Jonathon C. Hood v. State of Tennessee
Defendant, Jonathon C. Hood, appeals the dismissal of his motion to discharge fines. More specifically, he contends that because his sentence was expired, the trial court erred in dismissing the motion. The State argues that this Court does not have jurisdiction to hear this appeal because Rule 3 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure does not provide for an appeal as of right from the denial of a motion to discharge fines. We agree. Additionally, the record is incomplete. Therefore, Defendant's appeal is dismissed. |
Franklin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Kardius Wilkes v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Kardius Wilkes, was convicted by a jury of one count of first degree murder. This Court affirmed his conviction on direct appeal, and his application for permission to appeal was denied by the Tennessee Supreme Court. See State v. Kardius Wilkes, No. W2001-02172-CCA-R3-CD, 2002 WL 818255 (Tenn. Crim. App., Jackson, Apr. 26, 2002), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Oct. 7, 2002). He later filed a petition for post-conviction relief. Following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied the Petitioner relief. In this appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred in denying him relief because his trial counsel failed to: (1) impeach a particular witness using transcripts of the Petitioner's first trial, which ended in a mistrial; (2) adequately meet with the Petitioner before his second trial; (3) call the Petitioner's brother as a witness; and (4) adequately investigate and interview potential witnesses. After our review, we affirm the post-conviction court's denial of relief. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joshua Shane Hayes
Following a jury trial, Defendant, Joshua Shane Hayes, was convicted of possession with intent to deliver three-hundred grams or more of cocaine (count one), manufacturing twenty or more marijuana plants (count two), and possession with intent to deliver more than ten pounds but less than seventy pounds of marijuana (count three). The trial court conducted a sentencing hearing and imposed a sentence of twenty-four years for count one, five years for count two, and four years for count three. The court ordered counts one and two to run consecutively to each other and concurrently to count three for an effective twenty-nine year sentence in the Department of Correction. On appeal, Defendant argues that (1) the trial court erred in failing to suppress the evidence seized from the residence at Deer Valley Trail; (2) that the trial court erred in allowing the State to introduce evidence of seventeen firearms, ammunition, and photographs of multiple firearms at trial; and (3) that the trial court erred in sentencing Defendant to an effective twenty-nine year sentence. Following our review of the record, we reverse the judgments of the trial court because the warrant does not comply with the requirements of Rule 41 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Brandon Taylor Fisher
The defendant, Brandon Taylor Fisher, stands convicted of robbery and kidnapping, both Class C felonies. The trial court sentenced him as a Range I standard offender to five years for robbery and four years for kidnapping and ordered him to serve the sentences consecutively in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant challenges the trial court's imposition of consecutive sentences. Following our review, we conclude that the trial court failed to make findings sufficient to justify consecutive sentences under Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-115(b) and remand for a new sentencing hearing solely on the issue of whether consecutive sentences are appropriate in this case. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Brent R. Stewart
In this appeal, the defendant claims that his due process rights were violated because the judge presiding over his probation revocation had previously served as a member of his drug court team and had received ex parte information regarding the defendant's conduct at issue by virtue of his prior involvement. After due consideration, we agree that the Due Process Clause requires that a defendant's probation revocation be adjudicated by a judge who has not previously reviewed the same or related subject matter as part of the defendant's drug court team. Accordingly, we reverse the decision below and remand the defendant's case for a new hearing in front of a different judge. |
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Carlos Kennedy
The Defendant-Appellant, Carlos Kennedy, was convicted by a jury in the Circuit Court of Chester County of rape of a child, a Class A felony, attempted rape of a child, a Class B felony, assault, a Class A misdemeanor, and coercion of a witness, a Class D felony. He was sentenced to twenty-five years for rape of a child, ten years for attempted rape of a child, eleven months and twenty-nine days for assault, and four years for coercion of a witness. The trial court ordered the sentence for attempted rape of a child to be served consecutively with the sentence for rape of a child. It also ordered the sentences for assault and coercion of a witness to run concurrently with the conviction for rape of a child. Thus, Kennedy received an effective sentence of thirty-five years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, Kennedy claims: (1) that the conviction for rape of a child is not supported by sufficient evidence; (2) the trial court erred by prohibiting defense counsel from questioning the victim and her mother about a prior allegation of sexual abuse made by the victim; and (3) the trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentencing. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Chester | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Mario Chambers
In the Shelby County Criminal Court, the Defendant-Appellant, Mario Chambers, entered guilty pleas to four Class E felonies and one Class A misdemeanor. Specifically, Chambers pled guilty to possession of Morphine with intent to sell, possession of Hydrocodone with intent to sell, possession of Alprazolam with intent to sell and possession of marijuana. As a part of his plea agreement, Chambers received concurrent two-year sentences for each of the felony convictions to be served in the county workhouse and a concurrent thirty-four day sentence to be served in the county jail for the misdemeanor conviction, with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. On appeal, Chambers argues that the trial court erred in denying an alternative sentence. Upon review, we affirm the trial court's judgments. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Telly Savalas Johnson
A Shelby County jury convicted the defendant, Telly Savalas Johnson, of five counts of criminal attempt to commit first degree murder. The trial court sentenced him as a Range I standard offender to an effective sentence of seventy-five years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant argues that the evidence at trial was insufficient to prove identity and premeditation. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Marvin Anthony Matthews v. Tony Parker, Warden
The petitioner, Marvin Anthony Matthews, appeals pro se the Circuit Court of Lake County's order dismissing his petitions for habeas corpus relief. The petitioner claims he is being illegally detained because his sentence for third degree burglary has expired. The State filed a motion requesting this court to affirm the trial court's order pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Following our review, we grant the State's motion and affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Lake | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joshua Bryant McClain
The Defendant, Joshua Bryant McClain, pleaded guilty to vandalism of cemetery monuments in an amount over $10,000. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court denied the defendant's request for judicial diversion and sentenced the defendant to five years; after the service of 150 days in jail, his sentence was to be suspended for a six-year period. The trial court also ordered the defendant to pay $5,000 in restitution to the cemetery association. The defendant now appeals, challenging the denial of judicial diversion, the length of his sentence, and the restitution award. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hickman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. David Lynn Harrison
The Defendant, David Lynn Harrison, appeals from his conviction by a jury in the Knox County Criminal Court for theft of property valued at $1,000 or more, a Class D felony, for which he was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to three years in the Department of Correction. The defendant contends (1) that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction, (2) that the trial court erred when it failed to instruct the jury on the lesser included offenses of unauthorized use of a vehicle and attempted theft, and (3) that the trial court committed plain error when it failed to instruct the jury on the defenses of duress and necessity. Because the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of unauthorized use of a vehicle, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for a new trial. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Deshawn Gail Leiger
The defendant, Deshawn Gail Leiger, appeals from the revocation of her community corrections sentence, claiming that the trial court erred by ordering that she serve her sentence in confinement. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Lance Burton
The Defendant, Lance Burton, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of one count of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony. The trial court sentenced the defendant as a mitigated offender to eight years in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Correction. In this appeal as of right, he contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction and that the State committed prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ronald Jerome Gleaves
The Defendant, Ronald Jerome Gleaves, was indicted following the execution of a search warrant that led to the discovery and seizure of narcotics. The defendant moved to suppress the evidence seized during the search, arguing the warrant was unconstitutionally issued. The trial court granted the defendant's motion and dismissed the charge against the defendant. The State appeals, contending the warrant was valid, and the evidence was admissible. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we reverse the order suppressing the drugs found during the execution of the search warrant. We vacate the order dismissing the indictment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Robert M. Linder v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner Robert M. Linder was convicted of especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor following a bench trial in the Blount County Circuit Court. The trial court sentenced him to 12 years, and on appeal this Court modified his sentence to 11 years. He then filed a petition for post-conviction relief and, due to irreconcilable differences with his appointed counsel, has proceeded through the post-conviction process pro se. After an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. Petitioner now appeals, alleging numerous errors in his conviction and subsequent appeals as well as ineffective assistance of trial, appellate, and post-conviction counsel. Although we conclude that the trial court enhanced Petitioner's sentence in violation of the rule announced in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), that violation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, it does not provide the basis for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Similarly, none of Petitioner's other claims afford a basis for post-conviction relief. Consequently, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. George Washington Matthews - Concurring
I concur in the court’s opinion and express the view that the pivot upon which |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. George Washington Matthews
The Defendant, George Washington Matthews, was convicted by a Davidson County Criminal Court jury of facilitation of the sale of 0.5 grams or more of cocaine, a Class C felony, and possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor. The defendant was sentenced as a career offender and received an effective sentence of fifteen years to serve in the Tennessee Department of Correction. In this appeal as of right, the defendant contends that (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss his case; (2) the trial court erred in approving the jury's verdict as the thirteenth juror; (3) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction of facilitation of the sale of 0.5 grams or more of cocaine; and (4) the trial court erred in sentencing the defendant as a career offender. Following our review, we reverse the judgments of the trial court because the trial court failed to fulfill its role as the thirteenth juror. We remand the defendant's case for a new trial. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Terrance G. Motley v. State of Tennessee
A Shelby County jury convicted the Petitioner, Terrance G. Motley, of attempted first degree murder and of being a felon in possession of a handgun, and the trial court sentenced him to forty-four years in prison. We affirmed the Petitioner's convictions and sentence on direct appeal. The Petitioner then filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which the post-conviction court denied. The Petitioner now appeals, claiming the post-conviction court erred when it dismissed his petition for post-conviction relief because: (1) he received the ineffective assistance of counsel; and (2) the trial court improperly refused to appoint him another attorney after he waived his right to counsel. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the post-conviction court's judgment. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Kilven Neal v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Kilven Neal, appeals the Fayette County Circuit Court's summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The State has filed a motion requesting that we dismiss the appeal based on the petitioner's failure to file a timely notice of appeal, or, in the alternative, affirm the lower court's judgment pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Following our review, we conclude that there was no timely notice of appeal filed and that the petitioner's claims do not warrant that we waive the timely notice of appeal requirement in the interest of justice. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. |
Fayette | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Harold K. Gause v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Harold Gause, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. He entered a plea of guilty to reckless driving on April 30, 2003, in exchange for a sentence of seventeen days, which he had already served. He filed a petition for post-conviction relief on April 15, 2009. On appeal, he argues that: it was improper for the post-conviction court to summarily dismiss the petition; his allegations established a colorable claim for relief; the State failed to adequately answer the allegations contained in his petition; and this court should take judicial notice of the petitioner's complaint filed with the Board of Professional Responsibility regarding the representation of trial counsel. After careful review, we affirm the summary dismissal from the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Jermaine Harris
A Hamilton County jury convicted the defendant, Michael Jermaine Harris, of one count of aggravated arson. The trial court sentenced him to 19 years' incarceration to be served at 100 percent as a violent offender. The defendant appeals his conviction and argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, that the trial court erred in failing to give a proper jury instruction regarding eyewitness identification, and that the trial court erred in enhancing his sentence on the basis of factors not determined by the jury. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the Hamilton County Criminal Court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Edward Pope
The Defendant, Edward Pope, pled guilty to attempted aggravated robbery and aggravated assault, with an agreed effective sentence length of seven years and with the trial court to determine manner of service. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered the Defendant to serve his sentence in confinement. The Defendant appeals, claiming the trial court erred in denying him an alternative sentence. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial [*2] court. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Darrell W. Lunsford v. Howard Carlton, Warden - Dissenting
Irespectfully dissent from the conclusion that the incorrect release eligibility date (RED) was not a material part of the plea agreement. I do not believe the record justifies such a conclusion without an evidentiary hearing. I also do not believe that the habeas court should be the forum to determine whether the Petitioner should be entitled to withdraw his plea. Once the habeas court determines that an illegal sentence has been imposed and vacates the judgment of conviction, what then occurs in the original case should be left to the convicting court to decide. |
Johnson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Darrell W. Lunsford v. Howard Carlton, Warden
The Petitioner, Darrell W. Lunsford, appeals the dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, in which he alleged that his sentence was illegal. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court. |
Johnson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
William Earl Robinson A.K.A. Edward Baxter v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, William Earl Robinson, a.k.a. Edward Baxter, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The petitioner pled guilty to rape, a Class B felony, and was sentenced to eight years, which was suspended to probation upon acceptance of the plea. After his probationary sentence was revoked, the petitioner filed a post-conviction petition, alleging that his plea was entered unknowingly and involuntarily based upon the ineffective assistance of counsel. On appeal, he specifically contends that trial counsel was ineffective by failing to properly advise the petitioner of his potential range of punishment for the charged offenses prior to his acceptance of the plea. Following review of the record, we find no error and affirm the denial of post-conviction relief. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals |
