State of Tennessee v. Shelby Lesean Harris
The Defendant, Shelby Lesean Harris, was indicted for one count of selling .5 grams or more of cocaine and one count of delivery of .5 grams or more of cocaine. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-417. Following a jury trial, the Defendant was convicted of the lesser-included offenses of facilitation of the sale of .5 grams or more of cocaine and facilitation of the delivery of .5 grams or more of cocaine. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-403. The trial court merged the Defendant’s conviction for facilitation of the delivery of .5 grams or more of cocaine into his conviction for facilitation of the sale of .5 grams or more of cocaine. The trial court then sentenced the Defendant as a Range II, multiple offender to eight years and six months. On appeal, the Defendant contends (1) that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress the in-court identification of the Defendant by two confidential informants; and (2) that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ray Neil Thompson v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Ray Neil Thompson, appeals from the denial of post-conviction relief by the Criminal Court for Davidson County. He was convicted by a jury of one count of aggravated robbery and later entered a guilty plea to two counts of aggravated robbery and one count of evading arrest. For these offenses, he received an effective sentence of fifty years at 100 percent in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Shasta Jackson
Defendant, Shasta Jackson, appeals after being convicted by a Knox County jury of two counts of reckless endangerment, one count of second degree murder, one count of attempted second degree murder, and one count of employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. The trial court sentenced Defendant to an effective sentence of twenty-five years. In this appeal, Defendant challenges: (1) the sufficiency of the evidence; (2) the trial court's refusal to allow an expert witness testify about eyewitness identification; (3) introduction of evidence relating to Defendant's membership in the “Westside 111 Neighborhood Crips”; (4) introduction of pictures from Defendant's Facebook page; (5) the decision by the trial court to strike the testimony of a defense witness after he refused to answer a question on cross-examination; and (6) the length of her sentence. After a review of the record, we determine that Defendant is not entitled to relief. Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Edward Thomas Kendrick III v. State of Tennessee
This case presents an appeal to this court after remand by order of the Tennessee Supreme Court. The Petitioner, Edward Thomas Kendrick III,1 was convicted by a jury of the first degree premeditated murder of his wife. Subsequently, the Petitioner filed for post-conviction relief, raising, inter alia, numerous claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief, and the Petitioner appealed. On appeal, a panel of this court granted the Petitioner post-conviction relief, concluding that he had established that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel at trial due to (1) trial counsel‘s failure to offer expert proof about the trigger mechanism in the rifle, which was known to cause accidental shootings; and (2) trial counsel‘s failure to seek to admit, as excited utterances, out-of-court statements by a crime-scene investigator made to his fellow officers after he shot himself in the foot with the Petitioner‘s rifle. Our supreme court disagreed, reversing our conclusion that the Petitioner received ineffective assistance from his trial counsel with regard to these two issues. The case has now been remanded to us for consideration of the issues that were pretermitted by this court after finding the two issues to be meritorious. Those pretermitted issues are as follows: (1) whether trial counsel erred by waiving the Petitioner‘s attorney-client privilege with his divorce attorney and, in so doing, allowed the State to insinuate adultery as a motive for the shooting; (2) whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call the Petitioner‘s cousin, Randall Leftwich, to testify about the Petitioner‘s activities on the day of the shooting and about his discovery of cabbage simmering on the Petitioner‘s stove immediately following the shooting; (3) whether trial counsel was ineffective when he ―opened the door‖ on direct examination of the Petitioner for the State to inquire about additional misdemeanor convictions on cross-examination that had not been previously admissible; (4) whether trial counsel and appellate counsel were ineffective for failing to adequately challenge Lennell Shepheard‘s testimony that the Petitioner stood over the victim‘s body and said "I told you so" six times; (5) whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call Officer William Lapoint to testify about the Petitioner‘s "very distraught" demeanor at the airport just after the shooting; (6) whether trial counsel and appellate counsel were ineffective when they did not object or raise on appeal the issue of Detective Mark Rawlston‘s volunteered testimony that the Petitioner never told him that the gun accidentally discharged when interviewed in the back of a patrol car at the airport; (7) whether trial counsel‘s failure to seek curative measures for a security officer‘s, Ms. Martha Maston, surprise testimony about the Petitioner‘s daughter‘s statement at the airport was ineffective; and (8) whether the cumulative impact of counsels‘ errors entitle him to relief. After consideration of these remaining issues, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court denying post-conviction relief. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v.Curtis Scott Harper
A Knox County jury found Curtis Scott Harper (“the Defendant”) guilty of three counts of vehicular homicide by intoxication, three counts of vehicular homicide by creating a substantial risk of death and serious bodily injury, one count of reckless endangerment, one count of tampering with evidence, one count of leaving the scene of an accident, one count of driving under the influence, and, in a subsequent deliberation, one count of driving under the influence (second offense). The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective thirty years' incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant claims that: (1) the introduction of fifty crime scene and autopsy photographs, many of which were gruesome, graphic, or horrifying, deprived the Defendant of a fair trial by inflaming the passions of the jury; (2) the State presented false expert testimony concerning the speed of the Defendant's vehicle, thereby depriving the Defendant of due process; (3) the State violated Rule 16 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure and Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), by failing to provide to the Defendant a copy of the article the forensic pathologist relied upon during his testimony; (4) the prosecutor engaged in improper argument, including personal attacks on defense counsel, that violated the Defendant's right to a fair trial; (5) the trial court erred in imposing partial consecutive sentences; and (6) the cumulative effect of the error requires a new trial. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting numerous graphic and gruesome crime scene and autopsy photographs, the prejudicial effect of which far outweighed their probative value, and such error was not harmless. We, therefore, reverse the judgments of the criminal court and remand the case for a new trial. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Curtis Scott Harper - concurring
I believe that the majority opinion provided an excellent discussion of the photographs and subsequent legal analysis of their admissibility; I write separately only to amplify the gruesome and appalling nature of the photographs. “Surely, there is a line between admitting a photograph which is of some help to the jury in solving the facts of the case and one which is of no value other than to inflame the minds of the jurors. That line was crossed in this case.” People v. Burns, 241 P.2d 308, 319 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1952). The photographs in this case were, without a doubt, the most grotesque, horrifying, and unnecessary photographs that I have viewed in 17 years on this court. These photographs served no purpose other than “to arouse passion and shock at the sight of a gory event.” Clark v. Com., 833 S.W.2d 793, 794-95 (Ky. 1991). As the majority opinion correctly concludes, the State was more than able to present a compelling case for conviction without the addition of the grisly autopsy and crime scene photographs. The photographs were overwhelmingly prejudicial to the defendant, and the gruesome nature and sheer volume of the photographs comes close to indicating a lack of respect for the victims themselves. A combination of overzealous prosecuting and weak gatekeeping by the trial court can result in an unfair trial for a defendant. That is precisely what happened in this case. The trial court repeatedly expressed apprehension about the admission of the photographs. The trial court should have stood firm in its concerns and warnings and prevented the prosecutor’s overzealous prosecution of the defendant. The failure to do so requires a remand and a new trial in this case. I am authorized by Judge Norma McGee Ogle to say she also joins in this concurring opinion. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Richard Anthony v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Richard Anthony, filed a post-conviction petition, seeking relief from his 1990 convictions for aggravated robbery and conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery, and resulting concurrent sentences of twelve years and six years, respectively. As we understand, the petitioner claims that, although he has had no contact with trial counsel in the last twenty-five years, he was unaware that counsel was not pursuing a second-tier appeal of the convictions. As relief, he asks that his convictions be vacated or, in the alternative, that he have counsel appointed to pursue a second-tier direct appeal of his convictions. The post-conviction court determined both that his petition was untimely and without merit, even if considered as a motion to reopen a similar 1997 petition. Following our review, we affirm the order of the post-conviction court. |
Bradley | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James Smith v. Doug Cook, Warden
The petitioner, James Smith, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus, which challenged his 2000 conviction of first degree murder, claiming that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the indictment was void. Discerning no error, we affirm the order of summary dismissal. |
Bledsoe | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Bobby Ray Graves, Jr.
In 2013, the Defendant pleaded guilty in case number F-13761 to two counts of theft of property valued over $1,000, one count of theft of property valued between $500 and $1,000, and one count of simple possession of a controlled substance. The Defendant also pleaded guilty in case number F-14140 to one count of promoting the manufacture of methamphetamine. For these convictions, the trial court imposed a six-year sentence in case number F-13761 and a two-year consecutive sentence in case number F-14140, for a total effective sentence of eight years, to be served on supervised probation. In 2014, the trial court issued a probation violation warrant and, after a hearing, the trial court revoked the Defendant’s probation and ordered the Defendant to serve his sentence in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant contends that there was insufficient evidence to warrant a revocation of his probation. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Warren | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Brent Hicks
In February 2013, the Williamson County Grand Jury indicted the Defendant, Brent Hicks, for theft of merchandise over $1,000, a Class D felony. Following a jury trial, the Defendant was convicted as charged and sentenced to eight years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence presented at trial is insufficient to support his conviction and that his sentence is excessive. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jason Martindill
Defendant, Jason Martindill, appeals from the trial court’s summary dismissal of his motion filed pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1. Following our review of the parties’ briefs, the record, and the applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the motion. |
Chester | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ray Rowland
Ray Rowland (“the Defendant”) filed a Motion for Return of Property pursuant to Rule 41(g) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure. The trial court found that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the case and dismissed the Defendant’s motion. On appeal, we conclude that the trial court does have jurisdiction. We reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for a hearing. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee vs. Yuell Frank Reeves
Yuell Frank Reeves (“the Defendant”) appeals the Hamilton County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1. In September 1990, the Defendant was sentenced to four years for burglary, an offense which the Defendant committed in May 1990 (“the May offense”). In November 1990, the Defendant pleaded guilty to two additional burglaries committed in June and July 1990 (“the June/July offenses”) and received an effective four-year sentence which was ordered to run concurrently with the four-year sentence for the May offense. Approximately twenty-four years later, the Defendant filed a Rule 36.1 motion seeking to set aside his plea alleging he was released on bail for the May offense when he committed the June/July offenses. The Defendant asserts that the trial court erred by summarily dismissing his motion, and the State concedes that the case should be remanded for a hearing. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court summarily dismissing the Rule 36.1 motion as to the May offense and reverse the judgment summarily dismissing the motion as to the June/July offenses and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Yuell Frank Reeves - concurring
I agree with the majority that the summary dismissal in case number 183558 (May 1990 offense) should be affirmed. Viewing appellant’s motion in the light most favorable to him, I also agree with the majority that appellant has presented a colorable Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure Rule 36.1 claim with respect to case numbers 183785 and 183905 (the June/July 1990 offenses) due to the trial court’s concurrent, rather than statutorily-mandated consecutive, sentence alignment. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-20-111(b) (mandating consecutive sentence alignment when a defendant commits a felony while the defendant is released on bail and the defendant is convicted of both offenses). |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Rocky Joe Houston v. State of Tennessee
The pro se petitioner, Rocky Joe Houston, appeals as of right from the Roane County Criminal Court’s order summarily dismissing as untimely his petition for post-conviction relief. The State has filed a motion to affirm the post-conviction 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. |
Roane | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Robert L. Mitchell v. State of Tennessee
A Davidson County jury convicted the Petitioner, Robert L. Mitchell, of one count of especially aggravated kidnapping, two counts of aggravated kidnapping, and one count of assault. The trial court sentenced him to an effective sentence of thirty-seven years of incarceration. This Court affirmed his convictions and sentence on appeal. State v. Robert L. Mitchell, No. M2005-01652-CCA-R3-CD, 2006 WL 1506519, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, June 1, 2006), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Nov. 13, 2006). After unsuccessfully seeking post-conviction and habeas corpus relief, the Petitioner filed a second petition for habeas corpus relief that is the subject of this appeal. He challenged his conviction for especially aggravated kidnapping, alleging first that the allegation of “force, threat, or fraud” in the indictment for especially aggravated kidnapping did not support his conviction and, second, the indictment failed to charge aggravating factors that he asserts were required to support his conviction based upon the fact that he was the parent of the victim. The habeas corpus court summarily dismissed the Petitioner’s petition, and he now appeals. On appeal, we conclude that the habeas corpus court did not err, and we therefore affirm its judgment. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Monoleto D. Green v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Monoleto D. Green, appeals as of right from the Davidson County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. The Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred by summarily dismissing his petition for having been untimely filed. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kenneth D. Sanders
Petitioner, Kenneth D. Sanders, appeals the order of the trial court denying his motion to vacate his guilty plea and/or motion to alter and amend the judgment in which he alleged that he received ineffective assistance of counsel during his guilty plea proceedings. The trial court treated the motion as a petition for post-conviction relief and found that it was filed beyond the statute of limitations. On appeal, Petitioner argues that: (1) Petitioner is actually innocent; (2) The District Court [sic] lacked subject matter jurisdiction; (3) The sentence is an illegal sentence; (4) Petitioner’s guilty plea was not knowingly and intelligently made; and (5) Petitioner was deprived of his rights guaranteed him by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Grundy | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Elahu Hill, Jr.
In September 2014, the Madison County Grand Jury indicted the Defendant, Elahu Hill, Jr., for simple possession of marijuana, tampering with evidence, and violation of the open container law. Following a trial, the jury found the Defendant guilty of simple possession of marijuana and tampering with evidence, for which he received an effective five-year sentence. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction for tampering with evidence and that his five-year sentence for tampering with evidence was excessive. Upon review, we affirm the Defendant's conviction and sentence for simple possession of marijuana. However, we reverse and vacate the Defendant's conviction for tampering with evidence because we conclude that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Sidney Cason v. Mike Parris, Warden
Petitioner, Sidney T. Cason, appeals the Lake County Circuit Court's summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Because we determine that Petitioner has failed to file a timely notice of appeal or provide reason as to why the timely filing of the notice of appeal should be waived, the appeal is dismissed. |
Lake | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ronald Leslie McKnight v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Ronald Leslie McKnight, appeals the denial of his bid for post-conviction relief from his 2011 Davidson County Criminal Court jury conviction of aggravated burglary, claiming that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Casey Dupra Drennon
The appellant, Casey Dupra Drennon, pled guilty in the Rutherford County Circuit Court to aggravated assault, a Class C felony, and received a seven-year sentence with credit for 149 days already served and the remainder on supervised probation. On appeal, the appellant contends that the trial court erred by revoking his probation and ordering that he serve the remainder of his sentence in confinement. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Scott Edward Robins
The Appellant, Scott Edward Robins, pled guilty in the Marshall County Circuit Court to the initiation of a process intended to result in the manufacture of methamphetamine. The trial court sentenced the Appellant to eleven years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Appellant challenges the trial court’s denial of alternative sentencing. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jimmy Ray King v. State of Tennessee
Eleven years after he entered a guilty plea to second degree murder, the Petitioner, Jimmy Ray King, filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis based on newly discovered evidence. The State filed a motion to dismiss the petition as barred by the statute of limitations, which was granted by the coram nobis court. In this appeal, the sole issue presented for our review is whether due process required tolling of the statute of limitations. Upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the coram nobis court pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee. |
Grundy | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Antoine Tony Blugh
The Defendant-Appellant, Antoine Tony Blugh, was charged by presentment in count 1 of violating the Sex Offender Registration Act by establishing a residence within 1000 feet of a public park, in count 2 of violating the Sex Offender Registration Act by failing to timely register within forty-eight hours of changing his residence, in count 3 of an enhanced violation of the Sex Offender Registration Act by establishing a residence within 1000 feet of a public park after already having been convicted of a prior sex offender registry violation, and in count 4 of an enhanced violation of the Sex Offender Registration Act by failing to timely register after already having been convicted of a prior sex offender registry violation, all of which were Class E felonies. See T.C.A. §§ 40-39-211, -208. Prior to trial, Blugh filed a motion to dismiss the presentment, which the court denied. At trial, the jury acquitted Blugh in counts 1 and 3 but convicted him of count 2, and, following the second part of the bifurcated trial, convicted him of the enhanced violation in count 4. After merging count 2 with count 4, the trial court imposed a sentence of two years and six months, with a mandatory minimum sentence length of 180 days‟ imprisonment. See id. § 40-39-208(d). On appeal, Blugh argues: (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the presentment; (2) the trial court erroneously instructed the jury as to the applicable law regarding his status as a sexual offender in Tennessee; and (3) the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal because there was a fatal variance between the crimes alleged in the presentment and the evidence presented at trial. Upon review, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals |
