01C01-9506-CR-00176
|
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
01C01-9509-CR-00314
|
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
01C01-9509-CR-00315
|
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Cyril v. Fraser
|
Wilson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
01C01-9511-CR-00363
|
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
01C01-9506-CC-00169
|
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
01C01-9508-CC-00248
|
Hickman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
01C01-9508-CC-00284
|
Coffee | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
03C01-9512-CC-00380
|
Bradley | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
03C01-9601-CR-00047
|
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
03C01-9511-CC-00369
|
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Cyril v. Fraser
|
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
01C01-9510-CC-00322
|
Hickman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
01C01-9507-CR-00231
|
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
02C01-9409-CR-00208
|
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
02C01-9510-CC-00300
|
Henry | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
02C01-9502-CC-00046
|
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
03C01-9510-CR-00309
|
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee vs. Phillip Craig Mangrum
The appellant, Phillip Mangrum, pled guilty in the Criminal Court of Sumner County to aggravated burglary, a class C felony. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-403 (1991). The trial court sentenced the appellant as a multiple offender within range II to eight years incarceration in the Department of Correction. The appellant appeals from this sentence, contending, in essence, that (1) the appellant’s status as a multiple offender is not supported by the record; (2) the State’s notice of enhanced sentencing was inadequate under the Sentencing Act and Tenn. R. Crim. P. 12.3; and (2) his sentence is excessive. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee vs. Priscilla Ann Blakemore
This appeal represents three consolidated cases. The defendant pled guilty to three counts of forgery, one count of theft over one thousand dollars ($1000), two counts of passing a forged check, and one count of passing a worthless check. For each count of forgery and passing a forged check, the trial court sentenced the defendant to three years in the Department of Correction as a Range II multiple offender. For the theft offense, the trial court sentenced her to three years in the Department of Correction as a Range I standard offender. For passing a worthless check, the trial court sentenced her to eleven months and twenty-nine days at seventy-five percent (75%) to be served in the Sumner County jail. All sentences were ordered to run concurrently. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee vs. Graple Simpson
The appellee, Graple Simpson, was indicted for possession of a schedule II narcotic with the intent to sell. Following a summary administrative forfeiture, the appellee moved the trial court to dismiss the criminal charge. She argued that the double jeopardy clause prohibited further criminal prosecution. The trial judge granted the appellee's motion and the state appealed. We reverse and remand. |
McNairy | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Derek Denton
The defendant, Derek C. Denton, appeals as of right from his convictions by a jury in the Shelby County Criminal Court for aggravated burglary and aggravated assault, Class C felonies, and criminally negligent homicide, a Class E felony. As a Range I, standard offender, he received six-year sentences and was fined $10,000 for each of the aggravated burglary and aggravated assault convictions and a two-year sentence and $2,500 fine for the criminally negligent homicide conviction. The defendant was ordered to serve each sentence consecutively, for an effective sentence of fourteen years, in the local workhouse. The defendant presents the following issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the defendant's convictions; (2) whether the trial court properly charged the jury on circumstantial evidence; (3) whether the trial court properly charged the jury on the prosecution's burden of proof; and (4) whether the defendant's sentence was excessive. We conclude that the trial court erred in ordering the defendant to serve his sentences consecutively. The trial court did not make sufficient findings, and the record does not support consecutive sentences. There is no indication from the circumstances surrounding the offenses that consecutive sentencing is necessary to protect society from the defendant or that upon release he will be unwilling to lead a productive life and resort to criminal activity. See id; Gray v. State, 538 S.W.2d 391, 393 (Tenn. 1976). In consideration of the foregoing, the defendant's convictions and sentences for aggravated burglary and criminally negligent homicide are affirmed. His conviction for aggravated assault is modified to assault, and a sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days with a seventy-five percent release eligibility date imposed. All three sentences, though, shall be served concurrently to each other. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John V. Woodruff
A Davidson County Criminal Court jury found Appellant John V. Woodruff guilty of felony murder, especially aggravated robbery, especially aggravated kidnapping, and first degree murder. Appellant received a life sentence for each murder conviction and a twenty year sentence for both the especially aggravated robbery conviction and the especially aggravated kidnapping conviction. The life sentences were ordered to run consecutive to each other, and the sentences for robbery and kidnapping were ordered to run concurrent with each other and with the life sentence for first degree murder. In this appeal as of right, Appellant presents the following issues for review:(1) whether the trial court erred in allowing the introduction of evidence of sexual assault upon one of the victims; (2) whether the trial court erred in denying a request for a jury instruction on the lesser included offense of criminal attempt to commit especially aggravated robbery; (3) whether the evidence presented at trial is legally sufficient to sustain convictions for especially aggravated robbery and first degree murder; and (4) whether the trial court erred in ordering consecutive life sentences. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Terry Bowen - Concurring
I concur in the results reached and most of the reasoning used in the majority opinion. However, although I agree that the collateral fact rule essentially remains viable through Rule 403, Tenn. R. Evid., I question its use in this case relative to the appellant’s attempt to impeach Mr. Farrar’s testimony through extrinsic evidencethat Farrar’s son had previously been charged with the appellant and that his son’s charges had been retired on motion of the state. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v Terry Bowen
The appellant, Terry Bowen, was convicted of theft over $1,000, a Class D felony, by a jury of his peers. The trial court found that the appellant was a multiple offender and imposed a Range II sentence consisting of confinement for eight (8) years in the Department of Correction. This sentence is to be served consecutively with the sentences imposed in three prior cases. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals |
