State of Tennessee v. Mahlon Johnson
A Shelby County jury convicted the Defendant, Mahlon Johnson, of one count of aggravated assault and two counts of sexual battery, and the trial court sentenced him to an effective sentence of twenty-seven years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions for sexual battery; (2) the trial court erred when it failed to merge the sexual battery convictions; (3) the Defendant’s convictions for sexual battery and aggravated assault violate double jeopardy protections; and (4) the trial court improperly sentenced him. The State agrees that there is insufficient evidence to support the Defendant’s sexual battery convictions, and it asks us to reverse those convictions and dismiss the indictments. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities, we conclude there exists in the record sufficient evidence to support the Defendant’s convictions and that the trial court did not err when it did not merge those convictions. We further conclude that the trial court did not err when it sentenced the Defendant. We, therefore, affirm the Defendant’s convictions and sentence. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jerry Ray Davidson v. State of Tennessee
The Dickson County Circuit Court denied the Petitioner, Jerry Ray Davidson, post-conviction relief from his convictions of first degree premeditated murder and aggravated kidnapping and his sentence of death. The Petitioner appeals. Having discerned no error, we affirm the post conviction court’s denial of relief. |
Dickson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Darrick Eugene McAllister
The Knox County Criminal Court denied Defendant Darrick Eugene McAllister’s motion to suppress all evidence seized in a warrantless search. Subsequently, Defendant entered a guilty plea, and according to the amended judgment in the record, Defendant pled guilty to possession with intent to sell less than 0.5 grams of cocaine, a Class C felony, and received a sentence of eight (8) years as a Range II multiple offender. The amended judgment and the negotiated plea agreement documents show that Defendant reserved a certified question of law for appeal. The transcript of the guilty plea hearing is not in the record. After a review of the record, we affirm the amended judgment of the trial court. We note, however, that the negotiated plea agreement documents reflect that Defendant was going to plead guilty to the Class C felony offense of attempted possession of more than 0.5 grams of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a drug free zone (a park). However, we did not have jurisdiction in this case to do anything but affirm the amended judgment (which we do) or reverse the amended judgment and dismiss the charges. The trial court, however, may review the entire record and take appropriate measures, if any, to correct the amended judgment. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Gary S. Mayes v. State of Tennessee
On December 12, 2011, the petitioner, Gary S. Mayes, filed a pro se petition for a writ of error coram nobis alleging newly discovered evidence related to the Knox County Criminal Court’s 2008 denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The coram nobis court summarily denied relief. We affirm the denial of relief. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Ryan Stephenson
The defendant, James Ryan Stephenson, was convicted by a Rhea County jury of reckless homicide, a Class D felony, and was sentenced by the trial court as a Range II, multiple offender to eight years in the Department of Correction, to be served consecutively to his sentence in a burglary case for which he was on probation at the time of the homicide. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred by: (1) granting the State’s request to remove a juror on the second day of trial; (2) allowing the State to impeach his credibility with his prior convictions for theft and burglary; (3) issuing a jury instruction on the impeachment of a witness after the testimony of a defense witness but not after the testimony of a State witness; and (4) failing to apply any mitigating factors in sentencing. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Rhea | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Bobby Duane Parker
The appellant, Bobby Duane Parker, pled guilty in the Williamson County Circuit Court to four counts of theft, two counts of unlawful possession of a weapon, one count of resisting arrest, and one count of evading arrest. The trial court imposed a total effective sentence of twenty-seven years. On appeal, the appellant challenges imposition of consecutive sentencing. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Larry R. Porterfield
The defendant, Larry R. Porterfield, pleaded guilty to aggravated assault, and the Grundy County Circuit Court sentenced him as a Range I, standard offender to a term of four years’ imprisonment. On appeal, the defendant challenges the manner of service of his sentence. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Grundy | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Frederick Alexander Avery v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Frederick Alexander Avery, was convicted by a jury in the Davidson County Criminal Court of aggravated robbery, especially aggravated robbery, reckless endangerment, and attempted second degree murder. As a violent offender, he received a total effective sentence of life without the possibility of parole. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion for severance and a motion for a speedy trial and for advising the petitioner to not testify at trial. The post-conviction court denied relief, holding that the petitioner failed to establish that counsel was ineffective. However, because trial counsel had miscalculated the date for filing an appeal to the supreme court, the post-conviction court granted the petitioner a Rule 11 delayed appeal. See Tenn. S. Ct. R. 28, § 9(D)(1)(b). The petitioner appeals the denial of post-conviction relief based on his ineffective assistance of counsel claims. Upon review, we conclude that the post-conviction court properly granted the petitioner a delayed appeal. However, the post-conviction court erred by not staying the post-conviction proceeding pending the disposition of the delayed appeal. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Arthur Lee Jamison, Jr.
The appellant, Arthur Lee Jamison, Jr., was convicted by a jury in the Davidson County Criminal Court of selling less than .5 grams of a substance containing cocaine within 1,000 feet of a drug-free school zone, a Class B felony. The trial court sentenced the appellant to ten years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence sustaining his conviction. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Justin Gray
The defendant, Justin Gray, was convicted by a Madison County Circuit Court jury of first degree felony murder and especially aggravated robbery and sentenced to concurrent terms of life imprisonment and fifteen years, respectively. On appeal, he argues that: (1) it was error for his case to be transferred to circuit court; (2) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions; and (3) the trial court’s jury instruction on criminal responsibility was erroneous. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Eddie Hoof
A Shelby County grand jury indicted appellant, Eddie Hoof, for first degree premeditated murder, first degree felony murder, attempted first degree murder, and especially aggravated burglary. A jury found him guilty of two counts of second degree murder, one count of attempted first degree murder, and one count of especially aggravated burglary. The trial court merged the two convictions of second degree murder and sentenced appellant to an effective sentence of fifty-seven years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence and the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. However, we remand the case to the trial court for correction of the judgment form for especially aggravated burglary to reflect a consecutive sentence. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Steven Ray Kennedy v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Steven Ray Kennedy, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of post-conviction relief from his guilty-pleaded conviction for second degree murder and the resulting twenty-year sentence. On appeal, he contends that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary because of the ineffectiveness of counsel. Following our review of the record, we affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of relief. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Donnell Levon Robinson v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Donnell Levon Robinson, Jr., appeals the denial of post-conviction relief, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that his plea was involuntarily and unknowingly entered. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Timothy B. Lenarduzzi
Timothy B. Lenarduzzi ("the Defendant") pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor and three counts of sexual exploitation of a minor. In his plea agreement, he agreed to a sentencing range of "[e]ight to [t]welve years at one hundred percent on each count to run concurrent," leaving the length of the sentence to be determined by the trial court. After a hearing, the trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I offender to eleven years for each aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor conviction and eleven years for each sexual exploitation of a minor conviction, all to be served concurrently. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the length of his sentence is improper. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Alfonzo Marquis Sutton
A Bedford County Circuit Court Jury convicted the appellant, Alfonzo Marquis Sutton, of conspiracy to sell and deliver .5 grams or more of a Schedule II controlled substance, cocaine. The trial court sentenced him as a Range III persistent offender to thirteen years, forty-five percent of which he was to serve in confinement before being eligible for release. On appeal, the appellant argues that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction, that prosecutorial misconduct warranted a mistrial, and that his sentence is excessive. Upon review, we conclude that prosecutorial misconduct warrants a new trial. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Bruce D. Mendenhall
Defendant, Bruce D. Mendenhall, was indicted by the Davidson County Grand Jury for first degree premeditated murder, and he was convicted as charged following a jury trial. The trial court sentenced Defendant to life in prison. Defendant appeals his conviction and sentence and submits the following issues for our review: (1) whether the trial court erred by refusing to suppress evidence obtained from Defendant’s person, his truck, and his tractor trailer as a result of Defendant’s initial encounter with police Sgt. Postiglione, which Defendant asserts was a seizure not supported by reasonable suspicion; (2) whether the trial court erred by refusing to suppress Defendant’s statements to police officers; (3) whether Defendant’s statements to a fellow inmate should have been suppressed; (4) whether the trial court erred by admitting evidence that Defendant solicited another person to kill three potential witnesses; (5) whether the trial court erred by denying Defendant’s motion to exclude portions of Defendant’s phone calls recorded while Defendant was incarcerated; (6) whether the trial court erred by denying Defendant’s motion to present testimony from a ballistics expert at trial; (7) whether the trial court erred by admitting into evidence items recovered from Defendant’s truck; (8) whether the trial court erred by admitting into evidence photographs of the victim’s body; (9) whether the evidence is sufficient to support Defendant’s conviction; and (10) whether the trial court erred by ordering Defendant’s sentence to run consecutively to a previously imposed sentence. After a careful review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Lavonta Laver Churchwell
Defendant, Lavonta Laver Churchwell, was indicted by the Davidson County Grand Jury for two counts of first degree premeditated murder, two counts of first degree felony murder, and two counts of especially aggravated robbery. Defendant was convicted by a petit jury of two counts of felony murder, two counts of especially aggravated robbery, and two counts of criminally negligent homicide. The trial court merged Defendant’s convictions for criminally negligent homicide into his felony murder convictions. He was sentenced by the trial court to an effective life sentence with all sentences running concurrently. In this direct appeal, Defendant asserts that: 1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions; 2) the State failed to establish the corpus delicti because the State offered no corroborating evidence of the testimony of the jailhouse informants; 3) Defendant’s admissions to the jailhouse informants were elicited in violation of Massiah v. U.S., 377 U.S. 201, 84 S. Ct. 1199, 12 L. Ed. 2d 246 (1964); and 4) the trial court erred by allowing testimony that Defendant threatened a jailhouse informant. The State responds that Defendant has waived all issues save that of sufficiency of the evidence by failing to file a timely motion for new trial. We conclude that Defendant’s motion for new trial was timely filed and review the merits of each issue. Finding no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Donald A. Rogers
The defendant, Donald A. Rogers, appeals the trial court’s revocation of his probation and reinstatement of his original three-year sentence in the Department of Correction. He argues that the trial court erred in ordering full confinement, rather than imposing split confinement. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. April Nicole Cromwell
The Defendant, April Nicole Cromwell, pleaded guilty to theft of property valued at more than $10,000, a Class C felony. See T.C.A.§ 39-14-103 (2010). The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I, standard offender to three years with one year to serve and the remainder on probation. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred by (1) failing to sentence her to community corrections or probation and (2) denying her request for judicial diversion. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hardin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Candice Stinson
The Defendant, Candice Stinson, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of fourteen counts of cruelty to animals, a Class A misdemeanor. See T.C.A. § 39-14-202 (2010). For each count, the trial court imposed a sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days, with six months to be served in jail, and a $200 fine, all to be served concurrently. The court also ordered her to pay $4824 in restitution to the City of Memphis Animal Services and prohibited her from owning animals for ten years and from owning animals for commercial purposes for life. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred by denying her full probation and requiring her to serve seventy-five percent of her sentence before becoming eligible for release. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Cynthia Denise Gray
A jury convicted the defendant, Cynthia Denise Gray, of one count of the promotion of the manufacture of methamphetamine, a Class D felony, in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-17-433 (2010). The trial court sentenced her to serve three years and six months in prison as a Range I standard offender. The defendant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence and the length of the sentence, as well as the trial court’s refusal to impose an alternative sentence. Having reviewed the record, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient and that there was no error in sentencing. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jackson Martin
A Shelby County Criminal Court Jury convicted the appellant, Jackson Martin, of attempted second degree murder and two counts of carjacking. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court merged the carjacking convictions and sentenced him to an effective sentence of twenty-two years in confinement. On appeal, the appellant contends that (1) the trial court erred by commenting to the jury about his failure to present alibi witnesses; (2) the trial court erred by refusing to give the jury an alibi instruction; and (3) the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ronald Woods v. State of Tennessee
A Shelby County grand jury indicted petitioner, Ronald Woods, for three counts of assault. Petitioner pleaded guilty to one count of assault, and the State agreed to dismiss the two remaining counts. During the plea hearing, petitioner also pleaded guilty to several offenses in an unrelated case that was pending in the criminal court. He received an agreed-upon effective sentence of six years, eleven months, and twenty-nine days for both cases. Petitioner requested post-conviction relief, alleging: (1) that the State engaged in vindictive prosecution; (2) that he received ineffective assistance of counsel; (3) that his guilty plea was involuntary; and (4) that he was denied due process of law. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Harry Coleman
A Shelby County Criminal Court Jury convicted the appellant, Harry Coleman, of second degree murder, aggravated assault, and two counts of assault. After a sentencing hearing, he received an effective eighteen-year sentence. On appeal, the appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions and that he is entitled to a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the appellant’s convictions and the trial court’s denial of the motion for new trial. However, the case is remanded to the trial court for correction of a clerical error on two of the judgments. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Robert Nelson Buford, III
A Davidson County Criminal Court Jury convicted the appellant, Robert Nelson Buford, III, of facilitation of first degree felony murder and facilitation of attempted especially aggravated robbery. After a sentencing hearing, the appellant received an effective thirty-five-year sentence. On appeal, he contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions; (2) the trial court should have suppressed his statement to police because he invoked his right to remain silent; (3) his prior bad acts were inadmissible; (4) the trial court should have given the jury a requested instruction; and (5) his effective sentence is excessive. Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the trial court erred by admitting the appellant’s statement into evidence because the appellant invoked his right to remain silent but that the error was harmless. Therefore, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals |
