State of Tennessee v. Robert D. Walsh
The defendant, Robert D. Walsh, was convicted after a jury trial in the Shelby County Criminal court of the aggravated sexual battery of a foster child who was in his care. He appeals this conviction, alleging various errors in evidentiary admissions, impermissible comment on the evidence by the trial court, and improper sentencing. We modify the defendant's sentence to Range I classification and remand for correction of a clerical error in the judgment form. Otherwise, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Reco R. Douglas
The defendant's conviction for first degree murder during perpetration of robbery was reversed by this court in 1998. The defendant was subsequently retried, again convicted of first degree murder during the perpetration of a robbery, and sentenced to life imprisonment. This appeal followed, whereby the defendant alleges the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction, and the trial court erroneously admitted the audio recording and transcript of the victim's phone call to 911. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the defendant's conviction and sentence. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Courtney Anderson
The defendant was convicted by a Shelby County jury of theft of property valued greater than $10,000 and forgery. The trial court sentenced him to consecutive sentences of 15 years for theft as a persistent offender and six years for forgery as a career offender. In this appeal as a matter of right, defendant alleges (1) the evidence is not sufficient to support the convictions, and (2) his sentence is excessive. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Keith T. Dupree
This is an appeal from defendant's conviction for second degree murder for which he received a sentence of twenty-three years and six months. In this appeal, defendant presents two issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict; and (2) whether the trial court erred in defining the mental state of "knowing" for the offense of second degree murder. We conclude the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict; however, we conclude the jury charge constituted plain error by failing to instruct on the applicable definition of "knowing." Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the case is remanded for a new trial. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Bryan Herman Dowdy
Defendant, Bryan Herman Dowdy, appeals his jury convictions for vehicular homicide by intoxication, two counts of vehicular assault, and felony evading arrest. He was sentenced to eight years and six months for vehicular homicide, two years for each of the vehicular assaults, and two years for felony evading arrest, with an effective sentence of ten years and six months. In this appeal, he raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain his convictions; (2) whether items from his vehicle were improperly admitted; (3) whether his blood alcohol test result was improperly admitted into evidence; (4) whether the underlying DUI charge should have been severed; (5) whether he was improperly denied access to an officer's personnel file during cross-examination; (6) whether the trial court erroneously instructed the jury to use their "common sense;" and (7) whether his sentence was excessive. After our review of the record, we find all issues to be without merit and affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Bobby J. Hughes
The Defendant, Bobby J. Hughes, was indicted by the Shelby County Grand Jury for the offense of attempted second degree murder. He was subsequently tried by jury and found guilty of attempted second degree murder. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant argues (1) that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction; (2) that the trial court erred by allowing into evidence four photographs of the victim's wounds; (3) that the trial court erred by allowing the victim to identify the Defendant from a photograph during trial; (4) that the trial court erred by allowing the State to question the Defendant about prior convictions after defense counsel concluded redirect examination; and (5) that the trial court erred by not instructing the jury on attempted voluntary manslaughter. We conclude that the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on the crime of attempted voluntary manslaughter as a lesser-included offense was plain error and was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, we reverse the Defendant's conviction and remand the case to the trial court for a new trial. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Larry M. Grigsby
Larry M. Grigsby entered guilty pleas to one count of promoting prostitution and two counts of criminal simulation. The manner of service, including entitlement to probation and/or Community Corrections, was submitted to the trial court. The trial court denied any form of alternative sentencing based upon Grigsby's extensive prior criminal history and the failure of previous measures less restrictive than total confinement. On appeal, Grigsby argues that the trial court erred in denying an alternative sentence. After review, we conclude that the record supports the trial court's sentencing decision. The judgment, accordingly, is affirmed. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Keith J. Allen v. State of Tennessee
The Defendant was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. He filed for post-conviction relief on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel. After a hearing, the trial court denied relief. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Judy Martin
The Defendant was convicted by a jury of introducing drugs into a penal institution. She was sentenced to three years incarceration, suspended after ninety days. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and her term of confinement. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Carroll | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Quentin Lewis v. State of Tennessee
This is an appeal from the denial of post-conviction relief. Appellant pled guilty to especially aggravated kidnapping and criminal attempt to commit first degree murder. Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, he received concurrent twenty-eight-year sentences to be served concurrently with his federal sentence, but consecutively to a thirty-year state sentence for aggravated robbery. Thereafter, appellant filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging his trial counsel failed to provide effective representation and that, but for counsel's errors, he would not have pled guilty. The post-conviction court denied relief. We conclude trial counsel provided effective representation, and the appellant's plea was voluntarily and knowingly entered. Thus, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John Ruff
The Defendant, John Ruff, appeals the dismissal without prejudice of the charges against him. He asks this Court to enter an order dismissing his case with prejudice. We hold that the trial court properly dismissed the charges against the Defendant without prejudice; thus, we affirm the action of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John Ruff - Concurring and Dissenting
I concur with the majority’s rationale that led to the conclusion that the charges were properly dismissed below without prejudice. However, I also agree with the majority’s statements about the unavailability of a Rule 3 appeal in this case. Because no appeal as a matter of right is |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James Rines v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner appeals the trial court’s dismissal of his “petition to correct illegal judgment/sentence.” Finding no basis for a rightful appeal or a discretionary appeal via the common law writ of certiorari, we dismiss the appeal. |
Cocke | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
David Palmer v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner filed a post-conviction petition for relief from his conviction for aggravated child abuse, arguing that: (1) he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial; (2) his due process rights were violated because he was not present during voir dire; and, (3) he was denied his constitutional right to testify in his own behalf. After the post-conviction court denied his petition, the petitioner appealed to this court. We affirm the post-conviction court's denial of the petition. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Donald Craig Miller
The Defendant, Donald Craig Miller, pled guilty to burglary, Class D felony, pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement wherein he was to receive a sentence of four (4) years, with the manner of the service of the sentence to be determined by the trial court following the sentencing hearing. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court accepted the four-year sentence, but ordered three and one-half years incarceration, followed by service of four years in Community Corrections in a "split-confinement" sentence. Subsequently, the Defendant filed a "Motion for Clarification of Judgment Order" which was denied by the trial court following a hearing. The Defendant filed a notice of appeal. We hold that this matter should be treated as a petition for common law writ of certiorari rather than a Rule 3, T.R.A.P. appeal, and reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for further proceedings. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Parker Odell Doney, Jr.
The defendant, Parker Odell Doney, Jr., appeals his convictions for one count of aggravated robbery and two counts of aggravated assault and his sentences totaling fifteen years in the Department of Correction. The defendant contends the evidence presented against him at trial was insufficient to support his convictions, and the trial court erred in sentencing him. After a thorough review of the record, we reduce the aggravated assault sentences but otherwise affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Hagan Paul Roberts v. State of Tennessee
Hagan Paul Roberts (herein petitioner) appeals the dismissal of his petition for post conviction relief. The petitioner claims his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to interview and call two witnesses to testify at the trial. The trial Court found that the petitioner did not inform his trial counsel of these witnesses and dismissed the petition. We affirm the trial Court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James E. (Junebug) Ligon
A Cheatham County jury found the defendant guilty of aggravated burglary and theft for breaking into his neighbor's home and stealing two television sets, a VCR, and a computer. The trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range III, persistent offender to twelve years for the aggravated burglary count and as a career offender to twelve years for the theft count, with the sentences to be served consecutively in the Department of Correction. In this appeal as of right, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence; the failure of the trial court to order a mistrial based on testimony alluding to the defendant's criminal past; and the failure of the trial court to instruct the jury as to the crime of accessory after the fact on the theory that it is a lesser-included offense of both indicted offenses. Finding the evidence sufficient and no other reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Cheatham | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jesse Daniel Hall v. State of Tennessee
This is a post-conviction appeal. In 1988, appellant was convicted of robbery with a deadly weapon and received a life sentence. Thereafter, the appellant filed a petition for post-conviction relief, attacking his conviction on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court denied relief, and this Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. Subsequently, the appellant filed the instant three petitions for post-conviction relief. Two of appellant's petitions attack the validity of the petitioner's convictions for grand larceny and third degree burglary, which were used to enhance his 1988 sentence for robbery with a deadly weapon. The third petition addresses the 1988 sentence and attacks the sufficiency of the evidence with regard to another of petitioner's prior convictions. The trial court summarily dismissed the petitions for failing to comply with the applicable statute of limitations and failing to state an appropriate ground upon which a successive petition could be lodged. The judgment of the trial court dismissing the petitions is affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Danny Wayne Ratliff
The defendant appeals his conviction of reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon and vandalism under $500.00. He contends the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict of the jury, the sentence of two years was excessive, and the trial court erred in sentencing the defendant to community corrections with the condition that he serve 200 days in the county jail. We find no error and affirm the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James M. Williams
This appeal arises from the sentence that the Shelby County Criminal Court imposed upon James M. Williams, after a previous appeal to this court resulted in a modification of his original two-year incarcerative sentence to a sentence ordered to be served on probation. The defendant contests the trial court's authority to resentence him to serve 60 days in a correctional facility, with the balance of his two-year sentence to be served on probation. The defendant also challenges his new sentence as the product of judicial vindictiveness, and he claims that he is entitled to full probation based on the facts of the case. After a review of the record, we reverse the split-confinement sentence, order that the defendant serve his sentence on full probation with conditions, and remand for defendant to begin immediate service of his sentence. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Aaron Bernard Gray
The Defendant, Aaron Bernard Gray, appeals as of right from the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, he asserts that he should have been granted post-conviction relief because he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial, because the trial court abused its discretion by finding the victim competent to testify, and because the trial court abused its discretion by failing to grant a mistrial. We hold that the Defendant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel and that his other two issues are either waived or previously determined. Thus, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Cornelius Michael Hyde
|
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Michael Knox
|
Gibson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Jimmy Harber Jr.
|
Crockett | Court of Criminal Appeals |
