State of Tennessee v. Anderson Toliver - Concurring
I concur in the result reached and most of the reasoning used in the majority opinion. However, I would hold that the defendant was entitled to an instruction on attempted aggravated child abuse under the evidence presented. As the majority opinion holds though, under State v. Williams, 977 S.W.2d 101, 106 (Tenn. 1988), the failure to give the instruction was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joseph J. Levitt, Jr.
The defendant drove up behind a vehicle which had halted because of a driver's license roadblock near Knoxville. He then proceeded onto the right shoulder to get around that vehicle and was stopped by the Tennessee Highway Patrol officer conducting the roadblock. What next occurred was highly disputed, but the events culminated with the defendant's being sprayed with Freeze, some of which was deflected back onto the officer, partially incapacitating him also. The defendant was charged with resisting arrest, reckless driving, and failure to carry and display a driver's license on demand. The reckless driving charge was nolle prosequi and, following a jury trial, the defendant was found not guilty of resisting arrest but was convicted of the driver's license charge, sentenced to ten days confinement, which was suspended, and ordered to pay a $50 fine and court costs. He timely appealed the conviction, arguing that the roadblock was unconstitutional. Based upon our review, we conclude that the roadblock was unconstitutional and that the officers lacked probable cause to stop the defendant's vehicle. Accordingly, we reverse the conviction and dismiss the charge. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Clifton Shelton
The defendant, Clifton Shelton, pled guilty to simple possession of marijuana, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced the defendant to 11 months and 29 days, requiring him to spend four months in a halfway house and the balance of his sentence on probation. The defendant argues that the trial court erred by failing to suspend his entire sentence. Because the trial court relied on the defendant's prior grant of judicial diversion in denying full probation, the judgment is modified and the cause is remanded to the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Bernard Keys
The Shelby County Grand Jury returned two indictments against the defendant, one for aggravated burglary and one for misdemeanor evading arrest. The trial court consolidated the indictments prior to trial pursuant to Tenn. R. Crim. P. 8(b). The defendant was found guilty of both charges by a Shelby County jury. In this appeal, the defendant contends (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions; and (2) the trial court improperly consolidated the indictments. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Darrin Fleming
The defendant, Darrin Fleming, was convicted of aggravated burglary, assault, and criminal responsibility for facilitation of robbery. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of six years. In this appeal of right, the defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions for aggravated burglary and assault and that the trial court erred by refusing to give a special instruction on criminal responsibility. The judgments of the trial court are affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Mario A. Johnson
The defendant, Mario A. Johnson, was convicted of facilitation to commit first degree murder and especially aggravated robbery. The trial court imposed a Range I sentence of 20 years for facilitation of first degree murder and a concurrent sentence of 23 years for especially aggravated robbery. In this appeal of right, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. The judgments are affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Eric Wright v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief on December 11, 2000, in which he attacked convictions entered in September 1990 and upon which final appellate action was taken in 1992. The post-conviction court dismissed the petition without a hearing, because it was filed outside the |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Eric Wright v. State of Tennessee - Dissenting
I respectfully dissent. Based upon the record before us, I believe that the trial court was justified in dismissing the petition without an evidentiary hearing. I do not believe that our supreme court intended in Williams v. State, 44 S.W.3d 464, 471 (Tenn. 2001), to provide a hearing for people in the petitioner’s situation. In Williams, the record indicated that Williams’ attorney’s actions may have led Williams to believe that supreme court review was timely sought, thereby potentially misleading him about when the statute of limitations would run. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Carlos Haywood v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant, Carlos Haywood, appeals from the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. Haywood was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court Jury of felony murder and attempted especially aggravated robbery, and was sentenced to life imprisonment plus ten years. On appeal, Haywood argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. After review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court dismissing the petition. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joe Scott
The defendant, Joe Scott, was convicted of aggravated robbery. The trial court imposed a Range II sentence of 19 years. In this appeal of right, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. The judgment is affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Charles David Vanderford
The appellant, Charles David Vanderford, appeals the order of the Circuit Court of Hardin County revoking the community corrections sentences that he received following his convictions by a jury of two counts of possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell. The appellant challenges the trial court's reliance upon his commission of crimes during the pendency of his appeal from his convictions of felony drug possession and prior to the commencement of his community corrections sentences. Following a review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hardin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Waldo Wiggins, Jr.
Following transfer to circuit court for trial as an adult, the juvenile defendant, Waldo Wiggins, Jr., was convicted of first degree murder. On appeal, Defendant challenges (1) whether the denial of bail by the juvenile court and subsequent bond of $ 250,000 set by the circuit court violated his right to due process of law, and (2) whether the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction. After a review of the record, we affirm. |
Tipton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Dale Godwin
In 1995, the Defendant pled guilty to four felony drug charges for which he received three concurrent eight-year sentences and one concurrent five-year sentence, to be served on Community Corrections. Subsequently, the trial court revoked the Defendant's Community Corrections sentences and ordered him to serve twelve years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The Defendant now appeals, alleging that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to re-sentence the Defendant and that the twelve year sentence was improperly imposed. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Obion | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Troy D. Ryan
The defendant appeals from a conviction of theft of property over one thousand dollars. The sole issue presented for review is the sufficiency of the evidence to establish the value element of the offense. We conclude that the testimony by the owner of the stolen property was sufficient for the jury to find that the fair market value of the property was over one thousand dollars. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kenneth L. Boggs
The defendant, Kenneth L. Boggs, appeals his Davidson County Criminal Court conviction of unlawful possession of a handgun, a Class E felony. He complains on appeal that the trial court erred in not addressing the prosecutor's exploitation of the defendant's exercise of his right to remain silent following his arrest. Finding no error requiring reversal, we affirm the conviction. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Charles William Jones
The Defendant, Charles William Jones, was convicted of second degree murder in the Criminal Court of Davidson County. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the Defendant to twenty-two years in the Department of Correction. In this appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and (2) the trial court improperly applied two enhancement factors in sentencing the Defendant. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Perry Saleem Lee v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Perry Saleem Lee, appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief by the Williamson County Circuit Court, which held that the petitioner's claims for relief had been either previously determined or waived. The petitioner complains about his appointed counsel and the state's purported shortcomings in the post-conviction process. He also complains about the trial court not allowing an amendment to the petition, not allowing an evidentiary hearing, and not setting forth findings of fact and conclusions of law as to each ground he raised. We affirm the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jerry Damon Williams
On September 25, 2000, the Defendant, Jerry Damon Williams, entered a plea of guilty to driving under the influence of alcohol in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-10-401. Pursuant to Rule 37 (b)(1)(i) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Defendant sought to reserve a certified question of law to be reviewed by this Court. In this appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) he properly reserved the certified question of the validity of the police's initial investigatory stop and (2) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence discovered as a result of the investigatory stop. We vacate the Defendant's conviction and dismiss the case. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jared M. Barnes
The defendant, Jared M. Barnes, was convicted upon his guilty plea for vehicular homicide by recklessness, a Class C felony. The trial court sentenced him as a Range I, standard offender to five years, with ten months, day for day, to be served in the county jail and the remainder of the sentence to be served on probation. In addition, the trial court suspended the defendant's driving privileges for five years and ordered that he complete five hundred hours of community service. The defendant appeals his sentence, contending that the trial court erred in denying him judicial diversion or full probation. We affirm the trial court's denial of judicial diversion and full probation, but hold that the order that the defendant serve his ten-month incarceration day for day does not preclude use of applicable conduct credits. |
Sevier | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Cory L. Milliken
The Defendant, Corey L. Milliken, pled guilty to two counts of first degree premeditated murder and one count of aggravated robbery. His agreed sentence was two concurrent life sentences for the murders and a consecutive twelve year term for the aggravated robbery, for an effective sentence of life plus twelve years. The Defendant timely filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that his guilty plea was not entered knowingly and voluntarily. After a hearing the trial court denied relief and the Defendant appealed as of right. Finding no error in the trial court's ruling on the Defendant's petition, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Chauncey E. Gray
The defendant, Chauncey E. Gray, appeals as of right from his convictions by a jury in the Chester County Circuit Court of forgery, a Class E felony, and theft of property valued at $500 or less, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced him as a Range II, multiple offender to a four-year sentence for the forgery to be served in the Department of Correction, imposed a $1,500 fine, and ordered $400 in restitution. It imposed a sentence of eleven months, twenty-nine days at seventy-five percent for the theft to be served concurrently and a $1,250 fine. The defendant contends that his effective four-year sentence is excessive and that he should have received a sentencing alternative to confinement. We affirm the sentences imposed by the trial court. |
Chester | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James Thomas Page v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, James Thomas Page, appeals as of right from the Chester County Circuit Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The petitioner pled guilty to second degree murder, a Class A felony, and received the agreed, forty-year sentence as a 100% violent offender. He contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel and that he did not understand what was happening at the guilty plea hearing. We affirm the trial court's denial of the petition. |
Chester | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Timothy L. Robertson
The defendant, Timothy L. Robertson, was indicted on two counts of unlawful possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell; one count of felony possession of a weapon; and one count of driving on a revoked or suspended license. Following the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress, he pled guilty to one count of possession of more than .5 grams of cocaine with the intent to resell, a Class B felony, and one count of felony possession of a weapon, a Class E felony. In accordance with the terms of his plea bargain agreement, the remaining counts of the indictment were dismissed. Pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2)(1) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure, the defendant reserved the right to appeal as a dispositive question of law the issue of whether his custodial arrest and the subsequent search of his vehicle violated the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, Article I, Section 7 of the Tennessee Constitution, and Tennessee Code Annotated Section 40-7-118(b)(1)(c). We conclude that the officers were required to make a custodial arrest of the defendant to prevent his continued violation of the driver's license law, and that the subsequent search of his vehicle was valid as incident to that arrest. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jesse C. Minor by and through counsel, Hal Hardin v. State of Tennessee
We accepted this extraordinary appeal, see Tenn. R. App. P. 10, to review certain pre-hearing actions of the Davidson County Criminal Court in this post-conviction case. Our grant of review extends to these issues: (1) whether a "next friend" may file a post-conviction petition on behalf of an incompetent prisoner; (2) if so, may the post-conviction court, sua sponte, order a mental evaluation of the prisoner or conduct other inquiries into the matter to determine whether the "next friend" petition was properly filed on the prisoner's behalf; and (3) whether the court below properly denied the petitioner's motion for recusal. We conclude that we improvidently granted extraordinary review in part, but we otherwise affirm the rulings of the lower court and remand for further proceedings. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Melvin Waters
The defendant appeals from his convictions for facilitation of aggravated robbery, aggravated assault, resisting arrest and criminal impersonation. The only issue raised by the defendant is whether the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction for aggravated assault. Based on our review of the evidence, we conclude that the co-defendant's conduct amounted to aggravated assault and that the defendant, as a party to the offense, was criminally responsible for that conduct. The judgments of the trial court are affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals |
