State of Tennessee v. Eric T. Armstrong
The appellant, Eric T. Armstrong, was convicted by a jury in the Williamson County Circuit Court of aggravated robbery and especially aggravated kidnapping. Following a hearing, the trial court sentenced the appellant to an effective sixteen year sentence in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, the denial of the motion to suppress Lara Carter's identification of the appellant, the constitutionality of the jury venire, and his conviction of especially aggravated kidnapping under State v. Anthony, 817 S.W.2d 299 (Tenn. 1991). Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Carter Masters
The defendant, Carter Masters, was convicted by a jury of two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, aggravated burglary, and aggravated assault. The trial court imposed concurrent sentences of twenty years for each kidnapping, four years for the burglary, and three years for the aggravated assault. In this appeal of right, the defendant asserts that he was denied due process because the mental health expert retained by trial counsel was incompetent. In the alternative, he argues that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to select a competent psychologist. The defendant also asserts that his due process rights were offended by the state's cross-examination of the defense psychologist. The judgments of the trial court are affirmed. |
Overton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Salvatore Brunetti
The defendant, Salvatore Brunetti, was convicted of voluntary manslaughter. The trial court imposed a sentence of five years in the Department of Correction. In this appeal, the defendant asserts that the trial court erred by denying an alternative sentence. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Dickson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Robert L. Drew v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Robert L. Drew, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The issue is whether he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. The judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jamie Crawford
Following a revocation hearing, the trial court revoked the probation of Defendant, Jamie Michelle Crawford, and ordered her to serve the remainder of her sentence in confinement. Defendant does not appeal the revocation of her probation but argues that the trial court erred in not imposing a sentence of split confinement. After a thorough review of the record in this matter, we affirm the judgment of the trial court revoking probation and ordering Defendant to serve her sentence in confinement. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jerry Dickerson v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Jerry W. Dickerson, appeals from the trial court's dismissal of his pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner alleges that his conviction and sentence are void because the trial record was improperly authenticated and contained inaccuracies. Following a review of the record in this matter, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Johnson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Billy Gene Rich
The Appellant, Billy Gene Rich, was convicted of driving under the influence (DUI), second offense, and was sentenced to serve eleven months and twenty-nine days in jail. On appeal, Rich argues that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction and (2) his sentence is excessive. After review, the conviction and sentence are affirmed. |
Chester | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. David Hester
The defendant, David Hester, pled guilty to statutory rape. The trial court imposed a one-year sentence to be served on supervised probation and directed community service. In this appeal, he asserts that the trial court erred by denying judicial diversion. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Sevier | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
David Hartsell v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, David Johnson Hartsell, appeals the order of the Circuit Court for Washington County dismissing his post-conviction relief petition. 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 present a cognizable claim for relief. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Washington | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Donald Keel
The Appellant, Donald Keel, was convicted in the Gibson County Circuit Court of aggravated |
Gibson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Timerell Nelson
The Appellant, Timerell Nelson, appeals the verdict of a Shelby County jury finding him guilty of first degree felony murder. On appeal, Nelson raises the single issue of whether the evidence is sufficient to support his conviction. After review, we find the evidence to be more than sufficient. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Darrell Sanderlin
The Appellant, Darrell Sanderlin, appeals from the sentencing decision of the Haywood County Circuit Court. Sanderlin pled guilty to one count of child abuse of his six-year-old son, a class D felony. Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, he was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender, with the length and manner of service to be determined by the trial court. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a sentence of four years incarceration. On appeal, Sanderlin argues that the trial court erred by ordering a sentence of total confinement rather than a less restrictive alternative. After review, the sentencing decision is affirmed. |
Haywood | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Matthew Moates v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Matthew L. Moates, appeals the Monroe County Criminal Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his conviction for aggravated robbery and resulting sixteen-year sentence. He claims (1) that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to call witnesses to testify at trial about the length of his hair at the time of the robbery, (2) that the state improperly struck an African-American juror from the jury, (3) that he is entitled to a new trial because he was not present during a conference in which the state and his trial attorney discussed the African-American juror's dismissal, and (4) that a state witness improperly communicated with a juror during his trial. We affirm the trial court's denial of the petition. |
Monroe | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Anthony Carter
The defendant, Anthony Lebron Carter, appeals the revocation of his probation. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ronald Killebrew
The Appellant, Ronald Killebrew, was convicted of being a felon in possession of a handgun, a class E felony, following a jury trial. The trial court sentenced Killebrew, as a Range II multiple offender, to three years and six months in the Shelby County Workhouse. On appeal, Killebrew raises the single issue of whether the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict. After review of the record, we affirm the conviction. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Sedley Alley v. State of Tennessee
In 1985, Petitioner, Sedley Alley, was convicted of the crimes of aggravated rape, kidnapping, and first degree murder. The jury fixed his punishment at death for first degree murder and the trial court imposed consecutive forty-year sentences for kidnapping and aggravated rape. Petitioner Alley filed a petition to compel testing of evidence under the Post-Conviction DNA Analysis Act of 2001. The post-conviction court denied the petition, and Petitioner Alley timely appealed. This Court expedited review of this matter. Upon review of the record and the responses by both parties, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Brian Keith Jackson
The Defendant, Brian Keith Jackson, was found guilty by a jury of second degree murder. In this direct appeal, he argues (1) that the trial court erred by refusing to play a pornographic video tape for the jury after it was admitted into evidence, and (2) that the evidence is legally insufficient to sustain his conviction. Although the trial court did err by not playing the video in front of the jury, the error was harmless. Furthermore, because the evidence is sufficient to sustain the defendant's conviction, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Daniel Wade Wilson
The defendant, Daniel Wade Wilson, appeals as of right from his convictions by a jury in the Sullivan County Criminal Court for first degree felony murder and especially aggravated robbery, a Class A felony. The trial court sentenced the defendant to consecutive sentences of life in prison for the first degree felony murder conviction and twenty-three years for the especially aggravated robbery conviction. He contends that the evidence is insufficient to convict him of felony murder or especially aggravated robbery and that the trial court erred by ordering consecutive sentences. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Herbert Russell Johnson, Alias
The defendant, Herbert Russell Johnson, appeals the revocation of his probation, arguing that the trial court erred in failing to consider further alternatives to incarceration before revoking his probation and ordering the reinstatement of his original sentence. Because the record reveals there was substantial evidence in support of the trial court's decision, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Marcus W. Keener v. State of Tennessee
The Defendant, Marcus W. Keener, petitioned for post-conviction relief from his jury-trial conviction of second degree murder, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court denied relief after an evidentiary hearing. The defendant now appeals. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Lawrence | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Fred Allen Owens
The Defendant, Fred Allen Owens, was convicted by a jury of second degree murder. The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range II multiple offender to thirty-five years in the Department of Correction. In this direct appeal, the Defendant challenges several of the trial court's evidentiary rulings and also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Danny Avery Stewart and Dorothy Ann Stewart
The defendants, Danny Avery Stewart and Dorothy Ann Stewart, pled guilty to numerous drug charges and received effective sentences of thirty-one years and forty-two years, respectively. Their only contention on appeal is that their sentences are excessive because the trial court erred in the application of several enhancement factors. We conclude that the defendants have failed to show that the trial court erred in sentencing. The judgments of the trial court are affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Raymond R. Kennebrew v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Raymond R. Kennebrew, appeals the denial of post-conviction relief. In this appeal of right, the petitioner asserts (1) that his pleas were neither knowingly nor voluntarily entered and (2) that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. The judgment is affirmed. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Donald Terry Moore v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Donald Terry Moore, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. In this appeal, he asserts that (1) he did not receive the effective assistance of counsel and (2) the post-conviction court erred by denying his motion to re-open the petition after the close of proof. The judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Marvin Anthony Matthews, pro se v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Marvin Anthony Matthews, appeals the trial court's summary 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 for post-conviction relief is barred by the statute of limitations. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals |
