State of Tennessee v. Dwayne Tyrone Simmons
A Marshall County Circuit Court jury convicted the appellant, Dwayne Tyrone Simmons, of aggravated burglary and theft of property valued less than $500. The trial court sentenced the appellant to concurrent sentences of eight years, ten months for the aggravated burglary conviction and nine months, eighteen days for the theft conviction. In this appeal, the appellant raises various issues, including that the evidence is insufficient to support his aggravated burglary conviction and that he was unable to present photographs of the home in question to the jury. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Randy L. May v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Randy L. May, sought a writ of habeas corpus from the Wayne County Circuit Court, claiming that his 1981 life sentence had been rendered void by the Board of Probation and Parole's order that not only denied parole but also mandated, according to the petitioner, that he serve the balance of his sentence. The circuit court granted the state's motion to dismiss the petition without a hearing, and the petitioner appealed. We affirm the dismissal of the petition. |
Wayne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Daniel Lee Cook
The appellant, Daniel Lee Cook, pled guilty in the Williamson County Circuit Court to reckless burning, and the trial court sentenced him to eleven months, twenty-nine days to be served as thirty days in jail and the remainder on probation. The trial court also ordered the appellant to pay restitution in the amount of one hundred fifty dollars per month for five years. On appeal, the appellant claims that the State failed to prove the fair market value of the destroyed property and that the trial court erred by ordering a payment schedule that extended beyond the maximum statutory term of probation supervision that could have been imposed for the offense. We conclude that the evidence was sufficient for the trial court to determine the amount of the victim's loss. However, the trial court erred regarding the restitution payment schedule. Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Patrick S. Riley v. State of Tennessee
On May 24, 2004, the petitioner, Patrick S. Riley, filed a petition for post-conviction relief that challenged his January 11, 2002 conviction of aggravated burglary. The post-conviction court dismissed the petition as being barred by the statute of limitations set forth in Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-30-102(a) (2003). The petitioner now appeals. We affirm the dismissal of the petition. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael E. Raines
The defendant, Michael E. Raines, pled guilty in the Davidson County Criminal Court to attempt to commit second degree murder, a Class B felony. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range I, standard offender to eight years with the trial court to determine the manner of service of the sentence. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered that the defendant serve his sentence in confinement. The defendant appeals, claiming that he should have received alternative sentencing. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Laveley Brown v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Lavely Brown, was convicted of first degree murder, armed robbery, and aggravated kidnapping, and the trial court sentenced him, as a Range II offender, to life imprisonment for the murder conviction, and two concurrent sentences of forty years for the armed robbery and aggravated kidnapping convictions. On appeal, this Court affirmed the Petitioner's convictions and sentences. The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which the post-conviction court denied after a hearing. On appeal, the Petitioner contends the post-conviction court erred when it dismissed his petition because: (1) the State withheld exculpatory information from him; (2) the State committed prosecutorial misconduct in its closing arguments; (3) the trial court conducted an improper ex parte conference with an appellate court judge; (4) the trial court improperly instructed the jury; and (5) he received ineffective assistance counsel. After thoroughly reviewing the record and the applicable law, we conclude that there exists no reversible error in the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Samuel Eugene Webster
Defendant, Samuel Eugene Webster, was charged with aggravated kidnapping and aggravated rape. Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, he pled guilty to simple rape, a Class B felony, with a sentence of eight years and the manner of service to be decided by the trial court following a sentencing hearing. The charge of aggravated kidnapping was dismissed. Following a sentencing hearing, he was sentenced to serve eight years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his request for alternative sentencing. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Timothy DeWayne Gardner v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Timothy Dewayne Gardner, was convicted by a jury in the Robertson County Circuit Court of possessing over 300 grams of cocaine with intent to sell. The petitioner received a sentence of seventeen years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Subsequently, the petitioner filed for post-conviction relief, alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. 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. |
Robertson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Carey Ray Faught
Following a jury trial, Defendant, Carey Ray Faught, was found guilty of carjacking, a Class B felony. At the conclusion of the sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Defendant as a Range I, standard offender, to nine years. The trial court ordered Defendant's sentence for the current offense to be served consecutively to the sentence he was currently serving in case No. 71405. On appeal, Defendant argues (1) that the trial court erred in not granting his motion to suppress the victim's pre-trial identification; (2) that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for carjacking; (3) that the trial court erred in sentencing Defendant above the minimum of the range for a Range I, standard offender, convicted of a Class B felony; and (4) that the trial court erred in ordering Defendant to serve his sentence for the current offense consecutively to his sentence in case No. 71405. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Harold L. Cassell
The defendant, Harold L. Cassell, entered an agreed plea to domestic assault, a Class A misdemeanor, and applied for judicial diversion, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-313. The trial court imposed a sentence of 11 months and 29 days to be served on probation and denied the application for judicial diversion. On appeal, the defendant challenges the denial of judicial diversion. Upon review, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and grant judicial diversion. The cause is remanded for the imposition of conditions of the probationary term. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Harold L. Cassell - Dissenting
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s opinion insofar as it places the defendant on judicial diversion. As set forth in the majority opinion, a trial court is obliged to consider a multitude of factors in determining whether to grant a request for judicial diversion. See State v. Cutshaw, 967 S.W.2d 332, 343-44 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997); State v. Bonestel, 871 S.W.2d 163, 168 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993), overruled on other grounds by State v. Hooper, 29 S.W.3d 1, 9 (Tenn. 2000). A trial court is further required to state on the record the weighing process it uses in balancing all of the factors and the calculus relied upon in reaching the ultimate conclusion. See State v. Electroplating, Inc., 990 S.W.2d 211, 229 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998). When the trial court follows this procedure and provides a comprehensive record of its decision-making process, then this Court should affirm the trial court’s ruling so long as there is any substantial evidence to support it. See Cutshaw, 967 S.W.2d at 344. However, it is only when the trial court satisfies its obligations in reviewing a request for judicial diversion that this Court is given the opportunity for meaningful appellate review. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Clayton Wilburn Eslick
The appellant, Clayton Wilburn Eslick, was convicted by a jury in the Marshall County Circuit Court of six counts of passing worthless checks. The trial court imposed a total effective sentence of six years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions. Upon our review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kenna Jean Parrott
Following a jury trial, Defendant, Kenna Jean Parrott, was found guilty of theft of property over $60,000, a Class B felony, and forgery of books and records valued at over $60,000, a Class B felony. The trial court sentenced Defendant as a Range I, standard offender, to eight years for each offense and ordered Defendant's sentences to run concurrently. The trial court ordered six months of the effective eight-year sentence to be served in jail, and the remainder of the effective sentence in Community Corrections. Defendant does not challenge the length or manner of service of her sentence. In her appeal, Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Austin
The defendant appeals his conviction for second degree murder on the grounds of (1) insufficient evidence to support the verdict and (2) the sentence, pursuant to Blakely issues. After review, we find sufficient evidence to support the verdict. The Tennessee sentencing structure is not impacted by Blakely, therefore, the sentence is affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Wanda Joyce Drake
The appellant, Wanda Joyce Drake, pled guilty in the Cannon County Circuit Court to conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine, possession of a weapon during a felony, and possession of methamphetamine. The appellant received a total effective sentence of two years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying probation. Upon our review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Cannon | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Lacey Jones
The defendant, Lacey Jones, was convicted of four counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, one count of aggravated burglary, and two counts of aggravated robbery. The trial court merged the aggravated robbery convictions into the convictions for especially aggravated kidnapping and ordered a concurrent sentence of thirty-five years for each of the four counts. The trial court ordered the aggravated burglary sentence of seven years to be served consecutively, for an effective sentence of forty-two years. In this appeal of right, the defendant argues that his convictions for especially aggravated kidnapping and aggravated robbery violate principles of due process; that the trial court erred by merging the aggravated robbery convictions into the especially aggravated kidnapping convictions; and that the trial court erred by ordering consecutive sentencing. The judgments of the trial court are affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Brenda Bowers
The appellant, Brenda Bowers, was convicted by a jury of theft of property worth less than $500 dollars. The trial court sentenced the appellant to eleven (11) months and twenty-nine (29) days and ordered the appellant to serve six (6) months of the sentence in incarceration and the remainder of the sentence on probation. After the denial of a motion for new trial, the appellant appealed, presenting the following issues: (1) whether the State improperly introduced evidence of a prior bad act of the appellant; (2) whether the appellant received ineffective assistance of counsel; and (3) whether the trial court correctly sentenced the appellant. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Chris Edward Smith
Defendant, Chris Edward Smith, was convicted of the sale of less than 0.5 grams of cocaine, a Class C felony, and was sentenced as a Range III, persistent offender to ten years imprisonment. On appeal, Defendant argues (1) that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction; (2) that the trial court erred in overruling Defendant's objection to the prosecutor's peremptory challenge of the only African-American prospective juror in the venire; and (3) that the trial court erred when it mistakenly informed the jury that Defendant was also charged with possession of drug paraphernalia. Defendant does not challenge his sentence on appeal. Following a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
McMinn | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jimmy Ray Rogers
The appellant, Jimmy Ray Rogers, was convicted by a jury of introducing contraband into a penal institution, possession of marijuana, and driving on a revoked license. He received a total effective sentence of nine years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction for introduction of contraband into a penal institution and the length of the sentence imposed for that conviction. Upon our review of the record and the parties' briefs, we conclude that the appellant's conviction and sentence for introducing contraband into a penal institution should be affirmed; the appellant's conviction for possession of marijuana should merge into his conviction for introducing contraband into a penal institution; a corrected judgment should be entered reflecting that the appellant was found not guilty of possession of drug paraphernalia; and the appellant's conviction for driving on a revoked license should be reinstated. Therefore, this case is remanded to the trial court for sentencing on the appellant's conviction for driving on a revoked license and for correction of the judgments. |
Franklin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Alfred William Smith
The defendant, Alfred William Smith, appeals from his 2004 McMinn County jury conviction of first degree premeditated murder, for which the trial court imposed a life sentence. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence and the admission of state-sponsored testimony. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. |
McMinn | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
William Lee Drumbarger v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner appeals the trial court's denial of his untitled petition, treated by the trial court as a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Upon our review, we affirm the denial of habeas relief and further conclude that the petitioner's claim was not cognizable as a petition for writ of certiorari. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the habeas court, pursuant to Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Toney Jason Hale
The defendant, Toney Jason Hale, pled guilty in the Bedford County Circuit Court to three counts of burglary of an automobile, a Class E felony, and escape from a penal institution, a Class E felony. He committed these offenses while serving an effective ten-year sentence on probation for crimes committed in Marshall County. The defendant was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to one year, six months for each conviction, pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, with the issue of consecutive sentencing to be decided by the trial court. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered two of the three sentences for the burglary convictions to be served concurrently with each other but consecutively to the sentence for the third conviction. The trial court further ordered these sentences to run consecutively to his sentence for the escape offense and consecutively to his previous ten-year sentence, for an effective sentence of fourteen years, six months in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court erred by ordering consecutive sentences. We affirm the trial court. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Prentiss Holloway
A Shelby County Criminal Court jury convicted the appellant, Prentiss Holloway, of aggravated robbery and attempted aggravated robbery, and the trial court sentenced him to consecutive sentences of eleven and five years, respectively, in the Department of Correction. In this appeal, the appellant claims that the trial court improperly enhanced his sentences in light of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), and improperly ordered consecutive sentencing. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William Donald Smith
The defendant, William Donald Smith, pleaded guilty to three counts charging aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony, and five counts charging child rape, a Class A felony. The plea agreement provided for the trial court to determine the sentences, except that the agreement provided that the aggregate sentence would not exceed 50 years and no more than one child rape sentence would be ordered served consecutively with any other sentence. The trial court sentenced the defendant to the following Department of Correction terms: for aggravated sexual battery, concurrent sentences of eight, 10, and 12 years, respectively; and for child rape, two sentences of 20 years each and three sentences of 25 years each. The trial court ran the two 20-year sentences concurrently to each other and to the aggregate 12-year sentence for aggravated sexual battery. It imposed the three 25-year sentences to run concurrently with each other but consecutively to the other five sentences, for a net aggregate sentence of 45 years. On appeal, the defendant challenges the trial court's sentencing determinations. After review, we affirm the judgments as modified. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Charles Henry Jenkins
The defendant, Charles Henry Jenkins, was convicted by a Sumner County jury of one count of possession of more than .5 grams of cocaine with the intent to sell or deliver, a Class B felony, and one count of evading arrest, a Class A misdemeanor. He was sentenced by the trial court as a Range I, standard offender to ten years for the cocaine conviction and eleven months, twenty-nine days for the evading arrest conviction, with the sentences ordered to run concurrently. The defendant raises the following issues in this appeal: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain his cocaine conviction; (2) whether the trial court erred in excluding from his trial exculpatory tape-recorded statements made by the confidential informant involved in the case; and (3) whether the United States Supreme Court's decision in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), precluded the trial court from applying an enhancement factor to increase his cocaine sentence beyond the minimum in the range. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals |
