COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OPINIONS

State vs. Bobby Perkins
W1999-01368-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: J. Steven Stafford
The defendant, Bobby Earl Perkins, appeals his conviction for especially aggravated robbery, contending that the trial court erred (1) by allowing a witness to testify about the defendant's statement a year before the robbery that he planned to rob the victim, (2) by allowing a police officer to testify to statements the victim made regarding the defendant, and (3) by sentencing the defendant to twenty-one years. We affirm the conviction, but we modify the sentence to twenty years.

Haywood Court of Criminal Appeals

State of Tennessee v. Michael F. Maraschiello
M1997-00049-CCA-R10-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: Robert W. Wedemeyer

Montgomery Court of Criminal Appeals

State vs. Daniel Joe James
M1999-1423-CCA-R3-CD
Trial Court Judge: Buddy D. Perry
On September 9, 1998, the Defendant, Daniel Joe James, was charged with possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. The Defendant was convicted by a jury of simple possession of a controlled substance. He received a sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days probation and was fined $2,500.00. The Defendant now challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. On appeal, the State has conceded that the evidence is insufficient to support a conviction. After a careful examination of the record, we agree that there is insufficient evidence against the Defendant to support a conviction. Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.

Franklin Court of Criminal Appeals

State of Tennessee v. Christopher Kevin Padgett
M2000-00038-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: Leon C. Burns, Jr.

Putnam Court of Criminal Appeals

William Lavern Davis vs. State
M2000-00341-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge John Everett Williams
Trial Court Judge: William Charles Lee
The petitioner argues that in finding that his trial counsel was not ineffective and denying his post-conviction petition, the petitioner appeals from the trial court's denial of his post-conviction petition. He argues that the trial court erred by finding that his trial counsel was not ineffective. The trial court's order is affirmed.

Marshall Court of Criminal Appeals

State vs. John Wayne Gray
M1999-01615-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: Buddy D. Perry
The Defendant, John Wayne Gray, appeals as of right from his conviction of the sale of a schedule II controlled substance. On appeal, he argues (1) that the trial court erred by failing to grant his motion for acquittal or directed verdict because the State failed to establish circumstances and facts that would provide for a reasonable assurance of the identity of the evidence and because the State failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody; (2) that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to support the jury verdict; and (3) that the trial court erred in sentencing the Defendant to a mid-range sentence as a Range III offender. We find no error. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Franklin Court of Criminal Appeals

George Todd vs. State
M1999-00976-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: L. Craig Johnson
The Defendant appeals from the trial court's dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. The trial court found that the petition was barred by the statute of limitations. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Coffee Court of Criminal Appeals

George Todd vs. State
M1999-00976-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: L. Craig Johnson

The Defendant appeals from the trial court's dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. The trial court found that the petition was barred by the statute of limitations. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Coffee Court of Criminal Appeals

State vs. Edward T. Flye
M1999-01183-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Gary R Wade
The defendant, Edward T. Flye, challenges the sufficiency of the evidence used to convict him of aggravated burglary and evading arrest. Because the evidence is adequate to support the convictions, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Davidson Court of Criminal Appeals

Rodney Buford vs. State
M1999-00487-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Gary R Wade
Trial Court Judge: Timothy L. Easter
The petitioner, Rodney Buford, is serving an effective sentence of life plus twenty years. His petition for habeas corpus relief was properly dismissed by the trial court because the judgment is not facially invalid and the sentence has not been served.

Hickman Court of Criminal Appeals

Roger Harris vs. State
E1999-02056-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge John Everett Williams
Trial Court Judge: Lynn W. Brown
The petitioner, convicted of first degree murder and reckless endangerment, filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief in March 1995. The petition was amended several times, first by the petitioner, then by the public defender, and ultimately by private counsel. The trial court summarily dismissed the petition by order because it was not "verified by any oath or affirmation." We reverse and remand, holding that the original petition was filed under a statute that did not require verification by oath or affirmation and, in the alternative, that the affirmation executed by the private counsel is sufficient under the current law.

Unicoi Court of Criminal Appeals

State vs. Selina Harrelson
W1999-00521-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: C. Creed Mcginley
The defendant, Selina G. Harrelson, was convicted of possession of one-half gram or more of cocaine with intent to sell. She contends that the officer did not have probable cause to search the truck with the drug detection dog; that the evidence is insufficient to show that she possessed crack cocaine; and that the trial court should have imposed a sentence alternative to incarceration. We hold that the defendant lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in the truck to contest the search and that, in any event, the officer had probable cause. We hold that the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction and that the trial court properly sentenced the defendant to incarceration. We affirm the judgment of conviction.

Hardin Court of Criminal Appeals

State vs. Lawrence Sherrill
W1999-01488-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Trial Court Judge: C. Creed Mcginley
This appeal results from the defendant's conviction by a Carroll County jury for introducing contraband into a penal institution. He was sentenced to six years incarceration and fined $2,500. On appeal, the defendant asserts that the trial court erred in not granting his motion for a new trial based on the lack of evidence to corroborate the testimony of his accomplice required for a conviction. After careful review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Carroll Court of Criminal Appeals

State vs. Daniel Christian Russell
M1999-00202-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Sr. Judge L. Terry Lafferty
Trial Court Judge: J. O. Bond
The appellant, Daniel Christian Russell, referred herein as "the defendant," appeals as of right from the judgment of the Wilson County Circuit Court imposing concurrent sentences for aggravated assault and vandalism. The trial court imposed sentences totaling five (5) years to be served concurrently in the Department of Correction. The defendant presents two appellate issues: 1) whether the length of the sentences imposed by the trial court are excessive; and 2) whether the trial court erred by denying the defendant's request for probation. Because the defendant received illegal concurrent sentences, we vacate the judgments of conviction and remand the case for further proceedings.

Wilson Court of Criminal Appeals

Michael A. Rhodes vs. State
M2000-00369-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Trial Court Judge: James K. Clayton, Jr.
This is an appeal arising from the summary dismissal of a petition for post-conviction relief. The trial court's dismissal was based upon the failure to file the petition within the one-year statute of limitations. Upon review of the record, we reverse and remand for further proceedings since the petition was filed within one year of the date of the final action of the Tennessee Supreme Court in the direct appeal.

Rutherford Court of Criminal Appeals

State vs. John Clark Garrison
E1999-00121-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge John Everett Williams
Trial Court Judge: Lynn W. Brown
On August 3, 1992, the defendant pled guilty to two counts of theft under Tennessee Code Annotated sections 39-14-103, -105(4). The defendant was sentenced to two consecutive nine-year sentences and ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $51,000. On June 8, 1999, the defendant filed a Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence. It was denied. In this appeal, the defendant contends that 1) the trial court erred in its finding that the defendant's sentence of incarceration and restitution was legal as a matter of law; and 2) the trial court erred by finding that the defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered into a plea agreement involving an illegal sentence. After a careful review, we find no merit in these issues, and find that the defendant's sentence is legal. The defendant's sentence of incarceration and the court's imposition of restitution is affirmed.

Knox Court of Criminal Appeals

State vs. Allen Bowers, Jr.
E1999-00882-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: Thomas W. Graham
A Bledsoe County jury convicted the Defendant of rape of a child, and the trial court sentenced the Defendant to eighteen years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The Defendant now appeals, arguing (1) that his conviction should be reversed because a prospective juror for this case stated in the presence of other prospective jurors that he had been a prospective juror in a previous criminal case in which the Defendant was on trial; (2) that the trial court erred by not ordering a new trial for the Defendant based on a letter that the Defendant's mother received from the victim subsequent to the Defendant's trial in which the victim stated that "nothing happened" between the Defendant and the victim; (3) that the trial court erred by not granting the Defendant a new trial based on evidence presented during the hearing on the Defendant's motion for new trial that a document introduced into evidence at trial as a filed divorce complaint had actually not been filed and contained prejudicial and improper statements about the Defendant; (4) that the State, during its closing argument, improperly mentioned facts not in the record; (5) that the trial court erroneously instructed the jury concerning a "deadlock" in a supplemental instruction; and (6) that the trial court erred by giving the jury the dictionary definition of "captious" and by sending the definition in writing to the jury room without reading it to the jury. After a thorough review of the record, we find no reversible error and therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Bledsoe Court of Criminal Appeals

State vs. Robert Bentley Miller
E1999-00970-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: R. Jerry Beck
The Defendant, pursuant to a plea agreement, pleaded guilty as a Range II multiple offender to two counts of facilitation of the sale of a Schedule IV drug (a Class E felony) and three counts of facilitation of the sale of a Schedule VI drug (a Class A misdemeanor). The Defendant received sentences of three years for each of the felonies and eleven months, twenty-nine days for each of the misdemeanors. All five sentences were to be served concurrently, for an effective sentence of three years. The manner of service of the sentence was not part of the plea agreement but was to be decided by the trial court after a sentencing hearing. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court determined that the sentence should be served in the Department of Correction. In this appeal, the Defendant argues that he was wrongfully denied probation or alternative sentencing. Finding no merit to the Defendant's argument, we affirm the ruling of the trial court.

Sullivan Court of Criminal Appeals

State vs. Robert Wayman
E1999-02042-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge John Everett Williams
Trial Court Judge: E. Eugene Eblen
The defendant pled guilty to reckless vehicular homicide, simple possession of marijuana, and sale of a Schedule VI controlled substance. The trial court sentenced the defendant to four years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction (DOC), and the defendant appeals from this sentence, requesting probation. We affirm the sentence of incarceration from the trial court.

Loudon Court of Criminal Appeals

State vs. Doyle Stevens
E1999-02097-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge John Everett Williams
In July 1999, the defendant entered a plea of nolo contendre on two counts of vehicular homicide and one count of aggravated assault. The defendant contends that the trial court erred by not granting judicial diversion. We conclude that the defendant was not a "qualified defendant" for judicial diversion. His 1992 conviction for driving while under the influence of an intoxicant qualifies as a Class A misdemeanor, and therefore he is not "qualified" for judicial diversion. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Blount Court of Criminal Appeals

State vs. William Blaine Campbell
E1999-02208-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: Lynn W. Brown
The defendant appeals the sentence imposed for the offense of furnishing alcohol to a minor. The defendant contends that he should have been granted judicial diversion and full probation. We affirm the trial court.

Washington Court of Criminal Appeals

State vs. Gary Anthony Burns
E1999-02610-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: Phyllis H. Miller
The Defendant, Gary Anthony Burns, pleaded guilty to two counts of theft over $500.00. The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I standard offender to two years on each theft count and ordered the sentences to be served concurrently. The trial court then suspended the two-year sentence and ordered the Defendant to be placed on six years probation after service of ninety days in the Sullivan County jail, day for day. The Defendant now appeals, arguing that the trial court unlawfully denied him alternative sentencing. We conclude that the Defendant's sentence is proper and therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Sullivan Court of Criminal Appeals

Joseph Lebron Derrick vs. State
E1999-02646-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: Stephen M. Bevil
The Defendant was convicted by a Hamilton County jury of second degree murder and was sentenced to twenty-years incarceration. On direct appeal, this Court affirmed his conviction and sentence, and the Tennessee Supreme Court denied permission to appeal. The Defendant subsequently filed a post-conviction petition, alleging that he was denied his right to effective assistance of counsel and his right to a fair trial. The post-conviction court denied post-conviction relief. We conclude that the Defendant was denied neither his right to effective assistance of counsel at trial nor his right to a fair trial. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of trial court denying post-conviction relief.

Hamilton Court of Criminal Appeals

State vs. Ralph Dewayne Moore
E1999-02743-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge John Everett Williams
Trial Court Judge: E. Eugene Eblen

Roane Court of Criminal Appeals

State vs. Susan Blackburn
M1999-00295-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: Donald P. Harris
The Defendant, Susan Blackburn, was charged with driving under the influence of an intoxicant and driving with a blood alcohol content of .10 percent or more. She was subsequently tried by jury in Williamson County and found guilty of third-offense driving under the influence. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred by overruling her motion for mistrial based on prosecutorial misconduct, by improperly instructing the jury concerning the Defendant's level of blood alcohol concentration, by allowing the prosecutor to make improper remarks during closing arguments, and by improperly denying the Defendant's motion to suppress the results of her blood tests. We hold that the trial court properly overruled the Defendant's motion for mistrial based on prosecutorial misconduct, that the trial court properly instructed the jury with regard to the Defendant's blood alcohol concentration, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by overruling the Defendant's objection to remarks made during closing arguments, and that the trial court did not err by overruling the Defendant's motion to suppress the results of her blood tests. Accordingly, we affirm the Defendant's conviction.

Williamson Court of Criminal Appeals