State of Tennessee v. Matthew Edwards
Defendant, Matthew Edwards, was convicted of two counts of cruelty to animals against a pony and a dog. The trial court sentenced Defendant to an effective sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days. On appeal, Defendant argues that: (1) the evidence was insufficient for a rational juror to have found him guilty of two counts of cruelty to animals beyond a reasonable doubt, and (2) the trial court erred in allowing the State to admit evidence of Defendant’s prior statutory rape conviction. After a thorough review of the facts and applicable case law, we affirm. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Martez Dante Smith
Martez Dante Smith, Defendant, pled guilty to two counts of robbery in case 109738 and to one count each of aggravated robbery, robbery, and possession of a weapon after being convicted of a felony drug offense in case 109776. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Defendant as a Range II multiple offender to consecutive terms of eight years in case 109738 and fourteen years in case 109776. On appeal, Defendant claims that the trial court erred in finding that he had no hesitation in committing a crime when the risk to human life was high, erred in finding him to be a dangerous offender, and erred by ordering the sentences to be served consecutively. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jameel Davis
The Appellant, Jameel Davis, pled guilty in the Dyer County Circuit Court to conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery, a Class C felony, and received an eight-year sentence. Pursuant to the plea agreement, he was released from jail and placed on supervised probation for seven years, three months. On appeal, the Appellant contends that the trial court erred by revoking his probation and ordering that he serve his sentence in confinement. Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Tamaine Works v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Tamaine Works, appeals summary dismissal of his petition for relief under the Post-Conviction DNA Analysis Act, his motion under Rule 60.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, and his petition for writ of error coram nobis. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Lisa M. Chibbaro
Defendant, Lisa M. Chibbaro, appeals from the entry of an order denying her motion for modification of sentence pursuant to Rule 35 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure. Following guilty pleas on May 8, 2017, Defendant was convicted of aggravated vehicular assault, two counts of aggravated assault, and driving under the influence of an intoxicant (“DUI”). Following a sentencing hearing conducted immediately after the entry of Defendant’s guilty pleas, the trial court imposed a total effective sentence of ten years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. In denying Defendant’s motion, the trial court found that there had not been a substantial and/or material change in circumstances since Defendant’s guilty pleas that would allow a change of the sentence as previously imposed. Following our review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Cody Darand Marks
Defendant, Cody Darand Marks, was convicted of one count of .5 grams or more of cocaine within 1000 feet of a school zone and was sentenced as a Range II offender to fifteen years of incarceration with mandatory minimum service of twelve years at 100%. On appeal, Defendant argues the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction because the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the amount of cocaine that was exchanged within the drug free zone as opposed to the amount that was exchanged earlier at a separate location. Based on his same argument regarding the weight of the cocaine, Defendant additionally argues that the trial court erred by failing to grant his motion for judgment of acquittal, erred by failing to overturn the verdict as thirteenth juror, and erred by failing to provide an enhanced unanimity instruction to the jury. Upon our review of the record and applicable authorities, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Giles | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Mardoche Olivier
The Defendant, Mardoche Olivier, was convicted by a jury of driving on a suspended license in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-50-104. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to six months of incarceration to be served concurrently with a pre-existing sentence. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the evidence presented at trial is insufficient to support the jury’s verdict. After a review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kristen L. Van De Gejuchte
Defendant, Kristen L. Van De Gejuchte, appeals her conviction for driving under the influence. In her appeal, she contends that the evidence is insufficient to support her conviction and that the trial court erred by denying her motion to suppress. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support her conviction and that the trial court did not err. Therefore, we affirm the judgments of the trial court but remand for entry of a corrected judgment document for Count One reflecting its merger with Count Two. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Rodney Alan Kiefner
The Defendant, Rodney Alan Kiefner, appeals from the Madison County Circuit Court’s denial of his Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(f) motion to withdraw his 2017 guilty pleas to attempted first degree murder and two counts of aggravated assault, for which he is serving an effective fifteen-year sentence. The Petitioner contends that the trial court erred by denying his motion because his guilty pleas were involuntary and because he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Rodney Alan Kiefner
The Defendant, Rodney Alan Kiefner, appeals from the Madison County Circuit Court’s denial of his Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(f) motion to withdraw his 2017 guilty pleas to attempted first degree murder and two counts of aggravated assault, for which he is serving an effective fifteen-year sentence. The Petitioner contends that the trial court erred by denying his motion because his guilty pleas were involuntary and because he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jerry Wade Sherrill
The Defendant, Jerry Wade Sherrill, was convicted by a Wayne County Circuit Court jury of two counts of rape, Class B felonies, and two counts of incest, Class C felonies. See T.C.A. §§39-13-503 (2014) (rape), 39-15-302 (2014) (incest). The trial court sentenced the Defendant to five years for the incest convictions and to eight years for the rape convictions, with all sentences to be served concurrently. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions, (2) the trial court erred in denying his claim pursuant to Brady v. Maryland based upon the State’s failure to disclose alleged incentives offered to the codefendant, (3) the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss pursuant to State v. Ferguson based upon lost evidence, (4) the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss based upon alleged prosecutorial misconduct, and (5) he is entitled to a new trial due to cumulative errors in the conviction proceedings. The State raises an additional allegation of error based upon the trial court’s reduction of the Defendant’s rape sentences from ten to eight years. We affirm the incest judgments and the rape convictions, but we remand for entry of amended judgments for the rape convictions. |
Wayne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James Allen Pollard v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, James Allen Pollard, appeals the post-conviction court’s dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. After thorough review, we affirm the dismissal of the petition. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Steve M. Jarman
The Defendant, Steve M. Jarman, was convicted by a jury of voluntary manslaughter and received a sentence of five years to be served in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant challenges: (1) the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction; (2) the admission of evidence of a prior assault charge for which the Defendant was acquitted and of prior threats against the victim’s sister; (3) the admission of evidence of the Defendant’s attempt to cash a check made out to the victim after the victim’s death; (4) the admission of the victim’s testimony in a prior trial as violating the Confrontation Clause; (5) and his five-year sentence to be served in confinement. We conclude that the trial court committed reversible error in admitting evidence of a prior criminal offense for which the Defendant was acquitted and evidence of the Defendant’s prior threats against the victim’s sister. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for a new trial. |
Dickson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Steve M. Jarman - concurring Opinion
I join in the majority's disposition of this case. I write separately because it is my view that the references to passion and provocation by their very nature express neither elements of voluntary manslaughter that the State is required to prove nor an absolute defense; instead, they are a type of built-in mitigation to a knowing or intentional killing. |
Dickson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jeremy Arthur Kimble
The Defendant, Jeremy Arthur Kimble, received an effective thirty-five-year sentence for his guilty-pleaded convictions to four counts of rape of a child, two counts of rape, and one count of continuous sexual abuse of a child. The Defendant appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in enhancing his sentencing terms for his rape of a child convictions above the minimum in the range. The Defendant contends that the trial court improperly applied certain enhancement factors and failed to apply a pertinent mitigating factor. Following our review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court given that the Defendant held and violated a position of trust as the victim’s step-father, that the offenses were committed to gratify the Defendant’s desire for pleasure or excitement, and that the repeated abuse resulted in an unwanted pregnancy. However, in accordance with this opinion, we remand the case for entry of corrected judgment forms and for additional judgment forms for each count of the indictment. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Robert Wayne Garner v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Robert Wayne Garner, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that the post-conviction court abused its discretion by not allowing one of his witnesses to finish testifying at the evidentiary hearing. After review, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. |
Giles | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Alexander R. Vance and Damonta M. Meneese
The Defendants, Alexander R. Vance and Damonta M. Meneese, were each convicted of second degree murder, first-degree murder in perpetration of a felony, especially aggravated robbery, and three counts of aggravated assault. As to each, the trial court merged the second degree murder conviction into that for first-degree murder, imposing an effective sentence of life imprisonment plus 21 years. In these consolidated appeals, both defendants argue that the trial court erred in allowing hearsay testimony by a State witness regarding a statement made by a co-defendant whose charges had been severed from the two defendants in this matter. Additionally, the Defendant Vance argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions, and the Defendant Meneese argues that the trial court erred by ordering partial consecutive sentencing. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court as to both defendants. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Demetrius Grimes
The Defendant, Demetrius Grimes, was convicted of two counts of attempted first-degree murder; five counts of employing a firearm during a dangerous felony; four counts of employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony with a prior dangerous felony conviction; two counts of attempted especially aggravated robbery; two counts of attempted carjacking; one count of attempted first-degree murder with serious bodily injury; two counts of assault; and one count of simple possession of a controlled substance, third offense. The sentences for the attempted first-degree murders of Michael Dixon and Carl Chesney were ordered to be served consecutively to each other, as well as to both of the 10-year sentences for employing a firearm during a dangerous felony, which were, in turn, to be served consecutively to each other, resulting in a total effective sentence of sixty years. Further, all the sentences were to be served consecutively to a sentence for a prior conviction. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that, since the State argued at trial that Michael Dixon was the intended target of the shots, the attempted first-degree murder conviction for the shooting of Carl Chesney could not stand. Further, the Defendant argues on appeal that the multiple convictions for employment of a firearm during the commission of multiple dangerous felonies cannot stand, for the evidence showed that the Defendant used only one weapon, thus supporting only a single firearm conviction; and that the trial court erred in ordering consecutive sentencing. The State agrees on appeal that the court erred as to sentencing in Counts 15 through 18, which enhanced the Defendant’s sentences for employing a firearm during the commission of four attempted dangerous felonies, for the prior felonies upon which the enhancement was based, were not “dangerous” felonies, as required by statute, but, rather, were simple drug possession convictions. Accordingly, we reverse the convictions as to Counts 15 through 18 and dismiss those charges. We reinstate the convictions for Counts 2, 4, 8, 10 and 12, which were merged into Counts 15 through 18, and remand for entry of amended judgments. We conclude that the other issues raised on appeal by the Defendant are without merit. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Robert Derrick Johnson
The Appellant, Robert Derrick Johnson, was found guilty of robbery, and the trial court sentenced the Appellant as a Range II multiple offender to ten years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Appellant contends that he was denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial and that the trial court erred by declaring a mistrial in his first trial; therefore, his conviction following a second trial violates the principles of double jeopardy. Upon review, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Lamar M. Cullom v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Lamar M. Cullom, appeals the White County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance with regard to Exhibit 6, an unedited audio/video recording of the drug transaction between the Petitioner and a confidential informant that was not shown to the jury. The Petitioner specifically contends that (1) trial counsel failed to object to the prosecutor’s comment that the unedited recording did not have “substance”; (2) trial counsel failed to use the unedited recording during his cross-examination of the confidential informant; (3) trial counsel failed to object to the trial court’s comment to the jury that the unedited recording contained just transportation, that no one was there, and that anything else on it was irrelevant; (4) trial counsel failed to object to the prosecutor’s comment to the jury that the trial court was correct in stating that the unedited recording contained just transportation, that no one was there, and that anything else on it was irrelevant; (5) trial counsel failed to object to the trial court’s ruling that the jury could not view the unedited recording; and (6) the cumulative effect of trial counsel’s errors prejudiced him. We affirm the denial of post-conviction relief. |
White | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Heather Rogers McCollum v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Heather Rogers McCollum, appeals from the Marshall County Circuit Court’s denial of her petition for post-conviction relief. The Petitioner contends that she received ineffective assistance of counsel because (1) trial counsel “did not move to suppress her confession at trial”; and (2) appellate counsel did not “address the issue of the physical facts rule in his appellate brief.” Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the post conviction court. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James Carroll v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, James Carroll, filed a petition seeking post-conviction relief from his convictions of aggravated assault and driving under the influence (DUI), second offense and effective four-year, six-month sentence. In the petition, the Petitioner alleged that (1) the State violated his due process rights by failing to collect and preserve evidence pursuant to State v. Ferguson, 2 S.W.3d 912 (Tenn. 1999), and that (2) his trial counsel was ineffective (a) by failing to challenge the State’s Ferguson violation and (b) by advising the Petitioner to waive his motion for new trial and his direct appeal. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Narrell Pierce v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Narrell Pierce, filed for post-conviction relief from his convictions of attempted aggravated robbery, attempted second degree murder, employment of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, and unlawful possession of a handgun by a felon. The Petitioner alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective by (1) failing to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his attempted aggravated robbery conviction, (2) failing to object to his co-defendant’s testimony, (3) depriving the Petitioner of his constitutional right to testify, and (4) failing to present a ballistics expert. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief, and the Petitioner appeals. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kristina Cole and Montez Mullins
After a jury trial, Kristina Cole was convicted of conspiracy to possess methamphetamine with the intent to sell in a drug-free zone in count one, conspiracy to possess methamphetamine with the intent to deliver in a drug-free zone in count two, facilitation of possession of methamphetamine with the intent to sell in a drug-free zone in count three, and possession of methamphetamine with the intent to deliver in a drug-free zone in count four. The jury found Montez Mullins guilty of facilitation of conspiracy to possess methamphetamine with the intent to sell in a drug-free zone in count one and facilitation of conspiracy to possess methamphetamine with the intent to deliver in a drug-free zone in count two. Defendant Cole received a total effective sentence of thirteen and one-half years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Defendant Montez received a total effective sentence of thirty years as a career offender. On appeal, both Defendant Cole and Defendant Montez argue that the evidence at trial was insufficient for a rational juror to have found them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Additionally, Defendant Cole argues that the trial court erred by allowing Detective Gaia and Investigator Brown to speculate about the meaning of text messages between Defendant Cole and Defendant Jason White. After a thorough review of the facts and applicable case law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Antonio Benson
A Shelby County Criminal Court Jury convicted the Appellant, Antonio Benson, of first degree premeditated murder, and the trial court sentenced him to life. On appeal, the Appellant contends that the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on selfdefense, that the trial court erred by refusing to admit evidence about a prior violent act committed by the victim, that the trial court erred by preventing him from sitting at counsel table during the trial, and that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction. Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on self-defense and that the State failed to show the error was harmless. Accordingly, the Appellant’s conviction is reversed, and the case is remanded to the trial court for a new trial. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals |
