Appellant was sentenced to eight years for the vehicular assault conviction. That sentence was suspended and the trial court ordered Appellant placed on supervised probation for a period of ten years. Appellant was sentenced to eleven months and twenty-nine days for the second offense DUI conviction. He received pre-trial jail credit of seven months and twenty-two days. The trial court ordered Appellant to serve this sentence on supervised probation for a period of four months and twenty-two days. Subsequently, a probation violation warrant was filed against Appellant. The trial court revoked probation, ordering Appellant to serve sixty days in jail before being reinstated to probation. A second violation of probation warrant was filed against Appellant, alleging that Appellant had violated his probation in various ways. After a hearing, the trial court revoked Appellant's probation and ordered him to serve his sentence in incarceration. Appellant appeals the trial court's revocation of probation. Because we determine that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Appellant's probation, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Timothy Clayton Thompson v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner Timothy Clayton Thompson pled guilty to one count of especially aggravated kidnapping and one count of aggravated rape. This court affirmed his conviction and Petitioner did not request supreme court review. Five years later, Petitioner filed this petition for post-conviction relief, seeking a delayed direct appeal and collaterally attacking his conviction. The post-conviction court concluded the petition was filed outside the limitations period and dismissed it without a hearing. Upon review, we conclude Petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing to determine whether due process concerns toll the statute of limitations. We therefore reverse the post-conviction court's judgment and remand for appointment of counsel and for an evidentiary hearing consistent with this opinion. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Larry Gene Lay, A/K/A Big Ike
The Defendant, Larry Gene Lay, aka Big Ike, appeals as of right from the Campbell County Criminal Court's revocation of his community corrections sentences and order of incarceration. He contends that the trial court's revocation is erroneous and based upon insufficient proof. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Campbell | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Raymond O. Long, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Raymond Long, Jr., appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief in which he alleged that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. Specifically, Petitioner challenges trial counsel's failure to call certain witnesses to testify at trial on his behalf. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that Petitioner has failed to show that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel and affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Darryl Hubbard
The defendant, Darryl Hubbard, pled guilty in case number 07-01581 to possession of marijuana, third offense or greater, a Class E felony, and in case number 07-03060 to possession of more than 0.5 grams of cocaine with intent to sell, a Class B felony, and to possession of marijuana with intent to sell, a Class E felony. The trial court sentenced the defendant as a multiple offender to four (4) years for case number 07-01581, to run consecutively to 07-03060 and to a prior case. The trial court sentenced him as a multiple offender in case number 07-03060 to four (4) years for the Class E felony, concurrent with eighteen (18) years for the Class B felony, to be served consecutively to 07-01581 and the prior case. The defendant's effective sentence for 07-05181 and 07-03060 is twenty-two (22) years in the Tennessee Department of Correction, consecutive to a nineteen (19) year sentence in the prior case. On appeal, the defendant contends that (1) the trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences and (2) that his sentences are disproportionate to the offenses, amounting to cruel and unusual punishment. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Lee Davis
Following a jury trial, Defendant, Christopher Lee Davis, was found guilty of aggravated robbery, carjacking, attempt to commit especially aggravated kidnapping, all Class B felonies, and attempt to commit premeditated first degree murder, a Class A felony. The trial court sentenced Defendant as a Range I, standard offender, to twelve years for each Class B felony conviction and twenty-five years for his attempted premeditated first degree murder conviction. The trial court imposed a combination of consecutive and concurrent sentencing for an effective sentence of forty-nine years. On appeal, Defendant argues that (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress; (2) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction of attempted premeditated first degree murder; (3) the trial court erred in determining the length of his sentences; and (4) the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentencing. After a thorough review, we affirm Defendant's convictions and the length of his sentences. We remand this matter for a new sentencing hearing solely for the purpose of determining whether consecutive sentencing is appropriate under the Sentencing Act and State v. Allen, 259 S.W.3d 671 (Tenn. 2008). |
Trousdale | Court of Criminal Appeals |
