State of Tennessee v. Kendrick Lamont Brooks
The Appellant, Kendrick Lamont Brooks, appeals the revocation of his probation by the Madison County Circuit Court. On appeal, Brooks argues that the trial court was without authority to revoke his probation because the violation warrant was issued after his sentence had expired. Finding this argument without merit, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Darrell Anderson v. State of Tennessee
On May 14, 2004, the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief to challenge his 2002 Madison County Circuit Court conviction of assault and aggravated assault. See State v. Darrell M. Anderson, No. W2002-01269-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App., Jackson, May 15, 2003). The postconviction |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Robert Wayne Pryor
A Bedford County jury convicted the defendant, Robert Wayne Pryor, of robbery, a Class C felony. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced him as a Range I, standard offender to five years and six months in the Department of Correction consecutive to sentences in another case for which he was on probation. In this appeal, the single issue presented for our review is whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Brooks Jonathan Lee
The Defendant was found guilty by jury verdict of second offense driving under the influence of an intoxicant (DUI), simple possession of marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia, all Class A misdemeanors. He was sentenced to concurrent sentences of eleven months and twenty-nine days with eighty-five days to be served, had his driver's license suspended for two years, and was fined a total of $3,150. The Defendant now appeals his DUI conviction claiming: 1) the trial court erred in admitting testimony from an expert witness; and 2) the evidence was insufficient to support his DUI conviction. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Putnam | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Charles Tawwater
The defendant, Charles Tawwater, pled guilty in Franklin County Circuit Court to facilitation of the manufacture of methamphetamine, a Class D felony, and received two years probation in the Community Corrections Program. The defendant appeals upon certified questions of law from the |
Franklin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Billy James Matthews v. Warden Glenn Turner
The petitioner appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. Upon our review, we conclude that the petitioner has failed to allege any ground that would render the judgment void. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the lower court pursuant to Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jason Cook
A Weakley County jury convicted the Defendant, Jason Cook, of three counts of forgery and three counts of facilitation of forgery. The Defendant now appeals, contending that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions. Finding no error in the judgments of the trial court, we affirm the Defendant’s convictions. |
Weakley | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jesse Lee Creasman
The defendant, Jesse Lee Creasman, entered a plea of guilt to burglary of a business. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the trial court imposed a Range I sentence of two years and ordered probationary supervision for a period of four years. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court directed restitution as follows: $207.05 for the replacement of the store window, $239.90 for stolen cigarettes, and $6,300 for increased insurance premiums. In this appeal of right, the defendant argues that the amount of restitution is excessive. Restitution is reduced by $6,300 to $436.95. Otherwise, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Frank Peter Pinchak
The defendant, Frank Peter Pinchak, entered a nolo contendere plea to vehicular assault, aggravated assault, and violation of the implied consent law. The trial court deferred the imposition of two concurrent two-year sentences for vehicular assault and aggravated assault, placing the defendant on judicial diversion for a term of six years. For violating the implied consent law, the trial court suspended the defendant's license for one year. The trial court then dismissed sua sponte the implied consent law violation, noting that the indictment failed to charge a criminal offense. The State appeals the single issue of whether the trial court erred in dismissing the implied consent violation and argues that diversion is inappropriate if the offense is reinstated. Concluding that an indictment is not a necessary prerequisite to adjudication of a civil implied consent law violation, we reverse the trial court's dismissal of the charge, remand the case for reinstatement of the trial court's original imposition of a one-year suspension of the defendant's driver's license, and conclude that diversion is not appropriate for this civil offense. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Eric Gilmore v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Eric Gilmore, appeals the trial court's order dismissing his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The state has filed a motion requesting that this court affirm the trial court's denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The petition fails to establish a cognizable claim for habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, the state's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Michael Lindsey v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Michael Lindsey, appeals the dismissal of his petition for DNA testing pursuant to the Post-Conviction DNA Analysis Act, Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-30-301, et seq. On appeal, he argues that the post-conviction court erred in dismissing the petition without holding an evidentiary hearing. Following our review, we affirm the dismissal of the petition. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Daniel Shane Malone
The defendant was indicted for statutory rape and contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Thereafter, the trial court ordered an investigation to determine whether the defendant was suitable for pretrial diversion. Before the defendant filed an application for pretrial diversion, but after a pretrial investigation report was submitted, the prosecutor denied pretrial diversion. The trial court granted the defendant’s writ of certiorari and reversed the prosecutor’s decision. Pursuant to Rule 9 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, the State was granted permission for an interlocutory appeal to this Court. On appeal, this Court reversed the decision of the trial court and remanded the case for further proceedings. State v. Daniel Shane Malone, No. W1999-01678-CCA-R9-CD (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, Nov. 8, 2000), perm. app. denied (Tenn. March 4, 2002). The defendant then filed an original application for pretrial diversion. Again, the prosecutor denied pretrial diversion. The trial court granted a writ of certiorari and, thereafter, determined that the prosecutor did not abuse his discretion. The defendant sought, and was granted, permission to take an interlocutory appeal pursuant to Rule 9 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. We granted the appeal to address the defendant's contention that the prosecutor abused his discretion in denying pretrial diversion. Upon review, we conclude that the prosecutor failed to consider and weigh all relevant factors including substantial evidence favorable to the defendant. Consequently, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this case to the prosecutor for further consideration of all relevant factors attendant to the defendant’s pretrial diversion application. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Larry Mitchell v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant, Larry Mitchell, appeals the judgment of the Shelby County Criminal Court denying his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, Mitchell argues that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel. After a review of the record, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Joseph W. Jones v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Joseph W. Jones, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that his guilty plea was unknowing and involuntary and that he was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel. Following our review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of the petition. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jose Luis Quintero
After a bench trial, the Defendant, Jose Luis Quintero, was convicted of the first degree murders of Meceia Nelson and Darius Boleyjack. The Defendant waived a sentencing hearing and agreed to a sentence of two concurrent terms of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. In this direct appeal, the Defendant contends that 1) the evidence is not sufficient to support his convictions; 2) the Defendant's statement to the police should have been suppressed; and 3) the trial court erred in allowing a witness to testify about statements made to her by one of the victims. Finding no errors entitling the Defendant to a reversal, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Wilson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Peter L. Guynn
The Defendant pled guilty to aggravated robbery and was also found guilty after a bench trial of especially aggravated kidnapping. The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range II, multiple offender to thirty-five years for the Class A felony especially aggravated kidnapping conviction, and to fifteen years for the Class B felony aggravated robbery conviction. The two sentences were ordered to be served consecutively. On appeal, the Defendant argues two issues: 1) his conviction for especially aggravated kidnapping violated his right to due process pursuant to State v. Anthony, 817 S.W.2d 299 (Tenn. 1991), and; 2) the trial court erred in imposing excessive sentences and in running the sentences consecutively. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Chico Lopez Chigano v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Chico Lopez Chigano, appeals from the trial court's order dismissing his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The state has filed a motion requesting that this court affirm the trial court's denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The petition fails to establish a cognizable claim for habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, the state's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Bledsoe | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kenneth Lee Weston
The petitioner, Kenneth Lee Weston, appeals the trial court's dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court's denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The petition was properly dismissed as barred by the statute of limitations. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Vincent Marcel Williams, alias, Vincent Marcel Wilkes
A Hamilton County Criminal Court jury convicted the defendant, Vincent Marcel Williams, of aggravated child abuse, a Class A felony, and reckless homicide, a Class D felony. The trial court sentenced him as a Range I, standard offender to concurrent sentences of twenty-five years for the aggravated child abuse conviction and four years for the reckless homicide conviction. The defendant appeals, claiming that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions; (2) the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602 (1966); (3) his right to a fair trial was violated when a police officer testified at trial concerning a polygraph test and the defendant's prior convictions; (4) the burden of proof was improperly shifted from the state to the defendant by the prosecutor's statements during closing argument; and (5) the trial court erred by refusing to apply or give sufficient weight to mitigating factors and by improperly applying enhancement factors in light of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. __, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). We affirm the defendant's convictions and sentences. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Marshaun Luden
The defendant, Marshaun Luden, appeals from the trial court's order revoking his probation and reinstating his original sentence of five years as a Range I, standard offender in the Department of Correction. The defendant does not contest the revocation of his probation. Rather, he argues that the trial court erred by failing to consider any additional alternative sentencing options. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Stephen G. Hughes v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Steven G. Hughes, petitioned the Johnson County Criminal Court for habeas corpus relief from his Cocke County convictions of aggravated robbery. The court dismissed the petition, and the petitioner appealed. The state has moved this court to affirm the convictions pursuant to Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20. We sustain the court's motion and affirm the order of dismissal. |
Johnson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
David Joe Douglas Blair v. State of Tennessee
After having been indicted for the offense of first degree murder, Petitioner, David Joe Douglas Blair, pled guilty to the lesser included offense of second degree murder on June 6, 1999, pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, and received a sentence of twenty-five years in the Department of Correction. On January 5, 2001, Petitioner filed a "Motion for Appointment of Counsel" pertaining to this matter and referenced a statute pertaining to the right to petition for post-conviction relief. The trial court appointed counsel and an amended petition for post-conviction relief was filed. The State answered, and in its answer alleged that the petition should be summarily dismissed because it was filed outside of the applicable statute of limitations. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the petition. Petitioner appealed, and filed his brief. The State has filed a motion for this court to affirm the dismissal pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals. Finding merit in the motion, we grant same and affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Lawrence | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Derrick Sawyers v. Kevin Myers, Warden
The Defendant, Derrick Sawyers, appeals from the trial court’s dismissal of his petition seeking habeas corpus relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this court affirm the trial court’s denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The State’s motion is granted. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Wayne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Johnny L. McGowan, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
This matter is before the Court upon the State's motion to affirm the judgment of the trial court by memorandum opinion pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The appellant has appealed the trial court's order summarily dismissing his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. In that motion, the appellant argued that his guilty plea resulted in a void sentence because it was ordered to run concurrent to a prior unrelated offense that the appellant was out on bond for at the time of the commission of the offenses which resulted in the guilty plea. Upon a review of the record in this case, we are persuaded that the trial court was correct in summarily dismissing the motion and that this case meets the criteria for affirmance pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James A. Vaughn v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, James A. Vaughn, was convicted of one count of first degree murder, three counts of attempted first 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 Petitioner's 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 |
