State of Tennessee v. John Lemont Pierce,a.k.a. James Owens, a.k.a. John Lamonte Pierce
The defendant, John Lemont Pierce, indicted for two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, three counts of aggravated assault, and simple assault, entered a guilty plea to one count of aggravated assault. The trial court imposed a fifteen-year sentence to be served consecutively to a prior six-year sentence. In this appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court erred by ordering a maximum sentence of 15 years and requiring consecutive service. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
William Houston v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner was convicted by a Giles County jury for several drug-related offenses and was given an effective sentence of 72 years. In his direct appeal to this Court, his conviction was affirmed, and his sentence was reduced to 46 years. Petitioner then filed a Petition for Post-conviction Relief. The post-conviction court denied the petition. Petitioner appeals the decision of the post-conviction court and argues three issues on appeal: (1) Whether the post-conviction court erred in finding that trial counsel was effective; (2) whether the post-conviction court erred in its decision with respect to the trial judge's presence in the jury room; and (3) whether newly-discovered evidence of officer/witness's wrong doing and character mandates a new trial. We affirm the decision of the post-conviction court. |
Giles | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Barry Ray Long
The Weakley County Grand Jury indicted the defendant for manufacturing not less than .5 ounce or more than 10 pounds of marijuana. The Weakley County Sheriff’s Department found the marijuana pursuant to a search of the defendant’s home based on a search warrant. The sheriff’s department received the search warrant based on information garnered in a non-consensual warrantless search of a portable shed behind the defendant’s home. Due to previous drug-related charges which were later dismissed, the portable shed had been the subject of forfeiture proceedings in 2000. The defendant made no efforts to contest the forfeiture, but the sheriff’s department also made no efforts to remove the portable shed. The defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence found as a result of the search of the portable shed. After a hearing, the trial court denied the motion. The defendant then entered a plea of guilty and purported to reserve this certified question for appeal: Whether or not the search of the storage shed predicated on a search warrant was preceded and based upon a prior warrantless search. Because of the ambiguity of the certified question as presented, we dismiss the appeal. |
Weakley | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Raymon Haymon v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Raymon Haymon, was convicted by a jury in the Dyer County Circuit Court of first degree premeditated murder. Upon conviction, the petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis, alleging that one of the witnesses at his trial had recanted his testimony. The trial court denied the petition, finding that the petitioner failed to produce newly discovered evidence. The petitioner appeals. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Richard Dewayne Jordan
A Rhea County jury convicted the defendant, Richard Dewayne Jordan, of two counts of aggravated sexual battery and one count of incest, for which he received an effective twelve-year sentence. On appeal, the defendant argues: (1) the trial court improperly allowed the state to amend the indictment to charge a different date of commission of the offenses; and (2) the indictment failed to inform him of the charges with sufficient particularity. We remand for correction of a clerical error in the judgment but otherwise affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Rhea | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. George Ratliff
In 1998, the defendant, George E. Ratliff, was convicted of rape of a child, a Class A felony, for raping his six-year-old daughter and was sentenced to twenty-four years in the Department of Correction. He subsequently filed a direct appeal and a petition for writ of error coram nobis based on the victim's recantation of her testimony. The trial court summarily dismissed the petition as untimely, and the defendant appealed. The direct appeal and the error coram nobis appeal were consolidated, and this court reversed the trial court's dismissal of the petition, remanded the matter for a hearing, and stayed the direct appeal pending the trial court's ruling on the error coram nobis petition. See State v. Ratliff, 71 S.W.3d 291, 293 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001), perm. to appeal denied (Tenn. 2002). On remand, the trial court denied the petition, and the defendant appeals. In his direct appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence, in denying his request for individual voir dire of two prospective jurors, and in ruling that the amount of time that lapsed between the victim's complaint and his arrest was irrelevant. Additionally, he argues that his sentence is excessive. Following our review, we affirm the defendant's conviction and sentence and affirm the trial court's denial of the petition for writ of error coram nobis. |
Washington | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Laster
The appellant, Michael B. Laster, entered pleas of no contest in the Sullivan County Criminal Court to theft of property over $1,000, operating a motor vehicle in violation of the Motor Vehicle Habitual Offenders Act, resisting arrest, and felony failure to appear. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the appellant received an effective four year sentence with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. Following a hearing, the trial court denied the appellant's request for alternative sentencing in the form of community corrections, and the appellant timely appealed. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Travis Lamont Williams
The defendant, Travis Lamont Williams, pled guilty in the Knox County Criminal Court to attempted carjacking, a Class C felony; burglary of a vehicle, a Class E felony; and felony vandalism, also a Class E felony. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the defendant received consecutive sentences of six years for the attempted carjacking, two years for the burglary, and one year for the vandalism, for an effective nine-year sentence with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court denied the defendant's request for enhanced probation and ordered that he serve his sentences in the Department of Correction. The defendant appeals, claiming that the trial court erred by sentencing him to confinement. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Roger Staples
The appellant, Roger Murel Staples, was convicted by a jury of possession of more than .5 grams of cocaine with the intent to sell or deliver. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the appellant to nine years as a Range I, Standard Offender. The trial court denied a motion for new trial. In this direct appeal, the appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, his sentence, statements made by the prosecutor during closing argument, and the trial court's decision to admit evidence of activity at the appellant's residence. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Franklin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joy Kennedy
The Defendant, Joy Kennedy, was found guilty by a jury of vehicular homicide, two counts of reckless aggravated assault, and reckless driving. However, the trial court granted the Defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal, concluding that she had established the defense of insanity by clear and convincing evidence. The State appealed on the ground that the trial court erred by granting the Defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal. The sole issue on appeal is whether a reasonable juror could have concluded that the defense of insanity had not been established by clear and convincing evidence. We hold that no reasonable juror could have failed to find that the Defendant was legally insane at the time of the crimes. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Franklin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Mary Murr Turner
The defendant, Mary Murr Turner, pled guilty to accessory after the fact, and the Cocke County trial court sentenced her to one year incarceration as a Range I standard offender. On appeal, the defendant contends the trial court erred in denying probation. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Cocke | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kenneth H. Laws
Defendant, Kenneth H. Laws, was indicted by the Washington County Grand Jury for aggravated assault, a Class C felony, and false imprisonment, a Class A misdemeanor. Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of aggravated assault and acquitted of false imprisonment. Defendant was sentenced to serve ten years in confinement. Defendant appeals, arguing that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction and that his sentence is excessive. After reviewing the record before us, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Washington | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Randy James
The Defendant, Randy James, pled guilty to felony possession of marijuana. As part of his plea agreement, he expressly reserved with the consent of the trial court and the State the right to appeal a certified question of law pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2)(i). The issue before us is whether the trial court erred by not suppressing the fruits of a search where there were alleged false statements in the affidavit supporting the search warrant. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Humphreys | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Brian Douglas Williams
The Appellant, Brian Douglas Williams, appeals the decision of the Madison County Circuit Court revoking his probation. In August 2002, Williams entered “best interest” pleas to stalking, harassment, and aggravated assault and received an effective eight-year sentence. These sentences were suspended, and he was placed on supervised probation. On October 18, 2002, a warrant was issued, alleging that Williams had violated a condition of his probation by contacting the victim. After a hearing, Williams was found to be in violation of his probation, and his original consecutive sentences to the Department of Correction and the County Workhouse were reinstated. On appeal, Williams argues that the evidence fails to establish that he violated his probation. After review, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Hein
The defendant, Christopher Kevan Hein, was charged with the first degree murder of his girlfriend and convicted by a Knox County Criminal Court jury of the lesser-included offense of criminally negligent homicide, a Class E felony. He was sentenced by the trial court as a Range I, standard offender to two years in the Department of Correction, which had already been served by the conclusion of the trial. In this timely filed appeal as of right, he raises the following five issues: (1) whether the trial court erred in precluding the defense from introducing taped statements that an unavailable witness, Thomas Hendrix, made to an undercover informant and to a Tennessee Bureau of Investigation ("TBI") agent in which he described his participation in the burning of the victim's body and stated that the murder was committed by George Cate; (2) whether the trial court erred in precluding the defense from introducing Cate's statements to law enforcement officers; (3) whether the trial court erred in allowing an officer who was not qualified as an expert witness to express his opinion regarding the tendency of suspects during interrogation to minimize their involvement in crimes; (4) whether the trial court erred in precluding the defense from calling an expert witness to rebut the officer's opinion; and (5) whether the trial court erred in allowing the State to present evidence of the defendant's application for food stamps, in contravention of state and federal law. Having reviewed the record and found no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jason Walker
On December 17, 2001, Defendant, Jason D. Walker, entered a guilty plea in the Blount County Circuit Court to statutory rape. Defendant was sentenced as a Range I offender to two years to be suspended on supervised probation. Defendant was ordered, as a condition of his probation, to attend a sex offender treatment program, establish paternity of the child resulting from the offense, and pay child support. A probation violation warrant was issued. Following a revocation hearing, Defendant was sentenced to serve thirty days of his sentence in confinement and the remainder on probation. Additional probation violation warrants were subsequently issued. Following another revocation hearing, the trial court revoked Defendant's probation and ordered that Defendant serve the balance of his original sentence in confinement. Defendant appeals the trial court's revocation of probation. After reviewing the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Venessa Baston v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner appeals the denial of her post-conviction relief petition relating to her guilty plea to felony murder for which she received a life sentence. On appeal, the petitioner contends: (1) she received ineffective assistance of counsel; and (2) her guilty plea was unknowingly and involuntarily entered. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Morgan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Demetrius Currie v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Demetrius Currie, pled guilty in the Tipton County Circuit Court to two counts of especially aggravated robbery and one count of especially aggravated burglary. The petitioner received a total effective sentence of sixteen years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Subsequently, the petitioner filed for post-conviction relief, alleging that because counsel failed to correctly inform him of his release eligibility percentage, counsel was ineffective and the petitioner’s guilty pleas were not knowingly and voluntarily made. After a hearing, the postconviction court denied the petition, and the petitioner appeals. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Tipton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Aaron McFarland v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Aaron McFarland, appeals the judgment of the Shelby County Criminal Court denying his petition for post-conviction relief from his conviction for first degree murder. The petitioner contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Mack A. O'Baner v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Mack A. O’Baner, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of the offense of first degree murder. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. On direct appeal this Court affirmed the convictions. See State v. Mack A. O’Baner, No. W2001-00815-CCA-R3-CD, Shelby County, (filed March 15, 2002, at Jackson). On February 6, 2003, the petitioner filed a post-conviction petition alleging that his due process rights were violated by a jury instruction on second degree murder which failed to specify that second degree murder committed through a “knowing killing of another” was strictly a “result-of-conduct offense.” See State v. Page, 81 S.W.3d 781, 790 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2002). The petition also alleged that his trial and appellate counsel were ineffective in failing to challenge the jury instructions given as being violative of the holding in Page. The trial court summarily dismissed the petition finding inter alia that, because he was convicted of first degree murder the petitioner could not establish prejudice as a result of his claims. After a review of the record and the applicable authorities we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Nathaniel Lee Jackson & Kenneth L. Jones
The appellants, Nathaniel Lee Jackson and Kenneth Juqan Jones, both minors, were tried as adults in a non-jury trial and found guilty of aggravated kidnapping, evading arrest and aggravated robbery. Following a sentencing hearing, each received an effective sentence of twelve years. Both appellants argue that the juvenile court erred in transferring the case to circuit court. Appellant Jackson seeks a determination as to whether the judgment is void due to the failure of the trial court to have a detention hearing. Appellant Jones presents the following additional issues: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient on the charges of aggravated kidnapping and aggravated robbery; and (2) whether the trial court failed to adhere to applicable sentencing guidelines. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the decision of the trial court. |
Lewis | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ronald Dotson
A Shelby County jury convicted the Appellant, Ronald Dotson, of two counts of aggravated robbery. Following a sentencing hearing, Dotson was found to be a repeat violent offender and sentenced to two consecutive sentences of life without parole. On appeal, Dotson argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for continuance based upon (1) the State’s failure to provide pre-trial discovery and (2) the court’s ruling which permitted impeachment under Tennessee Rules of Evidence 609. As a second issue, Dotson argues that the evidence is legally insufficient to support his convictions. Finding no reversible error, the judgments of conviction are affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tony Levelle Ford
The defendant, Tony Levelle Ford, entered guilty pleas to aggravated burglary and conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery. The Blount County trial court ordered the defendant to serve concurrent five-year sentences in confinement as a Range I standard offender. On appeal, the defendant contends his sentences are excessive. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Cornell Marley Hyder
The appellant, Cornell Marley Hyder, also known as Cornbread, was convicted by a jury of one count of rape of a child, one count of rape, one count of aggravated sexual battery, and one count of sexual battery, for which he received an effective seventeen-year sentence. In this direct appeal, the appellant presents the following issues for review: (1) whether the trial court erred in refusing to allow testimony pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Evidence 412; (2) whether the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress; (3) whether the trial court erred in denying the motion for directed verdict; (4) whether the trial court erred in failing to charge the jury on election of offenses; (5) whether the evidence established the venue of the offense on the charge of rape; and (6) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict. We affirm the convictions and sentences, but remand for correction of the judgment forms. |
Trousdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Roy Chisenhall
The appellant, Roy Chisenhall, was convicted by a jury of aggravated sexual battery. After a sentencing hearing, he was sentenced to eight years and nine months and, as recommended by the jury, assessed a $25,000 fine. The trial court denied his motion for new trial. In this direct appeal, the appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, the jury instruction on flight, the jury instruction on aggravated sexual battery, and the absence of a jury instruction on corroboration of accomplice testimony. After a review of the record and applicable authorities, we affirm the decision of the trial court. |
Marion | Court of Criminal Appeals |
