State of Tennessee v. Shanice L. Dycus
The Defendant, Shanice L. Dycus, challenges the trial court’s denial of judicial diversion for her multiple convictions for various drug-related offenses, including possession of marijuana in excess of one half of a gram with intent to sell or deliver within 1,000 feet of a school zone. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-17-417, -432. She contends that the trial court erred by failing to consider all of the required factors in deciding her suitability for judicial diversion and by failing to state on the record how it weighed the relevant factors. The State counters that possession of marijuana in excess of one half of a gram with intent to sell or deliver in a school zone is a non-divertable offense and, regardless, that the trial court properly denied diversion under the standard announced in State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 707 (Tenn. 2012). Following our review, we conclude that the offense for which the Defendant stands convicted is eligible for diversion but that the trial court failed to consider and weigh all of the factors relevant in its decision denying diversion. Therefore, we reverse the trial court’s denial of judicial diversion and remand this case for a resentencing hearing. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joshua D. Jones
The Defendant-Appellant, Joshua D. Jones, appeals from the Dickson County Circuit Court’s order revoking his probation. The Appellant previously entered a guilty plea to initiation of a process intended to result in the manufacture of methamphetamine in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-17-435 and was sentenced to six years in the Department of Correction. The sentence was suspended, and the Appellant was placed on Community Corrections and then transferred to the drug court program. The Appellant was terminated from the drug court program, and the trial court subsequently revoked the Appellant’s probation and ordered that he serve his original six-year sentence. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Dickson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jeffrey Kristopher King and Kasey Lynn King
Jeffrey King (“Defendant J. King”) entered conditional guilty pleas in Rutherford County to one count of conspiracy to sell over seventy pounds of marijuana and one count of possessing over seventy pounds of marijuana; to several counts of felony marijuana offenses and several counts of money-laundering offenses in Davidson County; and to several counts of felony marijuana offenses, several counts of money-laundering offenses, and one count of a felony firearm offense in Sumner County. Kasey King (“Defendant K. King”) (collectively “the Defendants”) entered conditional guilty pleas in Davidson County to two counts of felony marijuana offenses and two counts of money-laundering offenses; and to one count of a felony firearm offense and two counts of felony marijuana offenses in Sumner County. These conditional guilty pleas were entered after the trial courts denied the Defendants’ motions to suppress evidence gleaned from wiretaps on several telephones. Each of the Defendants reserved certified questions of law regarding the legality of the wiretaps and timely appealed. This Court ordered that the appeals be consolidated. We now consider the Defendants’ certified questions of law and hold that the trial courts did not err in denying the Defendants’ motions to suppress. Accordingly, the Defendants are entitled to no relief from their pleas of guilt. Therefore, we affirm the trial courts’ judgments and the Defendants’ convictions. |
Davidson, Rutherford, Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Aubrey Tremaine Eisom v. State of Tennessee
Aubrey Tremaine Eisom (“the Petitioner”) was convicted by a jury of two counts of first degree felony murder and one count of especially aggravated robbery. The trial court sentenced the Petitioner to life imprisonment for each felony murder conviction and to forty years’ incarceration for the especially aggravated robbery conviction, all to run consecutively. The Petitioner subsequently filed for post-conviction relief, which the post-conviction court denied following an evidentiary hearing. The Petitioner now appeals, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal. Upon our thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we conclude that the Petitioner is not entitled to post-conviction relief. Accordingly, we affirm the post-conviction court’s decision denying relief. |
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Christy D. Naillon v. State of Tennessee
Christy D. Naillon (“the Petitioner”) pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated child abuse. As part of her plea agreement with the State, the trial court sentenced her to fifteen years’ incarceration. The Petitioner subsequently filed for post-conviction relief, which the post-conviction court denied following an evidentiary hearing. The Petitioner now appeals, arguing that her indictment was deficient, that she received ineffective assistance of counsel, and that her guilty plea was not entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. After reviewing the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Sevier | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Robert Hurst and Destiny Hurst
A Knox County jury found appellants Robert Hurst and Destiny Hurst guilty of four counts of felony murder; one count of second degree murder as a lesser-included offense of felony murder; one count of first degree premeditated murder; and two counts of especially aggravated robbery. They were found not guilty of two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping and not guilty of all counts of employing a firearm during a dangerous felony. The trial court imposed life sentences upon both appellants for the murder conviction, a concurrent eighteen-year sentence for appellant Robert Hurst’s especially aggravated robbery conviction, and a consecutive thirty-five-year sentence for appellant Destiny Hurst’s especially aggravated robbery conviction. In this appeal, appellants jointly challenge the sufficiency of the convicting evidence underlying the felony murder convictions and the trial court’s failure to poll the jury as to a witness’s status as an accomplice. Appellant Robert Hurst argues that there was a conflict surrounding the manner in which authorities matched his fingerprint to the bloody fingerprint found at the scene. Appellant Destiny Hurst claims that the State committed a Brady violation; that the trial court erred in permitting the State to present evidence of her other crimes, wrongs, or acts pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b); and that the trial court erred in characterizing her as a professional criminal, sentencing her at the top of her range, and imposing consecutive sentences. Based on our review of the record as a whole, we affirm both appellants’ convictions and sentences. However, for each appellant, we remand this cause for entry of a single judgment form reflecting merger of all counts of murder and a single judgment form reflecting merger of both counts of especially aggravated robbery. Appellant Destiny Hurst’s judgment for especially aggravated robbery should note consecutive sentence alignment of her thirty-five-year sentence with her life sentence for murder. We also note, with respect to appellant Destiny Hurst, that the record does not contain a judgment form for Count 12, knowingly employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony after having been previously convicted of the same. Thus, we order the criminal court to supplement the record with a judgment form reflecting the jury’s verdict of not guilty on this count of the indictment. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John Anthony Garrett
The defendant pled guilty to one count of the sale of less than 0.5 grams of cocaine, a Class C felony, one count of delivery of less than 0.5 grams of cocaine, a Class C felony, one count of maintaining a dwelling for purposes of selling controlled substances, a Class D felony, and one count of casual exchange of marijuana, a Class A misdemeanor. After accepting the defendant’s plea, the trial court merged the defendant’s convictions concerning the sale and the delivery of cocaine. Pursuant to his plea agreement, the defendant was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to five years for the sale of cocaine, three years for maintaining a dwelling for purposes of selling a controlled substance, and eleven months and twenty-nine days for his casual exchange. The trial court ordered the defendant to serve these sentences concurrently, resulting in a total effective sentence of five years. The defendant moved the court for alternative sentencing, but the trial court denied this motion following a hearing and ordered the defendant to serve his sentence in confinement. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court erred by denying his motion for alternative sentencing. After carefully reviewing the record and the arguments of the parties, we conclude that the defendant has failed to establish that the trial court abused its discretion. The judgments denying alternative sentencing are affirmed. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Chris Nachampasak
Appellant, Chris Nachampasak, was indicted by the Rutherford County Grand Jury for one count of first degree murder, one count of felony murder, four counts of aggravated assault, and one count of reckless endangerment after a drive-by shooting at a graduation party that resulted in the death of a fourteen-year-old child. Appellant subsequently pled guilty to a single count of second degree murder and two counts of aggravated assault in return for the dismissal of the remaining counts of the indictment. In exchange for the guilty pleas, Appellant received an effective sentence of thirty-five years in incarceration. Subsequently, Appellant filed a motion to withdraw the guilty pleas. After a hearing, the trial court denied the motion. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal challenging the trial court’s denial of the motion to withdraw the guilty pleas. After a review, we determine that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to withdraw the guilty pleas where Appellant failed to show a manifest injustice. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Tommy Lee Page v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Tommy Lee Page, was indicted by a Davidson County Grand Jury for one count of sale of a controlled substance in a Drug Free School Zone. He entered a guilty plea to the reduced charge of the sale of a controlled substance weighing less than .5 grams. Pursuant to the plea agreement, Petitioner was sentenced to fifteen years as a Range II, multiple offender. Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief arguing that he was afforded ineffective assistance of counsel and that he entered his guilty plea unknowingly and involuntarily. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that Petitioner has failed to prove any of his allegations that counsel’s representation was ineffective and we conclude that his plea was entered knowingly and voluntarily. Therefore, we affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of the petition. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Roy Len Rogers
The Defendant, Roy Len Rogers, was convicted by a Rhea County jury of first degree premeditated murder, second degree murder, and reckless endangerment. Subsequently, the trial court merged the second degree murder conviction into the first degree murder conviction and imposed a mandatory life sentence for that conviction and a concurrent term of eleven months and twenty-nine days for the reckless endangerment conviction. In this direct appeal, the Defendant contends (1) that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence found during the search of his home; (2) that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions and that the verdicts were inconsistent; (3) that the trial court erred by refusing to allow the Defendant to play a 911 tape; (4) that the trial court improperly admitted irrelevant photographs of tires of the Defendant’s vehicle; (5) that the State withheld Brady material, specifically the statement of a potential suspect; and (6) that a juror evidenced bias by her actions and body language prior to deliberations. Following our review of the record and the applicable authorities, we determine that there is no reversible error in the judgments of the trial court and affirm. |
Rhea | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Charles Nash v. State of Tennessee
Charles Nash (“the Petitioner”) filed a petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for first degree murder and especially aggravated robbery. After an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. The Petitioner appealed, claiming that he is entitled to relief because his lawyer provided ineffective assistance of counsel with regard to a motion to suppress, in failing to object to the State’s closing arguments, and in failing to present a defense of duress. Upon our thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joshua Lynn Pitts
Following a bench trial, the trial court convicted the Defendant, Joshua Lynn Pitts, of driving under the influence (“DUI”). The trial court sentenced the Defendant to serve eleven months and twenty-nine days of probation after serving forty-eight hours in jail. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress the evidence obtained pursuant to an illegal stop of his vehicle. After thoroughly reviewing the record and applicable authorities, we conclude that the officer had reasonable suspicion to stop the Defendant’s vehicle. As such, we conclude that the trial court did not err when it denied the Defendant’s motion to suppress, and we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Johnny L. McGowan v. State of Tennessee
Pro se petitioner, Johnny L. McGowan, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the statute of limitations should be tolled because his claim is based on a constitutional right that did not exist at the time of his plea, and further contends that the post-conviction court erred in failing to appoint counsel prior to dismissal. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Lee Shaw
A Davidson County jury convicted the Defendant-Appellant, Christopher Lee Shaw, of possession of more than twenty-six grams of cocaine with the intent to sell or deliver within 1,000 feet of a child care agency, a Class B felony; evading arrest while operating a motor vehicle, a Class E felony; and possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor. Shaw received an effective sentence of fifteen years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The sole issue presented for our review is whether the evidence supporting Shaw’s drug-related convictions was sufficient to establish constructive possession. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Pierrette L. Wessels
After a bench trial, the Williamson County Circuit Court convicted the appellant, Pierrette L. Wessels, of driving under the influence (DUI), DUI per se, and failing to obey a traffic control device. The trial court merged the DUI per se conviction into the DUI conviction and sentenced the appellant to eleven months, twenty-nine days to be served as forty-eight hours in jail and the remainder on supervised probation. For failing to obey a traffic control device, the trial court sentenced the appellant to thirty days on probation to be served concurrently with the DUI sentence. On appeal, the appellant contends that the trial court erred by failing to grant her motion to suppress evidence. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ginger Ilene Hudson Stump
The Defendant-Appellant, Ginger Ilene Hudson Stump, was indicted by a Bedford County Grand Jury for twenty-six counts of forgery. See T.C.A. § 39-14-114 (Supp. 2011). Pursuant to her plea agreement, Stump entered guilty pleas to six Class E felonies (counts 3, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19) involving more than $500 but less than $1,000 and one Class D felony (count 25) involving $1,000 or more but less than $10,000, with the trial court to determine the length and manner of service of the sentences. As a part of this agreement, the State dismissed the remaining nineteen forgery counts. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Stump as a career offender to twenty-four years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, Stump argues that the trial court abused its discretion in denying her an alternative sentence and in denying her a community corrections sentence. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Alan Burleson
The appellant, Michael Alan Burleson, pled guilty to three counts of aggravated burglary of a vehicle and was sentenced to a total of five years to be served on community corrections. Thereafter, the trial court revoked the sentences and ordered the appellant to serve the balance of his sentence in confinement. On appeal, the appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion by denying an alternative sentence. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Charles Edward Graham v. State of Tennessee
The pro se petitioner, Charles Edward Graham aka Charles Edward Stevenson, appeals as of right from the Knox County Criminal Court’s order denying his petition for writ of error coram nobis alleging that newly discovered evidence concerning the judicial misconduct of a trial judge affected the outcome of his 2005 jury trial and 2010 post-conviction evidentiary hearing. The State has filed a motion to affirm the trial court’s order pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals. Following our review, we conclude that the State’s motion is well-taken and affirm the order of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Taft Arkey Murphy v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Taft Arkey Murphy, appeals from the post-conviction court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. Petitioner was convicted of possession with intent to sell three hundred or more grams of cocaine in a school zone, possession with intent to sell twenty-six or more grams of cocaine in a school zone, the sale of twenty-six or more grams of cocaine in a school zone, two counts of the sale of twenty-six or more grams of cocaine, and possession of a handgun by a felon. He received an effective eighteen-year sentence in the Department of Correction. On appeal, Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred in denying the petition because trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, Petitioner contends that trial counsel was ineffective (1) by failing to adequately communicate and meet with him to prepare for the case and failing to properly investigate the facts of the case; (2) by failing to discuss with Petitioner whether he should testify on his own behalf at trial; and (3) by failing to object to testimony regarding Petitioner’s prior voluntary manslaughter conviction. Following our review of the record, we affirm the denial of relief. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Junior Aldridge v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Junior Aldridge, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for first degree murder, second degree murder, and especially aggravated robbery. On appeal, he raises three allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel. After review, we affirm the denial of the petition. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Donald West Allen, Jr.
Donald West Allen, Jr. (“the Defendant”) was charged with three counts of rape of a child, and a jury convicted the Defendant of three counts of aggravated sexual battery. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the Defendant to nine years on each count, with the sentences for counts one and two to run consecutively and the sentence for count three to run concurrently, for an effective term of eighteen years’ incarceration, to be served at 100%. In this direct appeal, the Defendant raises four issues: (1) the trial court erred in allowing the State to reference uncharged conduct during its opening statement and then to adduce testimony about the uncharged conduct during trial; (2) the evidence is not sufficient to support his convictions; (3) the trial court erred in singling out a juror for questioning after the close of proof; and (4) his sentence is excessive. Upon our thorough review of the record and applicable law, we discern no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. |
Cumberland | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Curtis Lee Majors v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Curtis Lee Majors, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions of tampering with evidence and simple possession and resulting effective fifteen-year sentence. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Brian Patrick Pierce
The appellant, Brian Patrick Pierce, pled guilty in the Montgomery County Circuit Court to aggravated kidnapping and aggravated robbery. The trial court sentenced the appellant to concurrent sentences of ten years for each offense. On appeal, the appellant challenges the sentences imposed by the trial court. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Johnny Lynn v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Johnny Lynn, appeals the Perry County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for two counts of rape of a child and two counts of aggravated sexual battery and resulting effective sentence of fifty-four years to be served at 100%. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel because trial counsel failed to advise him of his right to waive ex post facto protections and be sentenced pursuant to the 2005 amendments to the Tennessee Sentencing Reform Act of 1989. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Perry | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Alex Stevino Porter v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Alex Porter, appeals from the post-conviction court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. Petitioner was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole. On appeal, Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred in denying the petition because both trial counsel and appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel. More specifically, Petitioner contends that trial counsel was ineffective at trial by (1) failing to adequately investigate, develop, or present a theory of self-defense; (2) allowing a witness to improperly assert Fifth Amendment protection after a prior admonition from the trial court; (3) failing to properly advise the petitioner of his right to testify on his own behalf and failing to preserve Petitioner’s right to appeal Momon defects in the trial court proceedings; (4) announcing to the jury that Petitioner was incarcerated at the time of trial; and (5) failing to challenge the expert witness testimony of the State’s firearms examiner or presenting rebuttal evidence to her testimony. Petitioner contends that trial counsel was ineffective on appeal by failing to adequately communicate with him during the appellate process. Petitioner further contends that he was denied due process during the post-conviction proceedings. Following our review of the record, we affirm the denial of relief. |
McMinn | Court of Criminal Appeals |
