State of Tennessee v. Harold J. Turner
The defendant, Harold J. Turner, was convicted of driving under the influence ("DUI") and sentenced to eleven months, twenty-nine days in the county workhouse, with all but seven days suspended and the balance to be served on probation. In addition, his driver's license was revoked for one year and he was ordered to attend alcohol safety school and pay a fine of $500. In his appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court should have instructed the jury to consider whether he was guilty of driving while impaired without first having to determine that he was not guilty of DUI. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Antonio Mitchell
The defendant, Antonio Mitchell, appeals his Shelby County jury conviction of attempted first-degree murder and claims that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction. We disagree and affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. David Saltz
|
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Reece Calloway Loudermilk v. State of Tennessee
This is an appeal from the denial of post-conviction relief. Pursuant to an agreed plea entered in October 1992, the defendant pled nolo contendere to three counts of aggravated rape of his niece, one count of aggravated sexual battery of his niece, one count of aggravated rape of his daughter, and one count of aggravated sexual battery of his daughter for an effective 35-year sentence as a Range I standard offender. Both victims were under thirteen years of age. On appeal, the defendant contends he received ineffective assistance of counsel rendering his plea unknowingly and involuntarily entered. After review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Larenzo DeShawn Harris
The defendant was convicted of possession of a Schedule II controlled substance with the intent to manufacture, deliver, or sell, a Class B felony; possession of a Schedule VI controlled substance with the intent to manufacture, deliver, or sell, a Class E felony; and possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor. Following the denial of his motion for a new trial, he filed a timely appeal to this court, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence in support of his convictions. We affirm the defendant's convictions. However, because the jury assessed, and the trial court imposed, a fine for possession of a Schedule VI controlled substance that exceeds the statutory maximum, we remand the case to the trial court for a new jury to be impaneled to assess an appropriate fine in Count 2 and for entry of a corrected judgment as to the possession of drug paraphernalia conviction in Count 3. |
Carroll | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Deundrick Laran Coble
The appellant was convicted of aggravated assault and sentenced to five years in the Tennessee Department of Correction as a standard Range I offender. In this appeal, he raises two issues. First, he maintains that a prior inconsistent statement was improperly used by the prosecution to impeach the testimony of a prosecution witness. Second, he claims the prosecutor made improper remarks during closing argument. We find neither of these alleged errors requires reversal of this case and thus we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Obion | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Calvin Lamont Hannah
The defendant appeals the revocation of his probation. He argues that the trial court erred in ordering him to serve his original sentence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jess R. Amonette
|
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John W. Thompkins, II
|
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Steven Murphy v. State of Tennessee
In 1996, the petitioner, Steven Murphy, was convicted of first degree murder, especially aggravated robbery, and theft over $1,000. He received a sentence of life imprisonment for first degree murder, 25 years for especially aggravated robbery and four years for the theft. The trial court ordered the petitioner to serve his sentences consecutively, resulting in an effective sentence of life plus 29 years. Following a direct appeal to this Court the petitioner's convictions were affirmed, but his sentence for aggravated robbery was modified to 21 years. State v. Adrian Wilkerson and Steven Murphy, No. 01C01-9610-CR-00419 1998 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 891, at *45 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville Aug. 26, 1998). The Tennessee Supreme Court denied permission to appeal on September 18, 2000. The petitioner filed a post-conviction petition on October 30, 2000, which alleged that his trial attorneys were ineffective thereby depriving him of his rights under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Following appointment of counsel and a hearing, the trial judge entered an order denying post-conviction relief on March 12, 2001, and the instant appeal followed. After a thorough review of the record we find no error in the trial court's decision. The judgment of the lower court is therefore affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Grover Lee Dunigan
The defendant was indicted for first degree murder and convicted by a Hamilton County jury of the lesser-included offense of second degree murder. He was sentenced to 25 years imprisonment. In this appeal, the defendant contends (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction; and (2) the trial court improperly limited cross-examination of a state witness regarding bias. After review, we affirm. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tracy Frank Leonard
The defendant, Tracy Frank Leonard, was convicted of first degree premeditated murder, felony murder, two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, rape, and theft over $1,000. The trial court merged the convictions for first degree premeditated murder and felony murder and also merged the convictions for especially aggravated kidnapping into a single conviction. The defendant received a life sentence for the first degree murder, twenty-five years for especially aggravated kidnapping, eight years for rape, and two years for theft over $1,000. The trial court ordered that the sentences for especially aggravated kidnapping and rape be served consecutively to the life sentence and consecutively to each other. The sentence for the theft is to be served concurrent with the sentence for rape. The effective sentence is, therefore, life plus thirty-three years. In this appeal as of right, the defendant alleges (1) that the trial court erred by admitting the testimony of several witnesses; (2) that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions for especially aggravated kidnapping and rape; (3) that the trial court erred by restricting his right to cross-examination of witnesses; (4) that the trial court erred by failing to grant a new trial based on the State's failure to disclose exculpatory evidence; (5) that the trial court erred by failing to grant a mistrial; (6) that the trial erred in its instructions to the jury; (7) that the trial court misapplied certain enhancement factors to his sentences for especially aggravated kidnapping and rape; and (8) that the cumulative effect of the trial court's errors denied him the right to a fair trial. We affirm the convictions and judgments for first degree murder, especially aggravated kidnapping where the victim suffers serious bodily injury, rape, and theft over $1,000. We conclude the sentences imposed were proper. The defendant's conviction for especially aggravated kidnapping accomplished by the use of a deadly weapon is reversed and remanded for a new trial because of the trial court's failure to instruct the jury as to lesser-included offenses. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Leslie Smith v. State of Tennessee
In this appeal from the denial of post-conviction relief the appellant claims that his convictions for second degree murder and theft of property valued under $10,000 are constitutionally void or voidable because his presence in Tennessee to stand trial was secured by what he claims was a conspiracy on the part of the prosecution to deprive him of his rights under the Interstate Compact on Detainers, Tennessee Code Annotated Section 40-31-101. The appellant, who was originally charged in Tennessee with first degree murder which carries a possible punishment of death, was returned to Tennessee from the Alabama penal system by means of extradition documents and an executive agreement between the governors of Tennessee and Alabama. The appellant also claims that the post-conviction court should have issued subpoenas to certain law enforcement officials in Alabama in order to help him substantiate his claims of conspiracy in his transfer from Alabama to Tennessee, and in order to demonstrate his trial attorney's alleged ineffectiveness in litigating this conspiracy theory on direct appeal. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael E. Owenby
The Defendant, Michael E. Owenby, appeals as of right from his conviction by a jury of theft of property over $1,000, a Class D felony. He was sentenced to three years as a Range I standard offender, with ninety days to be served in confinement and the balance to be served in the Community Corrections program. He argues as his sole issue on appeal that there was not sufficient evidence presented at trial to support his conviction of theft. We affirm the judgment of the trial court but remand to the trial court for entry of an amended judgment deleting the "day for day" requirement relating to the ninety days of confinement. |
Sevier | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William C. Smith
The Defendant, William C. Smith, pled guilty to burglary, a class D felony, and theft under $500, a class A misdemeanor. Pursuant to the Defendant's plea agreement, he was sentenced as a Range I standard offender with the sentences to run concurrently. The parties left the length, method, and manner of service to the trial judge's discretion. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the Defendant to four years in the Department of Correction for the burglary and a concurrent sentence of 11 months and 29 days at 75% for the misdemeanor theft. The Defendant now appeals as of right. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sevier | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Allen Bailey
The defendant pled guilty to six counts of arson, Class C felonies, and one count of setting fire to personal property, a Class E felony. The trial court ordered an effective sentence of fifteen years incarceration followed by five years of probation. On appeal, the defendant argues: (1) the trial court erred in conducting an independent investigation into pyromania; (2) the length of his individual sentences is excessive; (3) the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentencing; and (4) the trial court improperly denied alternative sentencing. We modify the defendant’s sentences to an effective term of ten years in the Department of Correction. |
Cocke | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Allen Bailey - Dissenting
|
Cocke | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Shanna Dean Alder v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner appeals the denial of her petition for habeas corpus relief. She contends the trial court was without authority to revoke her judicial diversion after her diversionary probation expired, absent the issuance of a revocation warrant prior to its expiration. She, therefore, argues the trial court was without jurisdiction when it revoked judicial diversion, was consequently without jurisdiction when it sentenced her to additional years of probation, and was without jurisdiction when it subsequently issued a probation revocation warrant. We agree and reverse the denial of habeas corpus relief. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jerome Sawyer
Convicted by a jury of the Class B felony offense of aggravated sexual battery and sentenced by the trial court to serve an incarcerative Range II sentence of eighteen years, the defendant, Jerome Sawyer, appeals and claims that the evidence insufficiently supports the verdict and that the court erroneously found him to be a Range II offender. We disagree and affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ronald Simmons
The defendant pled guilty to sexual battery, a Class E felony, in exchange for a two-year sentence. The trial court sentenced the defendant to ninety days of weekend confinement, suspended the balance of the two-year sentence, and placed the defendant on probation for four years. The defendant appeals his sentence, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his petition for judicial diversion and in sentencing him to ninety days of confinement. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Daniel Henley
The State of Tennessee appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court's dismissal of its petition to declare Daniel Henley a motor vehicle habitual offender. Because the lower court erred in its determination that the state failed to prove the existence of three prior, qualifying convictions, we reverse and remand. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Kenneth Lee Weston v. State of Tennessee
A Knox County jury convicted the Petitioner of robbery by the use of a deadly weapon. The trial court found the Petitioner to be an habitual criminal and sentenced him to life imprisonment. This Court affirmed both the sentence and verdict on direct appeal. The Petitioner subsequently filed his first petition for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel at his trial. The post-conviction court denied relief, but no appeal ensued. The Petitioner then filed a second petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that counsel in his first post-conviction proceeding was ineffective for failing to file an appeal. After a hearing, the post-conviction court dismissed the second petition and ruled that the Petitioner did not have a constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel in a post-conviction proceeding. This Court affirmed. The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case to the post-conviction court for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the Petitioner received ineffective assistance of counsel at his first post-conviction proceeding and whether, as a result, the Petitioner was effectively denied a first-tier appeal of his first post-conviction petition. Before the hearing, the Petitioner filed an amended petition for post-conviction relief. The post-conviction court heard the amended petition, but found that the issues raised were without merit. On appeal, this Court affirmed the post-conviction court’s finding that the Petitioner had been effectively denied a first-tier appeal in the original post-conviction proceedings, but held that the post-conviction court was not authorized to hear the amended petition. The supreme court affirmed this ruling and remanded the case to this Court for a first-tier appeal of the Petitioner’s original and unamended petition for post-conviction relief. Having reviewed the record, we conclude that the Petitioner received effective assistance of counsel at trial. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John Travis Collins, alias
|
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Scott Craig
Defendant, Scott Craig, was convicted by a Bradley County jury of one count of aggravated kidnapping and two counts of aggravated rape. He was sentenced to eight years for aggravated kidnapping and fifteen years each for the aggravated rape convictions. The trial court ordered the two aggravated rape convictions to be served concurrently with each other, but consecutively to the aggravated kidnapping conviction, for an effective sentence of twenty-three years. Defendant appeals his conviction and sentence, presenting the following issues for review: (1) whether the trial court made improper and prejudicial comments during the trial which deprived Defendant of his right to a fair trial; and (2) whether the trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences. After a thorough review of applicable law and all relevant facts and circumstances in the record, we affirm Defendant's convictions. We reverse the judgment of the trial court concerning the length of Defendant's sentence for aggravated rape and the trial court's order of consecutive sentencing, and remand this matter for a new sentencing hearing. |
Bradley | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Richard Vanover
Defendant pled guilty to seventeen offenses and was subsequently sentenced to fourteen years in confinement. On appeal, defendant alleges that trial court committed error in (1) applying certain enhancing factors, (2) denying any form of alternative sentencing, and (3) ordering consecutive sentencing. We affirm the judgment. |
Washington | Court of Criminal Appeals |
