Anthony H. Dean v. Joe Easterling, Warden (State of Tennessee)
The Petitioner, Anthony H. Dean, appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court’s denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. We conclude that the State’s motion is meritorious. Accordingly, we grant the State’s motion and affirm the judgment of the lower court. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Curtis Lee Majors - Dissenting
Respectfully, I dissent from the majority view that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction of tampering with evidence. The evidence did not establish the defendant’s guilt of this offense beyond a reasonable doubt. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Curtis Lee Majors
The Davidson County Grand Jury indicted the defendant, Curtis Lee Majors, on one count of possession with intent to sell or deliver less than 0.5 grams of cocaine within 1000 feet of a school, a Class B felony, and one count of tampering with evidence, a Class C felony. After a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of the lesser included offense of misdemeanor possession of cocaine, a Class A misdemeanor.1 The jury also convicted the defendant of evidence tampering as charged in Count 2 of the indictment. The trial court sentenced the defendant to fifteen years in the Department of Correction as a Range III, persistent offender. On appeal, the defendant contends that: (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction for tampering with evidence; (2) the trial court gave an erroneous jury instruction regarding tampering with evidence; and (3) the trial court refused to apply one of the mitigating factors proposed by the defendant at his sentencing hearing. After reviewing the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
De'Andre Kendall v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, De’Andre Kendall, appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court’s denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The petition for post-conviction relief fails as it is barred by the statute of limitations. Accordingly, we grant the State’s motion and affirm the judgment of the lower court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Tony Martin v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Tony Martin, appeals the dismissal of his motion to reopen his petition for post-conviction relief. The petitioner claims on appeal that State v. Gomez, 239 S.W.3d 733 (Tenn. 2007) (Gomez II) established a previously unrecognized constitutional right to have a jury, rather than the trial judge, determine the existence of facts necessary to enhance his sentence. The state has filed a motion requesting that this court affirm the Shelby County Criminal Court’s dismissal of the motion to reopen pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. We grant the state’s motion and affirm the judgment of the criminal court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Quinton Sanders
The defendant, Quinton Sanders, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of murder in the perpetration of a felony. For his conviction, the defendant was sentenced to life in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant raises the following issues: (1) whether the trial court erred in denying a motion to exclude evidence of the defendant’s gang affiliation; (2) whether the trial court properly found that a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination by the state in the exercise of peremptory challenges had not been established; and (3) whether the trial court erred in denying a motion to grant a mistrial. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ronald Donnell Moore v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Ronald Donnell Moore, appeals the judgment of the Shelby County Criminal Court denying post-conviction relief. In 1994, the petitioner was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. In seeking post-conviction relief on appeal, the petitioner argues that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel. Specifically, the petitioner asserts that his counsel was ineffective: (1) in failing to seek proper jury instruction on the burden of proof; (2) in failing to request jury instruction on the lesser-included offenses of first degree murder, in particular, the offenses of reckless homicide and criminally negligent homicide; and (3) in failing to object to the presence of a mannequin in the courtroom. After review, the judgment of the court denying post-conviction relief is affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Evelyn Holly v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Evelyn Holly, appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of her petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, she argues that she received the ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, she argues that her trial counsel was ineffective in failing to investigate the effects of her mental condition and medication which precluded her from meaningful participation in her own defense. Additionally, the petitioner asserts that trial counsel failed to hire an expert to contradict the testimony of the medical examiner and failed to call a witness who would have exonerated her. After a thorough review of the record and the parties’ briefs, the judgment of the post-conviction court denying post-conviction relief is affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William Lee Smith
The Defendant, William Lee Smith, pled guilty in the Sullivan County Criminal Court to four counts of reckless aggravated assault and one count of driving under the influence (DUI). Pursuant to the plea agreement, the Defendant agreed to serve two years of his sentence on supervised probation; the manner of service of the remaining four years of his sentence was left to the determination of the trial court which ordered it served in incarceration. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends that he should have been granted full probation or some other alternative sentence for the four-year sentence. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Shawn Nicholas Ferguson
The defendant, Shawn Nicholas Ferguson, pleaded guilty in the Marshall County Circuit Court to one count of possession with intent to sell marijuana, one count of possession with intent to deliver marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia. After merging the conviction of possession with intent to sell marijuana with the conviction of possession with intent to deliver marijuana, the trial court imposed a fully incarcerative, Range I sentence of one year and one month. The trial court imposed a concurrent 11-month and 29-day sentence for the conviction of possession of drug paraphernalia. In this appeal, the defendant asserts that the trial court erred by ordering a fully incarcerative sentence. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Chad Hughes v. State of Tennessee
Bedford County- Pursuant to a plea agreement, the Petitioner, Chad Hughes, pled guilty to one count of criminal responsibility for the sale of a Schedule II controlled substance, and the trial court ordered the Petitioner to serve eight years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The Petitioner then filed a petition for post-conviction relief claiming he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court denied relief after a hearing, and the Defendant now appeals that denial. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tammy Garner
A Grundy County jury convicted the Defendant, Tammy Garner, of theft of property valued at less than $500. The trial court sentenced her to serve one month in jail, followed by nine months on probation, and to pay $500 in restitution. On appeal, the Defendant claims that: (1) the evidence presented was insufficient to support her conviction; and (2) the trial court erroneously sentenced her. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Grundy | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joseph A. Hale
A Van Buren County jury convicted the Defendant, Joseph A. Hale, of second degree murder, and the trial court sentenced him as a Range I offender to seventeen years in prison. The Defendant appeals, contending that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction because he was justified in using deadly force and because he committed the killing in a state of passion produced by adequate provocation; and (2) the trial court erred when it instructed the jury, precluding it from considering voluntary manslaughter. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Van Buren | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Devon Wiggins
A Dyer County Circuit Court jury convicted the appellant, Devon Wiggins, of two counts of selling one-half gram or more of cocaine within a drug-free school zone, and the trial court sentenced him to twenty-five years for each conviction to be served concurrently with each other but consecutively to prior sentences. The trial court also ordered the appellant to pay a five-thousand-dollar fine for each conviction. On appeal, the appellant contends that (1) Tennessee Code Annotated section 39- 17-432 (2005) violates due process and resulted in his receiving an excessive sentence; (2) the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions; (3) the trial court erred by denying his motion for a bifurcated trial; (4) the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on the sale of a counterfeit substance; (5) the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on facilitation as a lesser included offense; (6) the trial court erred by not recusing itself; (7) the prosecutor’s closing statement was improper; and (8) the cumulative effect of the errors warrants a reversal of his convictions. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jeffrey Mckinnie v. Joe Easterling, Warden
The petitioner, Jeffrey McKinnie, appeals the dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Tracy Lynn Harris v. State of Tennessee
The pro se petitioner, Tracy Lynn Harris, appeals from the Carroll County Circuit Court’s denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the motion. |
Carroll | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael E. Stewart
The defendant, Michael E. Stewart, appeals as of right from his convictions by a Polk County jury of first degree premeditated murder, first degree felony murder in the perpetration of kidnapping, kidnapping, a Class C felony, and tampering with evidence, a Class C felony. The murder convictions were merged, and the defendant was sentenced to life and to eight years for the two Class C felonies, which are to be served concurrently to each other but consecutively to the life sentence, for an effective sentence of life plus eight years. The defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the felony murder and kidnapping convictions and that the trial court erred in admitting evidence that the defendant was taken into custody on outstanding warrants from other charges. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Polk | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Walter Roby
The defendant, Walter Roby, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon, a Class E felony. For his conviction, the defendant was sentenced as a Range II offender to three years incarceration. On appeal, the defendant asserts that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Justin Vaulx
The defendant, Justin Vaulx, appeals from the judgment of the Madison County Circuit Court removing him from community corrections and ordering him to serve his sentence in confinement. Following our review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and the applicable law, we determine no error exists in the court’s revocation of the defendant’s community corrections sentence, and thus affirm the court’s judgment. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. George Anthony Braddock
Appellant, George Anthony Braddock, was indicted for first degree premeditated murder for the death of his wife. Appellant was found guilty by a jury and sentenced to life in prison. On appeal, Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. We determine that the evidence is sufficient to support a conviction for first degree murder. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Houston | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Aaron Duchesne
Following a jury trial, Defendant, Aaron Duchesne, was found guilty of theft of property valued between $10,000 and $60,000, a Class C felony. At the conclusion of Defendant’s sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Defendant as a Range II, multiple offender, to ten years, and ordered Defendant to serve his sentence consecutively to any sentences that might be imposed in case numbers 06-05119 and 06-04963 which were pending in Shelby County at the time of the sentencing hearing. On appeal, Defendant argues that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction; (2) the trial court failed to perform its function as thirteenth juror; and (3) the trial court erred in its sentencing determinations concerning the length of his sentence and in imposing consecutive sentencing. After a thorough review, we affirm Defendant’s theft conviction and the length of his sentence. We reverse the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentencing and remand for entry of a judgment consistent with this opinion. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Tyus
The defendant, Christopher Tyus, was convicted by a Madison County jury of one count of theft over $1000. He was subsequently sentenced to three years and six months as a Range I standard offender. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Abby L. Mills
The defendant, Abby L. Mills, was indicted by the Lauderdale County Grand Jury of possession of a Schedule II controlled substance, cocaine, with the intent to deliver; possession of a Schedule III controlled substance, Hydrocodone, with the intent to deliver; and possession of a Schedule VI controlled substance, marijuana, with the intent to deliver over .5 ounces. After a hearing, the trial court granted defendant’s motion to suppress evidence of items found in the defendant’s home. On appeal, the state asserts that the trial court erred in suppressing the evidence obtained as a result of a valid search warrant. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Eddie Wayne Gordon v. State of Tennessee
The state appeals the post-conviction court’s grant of post-conviction relief to the petitioner, Eddie Wayne Gordon. The state argues that the post-conviction court erroneously determined that the petitioner did not voluntarily and understandingly enter his plea of guilty to first degree murder. Upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we reverse the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Gibson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Louis Mayes
The Defendant-Appellant, Louis Mayes (hereinafter “Mayes”), was convicted by a Shelby County jury of first degree premeditated murder. The only issue Mayes presents for our review is whether the evidence is sufficient to support his conviction. He specifically contends that two witnesses were accomplices as a matter of law and that his conviction was based on their testimony. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals |
