Reiko Nolen v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Reiko Nolen, appeals as of right the Dyer County Circuit Court's denial of his petition for acquittal and removal of his guilty plea. He pled guilty to possession of over .5 grams of cocaine with intent to sell, a Class B felony, and was sentenced to six months in the county jail and eight years on probation. The petitioner contends that (1) the state breached the plea agreement by not allowing him to serve a subsequent twenty-year sentence before his probationary sentence in this case and (2) his sentence is illegal because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to sentence him to a term of probation to be followed by a term of incarceration. We hold that the petitioner's sentence is legal and that he has no basis for an appeal. Therefore, we are constrained to dismiss the appeal because of the lack of jurisdiction. |
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James Carter v. Fred J. Raney, Warden
Petitioner was denied habeas corpus relief by the trial court. He now appeals, claiming the trial court erred in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing and in failing to appoint counsel to assist him with his habeas corpus claim. We affirm the denial of habeas corpus relief. |
Lake | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Kenneth P. Bondurant and Hugh Peter Bondurant v. State of Tennessee
The appellants, Kenneth P. Bondurant and Hugh Peter Bondurant, appeal from the dismissal of their post-conviction petitions following a hearing on the question of whether the petitions were filed within the time prescribed under Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-30-202(a). The trial court found from the evidence presented that the petitions were filed more than one year from the final action of the highest appellate court to which an appeal was taken and that the petitions were time barred. As a result the petitions were dismissed. In this appeal the appellants present two issues for our consideration. First, the appellants challenge whether the trial court erred in finding that the first post-conviction petitions filed by the appellants from prison were mailed beyond the applicable statute of limitations. Second, the appellants ask us to interpret Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-30-202(a) so as to begin the running of the statute of limitations from the date the highest appellate court's mandate is filed on direct appeal. We find no error in the findings of the trial court, and we decline to interpret Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-30-202(a) in the manner urged by the appellants. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Giles | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Antonio Young v. State of Tennessee
Antonio Young appeals the Hamilton County Criminal Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The lower court found his allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel unsupported by the evidence and denied relief. Because we are unpersuaded of error, we affirm. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Dianna Helton Hord
The Defendant, Dianna Helton Hord, pled guilty to driving under the influence and driving on a revoked license. As part of her plea agreement, she 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 certified question of law stems from the trial court's denial of the Defendant's motion to suppress. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Frederick H. Gonzales, Jr.
A Williamson County jury convicted the defendant, Frederick H. Gonzales, Jr., of selling cocaine in an amount of .5 grams or more and assessed a fine of $50,000. The trial court sentenced the defendant to serve nine years as a Range I offender and reduced his fine to $5,000. The defendant now brings this appeal, challenging the trial court's failure to grant his motion for new trial on the basis that (1) evidence of a prior bad act committed by the defendant was improperly admitted at trial and that (2) the state improperly referred to the defendant's failure to call witnesses in closing arguments. Because we find that (1) the defendant opened the door to the prior bad act testimony and waived this issue by failing to object at trial and that (2) the prosecutor's reference to missing witnesses was harmless error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ronald Dotson
The defendant appeals his sentence of life imprisonment without parole as a repeat violent offender because he was not tried within 180 days of arraignment. Because the defendant did not prove that he suffered prejudice from the delay in bringing his case to trial, we affirm the decision of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State v. Kenneth Stewart
|
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State v. Jamey Cheek
|
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Toni Yvonne Hunt
The defendant appeals her sentence of confinement after pleading guilty to theft under $500.00, a Class A misdemeanor, in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-14-103. The trial court sentenced the defendant to 11 months, 29 days at 75% release eligibility, with 150 days of shock incarceration. The defendant argues that the trial court erred in not granting her full probation. However, the defendant did not meet her burden necessary to prove the impropriety of her sentence. Our supreme court acknowledges that trial courts have more flexibility in misdemeanor sentencing than in felony sentencing. Given the defendant's prior criminal history and the flexibility granted to trial courts in misdemeanor sentencing, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v.Aaron Lembar Smith
Following a jury trial, Defendant, Aaron Lembar Smith, was found guilty of two counts of Class D felony burglary (a building other than a habitation), one count of Class E felony vandalism, two counts of Class D felony theft, and one count of Class D felony vandalism. One of the burglaries, the Class D felony vandalism, and one of the Class D felony thefts, involved an incident which occurred at Centennial Elementary School in Dickson. The other charges involved an incident at Buckner City Park, which is located on property adjoining Centennial Elementary School. In this appeal, Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his convictions for the burglary, vandalism, and theft convictions arising from the incident at Centennial Elementary School. He does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence, or raise any other issues, regarding the remaining charges. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the convictions for burglary, vandalism, and theft regarding the incident at Centennial Elementary School. However, our review of the record indicates errors in the judgments; as the sentencing hearing is not a part of the record, but the judgments on their face are erroneous, we remand these cases to the Circuit Court of Dickson County for amended judgments to be entered or for a new sentencing hearing, if necessary. |
Dickson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Cammon
The appellant, Michael Cammon, was convicted in a jury trial of robbery, aggravated assault and possession of over 300 grams of cocaine with the intent to sell or deliver. He was also convicted of felony possession of a weapon. For these offenses the appellant received sentences of three years, three years, twenty-two years, and two years, respectively. All sentences were set to run concurrently with each other, but consecutively to any previous sentences the appellant might have to serve. In this appeal he raises three issues for our consideration. First, he claims the evidence is insufficient to corroborate the testimony of his accomplice. Secondly, he alleges that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury with respect to the amount of controlled substance required for the offense charged. Finally, the appellant complains that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of simple assault. We find no reversible error with respect to the narcotics offense or with respect to the conviction for aggravated robbery. Those convictions are affirmed. However, we must reverse the conviction for aggravated assault and remand this case for a new trial. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Romania Ann Gadson
The defendant, Romania Ann Gadson, pled guilty in the Montgomery County Circuit Court to seven felonies. While she was on probation for those crimes, the defendant committed and was convicted of three additional felonies and one misdemeanor. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court revoked the defendant's probation, determined that her effective sentence for the "old" convictions was twelve years, and ordered that she serve the twelve-year sentence in incarceration. The trial court also sentenced the defendant to an effective sentence of five years in confinement for the "new" convictions and ordered that she serve the five-year sentence consecutively to the twelve-year sentence. The defendant appeals, claiming (1) that the trial court incorrectly calculated the effective sentence for her old convictions to be twelve years; (2) that the trial court erred in sentencing her to the maximum punishment in the range for one of her new convictions; and (3) that she should have received a community corrections sentence for her new convictions. As to the defendant's claim that the trial court incorrectly calculated her twelve-year sentence, we remand the judgments of conviction to the trial court. As to the defendant's new convictions, we conclude that the trial court properly sentenced the defendant and affirm those judgments of conviction. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Rebecca Dawn Perkins
The Blount County Grand Jury indicted the Defendant for second degree murder, and following a trial, a Blount County jury convicted the Defendant of reckless homicide. The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I, standard offender to four years for the crime and ordered that she serve her entire sentence in confinement. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant argues that she was improperly sentenced. Specifically, she contests the length of her sentence, and she contends that she should have been granted some form of alternative sentencing. Having reviewed the record, we conclude that the trial court did not err in sentencing the Defendant, and we therefore affirm the sentence imposed. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jason Fisher
The defendant pleaded guilty to six counts of forgery and was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to an effective term of two years, which was suspended and ordered to be served on probation. Various probation violation warrants were filed, alleging that the defendant had failed to comply with the conditions of probation and, in general, was uncooperative with those in charge of supervising his sentence. Following a hearing on the fourth such warrant, the trial court revoked the defendant's probation and ordered him to serve the sentence originally imposed. The defendant appealed. Upon review of the record, we detect no abuse of the trial court's discretion and affirm the judgment. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kim Hickerson
On December 15, 1997, a Coffee County jury convicted Appellant Kim Hickerson of selling less than 0.5 grams of cocaine, a class C felony. After a sentencing hearing on January 23, 1998, the trial court sentenced Appellant as a career offender to a term of fifteen years imprisonment. Appellant challenges both his conviction and his sentence, raising the following issues: 1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction; 2) whether the State established a proper chain of custody for the cocaine that was introduced into evidence; and 3) whether the Appellant was properly sentenced as a career offender. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Coffee | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Kelvin Lee Young, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner was convicted by jury of one count of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. Petitioner filed for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. Petitioner now appeals from the denial of relief from the post-conviction court. We affirm the denial of relief. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James M. Powers
The Defendant, James M. Powers, appeals as of right from his convictions by a jury of four counts of rape of a child, a Class A felony. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a sentence of twenty years on each of the four counts and ordered that three of the sentences run consecutively, for an effective sentence of sixty years to be served in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The Defendant argues two issues on appeal: (1) that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his four convictions of child rape, and (2) that the trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences. We affirm the Defendant's convictions. We reverse the trial court's order that the sentences be served consecutively and remand for the entry of an order reflecting concurrent sentences. |
Campbell | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tony Dean Morgan
The Defendant pled "no contest" to aggravated assault and assault. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the Defendant received concurrent sentences of three years for the aggravated assault conviction and eleven months and twenty-nine days for the assault conviction, for an effective sentence of three years. The manner of service of the sentence was to be determined by the trial court. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered that the Defendant serve his entire sentence in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The Defendant now appeals, arguing that the trial court erred by ordering him to serve his sentence in confinement. Finding no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Corrie J. Johnson
The Defendant, Corrie J. Johnson, was convicted by a jury of selling cocaine, a Class C felony. The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range II multiple offender to eight years, to be served consecutively to two other sentences, for which the Defendant was on probation. The trial court also revoked the Defendant's probation on the two prior convictions. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant presents three issues: whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain his conviction, whether the trial court erred in its application of enhancing and mitigating factors when deciding the Defendant's sentence, and whether the trial court erred by revoking the Defendant's probation. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hardin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Keith Leranso Wells
The Defendant, Keith Leranso Wells, was indicted on four counts of especially aggravated robbery, one count of aggravated robbery, and one count of aggravated assault. The Defendant pled guilty to two counts of especially aggravated robbery; the remaining counts were held in abeyance pending resolution of the charges against the Defendant's co-defendants. The Defendant agreed that his sentencing would be delayed until those charges were resolved. Subsequent to entry of the judgments of conviction against the Defendant, but prior to his sentencing, the Defendant requested to withdraw his guilty plea. The trial court denied the Defendant's request and this appeal followed. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Richard Russell Brandt
The Appellant, Richard Russell Brandt, was convicted by a Bedford County jury of voluntary manslaughter and received a fifteen-year sentence, as a persistent offender. On appeal, Brandt raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict, and (2) whether his sentence was proper. After review, we find that Brandt's issues are without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the Bedford County Circuit Court is affirmed. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Andre Mays and Cortez Bennett
The Appellants, Andre Mays and Cortez Bennett, were convicted by a Davidson County Jury of first degree murder, attempted first degree murder, and two counts of especially aggravated robbery. Mays and Bennett were sentenced to life imprisonment plus fifty years. On appeal, Mays argues that the trial court erred in allowing a juror to remain on the panel after reading a prejudicial newspaper article during the trial. Bennett raises the following issues for review: (1) whether the trial court erred in not suppressing the photographic line-up; (2) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the verdicts; and (3) whether his sentence was proper. After a review of the record, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Randall Vertis Grainger
Defendant appeals his conviction in the Williamson County Circuit Court for one count of aggravated sexual battery. Defendant raises the following issues for our review: 1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction; 2) whether the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on attempted aggravated sexual battery, sexual battery, attempted sexual battery, or attempted assault; 3) whether the trial court erred in approving and adopting the jury imposed fine of $10,000; and 4) whether the trial court erred in imposing a ten-year sentence. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Bobby L. Marshall
Shelby County Criminal Court jury convicted the defendant, Bobby L. Marshall, of sexual battery, a Class E felony. The defendant was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to sixteen months in the workhouse and fined two thousand dollars. The defendant appeals his conviction, claiming that the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on consent. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals |
