State of Tennessee v. Jeffrey L. Marcum
The appellant, Jeffrey L. Marcum, appeals his convictions by a jury in the Madison County Circuit Court of one count of rape of a child, one count of aggravated sexual battery, and one count of incest. In this appeal, the appellant raises the following issues for our consideration: (1) whether the trial court erred under Tenn. R. Evid. 412 in limiting his cross-examination of the victim concerning her "sexual history and knowledge;" (2) whether the evidence adduced at trial is sufficient to support the jury's "verdict" of guilt; and (3) whether the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of attempt to commit rape of a child. Following a careful review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court for the offenses of aggravated sexual battery and incest, but we reverse the judgment for the offense of rape of a child and remand the case for a new trial on that charge. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Timothy Potts v. State of Tennessee
|
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Charles M. Thomas
The defendant, Charles M. Thomas, appeals his conviction for possession of greater than .5 grams of cocaine with the intent to sell and the trial court's order requiring his resulting ten-year sentence to be served consecutively to prior sentences. This case presents three issues for our determination: (1) whether evidence against the defendant was the fruit of an illegal detention and search; (2) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the defendant's conviction; and (3) whether the trial court erred by ordering the defendant's sentence to be served consecutively to his prior sentences. For the reasons set forth below, we conclude there is no reversible error; therefore, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kenneth Lee Kendrick
The defendant, Kenneth Lee Kendrick, appeals the Sullivan County Criminal Court's revocation of his probation. We affirm the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Nathan Scott Potter - Concurring
I concur in the results reached in the majority opinion. However, I disagree with its implicit conclusion that legislative action regarding pretrial procedure in cases before the courts does not infringe upon the separation of powers doctrine. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Chris Haire
The defendant appeals from his McMinn County Criminal Court convictions and sentences for second degree murder and facilitation of attempted second degree murder. The trial court sentenced the defendant to 25 years in the Department of Correction as a Range I offender for the second degree murder conviction and to five years incarceration for the facilitation of attempted second degree murder conviction. In this direct appeal, the defendant complains that the evidence is insufficient; that photographs and expert testimony were improperly admitted; that prosecutorial misconduct taints the verdict; that the state improperly questioned the defendant about his post-arrest exercise of his right to remain silent; that the jury instructions regarding intoxication were prejudicially inadequate; and that the sentences imposed are excessive. Unpersuaded by the defendant's assignments of errors, we affirm the trial court's judgment and sentence. |
McMinn | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Shaun Michael Fleegle
A Knox County jury found the Defendant guilty of voluntary manslaughter, a Class C felony; and the trial court sentenced him as a Range I, standard offender to five years, four of which were to be served on probation. The Defendant now appeals, arguing the following: (1) that the trial court failed to properly consider enhancement and mitigating factors during sentencing, and (2) that the trial court erred in failing to grant judicial diversion. Finding that the trial court properly sentenced the Defendant, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Timothy Rathers v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Timothy Rathers, was convicted by a jury in the Shelby County Criminal Court of one count of possessing less than ten pounds of marijuana with intent to deliver and one count of possessing over .5 gram of cocaine with intent to deliver. The trial court sentenced the petitioner to an effective sentence of ten years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. The post-conviction court denied the petition, finding that the petitioner had not met his burden of demonstrating counsel's ineffectiveness. The petitioner appeals. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
John H. Frasure, III v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, John H. Frasure, III, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his guilty plea to especially aggravated robbery, a Class A felony, and theft of property valued over ten thousand dollars but less than sixty thousand dollars, a Class C felony. The trial court sentenced the petitioner as a violent offender to fifteen years in the Tennessee Department of Correction for the especially aggravated robbery conviction and as a Range I, standard offender to three years for the theft of property conviction, to be served concurrently. The petitioner claims that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial attorney (1) failed to prepare adequately for trial because she did not interview any witnesses for the case and did not hire an investigator to assist with the case; (2) did not subpoena witnesses for a hearing to suppress the petitioner's confession or trial; (3) failed to investigate thoroughly his mental condition; and (4) failed to file a change of venue motion. We affirm the trial court's denial of the petition. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Barton L. Hawkins v. State of Tennessee
A Shelby County jury convicted the Petitioner of rape, and the trial court sentenced him as a Range I violent offender to eight years and one day in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief. The trial court conducted a post-conviction hearing and denied relief. The Petitioner now appeals the denial of post-conviction relief, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. Specifically, he contends that his counsel (1) failed to aggressively question the victim regarding consent; (2) failed to object to the admission of expert testimony; (3) failed to aggressively cross-examine the prosecution's expert witness concerning her qualifications and her testimony in chief; (4) failed to prepare or investigate the case; (5) failed to object to "prejudicial witness examination and argument regarding the swapping of" a car battery; (6) failed to discuss defense strategy with the Petitioner; (7) failed to question the Petitioner about his knowledge of the victim's previous sexual behavior; (8) failed to review the transcript from the Petitioner's preliminary hearing; (9) failed to offer evidence of an injury to the Petitioner's hand; (10) failed to argue in closing the weight the jury should give testimony by the State's expert witness and failed to object to the State's definition of reasonable doubt in closing arguments; and (11) "failed to raise all probable issues on appeal." Having reviewed the record, we conclude that the Petitioner's representation was not deficient and therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court denying post-conviction relief. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Bequir Ymerli Potka, Fatmir Agolli, Stavri Popa & Epison Pulaha v. State of Tennessee
We granted the defendants’ application for interlocutory appeal, see Tenn. R. App. P. 9, to review the trial court’s disqualification of defense counsel based upon conflicting interests in counsel’s representation of all four defendants. Because we conclude that the lower court acted within its discretion in disqualifying counsel from multiple representation, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Paul J. Ward
A jury found defendant guilty of two counts of selling a Schedule I controlled substance (heroin), class B felonies. Defendant appeals his convictions claiming insufficient evidence exists to support his convictions, and the admission of the tape-recorded sales transactions was error in that it contained evidence of other bad acts or crimes in violations of Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b). We affirm. |
Carter | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Cleander Cleon Hartman, Jr. - Concurring and Dissenting
I fully concur in the majority’s opinion with the exception of its conclusion that the sentence in this case is unreasonable in light of the severity of the offenses. In any event, upon remand for a new trial, should the defendant again be convicted pursuant to counts one and three of the indictment, the trial court should be free to consider the imposition of consecutive sentencing in light of any additional evidence presented by the State. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Cleander Cleon Hartman, Jr.
The defendant appeals from his convictions of aggravated sexual battery, sexual battery by an authority figure, and sexual battery. We conclude that the conviction for Count Two of sexual battery by an authority figure must be reversed and dismissed because stepparents as a matter of law are not included in the statute under which the defendant was indicted. Additionally, evidence of uncharged sex crimes was erroneously admitted and inappropriately argued resulting in undue prejudice to the defendant. The cumulative effect of these errors requires a new trial on Count One and Count Three. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Gregory L. Hollingsworth v. State of Tennessee
On May 3, 1999, the Defendant, Gregory L. Hollingsworth, pled guilty to aggravated assault, vehicular assault, driving after being declared an habitual motor vehicle offender, and two counts of criminal impersonation. The convictions were obtained in Madison County, Tennessee. The Defendant apparently did not appeal, but filed pro se for post-conviction relief in Carter County, Tennessee, where he was incarcerated. The trial court summarily dismissed the petition for improper venue. The Defendant refiled his petition on May 25, 2000, in Madison County, Tennessee. The trial court summarily dismissed the petition as barred by the one year statute of limitations. The Defendant now appeals. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Chad Davis
The Appellant, Chad Davis, pled guilty in the Shelby County Criminal Court to DUI, second offense, and driving on a revoked license. At the sentencing hearing, Davis requested that he be permitted to serve on work release the imposed forty-five day mandatory jail sentence for DUI, second offense, and the consecutive two-day jail sentence for driving on a revoked license. The trial court found Davis was ineligible for work release because he was self-employed. Davis now appeals |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Chad Davis - Order
|
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Eddie Medlock
The Appellant, Eddie Medlock, was convicted after a trial by jury of two counts of aggravated rape and two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, class A felonies. The Appellant, a Range III persistent offender, was sentenced to sixty years on each count. The Criminal Court of Shelby County ordered the rape counts to run concurrent, the kidnapping counts to run concurrent, and the rape and kidnapping counts to run consecutively to each other, for an effective one-hundred and twenty-year sentence. On appeal, Medlock argues that: (1) his multiple punishments for especially aggravated kidnapping and multiple punishments for aggravated rape violated double jeopardy principles; (2) his convictions for especially aggravated kidnapping violated due process principles of State v. Anthony; (3) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions; (4) the trial court failed to articulate its findings of applicable enhancing factors at sentencing; and (5) consecutive sentencing was improper. After review, we find Medlock's multiple convictions for especially aggravated kidnapping constitute double jeopardy. Accordingly, one count of especially aggravated kidnapping is reversed and dismissed; the sentences and convictions for the remaining two counts of aggravated rape and one count of especially aggravated kidnapping are affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Mario Johnson
The Appellant, Mario Johnson, was convicted by a Shelby County jury for first-degree felony murder during the perpetration of a robbery and was sentenced to life imprisonment with parole. On appeal, Johnson argues that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support the verdict. After review, we find no error and affirm the judgment of the Shelby County Criminal Court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Clifford Douglas Peele
The defendant appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea on the ground that he received ineffective assistance of counsel during the plea proceedings. Initially, we dismissed his appeal. The supreme court granted the defendant's application to appeal and reversed the dismissal, remanding the matter to this Court for a determination of the merits of the appeal. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Carter | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Marcus Fitzgerald
Defendant, Marcus Fitzgerald, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of resisting arrest, aggravated rape, and rape. Defendant appeals his convictions and presents the following issues for review: (1) whether the trial court erred in granting the State's motion to consolidate; (2) whether the trial court erred in denying Defendant's motion to suppress a pre-trial identification; (3) whether the trial court erred by offering an advisory opinion on a stipulation; (4) whether Defendant was unfairly prejudiced by the trial court's comments to the jury after extraneous contact with a third party; and (5) whether the trial court erred by admitting mug shots of Defendant taken a few days after his arrest. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Terrance Rogers
Defendant, Terrance Rogers, appeals the revocation of his community corrections sentence. Defendant contends that the court erred by revoking his sentence for failing to report a new arrest, and for the alleged possession of cocaine. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Cornelius Michael Hyde
The Defendant, Cornelius Michael Hyde, was convicted of aggravated child abuse of a child under seven years old and appealed as of right on numerous grounds, including the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offenses of aggravated assault and assault. Judge Welles held that the trial court's failure to so charge the jury was error, but harmless under State v. Williams, 977 S.W.2d 101, 105 (Tenn. 1998). Judge Wedemeyer concurred, finding the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; Judge Tipton dissented, finding that the State failed to carry its burden of demonstrating that the trial court's error in not instructing the jury on the lesser-included offenses was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See State v. Cornelius Michael Hyde, No. E2000-00042-CC-R3-CD, 2000 WL 1877490, at *11 (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, Dec. 28, 2000). Our supreme court subsequently granted the Defendant's application to appeal this case for the purpose of remanding it to us for reconsideration in light of that court's opinions in State v. Honeycutt, 54 S.W.3d 762 (Tenn. 2001) and State v. Ely, 48 S.W.3d 710 (Tenn. 2001). We now conclude that the trial court's error in failing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of reckless aggravated assault is reversible error, and therefore remand this case to the trial court for a new trial. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Mark Christopher Davis
|
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Darrell M. Scales
The Defendant, Darrell M. Scales, was convicted by a jury of three counts of aggravated robbery and three counts of aggravated sexual battery. The trial court subsequently sentenced the Defendant to nine years on each of the robberies and to nine years on each of the sexual batteries. The court ordered the sentences to be run partially consecutive, for an effective sentence of twenty-seven years. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant raises the following five issues: (1) whether the trial court erred by refusing to suppress identification testimony; (2) whether the evidence is sufficient to support his convictions; (3) whether the trial court erred in failing to require the State to elect from two separate incidents of aggravated sexual battery against one of the victims; (4) whether the trial court erred in failing to charge the jury on lesser-included offenses of aggravated sexual battery; and (5) whether the trial court erred in ordering partially consecutive sentences. We hold that the trial court committed reversible error when it failed to require the State to elect offenses, and that it committed reversible error when it failed to instruct the jury on all lesser-included offenses of aggravated sexual battery. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for retrial the Defendant's convictions for aggravated sexual battery. In all other respects the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals |
