State of Tennessee v. Brandon Ray Roland
Following a jury trial, Defendant, Brandon Ray Roland, was convicted of first degree premeditated murder, first degree felony murder and theft of property over $10,000. The trial court merged the felony murder conviction into the premeditated first degree murder conviction and sentenced Defendant to life imprisonment. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Defendant to three years for the theft conviction and ordered the sentence to run concurrently with the life sentence. In his appeal, Defendant argues that (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction for first degree murder; (2) the trial court erred in not granting a new trial because of improper juror conduct; (3) the trial court erred in not suppressing a letter written by Defendant while in juvenile detention; and (4) the Rhea County Juvenile Court erred in transferring Defendant to stand trial as an adult. Defendant does not appeal his conviction for theft. Following a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Rhea | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John A. Turbyville
The appellant was convicted by a jury of the offense of reckless aggravated assault. He received a sentence of seven years incarceration as a Range II multiple offender convicted of a Class D felony. On appeal the appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict and that the trial court erred in denying him any form of alternative sentencing. Appellate review is available for these two issues despite the fact that the appellant failed to file a timely motion for new trial under Tenn. R. Crim. P. 33(b). However, review of these issues is dependent on either a timely filed notice of appeal, or in the interest of justice, a waiver of the timely filing of a notice appeal. Tenn. R. App. P. 4(a). Because the appellant filed a late motion for a new trial, his notice of appeal is likewise tardy. Neither has the appellant sought a waiver of the timely filing of the notice of appeal. Under these circumstances the appeal is DISMISSED. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Shun D. Jones
The Appellant, Shun D. Jones, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of two counts of rape and was sentenced to twenty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support the verdict. After review, we find no error and affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ronald W. Rice v. David Mills, Warden
The petitioner, Ronald W. Rice, filed in the Morgan County Criminal Court ("the habeas court") for habeas corpus relief, alleging that he received an illegal sentence for his conviction for an aggravated rape which occurred in 1983. The habeas court granted the petitioner relief. On appeal, the State contends that the habeas court erred in finding that the petitioner was entitled to relief. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we reverse the judgment of the Morgan County Criminal Court, reinstate the petitioner's aggravated rape conviction, and remand to the Williamson County Criminal Court ("the convicting court") for correction of the judgment of conviction. |
Morgan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Barry Winfred Ritchie v. State of Tennessee
In a series of steps designed to challenge his 1981 convictions for armed robbery and aggravated rape, Petitioner, Barry Winfred Ritchie, filed various pro se motions including (1) a motion for post-conviction relief and/or writ of error coram nobis, (2) a motion for relief of judgment pursuant to Rule 60.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, (3) a petition for common law writ of certiorari, and (4) a motion to quash the indictments and correct an illegal sentence. All pleadings are predicated on the same allegation that the Hamilton County Criminal Court lacked territorial jurisdiction to try and convict Petitioner of the charged offenses. Following a careful review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Howard B. Higley
A Hamilton County jury convicted the Defendant of driving under the influence (DUI), second offense. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to the following: "11 months, 29 days suspended after 6 months day for day (11 months, 29 days suspended probation after the 6 months)." The trial court also revoked the Defendant's driver's license for two years, ordered the Defendant to pay a $610 fine, and ordered the Defendant to avoid alcohol throughout the probation period. In addition, the trial court imposed twenty days of community service to be completed within one year. The Defendant now appeals, arguing the following: 1) that the trial court erred by denying the Defendant's motion to suppress the results of a breathalyser test, 2) that the trial court erred by limiting the testimony of the Defendant's accident re-construction expert's testimony about the Tennessee Department of Transportation's statistics regarding traffic accidents that occurred at the intersection in question, and 3) that the trial court abused its discretion by sentencing the Defendant to a sentence in excess of the maximum sentence available by statute for a DUI second offense. Finding no reversible error as concerns the conviction, we affirm the conviction. We vacate the sentence and remand for entry of an amended judgment. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Vernon Elkins, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner appeals the denial of post-conviction relief after his second degree murder conviction and argues his trial counsel (1) deprived him of his right to testify, and (2) failed to effectively represent him at trial. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Cannon | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kevin Scott Olmstead
The defendant, Kevin Scott Olmstead, pled guilty to two counts of aggravated assault. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed two consecutive five-year sentences. On appeal, the defendant contends his sentences are excessive. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Stephanie C. Hadley
The defendant pled guilty to felony failure to appear. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a one-year sentence with ninety days of incarceration followed by probation. The defendant appeals the denial of full probation. We affirm the judgment of the trial court but remand for correction of a clerical error in the judgment. |
Dickson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Bobby Holt, Jr.
The defendant, Bobby Holt, Jr., pled guilty to one count of aggravated burglary, four counts of burglary, three counts of theft over $1000, and one count of theft under $500. The trial court imposed sentences of five years for aggravated burglary, three years on each count of burglary, three years on each count of theft over $1000, and eleven months and twenty-nine days for theft under $500. The sentences were ordered to be served concurrently, for an effective, Range I sentence of five years. In this appeal, the defendant asserts that (1) the trial court erred in the application of enhancement and mitigating factors and (2) that the trial court erred by denying an alternative sentence. The judgments of the trial court are affirmed. |
Hardin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Steven Paul Deskins
A Davidson County jury convicted the defendant, Steven Paul Deskins, of seven counts of rape of a child and four counts of aggravated sexual battery. The trial court imposed an effective seventy-year sentence. In this appeal, the defendant challenges: (1) the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions; (2) the admissibility of evidence indicating the defendant married his wife when she was seventeen years old; (3) the admissibility of evidence regarding statements the defendant made to his wife during sexual intercourse which were similar to statements allegedly made to the victim; and (4) the imposition of consecutive sentences for three of the convictions. We reverse one of the aggravated sexual battery convictions as being in violation of due process and double jeopardy. Otherwise, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Matthew Bruce Henderson v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Matthew Bruce Henderson, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The petitioner originally entered best interest guilty pleas to two counts each of rape of a child, aggravated sexual battery, and statutory rape, and received an effective sentence of twenty-four years. On appeal, the petitioner contends (1) he received ineffective assistance of counsel in entering his pleas; (2) the trial court erred in failing to hold a competency hearing prior to accepting his pleas; and (3) his guilty pleas were not knowingly and voluntarily entered. Upon review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Salvatore Morani
The defendant, Michael Salvatore Morani, was convicted of one count of attempted first degree murder and one count of theft over $10,000. The trial court imposed consecutive Range I, standard sentences of twenty-three years and five years respectively. The defendant was fined a total of $60,000. In this appeal of right, the defendant contends that the twenty-three-year sentence for attempted murder is excessive and that the trial court erred by imposing the maximum fines on each count. The judgments are affirmed. |
Cumberland | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Carlos Caudill
Defendant, Carlos Caudill, was indicted by the Claiborne County Grand Jury for second degree murder. On December 18, 2001, Defendant entered a guilty plea as a Range II multiple offender to voluntary manslaughter, with the length and manner of service of his sentence to be determined by the trial court. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Defendant to nine years imprisonment. Defendant appeals the length and manner of service of his sentence. We find no error and affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Claiborne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Thomas Mitchell
Defendant, Thomas Mitchell, was indicted by the Shelby County Grand Jury for burglary of a building other than a habitation, a Class D felony. Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted as charged and sentenced as a persistent offender to ten years and six months confinement. In this appeal as of right, Defendant presents a single issue, whether the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of facilitation. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Thomas D. Smith v. State of Tennessee
The state appeals the Robertson County Circuit Court's granting of post-conviction relief to the petitioner, Thomas D. Smith. The state contends the post-conviction court erred in granting relief based upon the original trial court's failure to reduce to writing its answer to a jury question posed during deliberations at the petitioner's trial. Upon review of the record and the applicable law, we reverse the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Robertson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Dedrick Patton v. State
|
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jimmy Wayne Perkey
The defendant, Jimmy Wayne Perkey, pled guilty to aggravated vehicular homicide. The trial court subsequently sentenced the defendant to serve twenty-five years as a Range I standard offender and ordered the defendant to pay a $50,000 fine. The defendant brings the instant appeal challenging his sentence and the imposition of his fine. After reviewing the record, we find that none of the defendant's claims merit relief. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Melissa Lee Sholtz
The appellant, Melissa Lee Sholtz, pled guilty in the Hamilton County Criminal Court to one count of telephone harassment, a Class A misdemeanor. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the appellant was sentenced to eleven months and twenty-nine days in the county workhouse, with the sentence to be suspended and served on unsupervised probation. As a condition of probation, the appellant was ordered to have no contact with the victim. The trial court subsequently revoked the appellant's probation after finding that the appellant had violated the terms of probation by having contact with the victim. On appeal, the appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking her probation. Upon review of the record and the parties' brief, we reverse the judgment of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Darlene Renee Blackhurst
On January 10, 2000, defendant, Darlene Renee Blackhurst, pled guilty to a second offense of driving under the influence of an intoxicant ("DUI"), leaving the scene of an accident involving injury, and three counts of reckless aggravated assault. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed an effective sentence of three years, eleven months and twenty-nine days and ordered the sentence to be served on intensive supervised probation following a mandatory forty-five days in confinement for the DUI second offense. The State appealed the trial court's grant of full probation. After a de novo review, this Court reversed the trial court's judgment regarding the manner of service of defendant's sentence and remanded the matter to the trial court for the limited purpose of determining whether defendant should be incarcerated for the full term of her sentence, or, in the alternative, whether she should serve the balance of her sentence in split confinement. We directed the trial court to base its sentencing determination as to the manner of service of defendant's sentence on the current record without a further evidentiary hearing. State v. Blackhurst, 70 S.W.3d 88 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001). On remand, the trial court found that defendant was not entitled to alternative sentencing and ordered defendant to serve her sentence in confinement. Defendant now appeals her sentence arguing that (1) the trial court erred in denying defendant's request for alternative sentencing; (2) the trial court erred in not considering additional evidence concerning defendant's post-sentencing behavior; (3) that the trial court erred in not allowing defendant credit for the time served on probation prior to resentencing; and (4) that the trial court improperly weighed the applicable mitigating and enhancement factors in determining the manner of service of defendant's sentence. After a thorough review of the record in this matter, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Timothy Clayton Thompson
Defendant, Timothy Clayton Thompson, pled guilty to one count of especially aggravated kidnapping, a Class A felony, and one count of aggravated rape, a Class A felony, without a recommendation from the State as to sentencing. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Defendant to twenty-two years for each felony count and ordered the sentences to run consecutively. Defendant now appeals the length of his sentence and the trial court's imposition of consecutive sentences. After a careful review of the record in this matter, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ronald C. Floyd
The defendant, Ronald C. Floyd, pled guilty to possession of Diazepam, a Schedule IV controlled substance, with the intent to sell or deliver, a Class D felony. Pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37, the defendant reserved as a certified question of law the issue of whether the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress. In this appeal, the issues presented are: (1) whether the failure to provide the defendant with a copy of the search warrant at or before the initiation of the search invalidated the search, and (2) whether the description of the property to be seized as stated in the warrant was so general as to render the warrant invalid. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Cumberland | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Brandy D. Forrest
A Davidson County jury convicted the defendant, Brandy D. Forrest, of driving under the influence, first offense. The trial court imposed a sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days with twenty days incarceration followed by probation. On appeal, the defendant asserts the trial court erred by allowing irrelevant and prejudicial testimony and a videotape to be presented to the jury. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Mark Howard Russell
Defendant, Mark Howard Russell, was indicted by the Hamilton County Grand Jury for the following misdemeanor offenses: possession of cocaine, possession of methamphetamine, possession of drug paraphernalia, and operation of a motor vehicle without properly operating stop lights. Defendant sought to suppress evidence seized by a police officer during a traffic stop. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied Defendant's motion to suppress evidence. Defendant subsequently entered guilty pleas to three of the four counts. Defendant did not plead guilty to possession of methamphetamine. The charge was dismissed because the laboratory report was negative for that substance. Defendant reserved the right to appeal, pursuant to Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2), the issue of whether the warrantless search was constitutional. We conclude that Defendant's Fourth Amendment rights were not violated and affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Walter Sanchez, Jr.
The appellant, Walter Sanchez, Jr., pled guilty to violating an order declaring him to be an habitual motor vehicle offender. The plea agreement provided that the appellant would receive a sentence of two years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction and pay a $500.00 fine. The manner of service of the sentence was to be determined by the trial court. On appeal, the appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying him probation or some other form of alternative sentencing. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals |
