State of Tennessee v. Kevin Island
The Defendant, Kevin Island, was convicted by a jury of especially aggravated kidnapping, a class A felony, and aggravated robbery, a class B felony. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range II offender to concurrent sentences of twenty-five years and twelve years, respectively, to be served in the Department of Correction. In this appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is not sufficient to sustain his convictions. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Donald R. Mobbley
A Shelby County Criminal Court jury convicted the defendant, Donald R. Mobbley, of burglary, a Class D felony, and the trial court sentenced him as a Range I, standard offender to two years in the workhouse. The defendant appeals, claiming that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction and that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on theft of property as a lesser included offense. We hold that the evidence is sufficient and that theft is not a lesser included offense of burglary. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Allen Lee Dotson, Sr.
|
Marion | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Frederick J. Robinson v. State of Tennessee
In 1999, petitioner pled guilty to three counts of first degree pre-meditated murder and received three concurrent life sentences without possibility of parole. Petitioner now appeals from the denial of his post-conviction relief petition, contending that his plea was not made knowingly and voluntarily and that he had been denied the effective assistance of counsel. We affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of post-conviction relief. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jason Hamilton
The defendant, Jason Hamilton, was convicted of first degree felony murder, second degree murder, and attempted aggravated robbery. The victim was named Thomas Spivey. The trial court merged the two murder convictions and sentenced the defendant to serve life in prison for the merged conviction. For his attempted aggravated robbery conviction, the trial court ordered the defendant to serve a four-year sentence concurrently with his life sentence. The defendant now appeals those convictions, arguing that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress his self-incriminating statement and that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions. After reviewing the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Clarence W. Carter
On March 29, 2000, a Davidson County jury convicted the defendant on one count of conspiracy to sell three hundred grams or more of a substance containing cocaine and one count of possession with intent to deliver twenty-six grams or more of a substance containing cocaine. For the conspiracy conviction the trial court sentenced him to thirty-six years as a multiple offender, and for the possession charge the defendant received a sixteen-year sentence also as a multiple offender. In addition, the trial court fined the defendant one hundred thousand dollars on each count. The court then determined that the possession conviction should run consecutively to the conspiracy conviction resulting in an effective sentence of fifty-two years. After unsuccessfully pursuing a motion for a judgment of acquittal and a new trial motion, the defendant brings this appeal raising a variety of issues. More specifically, the defendant alleges 1) that the trial court erred by not granting him a judgment of acquittal on the amended possession count; 2) that the charge of "possession of over 26 grams of cocaine fatally varied with the conviction of possession of over 26 grams of c[o]caine with intent to sell"; 3) that the conspiracy count is void for failing "to allege an overt act in pursuit of the conspiracy"; 4) that the evidence is insufficient to support both convictions; 5) that the trial court erred in failing to provide the lesser-included instruction regarding conspiracy to sell or deliver under three hundred grams of cocaine; 6) that the trial court erred in sentencing the defendant as a multiple offender; and 7) that the trial court excessively sentenced the defendant as a result of improperly ordering that the sentences arising from this case are to be served consecutively. After considering each of these, we find that none of them merit relief and, therefore, affirm the defendant's convictions. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Willie Tome Ensley v. Howard Carlton, Warden and State of Tennessee
In 1986, a Davidson County jury convicted the Petitioner of first degree murder and aggravated rape. The trial court sentenced the Petitioner to an effective sentence of life plus twenty-seven and a half years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. This Court affirmed the Petitioner's convictions and sentences on direct appeal, and the Tennessee Supreme Court denied permission to appeal. The Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in 2000, alleging that he is entitled to habeas corpus relief because: (1) count one of the indictment, charging the Petitioner with felony murder, contains no reference to the applicable statute; (2) count two of the indictment, charging him with aggravated rape, fails to state an offense because it omits the required allegation of the appropriate mens rea for aggravated rape; and (3) count one of the indictment is not signed by the district attorney general. The trial court denied the Petitioner's request for habeas corpus relief, finding that the sufficiency of an indictment cannot be properly challenged in a habeas corpus proceeding and finding that the Petitioner failed to establish that the indictment was insufficient. After review, we conclude that the Petitioner has failed to establish a claim for habeas corpus relief, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Johnson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James F. Massengale
The defendant, James F. Massengale, who had been charged with eight counts of theft of property valued at greater than $10,000, three counts of theft of property valued at more than $1,000, three counts of attempted theft of property with a value greater than $10,000, and one count of burglary of an automobile, was convicted of five counts of theft over $10,000, one count of attempted theft over $10,000, and one count of burglary of a vehicle. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of eighteen years, with ten years to be served in the Department of Correction and eight years to be served on probation. In this appeal, the defendant asserts that the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions and that the trial court erred by ordering consecutive sentences. The judgments of the trial court are affirmed. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Lee Cooper
The Defendant, Christopher Lee Cooper, pled guilty to theft over $500, a class E felony. The length and manner of service of the sentence were to be determined by the trial court. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to two years in the Department of Correction as a Range I standard offender. The Defendant now appeals as of right the length and manner of service of his sentence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Wesley Pickett
The appellant, Wesley Pickett, appeals the verdict of a Shelby County jury finding him guilty of theft of a motor vehicle valued between one thousand and ten thousand dollars and two counts of vandalism causing damage over five hundred dollars. On appeal, Pickett raises the single issue of whether the evidence is sufficient to support his convictions. After review, we find the evidence sufficient. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Norman Matthews v. State of Tennessee
The appellant, Norman Matthews, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. In March 2000, Matthews pled guilty to burglary of a building and received an eight-year sentence. On appeal, Matthews argues that: (1) it was error for the post-conviction court to allow trial counsel to remain in the courtroom during the evidentiary hearing, despite invocation of "the rule" providing for sequestration of witnesses, and (2) he received ineffective assistance of counsel. After review, we affirm the judgment of the Shelby County Criminal Court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Dale Walker
The Defendant, James Dale Walker, pled guilty 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 years and two years, respectively, with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court denied alternative sentencing and ordered the Defendant to serve his effective sentence of six years in the Department of Correction. It is from this order that the Defendant now appeals as of right. We reverse the trial court's order that the Defendant serve his sentences in total confinement and remand to the trial court for consideration of some form of alternative sentence. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Michael A. Maddox v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner was found guilty by a jury of five counts of sexual battery by an authority figure, a Class C felony, and two counts of aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony. The trial court sentenced the Petitioner to an effective sixteen-year term. This Court affirmed the Petitioner's conviction and sentence on direct appeal. The Petitioner then filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which the post-conviction court denied. The Petitioner now appeals the denial of post-conviction relief, arguing that his counsel at trial was ineffective. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jesse E. Rogers v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Jesse E. Rogers, entered "best interest" guilty pleas to five counts of rape of a child. He was sentenced to twenty-five years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction for each offense, with the sentences to be served concurrently. The petitioner subsequently filed for post-conviction relief. Following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief and the petitioner timely appealed. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Hawkins | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Timothy Wayne Grimes
A Dickson County Circuit Court jury convicted the defendant, Timothy Wayne Grimes, of possession of a Schedule IV controlled substance with intent to deliver, a Class D felony, and the trial court sentenced him as a Range III, persistent offender to eight years in a community corrections program. The defendant appeals, claiming that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury as to the lesser included offenses of simple possession and casual exchange. We conclude that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury regarding simple possession of the controlled substance. Although we hold that casual exchange is not a lesser included offense of possession with intent to deliver, we also conclude that the trial court should have instructed the jury regarding the casual exchange inference provided in Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-419. We reverse the judgment of conviction and remand the case for a new trial. |
Dickson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ricky Brandon and Jimmy W. Brandon
The Appellants, Ricky Brandon and Jimmy W. Brandon, were convicted by a Coffee County jury of misdemeanor assault. In this direct appeal of their convictions, the Appellants argue that they received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and, as such, their convictions should be vacated. After review, we find no error and affirm the judgment. |
Coffee | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Gregory Key
Defendant, Gregory Key, was indicted by the Rutherford County Grand Jury on two counts of aggravated sexual battery. During a hearing on several pretrial motions, defense counsel, Darrell Scarlett, advised the trial court of a joint business venture between himself and Detective Lawson, an investigating officer in the case. The court entered an Order disqualifying Defendant's attorney from further representation, finding that the relationship constituted an appearance of impropriety. Pursuant to Rule 9 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, Defendant appeals the trial court's disqualification of his attorney and argues that he waived any conflict or appearance of impropriety after full disclosure. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Nelson Edward Meeks
Nelson Edward Meeks appeals the sentence imposed for three convictions for third offense driving under the influence, reckless driving, and driving on a revoked license. He claims that the lower court erred in (1) failing to consider the statutory sentencing principles and considerations, and (2) imposing a sentence not authorized by law. Because we disagree in both respects, we affirm. |
Marion | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Antonio M. Miller v. State of Tennessee
Antonio M. Miller appeals from the Rutherford County Circuit Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. Miller is presently serving an effective nineteen-year sentence for convictions of second-degree murder, six counts of aggravated burglary, and one count of felony drug possession. He claims that two of his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. The lower court ruled against the petitioner, and upon review of the record, we affirm that ruling. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Willie Joseph Lagano v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Willie Joseph Lagano, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the trial court. The trial court summarily dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing. Petitioner appealed. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Marquez Winters
The Shelby County Grand Jury indicted the Defendant for two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping and for one count of criminal attempt to commit first degree murder. The Defendant was subsequently convicted of one count of aggravated kidnapping and of one count of criminal attempt to commit first degree murder. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to consecutive maximum sentences totaling thirty-seven years. The Defendant now appeals his sentences, arguing that the trial court erred in its application of enhancement factors, that the trial court improperly imposed maximum sentences for both convictions, and that the trial court erred in ordering the sentences to be served consecutively. Although the trial court erred in its application of certain enhancement factors, we conclude that it properly considered other enhancement factors which warranted sentencing the Defendant to consecutive maximum terms. Therefore, we affirm the sentences imposed by the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Roy L. Denton
The Defendant, Roy L. Denton, was convicted by a jury of DUI and public intoxication. The Defendant now appeals as of right, raising the following issues: whether the trial court should have dismissed the indictment; whether the trial court should have stayed the proceedings; whether the trial court should have suppressed evidence; whether the trial court erred in refusing to admit certain evidence proffered by the Defendant; whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain the Defendant's conviction of DUI; whether the prosecutor engaged in misconduct during trial; whether the trial court should have granted the Defendant's motions for mistrial and/or new trial; whether the Defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel; and whether the trial court erred with respect to advising the Defendant about his right to appeal. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Rhea | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James E. Swiggett v. State of Tennessee
The Defendant, James E. Swiggett, was convicted by a jury in 1992 of first degree premeditated murder. His conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. See State v. James Swiggett, No. 03C01-9209-CR-00312, 1994 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 766 (Knoxville, Nov. 23, 1994), perm. appeal den. (Tenn. 1995). The Defendant subsequently filed for post-conviction relief, which petition was denied by the trial court as barred by the statute of limitations. This ruling was affirmed on direct appeal. See James E. Swiggett v. State, No. 03C01-9804-CR-00161, 1999 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 422 (Knoxville, May 4, 1999), perm. appeal den. (Tenn. 1999). The Defendant then filed the instant petition for post-conviction relief, claiming grounds for tolling the statute of limitations. The trial court summarily dismissed the instant petition on the grounds that a prior petition had already been filed. This appeal followed. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Greene | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Melvin Johnson v. State of Tennessee
The Shelby County Criminal Court dismissed the petition for post-conviction relief filed by the petitioner, Melvin Johnson, as untimely under the one-year statute of limitations. In this appeal, the sole issue before this court is whether the petitioner's allegation that he was housed in a therapeutic community with limited access to legal information tolls the statute of limitations. Upon review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William A. Marshall
The defendant, William A. Marshall, appeals the Sumner County Criminal Court's revocation of his probation of a two-year sentence for sexual battery. Because we disagree with the trial court's view of whether the defendant satisfied a condition of his probation by "completing" a sexual offender treatment program, we reverse the revocation and dismiss the warrant. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals |
