State of Tennessee v. Bobby Joe Lester - Dissenting
The majority concludes that the proof is sufficient to support the Appellant’s conviction for especially aggravated kidnapping. I respectfully dissent. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Gary Lee Miller v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Gary Lee Miller, stands convicted of aggravated kidnapping, for which he was classified as a habitual offender and, therefore, ordered to serve 100 percent of his 16-year sentence. See State v. Gary Lee Miller, No. M1998-00788-CCA-R3-CD, slip op. at 2 (Tenn. Crim. App., Nashville, Mar. 6, 2000). He filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied the petition. Aggrieved by the lower court's ruling, the petitioner now brings the instant appeal. After a thorough review of the issues and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the lower court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Keuntray Henson v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner challenges the denial of his post-conviction petition, in which he alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. Upon review, we conclude that the evidence on appeal does not preponderate against the post-conviction court’s findings that: (1) counsel adequately informed the petitioner regarding the filing of a motion to suppress; and (2) no hearingwas necessary on the motion because the petitioner opted to plead guilty. Therefore, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
David Johnson v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner appeals the denial of post-conviction relief. Specifically, he contends that trial counsel was ineffective in (1) failing to discover the true identity of the State’s primary witness at an earlier date; and (2) failing to adequately meet with him in preparation for trial. Upon review, we conclude that the petitioner has failed to meet his burden with respect to both claims; therefore, we affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of relief. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Willie Joe Frazier
In 1980, the Appellant, Willie Joe Frazier, was indicted for multiple counts of armed robbery and related assaults stemming from his participation, along with two other accomplices, in the robbery of a number of employees and customers of a pharmacy in Lewisburg. However, Frazier escaped from jail before his scheduled trial and was not apprehended until 2002. In 2003, Frazier was convicted by a Marshall County jury of two counts of malicious shooting, one count of assault with intent to commit voluntary manslaughter, one count of assault with intent to commit first degree murder, one count of aggravated assault, six counts of armed robbery, and two counts of assault with intent to commit robbery. The jury sentenced Frazier to indeterminate sentences for all the convictions except the six armed robberies, for which the jury fixed sentences of life imprisonment. The trial court grouped the thirteen convictions into three categories for purposes of consecutive sentencing, resulting in six concurrent life sentences consecutive to concurrent sentences of eight to twenty years and consecutive to a ten to twenty-five year sentence. This resulted in an effective sentence of life plus eighteen to forty-five years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, Frazier argues: (1) he was sentenced to crimes for which no guilty verdicts were returned by the jury; (2) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions for assault with intent to commit robbery of Ollie Bagley and assault with intent to commit robbery of Goldie Crabtree; (3) the jury's sentencing verdicts reflect two sentences which were not authorized for the crimes for which he was convicted; (4) his convictions for malicious shooting must be set aside because (a) he was never indicted for these crimes, (b) they are not lesser offenses of any indicted offenses, and (c) his dual convictions for malicious shooting and assault with intent to commit voluntary manslaughter of Judy Watson constitute double jeopardy; and (5) the trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences. After review, we find no error with regard to issues (1) and (5). With regard to issue (2), we conclude that the evidence is insufficient to support his two convictions of assault with intent to commit robbery; therefore, the convictions are modified to reflect convictions for aggravated assault, with the respective sentences fixed at not less than two years nor more than ten years. Issue (3) is rendered moot in view of our holding in issue (2). With regard to issue (4), we conclude that double jeopardy principles preclude dual convictions for assault with intent to commit voluntary manslaughter and malicious shooting. Accordingly, we merge the Appellant's conviction for assault with intent to commit voluntary manslaughter into his conviction for malicious shooting and remand for entry of a single judgment of conviction for malicious shooting. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Samuel Pendergrass v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant, Samuel Pendergrass, appeals the Hamilton County Criminal Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, Pendergrass argues that his guilty pleas to four misdemeanor counts of passing worthless checks and one count of felony theft of property over $1,000 were not knowing and voluntary due to the ineffective assistance of counsel. After review, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Thomas White Jr.
After pleading guilty to various charges, the appellant, Thomas White, Jr., was placed on intensive probation for seven (7) years in 2002. In February of 2003, the appellant was arrested twice for violation of the Motor Vehicle Offencer Act, Tennessee Code Annotated sec. 55-10-616. A probation violation warrant was issued against the appellant. After a bench trial, the appellant was found guilty of both counts of violating Tennessee Code Annotated sec. 55-10-616. As a result, the trial court revoked the appellant's probation and ordered the appellant to serve an effective fourteen (14) year sentence. Because we are unable to discern the trial court's intentions from either the transcript of the hearing or the judgments, we reverse and remand this case for entry of corrected and clarified judgments. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Kevin Joseph Karr v. State of Tennessee
Appellant, Kevin Joseph Karr, has appealed from the trial court's order summarily dismissing, without an evidentiary hearing, his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The State has filed a motion for the trial court's judgment to be affirmed pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals. We grant the motion and affirm the judgment of the trial court. After the State's motion was filed, Appellant filed a motion for an attorney to be appointed to represent him. In light of our ruling on the State's motion, the defendant's motion is denied by separate order. |
Wayne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Michael Keith Kennedy v. Kevin Myers, Warden
The petitioner, Michael Keith Kennedy, entered pleas of nolo contendere in Chester County and in Henderson County to aggravated burglary, possession of marijuana, and numerous counts of burglary of an automobile, theft, and vandalism. The petitioner received a total effective sentence of fifteen years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The habeas corpus court summarily denied the petition, and the petitioner appeals the denial. Upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court. |
Wayne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Frankie Sue Dees
The defendant, Frankie Sue Dees, pled guilty to one count of theft over $1,000. The trial court imposed a Range I sentence of two years in the Department of Correction. In this appeal, the defendant asserts that the trial court should have placed her on community corrections or full probation. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Hardin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Billy Ray Riley
A Madison County Circuit Court jury convicted the appellant, Billy Ray Riley, of theft of property valued one thousand dollars or more but less than ten thousand dollars, and the trial court sentenced him as a Range III offender to twelve years in the Department of Correction. In this appeal, the appellant claims that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Johnny L. Butler v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Johnny L. Butler, appeals the dismissal of his petition for writ of error coram nobis. In this appeal, he asserts that his conviction is void because the indictment was defective and that his guilty plea was not knowingly and intelligently made. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Christopher Robert Smith v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Christopher Robert Smith, seeks post-conviction relief on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel. After being convicted by a jury of conspiracy to possess with intent to manufacture, deliver or sell over 300 grams of cocaine, the petitioner appealed. On direct appeal this Court affirmed both his conviction and sentence. State v. Christopher Robert Smith, No. M2001-02297-CCA-R3-CD, 2002 WL 31202132 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Sept. 27, 2002), perm. app. denied (Feb. 24, 2003). The petitioner then filed a petition for post-conviction relief. After a hearing, the post-conviction court dismissed the petition. For the following reasons, we affirm the post-conviction court's dismissal of the petition for post-conviction relief. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Mark S. Armstrong
A Rutherford County jury convicted the Defendant, Mark S. Armstrong, of aggravated rape, and the trial court sentenced the Defendant to twenty years, as a Range I offender. On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the trial court erred when it failed to grant the Defendant’s motion for a mistrial when inadmissible evidence was admitted through an inadequate redaction of a videotaped statement; (2) the trial court erred in failing to provide an adequate limiting instruction to the jury regarding a videotape sound malfunction; (3) the trial court erred when it failed to require the State to make an election of the offense for which it sought a conviction; (4) the trial court erred in failing to grant the Defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal; and (5) the evidence is insufficient to sustain the Defendant’s conviction. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Anthony D. Forster v. State of Tennessee
In an opinion filed June 24, 2005, this court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the petitioner's petition for post-conviction relief, concluding that the single issue presented in the petition, whether the waiver of the right to counsel was voluntary, had been previously determined by this court on direct appeal. On July 11, 2005, the petitioner, Anthony Forster, filed a petition to rehear pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 39. He complains that this court misapprehended a material fact and that this court ruled on an issue upon which the parties had not been heard. He asserts that this court erred by concluding that the issue had been previously determined because the propriety of this court's opinion on direct appeal had not been addressed. Further, he contends that the parties were not heard on the issue because the state in its brief asserted that the issue had been waived and did not address the merits of the claim. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Christopher Cook v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Christopher Cook, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. After our review, we affirm the post-conviction court's denial of the petition. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Melvin E. Waters v. Kenneth Locke, Warden
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 petitioner has appealed the trial court’s order summarily dismissing the petition for the writ of habeas corpus. In that petition the petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus to release him from his sentence for facilitating aggravated robbery. We are persuaded that the trial court was correct in summarily dismissing the habeas corpus petition 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. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jorge Acosta Rubio v. Tony Parker, Warden
The Petitioner, Jorge Acosta Rubio, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for 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 Petitioner has failed to allege any ground that would render the judgment of conviction void. Accordingly, we grant the State’s motion and affirm the judgment of the lower court. |
Lake | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Clyde T. Smith v. State of Tennessee
The Defendant, Clyde T. Smith, 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. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Christopher A. Johnson v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Christopher A. Johnson, appeals from the trial court's order denying 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 petitioner has failed 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. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
William P. Livingston, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, William P. Livingston, Jr., appeals the dismissal by the Hamblen County Criminal Court of his petition for post-conviction relief. After review of the record, we affirm. |
Hamblen | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Brian Carl Lev
The Appellant, Brian Carl Lev, appeals the denial of judicial diversion following his guilty pleas to two counts of statutory rape. After review, we reverse the sentencing decision of the trial court and remand for deferment of the proceedings as provided by Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-313 (2003). |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Mario A. Leggs v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner was convicted by a jury in the Johnson County Circuit Court of multiple offenses, and he received a total effective sentence of twenty-two years, eleven months, and twenty-nine days. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), renders his sentences void. The trial court summarily dismissed the petition, which dismissal the petitioner appeals. The State 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. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we conclude that the petition was properly dismissed. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Johnson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ronnie Lee Holt v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner challenges the denial of his habeas corpus petition, in which he contended that his absence from voir dire violated his constitutional rights and Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 43(a) because he did not personally waive the right to be present. We initially note that, at the time of the petitioner's trial, a personal waiver of the right was not required. We conclude that there is no jurisdictional defect apparent from the record. Therefore, we affirm the denial of habeas relief. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Author Ray Turner v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Author Ray Turner, appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to reopen his petition for post-conviction relief contending that Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. __, 124 S.Ct. 2531 (2004) established a new rule of law that was retrospectively applicable to his case and entitled him to reopen his post-conviction proceedings. 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. We find the State's motion has merit. Accordingly, the motion is granted and the appeal is affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals |
