State of Tennessee v. John L. Goodwin, III
The petitioner, John L. Goodwin, III, was convicted of attempted rape and aggravated burglary. State v. John L. Goodwin, III, No. 01-C01-9108-CR-00242, 1992 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 859, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville, Nov. 12, 1992). The petitioner decided to waive his right to a direct appeal of his verdict and filed a post-conviction petition for review. Id. His petition was denied, and on appeal this Court found that the petitioner waived his right to a direct appeal based on erroneous advice of counsel and thus granted him an opportunity to file a motion for new trial and bring a delayed direct appeal. Id. at **3-4. The petitioner filed a motion for new trial, which the trial court denied, and the petitioner brought a delayed direct appeal before this Court. State v. Goodwin, 909 S.W.2d 35, 37 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). This Court affirmed the petitioner's conviction, but remanded the petitioner's case for re-sentencing. Id. at 45-46. The petitioner was re-sentenced, and he appealed his new sentence to this Court, as well as the trial court's denial of his writ of habeas corpus. State v. John L. Goodwin, III, No. 01C01-9601-CR-00013, 1997 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 679, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville, July 23, 1997). We reviewed his sentence and ultimately found that the trial court properly imposed the petitioner's new sentence. Id. While this Court was reviewing the petitioner's appeal of his new sentence, he filed an "application for coram nobis and/or in the alternative to re-open post-conviction petition." John L. Goodwin, III v. State, No. M2000-0757-CCA-R28-CO, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville, Sept. 19, 1997) (no electronic database citation available). The trial court dismissed this pleading, and we affirmed that ruling. John L. Goodwin, III v. State, No. 01C01-9608-CR-00337 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville, Sept. 19, 1997) (no electronic database citation available). The petitioner then filed a motion to re-open his post-conviction petition, which was ultimately dismissed without a hearing. Id. Thus, we remanded his case for a hearing to determine the merits of what was, essentially, his post-conviction petition. The petitioner now brings the instant appeal of the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, challenging: the fairness of his post-conviction hearing; his sentence; his notice of the charges against him; the constitutionality of Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 44(a); the alleged conspiracy between various court officers against him; the effectiveness of his counsel; and the jury instructions. After reviewing the petitioner's claims, we find that they are either waived, previously determined, or without merit. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Israel Michua Camacho
The defendant, Israel Michua Camacho, appeals his convictions in the Greene County Criminal Court for facilitation of possession of one-half gram or more of cocaine with intent to deliver, a Class C felony, and facilitation of possession of not less than ten pounds nor more than seventy pounds of marijuana with intent to deliver, a Class E felony. The trial court sentenced him as a Range I, standard offender to concurrent sentences of four years in the Tennessee Department of Correction for the facilitation of possession of cocaine conviction and two years for the facilitation of possession of marijuana conviction. The defendant claims that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions and that he deserves a new trial because the state failed to provide the defense with a discoverable videotape in a timely manner. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Greene | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jenny Bea Huffstetler
The Defendant, Jenny Bea Huffstetler, pled guilty to three counts of forgery, one count of fraudulent use of a credit card, one count of misdemeanor assault, and one count of theft under $500. For these offenses, the Defendant received an effective sentence of three years as a Range I, standard offender. Her sentence was suspended and she was placed on intensive probation. Following a hearing on allegations that the Defendant had violated the terms of her probation, the trial court ordered the Defendant to serve nine months in jail and the balance of her sentence on community corrections. The Defendant now appeals. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Timothy Ken Sexton
The Hamilton County Grand Jury indicted the fifteen-year-old Defendant, charging him with second degree murder. Following a transfer hearing, the Defendant was tried as an adult. A Hamilton County jury found the Defendant guilty of the indicted charge, and the trial court sentenced him to twenty years in the Department of Correction. The Defendant now appeals, arguing the following: (1) that there was insufficient evidence to convict the Defendant of second degree murder, (2) that the juvenile court erred by transferring the Defendant to be tried as an adult, (3) that the trial court erred by denying the Defendant's motion to suppress his statement, (4) that the trial court erred by allowing the State to cross-examine two character witnesses for the defense about their knowledge of the Defendant's juvenile record, and (5) that the trial court erred in sentencing the Defendant to twenty years in the Department of Correction. Concluding that the trial court erred by allowing the State to introduce evidence of the Defendant's prior juvenile record during the cross-examination of character witnesses for the Defendant, we reverse and remand for a new trial. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Derrick S. Chaney
The Defendant pleaded guilty to first offense DUI, for which he was sentenced to eleven months and twenty-nine days incarceration, suspended after service of forty-eight hours; and to driving with a suspended, cancelled, or revoked license, for which he was sentenced to six months incarceration, suspended after service of forty-eight hours. The trial court ordered that the two sentences be served concurrently. The Defendant was subsequently arrested for probation violation, and the trial court conducted a hearing to determine whether the Defendant's probation should be revoked. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court ordered that the Defendant serve the remainder of his sentences in custody. The Defendant appeals this decision, arguing that the State failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he had violated his probation and that the trial court erred by ordering him to serve his full sentence in custody. We conclude that sufficient evidence was presented at the hearing to support revocation of the Defendant's probation and that the trial court did not err by ordering the Defendant to serve his sentence in custody. We thus affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Alfred Carey
The Defendant pled guilty to one count of selling less than 0.5 grams of cocaine, a Schedule II controlled substance, and to three counts of domestic assault. The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range II, multiple offender to ten years incarceration for the drug conviction and to eleven months and twenty-nine days for each of the assault convictions. The trial court ordered that the sentences be served concurrently, but consecutive to a prior sentence. The Defendant now appeals, arguing that he was improperly sentenced. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Blake E. Hallum v. State of Tennessee
A Davidson County jury convicted the petitioner, Blake Edward Hallum, of felony murder and especially aggravated robbery, and the trial court sentenced the petitioner to serve consecutive sentences of life imprisonment for his felony murder conviction and 17 years for his especially aggravated robbery conviction. The petitioner appealed his convictions to this Court, and we affirmed the judgment of the trial court. See State v. Richard Bruce Halfacre, No. 01C01-9703-CR-00083, 1998 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 1117, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville, Oct. 29, 1998). The petitioner sought post-conviction relief, and the trial court denied his petition after a hearing on the merits. The petitioner now appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that he is entitled to post-conviction relief because a state's trial witness testified at the post-conviction hearing and contradicted her trial testimony, invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, and/or pleaded lack of memory in response to questions about the truthfulness of her trial testimony. After reviewing the record and applicable case law, we find that the petitioner's claim does not merit relief. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Mario Hawkins v. State of Tennessee
After a juvenile court transferred the petitioner's case, a Davidson County grand jury indicted the petitioner on one count of first degree murder. Following a jury trial, the petitioner stood convicted of this offense and for this conviction received a life sentence. Thereafter he unsuccessfully sought relief through a direct appeal. See State v. Mario Hawkins, No. 01C01-9701-CR-00014, 1998 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 685, at *2, *21 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville, July 2, 1998). Subsequently, he filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief and was appointed counsel. Counsel filed an amended petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel. After conducting a hearing on this matter, the trial court denied the petitioner the relief requested. Through this appeal the petitioner continues to assert that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to adequately investigate the petitioner's mental health and utilize this information as a defense to the first degree murder charge. However, after reviewing this assertion, we find it to lack merit. We, therefore, affirm the trial court's denial of the post-conviction petition. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Arthur J. Holmes
The Defendant, Arthur J. Holmes, pled guilty to three counts of theft under $500, class A misdemeanors; two counts of theft over $500, class E felonies; six counts of forgery, class D and E felonies; and four counts of identity theft, class D felonies. The Defendant's plea agreement provided for an effective ten year sentence as a Range II, multiple offender. After a hearing on the manner in which the Defendant would serve his sentence, the trial court denied an alternative sentence and ordered the Defendant to serve his sentence in the Department of Correction. The Defendant now appeals as of right. We affirm the trial court's judgment. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Shawn M. Brooks
The Appellant, Shawn M. Brooks, appeals from the judgment of the Wilson County Circuit Court revoking his probation. In May of 1996, Brooks pled guilty to sale of a Schedule I controlled substance, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), and received a split confinement sentence of eight years with one year to be served in confinement followed by seven years supervised probation. Again, in May of 1999, Brooks pled guilty to sale of a counterfeit controlled substance and received a two-year suspended sentence to be served consecutively to the 1996 sentence. On April 10, 2001, a probation violation warrant was issued for only the1996 sentence based upon a new arrest in DeKalb County for numerous offenses. At the probation violation hearing, Brooks admitted guilt, which resulted in the revocation of his sentence and the reinstatement of his original eight-year sentence in the Department of Correction. Thirty days later, an amended order was entered by the trial court revoking Brooks' 1999 two-year suspended sentence on the same grounds. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred by failing to consider alternatives to revocation. After review, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by revoking Brooks' 1996 conviction. However, with regard to revocation of the 1999 sentence, we find that the proceedings failed to afford fundamental due process protections. Accordingly, we reverse and vacate the trial court's amended order revoking Brooks' two-year suspended sentence for sale of a counterfeit controlled substance. |
Wilson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Bobby Gene Goodson
The defendant, Bobby Gene Goodson, appeals as of right his Sullivan County Criminal Court conviction in case number S42,000 for driving on a suspended license, a Class B misdemeanor, claiming that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction, (2) he has a constitutional right to travel, and (3) the trial court erred in denying his request to dismiss his trial attorney and reappoint counsel. The defendant also appeals his remaining two convictions in S42,000 for violation of the registration law and violation of the seat belt law, both Class C misdemeanors, and his conviction in case number S43,579 for driving on a suspended license. As to the defendant's appeal of his conviction for driving on a suspended license in case number S42,000, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. With regard to the remaining convictions, the defendant's appeal is dismissed because the judgments of conviction are not in the record on appeal. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Timothy M. Hodge
The defendant appeals his conviction for driving under the influence. He raises two issues: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction; and (2) whether the trial court erred in its instruction to the jury regarding the definition of "physical control" of a vehicle. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hickman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John W. Archey
A Franklin County jury convicted the defendant of reckless driving. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. The defendant also claims that the trial court's jury instruction for reckless driving was in error. After a careful review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Franklin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Charles Bryant v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner/Appellant, Charles Bryant, filed a petition for post-conviction relief on August 3, 2001, attacking his conviction on July 18, 1997, for violation of the Motor Vehicle Habitual Offender Act. According to the allegations in the petition, there was no appeal from the conviction to which he pled guilty and received a sentence of four years as a multiple Range II offender. The trial court summarily dismissed the petition because it was filed outside of the applicable statute of limitations. We affirm. |
Coffee | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Robert Gentry Galbreath
A Bedford County jury convicted the defendant of twelve counts of obtaining a controlled substance, Hydrocodone, by fraud during the period from August 15, 2000 through September 8, 2000. The trial court sentenced the defendant to twelve years on each count and imposed a fine of $2,000 for each count. The trial court ordered that counts 1-4 run concurrently; that counts 5-8 run concurrently, but consecutive to counts 1-4; and that counts 9-12 run concurrently, but consecutive to all other counts, for an effective sentence of thirty-six years. On appeal, the defendant contends that the evidence is not sufficient to support eleven of his twelve convictions for fraud and that the trial court erred in sentencing him to thirty-six years in prison. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Barry F. Braden
Defendant, Barry F. Braden, was convicted by a Davidson County jury of six counts of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony. He was ordered to serve consecutive ten year sentences for counts one, two, four, five and six, to be served concurrently with a ten-year sentence in count three, for an effective sentence of fifty years. Defendant appeals his convictions and sentences, presenting the following issues for review: (1) whether the prosecutor’s inquiry on cross-examination and comments during closing argument on Defendant’s failure to submit fingerprints and his failure to take a polygraph examination constituted reversible error; (2) whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain his convictions; (3) whether the trial court erred by admitting a witness’s extraneous statement at trial; (4) whether the trial court erred by ordering consecutive sentences for five of Defendant’s six convictions; and (5) whether the trial court erred by failing to sever the offenses for |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joel Wayne Jackson and Joel Keith Russell
The appellants, Joel Wayne Jackson and Joel Keith Russell, were each convicted in the Hardin County Circuit Court of one count of possessing more than .5 grams of cocaine with intent to sell. They were each sentenced to eight years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction with the sentences to be served on supervised probation after serving ninety days in confinement. On appeal, Jackson challenges the correctness of his sentence and Russell contests the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court |
Hardin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Stanley R. Fine
The defendant, Stanley R. Fine, pled guilty to the offenses of burglary and aggravated burglary. His plea agreement provided that he would serve a four year sentence for the aggravated burglary, with one year to be served in the county jail and the balance of three years to be served in the community corrections program. With respect to the burglary charge, the plea agreement included an agreed sentence of four years to be served in the community corrections program consecutive to the sentence for aggravated burglary, resulting in an effective sentence of eight years. Following the defendant's violation of the terms of his community corrections sentence, the trial court revoked the defendant's community corrections status and ordered that the remainder of his sentence be served in the Department of Correction. The defendant now appeals the trial court's ruling. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Rhea | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Scott Brogan
The defendant, Michael Scott Brogan, entered pleas of guilt to second degree murder and attempted second degree murder. The trial court imposed concurrent sentences of 20 years and 8 years, respectively. In this appeal of right, the defendant asserts that his sentence for second degree murder is excessive. Because the trial court misapplied several enhancement factors, the sentence for second degree murder is modified to 18 years. Otherwise, the judgments are affirmed. |
Claiborne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tricia Ann Landry
The defendant, Tricia Ann Landry, was convicted of theft over $500.00 and theft over $1,000.00. The trial court imposed concurrent Range I sentences of two years and three years, respectively. Later, the defendant was determined to have violated her probation. The trial court ordered service of the sentence in the Department of Correction. In this appeal of right, the defendant argues that the trial court should have granted an alternative sentence. The judgment is affirmed. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Demetrius Kendale Holmes
The defendant, Demetrius Kendale Holmes, was convicted of felony murder and especially aggravated robbery. The trial court imposed consecutive sentences of life and 24 years, respectively. In this appeal of right, the defendant asserts that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions. The judgments of the trial court are affirmed. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Claude W. Cheeks
|
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Claude W. Cheeks - Dissenting
|
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jerry O. Summers
The defendant, Jerry O. Summers, appeals from the Williamson County Circuit Court’s revoking his probation that was ordered for his sentence for aggravated burglary. The defendant contends that although he violated his probation, the trial court erred in sentencing him to confinement. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Daryl Lee Madden and Marty Dale Williams
|
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals |
