State vs. Carlos Demetrius Harris E2000-00718-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: Stephen M. Bevil
The Defendant, Carlos Demetrius Harris, appeals as of right from his reckless homicide conviction. On appeal, he presents the following six issues: (1) whether the trial court erred by granting the State's motion to amend the indictment from voluntary manslaughter to reckless homicide; (2) whether the trial court erred by allowing inadmissible items into evidence; (3) whether the trial court erred by not allowing testimony by the Hamilton County Medical Examiner that an ordinary person would be unaware that one blow to the head would cause death; (4) whether the trial court erred by granting the State's jury instruction request regarding causation and intent; (5) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction; and (6) whether the trial court erred by sentencing the Defendant to a term of six years and by denying the Defendant alternative sentencing. We find no reversible error; accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Hamilton
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Jeffrey Arch Carter E2000-00738-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge John Everett Williams
Trial Court Judge: Phyllis H. Miller
The defendant, after pleading guilty to two counts of aggravated assault, DUI second offense, and violation of seat belt law, sought alternative sentencing. A sentencing hearing was held and the trial court denied the defendant any form of alternative sentence. The defendant now appeals that denial, asserting that the trial court erred in denying him an alternative sentence. After review, we affirm the trial court's denial of an alternative sentence.
Sullivan
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Christopher Knighton E2000-00746-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Acree
Trial Court Judge: D. Kelly Thomas, Jr.
The defendant was convicted by a jury of aggravated rape, aggravated burglary and theft. In his direct appeal, he presents six issues for review. Three of those issues concern the jury selection process, one issue is an evidentiary issue, and the other issues concern the sufficiency of the indictment and the sufficiency of the evidence. With respect to the jury selection process, we hold: the failure to raise the issue of a "Batson violation" during jury selection constitutes a waiver of that issue; the failure to swear the jury before voir dire is not reversible error unless it is shown that a juror did not truthfully answer the questions as the result of not being sworn; and the trial court did not abuse his discretion in refusing to dismiss two jurors for cause. Additionally, we hold that felony drug crimes are relevant to the issue of credibility under Tenn.R Evid. 609, and that under the facts of this case, the unfair prejudicial effect did not outweigh the probative value of the impeaching convictions. Finally, we hold that the indictment charging the defendant with aggravated rape was legally sufficient, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict of the jury for that offense.
Blount
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Ezra Ervin & Andrew McKinney E1999-00287-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Acree
Trial Court Judge: Rebecca J. Stern
The defendants were found guilty of robbing a Krystal restaurant in Chattanooga. In this direct appeal, they allege four errors. They contend the evidence was insufficient to support their convictions; the trial court erred in allowing certain items of clothing found in one of the defendant's vehicle to be admitted into evidence because the clothing could not be positively identified as clothing worn by the people robbing the restaurant; the trial court erred in failing to suppress a statement made by one of the defendants at the time of his arrest because the defendant had not been given Miranda warnings; and the trial court erred in failing to declare a mistrial after the jury reported improper verdicts. We conclude there was no error made by the trial court, and the judgments below are affirmed.
Hamilton
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Robby Cox E1999-00159-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge John Everett Williams
Trial Court Judge: Phyllis H. Miller
The defendant pled guilty to facilitation of the sale of cocaine under Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-17-417. The defendant was sentenced to a six-year term at the Department of Correction, as a Range I offender, and fined $2000. The defendant requested alternative sentencing but, after a review of the defendant's background by the trial court, the request was denied. The defendant now appeals his sentence contending that the trial court erred by denying him alternative sentencing. After a thorough review of the record, we find that the trial court did not err in denying the defendant alternative sentencing. The defendant's sentence is affirmed.
Sullivan
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Nicholas Robert Brown E1999-00110-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: Richard R. Vance
The Defendant, Nicholas Roberts Brown, pleaded guilty to one count of statutory rape. Pursuant to his plea agreement, he received a sentence of one year, with the manner of service of the sentence to be determined by the trial court. After a sentencing hearing, the Defendant was ordered to serve sixty days in jail, with the remainder of his sentence to be served in community corrections. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant argues that he should have been placed on immediate probation. We hold that the Defendant failed to establish his suitability for full probation, but we modify the his sentence to sixty days incarceration followed by supervised probation because the Defendant is statutorily ineligible to participate in the community corrections program. The case is remanded for the trial court to determine the conditions of probation.
Sevier
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Joseph Miles M1998-00682-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas T. Woodall
Trial Court Judge: Robert W. Wedemeyer
Defendant Joseph Miles was convicted by a Robertson County jury of second degree murder. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Defendant as a Range II violent offender to forty years. On appeal, Defendant raises the following issues: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to support his conviction for second degree murder, (2) whether the sentence imposed by the trial court is excessive, and (3) whether a finding of plain error pursuant to Tenn. R. Crim. P. 52(b) justifies a dismissal of charges on the ground that the State participated in a conspiracy to kill Defendant. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Robertson
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Joey Salcido M1999-00501-CCA-R3-CD
Trial Court Judge: Jim T. Hamilton
Defendant Joey L. Salcido was indicted by the Giles County Grand Jury for three counts of incest and three counts of rape of a child. Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of three counts of aggravated sexual battery as a lesser-included offense of child rape and acquitted of the charges of incest. On March 15, 1999, the trial court sentenced Defendant as a violent 100% offender to a term of twelve years for each of his three convictions and ordered that all sentences be served consecutively. On April 15, 1999, thirty-one days after Defendant's judgment was entered, Defendant filed an untimely motion for new trial. The motion was nevertheless heard on April 19, 1999 and denied on April 20, 1999. On April 23, 1999, Defendant filed a notice of appeal which was also untimely due to the late filing of Defendant's motion for new trial. On May 25, 2000, Defendant filed a motion to waive the timely filing of his notice to appeal and on June 7, 2000, this Court granted Defendant's motion. In this appeal Defendant raises the following issues: (1) whether the Defendant's conviction of aggravated sexual battery, an offense which was neither charged in the indictment nor a lesser-included offense of the offenses charged, was error; (2) whether, assuming aggravated sexual battery is determined to be a lesser-included offense of child rape, the trial court erred in its jury instruction regarding the mental state necessary to convict him; (3) whether the trial court erred when it admitted certain evidence over Defendant's objections; (4) whether the cumulative effect of the trial court's errors renders the trial fundamentally unfair so as to offend Defendant's due process guarantees; and (5) whether the trial court erred when it imposed consecutive sentences. Defendant asserts that his first issue concerns subject matter jurisdiction and, therefore, must be heard by this Court pursuant to Tenn. R. App. P. 13(b). Defendant also urges this Court to exercise its discretion under Tenn. R. Crim. P. 52(b) or Tenn. R. App. P. 13(b) and consider the remaining four issues. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we find no errors requiring reversal and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Giles
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Larry Coulter M1999-00784-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: J. Steve Daniel
The appellant, Larry Coulter, appeals his conviction by a jury in the Rutherford County Circuit Court of one count of first degree premeditated murder. For his offense, the appellant received a sentence of life imprisonment in the Tennessee Department of Correction. In this appeal, the appellant presents the following issues for our review: (1) whether the trial court erred in failing to disqualify the office of the District Attorney General for the Sixteenth Judicial District from participating in the appellant's case; (2) whether the trial court erred in denying the appellant's pre-trial motion to suppress a statement that he made to officers of the La Vergne Police Department following his offense; (3) whether the trial court erred in denying the appellant's pre-trial motion to suppress the fruits of a warrantless search of his home by officers of the La Vergne Police Department; (4) whether the trial court erred in denying the appellant's pre-trial motion to exclude from evidence notes and letters written by the appellant to the victim prior to this offense; (5) whether the trial court erred in denying the appellant's pre-trial motion to exclude from evidence any proof of the victim's plans to move away from the Coulters' mobile home; (6) whether the trial court erred in overruling the appellant's objection to testimony by Sybil Victory concerning a telephone conversation; (7) whether the trial court erred in overruling the appellant's Tenn. R. Evid. 615 objection to testimony by Fawn Jones; (8) whether the trial court erred in overruling the appellant's objection to testimony by the State's firearms identification expert concerning a bullet recovered from the victim's body; (9) whether the trial court erred in permitting each member of the jury to "dry-fire" the murder weapon during the State's case-in-chief; (10) whether the trial court erred in permitting a State's witness to testify by deposition pursuant to Tenn. R. Crim. P. 15; (11) whether the trial court erred in permitting the State to impeach the appellant's psychologist with a "learned treatise" without satisfying the requirements of Tenn. R. Evid. 618; (12) whether the trial court erred in overruling the appellant's objection to rebuttal testimony by the State's psychologist that violated Tenn. R. Crim. P. 12.2(c); (13) whether the trial court erred in failing to charge the jury with certain special instructions requested by the appellant; (14) whether the trial court erred in permitting the State to alter or amend an exhibit immediately prior to the jury's deliberations; (15) whether the evidence adduced at trial is sufficient to support the jury's verdict; and (16) whether the cumulative effect of any errors requires the reversal of the appellant's conviction and the remand of this case for a new trial. Following a review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Phyllis McBride vs. State M2000-00034-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: James K. Clayton, Jr.
The Petitioner, Phyllis McBride, was convicted by a Rutherford County jury of first degree murder. On appeal, this Court affirmed the conviction. The Petitioner filed an application for permission to appeal to the Tennessee Supreme Court which was denied. The Petitioner then filed a petition for post-conviction relief. Following a hearing, the petition was dismissed. The Petitioner now appeals the trial court's denial of post-conviction relief. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Rutherford
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Chester Lebron Bennett E2000-02735-CCA-RM-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Trial Court Judge: Stephen M. Bevil
This case presents an appeal to this court after remand by order of the Tennessee Supreme Court. The Appellant, Chester Lebron Bennett, pled guilty to five counts of criminal exposure to HIV and was sentenced to five concurrent four-year Department of Correction sentences. This court, on direct appeal, remanded the case to the trial court for consideration of alternative sentencing. See State v. Chester Lebron Bennett, No. 03C01-9810-CR-00346 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Knoxville, July 28, 1999), perm. to appeal granted, (Tenn. Oct. 16, 2000). Subsequent to this court's decision, the supreme court released its decision in the case of State v. Daryl Hooper, No. M1997-00031-SCR-11-CD (Tenn. at Nashville, Sept. 21, 2000) (for publication). In State v. Daryl Hooper, the court announced new sentencing considerations regarding the need for deterrence as grounds for denying an alternative sentence. In light of its decision in State v. Daryl Hooper, the court remanded the case to this court for reconsideration. See State v. Chester Lebron Bennett, No. E1998-00614-SC-R11-CD (Tenn. at Knoxville, Oct. 16, 2000). After revisiting this issue under the standards announced in State v. Daryl Hooper, we affirm the trial court's denial of alternative sentencing.
Hamilton
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Michael Cook W2001-01539-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: William B. Acree
The Defendant, Michael Joseph Cook, was convicted of driving under the influence, second offense. The trial court sentenced him to 11 months and 29 days and required him to serve six months of that sentence in the local jail. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the evidence was insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and (2) the trial court improperly sentenced the Defendant. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Obion
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Michael Cook W2001-01539-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: William B. Acree
The Defendant, Michael Joseph Cook, was convicted of driving under the influence, second offense. The trial court sentenced him to 11 months and 29 days and required him to serve six months of that sentence in the local jail. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the evidence was insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and (2) the trial court improperly sentenced the Defendant. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
State vs. James McKinley Cunningham M1999-01995-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: Buddy D. Perry
The defendant was convicted by a Grundy County jury of premeditated first degree murder and sentenced to life. In this appeal, he challenges: (1) the sufficiency of the evidence; (2) the admission of a photograph of the victim's body; (3) the exclusion of testimony relating to statements made by the victim; and (4) the evidentiary rulings relating to the victim's propensity toward violence. Upon our review of the record, we find no reversible error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Grundy
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Thomas Edward Ford M1999-2362-CCA-R3-CD
Trial Court Judge: Charles D. Haston, Sr.
The appellant, Thomas Edward Ford, was convicted of Class C felony aggravated assault and Class D vandalism. The Circuit Court of Warren County sentenced the appellant to five years for aggravated assault and two years for vandalism. The sentences were ordered to run consecutively. Upon appeal, the appellant raises the following issues for review: (1) propriety of the five-year sentence; (2) imposition of consecutive sentences; (3) sufficiency of the evidence for aggravated assault; and (4) misleading jury instruction. After review, we find no error. Accordingly, the judgment of the Circuit Court of Warren County is affirmed.
Warren
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Charles B. Sullivan M1999-02547-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Trial Court Judge: Walter C. Kurtz
Charles B. Sullivan entered guilty pleas in the Davidson County Criminal Court to three counts of aggravated rape, one count of especially aggravated burglary, three counts of aggravated burglary, and one count of rape, for which the trial court imposed an effective sentence of fifty-nine years. In this appeal as of right, the appellant contends that the individual sentences are excessive and that partial consecutive sentences are not warranted. After review, we affirm.
Davidson
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Margaret Somerville W1999-01333-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Cornelia A. Clark
Trial Court Judge: Julian P. Guinn
Defendant Margaret Ree Somerville was convicted by a jury of one count of possession of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver, a Class B felony, and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a sentence of twelve (12) years on the felony offense and eleven (11) months, twenty-nine (29) days on the misdemeanor offense. The sentences were run concurrent to one another. Defendant challenges her convictions, asserting that (1) she was denied her right to the timely appointment of counsel; (2) the indictments against her were defective and should be quashed; and (3) the search warrant executed in this case was defective. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Henry
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Michael Smith W1999-02413-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: Jon Kerry Blackwood
The Defendant, Michael W. Smith, appeals as of right from the trial court's denial of post-conviction relief. On appeal, he asserts that his conviction for escape, which was entered pursuant to his guilty plea, should be set aside because the plea was entered involuntarily due to his trial counsel's ineffectiveness. We conclude that the trial court properly denied relief based on its findings that the Defendant received effective assistance of counsel and that he entered the plea knowingly and voluntarily. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.
Hardeman
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Samuel Pegues W1999-01865-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: John Franklin Murchison
The Defendant, Samuel Pegues, was convicted of second degree murder after a jury trial. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant asserts that the evidence presented at trial is insufficient to sustain his conviction, that the trial court erred by denying proposed testimony regarding statements made by the victim on the night of the incident, and that the trial court erred by excluding the Defendant's testimony regarding statements made by the victim that she had stabbed or cut someone. We conclude that the evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction, that the trial court did err by denying the proposed testimony of statements made by the victim but that such error was harmless, and that the Defendant has waived his issue regarding the statements of the victim that she had stabbed or cut someone. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
State vs. Jason Weiskopf W2000-02308-CCA-RM-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: Arthur T. Bennett
This case is before the court upon remand from the Supreme Court of Tennessee for reconsideration in light of State vs. Nichols, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Tenn. 2000). Previously, this court found the "weigh and consider" jury instruction to be in violation of due process. Nichols reached a contrary conclusion; therefore, we now affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Shelby
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. David Wayne Salley E1999-00203-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge J. Curwood Witt, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Phyllis H. Miller
David Wayne Salley appeals from his conviction of aggravated rape. He raises issues related to sufficiency of the evidence, jury instructions on lesser-included offenses, admission of evidence obtained pursuant to search warrants, impeachment of the defendant with prior violent felony convictions, exclusion of evidence of consensual sexual relations with the then-minor victim 21 years before the crime, deficient notice that the state was seeking Range III classification for sentencing, and an excessive sentence. Because there is no error requiring reversal, we affirm.
The appellant, Calvin Otis Tanksley, was convicted by a Davidson County Jury of one count of rape of a child and one count of attempted rape of a child. Based on his classification as a repeat violent offender, the appellant was sentenced upon each count to two consecutive sentences of life without parole. Upon appeal, the appellant raises the following issues: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the verdicts; (2) whether the court erred in ruling the defendant's prior bad acts could be introduced by the State if the defendant presented an alibi defense; (3) whether the court erred in allowing the State to introduce over four hundred pairs of women's undergarments seized from the defendant in an investigation in another county; (4) whether the trial court erred in not suppressing the photographic array; and (5) whether the appellant qualified for sentencing as a repeat violent offender. Finding no reversible error, the judgments are affirmed.
