State of Tennessee v. Christopher Schurman
Appellant, Christopher Schurman, appeals the trial court’s revocation of his probation, arguing that he is entitled to credit for time served on probation under the supervision of community corrections and that the underlying probation revocation agreement violated his right to due process. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Lashawn Johnson
A jury convicted LaShawn Johnson (“the Defendant”) of aggravated burglary and attempted theft of property valued at $1,000 or more but less than $10,000. On appeal, he raises two issues: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support his convictions; and (2) whether the trial court erred in ruling that the Defendant’s prior theft convictions would be admissible should he testify. After a careful review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Thorne Peters
A Shelby County Criminal Court jury convicted the defendant, Thorne Peters, of one count of simple possession of marijuana, see T.C.A. § 39-17-418, and the trial court imposed a sentence of 11 months and 29 days’ incarceration in the local workhouse; with respect to the manner of service, the judgment said,“[T]ime served.” On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction, the trial court’s granting the State’s motion to quash a subpoena of the former sheriff, and the trial court’s limitation of crossexamination of a witness. Discerning neither a paucity in the evidence nor reversible error committed by the trial court, we affirm the judgment of the trial court but remand for clarification of pretrial jail credit. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jeremiah L. Woods
The defendant, Jeremiah L. Woods, was convicted by a Madison County jury of one count of premeditated first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal, the defendant raises the single issue of sufficiency of the evidence. He contends that the evidence is insufficient only with regard to the element of premeditation. Following review of the record, we conclude that the evidence of premeditation in the record is overwhelming and, accordingly, affirm the conviction. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Robert Kenneth Dubose
The defendant, Robert Kenneth Dubose, appeals the decision of the Hardin County Circuit Court revoking his probationary sentence. The defendant pled guilty to rape, a Class B felony, and received a sentence of eight years. The sentence was to be suspended to supervised probation following the service of one year. Subsequently, a violation warrant was issued charging the defendant with multiple violations of the terms and conditions of his probation. Following a hearing, the trial court revoked the defendant’s probation and ordered the balance of the sentence be served in the Department of Correction. Following review, we conclude that the defendant has failed to show that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering the revocation or in imposing a sentence of confinement. Therefore, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Hardin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Randall Murphy
The defendant, Randell Murphy, appeals from his Madison County Circuit Court guilty-pleaded convictions of burglary of an automobile; theft of property valued at $10,000 or more but less than $60,000; vandalism of property valued at $500 or more but less than $1,000; possession of burglary tools; and criminal impersonation. The defendant received an effective sentence of 21 and one-half years. In this appeal, he contends that the trial court erred by rejecting his plea agreement with the State, by denying his motion to withdraw his guilty pleas, and by imposing an excessive sentence. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Charles Edward Durham
The appellant, Charles Edward Durham, was convicted in the Davidson County Criminal Court of possession of not less than one-half ounce but not more than ten pounds of marijuana in a school zone with the intent to sell and of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The trial court imposed a total effective sentence of three years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence that he alleges was discovered after he was illegally detained and the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his drug conviction. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Drew Freeman, Jr.
The defendant, James Drew Freeman, Jr., appeals from his White County Circuit Court jury conviction of second degree murder, claiming that the admission of the autopsy report via a witness who did not perform the autopsy violated his constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him, that the State engaged in improper and inflammatory closing argument, and that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
White | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Raleigh Kristopher Frye
A Coffee County Circuit Court jury convicted the defendant,Raleigh Kristopher Frye,of one count of third offense driving under the influence (“DUI”), and the trial court found the defendant guilty of violating the implied consent law. In this appeal, the defendant challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained following the stop of his vehicle and the sufficiency of the convicting evidence, claims that the trial court committed reversible error by permitting the State to exercise four peremptory challenges and by permitting the indictment for the implied consent violation to be taken to the jury room, and contends that the cumulative effect of the errors at trial entitles him to a new trial. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. |
Coffee | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Joseph S. Lucas, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Joseph S. Lucas, Jr., appeals the Williamson County Circuit Court’s denial of post-conviction relief from his guilty plea to rape of a child and resulting twenty-five year sentence. On appeal, he contends that (1) his guilty plea was not voluntarily and knowingly entered, (2) trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to preserve a suppression issue for appeal, failing to address waiver of the Petitioner’s ex post facto rights during sentencing, and failing to prepare witnesses for the sentencing hearing, and (3) appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to include transcripts of the suppression hearing and the guilty plea hearing in the record on direct appeal, failing to request a rehearing, and failing to argue that the Petitioner’s sentence constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Gail Lynn Padgett (a.k.a. "Gail Lynn Nevels")
A Knox County jury convicted the Defendant, Gail Lynn Padgett, of driving under the influence of an intoxicant (“DUI”), fourth offense, a Class E felony, and driving on a revoked license. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to one year of incarceration for felony DUI with 150 days to be served in confinement and the remainder to be served on probation. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to six months probation for driving on a revoked license, to be served concurrently with the DUI sentence. The trial court also revoked the Defendant’s license for five years, ordering the Defendant to attend DUI school. On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain her conviction for DUI, fourth offense; (2) the trial court erred in denying the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for the State’s failure to preserve evidence; and (3) the trial court erred by denying the Defendant’s Motion to Suppress evidence of her actions and statements to police due to the lack of probable cause to effectuate the arrest. After a thorough review of the record and relevant authorities, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jeffrey Wade Osborne
The defendant, Jeffrey Wade Osborne, appeals his Williamson County Circuit Court bench trial conviction of felony failure to appear, see T.C.A. § 39-16-609, arguing that his trial should not have occurred while competency proceedings were still pending and that the trial court erroneously denied a motion for judgment of acquittal made at the close of the State’s proof. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Keesha P. Washington
The Defendant, Keesha P. Washington, was found guilty by a Williamson County Circuit Court jury of aggravated arson, a Class A felony. See T.C.A. § 39-14-302 (2010). She was sentenced as a Range I, violent offender to eighteen years’ confinement. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court committed plain error by not holding a hearing to ensure that she knowingly and voluntarily waived her right not to testify and that her sentence is excessive. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Keith Richard Gibson
Defendant-Appellant, Keith Richard Gibson, was convicted after a jury trial for possession of .5 grams or more of cocaine with intent to sell, a Class B felony, and simple possession of a controlled substance, a Class A misdemeanor. He was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender and received eight years’ incarceration for the felony and eleven months and twenty-nine days’ incarceration for the misdemeanor. He appeals the trial court’s denial of his motions to suppress evidence, arguing that the police lacked reasonable suspicion to support the investigatory stop of the defendant as required by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and article 1, section 7 of the Tennessee Constitution. Upon review, although we reject a part of the trial court’s reasoning in its denial of the motions to suppress, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Obion | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Nicholas Short
A Davidson County jury convicted the Defendant-Appellant, Nicholas Short, of one count of first degree premeditated murder and one count of second degree murder. The trial court merged the convictions and sentenced Short to life imprisonment. The sole issue presented for our review is whether the evidence is sufficient to establish his convictions given Short’s theory of self-defense. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Randall Kelvin Madison
A jury convicted Randall Kelvin Madison (“the Defendant”) of twenty-two counts of rape, three counts of aggravated statutory rape, and one count of forgery. The trial court subsequently merged several of the offenses so as to leave in place twelve counts of rape and one count of forgery. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered the Defendant to serve an effective sentence of thirty-five years. In this appeal, the Defendant challenges (1) the trial court’s ruling under Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b) that evidence of his uncharged bad acts was admissible; (2) the State’s election of offenses; (3) the sufficiency of the evidence; and (4) his sentence. We hold that (1) the Defendant is not entitled to relief from the trial court’s Rule 404(b) ruling; (2) the Defendant has not demonstrated that the State’s election of offenses was fatally deficient; and (3) the evidence is sufficient to support his convictions. We also affirm the trial court’s sentencing decisions. Accordingly, we affirm the Defendant’s convictions and sentences. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Carlos Cannon
The defendant, Carlos Cannon, was convicted by a Madison County Circuit Court jury of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, and was sentenced to ten years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kenneth Nathaniel Jones
The Defendant, Kenneth Nathaniel Jones, pled guilty to facilitation of aggravated robbery, and the trial court sentenced him to four years, to be served on probation. The Defendant’s probation officer filed a probation violation warrant, alleging that the Defendant had violated the terms of his probation. After a hearing, the trial court revoked the Defendant’s probation and ordered that he serve eleven months and twenty-nine days in confinement and then return to probation for the remainder of his sentence. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it revoked his probation because his violations were “technical” in nature. Further, he asserts the trial court erred when it imposed jail time because this was his first petition of revocation filed against him. After reviewing the record, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Charles Wayne Dalton v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner appeals the Circuit Court for Lincoln County’s denial of post-conviction relief. He was convicted of forty-three counts, thirteen counts by a jury trial and thirty counts by guilty pleas. On the date of his scheduled sentencing hearing, petitioner agreed to sentences on the thirteen counts for which the jury convicted him and pled guilty to the remaining thirty counts. He accepted an effective sentence of twenty-five years at 100% for all forty-three counts. On appeal, petitioner alleges that trial counsel made numerous mistakes in preparing for and conducting the trial and did not adequately explain the consequences of his guilty pleas. He further alleges that the post-conviction court abused its discretion by refusing to grant his motion to remove post-conviction counsel. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Lincoln | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James William Swafford, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
James William Swafford, Jr. (“the Petitioner”) filed for post-conviction relief from his multiple convictions for drug and other offenses which resulted in an effective sentence of thirty-three years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. He alleges that he received ineffective assistance of counsel in conjunction with his guilty plea and that his plea was constitutionally infirm. After an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief, and this appeal followed. Upon our careful review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Dale M. Rogers v. State of Tennessee
In 2002, the Defendant, Dale M. Rogers, pled guilty to two counts of rape of a child, and the trial court sentenced him to fifteen years, to be served at 100%, for each conviction and ordered that the sentences run concurrently. The trial court later amended the judgements to reflect that the Petitioner was sentenced to community supervision for life after the expiration of his sentence. In 2011, the Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that he did not have notice that his sentences were amended until 2011 and asking the court to toll the applicable statute of limitations. He further alleged that the trial court’s amending of his judgments, adding the community supervision for life provision, rendered his guilty pleas unknowingly and involuntarily entered. The post-conviction court summarily dismissed the Petitioner’s post-conviction petition based upon its finding that the petition was untimely filed. On appeal, the Petitioner contends the post- conviction court erred when it dismissed his petition. The State agrees with the Petitioner that the post-conviction court erred and asks this Court to remand the case for an evidentiary hearing to determine when the Petitioner knew that his judgments had been amended. We agree with the parties, and we reverse the post-conviction court’s order and remand the case to the trial court for appointment of counsel and an evidentiary hearing. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
John Howard v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, John Howard, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. David Ingram Ownby, Alias
Following the Knox County Criminal Court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence, the Defendant, David Ingram Ownby, alias, entered a guilty plea to driving under the influence (DUI), first offense. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to forty-eight hours incarceration, placed him on unsupervised probation for eleven months and twenty-nine days, and ordered the Defendant to pay a $350 fine. Pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2)(A) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Defendant reserved a two-part certified question of law challenging the legality of his seizure and subsequent arrest. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. David Ingram Ownby, Alias - concurring
I concur in that the facts of the case would engender a reasonable suspicion that the defendant was driving while impaired. I would emphasize that the presence of the defendant’s vehicle headed in the wrong direction in the restaurant’s drive-through lane, in addition to the condition of the driver, is the fact that justifies the seizure. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Alan Bryant Minchew
The defendant, Alan Bryant Minchew, pleaded guilty to first offense driving under the influence of an intoxicant (“DUI”) with a blood alcohol level of .08% or more and reserved as a certified question the propriety of the vehicle stop leading to his arrest. Determining that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s findings in its order denying the motion to suppress, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals |
