A.D. Barker vs. State of Tennessee
The Petition er, A. D . Barke r, appe als the order o f the Se vier County Circuit Court dismissing his petition fo r post-conviction relief. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sevier | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Tyrone Chalmers
|
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Devon Crawford
|
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Donald Culbreath & Genna McCallie
|
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Thomas Boone
|
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Francesca Turner & Charles Taylor
|
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Demetrius Robinson
On October 15, 1997, the defendant was convicted of delivering cocaine and he was sentenced to serve four years in the penitentiary. The defendant was tried along with a co-defendant Reggie Barton. In the course of the trial, statements made by Barton implicated the defendant. The defendant raises the following issues: 1. Whether the defendant’s Motion To Sever the trial should have been granted? 2. Whether the co-defendant’s statement to the confidential informant should have been excluded or redacted? We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
William D. Pewitt v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, William D. Pewitt, appeals as of right from the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief by the Williamson County Circuit Court. He seeks relief from his 1994 convictions for witness coercion, a Class D felony, and assault, a Class A misdemeanor. His convictions were affirmed on appeal. State v. William D. Pewitt, No. 01C01-9411-CC-00375, Williamson County (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 22, 1996), app. denied (Tenn. Jan. 1, 1997). The petitioner contends that the trial court erred in dismissing his petition without appointing counsel, allowing amendment of the petition with the aid of counsel, or holding an evidentiary hearing. We affirm the trial court’s order dismissing the petition for failure to state a claim. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jorge Ariel Sanjines v. State of Tennessee
After a careful review of the remaining issues, we find that the appellant was improperly convicted of multiple inchoate offenses, attempted murder and conspiracy to commit murder, for the criminal conduct against his ex-wife, Gina Sanjines. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-12-106(a) (Supp. 1994). Neither the defense nor the State considered section 39-12-106(a) when they constructed the plea agreement in this case. We conclude that the error was prejudicial and, accordingly, reverse the conviction of attempted murder.2 The remaining convictions and sentences are affirmed. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
02C01-9806-CC-00187Cecil
|
Carroll | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Gerald Henry
|
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. John Hill
|
Franklin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Woodrow Wilson Mounger
|
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Martin Jones
|
Unicoi | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Wiliam Belser
|
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Curtis Bolton
|
Campbell | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Harry Conklin vs. State
|
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Ross Austin
|
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. John Scales
|
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Nathaniel Allen
|
Moore | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. David Richards
|
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Cleo Henderson
|
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Cleo Henderson
|
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Stephen Freeman
|
Greene | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Charles Hamlin
|
Marion | Court of Criminal Appeals |
