Jeffrey Whitaker v. State of Tennessee
Aggrieved that the lower court denied post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing, the petitioner, Jeffrey Whitaker, appeals and claims that his convictions resulted from the ineffective assistance of counsel and involuntary guilty pleas. We affirm the denial of post-conviction relief. |
Roane | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Romey Stone
The Appellant, Romey Stone, appeals the decision of the Grainger County Circuit Court revoking his placement in the community corrections program and ordering service of his original sentences in the Department of Correction. On appeal, Stone argues that: (1) the trial court abused its discretion by relying on unreliable evidence in revoking his community corrections sentences, and (2) he was denied due process based upon the lack of a "neutral and detached" fact-finder. After review, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Grainger | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Debiasi Sirnard King
The defendant was convicted by a jury of second degree murder and was sentenced to twenty-two years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The defendant brings this appeal and contends the following: (1) The participation of a special prosecutor, hired by the victim's family, is a violation of the defendant's constitutional rights; (2) The trial court erroneously denied defense counsel the opportunity to cross-examine the driver of the vehicle containing the victim, Fernando Hawkins; (3) The trial court failed to give a curative instruction after Detective Hawkins stated that he obtained a warrant for first degree murder of the defendant; (4) The trial court failed to charge the jury on the lesser included offense of facilitation of second degree murder; and (5) The trial court erroneously sentenced the defendant to twenty-two years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. We conclude the trial court did not err and affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Bobby Blackmon
The appellant, Bobby Blackmon, appeals from the lower court's denial of his motion to modify and correct an illegal sentence or in the alternative petition for the writ of habeas corpus. Finding no error in the summary dismissal of the appellant's motion or petition, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Stephen Massey, a/k/a Stephania
The appellant, Stephen Massey, was convicted by a jury in the Giles County Circuit Court of two counts of selling less than .5 grams of crack cocaine, Class C felonies, and three counts of selling .5 grams or more of crack cocaine, Class B felonies. The trial court sentenced the appellant as a Range II multiple offender to an effective sentence of eighteen years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant contends that (1) the trial court erred in denying the appellant's motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds, (2) the trial court erred in denying the appellant's motion to sever, (3) the trial court erred in allowing the State to exclude two African-Americans from the jury based on their race, and (4) the sentences imposed by the trial court were excessive. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Giles | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Steve E. Todd v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Steve E. Todd, pled guilty in 1994 to two counts of rape of a child, receiving concurrent twenty-three-year sentences as a Range I offender. He filed a post-conviction petition in 1995 alleging, inter alia, that at the time of his pleas of guilty he had not understood that his sentences would be served without the possibility of parole. Counsel, appointed to represent him, filed an amended petition, which the post-conviction court dismissed following an evidentiary hearing. This court reversed the dismissal and remanded the matter for additional findings to be made. Following the remand, the post-conviction court granted the petition, concluding that the guilty pleas had not been knowing. The State appealed and, following our review, we reverse the order of the post-conviction court and remand this matter for another evidentiary hearing. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Brandon Ronald Crabtree
Following a jury trial, Defendant, Brandon Ronald Crabtree, was found guilty of (1) selling marijuana, a Schedule VI controlled substance in an amount of not less than one-half ounce nor more than ten pounds, a Class E felony, and (2) selling a counterfeit controlled substance, a Class E felony. After a sentencing hearing, Defendant was sentenced to two years for each conviction, and the trial court ordered the sentences to be served consecutively. The trial court also determined at the sentencing hearing that Defendant was then (or at that time) on probation for a prior conviction and that Defendant was in violation of that probation. The trial court revoked Defendant's probation and ordered the original sentence of eighteen months to run consecutively to the sentences imposed for the two felony convictions for an effective sentence of five and one-half years. In his appeal, Defendant does not contest his conviction for selling a Schedule VI controlled substance. However, Defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction for the sale of a counterfeit controlled substance. Defendant also challenges the length of his sentences arguing that the trial court failed to follow the principles of the Tennessee Criminal Sentencing Reform Act of 1989 and failed to properly weigh mitigating and enhancing factors. After a careful review of the record, we affirm Defendant's conviction for the sale of a counterfeit controlled substance and affirm the trial court's judgments as to Defendant's sentences. |
Wilson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
William Andrew Dixon v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, William Andrew Dixon, was convicted in 1981 of kidnapping for ransom and sentenced by the jury to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Subsequently, he filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, and our supreme court determined that his sentence was void, remanding for resentencing and concluding that he should have been sentenced to life with the possibility of parole. On remand, the trial court sentenced the petitioner to life with parole, and he appealed the resentencing, arguing that only a jury could impose the sentence. We conclude that the directive of our supreme court was that the punishment should be life with the possibility of parole and that the court could set this punishment. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Dickson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Clorie L. Jackson
The Defendant, Clorie L. Jackson, was convicted by a jury of forgery and money laundering. The trial court subsequently merged the forgery conviction into the money laundering conviction,1 and sentenced the Defendant to nineteen years in the Department of Correction. In this direct appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence in support of the money laundering conviction, as well as the trial court’s jury instructions on that offense. Because we find the evidence insufficient to support the money laundering conviction, we reverse that conviction and dismiss the charge. The conviction for forgery is reinstated. The case is remanded to the trial court for sentencing on the forgery conviction. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jamie Lou Haneline
The Defendant, Jamie Lou Haneline, was convicted by a jury of one count of rape of a child. Following a sentencing hearing, he was sentenced to thirty-eight years in the Department of Correction. In this direct appeal, the Defendant raises three issues: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to support his conviction; (2) whether the trial court erred by admitting the testimony of a police officer regarding a statement made by the Defendant; and (3) whether the trial court erred by enhancing the Defendant’s sentence based upon the offense having been committed to gratify the Defendant’s desire for pleasure or excitement. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Decatur | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Charles Roy Cole v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Charles Roy Cole, filed a petition for post-conviction relief in the Circuit Court of Madison County. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court dismissed the petition. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Quincy L. Goodine v. State of Tennessee
In September 1998, the Petitioner pled guilty to attempted rape, three counts of reckless endangerment, three counts of forgery, and three counts of theft of property. The trial court sentenced the Petitioner to an effective sentence of nine years, with eleven months and twenty-nine days of confinement followed by eight years of probation. The Petitioner served approximately six months of his sentence in jail and was released on probation. In December 1999, the trial court revoked the Petitioner's probation on seven of the ten felony charges based upon the Petitioner's acquisition of new charges, failure to pay restitution, failure to attend counseling, and violation of curfew. The Petitioner did not appeal the trial court's revocation of his probation. In September 2002, the Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief. The post-conviction court dismissed the petition without a hearing, and this appeal ensued. Concluding that the Petitioner has failed to state a proper claim for post-conviction relief and that the post-conviction petition is barred by the applicable statute of limitations, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tim William Strickland
The Defendant was indicted for one count of rape of a child and for two counts of child abuse and neglect. A jury convicted the Defendant of all three counts. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the Defendant to twenty-five years for rape of a child and to four years for each count of child abuse. The trial court ordered that the sentences run concurrently for an effective sentence of twenty-five years. The Defendant now appeals, arguing the following: (1) that insufficient evidence was presented to convict him of the charged offenses, (2) that the trial court erred by admitting a note found at the scene and attributing it to the Defendant, and (3) that the trial court erred in sentencing the Defendant. Finding no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Sevier | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Brandon Charles Cain
The Defendant, Brandon Charles Cain, was convicted by a jury of attempted first degree murder, a Class A felony. In this direct appeal, the Defendant raises two evidentiary issues: (1) whether the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress statements he gave to law enforcement officers; and (2) whether the trial court erred by allowing the State to show the jury a videotape in which the victim's injuries were depicted. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Rita Ellis
The Defendant, Rita Ellis, was convicted upon a jury verdict of theft under the value of five hundred dollars, a Class A misdemeanor. She was sentenced to eleven months and twenty-nine days in the county jail, but her sentence was suspended, and she was placed on probation. She was fined two hundred and fifty dollars. The Defendant presents two issues for review, which she states as follows: (1) failure of counsel to request recording of proceedings denied right of effective appeal; and (2) appellant denied ability to properly argue that verdict was against the weight of the evidence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Monroe | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Katherine White Byrd
The Defendant, Kathryn L. Byrd, was convicted by a jury of one count of theft over $1,000. The trial court subsequently sentenced the Defendant to four years in the Department of Correction, to be served consecutively to a previous sentence. The Defendant now appeals, contesting the sufficiency of the evidence; claiming reversible error because the State was not required to elect the offense for which it was seeking a conviction; and contesting the trial judge's order of consecutive sentencing. We affirm the Defendant's conviction. We reverse the imposition of consecutive sentences and order the Defendant's sentences to run concurrently. |
Washington | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Carvin Lamont Thomas
|
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Carvin Lamont Thomas - Dissenting
|
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Robert Tyler Haynes
In this direct appeal, the defendant argues the trial court erred in revoking his probation and requiring him to serve his four-year sentence in the Department of Correction. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Theron Davis
The defendant was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of especially aggravated robbery and criminal attempt to commit second degree murder for his role with a codefendant in robbing and shooting the owner of a Memphis jewelry store. He was sentenced by the trial court to consecutive terms of twenty-three years at 100% for the especially aggravated robbery conviction and twelve years at 30% for the attempted second degree murder conviction. In a timely appeal to this court, the defendant raises the following four issues: (1) whether the trial court erred by overruling his motion to suppress the victim's identification testimony; (2) whether the trial court erred by denying his request for a special jury instruction; (3) whether the trial court committed plain error in its instruction of the definition of "knowingly"; and (4) whether the trial court erred by ordering consecutive sentencing. Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Fredrick Robinson
The defendant was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of aggravated burglary, a Class C felony, and sentenced by the trial court as a Range III, persistent offender to fifteen years in the Department of Correction. In this appeal as of right, he raises two issues: whether the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction and whether the trial court committed reversible error by failing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of facilitation. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Brian Webb
The State appeals the ruling of the Cocke County Circuit Court amending its judgments pertaining to the sentencing of Defendant, Brian Webb, pursuant to Rule 36 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure. Under the terms of a plea agreement involving Defendant's four theft convictions in Cocke and Jefferson counties, the trial court sentenced Defendant on January 8, 2001 to an effective three-year sentence to be served concurrently with Defendant's federal sentence of twenty-four months arising out of the same incident. The trial court's judgment was entered on January 30, 2001 following Defendant's incarceration in federal prison on January 29, 2001. On August 22, 2002, Defendant filed a motion to correct a mistake in the trial court's judgment. After a brief hearing, the trial court granted Defendant's motion and ordered that Defendant's state sentences be modified to time served and the balance served on probation to reflect the trial court's understanding at the time of sentencing that Defendant's sentences would run "coterminous" rather than "concurrently" with his federal sentence. The State argues that the record in this matter does not contain any clerical errors, and the trial court was without jurisdiction to modify Defendant's sentence. After a careful review of this matter, we reverse the judgment of the trial court, and this case is remanded for reinstatement of the judgments of conviction as originally entered. |
Cocke | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jason Lewis Adams v. State of Tennessee
On January 5, 2001, the petitioner pled guilty to filing a false police report, aggravated burglary, theft over $1000, vandalism, carjacking, two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, and two counts of aggravated robbery and received a fifteen-year sentence. On February 2, 2001, he filed a motion to withdraw his guilty pleas, which was determined to be untimely and was treated as a petition for post-conviction relief. Because of the subsequent decision of our supreme court in State v. Green, __ S.W.3d __ (Tenn. 2003), we conclude that the petitioner's motion to withdraw his pleas of guilty was timely and should have proceeded pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(f), Withdrawal of Plea of Guilty. We reverse the order of the post-conviction court and remand for the petitioner's motion to withdraw his pleas of guilty to be considered as timely. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Steve A. White
The defendant, Steve A. White, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of attempted first degree premeditated murder, a Class A felony; theft of property valued $10,000 or more but less than $60,000, a Class C felony; and violating the sales tax law, a Class E felony. The trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range I, standard offender to an effective sentence of thirty-one years in the Department of Correction. The defendant appeals, claiming (1) that the evidence is insufficient; (2) that the trial court erred by denying his motion for a bill of particulars; (3) that the trial court erred by denying his motion to exclude evidence; (4) that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury after the prosecution asked a witness an inappropriate question; (5) that the trial court improperly excluded impeachment evidence; (6) that the trial court made several errors regarding the victim's testimony; (7) that the trial court improperly restricted the defense expert's testimony; and (8) that the trial court improperly allowed the state to make inappropriate comments during its closing argument. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Stephon Harden
The Appellant, Stephon Harden, appeals from the judgment of the Sullivan County Circuit Court revoking his probation and remanding him to the Department of Correction. In March of 1999, Harden pled guilty to two counts of class E felony theft, one count of forgery, aggravated burglary, and failure to appear. He received an effective six-year sentence to be served in the Department of Correction. Harden was released following completion of the "boot camp" program and was administratively granted probation by the Commissioner of Correction. Warrants alleging violations of his probationary sentence were issued on February 21st and 28th of 2002. Following a hearing, he was found in violation of his probation and resentenced to the Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred by failing to consider alternatives to revocation. Finding no merit to Harden's claim, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals |
