Raymond A. Clark v. Tony Parker, Warden
This matter is before the Court upon the State’s motion to affirm the judgment of the trial court by opinion pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner is appealing the trial court's denial of habeas corpus relief. A review of the record reveals that the Petitioner is not entitled to habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Lake | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Lawrence Montgomery v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Lawrence Montgomery, appeals the trial court's denial of his application for writ of 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. It appears from the record before us that the notice of appeal was not timely filed and this Court cannot conclude that justice requires that this Court waive the timely filing requirement. Accordingly, the State’s motion is granted and the above-captioned appeal is dismissed. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Clifford L. Taylor v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant, Clifford L. Taylor, appeals the trial court's denial of his motion for arrest of judgment. 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 is not proper as either a motion in arrest of judgment, petition for post-conviction relief, or application for writ of habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, we grant the State's motion and affirm the judgment of the lower court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Kelvin Wade Cloyd v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Kelvin Wade Cloyd, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief. He alleges that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel, claims that the state knowingly used false testimony during his trial, and asserts that he was erroneously assessed costs. The judgment is affirmed. |
Johnson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Darren Ray Case v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Darren Ray Case, appeals from the dismissal of his petition for the writ of habeas corpus. The State has filed a motion requesting that the 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. |
Wayne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Joseph L. Coleman v. Tony Parker, Warden
The Petitioner, Joseph L. Coleman, 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. Because Petitioner has failed to show either that his sentence has expired or that the trial court was without jurisdiction, we grant the State's motion and affirm the judgment of the lower court. |
Lake | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Rico Raybon v. State of Tennessee
This matter is before the Court upon the State’s motion to affirm the judgment of the trial court pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner, Rico Raybon, appeals the trial court’s denial of post-conviction relief. The petition was filed outside the applicable statute of limitation and is, therefore, time-barred. Accordingly, we affirm the |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Chad Allen Conyers
The Defendant, Chad Allen Conyers, pled guilty to voluntary manslaughter. The trial court deferred entry of a judgment of conviction and placed the Defendant on judicial diversion for fifteen (15) years. The Defendant was subsequently charged with violating the terms of his probation. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court revoked the Defendant's probation. The trial court subsequently sentenced the Defendant to four years, split confinement. The Defendant now appeals both the revocation of his probation and the manner of service of his sentence. Finding that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking the Defendant's probation, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and order that the Defendant's probation be reinstated. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Danny Ray Applegate
The Defendant, Danny Ray Applegate, pled guilty to three counts of the sale of methamphetamine and one count of possession of more than 100 grams of methamphetamine with the intent to sell. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective sentence of eleven years in prison. The Defendant appeals, contending: (1) that the trial court imposed an excessive sentence upon him; and (2) the trial court erred when it failed to sentence him to a community corrections sentence. After thoroughly reviewing the record and the applicable authorities, we affirm the Defendant’s sentence. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jason Allen Needel
The appellant, Jason Allen Needel, pled guilty in the Sumner County Criminal Court to aggravated burglary, theft over $1000, and theft under $500. He received a total effective sentence of fourteen years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant challenges the imposition of consecutive sentencing. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Robert Shawn Clark v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Robert Shawn Clark, appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The single issue presented for review is whether the petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Steven Totty
The defendant appeals his conviction for sexual battery, contesting the sufficiency of the evidence and asserting ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Following our review, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. The issue of ineffective assistance is waived for failure to perfect the record, cite to relevant authority, or reference the record. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Gibson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Luis Castanon
Following a jury trial, Defendant, Luis Castanon, was charged with and convicted of four counts of aggravated rape and one count of aggravated burglary. He was sentenced to twenty years for each of the aggravated rape offenses and three years for aggravated burglary. Three of the aggravated rape sentences were ordered to be served consecutively to each other, with the remaining aggravated rape sentence and the aggravated burglary sentence to be served concurrently, for an effective sentence of sixty years. On appeal, Defendant argues that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support the jury's verdict and that the trial court's imposition of consecutive sentences was improper. We conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's convictions and hold that the imposition of consecutive sentencing was appropriate. Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Latwan R. Coleman
Defendant, Latwan R. Coleman, pled guilty to possession of over 0.5 grams of cocaine with intent to sell, a Class B felony, in case number 2003-A-265, and to sale of less than 0.5 grams of cocaine, a Class C felony, in case number 2003-A-280. The plea agreement contained a recommended sentence of nine years for the Class B felony conviction and a sentence of three years for the Class C felony conviction. Defendant's request for community corrections was left for the trial court to determine. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court denied Defendant's request for a community corrections sentence, and ordered Defendant to serve the recommended sentences in confinement. The trial court ordered the sentences to be served concurrently for an effective sentence of nine years. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his request that he be sentenced to community corrections rather than incarceration. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
John Haws Burrell v. Howard Carlton, Warden
The Appellant, John Haws Burrell, proceeding pro se, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Because the petition fails to raise a cognizable claim for habeas relief, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Johnson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Brandon Patrick
The defendant, Brandon Patrick, was convicted of one count of violation of the Habitual Motor Vehicle Offenders Act, one count of felony evading arrest with risk of death, and two counts of felony reckless endangerment. The trial court later merged the two counts of reckless endangerment into one count. The trial court held a sentencing hearing on November 7, 2002. The defendant received the maximum sentences as a career offender of six (6) years for violation of the Habitual Motor Vehicle Offender Act, twelve (12) years for Class D felony evading arrest with the risk of death, and six (6) years for reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon. The trial court ordered the defendant to serve the six-year sentences for violation of the Habitual Motor Vehicle Offender Act and the reckless endangerment sentence concurrently. The trial court then ordered that the six (6) year sentences be served consecutively to the twelve (12) year sentence for Class D felony evading arrest for an effective sentence of eighteen (18) years as a career offender to be served in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant argues: (1) that the evidence was legally insufficient to support a verdict of guilty; (2) his dual convictions for Class D felony evading arrest and felony reckless endangerment violated the principles of double jeopardy; (3) the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on applicable lesser-included offenses; and (4) the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences. We conclude: (1) that the evidence was sufficient to support his convictions; (2) the dual convictions for Class D felony evading arrest and felony reckless endangerment violate principles of double jeopardy and must be merged; (3) it was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt when the trial court failed to instruct on the lesser-included offenses; and (4) consecutive sentencing was proper in the defendant's case. We reverse and remand the judgments of the trial court. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Vandergriff
Following the trial court's denial of the defendant's motion to suppress, the defendant pled guilty to possession with the intent to deliver a Schedule II controlled substance, cocaine, in an amount greater than .5 grams, a Class B felony, in exchange for a sentence of eight years as a standard Range I offender in the Department of Correction. The defendant sought to reserve a certified question of law regarding the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress. The issue before us is whether the trial court erred in its determination that probable cause existed for the defendant to be stopped. After a careful review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hawkins | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Bobby L. Ingram v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Bobby L. Ingram, appeals the Greene County Criminal Court's summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. Because the criminal court correctly ruled that the statute of limitation barred the petition, that court's order is affirmed. |
Greene | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jack Sherrill
The defendant was convicted of rape of a child, a Class A felony, and aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony, and was sentenced to an effective sentence of thirty years. The defendant now appeals his conviction contending that: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction; (2) the trial court erred in failing to grant a new trial based on newly discovered evidence; and (3) the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion for continuance. The defendant also seeks review of sentencing issues in light of Blakely. After review, we conclude there is no reversible error and affirm the judgments of the trial court as to convictions and sentencing. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Shelborne Mason
The defendant, Shelborne Mason, was convicted for the sale and/or delivery of .5 grams or more of cocaine, a Class B felony. The trial court imposed a sentence of thirty years. In this appeal, the defendant asserts that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Calvin Louis Hill
A Marshall County jury convicted the Defendant, Calvin Louis Hill, of carjacking, theft of property valued over $1000.00, and three counts of forgery. The trial court sentenced the Defendant, as a Range II offender, to an effective sentence of eighteen years. On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions for carjacking and forgery; and (2) his sentence was excessive. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Michael Wright v. State of Tennessee
Appellant, Michael Wright, filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief, which was subsequently amended by appointed counsel. Following an evidentiary hearing, the petition was denied. On appeal, Appellant argues that he was entitled to post-conviction relief on his claim that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. After careful review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Antonio Jones
Convicted of aggravated robbery and sentenced as a career offender to a prison term of 30 years, the defendant, Michael Antonio Jones, appeals and challenges both the sufficiency of the convicting evidence and the propriety of the sentence. Discerning no error, we affirm the Marshall County Circuit Court's judgment. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Delawrence Williams
This is a Rule 9, Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, interlocutory appeal of the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress drug evidence seized from his home during a search executed pursuant to a warrant. The defendant, Delawrence Williams, is charged with possession of more than .5 grams of cocaine with the intent to sell or deliver based on the drug evidence recovered from his home and with aggravated assault based on a domestic violence episode involving his girlfriend that preceded the issuance of the search warrant. At the suppression hearing, he argued that the officer’s affidavit in support of the warrant failed to establish probable cause because it did not contain sufficient facts to show that the defendant’s girlfriend, who was the source for the officer’s knowledge, satisfied the two-pronged test, as set forth in State v. Jacumin, 778 S.W.2d 430 (Tenn. 1989), for information supplied by a criminal informant. The trial court denied the motion, finding that the affidavit sufficiently demonstrated the basis for the informant’s knowledge and the reliability of her information. Following our review, we affirm the order of the trial court denying the motion to suppress. |
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Terrance D. Nichols
The appellant, Terrance D. Nichols, was convicted by a jury in the Shelby County Criminal Court of premeditated first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal, the appellant contends that (1) the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury that “reflection” in the context of the instruction on premeditation means “careful consideration,” and (2) the trial court committed plain error by permitting the State to engage in improper and prejudicial argument in its summation to the jury. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals |
