State of Tennessee v. Kevin Reid
The Defendant-Appellant, Kevin Reid, appeals the revocation of his intensive probation by the Circuit Court of Madison County, for which his original four-year term of probation was re-instated after the service of eleven months and twenty-nine days in the county jail. Reid originally pled guilty to attempted aggravated assault, a Class D felony, possession of a |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Johnny Bernosa Young
The Defendant-Appellant, Johnny Bernosa Young, was convicted by a Davidson County Criminal Court jury of aggravated burglary, a Class C felony, and theft of property valued at $1000 or more, a Class D felony. The sole issue presented for our review is whether the trial court erred in ordering Young to serve his felony sentences consecutively. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher M. Black
Defendant-Appellant, Christopher M. Black, was convicted by a Davidson County Jury of two counts of aggravated rape, a Class A felony, and two counts of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony. For each aggravated rape conviction, Black received a twenty-year sentence to be served consecutively to one another. For each aggravated robbery conviction, Black received a ten-year sentence to be served concurrently with one another. The trial court ordered the aggravated rape sentences to be served consecutively to the aggravated robbery sentences, for an effective sentence of fifty years. On appeal, Black argues that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; (2) the prosecution failed to establish a legitimate chain of custody for the evidence swabs collected from the crime scene; (3) it was constitutionally improper to allow a witness, Dwight Brewer, to identify Black at trial; (4) it was improper to admit proof of the original “CODIS hit” without establishing a chain of custody; and (5) the imposition of consecutive sentencing was improper. We affirm Black’s convictions but remand for a resentencing hearing regarding Black’s sentencing status with respect the 2005 sentencing act and regarding the issue of consecutive sentencing. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Landon McConaughy
The Defendant-Appellant, Landon McConaughy, was arrested 1 after a valid traffic stop, and various contraband was seized from his person and his vehicle. He filed a motion to suppress all evidence seized as a result of the traffic stop, which was denied by the Madison County Circuit Court. McConaughy subsequently pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine with intent to sell, a Class C felony, and possession of drug paraphernalia, and possession of a prohibited weapon, both Class A misdemeanors. He received an effective sentence of five years. Pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37, McConaughy properly reserved three certified questions of law alleging violations of his rights under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article 1, Section 7 of the Tennessee Constitution: (1) “whether the scope of his detention following the traffic stop was exceeded by [the arresting officer], without reasonable suspicion or probable cause;” (2) “whether [the arresting officer] had sufficient reasonable suspicion that McConaughy was armed in order to justify a Terry style pat-down;” and (3) “whether [the arresting officer] exceeded the scope of a Terry pat-down.” Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Cedric Johnson
The Defendant-Appellant, Cedric Johnson, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of one count of reckless endangerment, a Class A misdemeanor, and was sentenced to eleven months and twenty-nine days of confinement at the county workhouse, with six months of the sentence to be suspended. On appeal, Johnson argues that the trial court erred in failing to set a minimum service percentage for his sentence. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court and remand for entry of a corrected judgment. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Stewart
The Defendant-Appellant, Michael Stewart, was convicted of destruction or interference with utility lines, a Class E felony, following a bench trial in the Criminal Court of Shelby County. He was sentenced as a multiple offender to three years and three months in the county workhouse. On appeal, Stewart claims the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction because the State did not rebut his defenses of duress and necessity beyond a reasonable doubt. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Gary Lynn Morgan
The Defendant, Gary Lynn Morgan, pleaded guilty, just prior to trial and in front of the jury, to two counts of evading arrest, one a felony and the other a misdemeanor. He proceeded to trial on the remaining counts of the indictment, and the jury found the Defendant guilty. On appeal, the Defendant argues that, because the trial court failed to question him in accordance with constitutional and supervisory authority mandates, the trial court erred by denying his request to set aside his guilty pleas. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgments of the Lincoln County Circuit Court. We remand solely for the purpose of entry of corrected judgments. |
Lincoln | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Richard E. Brown, Jr.
The Appellant, Richard E. Brown, Jr., appeals his conviction and sentence for driving under the influence, second offense. Because the Appellant failed to prepare an adequate record on appeal, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Terrance D. Nichols v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Terrance D. Nichols, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The petitioner is currently serving a sentence of life with parole following his conviction for first degree murder. On appeal, he raises the single issue of whether the post-conviction court erred in concluding that he received the effective assistance of counsel. The State argues that the petition for post-conviction relief was untimely and, despite being heard and ruled upon by the post-conviction court, asserts this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain review. We agree that the record supports this argument; therefore, the appeal must be dismissed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. J. Steven Brasfield
The Defendant, J. Steven Brasfield, pled guilty to three counts of violating trapping regulations. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to serve thirty days of probation and ordered him to pay $5500 in restitution. On appeal, the Defendant contends that restitution is not proper in this case and that the trial court erred when it set the amount of restitution. After a thorough review of the evidence and the applicable authorities, we reverse and remand the case for the trial court, in determining the appropriate restitution in this case, to consider the Defendant’s financial resources and ability to pay. |
Haywood | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Bryan Ray Phillips
The Defendant-Appellant, Bryan Ray Phillips, entered open guilty pleas in the Bedford County Circuit Court to one count of theft of over $10,000.00, a Class C felony; one count of evading arrest with risk of death or injury, a Class D felony; and one count of evading arrest, a Class A misdemeanor. The sole issue presented for our review is whether the trial court erred in ordering Phillips to serve his felony sentences consecutively. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Robert D. Mendenhall v. State of Tennessee
On February 1, 2007, Petitioner, Robert D. Mendenhall, pled guilty in Rutherford County to thirteen counts of the unlawful sale of unregistered securities, theft over $60,000 and theft over $1,000. He agreed to a sentence of twenty years pursuant to his plea agreement. Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief asserting that he had been afforded ineffective assistance of counsel and that his plea was entered involuntarily and unintelligently based upon the ineffective assistance of counsel. After holding an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court found that Petitioner had been afforded effective assistance of counsel and had entered his plea voluntarily. Therefore, the post-conviction court denied the petition. On appeal, Petitioner argues that the post-conviction court erred in denying his petition. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing does not preponderate against the findings of the post-conviction court. Therefore, we affirm the denial of the petition for post-conviction relief. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Darrell Tywon Lockridge and Christopher Allen Turner
Appellants, Darrell Tywon Lockridge and Christopher Allen Turner, were indicted by the Davidson County Grand Jury in July of 2006 for attempted especially aggravated robbery and attempted first degree murder. After a jury trial, Appellant Lockridge was convicted of attempted second degree murder and attempted especially aggravated robbery. Appellant Turner was found not guilty of attempted first degree murder but was convicted of attempted aggravated robbery. Appellant Lockridge was sentenced to an effective twenty-year sentence, and Appellant Turner received a nine-year sentence. Both Appellant Lockridge and Appellant Turner appeal their convictions and sentences. After a review of the record, we determine that the evidence is sufficient to support the convictions and that the trial court properly sentenced both Appellants. Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Paul Carr Moss v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Paul Carr Moss, Jr., appeals the denial of post-conviction relief. After Petitioner was convicted of the second degree murder of his wife, he appealed his conviction and sentence. State v. Moss, 13 S.W.3d 374 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999). On appeal, his conviction and sentence was affirmed. Id. at 389. A petition for post-conviction relief was filed by the attorney who represented Petitioner on appeal. Petitioner instructed the post-conviction court that the petition was submitted without his knowledge or consent and to ignore the petition. Petitioner subsequently filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief. Once counsel was appointed, Petitioner filed an amended petition for post-conviction relief. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. Petitioner appeals the denial. After a review, we determine that the Petitioner has failed to show that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Accordingly, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed. |
Robertson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kevin Allen Gentry
A Sevier County Criminal Court Jury convicted the appellant, Kevin Allen Gentry, of one count of rape of a child. Following the conviction, the trial court imposed a sentence of twenty-five years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant contends that the trial court erred in admitting an audiotaped message recorded by the appellant, arguing that the statements on the tape were not relevant to the issues at trial, or, in the alternative, were overly prejudicial. Upon review, we conclude that there is no reversible error and affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sevier | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Monoleto D. Green v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant appeals the trial court's dismissal of his petitions for habeas corpus and error coram nobis relief. Finding no error in the trial court's orders, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Aubrey Clark Baker
The Appellant, Aubrey Clark Baker, appeals the trial court's denial of his motion for a reduction of sentence. Because the Appellant's motion was not timely filed, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
|
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jermeil Tarter v. State of Tennessee - Dissenting
I respectfully dissent. I conclude that the case should be remanded for the appointment of counsel and for continuing with the post-conviction proceeding |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jermeil Tarter v. State of Tennessee
The pro se Petitioner, Jermeil Tarter, appeals as of right from the Sullivan County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief attacking his conviction for sale of .5 grams or more of cocaine within a school zone. Upon preliminary consideration, the postconviction court found that the petition failed to state a cognizable claim and summarily dismissed the petition. On appeal, the Petitioner claims that the post-conviction court should have appointed counsel, allowed amendment of the petition, and conducted an evidentiary hearing. Following our review, we affirm the summary dismissal of the petition for postconviction relief. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Renwick Andre Earls, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Renwick Andre Earls, Jr., appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. He entered a plea of guilty to the offense of second degree murder, a Class A felony, in exchange for a sentence of forty-years to be served as a Range II, multiple offender. On appeal, he argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel which resulted in him entering an involuntary and unknowing guilty plea. After careful review, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Charles Sharp
The Shelby County Grand Jury indicted Appellant, Charles Sharp, for one count of especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor, four counts of rape, one count of sexual battery by an authority figure, and one count of vandalism. An initial trial resulted in an acquittal for all charges except the especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor. At the second trial, a key witness was unavailable. Over the objection of Appellant, her redacted testimony from the first trial was read to the jury and presented as evidence. The jury convicted Appellant as charged. He was sentenced to nine years as a Range I, standard offender. On appeal, Appellant argues that his constitutional right of confrontation was violated by the State’s presentation of the previous testimony of this witness, that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, that the trial court erred in sentencing Appellant to nine years as a Range I, standard offender, and that the trial court erred in denying probation. After a thorough review of the record, we have determined that the evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict and that Appellant was properly sentenced. The State’s failure to adequately prove that it had made a good faith effort to locate the missing witness’ testimony from Appellant’s first trial violated Appellant’s constitutional right to confront the witness. Therefore, this case is reversed and remanded for a new trial. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Michael Bills v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Michael Bills, appeals from the Madison County Circuit Court’s denial of post-conviction relief from his conviction for possession with the intent to sell one-half gram or more of cocaine, a Class B felony. In his appeal, the Petitioner argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because trial counsel (1) failed to call two witnesses to testify at trial and (2) failed to properly prepare a defense. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Andrew Deon Harville
The Defendant-Appellant, Andrew Deon Harville, was convicted by a Tipton County jury of first degree premeditated murder and evading arrest in a motor vehicle, a Class E felony. He received a life sentence as a violent offender for first degree murder, and he was sentenced as a standard offender to two years for evading arrest. The trial court ordered that the two-year sentence be served consecutive to the life sentence. On appeal, Harville claims his conviction for first degree murder was not supported by sufficient evidence of premeditation. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Tipton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Bradley Hawks
The Defendant-Appellant, Bradley Hawks, pled guilty in the Circuit Court of Crockett County to possession of less than .5 grams of methamphetamine with intent to sell or deliver, a Class C felony. He was sentenced to eight years in the Tennessee Department of Correction and fined $2,000. Pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37, Hawks attempted to reserve the following certified question of law: “Whether the search and arrest of the defendant was unconstitutional in violation of Article I, Section 7 of the [Tennessee] Constitution and the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.” Because the certified question fails to identify the scope and limits of the legal issue reserved, we conclude that we are without jurisdiction to consider this appeal, and therefore it is dismissed. |
Crockett | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Robert Dale Jarvis
The Lincoln County Grand Jury indicted Appellant, Robert Dale Jarvis, for a total of twenty-one counts including aggravated burglary, theft over $500, theft over $1,000, and vandalism. Appellant pled guilty to two counts of theft over $500 and five counts of theft over $1,000. As a result of the guilty plea, the trial court imposed an effective sentence of twelve years to be served as a career offender at sixty percent. At the guilty plea hearing, the parties discussed the reservation of a certified question upon which Appellant wanted to appeal. On appeal, after a thorough review of the record, we conclude that Appellant has not properly preserved the certified question of law. Therefore, we must dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. |
Lincoln | Court of Criminal Appeals |
