State of Tennessee v. Willy J. Hall
Willy J. Hall (“the Defendant”) appeals the trial court’s revocation of his community corrections sentences and order of incarceration. Although acknowledging that he violated the terms of his community corrections sentences, the Defendant nonetheless contends that it was improper for the trial court to revoke his sentences and order him to serve an effective seven-year sentence in the Department of Correction. Upon review, we affirm the trial court’s revocation of the Defendant’s community corrections sentences. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re: Hill's Bonding Company
The Appellant, Hill’s Bonding Company, filed a petition for permission to issue bail bonds in the Ninth Judicial District. The trial court denied the Appellant’s petition, stating that it was not considering any such petitions at the present time. The Appellant appeals the trial court’s denial. The State concedes that the trial court did not have the authority to deny the Appellant’s petition. After review, we reverse the trial court’s judgment.
|
Roane | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jerry Rommell Gray v. State of Tennessee
|
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Charles Derrick Belk
|
Obion | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Dimitrie Colbert v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Dimitrie Colbert, murdered his girlfriend and was subsequently charged with one count of first degree (felony) murder, one count of first degree (premeditated) murder, one count of especially aggravated kidnapping, one count of aggravated rape, one count of aggravated kidnapping, and one count of evading arrest in a motor vehicle. The State sought the death penalty. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the petitioner pled guilty to one count of first degree (felony) murder and one count of evading arrest in a motor vehicle, a Class D felony. He received an agreed-upon life sentence for the murder conviction and a consecutive four-year sentence for the evading arrest conviction. The petitioner filed a timely post-conviction petition, alleging that trial counsel performed deficiently in investigating his mental health and in advising him to accept the plea offer. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the petitioner has not established that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel, and we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Marcus Deangelo Lee v. State of Tennessee
The defendant, Marcus Deangelo Lee, argues that the trial court erred in denying him relief under Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 after finding that his sentences were illegal and the illegality was a material component of the plea agreement. The State agrees with the defendant’s assertion. After review, we conclude that the trial court should have allowed the defendant the remedies available to him under Rule 36.1, and we, therefore, reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Marcus Deangelo Lee v. State of Tennessee-Dissenting
Something rather odd appears to be happening in this case and others similar to it. It appears that this defendant pled guilty to three offenses and received an agreed-to effective sentence of three years in December 1995. His sentences should have expired in December 1998. Yet this court has either denied or dismissed this defendant’s challenges to his convictions in 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012. And now in 2015, almost 20 years later, we feel obligated to set this defendant’s convictions aside as illegal and allow him to withdraw his 1995 guilty pleas because he did not receive twice as much time in jail as he should have in 1995. What makes this case stranger is that it is not the State who is asking for relief; rather, the defendant complains that he did not get consecutive sentencing when he should have in 1995. It is a rare case indeed when a defendant complains about not getting more time in jail. If the defendant was seeking the remedy of serving additional jail time because the law required it at the time he pled guilty, I would be happy to oblige him. But he is not. He is attempting to have his conviction set aside and presumably to have a trial, whereupon if he is found guilty, he will have to do additional time to that ordered in 1995. What, if anything, has changed to allow such a seemingly absurd result to take place? |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Rodney Williams
The defendant, Rodney Williams, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, and was sentenced to twelve years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction; (2) the trial court erred in allowing recordings of his jailhouse phone calls into evidence; (3) the trial court erred in admonishing him in the presence of the jury; and (4) the trial court erred in imposing the maximum sentence. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Cauley
In 2005 Defendant, James Cauley, pled guilty to felony possession of less than 0.5 gram of cocaine, felony evading arrest, possession of contraband in a penal institution, and felony failure to appear. Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, Defendant received an effective sentence of nine years to be served on probation, and other pending charges were dismissed. In November 2012, a violation of probation warrant was issued. Additional amendments to the warrant were issued in January 2013, April 2013, and September 2013. At a hearing in October 2013, Defendant admitted that he had violated probation as alleged in the warrants. Defendant asserted he was entitled to jail credit for time he served in a federal prison while he was on state probation. The matter was continued to allow Defendant the opportunity to file a brief in support of his argument. Another hearing was held in February 2014, and the trial court ordered the effective sentence to be served by incarceration. Defendant appeals, arguing that the trial court erred by ordering him to serve the entire nine-year sentence at a time when he had less than one year remaining on probation and without giving him credit for the time he spent in federal custody. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jimmie Lee Reeder
A Cheatham County Circuit Court Jury convicted the appellant, Jimmy Lee Reeder, of rape of a child, a Class A felony, and aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony. After a sentencing hearing, he received an effective thirty-five-year sentence to be served at 100%. On appeal, the appellant contends that he was denied his right to an impartial jury, that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct during the State’s case-in-chief and closing arguments, and that the trial court’s decision to exclude any evidence regarding prior allegations of sexual abuse of the victim deprived him of his right to present a defense. Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Cheatham | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Clinton Austin
The Defendant, Clinton Austin, was found guilty by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony. See T.C.A. § 39-13-504 (2014). The trial court sentenced the Defendant to ten years’ confinement at 100% service as a violent offender. On appeal, he contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction and (2) the trial court erred by admitting the video recording of the victim’s forensic interview. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Julius Wiel Walton
The Defendant-Appellant, Julius Wiel Walton, was convicted by a Robertson County jury of sexual battery for an incident involving his granddaughter. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to two years to be served on probation. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Robertson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ugenio Ruby-Ruiz
Defendant, Ugenio Ruby-Ruiz, was indicted by the Davidson County Grand Jury in a 25-count indictment charging him with five counts of soliciting sexual exploitation of a minor; six counts of aggravated sexual battery; ten counts of rape of a child; one count of especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor; two counts of rape; and one count of solicitation of a minor. At the request of the State, the trial court dismissed one count of rape of a child; the solicitation of a minor count; and two counts of sexual exploitation of a minor. Defendant was convicted by a jury of the remaining offenses. Following a sentencing hearing, Defendant received a total effective sentence of 121 years. In this appeal as of right, Defendant contends that: 1) the trial court erred in ordering consecutive sentencing; 2) that Defendant’s sentence is unjustly deserved in relation to the seriousness of the offenses; and 3) that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. Having reviewed the briefs of the parties and the entire record, we conclude that Defendant has waived review of his convictions for sufficiency of the evidence. We further conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering consecutive sentences. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Robert Guerrero
The Defendant, Robert Guerrero, was convicted by a Maury County Circuit Court jury of two counts of first degree murder and nine counts of attempted first degree murder. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-201 (2014), 39-13-202 (2014), 39-12-101 (2014). The trial court sentenced the Defendant to two consecutive life sentences and to nine consecutive fifteen-year sentences to be served consecutively to the life sentences, for an effective sentence of two life terms plus 135 years. Almost six years later, the Defendant filed a motion pursuant to Tennessee Criminal Procedure Rule 36.1 requesting that the trial court correct an illegal sentence because his life sentences requiring 100% service of sixty years’ confinement less sentencing credits up to 15% were tantamount to life sentences without the eligibility or possibility of parole. The trial court summarily dismissed the motion for failure to state a colorable claim. On appeal, he contends that the trial court erred in dismissing his motion. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Harold Francis Butler
The defendant, Harold Francis Butler, appeals his Hamilton County 1 Criminal Court jury convictions of felony murder, attempted especially aggravated robbery, attempted first degree murder, and employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, challenging the trial court’s denial of his pretrial motion to dismiss based upon the failure to collect certain evidence. In addition, the defendant claims the trial court erred by denying the defendant’s request to call certain witnesses, by permitting the State to impeach its witness and to introduce evidence through a prior recorded statement, and by limiting the defendant’s ability to cross examine a witness at trial. Discerning no error, we affirm.
|
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Reese L. Smith
Appellant, Reese L. Smith, was convicted of aggravated perjury, and the trial court sentenced him to six years and one month, suspended to eight years of supervised probation. On appeal, appellant challenges his conviction. Following our review of the parties’ briefs, the record, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Dusty Ross Binkley
Appellant, Dusty Ross Binkley, pleaded guilty to manufacture of methamphetamine and possession of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony and received an effective eight-year sentence to be served in community corrections. His sentence was revoked after he received new charges, and the trial court aligned the original sentence consecutively to the sentences for the new offenses. Appellant later filed a Motion to Correct Illegal Sentences pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1, which the trial court denied after a hearing. On appeal, he argues that trial court incorrectly aligned his original sentences consecutively to his sentences for his new offenses. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Timothy L. Jefferson v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Timothy L. Jefferson, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for the writ of error coram nobis. He is currently serving a forty-year sentence in the Department of Correction as a result of his 2001 guilty plea to second degree murder. On appeal, the petitioner contends that the coram nobis court’s dismissal was in error for multiple reasons, including that: (1) the court failed to give proper consideration to veracity of the newly discovered evidence; (2) the court reached the wrong conclusion as to whether the newly discovered evidence may have affected the result; (3) the petition was not time-barred because the statute of limitations was waived; and (4) the issue had not been previously litigated. Following review of the record, we affirm the dismissal of the petition. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Connie Sue Messick
The appellant, Connie Sue Messick, pled guilty in the Coffee County Circuit Court to vehicular homicide by intoxication, one count of reckless aggravated assault, and four counts of vehicular assault. The trial court sentenced the appellant to a total effective sentence of sixteen years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant challenges the length and manner of service of the sentences. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court but remand for entry of a corrected judgment to reflect that reckless aggravated assault is a Class D felony. |
Coffee | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Frederick Thomas
Defendant, Fredrick Thomas, was indicted by the Shelby County Grand Jury with first degree murder and employing a firearm during the commission of a felony after the shooting death of his wife and his unsuccessful attempt at suicide. After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of first degree murder. The trial court dismissed the remaining count. Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal, Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and the trial court's refusal to allow expert testimony on premeditation, deliberation, passion, and provocation. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Bobby Glen Crocker v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Bobby Glen Crocker, filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which was dismissed by the post-conviction court as being barred by the statute of limitations. He appeals the post-conviction court‟s finding that the statute of limitations should not be tolled due to Petitioner‟s mental incompetency. Following a careful review of the record, we affirm the decision of the post-conviction court. |
Carroll | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jeremy D. Parvin
Jeremy D. Parvin, the Defendant, was convicted of resisting arrest. On appeal, the Defendant contends there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction. After a review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
|
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James Todd v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, James Todd, filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by inadequately presenting a motion to suppress to the trial court. Because trial counsel’s performance was not deficient, the post-conviction court’s denial of the petition is affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. David Wayne Hearing
The appellant, David Wayne Hearing, filed in the Greene County Criminal Court a motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1. The motion was summarily denied, and the appellant appeals the ruling. Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Greene | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Swift and Marquavious Houston
A Shelby County Criminal Court Jury convicted the appellants, Christopher Swift and Marquavious Houston, of first degree premeditated murder; attempted first degree premeditated murder, a Class A felony; and employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, a Class C felony. After a sentencing hearing, they received effective sentences of life plus twenty-six years. On appeal, the appellants contend that (1) the trial court erred by refusing to sever their trials; (2) the trial court erred by allowing the State to display an assault rifle for demonstrative purposes when the rifle was not used to commit the crimes; (3) the trial court erred by allowing the surviving victim to testify after the police destroyed his recorded statement; and (4) the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions. In addition, Houston contends that (5) the State’s failure to name the predicate felony in count 3 of the indictment, employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, voids the charge and (6) that the trial court erred by ordering consecutive sentencing. Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the trial court committed reversible error in Swift’s case by refusing to sever the appellants’ trials and by allowing the State to show the jury an assault rifle that was not used in the crimes. Therefore, his convictions are reversed, and his case is remanded to the trial court for a new trial. Houston’s convictions and sentences, however, are affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals |
