COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OPINIONS

State vs. Jason Kennedy Frazier
01C01-9812-CC-00484

Daniel L. Sanders vs. State
01C01-9712-CC-00586

State vs. James E. Frazier
01C01-9801-CC-00036
Trial Court Judge: J. S. Daniel

State vs. Michael Cardenas
W2001-01123-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
The appellant, Michael Brian Cardenas, appeals from the order of the Chester County Circuit Court denying his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, the appellant argues that his guilty plea was involuntary because "he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at the trial level." In the appellant's brief, he raises four general areas of ineffectiveness: (1) his attorney failed to investigate, prepare or present a defense to charges against him; (2) counsel failed to file a motion to suppress the statement that appellant had provided to arresting authorities; (3) counsel failed to file a motion for change of venue; and (4) potential character witnesses were never interviewed to determine whether their testimony could be used during the trial. We find this argument without merit. The judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals.

State vs. David E. Hancock
03C01-9808-CR-00278
Trial Court Judge: James E. Beckner

State v. Erica Hartwell
W2001-03116-CCA-R3-CO
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry Smith
Trial Court Judge: Joseph H. Walker, III
In this appeal the appellant, Erica J. Hartwell, contends that the Circuit Court of Tipton County, Tennessee, erred in denying her a writ of certiorari to review and vacate the orders of the Tipton County General Sessions Court revoking the appellant's probation. She maintains that the general sessions court conducted the probation revocation hearing without proper notice and without informing her of her right to an attorney at the hearing and her right to appeal. We hold that under the circumstances the writ of certiorari is not available. The judgment of the circuit court is therefore affirmed.

State vs. David Proffitt
03C01-9901-CR-00026
Trial Court Judge: Leon C. Burns, Jr.

State vs. Danny Lynn Porter
03C01-9811-CR-00393
Trial Court Judge: E. Eugene Eblen

State of Tennessee vs. Mark M. Gesner
01C01-9902-CC-00033
Authoring Judge: Judge John H. Peay
Trial Court Judge: Judge Donald P. Harris

The defendant was found guilty by a jury of delivery of one-half ounce or more of marijuana. The trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range I standard offender to a term of two years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. This sentence was suspended and the defendant was to serve four years on supervised probation and a term of ninety days in the county jail. The defendant’s subsequent motion for a new trial was denied by the trial court. The defendant now appeals and contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and that his sentence is excessive. After a review of the record and applicable law, we find no merit to the defendant’s contentions and thus affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee vs. James Tyrone Harbison
03C01-9808-CR-00271
Authoring Judge: Judge John Everett Williams
Trial Court Judge: Judge Douglas A. Meyer

The defendant, James Tyrone Harbison, was convicted in 1997 of aggravated assault and sentenced as a Range III persistent offender to fourteen years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-102. In this appeal, the defendant presents the following issues: (1) Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s finding of “serious bodily injury” as an aggravating factor of the defendant’s convicted offense; (2) whether the trial court abused its discretion in permitting testimony that the defendant had been released from prison immediately preceeding the instant offense; (3) whether the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on reckless endangerment as a lesser offense; (4) whether the defendant’s sentence is excessive; and (5) whether the trial court erred in sentencing the defendant as a Range III persistent offender. We AFFIRM the judgment from the trial court.

State of Tennessee vs. Ruth Stanford
02C01-9812-CC-00365
Authoring Judge: Judge James Curwood Witt, JR.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Whit Lafon

The defendant, Ruth Stanford, stands convicted of sale of a Schedule III controlled substance and delivery of a Schedule III controlled substance. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-417 (1991) (amended 1996, 1997) (proscriptive statute); § 39-17-410 (1991) (amended 1996) (scheduled drugs). Stanford received her convictions at a jury trial in the Henderson County Circuit Court. She was sentenced to serve concurrent two-year sentences1 for these Class D felonies, with the first 90 days to be served in the county facility and the balance to be served on probation. In this  appeal, she raises three issues for our consideration:

1. Whether the trial court erred in allowing the testimony of the
witness who purchased drugs from Stanford without qualifying
the basis of knowledge and reliability of the witness's
testimony.
2. Whether the trial court erred in denying a continuance of the
hearing on the motion for new trial and ruling on the merits of
the motion.
3. Whether the trial court properly sentenced the defendant.
Upon review of the record, the briefs of the parties, and the law, we find no
reversible error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee vs. Jason Burns
01C01-9809-CC-00371
Authoring Judge: Judge John H. Peay
Trial Court Judge: Judge Donald P. Harris

A jury found the defendant guilty of aggravated child abuse and neglect, and he received an eighteen year sentence in the Tennessee Department of Correction. He now appeals, raising the following issues:

I. Whether the convicting evidence is sufficient;
II. Whether the trial court erred in admitting testimony from a Department of Child Services investigator that the victim cried at the mention of the defendant’s name;
III. Whether the trial court erred in failing to suppress his statements to the police on the basis his mental incompetence prevented a knowing and voluntary waiver of his Miranda rights; and
IV. Whether the trial court erred in not allowing educators to testify about the defendant’s mental abilities unless the defendant first testified.

Finding no merit to the defendant’s arguments, we affirm his conviction.

Jacques Bennett vs. State of Tennessee
03C01-9809-CR-00338
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: Judge Douglas A. Meyer

The petitioner, Jacques B. Bennett, appeals the summary dismissal of his “Motion to Vacate/Set Aside Judgment/Plea: and, to Declare Said Judgment/Plea Void” by the Hamilton County Criminal Court on January 9, 1998. Following a thorough review of the record, we conclude that this is an appropriate case for affirmance pursuant to Ct. of Crim. App. Rule 20.

State of Tennessee v. Johnny Leach
03C01-9810-CR-00373
Authoring Judge: Judge John Everett Williams
Trial Court Judge: Judge W. Lee Asbury

The defendant, Johnny Leach, appeals the order of the Criminal Court of Campbell County denying his request to withdraw his guilty plea to two counts of aggravated sexual battery. On July 2, 1998, the defendant entered his plea and received two ten-year sentences to be served concurrently. Because the defendant’s plea became final on the date of entry of the plea pursuant to the plea agreement, we conclude that his motion to withdraw was untimely.  Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the trial court.

01C01-9806-CR-00265
01C01-9806-CR-00265
Trial Court Judge: Jane W. Wheatcraft

State vs. Jackie Dean Mayes, Jr.
01C01-9812-CC-00494

Charles Gaylor vs. State
03C01-9702-CR-00066
Trial Court Judge: James W Itt

State vs. Harold Dufour
03C01-9902-CR-00063
Trial Court Judge: James Curwood Witt

State vs. Dennis Wade Suttles
03C01-9801-CR-00036

State vs. James Gilbert
03C01-9808-CC-00303
Trial Court Judge: Rex Henry Ogle

State vs. Glen Porter
03C01-9808-CR-00294

State vs. Teresa Everett
E1999-02647-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry Smith
Trial Court Judge: E. Eugene Eblen
Following a trial on September 28, 1998, a Loudon County jury convicted Teresa Everett, the defendant and appellant, of attempt to commit second-degree murder. The trial court subsequently sentenced her to serve fifteen (15) years in the Tennessee Department of Corrections. The defendant presents the following issues on appeal (1) Whether the evidence was sufficient to convict her; (2)Whether the trial court erred by allowing improper impeachment; (3) Whether the trial court erred by allowing a lay-witness to testify to his opinion; (4) Whether the trial court erred by allowing the state to introduce character evidence; (5) Whether the state's closing arguments were improper; and (6) Whether the defendant should be granted a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. Although the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict, we find the cumulative effect of all the remaining errors deprived the defendant of a fair trial. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for a new trial.

State vs. James David Shropshire
E1998-00872-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry Smith
Trial Court Judge: Richard R. Baumgartner
In March 1996, James David Shropshire, the defendant and appellant, was convicted in the Knox County Criminal Court of aggravated sexual battery and simple assault. Following the jury's verdict, the trial court dismissed the simple assault charge. On appeal, the defendant challenges his conviction for aggravated sexual battery. He raises the following issues: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction; (2) whether a variance between the bill of particulars and the proof adduced at trial was fatal; (3) whether the defendant's conviction violated the double jeopardy clauses of the United States and Tennessee Constitutions; (4) whether the state made improper closing arguments; and (5) whether the trial court erred in allowing the state to introduce evidence that the defendant had committed prior bad acts. Because the jury heard evidence that the defendant committed a crime other than that for which he was on trial, which was the subject of an acquittal, the judgment of the trial court is reversed.

State vs. Timothy V. Bowling
03C01-9805-CR-00167
Trial Court Judge: Lynn W. Brown

Rocky Hipps vs. State
03C01-9807-CC-00237
Trial Court Judge: D. Kelly Thomas, Jr.