Monolito B. Cooper v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Monolito B. Cooper, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that his 1999 and 2002 sentences have expired due to the application of certain pretrial jail credits. The trial court denied the petition, and the petitioner appealed. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Bradley | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Donald Ragland
The Defendant, Donald Ragland, was convicted by a jury of one count of first degree premeditated murder. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-202. He was sentenced to life, with the possibility of parole, in the Department of Correction. In this direct appeal, he contends that: (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress a statement he made to police; (2) the trial court erred in excluding a certified copy of a traffic citation received by the Defendant’s alibi witness; and (3) the State presented evidence insufficient to convict him. After our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jessica Patton Parks
The Defendant, Jessica Patton Parks, pled guilty to aggravated domestic assault in exchange for a three-year suspended sentence to be served on supervised probation. Following the filing of a revocation warrant and an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found that the Defendant had violated the conditions of her probation and ordered her to serve her sentence in incarceration. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering her to serve her sentence in confinement. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Derrell F. Nunn, Sr. and Jamila Nunn
The Defendants, Derrell F. Nunn, Sr. and Jamila Nunn, appeal from their convictions by a jury in the Criminal Court for Hamilton County for aggravated child abuse, a Class A felony. The trial court imposed a sentence of twenty years to be served at one hundred percent for each Defendant. On appeal, the Defendants contend that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to convict them and that the trial court erred in not granting their motions for judgment of acquittal. We affirm the judgments of conviction. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Randy Bernard Braswell - Concurring
I concur in the majority opinion but write separately to express the views (1) that the statutes proscribing child abuse and child neglect are needlessly complex and (2) that our controlling case law does not invite helpful application of the child abuse statute by applying the “knowing” scienter to “treating a child in an abusive manner.” (Emphasis added.) |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Randy Bernard Braswell
A Hamilton County jury convicted the Defendant, Randy Bernard Braswell, of second degree murder and aggravated child abuse, both Class A felonies. The Defendant appeals, arguing that (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions; and (2) he was prejudiced by the manner in which a transcript of one of the Defendant’s interviews with police—a transcript which was admitted into evidence for identification only—was redacted. After reviewing the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. George Timmons
The Defendant, George Timmons, was convicted by a Hamilton County jury of two counts of rape, one count of aggravated sexual battery, one count of assault, and one count of aggravated domestic assault. The Defendant received an effective sentence of life without parole as a multiple rapist. In this appeal as of right, he argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions and that the trial court erred in sentencing him to life without parole as a multiple rapist and in enhancing his other sentences beyond the presumptive minimum. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Cedric Jeffries v. Steven Dotson, Warden
The pro se petitioner, Cedric Jeffries, appeals the Hardeman County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Following our review, we affirm the dismissal of the petition. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Everett Daniel Meador, III
After a jury trial, the Defendant, Everett Daniel Meador, III, was convicted of driving under the influence (DUI), first offense, a Class A misdemeanor. The Defendant appeals, contending that because the arresting officers lacked probable cause to arrest him, the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence resulting from his arrest. The Defendant also contends that the trial court improperly denied his motion for a mistrial, which was based upon the results of his breathalyzer test, that were submitted to the jury after the trial court ruled that the results were inadmissible. After determining that a mistrial should have been declared, we reverse the judgment of the trial court, and we remand the case for a new trial. |
Washington | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Bernardo Lane v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Bernardo Lane, appeals the denial of relief from his petition for writ of error coram nobis. He was convicted of first degree felony murder, first degree premeditated murder, and four counts of aggravated robbery. On appeal, he argues that he has received newly discovered evidence in the form of an affidavit signed by a codefendant, which purports to exonerate the petitioner from all wrongdoing. After careful review, we affirm the denial of error coram nobis relief. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. David Anthony Avery and Frederick Alexander Avery, (a/k/a Alex Avery)
A Davidson County jury convicted the Defendants, David Anthony Avery and Frederick Alexander |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Cortez Griffin
The defendant, Cortez Griffin, and two co-defendants, Marquette Milan and Preston Deener, broke into a rooming house to rob the victim, Lannie McMillan, who was fatally shot. A grand jury indicted the defendant on charges of first degree murder, felony murder, and especially aggravated robbery. The trial court sentenced the defendant to life imprisonment and a concurrent sentence of twenty years for his conviction of especially aggravated robbery. The defendant has appealed raising issues which we summarize as follows: (1) whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to suppress his statements which he asserts were not voluntary, were not made subsequent to a intelligent, knowing, and voluntary waiver of rights, were not recorded and were obtained subsequent to unlawful arrests; (2) whether the trial court erred in not granting a mistrial after a police officer testified regarding the content of a co-defendant’s statement; (3) whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss the felony murder charge; and (4) whether the trial court erred in allowing the testimony of a police officer that it was common for a defendant to minimize his or her role in a crime. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Charles Hall
On November 8, 2007, a Shelby County jury convicted the defendant, Charles Hall, of two counts of aggravated robbery. The trial court sentenced him to life without parole as a repeat violent offender. On appeal, the defendant submits that the trial court erred in (1) admitting prior convictions for aggravated robbery for impeachment purposes and (2) denying the defendant’s motion for mistrial. Upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Joseph B. Thompson v. Tony Parker, Warden (State of Tennessee)
The Petitioner, Joseph B. Thompson, was convicted by a Sullivan County Criminal Court jury of aggravated robbery and aggravated kidnapping, Class B felonies. He was sentenced as a Range II, multiple offender to twenty years at thirty-five percent for the aggravated robbery conviction and as a Range II, violent offender to twenty years at one hundred percent for the aggravated kidnapping conviction, which were to be served consecutively, for an effective sentence of forty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. He filed a pro se petition for habeas corpus relief in the Lake County Circuit Court, which was dismissed. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that his judgments are void because his sentences exceed the statutory minimum, thereby violating Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). Upon review, we affirm the judgment summarily dismissing the petition for writ of habeas corpus. |
Lake | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Vario Tally
The defendant, Vario Tally, was convicted of aggravated robbery and carjacking, both Class B felonies, and sentenced as a Range II, multiple offender to eighteen years and twenty years, respectively. The trial court ordered that the sentences be served consecutively for a total effective sentence of thirty-eight years. On appeal, he argues that the proof was insufficient to sustain the conviction for aggravated robbery and that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Nathaniel Banks
A Shelby County jury convicted the defendant, Nathaniel Banks, of two counts of aggravated sexual battery. The trial court sentenced him as a Range II, multiple offender, to fifteen years in the Tennessee Department of Correction at one hundred percent. On appeal, he presents two issues for review: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support his convictions; and (2) whether the trial court erred in sentencing him as a Range II offender. Following our review of the parties’ briefs, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jeffery Thomas
On August 14, 2007, the defendant, Jeffery Thomas, pleaded guilty to one count of DUI second offense, a Class A misdemeanor, in exchange for serving forty-five days in the workhouse followed by ten months and fourteen days of probation. Subsequently, the defendant moved the court to withdraw his guilty plea. The defendant argued that his guilty plea resulted in a manifest injustice because he entered the plea due to fear and ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court denied the motion. Defendant now appeals. Following our review, we affirm the judgment below. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Pierre Terry, A/K/A Pierre Walker
The defendant, Pierre Terry, also known as Pierre Walker, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of attempted voluntary manslaughter, a Class D felony; aggravated robbery, a Class B felony; and evading arrest, a Class A misdemeanor. He was sentenced to three years, ten years, and eleven months, twenty-nine days, respectively. The court ordered that the felony sentences be served consecutively to each other and the misdemeanor sentence be served concurrently for an effective term of thirteen years as a Range I offender. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sentences imposed by the trial court on his felony convictions. After review, we modify the defendant’s sentence for aggravated robbery to eight years and affirm the sentences imposed by the trial court in all other respects. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Andra Guy
The Defendant-Appellant, Andra Guy, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony. The trial court sentenced Guy as a mitigated offender to 7.2 years in the county workhouse with a release eligibility of twenty percent. On appeal, Guy argues: (1) the evidence was insufficient to convict him, and (2) the trial court erred in failing to grant a motion for judgment of acquittal or a motion for new trial based on allegedly exculpatory polygraph evidence. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ronald Lester Brooks
The Defendant-Appellant, Ronald Lester Brooks, pleaded guilty in the Madison County Circuit Court to aggravated burglary, a Class C felony; possession of less than point five (.5) grams of cocaine with the intent to sell, a Class C felony; felony evading arrest, a Class E felony; and a third offense of driving on a revoked license, a Class A misdemeanor. The sole issue presented for our review is whether the trial court erred in ordering Brooks to serve his felony sentences consecutively. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tycorrian Chandler
Following a jury trial, Defendant, Tycorrian Chandler, was found guilty of first degree premeditated murder and sentenced to life with the possibility of parole. On appeal, Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Cody Matthew Headrick - Dissenting/Concurring
While I agree with the procedural analysis in the majority opinion, I respectfully disagree with the result. The facts of this case reveal a young Defendant who, while driving in excess of eighty miles per hour, lost control of his vehicle and struck another car, which was stopped at an intersection. The two passengers in the Defendant’s car and all three occupants of the stopped car were injured. A passenger in the stopped car died at the scene, and one of the passengers in the Defendant’s car was admitted to the Intensive Care Unit for several days. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Cody Matthew Headrick
The State appeals from the Hamilton County Criminal Court’s decision to order the prosecution to grant pretrial diversion to the defendant, Cody Matthew Headrick, who was indicted for vehicular homicide. First, the State maintains that an appeal as of right pursuant to Rule 3 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure lies from the trial court’s overruling the denial of diversion by the assistant district attorney general. In the alternative, the State requests that this court treat its improperly-filed Rule 3 appeal as an extraordinary appeal under Rule 10 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Tenn. R. App. P. 3(c), 10(a). Second, the State argues that the trial court erred in reversing the assistant district attorney general’s denial of pretrial diversion. Upon our review, we hold that the State’s appeal does not present a proper Rule 3 appeal and that, although the case does meet the threshold of Rule 10 review, the order should be affirmed. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Thomas Cothran v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Thomas Cothran, was convicted by a jury of four counts of aggravated vehicular homicide, three counts of vehicular assault, and one count of driving under the influence. The petitioner now appeals the denial of post-conviction relief, claiming the post-conviction court erred in finding that he received effective assistance of counsel. Upon our review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Hickman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ronald Yates v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Ronald Yates, appeals the post-conviction court’s dismissal of his petition for postconviction relief, arguing that dismissal was improper because the court did not make specific findings or conduct an evidentiary hearing. He additionally argues that if the court’s intent was to dismiss on grounds that the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel had been previously determined, such action was in error because he had different trial and appellate counsel. After review, we conclude that the post-conviction court erred in dismissing the petition without conducting an evidentiary hearing as to the petitioner’s claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. Therefore, we reverse the dismissal and remand for proceedings consistent with the Post-Conviction Procedure Act. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals |
