Alonza Grace v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Alonza Grace, appeals from the denial of post-conviction relief, arguing that his guilty plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered because he was under the influence of prescription medication. He further contends that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to request a forensic evaluation to determine his competency and in failing to investigate alleged missing evidence. Upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Lona Parker v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Lona Parker, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in finding that he received effective assistance of trial counsel. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Tiffany Amos v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Tiffany Amos, appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of relief from her theft and criminal impersonation convictions, arguing that she received ineffective assistance of counsel and that her guilty pleas were unknowingly and involuntarily entered. After review, we affirm the denial of the petition. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Bonsky
The Appellant, Michael Bonsky, was convicted by a jury in the Shelby County Criminal Court of second degree murder, attempted second degree murder, and especially aggravated robbery. The trial court imposed a total effective sentence of sixty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Appellant raises the following issues: (1) whether the trial court erred by drafting its own jury instruction regarding diminished capacity; (2) whether the trial court erred by admitting evidence regarding the Appellant‘s presence at a casino and committing a robbery in Mississippi within hours of the instant offenses; (3) whether the trial court erred by admitting a recording of the telephone call one of the victims made to 911; (4) whether the trial court erred by admitting the Appellant‘s statement into evidence; (5) whether the trial court erred by not allowing an expert witness to testify regarding the Appellant‘s level of intoxication and his ability to form the requisite intent; (6) whether the trial court erred in sentencing the Appellant; and (7) whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the Appellant‘s convictions. Upon review, we conclude that the trial court‘s instruction to the jury regarding diminished capacity was error and that the error was not harmless; therefore, the Appellant‘s convictions are reversed, and the case is remanded for a new trial. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Bonsky - Concurring
In this case, the jury eschewed the charge of first degree murder and convicted the defendant of the lesser included offense of second degree murder. I write separately because I thought it worth pointing out why this circumstance did not cause the instructional error to be harmless. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Saidrick T. Pewitte v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Saidrick T. Pewitte, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. After review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Dalton B. Lister v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Dalton B. Lister, appeals the Bradley County Criminal Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for first degree felony murder, attempt to commit aggravated robbery, and conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery and his effective life sentence. The Petitioner contends that the State destroyed evidence, withheld exculpatory evidence, and concealed the existence of an agreement with a codefendant, and that the cumulative effect of the misconduct deprived him of his constitutional right to a fair trial. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Bradley | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Johnathan Dale Abernathy
Defendant, Johnathan Dale Abernathy, was found not guilty of the charge of domestic assault. At his arraignment, pursuant to T.C.A. § 40-14-202(e), the trial court had found that he could pay a portion of his attorney fees even though the public defender was appointed to represent him. He had only paid a portion of the fees prior to trial. Subsequent to the trial, Defendant filed a motion to remit some or all of the fees. At the motion hearing, and without prior notice of contempt charges to be answered, the trial court summarily held Defendant in civil contempt with the contempt to be purged when he paid the balance owed. Defendant appealed, and we reverse the judgment of the trial court and dismiss all contempt charges. |
Giles | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Victor Andrea Askew v. State of Tennessee
Victor Andrea Askew, the Petitioner, filed a Petition for Post-Conviction Relief alleging a single claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to argue that the judge ruling on the motion for new trial should apply the version of Tennessee Code Annotated section 17-1-305 that was in effect at the time of the Petitioner’s offense. The post-conviction court denied relief. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Domnick Doria
Defendant, Domnick Doria, was indicted by the Montgomery County Grand Jury for 39 counts of sexual exploitation of a minor. Defendant was convicted as charged in counts two, three, four, and six. Defendant was convicted of a lesser-included offense in counts one, five, and seven through thirty-nine. Defendant received an effective sentence of 13 years for all his convictions. In this appeal as of right, Defendant contends that the trial court erred by denying his motions to suppress his statement to police and evidence collected from his home during the execution of a search warrant; that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions; that the trial court improperly admitted hearsay testimony; that the trial court erred by admitting previously excluded evidence; that Defendant’s convictions violate the double jeopardy clause; and that the trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentencing. Having reviewed the entire record and the briefs of the parties, we conclude that the judgments of the trial court should be affirmed. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John T. Davis
Defendant, John T. Davis, filed a motion under Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 alleging that his concurrent sentences in case numbers 8050, 8452, and 9171 were illegal because he was released on parole in case numbers 8050 and 8452 at the time he committed the offenses in case number 9171. The trial court summarily dismissed the motion. After review of the record and the briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Cordricus Arnold
The defendant, Cordricus Arnold, was convicted of first degree (felony) murder. On appeal, he argues that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction and that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury regarding the offense of voluntary manslaughter. Following our review of the briefs of the parties, the record, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Terrell Hayes
Defendant, Terrell Hayes, was convicted of two counts of aggravated robbery after a jury trial. Defendant was sentenced to an effective sentence of ten years. After the denial of a motion for new trial, Defendant timely sought an appeal. The following issues are presented for our review: (1) whether the trial court improperly prohibited Defendant from introducing evidence about codefendant Timothy Williams‘s prior robbery charge; and (2) whether the trial court erred in failing to grant a mistrial and/or allowing counsel to testify as a witness for the defense. After a review, we determine the trial court erred in refusing to allow Defendant to question witnesses about the prior robbery. However, we determine the error was harmless. Defendant failed to raise the issue with regard to counsel‘s testimony in the motion for new trial. This issue is waived. Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Stevean Wilson
The Defendant, Stevean Wilson, pleaded guilty to aggravated assault, and the trial court entered the agreed sentence of six years with the manner of service of the sentence to be determined after a hearing. After the hearing, the trial court denied the Defendant an alternative sentence and ordered that he serve his sentence in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it denied his request for an alternative sentence. After review, we affirm the trial court's judgment. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Stevean Wilson - dissenting
I dissent from the majority conclusion affirming the trial court’s imposition of confinement in this case. The trial court did not engage in any findings of fact to support its determination of confinement as required by law. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-103(1)(A)-(C) (2014) (whether confinement is necessary to protect society by restraining a defendant who has a long history of criminal conduct; whether confinement is necessary to avoid depreciating the seriousness of the offense or confinement is particularly suited to provide an effective deterrence to others likely to commit similar offenses; or measures less restrictive than confinement have frequently or recently been applied unsuccessfully to the defendant); see also Shannon Ann Maness and Daryl Wayne Maness, No. W2012-02655-CCA-R3-CD, 2014 WL 350429, at *16-17 (Tenn. Crim. App. Jan. 23, 2014) (noting that the trial is still required to place on the record its reasons for imposing the specific sentence and remanding for new sentencing hearing because the record did not support the trial court’s finding of confinement based on deterrence); State v. Robert Joseph Harr, No. W2011-02735-CCA-R3CD, 2013 WL 5422801, at *10 (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 27, 2013) (Tipton, P.J., concurring and dissenting) (noting that he did not believe “our supreme court intended in Bise or Caudle to do away, in wholesale fashion, with Tennessee jurisprudence developed over the last thirty years upon which the Sentencing Act is based and in which the Act’s provisions are interpreted”).
|
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Mark Alan Hager
The Defendant, Mark Alan Hager, pled guilty to a charge of burglary of a motor vehicle and to a charge of theft of property valued at $1,000 or more. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-14-402, -103, -105(a)(3). Pursuant to the plea agreement, the defendant received concurrent terms of one year and three years respectively, on community corrections. Subsequently, the Defendant’s community corrections sentence was revoked, and upon revocation, the trial court imposed a new total effective sentence of six years. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends (1) that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences, and (2) that the trial court erred in not awarding sufficient credit for time served on community corrections. Following our review, we affirm the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences; however, we remand this case to correct the judgments to reflect the full measure of the Defendant’s community corrections credit. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Wilson
The Defendant, Christopher Wilson, filed a Rule 9 interlocutory appeal seeking our review of the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence against him. The Defendant filed a motion to suppress the results of his blood alcohol test based upon a violation of Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013). The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing and found that a “good faith exception” to the Defendant's forced blood draw existed and denied the Defendant's motion. The Defendant filed an application for an interlocutory appeal, which the trial court granted. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it denied the Defendant's motion to suppress based upon a “good faith exception” to the exclusionary rule. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities, we conclude that the trial court erred when it denied the Defendant's motion to suppress. As such, we reverse the trial court's judgment and remand this case for proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Wilson - Concurring
I concur in the majority opinion. Since the State requested that this court defer its ruling until our state supreme court issues a ruling in a separate case where the State has urged adoption of a “good faith exception” to Art. I, section 7 of the Constitution of Tennessee, I feel compelled to respectfully express my opinion on this issue. I respectfully believe that the United States Supreme Court participated in a most egregious example of judicial activism when it filed its opinion in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984). I agree that it is well settled that the exclusionary rule as it applies to the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution is not a personal constitutional right to the man or woman whose Fourth Amendment rights are violated by the government. Leon, 468 U.S. at 906. It is, instead, a judicially created remedy to protect the Fourth Amendment rights of individuals. Id. However, it is obvious that a constitutional right without an effective remedy for violation of that right is nothing more than an unenforceable objective on a piece of paper. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joshua R. Starner and Caitlyn Metz
A Montgomery County jury convicted Defendant Joshua R. Starner of aggravated child abuse, first-degree felony murder committed during the perpetration of aggravated child abuse, aggravated child neglect, first-degree felony murder committed during the perpetration of aggravated child neglect, and aggravated sexual battery. The jury convicted Defendant Caitlyn Metz of aggravated child abuse, first-degree felony murder committed during the perpetration of aggravated child abuse, aggravated child neglect, first-degree felony murder committed during the perpetration of aggravated child neglect, and facilitation of aggravated sexual battery. The trial court dismissed both Defendants’ sexual battery convictions and merged the felony murder convictions. The trial court sentenced Defendant Starner to life in prison for the felony murder conviction and fifteen years for each of the remaining two convictions, aggravated child abuse and aggravated child neglect. The trial court ordered that Defendant Starner’s fifteen year sentences run concurrently with each other but consecutively to his life sentence. The trial court sentenced Defendant Metz to the same sentences but ordered that all her sentences run concurrently. On appeal, Defendant Starner contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions and that the trial court erred when it ordered partial consecutive sentencing. Defendant Metz contends that the trial court erred when it denied her motion for severance and that the evidence is insufficient to sustain her convictions. After a thorough review of the record and relevant authorities, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Darryl Claxton
Following a jury trial, Darryl Claxton (“the Defendant”) was convicted of first degree premeditated murder and sentenced to life imprisonment for the death of Terry Johnson (“the victim”). The Defendant raises the following issues on this direct appeal: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction; (2) whether the trial court erred when it allowed a witness to testify about the Defendant's association with a “group of young men” in violation of Tennessee Rules of Evidence 403 and 404(b); (3) whether the trial court erred when it allowed a witness to “speculate” about the disposition of the murder weapon in violation of Tennessee Rule of Evidence 602; and (4) whether the cumulative effect of the errors requires a new trial. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ike O. Nwangwa
A Blount County jury convicted the Defendant, Ike O. Nwangwa, of Count 2, operating a motor vehicle while his blood alcohol concentration was .08% or more but acquitted him of Count 1 Driving Under the Influence (“DUI”). The trial court sentenced the Defendant to eleven months and twenty-nine days, with two days to be served in jail followed by supervised probation. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred by accepting the guilty verdict to Count 2 when the jury acquitted him of Count 1. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Charles L. Hartley
Pursuant to a plea agreement, the Defendant, Charles L. Hartley, pleaded guilty to nine drug-related offenses for a total effective sentence of eight years with the trial court to determine the manner of service of the sentence. After a hearing, the trial court ordered that the Defendant serve one year in confinement and the remaining seven years on probation. On appeal, the Defendant contends the trial court erred when it denied him an alternative sentence. After a thorough review of the record and relevant authorities, we affirm the trial court's judgments. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Anthony T. Brandon
Defendant, Anthony T. Brandon, stands convicted of possession with intent to sell .5 grams or more of cocaine, possession with intent to sell .5 grams or more of cocaine base, and possession or casual exchange of marijuana. The trial court imposed an effective twenty-four-year sentence. On appeal, Defendant argues: (1) that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions for possession with intent to sell .5 grams or more of cocaine and for possession with intent to sell.5 grams or more of cocaine base; (2) that his sentences were excessive; and (3) that the trial court should have merged Counts 1 through 4 into one conviction. Based on the parties’ briefs, the record, and the applicable law, we merge Defendant’s convictions for possession with intent to sell .5 grams or more of cocaine and possession with intent to sell .5 grams or more of cocaine base, but we affirm the judgments of the trial court in all other respects. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Guy Lee Powell
After a bench trial, the Defendant, Guy Lee Powell, was convicted of manufacturing a controlled substance, possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell or deliver, felony possession of drug paraphernalia, and possession of a still. The trial court imposed concurrent sentences for an effective sentence of two years' incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized from his premises during a search. After review, we affirm the trial court's judgments. |
Hancock | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Brady P. Smithson
The appellant, State of Tennessee, appeals the Williamson County Circuit Court’s granting the motion of the appellee, Brady P. Smithson, to dismiss an indictment for two counts of vehicular assault, a Class D felony. On appeal, the State contends that the trial court misapplied the factors in State v. Ferguson, 2 S.W.3d 912 (Tenn. 1999). Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the ruling of the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals |
