State of Tennessee v. Denver Joe McMath, Jr.
Defendant, Denver Joe McMath, Jr., was indicted by the Davidson County Grand Jury for six counts of aggravated sexual battery and four counts of rape of a child. On motion of the State, the indictment was amended to include four counts each of aggravated sexual battery and rape of a child, and the remaining two counts of aggravated sexual battery were dismissed. Defendant was convicted as charged on all counts of the amended indictment and sentenced to an effective sentence of 140 years. In this direct appeal, Defendant asserts 1) the State’s bill of particulars was insufficient to state the offenses with specificity; 2) the trial court erred by allowing into evidence the testimony of three State’s witnesses, as the testimony constituted inadmissible character evidence and inadmissible hearsay; 3) the trial court erred by allowing the State to introduce into evidence a drawing enclosed with a letter from Defendant to the son of Defendant and the victim’s mother; and 4) the trial court erred in its sentencing. Finding no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Daniel Mungia v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Daniel Mungia, appeals as of right from the Davidson County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The Petitioner contends (1) that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to prepare a defense; and (2) that his guilty pleas were not knowingly and voluntarily entered. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William Anthony McDaniel
The petitioner, William Anthony McDaniel, appeals the denial of his “Motion to Correct Judgment/Sentence or in the Alternative Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea.” The petitioner pled guilty in 2002 to three counts of rape of a child, Class A felonies, and was sentenced as a Range I offender to concurrent terms of twenty-five years for each offense to be served at 100%. On appeal, the petitioner contends that his sentence should be reduced to reflect service of the sentence at 30%, as a standard Range I offender, or in the alternative that his plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered because the 100% service requirement for child rape was never explained to him. Following review of the record, we affirm the denial of the motion. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Raymond Amaya v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner appeals from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his conviction for possession with intent to sell over 300 grams of cocaine and resulting sentence of 13.5 years as a mitigated offender. On appeal, Petitioner contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that his guilty plea was rendered involuntary by the ineffective assistance of counsel. Based upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Calvin Person and Maurico Grandberry
Calvin Person (“Defendant Person”) and Maurico Grandberry (“Defendant Grandberry”) (collectively “the Defendants”) were convicted by a jury of first degree felony murder. The trial court sentenced the Defendants to life imprisonment. On appeal, Defendant Grandberry asserts that the trial court erred in not severing the Defendants. Defendant Person argues that the trial court erred in: excluding evidence of Defendant Grandberry’s involvement in a separate robbery on the day the victim in this case was killed; admitting Defendant Person’s statement to police; including the natural and probable consequences rule in its jury instruction on felony murder; and denying Defendant Person’s request to provide a special jury instruction on the requisite mens rea necessary for criminal responsibility. Additionally, both of the Defendants contend that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support their convictions. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the Defendants’ convictions. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jerome Wall v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Jerome Wall, pled guilty to robbery and aggravated robbery in August, 1992, in the Shelby County Criminal Court. Petitioner received concurrent sentences of three years for his robbery conviction and ten years for his aggravated robbery conviction, to be served in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On May 18, 2012, Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, challenging his 1992 convictions, which the trial court denied without an evidentiary hearing. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ryan Neal Dickens
The appellant, Ryan Neal Dickens, pled guilty in the Cheatham County Circuit Court to voluntary manslaughter. The trial court imposed a sentence of three years, with one year to be served in confinement and the remainder on probation. On appeal, the appellant challenges the trial court’s refusal to grant a sentence of full probation. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Cheatham | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jeffery Boyd Trusty v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Jeffrey Boyd Trusty, was convicted of first degree premeditated murder, first degree felony murder, especially aggravated kidnapping, and theft over $1,000 by a Smith County jury. The trial court merged the murder convictions and sentenced Petitioner to an effective sentence of life imprisonment. Petitioner’s sentence and convictions were affirmed on appeal. State v. Trusty, 326 S.W.3d 582, 585 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010). Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief in which he alleged that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and various violations of due process. After an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied post-conviction relief. Petitioner appeals. After a review of the record and applicable authorities, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court denying post-conviction relief. |
Smith | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tommy Earl Jones
Following a retrial, the Defendant, Tommy Earl Jones, was convicted by a jury of rape, theft of property valued between $1,000 and $10,000, aggravated kidnapping, and aggravated burglary. The trial court ordered that the ten-year sentence for rape be served consecutively to the ten-year sentence for aggravated kidnapping, for a total effective sentence of twenty years. In this direct appeal, the Defendant again contends that (1) the trial court erred when it excluded him from jury selection, trial, and the return of the verdict in the absence of any waiver; and (2) the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentencing. After our review, we conclude that the trial court complied with the dictates from this court upon remand. Accordingly, there is no error in the judgments of the trial court, and we affirm. |
Dickson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher S. Kinsler
The Defendant, Christopher S. Kinsler, was convicted by a Hamblen County Criminal Court jury of fourth offense driving under the influence (DUI), a Class E felony. See T.C.A. § 55-10-401 (2012). The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I, standard offender to two years’ confinement. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction, (2) the State violated the rules of discovery by failing to provide notice of expert testimony, (3) trial testimony contained inadmissible hearsay, and (4) his sentence is excessive. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hamblen | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
William Darryn Busby v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, William Darryn Busby, appeals the Lewis County Circuit Court’s denial of post-conviction relief from his convictions for four counts of rape of a child. In this appeal, the Petitioner argues that he was denied a full and fair hearing by the post-conviction court, that he received ineffective assistance from both trial and appellate counsel, and that the cumulative effect of these errors deprived him of a defense at trial and meaningful appeal. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Lewis | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Tyrone Gant
A Bedford County jury found the Defendant, Michael Tyrone Gant, guilty of aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, possession of a weapon by a convicted felon, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to thirty years for the aggravated robbery conviction, a concurrent fifteen-year sentence for the aggravated burglary conviction, a consecutive six-year sentence for the possession of a weapon by a convicted felon conviction, and a consecutive twelve-year sentence for the possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony conviction for a total effective sentence of forty-eight years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant contends: (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions; and (2) the trial court erred when ordering his sentences to run consecutively. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities, we conclude there exists no error in the judgments of the trial court. Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Timothy Lamont Thompson
A Davidson County jury convicted appellant, Timothy Lamont Thompson, of aggravated robbery and aggravated assault. The trial court sentenced him as a repeat violent offender to life without parole for the aggravated robbery conviction and as a career offender to a concurrent sentence of fifteen years for the aggravated assault conviction. On appeal, he challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress pretrial eyewitness identifications; the sufficiency of the convicting evidence; the admission of testimony regarding the discovery of a BB gun one month after the robbery; and the trial court’s refusal to modify the Tennessee Pattern Jury Instruction on identification. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court; however, we remand this case to the trial court for entry of an amended judgment form for the aggravated robbery conviction reflecting appellant’s status as a repeat violent offender. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Frank J. Beasley v. State of Tennessee
Appellant, Frank J. Beasley, stands convicted of one count of facilitation of second degree murder and three counts of facilitation of attempted second degree murder. The trial court sentenced him to an effective sentence of twelve years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The post-conviction court determined that appellant was unconstitutionally prevented from appealing his convictions and sentences due to ineffective assistance of counsel and granted him relief in the form of a delayed appeal, which is now properly before this court. On appeal, appellant challenges the length of his sentences. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court but remand for entry of corrected judgment forms. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Kerry Calahan v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Kerry Calahan, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, which challenged his convictions of aggravated assault, aggravated criminal trespass, simple assault, theft of property valued at less than $500, and resisting arrest. In this appeal, he contends that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jason Lee Fisher
Appellant, Jason Lee Fisher, stands convicted of four counts of aggravated burglary, three counts of theft of property valued at $1,000 or more but less than $10,000, one count of theft of property valued at more than $500 but less than $1,000, and three counts of vandalism valued at $500 or less. The trial court sentenced appellant as a career offender to an effective sentence of forty-five years. On appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence and the effective length of his sentence. Following our review, we affirm appellant’s convictions and sentences but remand to the trial court for entry of a corrected judgment. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Marvin Wendell Kelley
The Defendant, Marvin Wendell Kelley, appeals from his jury convictions for first-degree murder, a Class A felony; felony murder in the perpetration of a robbery, a Class A felony; and aggravated robbery, a Class B felony. In this appeal, he contends as follows: (1) that his indictment should have been dismissed due to lost evidence; (2) that the admission of his codefendant’s statements were hearsay and violated his right to confrontation; (3) that statements from a witness were improperly admitted over a hearsay objection; (4) that the trial court erred in denying his suppression motion; and (5) that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. After a thorough examination of the record and the applicable authorities, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Frank J. Beasley v. State of Tennessee - Concurring
I concur in the majority opinion because the majority accurately reflects State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012), in yielding to trial court discretion to affirm the imposition of a maximum sentence. I only write separately to voice a concern that, after holding that 75 percent of enhancement factors relied upon by the trial court were erroneously applied as matters of law, affirming the sentence per Bise portrays an image of a winking, nodding, judicial Chimera. Bise says that the misapplication of an enhancement factor does not cancel the presumption of reasonableness of the sentence, id. at 709, but surely at some point the number of legal errors in misapplying enhancement factors may reach a critical mass whereupon even an in-range sentence is no longer compliant “with the purposes and principles listed by statute.” Id. at 709-10. I hope our supreme court will be attentive to this issue. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Antwain Green
Antwain Green (“the Defendant”) was convicted by a jury of reckless homicide. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the Defendant to seven years as a Range II offender, to be served consecutively to a previously imposed forty-five year sentence. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred in ordering consecutive sentencing. Upon our thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. David Allan Bohanon
The Defendant-Appellant, David Allan Bohanon, entered guilty pleas to three counts of theft of property valued at $1,000 or more but less than $10,000, Class D felonies. See T.C.A. §§ 39-14-103, -105. Pursuant to the plea agreement, he received an effective three-year sentence to be served on community corrections. In a subsequent restitution hearing, the trial court also ordered him to pay a total of $16,575 in restitution at a rate of $200 per month. On appeal, the Defendant-Appellant argues that the trial court erred by setting an unreasonable amount in restitution based on the evidence presented at trial and his ability to pay. Upon review, we reverse the trial court’s order of restitution and remand the case for a new restitution hearing. |
Robertson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. David Allan Bohanon - Concurring/Dissenting
I agree with the majority that the standard of review for questions related to probation or any other alternative sentence is one of abuse of discretion with a presumption of reasonableness. See State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273, 278-79 (Tenn. 2012). Payment of restitution is part of the alternative sentence meted out in this case. See T.C.A. § 40-35-104(c)(2). The majority clearly and completely sets forth the law related to determining the appropriate amount of and payment of restitution. I will therefore restrict my analysis to the conclusion of the opinion, with which I most respectfully disagree. |
Robertson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Andra L. Taylor
The defendant, Andra L. Taylor, was convicted of aggravated burglary, employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, and two counts of reckless endangerment involving a deadly weapon. He was sentenced to an effective fourteen-year sentence in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he raises the single issue of sufficiency of the evidence, but only with regard to one of his convictions for reckless endangerment. Following review of the record, we affirm. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Henry Alfred Honea v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Henry Alfred Honea, appeals the Coffee County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his 2006 convictions for first degree murder, especially aggravated robbery, especially aggravated kidnapping, aggravated burglary, evading arrest, and being a felon in possession of a handgun, and his effective sentence of life without parole plus 153 years. The Petitioner contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Coffee | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Juan La Sean Perry v. State of Tennessee
A Maury County jury convicted the petitioner, Juan La Sean Perry, of second degree murder in November 2005, and the trial court sentenced him to twenty-five years in the department of correction. This court affirmed his conviction and sentence. See State v. Juan La Sean Perry, No. M2007-00903-CCA-R3-CD, 2008 WL 1875165, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 28, 2008), no perm. app. filed. Nearly five years later, petitioner filed the instant petition for post-conviction relief, which the post-conviction court dismissed as untimely. On appeal, petitioner contends that due process principles should toll the statute of limitations and requests that this court remand for an evidentiary hearing. Following our review, we affirm the circuit court’s summary dismissal of the post-conviction petition. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jeffery W. Dean
Appellant, Jeffery W. Dean, challenges his convictions for aggravated kidnapping and carjacking, for which he received concurrent sentences of thirteen years. In this appeal, he contends that the evidence was insufficient to sustain either of his convictions. Following our review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Robertson | Court of Criminal Appeals |
