State of Tennessee v. Jerry W. Hayes, Jr.
The State appeals from an order of the Hamilton County Criminal Court suppressing evidence from a motorist stop on public housing authority property. Following the stop at the street entrance into the public housing development, the officer observed two quart containers of beer in the vehicle driven by Defendant, Jerry W. Hayes. A check of Hayes' driver's license revealed that the license had been suspended. Hayes was indicted for driving on a suspended license and being a minor in possession of alcohol. The stated purpose of the housing authority's checkpoint was to ensure the safety of its residents by excluding trespassers and others without legitimate purposes seeking entry into the housing development. The trial court found the stop constituted an unreasonable seizure and was thus unconstitutional. Pursuant to Rule 9 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, the State seeks review of this ruling. After review, we conclude that the stop was reasonable; therefore, no Fourth Amendment violation resulted. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's suppression of the evidence and remand for further proceedings. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James Dubose v. State of Tennessee, Kevin Myers, Warden
The Appellant, James Dubose, has filed a petition to rehear in this case. The opinion of this Court, affirming the judgment of the trial court, was filed October 15, 2004. Upon review of the petition to rehear, we conclude that it should be denied. |
Wayne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Wade James Odum v. State of Tennessee
The Defendant, Wade James Odum, appeals from the trial court's dismissal of his petition for error coram nobis 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. We grant the State's motion and affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Lincoln | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Isiah Wilson
Isiah Wilson, a juvenile defendant, after transfer to Circuit Court, entered a guilty plea to aggravated rape and especially aggravated kidnapping and received agreed upon concurrent sentences of fifteen years. The defendant properly reserved a certified question of law challenging the appropriateness of the transfer ruling from juvenile court to circuit court. We conclude that the juvenile court judge adhered to the mandated statutory considerations, affirm the transfer, and, thus, also affirm the judgments of conviction. |
Haywood | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Corey Kennerly v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant, Corey Kennerly, is currently serving concurrent sentences of life imprisonment and twenty years, as a result of his guilty pleas to first degree murder and aggravated robbery. Kennerly has filed a petition pursuant to the Post-Conviction DNA Analysis Act of 2001 requesting DNA analysis of evidence that resulted in his convictions. The trial court granted Kennerly's petition and ordered that DNA analysis be performed at state expense. After Kennerly was advised by the forensic laboratory that the DNA analysis was unfavorable, he moved to voluntarily dismiss his petition without prejudice. The trial court ruled that voluntary dismissal of the petition was not authorized by the Act and dismissed the petition upon its merits. Kennerly appeals this ruling. After review, we find no error and affirm. |
Franklin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Joseph D. Gaines v. Kevin Myers, Warden
The Appellant, Joseph D. Gaines, appeals the Wayne County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, Gaines argues that: (1) his two convictions for rape of a child are void because the indictment returned against him was not signed by the district attorney general and the plea agreement was not signed bythe trial judge; and (2) his concurrent eighteen-year sentences are illegal because they are outside the statutory sentencing range. Finding these issues to be without merit, we affirm the summary dismissal of the petition. |
Wayne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jacqueline Hurt v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Jacqueline Hurt, appeals the denial of her petition for post-conviction relief in which she asserted that her plea was not knowing and voluntary and that she was denied effective assistance of counsel. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition; however, we remand the matter for the limited purpose of entry of a corrected judgment. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Roger Neal James v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Roger Neal James, appeals the denial of post-conviction relief. The issues are whether the petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel and whether the jury was racially biased. The judgment is affirmed. |
Obion | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Clinton Ketron
The Defendant, Clinton Wade Ketron, pled guilty to one count of operating a motor vehicle while adjudged to be a Habitual Motor Vehicle Offender (HMVO), a Class E felony, and one count of criminal impersonation, a Class B misdemeanor. Pursuant to a plea agreement the Defendant was sentenced to concurrent terms of one year for his felony HMVO conviction and six months for his misdemeanor criminal impersonation conviction. The trial court denied alternative sentencing and ordered the Defendant to serve his sentences in confinement. The Defendant raises only one issue on appeal: The trial court erred in sentencing the Defendant to serve his one year felony sentence with the Tennessee Department of Corrections and in sentencing him to six months in the county jail for his misdemeanor conviction instead of placing him on enhanced probation or imposing some other form of alternative sentence. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Arzolia Charles Goines v. Glen Turner, Warden
The petitioner, Arzolia Charles Goines, appeals the dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus, in which he contends that: (1) the judge's handwritten signature was not subscribed on the judgments; (2) the judge ordered the present sentence to run concurrently with a previous unserved sentence in contravention of Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(c); (3) in sentencing the petitioner, the court failed to consider a presentence report; and (4) the trial court erred in summarily dismissing his petition without appointment of counsel. After careful review, we affirm the dismissal of the petition. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tory Nelson Nocho
The defendant, Tory Nelson Nocho, appeals his sentence of life without possibility of parole. The defendant contends that the failure to set forth aggravating circumstances within the indictment is a constitutional infirmity. The defendant secondly asserts error in that the State had not filed statutory notice of intent to seek life without possibility of parole as to one victim prior to the entry of the guilty plea. We affirm the sentence as imposed, but we remand the case for entry of corrected judgments. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Kermit Penley v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Kermit Penley, appeals from a denial of post-conviction relief. On appeal, the petitioner alleges ineffective assistance of counsel, and that his plea of guilty was not knowing or voluntary. We affirm the post-conviction court's denial of relief. |
Greene | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Robert Banks
The defendant, Robert Banks, was convicted in the General Sessions Court of Shelby County of the misdemeanor offense of patronizing prostitution, fined $1000, and sentenced to twenty days in the county correctional center, to be served on weekends. He then appealed to the Shelby County Criminal Court, where, following a bench trial, he was convicted of patronizing prostitution within a mile and a half of a school, a Class A misdemeanor, ordered to pay a $100 fine, and sentenced to eleven months, twenty-nine days, with forty-five days to be served consecutively in the county workhouse and the remainder on supervised probation. On appeal to this court, the defendant raises two issues: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain his conviction; and (2) whether the trial court erred in denying his motion for a jury trial based on his claim of ineffective assistance of general sessions counsel. We conclude the evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction and the trial court did not err in denying the defendant’s untimely request for a jury trial, made after his notice of appeal had already been entered. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court, but modify the fine imposed from $100 to $1000, in accordance with the provisions of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-514(b)(3) (2003), and remand for entry of a corrected judgment to reflect the defendant’s conviction offense which was omitted from the judgment form. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Bennie Nelson Thomas, Jr.
The defendant, Bennie Nelson Thomas, Jr., was convicted of sale of a Schedule II controlled substance, crack cocaine, a Class C felony, and sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to six years in the Department of Correction. He was also fined $2000. He raises two issues on appeal: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain his conviction; and (2) whether the trial court erred in refusing to declare a mistrial after the improper reference at trial to a prior drug sale by an undercover informant. Based on our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court but remand for entry of a corrected judgment to reflect the defendant’s fine of $2000. |
Gibson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Linc Sebastian Baird
The Appellant, Linc Sebastian Baird, appeals the sentencing decision of the Knox County Criminal Court. Baird pled guilty to the crimes of robbery and attempt to obtain a controlled substance by fraud and was sentenced to consecutive sentences of five years for robbery and three years for the criminal attempt. On appeal, Baird asserts that the trial court erred by: (1) imposing excessive sentences and (2) denying him an alternative sentence. After review of the record, we find no error and affirm the sentences. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Kevin L. Marshall v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Kevin L. Marshall, appeals the dismissal of his motion to correct an illegal sentence. Because this is not the appropriate context for this appeal and because we conclude that the record supports the trial court's determination that the petitioner failed to set forth a factual or legal basis on which to justify relief, we affirm the dismissal of the post-conviction petition. |
Coffee | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Lucy Thompson
The defendant, Lucy Thompson, contends that the trial court erred in overruling her motion for judicial diversion. Specifically, she contends that the court accorded controlling weight to the deterrence value and the circumstances of the case, while it ignored other factors that it was required to consider. Because we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, the judgment is affirmed. |
Cannon | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Robert L. Evans, Jr.
The defendant, Robert L. Evans, Jr., was indicted for aggravated robbery, first degree premeditated murder, and first degree felony murder. A jury convicted the defendant on all counts. The two murder convictions were merged, and the jury imposed life without parole. The trial judge sentenced the defendant to life without parole plus twelve years for aggravated robbery. The twelve-year sentence was ordered served consecutively to the murder sentence and a previous sentence of death in Illinois. The defendant now appeals his convictions and the consecutive sentencing. We affirm both the convictions and sentencing. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Donald Mays v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Donald Mays, appeals the trial court's denial of post-conviction relief. Although the petitioner bases his claim on three grounds, the primary issue is whether the petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal. The judgment is affirmed. Because the post-conviction court failed to address the issue of whether counsel were ineffective by failing to challenge the trial court's failure to charge the jury on certain lesser included offenses, the cause is remanded for further proceedings. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Darrell Braddock v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Darrell Braddock, appeals the trial court's denial 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. Because the petition for post-conviction relief is time-barred by the statute of limitations, we grant the State's motion and affirm the judgment of the lower court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jeremy Wayne Humphrey v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Jeremy Wayne Humphrey, appeals the trial court's dismissal of his petition for post conviction relief or in the alternative 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 filed his petition outside the statute of limitations for post-conviction purposes. Further, the petitioner does not state any cognizable habeas corpus claims. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Charles Mullins v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant, Charles Mullins, proceeding pro se, appeals the Maury County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his motion to correct an illegal sentence. On appeal, Mullins argues that his effective thirty-two-year sentence for two counts of aggravated sexual battery is illegal because (1) the judgment forms provide for an improper release eligibility date and (2) the trial court failed to award pretrial jail credits on the judgment forms. Finding merit to the Appellant’s contentions, we remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tracy Lynn Franks
The appellant, Tracy Lynn Franks, pled guilty to aggravated assault, felony reckless endangerment, and felony evading arrest. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the appellant was sentenced to six years in the Tennessee Department of Correction for the aggravated assault conviction and four years each for the reckless endangerment and evading arrest convictions, with the sentences to be served concurrently. Additionally, the trial court imposed a $500.00 fine for the evading arrest conviction. On appeal, the appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying him probation. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Hardin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Timothy Davis
The defendant, Timothy Wade Davis, was convicted by a jury of four counts of rape of a child and one count of aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor. Sentences of twenty-two years were imposed for each child rape conviction and ten years for aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor. Three of the child rape convictions and the especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor were ordered to run consecutively for an effective sentence of seventy-six years at 100%. The defendant appeals his convictions and sentencing and alleges that the trial court erred in the following respects: (1) in failing to suppress the search warrant and the defendant’s statements; (2) by denying the defendant the right to represent himself; (3) by refusing to instruct the jury on insanity; (4) in finding the defendant competent to stand trial; and (5) in regard to sentencing. After review of the issues presented and the record as a whole, we conclude that no reversible error was present and affirm the convictions and sentencing. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Timothy Davis - Concurring
I concur in the results and most of the analysis in the majority opinion. However, I believe the differences reflected in the search warrant affidavits in the record would justify suppression of the items seized pursuant to Rule 41(c), Tenn. R. Crim. P. Such a result, though, is not needed, because the record does not reflect that the copies of the affidavits in the record are thoserequired by Rule 41(c) to be identical. On the other hand, even if suppression were required, I believe many of the defendant’s statements against interest could be admissible. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals |
