State of Tennessee v. Daniel Edrick Lutrell
The Defendant, Daniel Edrick Lutrell, pled guilty to vehicular homicide by reckless conduct, reckless aggravated assault, and passing in a no-passing zone. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective sentence of six years as a Range I standard offender. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred by denying probation, by ordering the Defendant to serve his sentence in confinement, and by ordering the Defendant to serve the maximum sentence for a Range I standard offender. After a thorough review of the record and applicable case law, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James L. Dowell, III v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, James L. Dowell III, appeals from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, wherein he challenged his jury conviction for first-degree felony murder. In this direct appeal as of right, the Petitioner raises the following ineffective assistance of counsel claims: (1) whether trial counsel failed to adequately meet with the Petitioner and effectively communicate regarding the details of his case and defense strategy; (2) whether trial counsel failed to call a witness to establish a duress defense, thus, leading to no defense being presented at all; and (3) whether trial counsel failed to convey a plea offer made by the State. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Brian Dunkley v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Brian Dunkley, was convicted after a jury trial of conspiracy to commit first degree murder for his involvement in a plot to murder his wife. The Petitioner filed a post-conviction petition alleging that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel when his trial counsel failed to provide advice during plea bargaining, failed to challenge the State’s loss or destruction of evidence, failed to suppress evidence on the basis of an invalid warrant, failed to suppress evidence on the basis of an invalid subpoena, and failed to introduce evidence regarding his location at the time of a co-defendant’s arrest. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. We conclude that the Petitioner has failed to show that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel, and we accordingly affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Matthew Allen Thompson
Defendant, Matthew Allen Thompson, filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36. The trial court denied the motion, and Defendant appeals. Although Defendant filed his motion pursuant to Rule 36 and quoted Rule 36 in his motion, the trial court treated the motion as a Rule 36.1 motion. We conclude under either Rule 36 or 36.1 that Defendant is not entitled to relief. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Frederic Jermaine Armstrong
Defendant, Frederic Jermaine Armstrong, was convicted of aggravated assault for the beating of a correctional officer. Defendant’s conviction was also subject to a criminal gang enhancement pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-121(b), which was later vacated because of this Court’s ruling in State v. Bonds, 502 S.W.3d 118 (Tenn.Crim. App. 2016). On appeal, Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and whether he was properly sentenced to the maximum within the applicable range. Upon review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kerry Granderson
The Defendant, Kerry Granderson, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, and was sentenced to eleven years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant argues that: (1) the trial court erred in admitting a witness’s prior statement to police as substantive evidence; (2) the trial court erred in admitting jailhouse phone calls made by him; and (3) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jerry D. Carney v. State of Tennessee
In 1998, a Davidson County jury convicted the Petitioner, Jerry D. Carney, of first degree premeditated murder. On direct appeal, this Court affirmed the Petitioner's convictions. See State v. Jerry D. Carney, No. M1999-01139-CCA-R3-CD, 2000 WL 1335770, at *1(Tenn. Crim. Appl, at Nashville, Sept. 15, 2000), perm app. denied (Tenn. April 24, 2001). On December 19, 2014, the Petitioner filed his fourth petition for a writ of error coram nobis and in it alleged newly discovered evidence. The trial court issued an order on April 22, 2014, dismissing the petition as time-barred and meritless. We affirm the trial court's judgment. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jimmy Newell v. State of Tennessee
The pro se Petitioner, Jimmy Newell, appeals as of right from the Bradley County Criminal Court’s order summarily dismissing his petition for writ of error coram nobis alleging that the State violated the terms of his plea agreement by filing a letter of opposition to parole with the Board of Parole. The State has filed a motion to affirm the trial court’s judgment pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals. Following our review, we conclude that the State’s motion is welltaken and affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Bradley | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Anthony Jerome Miller
Anthony Jerome Miller, the Defendant, pled guilty to sexual exploitation of a minor and reserved a certified question for appeal regarding the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence. He asserts that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence obtained by the State during a search of his residence because the District Attorney General’s Office did not apply for the search warrant, as required by Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-17-1007. The State responds that: (1) a search warrant is not “process” as intended by the meaning of section 39-17-1007; (2) the search warrant is valid under section 39-17-1007 because Investigator O’Keefe’s application falls under the “except as otherwise provided” clause because law enforcement are authorized to apply for search warrants under Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(a); and (3) if a search warrant is considered process under section 39-17-1007, then Investigator O’Keefe fulfilled the requirements of the statute by seeking verbal consent from an Assistant District Attorney. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm. |
Greene | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jeffrey Yates v. Randy Lee, Warden
The pro se Petitioner, Jeffrey Yates, appeals as of right from the Johnson County Criminal Court’s order denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The State has filed a motion requesting that this court affirm the trial court’s denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals. Following our review, we conclude that the State’s motion is well-taken and affirm the judgment of the Johnson County Criminal Court. |
Johnson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Brian Garwood
The Appellant, Brian Garwood, pled guilty in the Grundy County Circuit Court to three counts of forgery and received a total effective sentence of six years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Appellant challenges the trial court’s denial of alternative sentencing, specifically drug court. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Grundy | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Demarco Cortez Taylor
Defendant, Demarco Cortez Taylor, was convicted by a jury of aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, and employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. He received an effective sentence of ten years for the convictions. On appeal, Defendant challenges: (1) the trial court’s denial of the motion to suppress; (2) the State’s use of improper leading questions; (3) the exclusion of the victim’s recorded interview; (4) the omission of a jury instruction on intoxication; (5) the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the convictions for aggravated robbery and employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony; (6) the denial of a new trial on the basis of jury bias; (7) an excessive sentence; and (8) cumulative error. After a review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Gary Hawkins v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Gary Hawkins, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief by the Shelby County Criminal Court. On appeal, he argues that trial counsel was ineffective for (1) failing to object to testimony regarding an alleged prior bad act by the Petitioner and (2) failing to object to improper statements made during the State’s closing argument. Additionally, he asserts that the cumulative errors made by trial counsel entitle him to relief. After review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
David Hearing v. State of Tennessee
The pro se Petitioner, David Hearing, appeals as of right from the Greene County Criminal Court’s order summarily dismissing his petition for writ of error coram nobis challenging his guilty-pleaded convictions for first degree murder. The State has filed a motion to affirm the trial court’s order pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals. Following our review, we conclude that the State’s motion is well-taken and affirm the order of the trial court. |
Greene | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Lavelle Moore
A Shelby County jury convicted the defendant, Lavelle Moore, of six counts of theft of property over $500 but less than $1000. The trial court merged the convictions into two counts and imposed an effective sentence of twelve years. On appeal, the defendant contends the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions; the trial court abused its discretion by ruling the defendant could be impeached with his prior theft conviction; the theft convictions violate double jeopardy; the trial court erred by ordering the defendant, during deliberations, to stand before the jury and display his eyes; the trial court abused its discretion by telling the jury to keep working after it reached an impasse; and the trial court abused its discretion when imposing consecutive sentences. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude the evidence was sufficient; the trial court properly allowed the defendant to be impeached with his prior theft conviction; and the convictions did not violate principles of double jeopardy. However, we also conclude the trial court erred when allowing the jury to view the defendant’s eyes in close proximity for the first time after the case had been submitted to the jury. This error was not harmless. Accordingly, we reverse the judgments of the trial court and remand for a new trial. Because we have remanded this matter for a new trial, the defendant’s final issues concerning the trial court directing the jury to continue deliberations and sentencing are pretermitted. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Darin Woods
The defendant, Darin Woods, was indicted for attempted first degree murder (Count 1), aggravated robbery (Count 2), attempted aggravated robbery (Count 3), and employing a firearm during a dangerous felony (Count 4). A jury convicted the defendant of the crimes as charged in Counts 2-4, but found him guilty of the lesser-included offense of attempted second degree murder in Count 1. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his attempted second degree murder conviction, arguing the State failed to prove he acted “knowingly” in shooting his victims. The defendant also challenges the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentencing. The State contends sufficient evidence exists to show the defendant “knowingly” shot his victims, and argues consecutive sentencing was warranted in this case. After our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Fred Beal
Defendant, Fred Beal, was convicted by a jury of first degree premeditated murder, felony murder, attempted first degree murder, two counts of attempted especially aggravated robbery, and employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. He appeals, arguing that the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions. As part of our review of the record, we note that there is no judgment form for Count 1 in the record. On remand, the trial court should enter a judgment form for Count 1, first degree felony murder. In all other respects, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Deangelo Norton
A Shelby County Grand Jury returned a two-count indictment charging the Defendant, Deangelo Norton, with rape of a child and aggravated sexual battery. Pursuant to Rule 412 of the Tennessee Rules of Evidence, prior to trial the Defendant filed a notice of his intent to introduce evidence at trial of the child victim’s knowledge of sexual matters. The trial court held a pretrial evidentiary hearing on the subject and denied the request, finding the proposed testimony to be irrelevant. A jury trial followed, and the Defendant was convicted of both counts. The trial court merged the convictions and sentenced the Defendant to twenty-five years at 100%. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his request to introduce evidence and that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his convictions. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Robert Webb v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Robert Webb, appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief as untimely upon its conclusion that the Petitioner’s mental incompetence did not toll the statute of limitations. After review, we affirm the denial of the petition. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In re: Stoney's Bail Bonding, Inc.
This is an appeal by Stoney’s Bail Bonding, Inc., (“Stoney’s”) of an order of the Maury County Circuit Court, sitting en banc, which denied Stoney’s Renewed Motion for Relief from Bond. Stoney’s argues the single issue that the trial court erred in its application of Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-11-201(c) because the State failed to commence extradition proceedings, as previously ordered by the en banc panel. Following our review of the record, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Bobby W. Ogg
Defendant, Bobby W. Ogg, pled guilty to theft of property over $500 in case no. 74CC3-2014-CR-87 and theft of property over $1,000 in case no. 74CC3-2014-CR-94 and received an effective two-year sentence on community corrections. Defendant violated the terms of community corrections “by failing to report and new charges in Robertson and Sumner County,” and he was ordered to serve the remainder of his sentence. On February 23, 2015, Defendant was released on Determinate Release probation. A probation violation warrant was issued on November 13, 2015, charging that Defendant had violated his probation, and, after a hearing, the trial court revoked the Defendant’s probation and ordered him to serve the remainder of his sentence in confinement. Defendant now appeals, contending that the trial court erred by ordering him to serve the remainder of his original sentence in confinement. After thoroughly reviewing the record and applicable authorities, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Robertson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Wilson J.B. Jones
Wilson J. B. Jones, the Defendant, filed a Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 motion for relief from an allegedly illegal sentence. The trial court found that the motion failed to state a colorable claim because the Defendant’s sentence had expired and dismissed the motion. The Defendant “concedes that his sentences have expired” and acknowledges that our supreme court in State v. Brown, 479 S.W. 3d 200 (Tenn. 2015), “held that Rule 36.1 does not authorize the correction of expired illegal sentences.” The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Antonio Sykes v. State of Tennessee
A Shelby County jury convicted Antonio Sykes (“the Petitioner”) of first degree premeditated murder, especially aggravated robbery, and two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping. He received an effective sentence of life without parole plus seventy-five years. The Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis, arguing that the State had withheld exculpatory evidence that one of the State’s witnesses received a plea deal in exchange for favorable testimony, in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and that the exculpatory evidence constituted “newly discovered evidence” within the meaning of the coram nobis statute. The State filed a response and motion to dismiss, arguing that the Petitioner “fail[ed] to allege any new evidence relating to the matters litigated at trial[]” and that the petition was barred by the statute of limitations. The coram nobis court summarily dismissed the petition and found that the Petitioner failed to present actual evidence of a plea deal between the witness and the State. On appeal, the Petitioner concedes that his petition was untimely filed but argues that this court should toll the statute of limitations and address the merits of his petition. After a thorough review of the record and applicable case law, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
John Joseph Kratochvil v. Randy Lee, Warden
The pro se petitioner, John Joseph Kratochvil, appeals as of right from the Johnson County Criminal Court’s order summarily dismissing his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The State has filed a motion to affirm the habeas corpus court’s order pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals. Following our review, we conclude that the State’s motion is well-taken and affirm the order of the trial court. |
Johnson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Roy D. Moore
The Defendant, Roy D. Moore, through counsel, appeals as of right from the Blount County Circuit Court’s order revoking his probation and ordering him to serve his sentence in confinement. The State has filed a motion to affirm the trial court’s order pursuant to Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20. Following our review, we conclude that the State’s motion is well-taken and affirm the order of the trial court. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals |
