State of Tennessee v. Khanh V. Le - Concurring and Dissenting
I concur with Judge Ogle’s opinion concerning the issue of sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction for first degree murder and the issue regarding the suppression of identification testimony. I concur that the trial court did not err by refusing to charge voluntary manslaughter as a lesser-included offense. I also concur that the trial court erred by failing to charge second degree murder as a lesser-included offense. However, I dissent from the majority opinion’s conclusion that this error was not reversible error. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Khanh V. Le
The lead opinion of Judge Ogle, the separate concurring opinion of Judge Welles, and the separate opinion of Judge Woodall concurring in part and dissenting in part, filed in this case on March 6, 2000, are withdrawn. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Samantha Heard
The appellant, Samantha Heard, appeals from a judgment of conviction entered by the Davidson County Criminal Court. The appellant pled guilty to one count of sale of cocaine in excess of .5 grams, a class B felony. As a condition of the plea agreement, the appellant reserved the right to appeal, as a certified question of law, the trial court's denial of her motion to suppress.1 See Tenn. R. App. P. 3(b); Tenn. R. Crim. P. 37(b). Specifically, she asserts that the facts alleged in the affidavit of the search warrant are insufficient to support a finding of probable cause for the search of her person. After review of the record, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion to suppress and affirm the judgment of conviction. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. La Southaphanh
The appellant, La Southaphanh, appeals his jury convictions for aggravated burglary and theft over $1,000. The trial court imposed, as a Range II offender, a nine year sentence for aggravated burglary and a concurrent seven year sentence for theft. On appeal, the appellant’s sole challenge is the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. Following review, we affirm. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kermit Maurice Cozart
The defendant, Kermit Maurice Cozart, appeals from a guilty verdict returned against him by a Henry County jury for Aggravated Kidnapping, a Class B felony. The trial court sentenced the defendant to ten years at 100% as a violent offender for the aggravated kidnapping. The defendant contends that the trial court erred in failing to give the defendant’s requested special jury instruction. The defendant had requested that the trial court specifically charge the jury on aggravated kidnapping in the context of a robbery in accordance with the language of State v. Anthony, 817 S.W.2d 299 (Tenn. 1991). The defendant contends that the court’s instruction left the jury without guidance sufficient to decide whether the defendant should stand convicted for the offense of aggravated kidnapping. After careful review, we AFFIRM the instruction, judgment, and sentence from the trial court. |
Henry | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Gregory Austin
The appellant, Gregory Austin, appeals his jury conviction for first degree premeditated murder. The appellant was originally indicted for felony murder in the perpetration of attempted robbery and first degree premeditated murder. Because the State did not seek a sentence of death or life without parole, the trial court imposed a life sentence. On appeal, the appellant argues the trial court erred in failing to: (1) suppress the appellant’s statement to the police; (2) permit redaction of portions of appellant’s statement to the police prior to its admission; and (3) contemporaneously instruct the jury regarding prior inconsistent statements. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. David Remus
The appellant, David Remus, appeals the jury verdict of the Shelby County Criminal Court finding him guilty of burglary of a building, a Class D felony.. The trial court imposed a sentence of three years and three months in the county workhouse. On appeal, the appellant challenges (1) the sufficiency of the evidence; (2) the jury’s viewing of the appellant while “shackled;” and (3) the trial court’s application of an enhancement factor in determining the appellant’s sentence. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee vs. James Emmett Moses, Jr. a/k/a Ali Hakem Mahammed
The appellant, James Emmett Moses, Jr., a/k/a Ali Hakem Mahammed, appeals the sentencing decision of the Lauderdale County Circuit Court following his guilty pleas to the offenses of one count aggravated burglary, two counts of robbery, and one count of theft under $500. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed an effective sentence of twenty six years imprisonment.1 On appeal, the appellant challenges the length of the sentences and the imposition of consecutive sentences. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Thomason
The defendant, Michael Thomason, appeals as of right his conviction by a Haywood County Circuit Court jury of four counts of sexual battery, one count of aggravated sexual battery, and one count of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. The trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range I standard offender to two years on each of the sexual battery charges; ten years on the aggravated sexual battery charge; and eleven months and twenty-nine days on the misdemeanor count of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, the sentences to be served concurrently. The defendant presents the following issues for review: |
Haywood | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James A. Ayers also known as James Harris v. State of Tennessee
The appellant, James A. Ayers also known as James Harris, appeals the order of the Shelby County Criminal Court summarily dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief. In this appeal, the appellant challenges the trial court’s summary dismissal of his petition as being time-barred. Specifically, he argues that his claim was later arising under Burford and Sands. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William Padilla
The defendant, William Padilla, appeals from his Haywood County jury conviction of one count of rape of a child. The defendant received 25 years, the maximum sentence for a Range I standard offender. He appeals this conviction and sentence, arguing that: (1) The evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s verdict; and (2) the sentence was excessive. After careful review, we AFFIRM the judgment and sentence from the trial court |
Haywood | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Steven DeWayne Bolden v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Steven DeWayne Bolden, appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief by the Lake County Circuit Court on March 26, 1999. Following a review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Lake | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Patricia Spencer
On December 11, 1998, the defendant, Patricia Spencer, pled guilty to one count of second degree murder and one count of attempted especially aggravated robbery. The trial court sentenced her as a Range I Violent Offender to 25 years for the second degree murder and as a Range I Standard Offender to 8 years for the attempted especially aggravated robbery, the sentences to be served concurrently. From this sentencing, the defendant now appeals asserting that the trial court erred in its 25-year sentence for the second degree murder; accordingly, she requests that her sentence be reduced. After careful review, we AFFIRM the sentence as imposed by the trial court. |
Fayette | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tim D. Smith
Defendant, Tim D. Smith, was found guilty by a Shelby County jury of automobile burglary, a Class E felony, and was sentenced by the trial court to six years as a career offender. The sole issue in this appeal as of right is whether the evidence is sufficient to support the guilty verdict. After a careful review of the record, we conclude the evidence is indeed sufficient to support the verdict. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Marco Boyd
The defendant, Marco Boyd, pled guilty to two counts of reckless endangerment, Class E felonies. In his negotiated plea, he agreed to a fine of $500 on each count and two one-year concurrent sentences. The manner of service of the sentences was reserved for a later hearing. At the hearing, the trial court denied the defendant probation, and from that decision the defendant now appeals. After careful review, we AFFIRM the judgment from the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Carlous Coman v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Carlous Coman, appeals from the Madison County Circuit Court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief. On April 19, 1997, the petitioner was convicted by a Madison County jury of second degree murder. For this offense, the defendant, a Range I offender, was sentenced to twenty years in the Department of Correction. On February 17, 1999, he filed a post-conviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and upon appeal. The trial court denied this petition after a hearing. After careful review, we AFFIRM the order of the trial court denying the petition. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Walls
The defendant, Christopher Walls, appeals from the denial of his motion for reduction of sentence by the Criminal Court of Morgan County. The defendant pleaded guilty to escape, a Class E felony, Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-16-601 (1997), and theft of property valued over $1000, a Class D felony, Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-103 (1997). In accordance with his plea agreement, the trial court sentenced the defendant to serve his bargained-for sentence of three years in the Department of Correction. In his appeal, he complains that the trial court erred in failing to grant his motion to reduce his sentence. Following a review of the record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the trial court's judgment. |
Morgan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James Webb v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, James Webb, appeals as of right from the trial court’s order summarily dismissing his pro se petition for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We REVERSE the judgment of the trial court and REMAND for appointment of counsel and review of petitioner’s claims. |
Haywood | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Michael Gerard Coppola
On April 28, 1997, the appellant, Michael Gerard Coppola, pled guilty in the Benton County Circuit Court to an array of offenses. The plea agreement provided for an effective six-year sentence with the Tennessee Department of Correction (T.D.O.C.) and payment of $3,363.10 of restitution to various victims. In March 1998, appellant completed boot camp and T.D.O.C. released him to probation, the terms of which required payment of the previously ordered restitution. The sole issue on appeal is the trial court’s revocation of probation for failure to pay restitution. Based upon our conclusion that no probation violation occurred, we REVERSE and REMAND to the trial court. |
Benton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Bryon A. Peete
The appellant, Byron A. Peete, appeals his conviction in the Shelby County Criminal Court of second degree murder. Pursuant to the appellant’s conviction, the trial court sentenced the appellant to thirteen years and six months incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence underlying his conviction. Although not clearly articulated, his argument appears to encompass the following specific contentions: (1) the evidence presented at trial concerning his low intellectual quotient (I.Q.) precluded a finding that the killing was knowing as required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-210(a)(1) (1997); (2) alternatively, in light of the evidence concerning the appellant’s low I.Q., the record demonstrates the provocation required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-211(a) (1997); or (3) in light of the evidence concerning his low I.Q., the record demonstrates that the appellant killed the victim, Terrance Baker, in self-defense within the meaning of Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-611(a) (1997). Following a thorough review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Court of Criminal Appeals | ||
State of Tennessee vs. Ernest Puryear
A Shelby County jury found defendant guilty of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony. Defendant received an eight-year sentence. In this appeal as of right, defendant claims (1) the evidence was not sufficient to sustain the conviction for aggravated robbery, and (2) he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Upon our review of the record, we conclude the evidence was sufficient to sustain defendant's conviction, and defendant received effective assistance of counsel. Thus, we AFFIRM the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
01C01-9903-CR-00075
|
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Marcella I. Mealer
|
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
03C01-9811-CR-00415
|
Greene | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Charles R. Marshall, Jr.
|
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals |
