State of Tennessee v. Stephen M. Mobley
A Hamilton County jury convicted the Defendant, Stephen M. Mobley, of two counts of |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Michael Dominic Sales v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant, Michael Dominic Sales, appeals the post-conviction court’s order dismissing his post-conviction petition as untimely. Appointed counsel has moved to withdraw pursuant to Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 22. That motion is denied. Upon review of the appellate record on file, this Court hereby affirms the judgment of the post-conviction court pursuant to Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20. |
Lincoln | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Steven Shawn Bowen
A Monroe County jury convicted the Defendant, Steven Shawn Bowen, of driving under |
Court of Criminal Appeals | ||
State of Tennessee v. Darries Leon Jackson
The Defendant, Darries Leon Jackson, was convicted by a Hawkins County Criminal Court |
Hawkins | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Alvin Stewart v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Alvin Stewart, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of post-conviction relief from his convictions for aggravated rape, aggravated assault, and domestic assault and his effective twenty-year sentence. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred by denying relief on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ricky Durham v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Ricky Durham, appeals the dismissal of his post-conviction petition. On appeal, |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Gavin Tyler Sheets
The Defendant, Gavin Tyler Sheets, pled guilty to the offenses of vehicular homicide by recklessness and reckless endangerment. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a total effective sentence of six years to serve in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his request for judicial diversion. He also contends that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to order an alternative sentence to incarceration. We respectfully disagree and affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Kevin Allen Fleming v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Kevin Allen Fleming, appeals the Campbell County Criminal Court’s |
Campbell | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Travis Smith v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Travis Smith, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Nicklaus Edward Brush
The defendant, Nicklaus Edward Brush, alias, appeals his Knox County Criminal Court |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Antonio J. Hurt
Antonio J. Hurt, Defendant, was indicted by a Rutherford County Grand Jury for attempted first degree murder, employing a firearm during a dangerous felony, aggravated assault, and reckless endangerment after a shooting at a barber shop. After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of the lesser included offense of attempted voluntary manslaughter and employing a firearm during a dangerous felony. The trial court entered a nolle prosequi on the aggravated assault charge, and the State withdrew the reckless endangerment charge. Defendant was sentenced to an effective sentence of 8 years. Defendant filed a motion for judgment of acquittal. Defendant filed a pro se premature notice of appeal in the trial court. The trial court denied the motion for judgment of acquittal. Defendant filed an untimely notice of appeal in this Court. This Court waived the timely filing of the notice of appeal. On appeal, Defendant complains about the sufficiency of the evidence, the admissibility of certain testimony of two witnesses, and statements made by the prosecutor during closing argument. After a review, we determine the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and that Defendant is not entitled to plain error review of the remaining issues. Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed. However, the matter is remanded to the trial court for entry of a judgment form dismissing the count of the indictment for reckless endangerment. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Charles Larry Nichols, III
The Defendant, Charles Larry Nichols, III, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court’s denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence or clerical error, arguing that he was entitled to “street time” credit for the time he served on community corrections but was being supervised by state probation. Upon review, we conclude that the trial court properly determined that the Defendant was not entitled to the street time credit because he was on supervised probation, not community corrections. However, we remand the case to the trial court for correction of a separate clerical error in the amended judgment of conviction. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Patrick Marshall
After pleading guilty on September 18, 2018, to three counts of aggravated rape in three separate cases, Patrick Marshall, Defendant, was sentenced to a total effective sentence of 25 years at 100%. Defendant filed a motion pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 in which he argued that his sentences were imposed in contravention of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-523(e)(3), ordering “aggravated rapists” to serve the entire sentence “if the offense occurs on or after July 1, 2012.” It is undisputed that Defendant’s offense dates were before July 1, 2012. The trial court denied the motion, finding that the Tennessee Department of Correction (“TDOC”) should allow Defendant to earn sentence reduction credits and entering an order directing the TDOC to allow Defendant to earn sentence reduction credits. Defendant appealed. We affirm the judgment of the trial court but remand for entry of corrected judgment forms that reflect Defendant is entitled to earn up to 15% sentence reduction credits. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Michael Brooks v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Michael Brooks, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Clinton W. Bryant
Defendant, Clinton W. Bryant, was charged with five counts of rape of a child. Following the State’s proof at trial, the trial court granted Defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal on one of the five counts, and a jury convicted Defendant of the remaining four counts. The trial court sentenced Defendant to an effective fifty-year sentence in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to sever all five counts; that the trial court erred in denying a new trial based on an incomplete trial transcript; and that the cumulation of these errors warrant relief. Following a review of the entire record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Keith Ward v. State of Tennessee
A Shelby County jury convicted the Petitioner, Keith Ward, of rape of a child, and the trial |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Willie Taylor
The Defendant, Willie Taylor, was convicted of rape, assault, and promoting prostitution. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Claude James Feagins
The Defendant, Claude James Feagins, appeals the trial court’s denial of his request for an |
Court of Criminal Appeals | ||
State of Tennessee v. Jerry Lynn Huskey
Defendant, Jerry Lynn Huskey, appeals the trial court’s order revoking his sentence of |
Sevier | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Leslie Lamont Coleman
The defendant, Leslie Lamont Coleman, was convicted of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, and sentenced to twenty years in the Department of Correction, to be served consecutively to his sentence in a prior felony murder case. On appeal, the defendant argues: (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction because the only proof connecting him to the crime was the uncorroborated testimony of his alleged accomplice; (2) the trial court committed plain error by ruling the State could question the defendant about his prior felony murder conviction under Tennessee Rules of Evidence 608 and 609 if he chose to testify; and (3) the trial court erred in sentencing by imposing the maximum Range II sentence of twenty years. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Curtis Morris v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Curtis Morris, appeals the denial of post-conviction relief from his Shelby County convictions for first degree murder during the perpetration of aggravated child abuse, first degree murder during the perpetration of aggravated child neglect, aggravated child abuse of a child eight years of age or less, and aggravated child neglect of a child eight years of age or less, for which he received a sentence of life imprisonment. Petitioner contends that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel based upon counsel’s: (1) failure to call an expert witness to rebut the State’s experts and bolster Petitioner’s testimony that the victim’s death was accidental; (2) making “material misstatements” regarding the evidence in counsel’s opening statement; (3) failure to adequately prepare to cross-examine one of the State’s experts and failure to request a McDaniel hearing to challenge the expert’s testimony; (4) failure to file any pretrial motions; (5) failure to object, during the prosecutor’s cross-examination of Petitioner, to the prosecutor’s repeated use of the word “stomping” to characterize Petitioner’s direct examination testimony; (6) failure to request proper jury instructions regarding the mens rea required for a conviction for aggravated child abuse; and (7) failure to present evidence of child custody proceedings in which Petitioner sought and won custody of his children. Petitioner also contends that he is entitled to post-conviction relief based on cumulative error. Following a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jose Lemanuel Hall, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
Following his conviction for first degree murder, the Petitioner, Jose Lemanuel Hall, filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court denied the petition after an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that trial counsel failed to meet with him adequately and failed to object to the State’s opening statement. He also argues that the requirement to show actual prejudice in post-conviction proceedings is overly burdensome and conflicts with constitutional protections. We respectfully affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tibila Aida Tekle
Tabila Aida Tekle was charged in the Monroe County Criminal Court with two counts of |
Monroe | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Vincent John Elliott, Jr.
The Defendant, Vincent John Elliott, Jr., pled guilty to second degree murder and reserved a certified question of law concerning whether his right to a speedy trial was violated. Also on appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by sentencing him to eighteen years instead of the minimum sentence of fifteen years. Upon review, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction to review the Defendant’s certified question and respectfully dismiss that portion of the appeal. We further conclude that the trial court acted within its discretion in sentencing the Defendant. Accordingly, we respectfully affirm the Defendant’s conviction and sentence in all respects. |
Coffee | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Johnny Dewayne Boyd
Defendant, Johnny DeWayne Boyd, was convicted by a jury of rape of a child and incest. The trial court imposed an effective thirty-year sentence in the Department of Correction. On appeal, Defendant contends (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss due to the State’s failure to file a bill of particulars, and (2) that the trial court abused its discretion in denying Defendant’s motion to continue trial after a court security officer tested positive for COVID-19 and by failing to comply with the Tennessee Supreme Court’s Order on COVID-19 protocol. Following a review of the record, the briefs and oral arguments of the parties, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Giles | Court of Criminal Appeals |