State of Tennessee v. Keyvin Lanier Glass
Appellant, Keyvin Lanier Glass, pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and failure to appear. He received an effective sentence of four years, one year in confinement with the remainder suspended to supervised probation. His probation officer filed a probation violation report based on his breaking three probationary rules, and the trial court subsequently entered an order revoking appellant’s probation and ordering him to serve his full sentence in confinement. On appeal, appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Coffee | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Bobby J. Croom v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Bobby J. Croom, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his rape of a child and aggravated sexual battery convictions. The petitioner argues that he is entitled to relief because: (1) the State failed to make a proper election of offenses at trial; (2) his convictions violate double jeopardy; (3) his conviction for aggravated sexual battery violates due process; and (4) he received ineffective assistance of counsel. After review, we affirm the denial of the petition. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Timothy Lambert
Defendant, Timothy Demond Lambert, appeals from the trial court's dismissal, without an evidentiary hearing, of Defendant's motion filed pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1. After review of the record and the briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Curtiss Carlos Talley v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Curtiss Carlos Talley, pled guilty in 2002 to aggravated assault and was sentenced to serve five years concurrently with a federal sentence which, apparently, was later imposed. Twelve years later, in 2014, he filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis, asking, as we understand, that the court “vacat[e] his state judgment/conviction on the merits and in the interest of justice.” The trial court determined that he had failed to state a claim for coram nobis relief, and we agree. Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of the petition, pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Lee Priest
The appellant, Michael Lee Priest, pled guilty in the Sequatchie County Circuit Court to robbery in case number 2013CR84 and received a four-year sentence with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. As a result of his guilty plea, the trial court revoked a four-year sentence of probation for aggravated assault in case number 2012CR136. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered that the appellant serve both sentences in confinement. On appeal, the appellant contends that the trial court erred by allowing the State to cross-examine his mother about conduct that occurred as a juvenile and by not granting his requests for alternative sentencing. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Sequatchie | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Tony Fulton Wells v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Tony Fulton Wells, was initially charged with first degree (premeditated) murder, and he later pled guilty to second degree murder, a Class A felony. He filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which was denied. On appeal, he argues that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary because it was coerced. He also argues that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel because trial counsel failed to have a hearing to suppress his written confessions; failed to obtain more time for him to consider the plea agreement; failed to interview the petitioner's neighbor; failed to investigate the crime scene; and failed to explain adequately the law or to listen to the petitioner. Following our review of the record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Union | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Bashan Murchison
Defendant, Bashan Murchison and his Co-Defendant, Garrick Graham, were convicted by a Sullivan County Jury of numerous drug offenses. Specifically, Defendant Murchison was convicted of delivery of .5 grams or more of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school zone (count 9), sale of .5 grams or more of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school zone (count 10), delivery of .5 grams or more of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a daycare (count 11), sale of .5 grams or more of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a daycare (count 12), facilitation of the delivery of .5 grams or more of cocaine (count 13), sale of .5 grams or more of cocaine (count 14), sale of .5 grams or more of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school (count 15), delivery of .5 grams or more of cocaine within 1,000 of a school (count 16), conspiracy to sell more than 26 grams of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school (count 21) and conspiracy to deliver more than 26 grams of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school (count 22). Count 10 charging Defendant Murchison with sale of more than .5 grams of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school was dismissed by the trial court upon motion by the State. The trial court merged counts 11 and 12, counts 13 and 14, counts 15 and 16, and counts 21 and 22. Defendant Murchison received twelve-year sentences for counts 11, and 14. He received twenty-five-year sentences for counts 9, 15, and 21. The trial court imposed concurrent sentences for counts 11, 14, 15, and 21 to be served consecutively to the twenty-five-year sentence in count 9 for an effective fifty-year sentence. On appeal, Defendant Murchison raises the following issues: (1) that the trial court erred by admitting laboratory reports prepared by the TBI forensic scientists and forensic drug chemists concerning testing on the substances purchased by Mr. Dukes from Defendants Murchison and Graham; (2) the evidence was insufficient to support Defendant Murchison's convictions; (3) the trial court erred in denying Defendant Murchison's Batson challenge; (4) the trial court erred in denying Defendant Murchison's request to determine the competency of the CI; (5) the trial court erred by allowing the State to “repeatedly” show the CI his statement to refresh his recollection; (6) the State committed prosecutorial misconduct; (7) the trial court erred by not severing the offenses; and (8) the trial court incorrectly sentenced Defendant Murchison. Defendant Graham also filed an appeal which is addressed in a separate opinion of this court. Following our review of the parties' briefs, the record, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joseph Jordan
The defendant, Joseph Jordan, was convicted of rape, a Class B felony, two counts of false imprisonment, Class A misdemeanors, and one count of domestic assault, a Class A misdemeanor. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred by not requiring the State to make an election of offenses; that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions; that the testimony of a witness did not open the door to his prior conviction for domestic assault; that the trial court erred in restricting the testimony of a second witness to impeach the victim; that the trial court erred by instructing the jury regarding the mens rea of recklessness for the crime of rape; that the trial court should have instructed the jury regarding the defense of voluntary intoxication; that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of his prior bad acts; that the State committed prosecutorial misconduct in its opening statement; that it was plain error to allow the victim to testify that the defendant was incarcerated; and that his convictions should be reversed under the doctrine of cumulative error. Following our thorough review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ernest Lee Jennings v. Gerald McAllister, Warden
A jury convicted the petitioner of three counts of rape of a child, a Class A felony, and one count of sexual exploitation of a minor, a Class B felony. In this petition for the writ of habeas corpus, the petitioner alleges that various errors at trial and on post-conviction render his convictions void. The trial court dismissed the petition without a hearing, and the petitioner appeals the dismissal. We conclude that the trial court did not err in dismissing the petition, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
|
Johnson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Jordan Leggett
James Jordan Leggett appeals claiming that the trial court abused its discretion when it revoked his probation. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Terry Eugene Fisher, Jr.
Terry Eugene Fisher, Jr. (“the Defendant”) pleaded guilty to robbery and was sentenced to nine years’ probation. Thereafter, the Defendant’s probation was revoked based on the accrual of new charges, including a charge for a homicide that occurred prior to the Defendant’s being placed on probation. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it revoked probation based on criminal conduct that occurred prior to the Defendant’s being placed on probation. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Lashonda Moneak Williamson
LaShonda Moneak Williamson, the Appellant, appeals the summary denial of her Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 motion to correct an illegal sentence that she claims was imposed as the result of a coerced guilty plea. Because the Appellant’s motion failed to state a colorable claim, we affirm the trial court’s summary denial of the motion pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jeffrey Owen Smithson
Jeffrey Owen Smithson (“the Defendant”) appeals from his convictions for first degree felony murder, theft over $1,000, first degree premeditated murder, and especially aggravated robbery. The Defendant contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions; (2) the trial court erred in denying his motion for mistrial based upon a witness’s testimony that the Defendant had been recently released from prison; and (3) the trial court erred in denying the Defendant’s motion to suppress his statement to police as not voluntarily given. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Coffee | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Anthony R. Smith, Jr.
Defendant, Anthony R. Smith, Jr., filed a motion to dismiss his indictment for possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a felony drug offense, which was granted by the trial court. The State appealed the dismissal. Upon our review of this matter of first impression, we determine that the definition of “felony” provided in Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-11-110 controls the determination of whether an out-of-state conviction constitutes a “felony drug offense.” We reverse the decision of the trial court, reinstate the indictment, and remand for further proceedings. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Isen Berry
The Defendant, Isen Berry, appeals the trial court’s order revoking his community corrections sentence and ordering him to serve the balance of his six-year sentence in the Department of Correction. He contends that the trial court abused its discretion in concluding that he had violated the conditions of his community corrections. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Larry Pittman
The defendant, currently serving a life sentence as the result of a 1984 conviction for armed robbery, filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1, claiming that the sentencing court erred in finding him to be a “persistent offender.” His motion was denied without a hearing, and he appealed. Following our review, we affirm the order of the trial court dismissing the motion. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Darrian White
The Appellant, Darrian White, appeals as of right from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 motion to correct an illegal sentence. The Appellant contends that he was released on bail prior to committing several offenses and that his sentences are illegal because the trial court ordered them to be served concurrently rather than consecutively. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Danny Wayne Horn
The Defendant, Danny Wayne Horn, was convicted by a jury of aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-504. He received a sentence of ten years' incarceration for said conviction. The Defendant now appeals, arguing that the evidence presented was insufficient to support his conviction; that the trial court erred in denying his request for a mistrial after the victim stated that she identified the Defendant from “his picture on a sex offender website”; and that the State committed plain error during closing argument by alluding to the Defendant's status as a registered sex offender. Following our review, we discern no reversible error and affirm the trial court's judgment. |
Johnson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Randy Bea Anderson v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Randy Bea Anderson, appeals from the denial of post-conviction relief arising from his guilty plea to one count of aggravated burglary, one count of theft of property valued between $1,000 and $10,000, and one misdemeanor count of theft of property valued at $500 or less. On appeal, he contends he received ineffective assistance of counsel in connection with his guilty pleas. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Tourie Bryant v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Tourie Bryant, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. He pled guilty to one count of possession of a Schedule II controlled substance, a Class C felony, and received a six-year sentence in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he contends that his guilty plea was not entered knowingly and voluntarily because he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. Specifically, he contends that trial counsel was ineffective by: (1) failing to properly communicate with the petitioner; and (2) failing to “properly articulate” that the petitioner was waiving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress by pleading guilty and failing to provide the petitioner with an opportunity to review the plea agreement terms prior to his acceptance. Following a thorough review of the record before us, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tammy Marie Harbison
The Defendant-Appellant, Tammy Marie Harbison, entered an open guilty plea to one count of theft of property valued at more than $1,000 but less than $10,000 in the Lawrence County Circuit Court. As a Range I, standard offender, she received a three-year sentence, which was suspended following service of six months in incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant-Appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in denying her request for full probation. Upon review, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for entry of a judgment sentencing the Defendant-Appellant to serve her three-year sentence on supervised probation. |
Lawrence | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
William Lance Walker v. State of Tennessee
William Lance Walker (“the Petitioner”) filed a Petition for Post-Conviction Relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The Petition was denied after a hearing. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts for the first time that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call for the sequestration of witnesses during the Petitioner’s suppression hearing. We conclude that the Petitioner has waived this claim by failing to include it in the Petition and by failing to present any proof about this claim at the post-conviction hearing. Additionally, we conclude that, even if the issue were not waived, the Petitioner has failed to show that he was prejudiced by trial counsel’s alleged deficiency. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Roger Joseph v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Roger Joseph, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. The petitioner pled guilty to premeditated first degree murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment. In his instant petition, he contends that his guilty plea was not entered knowingly and voluntarily based upon the ineffective assistance of counsel. While acknowledging that the petition was filed well outside the statute of limitations, he claims that he has shown that due process requires the tolling of the statute based upon his mental condition. Based upon that assertion, he contends that the summary dismissal of the petition was erroneous. Following review of the record, we conclude that the law of the case doctrine prohibits our review of that issue and affirm the dismissal of the petition. |
Bradley | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Craig Beene v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Craig Beene, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for the writ of habeas corpus. Because the petitioner failed to follow the procedural requirements governing the writ of habeas corpus and failed to state a cognizable claim for relief, we affirm the dismissal of the petition. |
Dickson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Amilcar C. Butler
The defendant, Amilcar C. Butler, appeals the denial of his Rule 36.1 motion to correct an illegal sentence. On appeal, he argues that he illegally received concurrent sentences when he should have received consecutive sentences. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals |
