Larry D. Upshaw v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his second degree murder conviction, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in finding that his trial counsel provided effective assistance at trial and on appeal. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Terrance L. Turner and Jermaine Montez Bradford v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner Terrance L. Turner was convicted in the Davidson County Criminal Court of two counts of attempted second degree murder and one count of especially aggravated kidnapping. Turner received a total effective sentence of twenty-eight years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Subsequently, Turner filed for post-conviction relief, alleging that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. Petitioner Jermaine Montez Bradford was convicted of especially aggravated kidnapping and was sentenced to twenty-three years incarceration. Thereafter, Bradford filed for post-conviction relief, alleging that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel because counsel denied him the right to testify at trial. The post-conviction court denied both petitions and the petitioners timely appealed. Upon our review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgments of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James Peck v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner appeals the lower court's denial of his post-conviction relief petition. The petitioner entered a plea of nolo contendere to aggravated assault as a Range II offender, for which he was sentenced to ten years' incarceration at 35 percent. He contends on appeal that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to properly investigate his case and that his plea was entered involuntarily. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Sparkle David Munsey v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Sparkle David Munsey, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. In this appeal, he contends that (1) he did not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waive his right to counsel and (2) his sentence should be vacated because the trial court failed to advise him of his right to appeal pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(A)(2). The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Claiborne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ernest B. Eady v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Ernest B. Eady, was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to confinement for twenty years. His conviction and sentence were affirmed by this court and application for permission to appeal was denied by the supreme court. He filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that trial counsel was ineffective for not raising as an issue on appeal that the jury had not been properly instructed as to murder second degree. Following a hearing, the post-conviction court granted the petition, and the State appealed. We reverse the order of the post-conviction court and remand for an order dismissing the petition for post-conviction relief. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Daniel Andrew Decker
The defendant, Daniel Andrew Decker, appeals the trial court's order removing Assistant District Public Defender Karla Gothard as his counsel. Because the trial court did not abuse its discretionary authority, the judgment is affirmed. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Daniel Andrew Decker - Dissenting
I respectfully dissent. I do not believe the record justifies removing counsel from representing the defendant. I see no design or scheme in place by which Ms. Gothard sought to thwart justice or its proper administration. Nor do I view the case as one by which she made material misrepresentations or disobeyed trial court orders. Rather, I find material discrepancies between the trial court’s findings, upon which the majority opinion is based, and the transcript of trial court proceedings. For example, the majority opinion specifies counsel’s failing to comply with the trial court’s “directive” to have her expert witness in court to support her request for a continuance. However, the trial court did not order counsel to produce the expert nor did counsel defy any such order. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Dale Walker
The defendant, James Dale Walker, pled guilty in the Blount County Circuit Court to aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor, a Class C felony, and sexual exploitation of a minor, a Class E felony. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the defendant received concurrent sentences of six and two years, respectively, as a Range I, standard offender. The manner of service of the sentences was to be determined by the trial court. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered that the defendant serve his sentences in total confinement. On appeal, this court reversed and remanded, ordering that the trial court reconsider a sentencing alternative to confinement in the Department of Correction (DOC). See State v. James Dale Walker, No. E2002-00263-CCA-R3-CD, Blount County (Tenn. Crim. App. Oct. 18, 2002). After a second sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered that the defendant serve six months in confinement and the remainder of his sentences on supervised probation. The defendant appeals, claiming that he should have received full probation. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jay Chambers
The defendant, Jay Chambers, was convicted of one count of rape. The trial court imposed a Range I sentence of ten years. In this appeal, the defendant asserts that a former sheriff's deputy should not have been permitted to sit as a juror; that the trial court erred by permitting members of the jury to separate during a break; and that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. Because the defendant's motion for new trial was untimely and the issues, even if meritorious, would not warrant a dismissal of the charge, the interests of justice do not require waiver of the timely filing of the notice of appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. |
Scott | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jay Chambers - Concurring
I concur in the results reached in the majority opinion. I believe, however, that the failure to file a motion for new trial does not foreclose our acting on plain error which affects substantial rights of the defendant. See Tenn. R. Crim. P. 52(b). For example, courts have reversed convictions and granted new trials based upon plain error because of the failure to instruct on lesser included offenses even though the issue was not preserved by the motion for a new trial. See, e.g., State v. Terry, 118 S.W.3d 355 (Tenn. 2003); State v. Walter Wilson, W2001-01463-CCA-R3-CD, Shelby County (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 4, 2002); State v. Jason Thomas Beeler, W1999-01417-CCA-R3-CD, Obion County (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 22, 2000). Thus, we should not necessarily limit our consideration to whether the defendant’s claims would result in dismissal. |
Scott | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. David C. Beats
The defendant, David C. Beats, was convicted of theft over $10,000.00 and received a ten-year suspended sentence. After a positive drug screen, the trial court revoked probation and ordered service of the original sentence. In this appeal of right, the defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his probation. The judgment is affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Gabriel Antonio Clark v. State of Tennessee
Gabriel Antonio Clark appeals from the Madison County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Wilbur Deck, Jr.
A Dickson County jury convicted the Defendant, Wilbur Leon Deck, Jr., of Driving Under the Influence of an Intoxicant ("DUI"), second offense. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to eleven months and twenty-nine days in the county jail, which it suspended after the Defendant served ninety days in jail. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it failed to dismiss the presentment because the caption of the presentment stated the incorrect term of the grand jury. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the trial court's judgment. |
Dickson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Thomas Brandon Booker v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner appeals the Hardin County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief in which he alleged (1) ineffective assistance of counsel, and (2) due process violations as to the jury venire. We conclude that the petitioner was not denied the effective assistance of counsel, and the petitioner’s other claims have been waived. We affirm the denial of post-conviction relief. |
Hardin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Dexter Lineberry
The defendant, Dexter Lineberry, was convicted by a Wayne County jury of assault, a Class B misdemeanor, and evading arrest, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced the defendant to six months with all but ninety days suspended for the assault conviction, and eleven months and twenty-nine days with all but ninety days suspended for the evading arrest charge, with the sentences to be served concurrently. In this appeal as of right, the defendant presents two issues: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to support the defendant's conviction for assault; and (2) whether the ninety-day jail sentence was appropriate. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Wayne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Thomas Edward Reddick v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Thomas Edward Reddick, pled guilty in the Knox County Criminal Court to second degree murder and received a sentence of twenty-eight years imprisonment in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which petition the post-conviction court dismissed for failure to state a colorable claim for relief. The petitioner appealed. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we dismiss the petitioner's appeal as being untimely. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Marquez Crenshaw v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Marquez Crenshaw, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his five especially aggravated kidnapping convictions, his especially aggravated robbery conviction, and his aggravated burglary conviction and resulting effective sentence of twenty-seven years. He claims he received the ineffective assistance of counsel, primarily regarding the failure to present alibi evidence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Curtis E. Duke v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Curtis E. Duke, was convicted of two counts of the sale of crack cocaine, one count of possession of crack cocaine with the intent to sell, two counts of criminal impersonation, and one count of failure to appear. As a result, he was sentenced to 39 years in the Department of Correction. See State v. Curtis Emery Duke, No. M2000-00350-CCA-R3-CD, 2001 WL 252080 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville, Mar. 14, 2001), perm. to appeal denied (Tenn. Mar. 27, 2001). In this pro se post-conviction petition, the petitioner presents the following issues for our review: (1) whether the trial court erred in finding that the petitioner waived the amendment of the indictment regarding variance; (2) whether the trial court erred in ruling that the petitioner's convictions were not obtained in violation of double jeopardy; (3) whether the trial court erred in sentencing the petitioner; and (4) whether the petitioner received effective assistance of counsel. Because the first three issues should have been addressed on direct appeal, we conclude that they are waived. Further, petitioner received the effective assistance of counsel. We therefore affirm the trial court's dismissal of the post-conviction petition. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Marc Adolph Lewin
The appellant, Marc Adolph Lewin, pled guilty to obtaining a controlled substance by fraud, for which he received an eight-year suspended sentence. He was ordered to serve eight years of supervised probation with the conditions that the probation be supervised for a minimum of four years, completion of three hundred hours of public service work, and payment of costs on a schedule prepared by a probation officer. After the issuance of a probation violation warrant based on the appellant's failure of a drug screen, the appellant was ordered to serve his sentence in incarceration. He appeals the revocation of probation arguing that the trial court erred by basing its decision on allegations that were not supported by the evidence and an unsubstantiated laboratory report. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Charles Crenshaw, pro se., v. State of Tennessee
This matter is before the Court upon the State’s motion to affirm the judgment of the trial court |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Reginald D. Hughes, pro se., v. David Mills, 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. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael W. Maples
A Blount County Circuit Court jury convicted the defendant, Michael W. Maples, of two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, a Class A felony. The trial court sentenced him to concurrent twenty-five-year sentences for the two convictions. In this appeal, the defendant claims (1) that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions and (2) that his sentences are excessive. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James Howard Davis v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant, James Howard Davis, appeals the Benton County Circuit Court’s dismissal of his |
Benton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Craig Stephen Bourne v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Craig Stephen Bourne, appeals the Sullivan County Circuit Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for especially aggravated kidnapping, attempted second degree murder, and aggravated burglary and effective thirty-two-year sentence. The petitioner claims that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorneys (1) failed to raise the issue of double jeopardy; (2) failed to raise the issue of the trial court's interference during plea negotiations; (3) failed to raise the issue that the trial court gave the jury inaccurate instructions on release eligibility dates; (4) failed to challenge a jury instruction on a crime that was not included in the indictment in his motion for a new trial; and (5) failed, in the petitioner's motion for a new trial, to challenge the trial court's denial of trial counsel's motion to withdraw before trial. We affirm the trial court's denial of the petition. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Eddie Howard Pittman v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Eddie Howard Pittman, appeals from a judgment denying post-conviction relief. As grounds for a new trial, the petitioner asserts that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial and that there was error in the instructions to the jury. The judgment is affirmed. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals |
