State of Tennessee v. Willie Duncan
Appellant, Willie Duncan, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of especially aggravated kidnapping, especially aggravated robbery, aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, and employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. On appeal, Appellant raises several issues: 1) the indictment for the charge of employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony is defective for failing to name the underlying felony; 2) the jury instructions on the charge of employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony were improper; 3) the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support the convictions; 4) a statement about Appellant’s juvenile record requires a new trial under plain error review; 5) the trial court abused its discretion by imposing excessive sentences; and 6) the trial court abused its discretion by imposing partially consecutive sentences. Upon review of the record, we find that the evidence is sufficient to support Appellant’s convictions, that the statement about Appellant’s juvenile record does not constitute plain error, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Appellant. However, we find that the indictment for employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony is fatally flawed for failing to name the predicate felony. We also note a clerical error on the judgment form for the charge of aggravated robbery which requires remand for the entry of a corrected judgment. Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s judgments in part, reverse and dismiss in part, and affirm and remand in part. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Michael Williams v. Michael Donahue, Warden
Petitioner, Michael Williams, was convicted of rape in 2001 by a Shelby County jury. As a result, he was sentenced as a violent offender to serve thirty years in incarceration. Petitioner’s conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. See State v. Michael Williams, No. W2001-01925-CCA-R3-CD, 2002 WL 1349520 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, June 20, 2002). Appellant subsequently sought post-conviction relief. The petition for postconviction relief was denied. See Michael Williams v. State, No. W2005-01810-CCA-R3- PC, 2006 WL 3371404 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, Nov. 20, 2006), perm. app. denied, (Tenn. Mar. 19, 2007). Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in Hardeman County, alleging that the 2001 judgment is void because he was sentenced as a career offender. The habeas corpus court denied relief, dismissing the petition without a hearing after determining that Petitioner’s sentence had not expired. After a review of the record, we conclude that the habeas corpus court properly dismissed the petition for relief where Petitioner failed to show that the judgment was void or that his sentence had expired. For those reasons, the judgment of the habeas corpus court is affirmed. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Stacy Lee Fleming v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Stacy Lee Fleming, appeals the Tipton County Circuit Court’s denial of postconviction relief from his conviction for delivery of .5 grams or more of cocaine. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Tipton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Richard Griffis
The Defendant-Appellant, Richard Griffis, was convicted by a Madison County jury of theft of property valued at $1,000 or more but less than $10,000, a Class D felony. See T.C.A. §§ 39-14-103, -105 (2012). The trial court sentenced him as a Range I, standard offender to four years’ incarceration, suspended to supervised probation. The sole issue presented for our review is whether the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Lakeith Humphrey v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Lakeith Humphrey, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of post-conviction relief from his conviction for first degree premeditated murder and his sentence of life imprisonment. On appeal, he argues that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to challenge the legal accuracy of the special jury instruction regarding premeditation given at trial. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Travis Davison v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Travis Davison, appeals the trial court’s summary dismissal of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, asserting that his sentence was illegal in that he received a shorter term than that mandated by statute. The State agrees that the petitioner has made a colorable claim that his sentence is illegal and that the matter should be remanded. After review, we remand the case for the appointment of counsel and an evidentiary hearing pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Annette Tran Hamby v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Annette Tran Hamby, appeals the Bradley County Criminal Court’s denial of her petition for post-conviction relief from her 2008 conviction for first degree murder and resulting life sentence. The Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred by denying her relief because she received the ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, she alleges that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request an independent mental evaluation to rebut the evaluation presented by the prosecution at trial. After considering the record and the applicable authorities, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Bradley | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. David Orlando Avinger
Appellant, David Orlando Avinger, was indicted by a Davidson County grand jury for first degree premeditated murder, first degree felony murder, and especially aggravated robbery. After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of the lesser included offense of second degree murder, as well as the charged offenses of felony murder and especially aggravated robbery. The trial court merged the convictions for second degree murder and felony murder, and Appellant was sentenced to an effective life sentence. On appeal, Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence and alleges that the trial court impermissibly limited defense counsel’s cross-examination of a witness. After reviewing the record, we find that the evidence was sufficient to convict Appellant and that there was no error in the ruling of the trial court related to the limitation of the witness’s testimony. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Anthony Brown v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Anthony Brown, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of postconviction relief from his convictions for possession with intent to deliver cocaine and possession of marijuana and resulting twenty-year sentence. He contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel at trial, specifically, that trial counsel failed (1) to crossexamine the State’s witnesses regarding trial testimony that was inconsistent with that given at the preliminary hearing and (2) to question witnesses about drug paraphernalia found at the scene, in keeping with his defense strategy. After considering the record and the relevant authorities, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jerry Kirkpatrick
The Defendant, Jerry Kirkpatrick, was indicted for burglary and theft of property valued at $1,000 or more but less than $10,000, both Class D felonies. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-14-103, -105, -402. Following a jury trial, the Defendant was acquitted of the burglary charge and convicted of the theft charge. The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range II, multiple offender to seven years. The trial court ordered the Defendant’s sentence to run consecutively to his sentence for a prior conviction. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends (1) that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction because the testimony of his accomplice was not sufficiently corroborated and (2) that the trial court erred in ordering his sentence to be served consecutively to a prior sentence. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Brian Gauldin
Appellant, Brian Gauldin, was indicted by the Dyer County Grand Jury for two counts of the sale of .5 grams or less of cocaine in a drug free zone, one count of the sale of a schedule III controlled substance in a drug free zone, and one count of the sale of .5 grams of more of cocaine in a drug free zone. Prior to trial, the State chose to nolle prosequi one count of the sale of .5 grams or less of cocaine in a drug free zone and one count of the sale of a schedule III controlled substance in a drug free zone. After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of one count of the sale of .5 grams or more of cocaine in a drug free zone and one count of the sale of .5 grams or less of cocaine in a drug free zone. Appellant was sentenced to an effective sentence of twenty years as a Range IV, Persistent Offender. Appellant appeals, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions. After a review of the record and applicable authorities, we determine that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions. Consequently, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed. |
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Christopher Fielder v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Christopher Fielder, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of post-conviction relief, contending that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. Specifically, the Petitioner alleges that trial counsel failed to request a jury instruction on merger of the offenses, tasking it with determining whether the kidnapping of the victim was beyond that necessary to complete the especially aggravated robbery. After considering the record and the applicable authorities, we affirm the judgment of the postconviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ladarron S. Gaines
A Davidson County Criminal Court Jury convicted the appellant, Ladarron S. Gaines, of evading arrest while operating a motor vehicle in which the flight or attempt to elude created a risk of death or injury to innocent bystanders or other third parties, a Class D felony. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced him as a Range II, multiple offender to eight years in confinement. On appeal, the appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction, that the trial court erred by denying his motion to exclude testimony regarding a surveillance video, and that his sentence is excessive. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Terry Odell Lucas
A Robertson County Grand Jury indicted appellee for possession of over 0.5 grams of cocaine with the intent to sell. The charges were dismissed after the trial court granted appellee’s motion to suppress evidence. The State appeals the trial court’s granting of the motion to suppress and argues that appellee’s arrest and search were proper. Following a thorough review of the record, we reverse the ruling of the trial court, reinstate the indictment, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Robertson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
William L. Vaughn v. State of Tennessee
Following a remand from this court, the petitioner, William L. Vaughn, acting pro se, was permitted a second evidentiary hearing on certain ineffective assistance of counsel claims which he had not presented in the first hearing on his petition for post-conviction relief. As we will set out, he filed massive pleadings, complaining of a multitude of wrongs visited upon him, from the moment of his arrest through his direct appeal. The evidentiary hearing was lengthy and free-swinging, with the post-conviction court’s concluding that the petitioner’s claims were “incredible” and, ultimately, without merit. We agree. Doggedness cannot substitute for substance. The post-conviction court’s denial of relief is affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Bill D. Sizemore V. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Billy D. Sizemore, was convicted of theft over $1,000 and sentenced to twelve years as a career offender. Petitioner filed the instant petition for post-conviction relief, in which he alleged that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. On appeal, petitioner argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when trial counsel: (1) failed to challenge the value of the stolen goods and (2) failed to seek a continuance after the State filed a late notice of intent to seek enhanced punishment. After our review of the parties’ briefs, the record, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Perry | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Tracy Lynn Cope v. State of Tennessee
In 2007, a Sullivan County jury convicted the Petitioner, Tracy Lynn Cope, of especially aggravated kidnapping, aggravated kidnapping, and false imprisonment, and the trial court sentenced him to an effective sentence of forty years. State v. Tracy Lynn Cope, No. E2009-00435-CCA-R3-CD, 2010 WL 2025469 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxville, May 20, 2010), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Sept. 22, 2010). After the Petitioner filed two petitions for post-conviction relief, both of which were denied, he filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis, which the trial court summarily dismissed. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the lower court erred when it dismissed his petition. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities, we affirm the coram nobis court’s judgment. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Gabriel Torres
A Robertson County Circuit Court Jury convicted the appellant, Gabriel Torres, of rape of a child, a Class A felony, and the trial court sentenced him to twenty-five years in confinement to be served at 100%. On appeal, the appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction and that the trial court failed to fulfill its role as the thirteenth juror. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Robertson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tycorrian M. Taylor
The defendant appeals the sentence imposed for conviction of attempted voluntary manslaughter and aggravated assault. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Cumecus R. Cates v. State of Tennessee
The pro se petitioner appeals the summary dismissal of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, per Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1. Following our review of the parties' briefs, the record, and the applicable law, we find the petitioner’s motion stated a colorable Rule 36.1 claim for review of illegal sentences. Therefore, we reverse the trial court's summary dismissal and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Somer D. Wild
The defendant, Somer D. Wild, was indicted for driving under the influence, a Class A misdemeanor. After the trial court denied her motion to suppress the legality of the traffic stop, the defendant pled guilty to the offense and was sentenced to eleven months and twenty-nine days, suspended following the service of forty-eight hours in jail. As part of her plea of guilty, the defendant reserved as a certified question of law the legality of the traffic stop of her vehicle. Following our review of the record and the video recording of the traffic stop, we conclude that the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of conviction and dismiss the indictment. |
Hamblen | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Marcus Moore
Appellant, Marcus Moore, entered guilty pleas without recommended sentences to two counts of burglary of a building, a Class D felony. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed sentences of twelve years as a career offender for each count to be served consecutively to each other. Appellant now challenges the trial court’s alignment of his sentences. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Lona Parker
Appellant, Lona Parker, was indicted for and convicted of theft of property valued at more than $1,000 but less than $10,000, a Class D felony. The trial court sentenced him to twelve years in the Tennessee Department of Correction as a career offender. He now appeals, challenging the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Iris A. Jones
A Cheatham County jury convicted the Defendant, Iris A. Jones, of driving under the influence (“DUI”), first offense, and vehicular assault. The Defendant filed an application seeking judicial diversion. The trial court merged the DUI conviction into the vehicular assault conviction and granted the Defendant’s motion for judicial diversion. On appeal, the State contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it found that the Defendant was eligible for judicial diversion. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities, we conclude that the Defendant is not a “qualified defendant” for judicial diversion. Accordingly, the case is reversed and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Cheatham | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Iris A. Jones-Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part
Joseph M. Tipton, P.J., concurring in part; dissenting in part. I respectfully disagree with the majority opinion’s conclusion that this court may consider the State’s appeal of the trial court’s granting judicial diversion as an appeal as of right pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c)(4), but I believe the court can accept the appeal pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 10 as an extraordinary appeal. In this regard, I agree with the majority opinion’s conclusion that the trial court erred in granting judicial diversion. |
Cheatham | Court of Criminal Appeals |
