State of Tennessee v. Andre JuJuan Lee Green
The State appeals the trial court’s order granting the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence recovered during the search of the car in which the defendant was a passenger. The State asserts that the trial court erred because the scent of marijuana provided probable cause for the search regardless of the possibility that legal hemp was the source of the odor. After review, we conclude the trial court erred in granting the defendant’s motion to suppress. Therefore, we reverse the trial court’s order granting the defendant’s motion for suppression, reinstate the indictments against the defendant, and remand to the trial court for further proceedings. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. DeAnthony D. Hart
The Defendant, DeAnthony D. Hart, challenges the legal sufficiency of the evidence |
Henderson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Adarion C. Morris v. State of Tennessee
In April 2018, Petitioner, Adarion C. Morris, pleaded guilty in three separate cases and received an effective sentence of six years to be served on community corrections. However, after two community corrections violation warrants were filed, one in June 2018 and another in August 2018, the trial court held a hearing, revoked Petitioner’s community corrections sentence, and re-sentenced Petitioner to forty-eight years in the Department of Correction. This court affirmed the trial court’s revocation and sentence imposed on appeal. See State v. Adarion C. Morris, No. M2018-02034-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 5, 2019), no perm. app. filed. Petitioner subsequently filed a post-conviction petition alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when entering his guilty pleas, which rendered his pleas unknowing and involuntary. He also alleged counsel was ineffective at the revocation hearing and re-sentencing for not challenging the legality of the original community corrections sentence. After a hearing, the post-conviction court concluded Petitioner’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims regarding the guilty pleas were untimely and that the ineffective assistance of counsel claim relative to the revocation and re-sentencing was without merit. Petitioner appeals, arguing that he is entitled to due process tolling of the limitations period for his claims regarding his guilty pleas. After review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Douglas Wayne Woods
The Defendant, Douglas Wayne Woods, was convicted by a Sullivan County Criminal |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jerry Rommell Gray
After a jury trial, the Defendant, Jerry Rommell Gray, was convicted of felony murder, |
Court of Criminal Appeals | ||
State of Tennessee v. Russell Davis
The Defendant, Russell Davis, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s summary |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Billy W. Locke
Defendant, Billy W. Locke, appeals from the trial court’s summary dismissal of his two |
McMinn | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jasmin Lawan Towles
The Defendant, Jasmin Lawan Towles, was convicted by a Fayette County Circuit Court |
Fayette | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Marcus Johnson v. Kevin Genovese, Warden
Marcus Johnson, Petitioner, sought habeas corpus relief for the third time after his convictions for one count of felony murder, one count of especially aggravated robbery, and one count of aggravated assault. See State v. Marcus Johnson, No. W2002-00987-CCA-R3-CD, 2003 WL 22080778, at *14 (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 4, 2003), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Jan. 26, 2004); Marcus Johnson v. State, No. W2007-02664-CCA-R3-PC, 2008 WL 4866817, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 10, 2008), no perm. app. filed. The petition was dismissed without a hearing after the habeas corpus court determined that Petitioner was merely raising issues that had previously been litigated. We determine that the habeas corpus court properly dismissed the petition and affirm the judgment of that court. |
Lake | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William Rimmel, III
Defendant, William Rimmel, III, was indicted by the Marion County Grand Jury for one count of aggravated assault, two counts of reckless endangerment, one count of false imprisonment, one count of vandalism over $2,500, and one count of burglary of an automobile. The charge of false imprisonment was dismissed prior to trial. A jury found Defendant guilty of attempted aggravated assault, reckless endangerment, attempted reckless endangerment, vandalism under $1,000, and attempted burglary of an automobile. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court denied Defendant’s request for judicial diversion and imposed an effective sentence of two years on probation following service of 11 months and 29 days in confinement. On appeal, Defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions, that the trial court abused its discretion in denying Defendant’s request for an alternative sentence and in ordering consecutive sentencing, that his convictions should be vacated due to the State’s failure to preserve evidence, and that the trial court gave confusing jury instructions. Based on the record, the briefs, and oral arguments, we affirm the judgments of the trial court but remand for entry of a judgment in Count 4 and amended judgment in Count 3, reflecting that those counts were dismissed, and for entry of corrected judgments in Counts 5 and 6. |
Marion | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
William Rolandus Keel v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, William Rolandus Keel, appeals the denial of his petition for postconviction relief from his convictions for two counts of rape of a child, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in not admitting relevant evidence consisting of a recorded phone call (“Phone Call Recording” or “recording”) between the victim and her mother, in limiting the Petitioner’s testimony at the remand evidentiary hearing, in finding that the Petitioner received the effective assistance of counsel, and in denying post-conviction relief when the Petitioner is “one hundred percent innocent and [was] wrongfully convicted.” Based on our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Garen Wright
Defendant, Garen Wright, appeals from the Rutherford County Circuit Court’s revoking his probation and ordering him to serve his previously ordered probationary sentence of twenty years in confinement. On appeal, Defendant argues the trial court abused its discretion by not considering alternatives to placing Defendant in custody for the full term. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Paul Tracy Bailes
The Defendant, Paul Tracy Bailes, appeals from the Hamilton County Criminal Court’s |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Byron Black v. State of Tennessee
At the heart of this appeal is a narrow procedural question: whether the 2021 amendment to Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-203 permits the Defendant, Byron Black, to move for a hearing on whether he has an intellectual disability and is therefore ineligible for the death penalty. The trial court dismissed the motion after determining that the Defendant was procedurally barred from bringing the issue. On appeal, we hold that because the issue of the Defendant’s intellectual disability has been previously adjudicated, he may not file a motion pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-203(g)(1). We also hold that the General Assembly’s decision not to entitle the Defendant to a second hearing does not subject him to cruel and unusual punishment, nor does it deny him due process of law or the equal protection of the law. Accordingly, we respectfully affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Randy O. Reynolds
Defendant, Randy O. Reynolds, stands convicted by a Dickson County jury of aggravated vehicular homicide (Count 1), vehicular homicide (Count 2), reckless homicide (Count 3), vehicular assault by driving under the influence (Count 4), simple possession of a schedule II controlled substance (Count 5), leaving the scene of an accident (Count 6), evading arrest (Count 7), and driving on a revoked license (Count 8). On appeal, Defendant argues (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the results of his blood alcohol test; (2) the trial court erred in allowing the State to present expert testimony regarding the effects of intoxication; and (3) the evidence produced at trial was insufficient to support his all of his felony convictions, and his misdemeanor evading arrest conviction. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm. |
Dickson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Floyd Hall, III v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Floyd Hall, III, appeals the Haywood County Circuit Court’s denial of his |
Haywood | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Oberton Curry, Jr.
A Madison County jury convicted the Defendant, Christopher Oberton Curry, Jr., of being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm, evading arrest while operating a motor vehicle, reckless driving, driving while unlicensed, violation of the registration law, and disobeying a stop sign. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective sentence of ten years. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction for felony possession of a weapon and that an item of evidence was erroneously admitted. He further contends that the jury instructions were inaccurate and incomplete. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Antonio Tywan James
The Appellant, Antonio Tywan James, appeals as of right from his convictions of firstdegree |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Sebakire Crode
A Rutherford County jury found Defendant, Sebakire Crode, guilty of driving under the influence (DUI), third offense. The trial court sentenced him to eleven months, twenty-nine days, with Defendant to serve 150 days in jail and the balance on probation. On appeal, Defendant argues the evidence was insufficient to convict him of driving under the influence and that he received an excessive sentence. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Hopie Conley
Defendant, Hopie Conley, pled guilty to two counts of aggravated assault, one count of |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jose Gonzalez Bonilla v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Jose Gonzalez Bonilla, appeals as of right from the Sumner County Criminal Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, wherein he challenged his convictions for rape of a child and aggravated sexual battery. On appeal, Petitioner asserts that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel because counsel (1) did not inform Petitioner during plea negotiations that he would be subject to lifetime community supervision and registration on the sex offender registry if he was convicted at trial; (2) failed to object to the admission of the victim's forensic interview recording during a pretrial severance hearing; and (3) failed to object to the racial composition of the jury venire. Petitioner also argues that the cumulative effect of these errors requires relief. Following our review, we affirm. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William Vess Binkley
Defendant, William Vess Binkley, stands convicted by a Dickson County jury of one count of rape of a child, a Class A felony, and was sentenced to forty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues: (1) the trial court erred by not declaring a mistrial after the State introduced evidence during trial that had not been disclosed to Defendant during discovery; (2) the trial court erred by admitting the victim's forensic interview as substantive evidence; (3) the State committed prosecutorial misconduct during its closing arguments; and (4) the trial court imposed an excessive sentence. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Dickson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Quincy D. Moutry
The Defendant, Quincy D. Moutry, appeals the dismissal of his Tennessee Rule of Criminal |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ovitta Vaughn
A Shelby County jury convicted the defendant, Ovitta Vaughn, of driving with a blood |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher David McIntosh
The defendant, Christopher David McIntosh, appeals his effective 10-year sentence |
Union | Court of Criminal Appeals |