State of Tennessee v. Paul Samuel Eslinger
Paul Samuel Eslinger, the Defendant, pleaded guilty to two counts of sale of a Schedule II controlled substance, both Class C felonies, and one count of sale of a Schedule I controlled substance, a Class B felony, and was sentenced pursuant to a plea agreement to three thirty-year concurrent sentences. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred when it did not allow him to withdraw his guilty pleas. Upon review, we conclude that the Defendant's negotiated sentences were illegal and the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction when it accepted the negotiated sentences as part of the plea agreement. Therefore, the trial court should have allowed him to withdraw his guilty pleas. The judgments of the trial court are reversed, and the case is remanded. |
Sevier | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Charles Bradley Mims
A Chester County jury convicted the Defendant of theft of property valued over $500, and the trial court sentenced him as a Career Offender to six years of incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence presented at trial is insufficient to sustain his conviction and that the trial court erred when it sentenced him. After review, we affirm the trial court's judgment. |
Chester | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Darrell Johnson v. State of Tennessee
A Shelby County jury found the Petitioner, Darrell Johnson, guilty of three counts of facilitation of attempted aggravated robbery and two counts of facilitation of aggravated burglary. The trial court sentenced the Petitioner as a Career Offender and imposed a total effective sentence of twenty-four years of incarceration. This Court affirmed the Petitioner's convictions and sentence. State v. Darrell Johnson, No. W2012-01467-CCA-R3-CD, 2013 WL 5522220, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, Oct. 3, 2013), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Feb. 12, 2014). The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which the post-conviction court denied after a hearing. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred when it denied his petition. He contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal. After review, we affirm the post-conviction court's judgment. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Samuel W. Hirsch v. State of Tennessee
Samuel W. Hirsh (“the Petitioner”) entered a best interest plea to first degree felony murder and was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. He then filed a timely pro se Petition for Post-Conviction Relief alleging numerous grounds. Following a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief and dismissed the petition. On appeal the Petitioner claims that (1) counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress the Petitioner's statements and (2) “[the] conviction was based upon a coerced [p]lea [a]greement predicated upon an innate fear of receiving the [d]eath [p]enalty.” Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Hawkins | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Timothy Jermaine Cox v. State of Tennessee
In 2013 the Petitioner, Timothy Jermaine Cox, entered a best interest plea to aggravated sexual battery and violation of the sex offender registry. By agreement, the trial court sentenced the Petitioner to ten years, to be served at 100%, with a concurrent sentence of two years for violating the sex offender registry, to be served at 35%. The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which the post-conviction court denied after a hearing. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the post-conviction court erred when it denied his petition because he received the ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal. After review, we affirm the post-conviction court's judgment. |
Gibson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William Henry Albright, Jr.
The Defendant, William Henry Albright, Jr., pleaded guilty to aggravated burglary and theft over $1,000, and the trial court imposed an agreed-upon sentence of ten years for the aggravated burglary conviction and eight years for the theft conviction, concurrent, to be served on supervised probation. In 2015, the trial court issued a probation violation warrant and, after a hearing, the trial court revoked the Defendant's probation and ordered that the Defendant serve his sentence in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering him to serve his sentence in incarceration. After review, we affirm the trial court's judgment. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. David Alan Corbitt
A Benton County jury convicted the Defendant of one count of rape of a child and one count of aggravated sexual battery as a lesser-included offense of a second count of rape of a child. The trial court sentenced him to thirty-five years, to be served at 100%, for the rape of a child conviction and to a concurrent sentence of ten years for the aggravated sexual battery conviction. On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions; (2) the trial court erred when it instructed the jury that aggravated sexual battery was a lesser-included offense of rape of a child; and (3) the trial court erred when it sentenced him. After review, we conclude that aggravated sexual battery is not a lesser-included offense of rape of a child. State v. John J. Ortega, Jr., No. M2014-01042-CCA-R3-CD, 2015 WL 1870095, at *10 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Apr. 23, 2015), no perm. app. filed. As such, the trial court erred when it instructed the jury. The Defendant's conviction for aggravated sexual battery is vacated. His conviction and sentence for rape of a child is affirmed. |
Benton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Antonio McMiller
The defendant, Antonio McMiller, appeals his Sullivan County Criminal Court jury convictions of the sale and delivery of cocaine within a drug-free zone, claiming that the trial court erred by permitting him to proceed pro se, that the trial court violated his constitutional right to be present at trial, that the trial court erred by denying his right to counsel of choice, that he was deprived of the right to a fair and impartial jury, that the trial court erred by failing to give certain jury instructions, that the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to support his convictions, that the trial judge's rulings evinced judicial bias requiring recusal, and that the sentence imposed was excessive. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Roy McGill
Defendant, Christopher Roy McGill, received an eight-year sentence on community corrections and was placed into a drug court treatment program. A violation warrant was filed alleging that Defendant brought drugs into the treatment program. After a hearing, the trial court revoked Defendant’s community corrections sentence after finding that Defendant failed to report other residents bringing drugs into the treatment program. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court improperly admitted hearsay testimony, that the evidence was insufficient to support the trial court’s finding that Defendant violated the terms of his community corrections sentence, and that the trial judge should have recused himself because he was also a member of Defendant’s drug court team. Upon our review of the record, we hold that the trial court erred by admitting hearsay testimony without a finding of good cause or reliability, that the trial court erred in revoking Defendant’s community corrections sentence on a ground of which Defendant had no notice and for which there was a lack of evidence in the record, but that the trial court did not err in failing to recuse itself. We reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Shelly Minor v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Shelly Minor, appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. After review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court denying the petition for post-conviction relief. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Danielle Rush
The defendant, Danielle Rush, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of two counts of attempted second degree murder, three counts of aggravated assault, two counts of reckless endangerment, and vandalism over $1000. The trial court merged two of the aggravated assault convictions and sentenced the defendant to an effective term of eleven years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Lorenzo Brown
The defendant, Lorenzo Brown, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of attempted voluntary manslaughter, possession of a firearm during the attempted commission of a dangerous felony, and aggravated assault. The trial court sentenced him to four years for the attempted voluntary manslaughter conviction, three years for the firearm conviction, and five years for the aggravated assault conviction, with the four- and three-year sentences to be served consecutively and the five-year sentence concurrently, for an effective sentence of seven years, in the county workhouse. On appeal, he argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his attempted voluntary manslaughter and firearm convictions. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Melvin James Branham v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Melvin James Branham, appeals the Sevier County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his 2012 conviction for robbery and his fifteen-year sentence. The Petitioner contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Sevier | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tracy Larenzo Goodwin
The Defendant, Tracy Lorenzo Goodwin, appeals from the Hamilton County Criminal Court’s order revoking his probation and ordering execution of the original sentences imposed. The Defendant’s counsel has filed a motion to withdraw pursuant to Rule 22 of the Rules of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals. We conclude that counsel’s motion is well-taken and, in accordance with Rule 22(F), affirm the trial court’s judgments pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Melvin James Branham v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Melvin James Branham, appeals the Sevier County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his 2012 conviction for robbery and his fifteen-year sentence. The Petitioner contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Sevier | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Dontavious Hendrix
A Madison County jury convicted the Defendant-Appellant, Dontavious Hendrix, of one count of second degree murder. See T.C.A. § 39-13-210(a)(1). The trial court imposed a twenty-five-year sentence of confinement at the Tennessee Department of Correction to be served at 100% release eligibility. On appeal, he argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction for second degree murder and that his sentence is excessive. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William Seth Bowman
The appellant, William Seth Bowman, pled guilty in the Putnam County Criminal Court to aggravated assault and received a six-year sentence with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered that the appellant serve his sentence in confinement. On appeal, the appellant contends that the trial court erred by not granting his request for alternative sentencing. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Putnam | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Marcus T. Johnson
The Defendant, Marcus T. Johnson, entered a guilty plea in 2011 to the sale of cocaine and received a ten-year sentence. In 2015, the Defendant filed a motion pursuant to Tennessee Criminal Procedure Rule 36.1 requesting the correction of an illegal sentence. The trial court summarily denied relief. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred by dismissing the motion. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Brown
The defendant, Michael Brown, appeals the trial court’s decision to require him to serve sixty days in confinement for his conviction for sexual contact with an inmate, a Class E felony. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Brandon L. Kirk v. State of Tennessee
Following two jury trials, Petitioner, Brandon L. Kirk, was convicted of various offenses which resulted in a total effective sentence of 22 years. All convictions were affirmed on appeal. State v. Brandon L. Kirk, No. M2012-01331-CCA-R3-CD, 2013 WL 3148276 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 18, 2013). Petitioner filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief. Counsel was appointed and an amended petition was filed. Following an evidentiary hearing in which only Petitioner and trial counsel testified, the post-conviction court denied relief. Petitioner has appealed, asserting that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee. |
Robertson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Earl Jerome Lee, Jr.
Defendant, Earl Jerome Lee, Jr., filed various pro se motions seeking relief from his convictions in case numbers 87-467 and 87-347 in the Madison County Circuit Court. One motion sought relief pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure (Tenn. R. Crim. P.) 36.1 based upon the fact that he received illegal concurrent sentences upon his guilty pleas in 1988. One of the sentences was for forty years of imprisonment, so the sentences have not all expired. Defendant asserted that concurrent sentencing was illegal pursuant to Tenn. R. Crim. P. 32(c)(3)(C) because he was on bond for the felony offenses in case number 87-347 when he committed the offenses in case number 87-467, and he was convicted of all the felonies. Another motion was “for exculpatory evidence” and yet another was “for review extraordinary appeal.” Defendant’s notice of appeal in the present case was filed May 13, 2015, appealing the trial court’s judgments filed May 1, 2015, which denied the three motions. For the reasons stated below, we affirm the judgments of the trial court pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Joey Godwin v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Joey Godwin, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The petitioner is currently serving two consecutive thirty-year sentences for his two convictions for sale of .5 grams or more of cocaine. On appeal, he contends that the post-conviction court erred in denying his petition because he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, he contends that trial counsel was ineffective by: (1) not allowing the petitioner to testify at his trial; (2) failing to file a motion for change of venue; and (3) advising the petitioner to reject a twelve-year plea offer from the State. Following review of the record, we conclude that the post-conviction court did not err and affirm the denial of post-conviction relief. |
Gibson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Shecky Dotson
Shecky Dotson (“the Defendant”) was indicted in Count 1 for driving while under the influence of an intoxicant (“DUI”), in Count 2 for reckless driving, and in Count 3 for DUI per se. In a separate document, the grand jury presented that the Defendant had one prior conviction for DUI. After a jury trial, the Defendant was acquitted in Count 1 and Count 2 and convicted in Count 3. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court should have suppressed the results of his blood alcohol test. Specifically, he contends that the trial court erred in finding the Defendant gave actual consent for a blood draw and erred in finding the Defendant failed to revoke his implied consent. After a thorough review of the record, we have determined that, based on a totality of the circumstances, the Defendant freely and voluntarily gave actual consent for a blood draw and that the trial court did not err in denying the Defendant's motion to suppress the results of the warrantless blood draw. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Russell Freels v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Russell Freels, appeals the Washington County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. The Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred in dismissing his ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim as having been untimely filed. He argues for the first time on appeal that he is constitutionally entitled to effective assistance of post-conviction counsel in his first petition for relief and that due process requires tolling of the statute of limitations. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Washington | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Lindsey Brooke Lowe
The parents of the defendant, Lindsey Brooke Lowe, discovered the body of one of her newborn twins in a laundry basket in her bedroom. A second deceased newborn was also found in the basket, and the defendant gave an incriminating statement to police. A jury convicted the defendant of two counts of first degree (felony) murder, two counts of first degree (premeditated) murder, and two counts of aggravated child abuse, a Class A felony. The trial court merged the first degree murder convictions for each victim. The defendant received a life sentence for each first degree murder conviction and a twenty-five year sentence for each aggravated child abuse conviction, all to be served concurrently. On appeal she asserts that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts; that the trial court erred in not suppressing her statement; that the trial court was biased; that the trial court denied her the right to testify in her defense; that the burden of proof was shifted to the defense; that her motion for a change of venue should have been granted; that the physical evidence obtained through a search warrant should have been suppressed; that the trial court erred in excluding expert testimony regarding her ability to waive her right to remain silent; that the trial court erred in various other evidentiary decisions; and that she is entitled to relief under the theory of cumulative error. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals |
