State of Tennessee v. Matric Becton & Antonio Sykes - Concurring
I join with the majority on all issues with the exception of their holding that the hearsay statement of the victim was admissible. The majority finds that the deceased victim's statement "that he was tired of the lifestyle, being in that environment, and he didn't want to be a part of it anymore" was admissible to establish the victim's existing state of mind. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Eric B. Blakemore
The Appellant, Eric B. Blakemore, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of one count of second degree murder and one count of attempted second degree murder. After a sentencing hearing, Blakemore received concurrent sentences of twenty-two years for the murder conviction and ten years for the attempted murder conviction. On appeal, Blakemore asserts that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his conviction for second degree murder. Specifically, he argues that the evidence presented supports the lesser offense of voluntary manslaughter. After review, we find the evidence legally sufficient; accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. David Tyrone Dowell
The defendant, David Tyrone Dowell, appeals the sentence imposed by the trial court on his guilty-plea-based aggravated assault conviction. Because the record supports the trial court's sentencing determination, we affirm. |
Tipton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Brenda Lee Hicks
The defendant, Brenda Lee Hicks, was convicted of vehicular homicide and entered a plea of guilt to one count of driving without a license. The trial court imposed a sentence of six years for the vehicular homicide and ordered service of 11 months and 29 days in jail. The balance of the sentence is to be served on supervised probation. The trial court imposed a concurrent sentence of 30 days incarceration for the charge of driving without a license. In this appeal as of right, the defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the vehicular homicide conviction and questions the propriety of the sentence for that offense. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Frederick Devill Rice
The defendant, Fredrick Devill Rice, was convicted by a Hamilton County Criminal Court jury of first degree premeditated murder and first degree felony murder. The trial court merged the two convictions and sentenced the defendant to life imprisonment. The defendant appeals, claiming that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his merged convictions; (2) the trial court erred by admitting a videotaped search of the defendant's residence into evidence; and (3) the state argued outside of the record twice during closing argument. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. David W. Bass
The defendant, David W. Bass, was indicted for driving under the influence, violation of the implied consent law, failure to appear, and operating a motor vehicle with an improper taillight. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the defendant entered a plea of guilt to driving under the influence, first offense. After the entry of his plea but before sentencing, the defendant sought to withdraw his plea, arguing that it was not knowingly and voluntarily made. The trial court denied the motion and imposed a sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days, with all but three days suspended. In this appeal of right, the defendant contends that the trial court erred by denying the motion to withdraw the guilty plea. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Roane | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Richard Lynn Norton v. Ricky Bell, Warden - Order
The petitioner appeals pro se from the Davidson County Criminal Court’s denying him habeas corpus relief from his three 1999 convictions for the sale or delivery of more than one-half gram of crack cocaine for which he received an effective sentence of twenty-four years. The petitioner contends that the convictions are void because the presentment “does not charge the overt act, offense of knowingly possession with intent to sell or deliver a Schedule II controlled substance, and nor, does it charge, knowingly possessed a Schedule II controlled substance, exceeding one-half gram.” He also asserts that evidence “seized and manufactured through an informant, after-the-fact, through inducement” is insufficient to show probable cause in Tennessee. The trial court denied relief. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Cumecus R. Cates v. State of Tennessee
Pursuant to a plea agreement, the Petitioner pled guilty to four felony drug offenses and received an effective sentence of sixteen years. After a hearing, the trial court ordered the sentence to be served in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which the trial court dismissed without a hearing for failure to state a colorable claim. Concluding that the Petitioner stated a colorable claim, we reverse and remand for a hearing. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Gregory Dunnorm
|
Anderson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Gregory Dunnorm - Concurring
|
Anderson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Robert Anthony Payne v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner appeals the post-conviction court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. He claims that counsel was ineffective for failing to timely discover the existence of another individual who was questioned regarding the aggravated assault and for failing to interview or cross-examine the victim of the assault. After review, we affirm the judgment from the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Anthony Murff, aka Antony Muff
The defendant was convicted by a Lauderdale County Circuit Court jury of especially aggravated robbery, a Class A felony, and sentenced by the trial court as a Range III, persistent offender to sixty years, to be served at 100%, in the Tennessee Department of Correction. He raises three issues on appeal: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction; (2) whether the trial court erred in using his prior Illinois convictions to classify him as a persistent offender; and (3) whether the trial court erred in its application of enhancement factors. We conclude that the evidence was more than sufficient to support the defendant's conviction, and that his prior convictions in Illinois qualified him as a persistent offender. We further conclude that, although the trial court erred in applying three enhancement factors, the remaining enhancement factors justify the sixty-year sentence imposed in this case. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Olivia Washburn
A Henderson County Circuit Court jury found the defendant, Olivia Washburn, guilty of the sale and delivery of .5 grams or more of cocaine, Class B felonies, and assessed two separate $25,000 fines. The trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range I, standard offender, imposed an eight-year sentence to be served in the Tennessee Department of Correction, and merged the fines so that the defendant was ordered to pay a total of $25,000. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in concluding both that her statement to law enforcement officers was voluntary and that the evidence against her was sufficient, as well as in allowing into evidence a videotape not produced to the defense. These assignments are without merit. However, we conclude that the trial court erred in admitting the defendant's statement without considering whether the probative value of the numerous references to other drug offenses outweighed their prejudicial effect. The judgments of the trial court are reversed, and the matter is remanded for a new trial. |
Henderson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John Wesley Johnson
The appellant, John Wesley Johnson, was indicted by the Gibson County Grand Jury for one count of desecration of a venerated object, to wit: a place of burial, a class A misdemeanor. He was convicted by a jury, sentenced to eleven months and twenty-nine days in the county jail, placed on probation, and ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $2,574. The appellant, proceeding pro se, filed an untimely notice of appeal. This court, upon motion of the appellant, waived timely filing |
Gibson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Wendy McFadden v. State of Tennessee
The Defendant pled guilty to second degree murder, and the trial court imposed an agreed sentence of fifteen years in the Department of Correction. The Defendant subsequently filed for post-conviction relief, alleging that she did not enter a voluntary and knowing guilty plea and alleging that she received ineffective assistance of counsel in conjunction with her plea. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied relief. This appeal followed. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Crockett | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Timothy D. McGlory
|
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Genee Hardin Snow, Sr.
Originally charged in an indictment with the offense of attempted first degree murder, the Defendant, Genee Hardin Snow, Sr., entered into a negotiated plea agreement wherein he pled guilty to the lesser-included offense of attempted second degree murder, with the trial court to determine the length and manner of service of his sentence following a sentencing hearing. Additional charges of aggravated assault, reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon, and possession of a weapon in a public place were dismissed pursuant to the plea agreement. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Defendant to serve nine (9) years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Arguing that he should have received the minimum sentence of eight (8) years, and that he should have been ordered to serve the sentence on probation or some other form of alternative sentence, Defendant has 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. Thomas Gatewood
The defendant, Thomas Gatewood, was indicted for first degree murder but convicted of second degree murder, for which he was sentenced as a violent offender to twenty-three years imprisonment. In his appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in not granting a continuance because of a missing witness, in not instructing as to the lesser-included offenses of reckless homicide and criminally negligent homicide and that his sentence was excessive. Although issues one and three are without merit, we agree that the jury should have been instructed as to the lesser offenses of reckless homicide and criminally negligent homicide. Accordingly, we reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Eric Ross Sewell v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The petitioner pled guilty to two counts of aggravated sexual battery, Class B felonies, and one count of attempted aggravated sexual battery, a Class C felony. Subsequently, he filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel as its main issue. Following a hearing, the court denied relief, and the petitioner timely appealed. On appeal, the petitioner argues that the record shows that trial counsel was ineffective and that the post-conviction court showed bias in its ruling and incorrectly limited his proof at the hearing. Following our review, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Haskel D. Finch
A Humphreys County Circuit Court jury convicted the defendant of rape, and the trial court sentenced him as a violent offender to ten years, with 100% of his sentence to be served. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in finding sufficient evidence to convict him of rape, in admitting a statement he made to the police, in admitting evidence of the victim's mental capacity, in denying his Tennessee Rule of Evidence 412 motion, and in failing to instruct the jury as to assault. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Humphreys | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Mark Lee Dale
The defendant was convicted by a Lincoln County Circuit Court Jury of robbery, a Class C felony, and was sentenced by the trial court as a Range II, multiple offender to nine years, three months in the Department of Correction. The sole issue he raises on appeal is whether the trial court erred in finding that the State's peremptory challenge of the only African-American member of the venire was exercised on race-neutral grounds. Based on our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Lincoln | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Frederick Beauregard v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant, Frederick Beauregard, appeals from the Hardeman County Circuit Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. In May of 1997, Beauregard was convicted of the rape and incest of his thirteen-year-old daughter. He received an effective sentence of nine years for the convictions. Beauregard's convictions and sentences were later affirmed on direct appeal. See State v. Beauregard, 32 S.W.3d 681 (Tenn. 2000). On February 13, 2001, Beauregard timely filed his pro se petition for post-conviction relief which was amended following appointment of counsel. Following a hearing on the merits, the trial court denied Beauregard's petition. From this denial, Beauregard now appeals asserting that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel in the following respects: (1) trial counsel was inadequately prepared for trial; (2) trial counsel failed to properly investigate, interview or call material witnesses at trial; (3) trial counsel failed to discuss trial strategy or the theory of the case with Beauregard; (4) trial counsel failed to review the jury list with Beauregard; (5) trial counsel failed to develop testimony with regard to the chain of custody of the rape kit and its reliability; and (6) trial counsel failed to provide expert proof to rebut the State's DNA expert. After review, we find no error and affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Holly Fant
The Appellant, Holly Fant, appeals from the sentencing decision of the Gibson County Circuit Court. Fant pled guilty, under an "open" plea agreement, to aggravated assault and, following a hearing, was sentenced to a term of four years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Fant now appeals, asserting that the trial court failed to comply with the relevant sentencing principles and, therefore, erred in not granting her a non-incarcerative sentence. Because we find that the trial court failed to place on the record discernable enhancing or mitigating factors as is statutorily required, and failed to include findings with regard to the denial of an alternative sentence, the judgment is reversed and this case is remanded for a new sentencing hearing. |
Gibson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jeffrey Douglas Stratton
The defendant, Jeffrey Douglas Stratton, pleaded guilty to seven counts of theft involving checks that he had forged. Pursuant to a plea agreement with the state, the defendant was sentenced to four years on each count, and two of the sentences were to be served consecutively for an effective sentence of eight years. The trial court was to determine the manner of service of the sentences. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed fully incarcerative sentences to be served in the Department of Correction. The defendant appeals this sentencing determination. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ricky Garrett v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from a burglary conviction, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in finding that he received the effective assistance of trial counsel. He contends that trial counsel failed to provide information that was essential for him to make informed decisions in his case and failed to present an adequate defense at trial, and that the cumulative effect of the alleged deficiencies in counsel's performance was to prejudice the outcome of his case. We affirm the denial of the petition for post-conviction relief. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals |
