Leonard Maysonet v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Leonard Maysonet, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court's summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for carjacking, a Class B felony, and kidnapping, a Class C felony, and resulting concurrent sentences of twelve years in the Department of Correction. He claims the trial court erred in finding his petition was time-barred by the one-year statute of limitations. He asserts that Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), announced a new rule of constitutional law requiring retroactive application to his case. We affirm the trial court's summary dismissal of the petition. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Odessa Pope
The Dyer County Grand Jury indicted the defendant for attempting to obtain a controlled substance by misrepresentation fraud, forgery, deception or subterfuge. Following a jury trial on July 28, 2004, the defendant was found guilty as charged. The trial court sentenced the defendant to four years as a Range II multiple offender. The defendant filed a notice of appeal. On appeal, the defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction and that the trial court erred in allowing the prosecution to cross-examine her regarding her prior convictions contrary to Rule 609 of the Tennessee Rules of Evidence. We find that there was sufficient evidence and the trial court did not err in allowing the entry of the prior convictions into evidence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Lamario Sumner
The Appellant, Lamario Sumner, was convicted bya Shelby County jury of two counts of aggravated robbery and received an effective forty-year sentence. On appeal, Sumner has raised five issues for our review: (1) whether Sumner’s prior conviction for aggravated robbery was admissible for impeachment purposes; (2) whether the trial court erred by precluding examination of the police investigator regarding exculpatory statements made by Sumner; (3) whether the elements of a prior felony conviction, introduced solely for purposes of impeachment, may be developed through examination of the witness; (4) whether the trial court properly responded to a jury question regarding criminal responsibility; and (5) whether the evidence is sufficient to support the convictions. After review of the record, we find no error and affirm the convictions. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Tommy Nunley v. State of Tennessee - Concurring
While I concur in most of the majority opinion, I write separately to express my disagreement with a portion of the analysis by the majority. Specifically, I am not comfortable with the analysis pertaining to the trial court’s order requiring DNA testing. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Tommy Nunley v. State of Tennessee
The State appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s grant of post-conviction relief to the Petitioner, Tommy Nunley. In February 1998, Nunley was convicted by a Shelby County jury of aggravated rape and was sentenced to twenty-five years imprisonment. A petition for post-conviction relief was filed alleging grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel. Nunley’s principal claim asserts that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to seek state-funded expert assistance for “DNA testing of specimens collected” by the police. At the conclusion of one of the several hearings conducted by the post-conviction court, the court, on its own motion, directed DNA testing of biological specimens shown to be in the custody of the State. The court was subsequently informed that the specimens had been “misplaced and/or destroyed.” Upon learning of this fact, the post-conviction court granted Nunley’s petition for post-conviction relief concluding “that said evidence could and should have been tested at the time of [Nunley’s] trial, and that because said evidence has been lost and/or destroyed, petitioner’s constitutional right to a fair trial was violated.” Because we conclude that the proof fails to establish prejudice under the standards of Strickland v. Washington, the grant of post-conviction relief is reversed, and the judgment of conviction is reinstated. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Sarah Leigh Pannell
The defendant, Sarah Leigh Pannell, appeals from the Marshall County Circuit Court's denial of alternative sentencing. The record supports the court's order, and we affirm. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joe Mac Pearson
The appellant, Joe Mac Pearson, was convicted by a jury in the Marshall County Circuit Court of selling a Schedule II controlled substance, namely oxycodone, and he received a sentence of ten years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction and the sentence imposed. Upon our review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ben Mills v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Ben Mills, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his first degree murder, aggravated robbery, and attempted first degree murder convictions, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in finding that trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to request a jury instruction on voluntary intoxication. Having reviewed the record, we conclude that the petitioner has failed to meet his burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that he was prejudiced as a result of any alleged deficiency in counsel’s representation. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of the petition for post-conviction relief. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Allen Oliver v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Allen Oliver, pled guilty in the Shelby County Criminal Court to numerous offenses and received a total effective sentence of twenty-three years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that his guilty pleas were not knowingly and voluntarily entered and that his attorneys were ineffective. The post-conviction court denied the petition, and the petitioner appeals. Upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Currie Lee Byrd
The defendant, Currie Lee Byrd, pled guilty to arson and vandalism over $60,000 and was sentenced to concurrent terms of three years and eight years, respectively, to be served under the supervision of a community corrections program after serving 140 days in jail. He reserved as a certified question of law whether the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his statements. Following our review, we concur with the trial court’s determination that the motion to suppress was without merit. |
Tipton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Marcus E. Thompson v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Marcus E. Thompson, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in finding he received effective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Monsanto Undrez Cannon
The Defendant pled guilty to and was convicted of misdemeanor casual exchange of marijuana not in excess of one-half ounce, Class E felony possession with intent for resale of not less than one-half ounce nor more than ten pounds of marijuana, and possession of a handgun as a felon, also a Class E felony. The Defendant was sentenced to eleven months and twenty-nine days for his misdemeanor conviction, and three years as a Range II, multiple offender for each felony conviction. The trial court ordered the two felony conviction sentences to be served consecutively, for an effective six year term of incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant challenges his sentence, claiming the court erred by: 1) imposing consecutive sentences, and 2) denying alternative sentencing. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Kenneth B. White v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Kenneth B. White, filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief alleging that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to pursue an appeal following Petitioner’s conviction of vehicular homicide. The post-conviction court dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing because it was untimely filed. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Kenny Carson Cockrell, Jr., v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Kenny Carson Cockrell, Jr., pled guilty in the Madison County Circuit Court to six counts of aggravated robbery and one count of attempted aggravated robbery, and he received a total effective sentence of twenty-five years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied the petition, and the petitioner now appeals. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Wilson Neely v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief arguing that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel during the preparation of his case. Specifically, Petitioner contends that trial counsel’s failure to interview and call Andre Jackson as a witness at trial was deficient conduct. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that Petitioner has failed to show that he was prejudiced by any deficiencies in his trial counsel’s performance, and we thus affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jubal Carson v. David Mills, Warden
The petitioner, Jubal Carson, appeals theLauderdale County Circuit Court’s dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief. Because the petitioner failed to timely file a notice of appeal and the interests of justice do not require the waiving of a timely notice, we dismiss the appeal. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Leonard V. Catalano v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Leonard V. Catalano, pled guilty to three counts of aggravated sexual battery. As a result, he was sentenced to thirty-two years incarceration. His sentence was affirmed by this Court on direct appeal. See State v. Leonard V. Catalano, No. M2001-03039-CCA-R3-CD, 2003 WL 21877933 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville, July 9, 2003), perm. app. denied, (Tenn. Nov. 24, 2003). The petitioner subsequently sought post-conviction relief, alleging that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary due to ineffective assistance of counsel. Following a hearing, the post-conviction court denied the petition. The petitioner appealed. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Bernard Miguel Wallace
The defendant, Bernard Miguel Wallace, was convicted by a Hardin County jury of the sale of under .5 grams of a Schedule II controlled substance, cocaine, a Class C felony. He was sentenced as a Range II, multiple offender to nine years in the Department of Correction and fined $2000. On appeal, he argues: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction; and (2) his sentence is illegal pursuant to Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hardin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Troy Wayne Stepp
The defendant, Troy Wayne Stepp, was convicted of delivery of a Schedule II controlled substance, methamphetamine, a Class C felony, and sentenced as a multiple offender to eight years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues: (1) the trial court erred in allowing the introduction of a transcript of a taped-recorded conversation; and (2) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Tipton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Terry Lynn Roberts v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Terry Lynn Roberts, was convicted of rape of a child, aggravated sexual battery, and rape and sentenced, respectively, to terms of twenty-five years, eleven years, and twelve years, with the sentences to be served consecutively. The convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal, with the petitioner then filing a petition for post-conviction relief, relying on the holding in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), and asserting that it should be applied retroactively and, as a result, the court erred in enhancing his sentences. The post-conviction court dismissed the petition, and we concur in that dismissal. |
Carroll | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Robert K. Ward v. State of Tennessee - Concurring
I concur in the results and most of the reasoning in the majority opinion. I disagree, though, with its view of the trial court’s instructing the jury regarding an excited utterance. The hearsay rule of exclusion is mainly based upon concerns for the reliability of the asserted fact by an out-of-court declarant. See State v. Henry, 33 S.W.3d 797, 803 (Tenn. 2000). An excited utterance is an exception to the rule of exclusion because we believe it occurs under circumstances rendering it sufficiently reliable to be admitted into evidence. See State v. Gordon, 952 S.W.2d 817, 819-20 (Tenn. 1997). However, a trial court should not explain this to a jury because it is truly a comment relevant to the reliability of the evidence. |
Sevier | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Robert K. Ward v. State of Tennessee
The Defendant was convicted of aggravated rape, and the trial court sentenced him to sixty years, as a Range III, persistent, violent offender. The Defendant appeals, contending that: (1) the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress his written statement to the police; (2) the record contains insufficient evidence to support his conviction; (3) the trial court improperly commented upon the testimony of a witness; and (4) the trial court improperly sentenced him. After reviewing the record and the applicable law, we conclude that there exists no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sevier | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Sleda Richards, a.k.a Sleda Bragg
The defendant, Sleda Richards, pled guilty to two counts of reckless aggravated assault, a Class D felony, one count of running a stop sign, a Class C misdemeanor, one count of driving under the influence, a Class A misdemeanor, one count of driving on a revoked license, a Class B misdemeanor, and one count of failure to appear, a Class E felony. The Sullivan County Criminal Court sentenced her to a total effective sentence of six years as a Range I, standard offender to be served in the Department of Correction. The defendant appeals, contending that the trial court erred in denying her probation or alternative sentencing. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Richard Lee Frazier
The defendant, Richard Lee Frazier, appeals the Sullivan County Criminal Court's order revoking his probation. On appeal, the defendant claims that although he violated his probation, the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his probation and ordering him to serve his sentence in confinement. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Brian Alan Hanna v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Brian Alan Hanna, appeals from the Wilson County Criminal Court's summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief from his conviction of theft of property valued over $1000, six forgery convictions, and effective sentence of eight years. He contends that the trial court erred in concluding that his petition was untimely filed and in denying his motion to discharge fines and costs. We affirm the trial court regarding the forgery convictions, but reverse the dismissal regarding the theft and remand the case to the trial court. |
Wilson | Court of Criminal Appeals |
