State of Tennessee v. Jesse Wade Glover
Defendant, Jesse Wade Glover, was indicted in count one for initiation of a process to manufacture methamphetamine by beginning the extraction of an immediate methamphetamine precursor from a chemical product, a Class B felony, in count two for promotion of methamphetamine manufacture by possessing more than 9 grams of an immediate methamphetamine precursor with the intent to manufacture methamphetamine, a Class D felony; in count three for promotion of methamphetamine manufacture by acquiring a chemical and an ingredient that could be used to produce methamphetamine knowing that it would be used to produce methamphetamine, a Class D felony; and in count four for possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor. Defendant was tried jointly with co-defendant, Britt Alan Ferguson. Co-defendant Ferguson’s case is not part of this appeal. Following a jury trial, Defendant was found not guilty of the charges in counts one, two, and four, and guilty of the lesser-included offense of facilitation of the promotion of methamphetamine manufacture, a Class E felony, in count three. The trial court sentenced Defendant as a Range II, multiple offender, to four years. On appeal, Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of facilitation of promotion of methamphetamine manufacture. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Obion | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Craig Abston
Defendant, following a jury trial, was convicted of one count of second degree murder and two counts of attempted second degree murder. The trial court sentenced Defendant to twenty years for Count 1, second degree murder, twelve years for Count 2, attempted second degree murder, and eight years for Count 3, attempted second degree murder. Counts 1 and 2 were ordered to run concurrently to each other but consecutively to Count 3 for a total effective sentence of twenty-eight years. On appeal, Defendant argues: (1) the trial court erred in its remarks to the jury venire; (2) the trial court erred in allowing the testimony of Sergeant Berryman that Defendant had two gold teeth at the time he was interviewed; and (3) the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentencing. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the convictions. We reduce the sentence in Count 2 from twelve years to eight years. Further, we reverse the judgments only insofar as they order consecutive sentencing, and remand for a new sentencing hearing solely to determine whether consecutive sentencing should be imposed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Marico Fowler
Following a jury trial, Defendant, Marico Fowler, was convicted of aggravated assault, a Class C felony, reckless endangerment, a Class A misdemeanor, reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon, a Class E felony, and vandalism, a Class A misdemeanor. At the conclusion of the sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Defendant to concurrent sentences of eleven months, twenty-nine days for vandalism, eleven months, twenty-nine days for reckless endangerment, three years for reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon, and ten years for aggravated assault, for an effective sentence of ten years. The felony sentences are as a Range II multiple offender. The trial court ordered Defendant to serve his sentences in confinement. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his request for alternative sentencing. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Demetry Fitzgerald Conley - Dissenting
I respectfully depart from the majority’s determination that Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-501(a)(3)’s mandate for release of a defendant operates upon the aggregate sentencing from two or more counties. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Demetry Fitzgerald Conley
The defendant, Demetry Fitzgerald Conley, pled guilty in four separate cases to multiple counts of forgery and theft. In Lincoln County case number S0700004, the defendant pled guilty to two counts of forgery between $500 and $1000 (Class E felony). In Lincoln County case number S0700062, the defendant pled guilty to one count of forgery between $500 and $1000. For these three convictions, the defendant was sentenced to concurrent two-year sentences, with 365 days to serve in the county jail. In Marshall County case number 17437, the defendant pled guilty to thirty-two counts of forgery up to $1000 (Class E felony). In Marshall County case number 17438, the defendant pled guilty to thirty-four counts of forgery up to $1000 (Class E felony), fifteen counts of theft under $500 (Class A misdemeanor), and two counts of theft of property between $500 and $1000 (Class E felony). The court subsequently imposed a sentence of one-year and six-months for each forgery conviction and eleven months and twenty-nine-day sentences for each theft. Based upon the imposition of partial consecutive sentencing, the effective sentence in the two Marshall County cases was six years, with 365 days to serve. The court further ordered that the Marshall and Lincoln County cases be served consecutively to each other for a total effective sentence of eight years, with two terms of 365 days to be served in the local county jail. The balance of the sentence was to be served on community corrections. On appeal, the defendant raises two issues for our review: (1) whether the trial court erred by ordering a sentence of split confinement rather than a full community corrections sentence and whether the sentence of confinement, as imposed, violates Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-501(a)(3); and (2) whether the trial court erred in sentencing the defendant to the maximum sentence within the range in the Lincoln County cases based upon the application of enhancement factors in violation of the defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights. Following review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court with the following exceptions: 1) remand for entry of corrected judgments as identified supra; and 2) remand for resentencing with regard to the two Class E felony thefts in Marshall County case number 17438 as discussed infra. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Derrann William Estill
A Davidson County Criminal Court jury convicted the appellant, Derrann William Estill, of aggravated kidnapping, and the appellant pled guilty to domestic assault. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced him to concurrent sentences of seventeen years and eleven months, twenty-nine days, respectively. On appeal, the appellant contends that (1) the trial court erred by failing to define “possession” adequately when the jury requested a definition during deliberations, (2) the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction for aggravated kidnapping, and (3) his sentence for aggravated kidnapping is excessive. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tommy Dale Taylor, Sr.
The defendant, Tommy Dale Taylor, Sr., was convicted by a Tipton County jury of three counts of rape of a child, a Class A felony, for the rape of his granddaughter, who was seven years old when the abuse was discovered. He was subsequently sentenced by the trial court to eighteen years for each count with the sentences to be served concurrently, for an effective eighteen-year sentence at 100 percent in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the convictions and that the trial court erred by excluding evidence of the victim’s alleged prior sexual abuse, admitting a photograph of the victim’s vaginal and anal areas, allowing the trial to continue too long in one day and the jury to deliberate into the late evening hours, and not properly instructing the jury on the election of offenses. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Tipton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Donald Lynn Miller v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Donald Lynn Miller, appeals the denial of post-conviction relief in the Criminal Court for Knox County from his convictions for felony murder and especially aggravated robbery. The trial court imposed consecutive sentences of life and twenty-three years. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the trial court erred in finding that he did not receive the ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Darrin Bonner
The Defendant-Appellant, Darrin Bonner (“Bonner”), was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of intentionally evading arrest in a motor vehicle, a Class D felony, and was later sentenced to six years in confinement. On appeal, Bonner argues that: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction; (2) the trial court erred in admitting hearsay testimony; and (3) the cumulative effect of the errors at trial deprived him of his federal and state constitutional rights. Following our review, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William Edwin Harris
The Defendant, William Edwin Harris, pled guilty to two counts of aggravated statutory rape, a Class D felony, with an agreed sentence of three years on each count, to be served consecutively, for an effective sentence of six years. The manner of service of the sentences was to be determined by the trial court following a sentencing hearing. The trial court ordered the Defendant to serve the first three-year sentence in the Tennessee Department of Correction (“TDOC”), with the last three-year sentence to be served on probation. The Defendant appeals, contending: (1) the trial court erroneously admitted several victim impact statements during his sentencing hearing; and (2) the trial court erred when it denied him full probation. After a thorough review of the record and relevant authorities, we conclude the victim impact statements were properly admitted, and the trial court properly sentenced the Defendant. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the trial court |
Grundy | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ricky Johnson v. State of Tennessee
The pro se petitioner, Ricky Johnson, appeals the circuit court’s denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The state has filed a motion pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals, for this court to affirm the judgment of the circuit court by memorandum opinion. We grant the motion and affirm the judgment of the court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Terence Alan Carder
The defendant, Terence Alan Carder, pled guilty to theft of property over $1,000 but less than $10,000 and received a sentence of two years to be served on probation after service of 60 days in jail. The defendant was also ordered to provide restitution to the victim in the amount of $80,000 to be paid back at $1,000 per month. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in ordering confinement and setting restitution. Following our review, we affirm the sentence as imposed but conclude that the trial court made inadequate findings in assessing restitution pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-304. Therefore, we remand for reconsideration of the restitution award based upon the required findings. |
McNairy | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Dalton Lister
The defendant, Dalton Lister, appeals from his jury convictions in the Bradley County Criminal Court for first degree felony murder; two counts of attempted aggravated robbery, a Class C felony; and conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery, a Class C felony. He received a life sentence, with concurrent sentences of six years as a Range I, standard offender for each Class C felony. On appeal, the defendant contends (1) that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of the charged offenses; (2) that the trial court erred in not permitting cross-examination regarding a severed defendant’s outstanding arrest warrant, pending charges, status as a fugitive, and possible bias to fabricate testimony to obtain a favorable disposition of the pending charges; (3) that the trial court erred by failing to suppress a recorded statement of the defendant when the original recording was intentionally destroyed and lost by the detective who had possession of it; and (4) that the trial court erred in not ordering disclosure of the detective’s statement to the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation concerning the lost and destroyed original recording of the defendant’s statement taken the night of the homicide. We hold that the evidence was sufficient to convict the defendant of the charges and that the defendant waived his remaining issues by not filing a timely motion for new trial, and we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Bradley | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Derrick Brandon Wells
A jury convicted the Defendant, Derrick Brandon Wells, of both the sale and delivery of over .5 grams of a Schedule II controlled substance, crack-cocaine. The trial court merged the convictions and sentenced the Defendant as a Range II, multiple offender to twenty years and fined the Defendant $75,000. The Defendant appeals, contending the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of the sale of crack-cocaine. After reviewing the record and relevant authorities, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Charlton Garner
The defendant, Charlton Garner, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of second degree murder, a Class A felony; attempted second degree murder, a Class B felony; and reckless endangerment, a Class E felony. He was subsequently sentenced by the trial court to an effective sentence of twentyeight years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he raises the single issue of sufficiency of the evidence with regard to each of the convictions. Specifically, he argues that the evidence presented at trial supports his theory of self-defense. Following review of the record, we affirm the judgments of conviction. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Arterio Holman
The defendant, Arterio Holman, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of simple possession of cocaine and possession with intent to deliver 26 grams or more of cocaine. The trial court merged the simple possession conviction with the possession with intent to deliver convictionand sentenced the defendant as a Range I offender to eleven years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues that (1) the trial court erred in allowing an officer to testify as an expert on drug intent to deliver more than 26 grams of cocaine, (3) the trial court imposed an excessive sentence, and (4) cumulative error compromised his rights to a fair trial and due process. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Chanceller Chatman
The defendant, Chanceller Chatman, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of one count of felony murder, one count of especially aggravated robbery, and four counts of aggravated robbery. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for the felony murder conviction, fifteen years for the especially aggravated robbery conviction, eight years each for two of the aggravated robbery convictions, and twelve years each for the remaining aggravated robbery convictions. The trial court ordered that the life sentence for felony murder and the fifteen-year especially aggravated robbery sentence be served concurrently to each other. The court further ordered that the aggravated robbery sentences be served consecutively to each other and consecutively to the life plus fifteen-year sentence, for an effective sentence of life plus forty years. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence in support of his felony murder conviction and the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Deangelo Davis
The defendant, Deangelo Davis, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of criminal attempt to commit first degree murder, a Class A felony. For his conviction, the defendant received a sentence of twenty-five years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant raises the following issues: (1) whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion for a mistrial; (2) whether evidence of a fight between the defendant’s cousin and the victim’s uncle was properly admitted; and (3) whether the trial court erred in refusing to allow the defendant to impeach the victim’s testimony with evidence of a prior conviction. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jeremy Paul Duffer
A Davidson County Criminal Court jury convicted the appellant, Jeremy Paul Duffer, of the following indicted offenses: Seven counts of rape of a child, four counts of aggravated sexual battery, two counts of especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor, and two counts of failure to appear. After a sentencing hearing, the appellant received an effective sentence of one hundred thirty-seven years in confinement. On appeal, the appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions and that his effective sentence is excessive. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Gary V. Bullard
The Defendant, Gary V. Bullard, was charged with one count of aggravated assault and one count of attempted aggravated rape. Following a jury trial, he was found guilty of both counts. In this direct appeal, he argues that (1) the State presented evidence sufficient to convict him of simple assault, but not aggravated assault; and (2) the State presented evidence insufficient to convict him of attempted aggravated rape. After our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Marcus Rogers v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Marcus Rogers, appeals from the post-conviction court’s denial of post-conviction relief as it relates to the petitioner’s convictions on one count of second degree murder and two counts of attempted second degree murder. On appeal, the petitioner argues that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. Following our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court denying post-conviction relief. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Nicholas Fletcher
Following a jury trial, Defendant, Nicholas Fletcher was found guilty of first degree felony murder, attempted especially aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, and aggravated assault, a Class C felony. Defendant was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender, to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole for his felony murder conviction, eight years for his attempted especially aggravated robbery conviction, and three years for his aggravated assault conviction. The trial court ordered Defendant to serve his sentences concurrently for an effective sentence of life with the possibility of parole. On appeal, Defendant argues that (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress; (2) the prosecutor engaged in prosecutorial misconduct during the cross examination of Cordareyes Torry; and (3) the cumulative effect of these errors denied Defendant his constitutional right to a fair trial. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Kenyale Pirtle v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Kenyale Pirtle (“Pirtle”), appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. In this appeal, Pirtle raises a single issue for our review. He argues that the trial court erred in granting the motion to dismiss because the Attorney General and Reporter, acting through one of his assistants, had no authority to file a motion to dismiss in the habeas court. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Haywood | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Susan Gail Stephens
The Defendant, Susan Gail Stephens, was charged with two counts of statutory rape and two counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. The State denied her application for pretrial diversion, and she petitioned for a writ of certiorari to review the State’s decision. The Circuit Court of Coffee County upheld the denial of pretrial diversion. The Defendant now appeals, arguing that the State, in its memorandum, considered irrelevant factors and failed to consider all relevant factors. After our review, we vacate the judgment of the trial court and direct that this case be remanded to the district attorney general for further consideration. |
Coffee | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ricky Lee Nelson v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Ricky Lee Nelson, appeals the criminal court’s dismissal of his petition for postconviction relief. The state has filed a motion requesting that this court affirm the court’s judgment pursuant to Rule 20 of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals. We conclude that the state’s motion is meritorious. Accordingly, we grant the state’s motion and affirm the judgment. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals |
