State of Tennessee v. Donald Blevins
The defendant, Donald Blevins, was convicted for contributing to the delinquency of a minor. The trial court imposed a sentence of 11 months and 29 days. On appeal, the defendant asserts that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on the defenses of necessity and duress. The conviction and sentence are affirmed; the case is remanded for entry of an amended judgment to correct a clerical error. |
Warren | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Anthony Norfleet v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Anthony Norfleet, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his aggravated robbery conviction, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in finding he received effective assistance of trial counsel. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Albert Smith v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Albert Smith, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief as time-barred. He contends that Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. ___, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), announced a new rule of constitutional law that applies retroactively to his case, thereby creating an exception to the one-year statute of limitations for filing a post-conviction petition. He further contends that the post-conviction court should have held an evidentiary hearing to determine the reason for his late filing of the petition. We conclude that the petitioner has not demonstrated that a valid exception to the one-year statute of limitations exists in his case or that the post-conviction court erred by denying the petition without an evidentiary hearing. Accordingly, we affirm the post-conviction court’s summary denial of the petition. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Montez Antuan Adams v. State of Tennessee
On February 2, 1999, the petitioner, Montez Antuan Adams, filed a petition for post-conviction relief to challenge his 1997 Madison County Circuit Court convictions of first degree felony murder, especially aggravated burglary, conspiracy to commit especially aggravated burglary, and theft over $500, all of which were affirmed on appeal. See State v. Montez Antuan Adams, No. 02C01-9709-CC-00352 (Tenn. Crim. App., Jackson, Sept. 1, 1998). The post-conviction court appointed counsel, and after conducting an evidentiary hearing, it denied relief. The petitioner appealed in a timely manner. Following our review upon the record, we affirm the order denying post-conviction relief. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jason Brian Hargrove
The petitioner, Jason Brian Hargrove, pled guilty to multiple counts of theft and burglary and was ordered to serve an effective sentence of twenty (20) years. This Court affirmed his sentence on direct appeal. See State v. Jason Brian Hargrove, No. M2001-01579-CCA-R3-CD, 2002 WL 1585638 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, July 18, 2002). The petitioner filed a timely petition for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and arguing that his guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied the petition. On appeal, the petitioner challenges the denial of the petition for post-conviction relief based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. He also argues that the holding in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. ___, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), requires a reduction in his sentence. For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of the post-conviction court and decline to modify the petitioner's sentence. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Monoleto D. Green
The Defendant was convicted on a jury verdict of three counts of aggravated robbery and three counts of robbery. Following a sentencing hearing, he was sentenced on all six convictions as a Range II offender to an aggregate sentence of eighty-four years with all sentences to be served consecutively. On appeal, the Defendant argues two issues: 1) there was insufficient evidence to support one of his robbery convictions and all three aggravated robbery convictions; and 2) the trial court erred by imposing excessive sentences and by ordering all the sentences to be served consecutively. We affirm the judgments of the trial court as to the convictions but modify the Defendant's sentences to an aggregate term of seventy-eight years. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Steve Cornell Snipes
The defendant, Steve Cornell Snipes, pled guilty in the Haywood County Circuit Court to possession of over .5 grams of a Schedule II controlled substance with the intent to deliver or sell, a Class B felony, and was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to eight years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. As a condition of his guilty plea, the defendant sought to reserve as a certified question of law whether the trial court erred in finding that the affidavit supporting the search warrant set forth sufficient facts establishing the credibility of the confidential informant. Based on our review, we affirm the order of the trial court. |
Haywood | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kenneth Carter
The defendant, Kenneth Carter, was indicted along with the co-defendant, Varnard Wheeler, for theft of property over $60,000. By agreement with the state, the defendant pled guilty to a reduced charge of attempt to commit theft of property over $60,000, a Class C felony with a Range I sentence of six years. The trial court denied judicial diversion and ordered a sentence of ninety days in jail followed by supervised probation. In this appeal of right, the defendant argues that the trial court erred first by denying judicial diversion and second by denying immediate probation. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Eric Bernard Chism v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Eric Bernard Chism, appeals from the Madison County Circuit Court’s dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief, through which he had attacked his Madison County jury convictions of felony murder, especially aggravated kidnapping, aggravated rape, and aggravated sexual battery. The post-conviction court determined that the petitioner failed to establish his claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. We conclude that the record supports this adjudication and affirm the order. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Robert Bradley, Jr.
The Appellant, Clarence Keeley, d/b/a A-Bail Bond Company, appeals the order of the Lauderdale County Circuit Court denying his petition for reimbursement of the bond in the case of State of Tennessee v. Robert Bradley, Jr. On appeal, Keeley argues that the trial court erred in denying reimbursement of the $10,000 bail bond because (1) the circuit court was without jurisdiction to enter a forfeiture on the bond which secured Bradley’s appearance in the general sessions court and (2) Bradley’s guilty pleas to the charges released A-Bail Bond Company from its surety obligations. After review, we hold that the circuit court was without jurisdiction to enforce the bail bond. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and reimbursement of the bond is ordered as provided below. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William Henry Wilson
The Defendant, William Henry Wilson, pled guilty to one count of delivery of .5 grams or more of a schedule II controlled substance, and to one count of delivery of less than .5 grams of a schedule II controlled substance. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective sentence of ten years, and the Defendant appeals, contending that his sentence is excessive. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William Henry Wilson
The Defendant, William Henry Wilson, pled guilty to one count of delivery of .5 grams or more of a schedule II controlled substance, and to one count of delivery of less than .5 grams of a schedule II controlled substance. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective sentence of ten years, and the Defendant appeals, contending that his sentence is excessive. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Lee Hogan
The Defendant, Michael Lee Hogan, pled guilty to one count of selling less than .5 grams of a schedule II controlled substance, cocaine. In accordance with the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced the Defendant to twelve years in prison, as a Range II offender at thirty-five percent. The Defendant filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, which the trial court denied. The Defendant now appeals, contending that: (1) the trial court erred when it denied his motion to withdraw his guilty plea because his guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered; and (2) his sentence is illegal. Because the trial court erroneously determined that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the Defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea and, therefore, summarily denied the motion, we reverse and remand to the trial court for further proceedings. |
Dickson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Chris Haire v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Chris Haire, appeals the McMinn County Circuit Court's dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm. |
McMinn | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Rearno Vaughn v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Rearno Vaughn, was convicted of one count of first degree murder, two counts of attempted first degree murder, two counts of attempted second degree murder, and one count of reckless endangerment, and the trial court sentenced him to an effective sentence of life plus twenty-two years. This Court affirmed the convictions and sentences on appeal. The Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which the post-conviction court dismissed after a hearing. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred because he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Timothy D. Prince
The appellant, Timothy D. Prince, was indicted by the Williamson County Grand Jury for one count of possession of marijuana. Prior to trial, the appellant filed a motion to suppress the evidence. The trial court denied the motion and found the appellant guilty of possession of marijuana after a bench trial. As a result, the trial court sentenced the appellant to serve eleven (11) months and twenty-nine (29) days in the county jail. After the denial of a motion for new trial and an amended motion for new trial, the appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. On appeal, the appellant challenges: (1) the trial court's denial of the motion to suppress; (2) the sufficiency of the evidence despite the possibility of missing evidence; and (3) the sentence imposed by the trial court. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Derrick Le'mon Goode
On appeal, the defendant challenges the revocation of his probation; specifically, he contends that the trial court erred in revoking his probation based on the new charge of possession of prohibited weapons (sawed-off shotguns) when the weapons were not entered into evidence and their length was only estimated but never measured. Upon our review, we conclude that the deputy's estimation of the length of the weapons is sufficient to support revocation. Moreover, it is uncontroverted that the defendant had an outstanding payments owed to the court, which constitutes an additional ground for revocation. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Holly Lynn Perryman
The defendant, Holly Lynn Perryman, was found guilty by a Marshall County jury of facilitation of aggravated robbery, a Class C felony, and was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to four years and six months, with nine months to be served in the county jail and the remainder on probation, the first year of which was to be in community corrections. She raises two issues on appeal: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain her conviction; and (2) whether her sentence is excessive. Following our review, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction but that her conviction for this offense, which is a crime of violence, makes her ineligible for community corrections. Accordingly, we vacate her sentence and remand for resentencing. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James Allen Bowers v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, James Allen Bowers, appeals the post-conviction court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. In this appeal, the petitioner alleges (1) that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal; (2) that the state failed to disclose evidence favorable to his defense in violation of the requirements of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); and (3) that the post-conviction court erred by refusing to allow expert testimony on the issue of the performance of his trial and appellate counsel. The judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed. |
Bledsoe | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Neil M. Friedman
The appellant, Neil M. Friedman, pled guilty to misdemeanor assault and was sentenced to eleven months and twenty-nine days to be served on probation. While serving his sentence, the appellant pled guilty in the Sullivan County Criminal Court to aggravated assault and violating his probation. For the aggravated assault conviction, the trial court sentenced him to three years and granted his request for full probation. The trial court also revoked his misdemeanor probationary sentence and ordered him to serve his original sentence as ninety days in jail and the remainder on probation. Subsequently, a probation violation warrant was filed, and the trial court revoked probation and ordered the appellant to serve both sentences in confinement. On appeal, the appellant argues that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to revoke his misdemeanor probationary sentence because the sentence expired before the revocation warrant was issued. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court but remand for entry of a corrected judgment as to the aggravated assault. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Rose Mary Adams
After the trial court denied her motion to suppress, the defendant, Rose Mary Adams, entered a best interest guilty plea to possession with intent to deliver a Schedule II controlled substance, methamphetamine, a Class C felony, and to possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor. After conducting a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the defendant to four years in the Community Correction program after four months of service in the county jail and fined the defendant $2,000 for the possession with intent to sell conviction. For the possession of drug paraphernalia conviction, the defendant received a concurrent sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days with all but four months suspended. The defendant now appeals a certified question of law challenging the trial court’s denial of her motion to suppress the evidence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Weakley | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Brad Everett Jones v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for felony evading arrest, possession of a Schedule VI controlled substance, and driving on a revoked license, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in finding that his guilty pleas were knowing and voluntary and that he received the effective assistance of trial counsel. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Lyle Van Ulzen and Billy J. Coffelt
The defendants, inmates at Riverbend Penitentiary, successfully temporarily escaped from custody while being transported to a court appearance. At trial, Defendant Van Ulzen was convicted of two counts of aggravated robbery (Class B felony), two counts of aggravated assault (Class C felony), four counts of false imprisonment (misdemeanor), one count of theft (misdemeanor), and pled guilty to one count of felony escape (Class E felony). Defendant Coffelt was convicted of one count of aggravated assault (Class C felony), three counts of theft (misdemeanor), four counts of false imprisonment (misdemeanor), and one count of felony escape (Class E felony). On appeal, Defendant Van Ulzen appeals his convictions and sentence. Defendant Coffelt appeals aspects of his convictions. Upon review of Defendant Van Ulzen's appeal, we reverse and dismiss one count of aggravated assault as violative of double jeopardy. All other convictions and judgments as to both defendants are affirmed. We remand for correction of judgments as to Defendant Coffelt. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joseph Vermeal
The appellant, Joseph Vermeal, was convicted by a jury in the Warren County Circuit Court of aggravated sexual battery and was sentenced to nine years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant alleges that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, and he contends that the trial court erred in refusing to permit his expert witness to testify. Upon our review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Warren | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Leon James Anderson
The appellant, Leon James Anderson, was indicted by the Williamson County Grand Jury for driving under the influence ("DUI"), speeding, driving with a revoked license, and fourth offense DUI. The appellant was convicted by a jury on the first three counts, and waived his right to a jury for the fourth offense DUI charge. The trial court found the appellant guilty of fourth offense DUI. The appellant was sentenced by the trial court to two (2) years for the driving under the influence fourth offense, thirty days for speeding, and six months for driving on a revoked license, all to be served concurrently. After the denial of a motion for new trial, this appeal ensued. On appeal, the appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and contends his sentence is excessive. Because the evidence is sufficient to support the convictions and the sentence is not excessive, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. However, we remand the matter to the trial court for the limited purpose of correcting errors in some of the judgments. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals |
