State of Tennessee v. Ernest Soloman
The defendant was convicted in the Shelby County Criminal Court of two counts of aggravated robbery, one count of attempted aggravated robbery, and one count of aggravated assault. He appealed the aggravated robbery convictions, arguing that the proof was insufficient to sustain the convictions. We affirm the judgments of the trial court but remand for resentencing as to the conviction for attempted aggravated robbery. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Marlon R. Jackson v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief, later amended by appointed counsel, claiming that his 1999 pleas of guilty in the Shelby County Criminal Court were involuntary and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Following a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief, and the petitioner timely appealed, raising the same two issues. We affirm the judgments of the trial court dismissing the petition. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joseph Darryl Taylor
Defendant, Joseph Darryl Taylor, was convicted of attempt to commit sexual battery, attempt to commit rape, and aggravated kidnapping. In this appeal as of right, Defendant contends that the evidence adduced at trial concerning all three offenses was insufficient to find him guilty and that the trial court erred when it sentenced Defendant. Following a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court in part and reverse in part. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kenneth Anderson
The Defendant, Kenneth Anderson, appeals as of right from the revocation of his probation by the trial court. On appeal, he asserts that the trial court erred by ordering him to serve the balance of his sentence in incarceration after finding that he had violated his probation. We find no error; thus, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Frankie L. Richardson
The Defendant, Frankie L. Richardson, appeals as of right from the revocation of his probation. He argues that the trial judge abused his discretion by revoking probation. We find no abuse of discretion; thus, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Alkita M. Odom
This is an interlocutory appeal by the State pursuant to Rule 9 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. The Defendant, Alkita M. Odom, was indicted for the offenses of forgery and criminal simulation, each in the amount of $250,000. The indictment reflected that each offense was a Class B felony. Upon the Defendant's motion, the trial court dismissed the indictment to the extent that it reflected Class B felonies because the court found that for the crime to be anything other than Class E felonies, the Defendant would have had to have actually obtained goods or services. The court then granted the State's motion to amend the indictment to reflect Class E felonies for the purposes of appeal. The State argues on appeal that the trial court improperly dismissed the indictment based on the grade of the offense charged. We agree. Accordingly, we reverse the dismissal of the indictment and reinstate it as originally returned by the Grand Jury. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. David D. Bottoms
The defendant pled guilty in Davidson County Criminal Court to one count of arson, a Class C felony, based on his setting fire to a rental house. According to a plea agreement with the State, he received a four-year sentence as a Range I, standard offender. A sentencing hearing was held to determine the manner of service of his sentence and the amount and manner of payment of any restitution. The trial court ordered that the defendant serve his entire sentence in confinement in the workhouse and that he pay $10,000 in restitution to the victim. In this appeal as of right, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying any alternative sentence and in ordering restitution in the amount of $10,000. Having reviewed the record on appeal, we affirm the judgment of the trial court as to the manner of service. As to restitution, we reverse and remand to the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Paul Dennis Reid, Jr.
Paul Dennis Reid, Jr. was found guilty by a jury of two counts of first-degree murder and one count of especially aggravated robbery. Reid’s convictions stem from the execution style murders of two Captain D’s employees and the especially aggravated robbery of one of the employees. The jury returned a sentence of death for each of the homicides based upon its finding of three aggravating factors, i.e., (i)(2), prior violent felony; (i)(6), murder committed for the purpose of avoiding prosecution; and (i)(7), murder committed during commission of robbery. The Davidson County Criminal Court subsequently imposed a twenty-five-year sentence for the especially aggravated robbery conviction and ordered this sentence to be served consecutively to the two death sentences. In this appeal as of right, Reid presents numerous issues for our review, including (1) issues arising from suppressed evidence; (2) challenges to the selection of jurors; (3) the sufficiency of the convicting evidence; (4) the admission and exclusion of evidence at both the guilt and penalty phases; (5) the propriety of the prosecution’s closing argument during the guilt phase; (6) the failure to instruct on lesser-included offenses; (7) the trial court’s act of holding court into late hours of the evening without cause; (8) the admissibility in general and the introduction of specific victim impact evidence; (9) prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument; (10) the propriety of the jury instructions; (11) whether application of the (i)(7) aggravator violates State v. Middlebrooks; (12) |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Paul Dennis Reid, Jr. - Concurring
I fully concur in Judge Hayes’s thorough, incisive opinion. With respect to a portion of the analysis of the especially aggravated robbery sentencing issues, I concur merely in the results. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William R. Stevens
The Defendant, William R. Stevens, was convicted of two counts of first degree premeditated murder and one count of especially aggravated robbery, arising out of the deaths of his wife and mother-in-law. For each of his murder convictions, he was sentenced to death. He now appeals as of right, raising the following eleven issues for our review: (1) whether it was error to limit the testimony of crime-scene expert Gregg McCrary; (2) whether it was error to exclude evidence which tended to show that Corey Milliken had an independent motive to commit the murders; (3) whether it was error to admit a redacted version of Sandi Stevens' diary; (4) whether the trial court failed to apply the hearsay and other evidentiary rules in an evenhanded manner; (5) whether the hearsay statements of Corey Milliken to Sarah Suttle should have been excluded as not being "in furtherance of the conspiracy"; (6) whether the cumulative effect of all errors at trial violated the Defendant's right to due process of law; (7) whether instructing the jury that it must agree unanimously in order to impose a life sentence and prohibiting it from being told the effect of a non-unanimous verdict violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments; (8) whether the Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-204(i)(4) aggravating circumstance fails to narrow the class of death-eligible defendants in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments; (9) whether the failure to articulate meaningful standards for proportionality review mandated by Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-206 violates the Defendant's right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment; (10) whether the unlimited discretion vested in the prosecutor as to whether or not to seek the death penalty violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments; and (11) whether the death penalty is imposed in a discriminatory manner in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. After a thorough review of the record and the relevant legal authorities, we find no reversible error on the part of the trial court. Accordingly, we affirm the Defendant's convictions and his sentences of death. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Richard Lee Franklin v. State of Tennessee
In his original trial, the Petitioner, Richard Lee Franklin, was convicted of first degree murder by a Cumberland County jury for the death of David Kirkland. Due to procedural errors at Petitioner's first trial, the trial court granted Petitioner's motion for a new trial. Petitioner was retried and the jury convicted him of second degree murder. The trial court sentenced the Petitioner to twenty-two years of incarceration. State v. Richard Lee Franklin, No. 03C01-9706-CR-00219, 1998 WL 458580, at *1, Cumberland County (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, August 10, 1998), perm. to appeal denied (Tenn. 1999). Subsequently, Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief which was denied. In this appeal as of right, he asserts that the post-conviction court erred in finding his trial counsel's performance to be effective. Specifically, the appellant contends that trial counsel was ineffective for (1) failing to investigate and present witnesses that would support a defense of self-defense; (2) for failing to discuss trial strategies and defenses with the Petitioner; and (3) for failing to request an instruction on self-defense. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Cumberland | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Marlo Jones
The defendant was convicted by a jury of aggravated criminal trespass, attempted aggravated assault, and two counts of felony reckless endangerment. The trial court sentenced the defendant to concurrent sentences of eleven months and twenty-nine days for aggravated criminal trespass, two years for attempted aggravated assault, and one year each for both counts of felony reckless endangerment. The defendant was granted probation after service of 120 days. In this appeal, the defendant challenges the trial court's denial of full probation. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the sentence imposed by the trial court. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Danny J. Wilson v. Fred J. Raney, Warden
The petitioner was sentenced to an effective ten-year sentence on December 13, 1990, and on December 20, 1991, he received an additional two-year sentence for felony escape, to be served consecutively to his original sentences. He filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus claiming that he was being illegally restrained because, by his calculations, his sentence had expired. The post-conviction court denied the petition, as well as a subsequent petition to rehear, and the petitioner timely appealed. We affirm the judgment of the trial court denying the petition. |
Lake | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Charles Arthur Reeves
The defendant appealed the trial court's loss of jurisdiction when he was transferred into the custody of the Department of Correction. The issue is now moot. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Johnny Wayne Garner and Richard Darrell Miller v. State of Tennessee
Both Petitioners appeal from the post-conviction court's denial of their post-conviction relief petitions. The Petitioners claim ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal for failing to object to an erroneous jury instruction and failing to raise the erroneous jury instruction in their direct appeal. The post-conviction court found the jury instruction to be erroneous; however, it denied relief. After a thorough review, we conclude that the jury instruction was erroneous and prejudicial to the Petitioners and find that trial and appellate counsel were ineffective for failing to object to the erroneous jury instruction at trial and for failing to raise it on direct appeal. Accordingly, we reverse the post-conviction court's denial of relief and remand the Petitioners' cases to the trial court for new trials on the issues of aggravated arson. |
Giles | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James Byron Transou v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, James Byron Transou, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The issues presented for review are (1) whether the petitioner was denied his constitutional right to self-representation; (2) whether the denial of a motion for continuance is a basis for relief; (3) whether the election on the charge made by the state is a basis for relief; and (4) whether the petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel. The judgment is affirmed. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Vernon Bernard Love v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner was originally convicted by a Carroll County jury of the sale of a controlled substance. The conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. The petitioner sought post-conviction relief, which was denied by the post-conviction court. In this appeal as a matter of right, the petitioner contends that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the trial court correctly denied post-conviction relief. |
Carroll | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael D. Rimmer
The Defendant appeals his conviction for murder in the first degree and the sentence of death imposed by the jury.1 This opinion is delivered in two parts, with a separate opinion addressing Part II. (1) Admission of evidence regarding his escape attempts; After careful review, we affirm the conviction for murder in the first degree. In Part II of this opinion, Judge Williams sets forth his minority position on the following issues: (1) Application of the (i)(2) aggravating factor in the imposition of the death penalty; and (2) Cumulative effect of errors. The position of the majority on the issues addressed in Part II is set forth in the separate opinion filed by Judge Witt, in which Judge Hayes has joined. The majority concludes that the verdict is enigmatic and uncertain, requiring reversal of the sentence of death and re-sentencing. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael D. Rimmer
This separate opinion addresses issues relative to the sentencing phase of the trial, as well as the defendant’s cumulative error issue. Expressed herein are the views of the majority, consisting of Judge Hayes and Judge Witt. The minority view of Judge Williams is expressed in his lead opinion. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ricky A. Burks
Ricky A. Burks was convicted by a Davidson County jury of the first-degree murder of his wife. The trial court granted Burks' motion for judgment of acquittal and entered a judgment for second-degree murder. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Burks, as a range II offender, to forty years confinement in the Department of Correction. Burks now appeals both the judgment of conviction and the sentence entered by the Davidson County Criminal Court, challenging the trial court's (1) denial of his motions to suppress; (2) admission of prior bad acts of the defendant; (3) jury instructions regarding prior bad acts; (4) admission of autopsy photographs of the victim; (5) refusal to instruct on the lesser-included offense of reckless homicide; (6) finding that the evidence is sufficient to support a conviction of second-degree murder; and (7) imposition of the maximum sentence of forty years. The State cross-appeals challenging the trial court's ruling in reducing the jury's verdict of first-degree murder to that of second-degree murder. Finding no error, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Gregory Hatton v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Gregory Hatton, sought post-conviction relief on the grounds that his trial counsel was ineffective, that his guilty pleas were not knowing and voluntary, and that his sentence is illegal. The trial court concluded that the petition was barred by the statute of limitations. Insofar as an illegal sentence is subject to correction at any time, the trial court's dismissal of the petitioner's illegal sentence claim was erroneous. Because, however, the petitioner is not entitled to relief on that claim, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Giles | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Robert A. Hayden
Indicted for aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery, aggravated sexual battery, two counts of aggravated rape, and especially aggravated kidnapping, the defendant entered negotiated pleas of guilt to aggravated robbery, two counts of aggravated rape, and especially aggravated kidnapping. The remaining charges were dismissed. After a hearing, the trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range I offender to 12 years for the robbery, 25 years for each of the rapes, and 25 years for the kidnapping. The rape sentences were ordered to be served consecutively to one another and to the robbery sentence, for an effective sentence of 62 years. In this appeal of right, the defendant claims that one of the aggravated rape convictions and the especially aggravated kidnapping conviction violate due process. He asserts that his sentences are excessive and should not have been ordered to be served consecutively. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Curtis Majors v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner was indicted for three counts of aggravated robbery and convicted by a Davidson County jury of one count of aggravated robbery and two counts of aggravated assault. The trial court sentenced him as a Range II, multiple offender to an effective sentence of seventeen years, and on direct appeal, this Court modified his sentence to an effective sentence of fifteen years. The Tennessee Supreme Court denied permission to appeal. The Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial because his attorneys failed to challenge two of his indictments prior to trial. Following a hearing, the trial court denied post-conviction relief, and the Petitioner now appeals the trial court's denial of relief. We hold that the Petitioner received effective assistance of counsel at trial and therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Brenda Redwine
The defendant, Brenda Redwine, after pleading guilty to possession of Schedule II drugs and simple possession of marijuana, properly reserved a certified question of law for our review. The Johnson County Criminal Court denied her motion to suppress a search warrant that was issued on January 6, 1999. The defendant asserts, by certified question of law, that the search warrant was not properly issued because the affidavit that was the basis for the warrant contained material misrepresentation by the officer. After review, we affirm the trial court's denial of the defendant's motion to suppress. |
Johnson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Darryl A. Larkins
A Davidson County jury convicted the defendant, Darryl A. Larkins, of two counts of aggravated rape, two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, one count of attempted aggravated rape, and one count of aggravated burglary. The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I offender to serve an effective sentence of fifty-years of incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant raises the following issues for our review: 1) whether the evidence was sufficient to convict the Defendant of aggravated rape and attempted aggravated rape; 2) whether the especially aggravated kidnapping convictions were obtained contrary to Tennessee law in State v. Anthony, 817 S.W.2d 299 (Tenn. 1991); and 3) whether the Defendant was denied his constitutional rights to a fair trial and a fair and impartial jury, regardingthe aggravated burglary conviction. The judgment of the trial court is hereby affirmed in part and reversed in part, and remanded to the trial court for re-sentencing on the offense of attempted aggravated rape. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals |
