State of Tennessee v. Shairiq Seabrooks
The defendant, Shairiq Seabrooks, was indicted on charges of first degree felony murder and first degree murder. After a jury trial, the trial court granted the defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal as to the felony murder charge and the charge of first degree murder remained. The jury convicted the defendant of the lesser-included offense of second degree murder and the defendant was sentenced as a standard Range I offender to serve twenty-two years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The defendant has appealed, raising the following issues: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction of second degree murder; (2) whether the trial court erred in excluding testimony regarding the victim’s prior arrest for the unlawful possession of a weapon; (3) whether the trial court erred in excluding testimony as inadmissible hearsay; (4) whether the jury charge concerning reasonable doubt was unconstitutional; and (5) whether the court erred in charging the jury on second degree murder. Following our review of the parties’ briefs, the record, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Monique Y. Croom v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Monique Y. Croom, appeals the denial of post-conviction relief, contending that she received ineffective assistance of counsel based on trial counsel’s failure to: (1) maintain proper records, (2) adequately investigate her case and interview certain witnesses, (3) expedite her mental health evaluation, and (4) explain the types of homicide and the difference between consecutive and concurrent sentencing. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Chester | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John Anthony Cline
The Defendant-Appellant, John Anthony Cline, was convicted by a Henry County Circuit Court jury of theft of property worth $1,000 or more but less than $10,000. The State filed a notice of intent to seek enhanced punishment based on several prior convictions. The trial court sentenced Cline as a Range II, multiple offender and imposed an eight-year sentence at thirty-five percent. In this appeal, Cline challenges (1) the sufficiency of the evidence and (2) the sufficiency of the State’s notice to seek enhanced punishment. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Henry | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Donald Thomas Stagner v. State of Tennessee
On November 3, 2006, the petitioner, Donald Thomas Stagner, pled guilty to aggravated burglary and theft over $500 and was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to four years and one and onehalf years, respectively. The court ordered that the sentences would be served concurrently and suspended after ninety days. On October 18, 2007, the petitioner sought post-conviction relief, asserting that his pleas of guilty were unknowing and that trial counsel was ineffective. Following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief by order entered on February 4, 2008. The defendant filed his notice of appeal on March 13, 2008, and the State argues that the notice of appeal was untimely and, thus, this appeal should be dismissed. Following our review, we affirm the dismissal of the petition for post-conviction relief. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Don Wayne Williams
The defendant, Don Wayne Williams, was convicted by a Madison County jury of resisting arrest, a Class B misdemeanor, and felony failure to appear, a Class E felony. He was later sentenced by the trial court to six months for the resisting arrest conviction and as a career offender to six years for the failure to appear conviction. His sole issue on appeal is whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain his conviction for failure to appear. Based on our review, we conclude that the State presented sufficient evidence from which a rational jury could find the defendant guilty of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ronnie Henry
The defendant, Ronnie Henry, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of four counts of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, and four counts of robbery, a Class C felony. The counts involving the same victims were merged, resulting in two convictions for aggravated robbery and two convictions for robbery, and the defendant was sentenced by the trial court to an effective sentence of seventy years in the Department of Correction. In his original direct appeal, the defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence and alleged that the trial court erred in limiting the testimony of a witness and in its sentencing determinations. See State v. Ronnie Henry, No. W2006-00344-CCA-R3-CD, 2008 WL 450459 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 19, 2008), perm. to appeal denied (Tenn. Sept. 29, 2008). We affirmed the convictions but remanded for resentencing “in compliance with Gomez II [State v. Gomez, 239 S.W.3d 733 (Tenn. 2007)] and our standard principles of sentencing.” Id. at *5. On remand, the trial court again sentenced the defendant to an effective sentence of seventy years in the Department of Correction. In this appeal, the pro se defendant raises issues relating to the State’s alleged untimely filing of its notice of enhanced punishment; the trial court’s ruling on the State’s motion in limine with respect to the testimony of a defense witness; and the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentencing. The State responds by arguing that the first two issues are waived and that the record supports the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentencing. We agree with the State and, accordingly, affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Jackson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Thomas David Williams v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Thomas David Williams, appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief in which he alleged that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, Petitioner contends that trial counsel failed to provide him with discovery until after the guilty plea was entered. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that Petitioner has failed to show that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel and affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court |
Warren | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kim Geselbracht
On January 22, 2009, the Rhea County Criminal Court dismissed two counts of driving under the influence (“DUI”) against the defendant, Kim Geselbracht. The trial court determined that a law enforcement officer’s ignoring the defendant’s repeated requests for an independent blood test for blood alcohol content (“BAC”) denied the defendant his constitutional and statutory rights. The State appeals, arguing that the trial court erred by dismissing the charges. Upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Rhea | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William Keith Paulson, alias
The defendant, William Keith Paulson, was convicted by a Knox County jury of reckless endangerment, a Class E felony; two counts of felony evading arrest, Class D felonies; evading arrest, a Class A misdemeanor; driving without a license, a Class C misdemeanor; and violation of the state registration law, a Class C misdemeanor. Subsequently, he was sentenced to an effective eighteen-year sentence, as a career offender, in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he raises the single issue of whether double jeopardy principles require the merger of his convictions for reckless endangerment, felony evading arrest, and evading arrest into a single conviction for felony evading arrest. Following review of the record, we conclude that the two counts for felony evading arrest should have been merged into a single count as they were simply alternative charges for the same conduct. Further, we determine that the misdemeanor evading arrest should have also been merged with the felony evading arrest as it represented a single course of conduct. However, merger of the single remaining felony evading arrest and the reckless endangerment convictions is not required. As such, the case is remanded for entry of corrected judgments of conviction in accordance with this opinion. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Roger Glenn Dile
A Davidson County jury convicted the Defendant, Roger Glenn Dile, of rape of a child, a Class A felony; attempted rape of a child, a Class B felony; and two counts of aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony. The trial court imposed a total effective sentence of thirty-two years to be served at 100% as a child rapist. The Defendant appeals, contending: (1) the evidence, as a matter of law, was insufficient to support his convictions because the proof at trial fatally varied from his indictments; (2) the trial court erred when it failed to merge one of his aggravated sexual battery convictions into his rape of a child conviction; and (3) the trial court erred when it set the length and alignment of his sentences. After a thorough review of the record and relevant authorities, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James Young v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, James Young, filed a timely petition for post-conviction relief and two amended petitions for post-conviction relief. He appeals the denial of post-conviction relief, contending that he received ineffective assistance of counsel based on trial counsel’s failure to: (1) impeach a State’s witness, (2) subpoena an eyewitness to testify, and (3) request a jury instruction on selfdefense. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tony Curtis Holmes
The defendant, Tony Curtis Holmes, was convicted of one count of first degree premeditated murder and one count of attempted first degree premeditated murder, a Class A felony. He was sentenced to consecutive life sentences. On appeal, he contends that the trial court abused its discretion in three areas: failing to grant a mistrial; allowing irrelevant testimony; and allowing hearsay testimony. After careful review, we conclude no error exists and affirm the judgments from the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Corey Eshmon
The defendant, Corey Eshmon, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of one count of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony; two counts of aggravated assault, a Class C felony; and one count of theft of property under $500, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced him as a Range I offender to eight years for the aggravated robbery conviction, three years for each of the aggravated assault convictions, and eleven months, twenty-nine days for the theft conviction. Finding the defendant to be a dangerous offender, the court ordered that the robbery sentence run consecutively to one of the assault sentences, for an effective sentence of eleven years in the Department of Correction. In a timely appeal to this court, the defendant raises the following issues: (1) whether the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress witness identifications; (2) whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions; and (3) whether the trial court erred in ordering consecutive sentencing. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Angelo Allen
The defendant, Angelo Allen, was convicted of possession of cocaine and two counts of possession of marijuana, all Class A misdemeanors. The defendant was sentenced to eleven months and twentynine days for each conviction. The court ordered that the marijuana convictions be merged and that the remaining two convictions run concurrently, for a total effective sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days. The defendant raises four issues on appeal: (1) the trial court improperly denied his motion to suppress; (2) count two of his indictment should have been dismissed; (3) venue was not established at trial; and (4) he was sentenced improperly. After careful review, we conclude that the motion to suppress was properly denied, count two was proper, and venue was established. However, we remand for affixing a percentage of the sentence to be served by the defendant. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Gregory L. Smith v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Gregory L. Smith, appeals the Madison County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The petitioner is currently serving a twelve-year sentence following his conviction for aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony. On appeal, he contends that the postconviction court erred in determining that he received the effective assistance of counsel. Specifically, he contends that trial counsel was ineffective by failing to: (1) adequately investigate; 2) adequately communicate with the petitioner, provide and discuss discovery, prepare the petitioner to testify, and convey plea offers; (3) elicit facts helpful to the defense at trial; and (4) interview and call witnesses for the defense. Following review of the record, we find no error and affirm the denial of post-conviction relief. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
William Arthur Shelton v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, William Arthur Shelton, appeals from the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. In this appeal, he contends that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Bradley | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Danny Ray Lacy v. Cherry Lindamood, Warden, and State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Danny Ray Lacy, was convicted by a jury of first degree murder and sentenced to life without parole. The Petitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus relief, contending that his conviction was void due to erroneous jury instructions at trial and ineffective assistance of counsel. The Wayne County Circuit summarily dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner had failed to state a cognizable claim for relief. After our review of the record, we agree and affirm the order summarily dismissing the petition. |
Wayne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Alejandro Avila-Salazar v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Alejandro Avila-Salazar, pleaded guilty on September 6, 2006, to one count of second degree murder and one count of attempted aggravated rape. He was sentenced to serve forty years for the second degree murder conviction and twelve years for the attempted aggravated rape conviction, those sentences to be served concurrently at 100%. He later filed a petition for postconviction relief alleging that his guilty plea was not knowingly and intelligently entered because he received ineffective assistance of counsel. A post-conviction hearing was held on March 10, 2008, after which the post-conviction court denied the Petitioner relief. In this appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred in holding that he received the effective assistance of counsel and that he entered his guilty plea knowingly and intelligently. After our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Corey Danielle Wellman
A Davidson County Criminal Court jury convicted the defendant, Corey Danielle Wellman, of one count of possessing with intent to sell .5 grams or more of cocaine, one count of possession of drug paraphernalia, one count of attempted felony possession of a weapon, and one count of introducing contraband into a penal facility. The defendant appeals his convictions, maintaining that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence that he argues resulted from an illegal search. The defendant also challenges the sufficiency of evidence for all his convictions except for his introducing contraband into a penal facility conviction. We hold that the defendant has waived his suppression issue. We affirm the judgments of the trial court regarding his drug and drug paraphernalia convictions, and we reverse his attempted felony possession of a weapon conviction, and dismiss that charge. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Corey Gilliam
The Defendant-Appellant, Corey Gilliam, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of theft of property valued at over $1,000, felon in possession of a handgun, leaving the scene of an accident resulting in injury, and driving on a suspended license. He was sentenced to twelve years as a career offender for the theft of property conviction, six years as a career offender for the felon in possession of a handgun conviction, eleven months and twenty-nine days for the leaving the scene of an accident resulting in injury conviction, and eleven months and twenty-nine days for the second or subsequent driving on a suspended license conviction. The trial court ordered the sentences to be served consecutively. In this appeal, the defendant argues: (1) the insufficiency of the evidence; (2) the trial court erred by providing the jury with an instruction on reasonable doubt that was unconstitutional; (3) the trial court erred by finding that the defendant’s 2007 conviction for aggravated robbery was admissible for impeachment; (4) the imposition of consecutive sentencing violated the Sixth Amendment; (5) the State failed to elect when the defendant drove on a suspended license in the indictment; and (6) the jury instructions for leaving the scene of an accident resulting in injury and driving on a suspended license failed to charge a mens rea. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James Miller v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, James Leon Miller (hereinafter “the petitioner”), was convicted by a jury of criminal responsibility for first degree murder and criminal responsibility for aggravated assault. He now appeals the denial of post-conviction relief, claiming “the trial court erred in finding that the trial court counsel effectively assisted and represented the [petitioner].” Upon our review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Gibson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Brian David Thomason
Pursuant to Rule 9 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, the Defendant-Appellant, Brian David Thomason (“Thomason”), appeals from the denial of his application for pretrial diversion to the Gibson County District Attorney General’s office, which was upheld by the trial court. Upon review of the record and applicable authority, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this matter to the trial court to grant Thomason pretrial diversion under such terms and conditions as are deemed appropriate under all circumstances. |
Gibson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Wiley Rathbone
The Defendant, Wiley Rathbone, was convicted by a jury in Cocke County Circuit Court of three counts of aggravated assault, Class C felonies, and one count of domestic assault, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court imposed sentences of five years for each aggravated assault offense and eleven months and twenty-nine days for the domestic assault offense, ordering all sentences to be served concurrently except for one aggravated assault sentence which is to be served consecutively and on probation, for a total effective sentence of five years incarceration followed by five years probation. In this appeal as of right, he contends (1) that the State’s comments before the jury denied him a fair trial, (2) that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions, and (3) that the trial court imposed an excessive sentence both in length and manner of service. Following our review, we affirm the convictions but remand the case for reconsideration of the lengths of the sentences and imposition of consecutive sentences. |
Cocke | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Timothy Garvin Odom
Following a jury trial, Defendant, Timothy Garvin Odom, was found guilty of rape of a child, a Class A felony. The trial court sentenced Defendant as a Range One, standard offender, to eighteen years. On appeal, Defendant argues that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction; (2) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his statement; and (3) the trial court erred in its sentencing determinations. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jonathan Fredrick Walker
The State appeals the trial court’s grant of a motion to suppress the evidence seized as a result of a search of the vehicle of Defendant, Jonathan Frederick Walker. The seized items led to Defendant’s indictment for possession of more than 0.5 grams of cocaine with the intent to sell or deliver. Because the State was unable to prosecute the case without the suppressed evidence, the trial court entered an order dismissing the charges against the Defendant. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Obion | Court of Criminal Appeals |
