State of Tennessee v. Michael David Fields
A Sullivan County jury found the Defendant, Michael David Fields, guilty of reckless homicide, felony murder, especially aggravated robbery, and two counts of especially aggravated burglary. The trial court merged the reckless homicide conviction with the felony murder conviction and imposed a mandatory life sentence for felony murder. The Defendant appeals, claiming he was denied his right to a speedy trial. After a thorough review of the record and relevant law, we conclude that the trial court properly found there was no violation of the Defendant’s right to a speedy trial. Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Richie P. Hawkins
In May 2010, the Defendant, Richie P. Hawkins, pled guilty to promotion of the manufacture of methamphetamine, and the trial court sentenced him, as a Range III offender, to serve twelve years on community corrections. The Defendant’s community corrections officer filed an affidavit, alleging that he had violated his community corrections sentence by being convicted of burglarizing an automobile and domestic assault. After a hearing, the trial court revoked the Defendant’s community corrections sentence and ordered the Defendant to serve the balance of his sentence in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant contends the trial court erred when it ordered him to serve his sentence in confinement rather than reinstating his community corrections sentence. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Guadalupe Arroyo v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Guadalupe Arroyo, pleaded guilty to two counts of vehicular homicide and received an effective sentence of twenty-four years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. He appealed his sentence twice, and this court remanded his case to the trial court both times. See State v. Guadalupe Arroyo, No. E2002- 0639-CCA-R3-CD, 2003 WL 1563209, at *1(Tenn. Crim. App. March 27, 2003); State v. Guadalupe Arroyo, No. E2003-02355-CCA-R3-CD, 2004 WL 1924033, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 30, 2004). After the second remand, the trial court again sentenced petitioner to twenty-four years. Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that he was unconstitutionally denied the right to appeal the trial court’s last sentencing order. The post- onviction court dismissed the petition twice, and petitioner successfully appealed both times. See Guadalupe Arroyo v. State, No. E2006-01037- CA-R3-PC, 2007 WL 3144999, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Oct. 29, 2007); Guadalupe Arroyo v. State, No. E2008-01220-CCA-R3-PC, 2009 WL 2503152, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 17, 2009). Eventually, the post-conviction court held an evidentiary hearing and denied post-conviction relief. Petitioner now appeals, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and requesting a delayed appeal. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post- conviction court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Derrick Lamar Cole
The defendant, Derrick Lamar Cole, appeals the Madison County Circuit Court’s ordering that his sentences be served consecutively, rather than concurrently, upon the revocation of his probation, a position with which the State concurs. Following our review, we conclude that the trial court erred; therefore, we reverse the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences and remand for entry of an order that the sentences be served concurrently. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Paresh J. Patel
The Defendant-Appellant, Paresh J. Patel, entered guilty pleas to two counts of distributing a synthetic cannabinoid, Class A misdemeanors, for which he received consecutive terms of eleven months and twenty-nine days on supervised probation. On appeal, he argues the trial court erred in denying him judicial diversion. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Warren | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Paresh J. Patel - Concurring
I concur in the results reached in Judge McMullen’s opinion, but I respectfully depart from the conclusion that State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012), and State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273 (Tenn. 2012), changed the methodology for reviewing judicial diversion determinations. |
Warren | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Paresh J. Patel - Concurring and dissenting
I concur with the majority opinion’s conclusion that the trial court did not err by denying judicial diversion because it properly considered and weighed all the appropriate factors. See State v. Electroplating, Inc., 990 S.W.2d 211, 229 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998); State v. Parker, 932 S.W.2d 945, 958 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996). I respectfully disagree, though, with the conclusion that the standard of review announced in State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012), and State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273 (Tenn. 2012), is applicable to judicial diversion. |
Warren | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Dustin A. Hubman
The Defendant, Dustin A. Hubman, pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana, a Class A misdemeanor, possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor, and public intoxication, a Class C misdemeanor. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the Defendant received concurrent sentences of eleven months, twenty-nine days for the Class A misdemeanors and thirty days for the Class C misdemeanor. The trial court ordered that the Defendant serve his sentences in confinement. In this appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying him an alternative sentence. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Patrick Timothy Lowe
Appellant, Patrick Timothy Lowe, pleaded guilty to one count of driving under the influence of an intoxicant, first offense, subject to reserving a certified question of law. The trial court imposed the agreed-upon suspended sentence of eleven months, twenty-nine days. Following our review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. However, we remand this case for entry of judgment forms reflecting the dispositions of Count I of the indictment, driving with a blood alcohol content of .08% or more, and Count III of the indictment, reckless driving. |
Franklin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kewan Callicutt
Defendant, Kewan Callicutt, was indicted by the Shelby County Grand Jury for attempted especially aggravated robbery. Defendant was convicted as charged by a jury and sentenced by the trial court to serve 12 years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, Defendant asserts that: 1) the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress his statements to the police because he was under the influence of a drug or intoxicant when he waived his Miranda rights; 2) there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction; and 3) his sentence is excessive. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Raina Fisher
A Maury County Criminal Court Jury convicted the appellant, Raina Fisher, of three counts of theft of property valued $1,000 or more but less than $10,000, a Class D felony; one count of theft of property valued more than $500 but less than $1,000, a Class E felony; and one count of attempted theft of property valued $1,000 or more but less than $10,000, a Class E felony. The trial court sentenced her as a Range II, multiple offender to an effective sentence of seven years. On appeal, the appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Philip Trevor Lenoir
A Monroe County jury found the Defendant, Phillip Trevor Lenoir, guilty of aggravated child neglect. Thereafter, the trial court judge recused herself and a successor judge was appointed. The successor judge sentenced the Defendant as a Range I offender to serve twenty-five years in the Department of Correction. The Defendant appeals claiming: (1) the successor judge failed to engage in the proper analysis as the thirteenth juror; (2) the trial court erred when it denied the Defendant’s motion for a continuance; (3) the State was statutorily required to make an election between aggravated child abuse and aggravated child neglect; (4) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions; (5) the trial court failed to require the jury to announce the fines imposed; (6) the trial court failed to instruct the jury on “third-party culpability;” and (7) the trial court erred when it did not allow the Defendant to offer “reliable hearsay” in his defense. After a thorough review of the record and relevant law, we conclude that because the successor judge was unable to properly approve the verdict as “thirteenth juror,” a new trial must be granted. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and this case is remanded for a new trial. |
Monroe | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Anthony Woods
A jury convicted the defendant, Anthony Woods, of one count of facilitation of intent to deliver less than 0.5 grams of cocaine, a Class D felony, and one count of simple possession of marijuana, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced the defendant to concurrent sentences of six years for the facilitation conviction and to eleven months and twenty-nine days for the simple possession conviction. The physical evidence in the case was seized pursuant to a search warrant issued for the home of the defendant’s girlfriend and the defendant’s teenage daughter. The defendant’s original appeal was dismissed due to an untimely notice of appeal. State v. Woods, No. W2010-01301-CCA-R3-CD, 2012 WL 134243, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App. Jan. 13, 2012). The defendant then brought a postconviction petition, and the post-conviction court granted the defendant this delayed appeal pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-30-113(a)(1). The defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, the trial court’s refusal to admit an audio recording or transcript of the preliminary hearing into evidence, and the legality of the search warrant. Because the search warrant failed to adequately establish the credibility of the confidential informant and because the defendant had standing to challenge the warrant, we reverse the defendant’s convictions. |
McNairy | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Russell Jensen v. State of Tennessee
This matter is before the Court upon the State’s motion to affirm the judgment of the trial court by memorandum opinion pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner, Russell Jensen, filed a petition for habeas corpus relief, which the trial court summarily dismissed. This case meets the criteria for affirmance pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Accordingly, the State’s motion is granted, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Wayne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Broderick Devonte Fayne
The defendant, Broderick Devonte Fayne, was convicted by a Tipton County jury of aggravated burglary and employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, both Class C felonies. The trial court sentenced him as a Range I, standard offender to consecutive terms of three years at 30% for the aggravated burglary conviction and to six years at 100% for the employing a firearm during a dangerous felony conviction, for a total effective sentence of nine years in the Department of Correction. In a timely appeal to this court, the defendant raises the following issues: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain his conviction for employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony; (2) whether the trial court erred by denying his motion for a mistrial following the prosecutor’s introduction of his defense counsel as employees of the public defender’s office; (3) whether the trial court properly allowed the defendant’s accomplice to testify regarding his understanding of the charges against him; (4) whether his right to a fair trial was violated by the State’s arguing alternate theories of his guilt; and (5) whether the trial court erred by denying his request for jury instructions defining possession and constructive possession. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Tipton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Richard Madkins v. State of Tennessee
Richard Madkins (“the Petitioner”) filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. The habeas corpus court summarily dismissed his petition without a hearing, and the Petitioner now appeals. On appeal, the Petitioner presents three claims: (1) that the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment rights when it sentenced him to twenty-five years for his especially aggravated robbery conviction; (2) that the trial court did not have authority to sentence the Petitioner as a Range I offender because the State waived Range I sentencing when it filed a notice of intent to seek Range III punishment; and (3) that the Petitioner’s sentence violates principles of double jeopardy. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the habeas corpus court’s summary dismissal of the petition for habeas corpus relief. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jerome S. Barrett v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Jerome Sidney Barrett, was convicted of first degree murder stemming from a murder that occurred in Davidson County in 1975 and received a life sentence. State v. Jerome Sidney Barrett, No. M2010-00444-CCA-R3-CD, 2012 WL 2914119, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Jul 18, 2012), perm. app. denied, (Tenn. Dec. 12, 2012). He was unsuccessful on appeal to this Court. Id. at *32. He subsequently filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis. In his petition, he argued that the DNA evidence used at this trial was not independently evaluated and that the forensic pathologist, Dr. Bruce Levy, who testified at his trial regarding the DNA evidence, was not a credible witness because he was arrested for drug crimes in Mississippi more than a year after Petitioner’s trial. The lower court dismissed the petition without a hearing. After reviewing the record on appeal, we conclude that the lower court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the petition as untimely. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joshua Shane Hayes
The State appeals the trial court’s grant of a motion to suppress filed by the Defendant, Joshua Shane Hayes. The State contests the trial court’s finding that the "Exclusionary Rule Reform Act," which took effect July 1, 2011, did not apply retroactively to the search wherein officers seized drugs from the Defendant. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Morris Cobb v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant appeals the trial court's dismissal of his petitions for writs of error coram nobis. Having determined that the petitions were properly dismissed, this Court hereby affirms the orders of the trial court. |
Giles | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Beau Clayton Epperson
Defendant, Beau Clayton Epperson, entered a “best interest” guilty plea in the Circuit Court of Sevier County to the offense of domestic assault, a Class A misdemeanor. There was no negotiated plea agreement as to the length or manner of service of the sentence. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court announced the following sentence: eleven (11) months, twenty-nine (29) days in the county jail, specifying that under the “sentencing structure” the sentence was to be “one hundred percent of seventy-five percent of eleven months and twenty-nine days.” The trial court declined to grant a fully suspended sentence, but imposed a sentence of split confinement, with ninety (90) days to be served by incarceration, with the balance of the sentence suspended, to be served on supervised probation. Pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-303(c)(2)(B), the trial court ordered the probationary period to be two (2) years. Defendant has raised two issues on appeal. First, he asserts that the trial court imposed an illegal sentence which exceeded the maximum statutory allowable sentence. Second, he argues the trial court erroneously ordered a two year probationary period when it failed to make mandatory findings of fact. After a thorough review we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sevier | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Albert C. Scott
A Davidson County jury convicted the Defendant, Albert C. Scott, of two counts of rape. The trial court merged the convictions and sentenced the Defendant to serve twelve months of incarceration, followed by nine years of probation. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the State’s evidence against him, asserting that the State failed to prove the Defendant possessed the requisite mens rea for the crime. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we conclude there exists no error. We, therefore, affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Charles Ewing Kennedy
Appellee, Charles Ewing Kennedy, was indicted by the Maury County Grand Jury for driving under the influence, second offense; speeding; and violation of the implied consent law. Appellee moved to suppress the evidence against him regarding the driving under the influence count. The trial court granted his motion to suppress. This court granted the State’s application for permission to appeal. On appeal, the State argues that the trial court incorrectly applied a sufficiency of the evidence standard when granting appellee’s motion to suppress rather than making a probable cause determination. The State urges this court to reverse the trial court’s ruling and to conclude that the police had probable cause to arrest appellee for driving under the influence. Following our review, we reverse the ruling of the trial court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Oscar Thomas v. State of Tennessee
Oscar Thomas (“the Petitioner”) filed a petition for post-conviction relief from his guilty-pleaded convictions for carjacking and employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. After an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief, and this appeal followed. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that his plea was constitutionally invalid due to the ineffective assistance of counsel. He also contends that his employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony conviction violates Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-17-1324(c). Upon our thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Malcolm Witherow
A Hamilton County jury convicted the Defendant-Appellant, Malcolm Witherow, of first degree murder for which he received a sentence of life imprisonment. On appeal, Witherow argues the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, the trial court erred in not allowing prior inconsistent recorded statements by a witness to be admitted as substantive evidence under Tennessee Rule of Evidence 803(26), and the trial court erred in denying his motion for mistrial based upon statements the prosecutor made in closing argument. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Rodney Dewayne Burton
Pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant, Rodney Dewayne Burton, entered a "no contest" plea for criminally negligent homicide, a Class E felony, with sentencing to be determined by the trial court. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced appellant to two years, suspended the sentence, and placed appellant on probation. On appeal, appellant contends that the trial court misapplied an enhancement factor when determining his sentence and asks that this court reduce his sentence to a one-year suspended sentence. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals |
