State of Tennessee v. Ronald Lee Stewart
The Defendant, Ronald Lee Stewart, appeals as of right from his convictions in the Marshall County Circuit Court for one count of aggravated burglary, a Class C felony, one count of theft of property valued at less than five hundred dollars, a Class A misdemeanor, and one count of theft of property valued between one thousand and ten thousand dollars, a Class D felony. The Defendant received an effective sentence of twelve years to be served in incarceration. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant claims that his convictions are constitutionally infirm due to juror fatigue and that the trial court erred in sentencing him as a persistent offender. Following our review, we conclude that the Defendant failed to prepare an accurate record of the subject of this appeal and his issues are waived. Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Nelson
The defendant, James Nelson, was convicted of reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon, a Class E felony, as a lesser included offense of the indicted offense of aggravated assault. He was sentenced, as a Range III, persistent offender, to six years in confinement. On appeal, he contends that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction and that he was sentenced improperly. After careful review, we affirm the judgment from the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Linn Cook v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Linn Cook, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief and argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and that he was improperly sentenced in violation of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). After careful review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of relief.
|
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Augustine J. Leon v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Augustine J. Leon, pled guilty to evading arrest and reckless endangerment, both Class E felonies, and eleven other misdemeanor traffic offenses. The Petitioner received an effective sentence of two years as a Range I, standard offender, to be served in the Department of Correction consecutively to a previously imposed sentence of three years, for a total effective sentence of five years. The Petitioner filed a post-conviction petition attacking his convictions and sentence based upon his alleged mental incompetence at the time of the guilty plea, failure of the State and the trial court to disclose his mental illness, and the failure of trial counsel to seek a mental evaluation prior to the entry of his guilty pleas. The post-conviction court summarily dismissed the petition as time-barred. In this appeal as of right, the Petitioner argues that due process concerns necessitated tolling the statute of limitations for filing his petition, and therefore the post-conviction court improperly dismissed the petition. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Nakomis Jones v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Nakomis Jones, appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of his petition for postconviction relief, arguing that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal. Following our review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of post-conviction relief. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michelle Bishop
The defendant, Michelle Bishop, pleaded guilty in the Sullivan County Circuit Court to three counts of theft of property valued at $500 or less, one count of theft of property valued at $1,000 or more but less than $10,000, two counts of identity theft, two counts of forgery, and one count of failure to appear in exchange for an effective sentence of five years with the manner of service of the sentence to be determined by the trial court. The trial court ordered a fully incarcerative sentence, and the defendant now appeals, claiming she should have been granted probation or other alternative sentencing. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ronald Stephen Blodgett
The defendant, Ronald Stephen Blodgett, entered an open plea of guilty in the Marshall County Circuit Court to the offense of driving after being declared a habitual motor vehicle offender, a Class E felony. The trial court sentenced the defendant to six years in the Tennessee Department of Correction as a career offender. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court should have ordered that he serve his sentence in community corrections. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Alfred Gene Bullock
After the entry of a best-interest plea to felony child abuse, a Fentress County trial court denied judicial diversion for Appellant, Alfred Gene Bullock. The trial court sentenced Appellant to three years as a Range I, standard offender. Appellant appeals the denial of judicial diversion. After a review of the record, we determine that the trial court considered the factors required for the grant or denial of judicial diversion and did not abuse its discretion in denying judicial diversion to Appellant. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Fentress | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Reginald Marcel Gibbs
The defendant, Reginald Marcel Gibbs, was convicted by a Davidson County Criminal Court jury of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, and pled guilty to possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor, and felon in possession of a handgun, a Class E felony. He was sentenced to fifteen years as a Range II offender on the aggravated robbery conviction; eleven months, twenty-nine days on the possession of drug paraphernalia conviction; and five years as a Range III offender on the felon in possession of a handgun conviction. The court ordered that the fifteen and five-year sentences be served consecutively for an effective term of twenty years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence and the sentence imposed by the trial court. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jasper Lee Vick v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Jasper Lee Vick, appeals the Hardeman County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The State has filed a motion requesting that we affirm the lower court’s judgment pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Because the petitioner has failed to establish that his convictions are void or his sentences illegal, we conclude that the State’s motion is well-taken. Accordingly, we affirm the summary dismissal of the petition. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Monolito B. Cooper v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Monolito B. Cooper, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that his 1999 and 2002 sentences have expired due to the application of certain pretrial jail credits. The trial court denied the petition, and the petitioner appealed. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Bradley | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Donald Ragland
The Defendant, Donald Ragland, was convicted by a jury of one count of first degree premeditated murder. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-202. He was sentenced to life, with the possibility of parole, in the Department of Correction. In this direct appeal, he contends that: (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress a statement he made to police; (2) the trial court erred in excluding a certified copy of a traffic citation received by the Defendant’s alibi witness; and (3) the State presented evidence insufficient to convict him. After our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jessica Patton Parks
The Defendant, Jessica Patton Parks, pled guilty to aggravated domestic assault in exchange for a three-year suspended sentence to be served on supervised probation. Following the filing of a revocation warrant and an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found that the Defendant had violated the conditions of her probation and ordered her to serve her sentence in incarceration. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering her to serve her sentence in confinement. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Derrell F. Nunn, Sr. and Jamila Nunn
The Defendants, Derrell F. Nunn, Sr. and Jamila Nunn, appeal from their convictions by a jury in the Criminal Court for Hamilton County for aggravated child abuse, a Class A felony. The trial court imposed a sentence of twenty years to be served at one hundred percent for each Defendant. On appeal, the Defendants contend that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to convict them and that the trial court erred in not granting their motions for judgment of acquittal. We affirm the judgments of conviction. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Randy Bernard Braswell - Concurring
I concur in the majority opinion but write separately to express the views (1) that the statutes proscribing child abuse and child neglect are needlessly complex and (2) that our controlling case law does not invite helpful application of the child abuse statute by applying the “knowing” scienter to “treating a child in an abusive manner.” (Emphasis added.) |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Randy Bernard Braswell
A Hamilton County jury convicted the Defendant, Randy Bernard Braswell, of second degree murder and aggravated child abuse, both Class A felonies. The Defendant appeals, arguing that (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions; and (2) he was prejudiced by the manner in which a transcript of one of the Defendant’s interviews with police—a transcript which was admitted into evidence for identification only—was redacted. After reviewing the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. George Timmons
The Defendant, George Timmons, was convicted by a Hamilton County jury of two counts of rape, one count of aggravated sexual battery, one count of assault, and one count of aggravated domestic assault. The Defendant received an effective sentence of life without parole as a multiple rapist. In this appeal as of right, he argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions and that the trial court erred in sentencing him to life without parole as a multiple rapist and in enhancing his other sentences beyond the presumptive minimum. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Cedric Jeffries v. Steven Dotson, Warden
The pro se petitioner, Cedric Jeffries, appeals the Hardeman County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Following our review, we affirm the dismissal of the petition. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Everett Daniel Meador, III
After a jury trial, the Defendant, Everett Daniel Meador, III, was convicted of driving under the influence (DUI), first offense, a Class A misdemeanor. The Defendant appeals, contending that because the arresting officers lacked probable cause to arrest him, the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence resulting from his arrest. The Defendant also contends that the trial court improperly denied his motion for a mistrial, which was based upon the results of his breathalyzer test, that were submitted to the jury after the trial court ruled that the results were inadmissible. After determining that a mistrial should have been declared, we reverse the judgment of the trial court, and we remand the case for a new trial. |
Washington | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Bernardo Lane v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Bernardo Lane, appeals the denial of relief from his petition for writ of error coram nobis. He was convicted of first degree felony murder, first degree premeditated murder, and four counts of aggravated robbery. On appeal, he argues that he has received newly discovered evidence in the form of an affidavit signed by a codefendant, which purports to exonerate the petitioner from all wrongdoing. After careful review, we affirm the denial of error coram nobis relief. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. David Anthony Avery and Frederick Alexander Avery, (a/k/a Alex Avery)
A Davidson County jury convicted the Defendants, David Anthony Avery and Frederick Alexander |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Cortez Griffin
The defendant, Cortez Griffin, and two co-defendants, Marquette Milan and Preston Deener, broke into a rooming house to rob the victim, Lannie McMillan, who was fatally shot. A grand jury indicted the defendant on charges of first degree murder, felony murder, and especially aggravated robbery. The trial court sentenced the defendant to life imprisonment and a concurrent sentence of twenty years for his conviction of especially aggravated robbery. The defendant has appealed raising issues which we summarize as follows: (1) whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to suppress his statements which he asserts were not voluntary, were not made subsequent to a intelligent, knowing, and voluntary waiver of rights, were not recorded and were obtained subsequent to unlawful arrests; (2) whether the trial court erred in not granting a mistrial after a police officer testified regarding the content of a co-defendant’s statement; (3) whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss the felony murder charge; and (4) whether the trial court erred in allowing the testimony of a police officer that it was common for a defendant to minimize his or her role in a crime. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Charles Hall
On November 8, 2007, a Shelby County jury convicted the defendant, Charles Hall, of two counts of aggravated robbery. The trial court sentenced him to life without parole as a repeat violent offender. On appeal, the defendant submits that the trial court erred in (1) admitting prior convictions for aggravated robbery for impeachment purposes and (2) denying the defendant’s motion for mistrial. Upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Joseph B. Thompson v. Tony Parker, Warden (State of Tennessee)
The Petitioner, Joseph B. Thompson, was convicted by a Sullivan County Criminal Court jury of aggravated robbery and aggravated kidnapping, Class B felonies. He was sentenced as a Range II, multiple offender to twenty years at thirty-five percent for the aggravated robbery conviction and as a Range II, violent offender to twenty years at one hundred percent for the aggravated kidnapping conviction, which were to be served consecutively, for an effective sentence of forty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. He filed a pro se petition for habeas corpus relief in the Lake County Circuit Court, which was dismissed. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that his judgments are void because his sentences exceed the statutory minimum, thereby violating Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). Upon review, we affirm the judgment summarily dismissing the petition for writ of habeas corpus. |
Lake | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Vario Tally
The defendant, Vario Tally, was convicted of aggravated robbery and carjacking, both Class B felonies, and sentenced as a Range II, multiple offender to eighteen years and twenty years, respectively. The trial court ordered that the sentences be served consecutively for a total effective sentence of thirty-eight years. On appeal, he argues that the proof was insufficient to sustain the conviction for aggravated robbery and that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals |
