State of Tennessee v. Christopher Demotto Linsey
The defendant, Christopher Demotto Linsey, was indicted for tampering with evidence, possession of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver, simple possession of marijuana, possession of heroin, and simple possession of alprazolam. After trial, a jury found the defendant guilty of felony tampering with evidence and misdemeanor simple possession of marijuana, for which he received an effective twelve-year sentence. On appeal, the defendant argues the evidence was insufficient to support the trial court’s decision to deny his request for a renunciation jury instruction with respect to the tampering with evidence charge. The State concedes the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support the defendant’s tampering with evidence conviction and asserts the jury instruction question has been pretermitted. Upon review, we agree with the State. We affirm the defendant’s conviction for simple possession of marijuana and reverse and vacate the defendant’s conviction for tampering with evidence. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Walter Morgan
The Defendant, James Walter Morgan, was found guilty by a Hamblen County Criminal Court jury of theft of property valued at $500 or less, a Class A misdemeanor. See T.C.A. § 39-14-103 (2014). The trial court sentenced the Defendant to eleven months, twenty-nine days of supervised probation. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his request for judicial diversion. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hamblen | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael D. Hernandez
An Anderson County Circuit Court Jury convicted the appellant, Michael D. Hernandez, of one count of rape of a child, and he received a twenty-five-year sentence to be served at 100%. On appeal, the appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction; that the trial court erred by refusing to give him access to the victim's statement in an investigator's notes; that the trial court erred by failing to conduct an in camera review of the notes for exculpatory material; that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence found in his home; that the trial court erred by defining “on or about” for the jury; that the trial court erred by giving sequential jury instructions; and that cumulative error warrants a new trial. Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Anderson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Guy B. Bernal
A Maury County jury found the Defendant, Guy B. Bernal, guilty of rape. The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I offender to twelve years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that: (1) his right against self-incrimination was violated when the trial court did not conduct a proper Momon hearing; (2) the convicting evidence is insufficient; and (3) his twelve-year sentence is excessive. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Oscar C. Wells
The defendant, Oscar C. Wells, appeals the summary dismissal of his motion, filed pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1, to correct what he believes to be an illegal sentence imposed for his 2002 Shelby County Criminal Court jury conviction of first degree murder. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jeremy Jones
The defendant, Jeremy Jones, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of attempted first degree murder, a Class A felony; aggravated assault, a Class C felony; employment of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, a Class C felony; and convicted felon in possession of a firearm, a Class C felony. The trial court imposed an effective term of twenty-five years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues: (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions; (2) the trial court failed to ensure an impartial jury venire; and (3) he is entitled to relief due to cumulative error at trial. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. However, we remand for entry of a corrected judgment in Count 3 to check the box indicating that the defendant was found guilty in that count. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Roy Daniel Mayo, II
A jury found the Defendant, Roy Daniel Mayo II, guilty of one count of attempted burglary, a Class A misdemeanor; one count of possession of burglary tools, a Class A misdemeanor; and one count of evading arrest while operating a motor vehicle, a Class E felony. The trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of six years in prison. The Defendant does not challenge his misdemeanor convictions. On appeal, he asserts that his evading arrest conviction should be reversed because the trial court’s jury instructions did not require the jury to find that the Defendant’s flight took place while he was operating the motor vehicle. Given the facts surrounding the Defendant’s conviction, in particular the proof regarding whether his flight was by means of a vehicle or on foot, we conclude that the jury instructions failed to fairly submit the legal issues and misled the jury as to the applicable law and that the error was not harmless. We accordingly reverse the Defendant’s felony evading arrest conviction, and we remand for new trial on that charge. |
Cheatham | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Shettles
The Defendant, James Shettles, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of aggravated assault, a Class C felony, for which he is serving a four-year workhouse sentence on probation. See T.C.A. § 30-13-102 (Supp. 2012) (amended 2013). On appeal he contends that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction, (2) the trial court erred in admitting a recording of a 9-1-1 call, and (3) the trial court erred in failing to remove a juror. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Anthony Dewight Washington v. State of Tennessee
Anthony Dewight Washington (“the Petitioner”) appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The Petitioner argues that trial counsel’s performance was deficient in failing to file a motion asking for the recusal of the trial judge, failing to file a motion to suppress evidence from a search of the Petitioner’s home, and failing to communicate with the Petitioner, investigate witnesses, and develop a trial strategy or defense. The Petitioner argues that counsel’s deficiency prejudiced him because, but for the deficiencies, he would have accepted the State’s plea offer instead of proceeding to trial. Upon thorough review of the appellate record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Timothy Lewayne Morton
The trial court found that the Defendant, Timothy Lewayne Morton, violated the conditions of his two-year probation when he was arrested for disorderly conduct and public intoxication. The Defendant pled guilty to the disorderly conduct charge prior to the revocation hearing. The Defendant asserts that there was insufficient evidence to support the finding of a violation. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Zachary David Strickland
Defendant, Zachary David Strickland, was convicted of initiation of a process intended to result in the manufacture of methamphetamine and sentenced to ten years of incarceration. After the denial of a motion for new trial, Defendant filed an untimely notice of appeal. In the interests of justice, we waive the timely filing of the notice of appeal. However, upon review of the evidence presented at trial, we determine that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. Consequently, the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Tina Garrett v. State of Tennessee
In June 2013, the Petitioner, Tina Garrett, entered a “best interests” guilty plea to first degree murder in exchange for a life sentence. She subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging, among other things, that she received ineffective assistance of counsel and that her plea was unknowing and involuntary. Following a hearing on the petition, the post-conviction court denied relief. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Fentress | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Zakkawanda Zawumba Moss a/k/a Face
A Lincoln County Circuit Court Jury convicted the appellant, Zakkawanda Zawumba Moss, of six counts of first degree premeditated murder, and he received consecutive sentences of life in confinement. On appeal, the appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions, that the trial court’s refusing to allow the jury to view a child witness’s video-recorded interview denied him of his right to due process, that the trial court improperly admitted the testimony of four witnesses into evidence, that the trial court should have granted his requests for a mistrial, that the trial court improperly admitted photographs into evidence that were overly prejudicial and cumulative, and that the trial court improperly instructed the jury. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we find no reversible error and affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Lincoln | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Devontavious Bryant
The Defendant, Devontavious Bryant, along with co-defendant Deacon Williams, was indicted with one count of aggravated rape, one count of aggravated robbery, and one count of aggravated assault. Prior to trial, the State amended the aggravated robbery charge to robbery and dismissed the aggravated assault charge. The Defendant was tried separately from Mr. Williams and convicted of aggravated rape and robbery. On appeal, the Defendant argues that: (1) the evidence collected from a warrantless search of his bedroom should have been suppressed; (2) the video recording of the victim's statement given minutes after the offense should have been suppressed under Tennessee Rule of Evidence 403; and (3) there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for aggravated rape because his DNA was not found at the scene. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Shiema Moniqueke Reid
A Davidson County Criminal Court Jury convicted the appellant, Shiema Moniqueke Reid, of perjury, a Class A misdemeanor, and the trial court sentenced her to eleven months, twenty-nine days to be served on supervised probation. On appeal, the appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Connie Khonsabanh Vongphakdy
The Appellant, Connie Kohnsabanh Vongphakdy, pled guilty in the Rutherford County Circuit Court to one count of theft $60,000 or more but less than $250,000; four counts of theft of $10,000 or more but less than $60,000; and two counts of theft of $1,000 or more but less than $10,000. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the Appellant received a total effective sentence of eight years. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court denied alternative sentencing and ordered the Appellant to pay restitution in the amount of $178,300. On appeal, the Appellant challenges the trial court’s denial of alternative sentencing. The State concedes that the trial court did not consider the specific factors in Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-103 but contends that the trial court implicitly found that confinement was necessary to avoid depreciating the seriousness of the offense and to serve as a deterrent. Upon review, we reverse the judgments of the trial court and and remand for resentencing. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Lavonta Laver Churchwell v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Lavonta Laver Churchwell, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions of two counts of first degree felony murder, two counts of especially aggravated robbery, and two counts of criminally negligent homicide and resulting effective sentence of life in confinement. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that he received the ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Lizandro Guevara
Defendant, Lizandro Guevara, appeals his eight convictions for aggravated sexual battery and four convictions for rape of a child. He argues that the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions. Because the evidence within the record is sufficient for a rational jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant committed the offenses for which he was convicted, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Robert C. Clanton
Defendant, Robert Carlyle Clanton, was convicted by a Bedford County jury of ten drug-related offenses for the sale of methamphetamine to a confidential informant. The trial court imposed a total effective sentence of twenty-three years and six months. On appeal, Defendant’s sole issue is that the trial court imposed an excessively lengthy sentence. Upon our review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Antwion Dowdy
The Defendant, Antwion Dowdy, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of first degree premeditated murder and four counts of aggravated assault, Class C felonies. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-202 (2014), 39-13-102 (2014) (amended 2015). The trial court sentenced the Defendant to concurrent sentences of life imprisonment for first degree murder and five years for each aggravated assault. On appeal, he contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Kenneth Lewis v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Kenneth Lewis, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The petitioner is currently serving a thirty-five-year sentence for second degree murder. On appeal, the petitioner contends that he should have been granted relief because: (1) he was denied his rights to the effective assistance of counsel; (2) the trial court erred in failing to grant his request for a transcript of the jury selection or to allow introduction of notes detailing reasons certain jurors were struck from the panel; and (3) that the law should be changed to allow funding for expert witnesses in non-capital post-conviction cases. Following review of the record, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Rhonda Sowell
The defendant, Rhonda Sowell, pled guilty in the Circuit Court for Madison County to driving under the influence (“DUI”) (Count 1), driving under the influence with a with a blood alcohol concentration of .08% or more (“DUI per se”) (Count 2), second offense DUI (Count 3), and violation of the light law pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-9-402 (Count 4). Prior to pleading guilty, the defendant filed two suppression motions challenging the basis for the initial stop and the evidence collected subsequent to the stop. After the trial court denied both motions, the defendant pled guilty to all charges reserving two certified questions of law concerning the constitutionality of the traffic stop and the evidence obtained as a result. Upon review of the record, we hold that the traffic stop of the defendant was constitutional, supported by both reasonable suspicion and probable cause. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's denial of the defendant's suppression motions. However, we remand the case to the trial court for entry of separate judgment forms for each conviction, including those that were merged, in light of our Supreme Court's order in State v. Marquize Berry, No. W2014-00785-SC-R11-CD, slip op. at 5 (Tenn. Nov. 16, 2015) (order granting Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application for appeal). |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ericka Alicia Smith
Defendant, Ericka Alicia Smith, received a twelve-year sentence to be served on Community Corrections after pleading guilty to attempted aggravated child neglect. After holding a hearing, the trial court determined that Defendant violated the conditions of her alternative sentence and ordered her to serve the remainder of her sentence in confinement. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to impose another alternative sentence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John Armstrong
The petitioner, John Armstrong, appeals the denial of his Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 motion to correct an illegal sentence. He contends that his effective eighteen-year sentence for attempted first degree murder and unlawful possession of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony is illegal because the use or employment of a firearm was an essential element of his conviction for attempted first degree murder. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Unjolee Tremone Moore
A jury convicted the defendant, Unjolee Tremone Moore, of first degree felony murder; attempted especially aggravated robbery, a Class B felony; attempted second degree murder, a Class B felony; and the employment of a firearm during the commission of or attempt to commit a dangerous offense, a Class C felony. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, the trial court's refusal to dismiss based on the failure of police to collect a co-defendant's telephone, and the trial court's decision to admit the defendant's statement to police into evidence. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the defendant is not entitled to relief, and we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals |
