State of Tennessee v. Michael Matthew Landers
The defendant, Michael Matthew Landers, was convicted of driving under the influence (DUI) and driving under the influence per se, Class A misdemeanors, in the Davidson County Criminal Court. He was subsequently sentenced to concurrent terms of eleven months and twenty-nine days, four days of which was to be served in the county jail. On appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury with regard to the defense of necessity. Following review of the record, we agree with the defendant that the facts of the case, when viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant, support such a charge. As such, we reverse the convictions and remand the case for a new trial. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Mario Andre McElrath
The defendant, Mario Andre McElrath, was convicted of the attempted sale of .5 grams or more of cocaine within one thousand feet of a school zone. On direct appeal, this court found plain error in the trial court’s imposition of a ten-year, Range I sentence for a Class B felony and remanded for resentencing for a Class C felony. State v. Mario Andre McElrath, No. W2006-02621-CCA-R3-CD, 2007 WL 4245723 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 3, 2007). On resentencing, the trial court imposed a sentence of four years for a Class C felony for a violation of the Drug Free School Zone Act (DFSZA). In this appeal as of right, the defendant argues that the exemption from increased incarceration provided in Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-17-432(b)(3) should apply to the release eligibility provision of section -432(c). Following our review, we conclude that the exemption does not apply to the release eligibility provision and affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Obion | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Daniel Earl Williams
A Madison County jury convicted the defendant, Daniel Earl Williams, of one count of driving under the influence, first offense, a Class A misdemeanor, one count of violation of the implied consent law, a Class A misdemeanor, one count of violation of the registration law, a Class C misdemeanor, and one count of violation of the open container law, a Class C misdemeanor. Following trial, the defendant submitted to having seven prior driving under the influence offenses and was convicted of driving under the influence, eighth offense, a Class E felony. The trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range I offender to serve two years in the custody of the Department of Correction. The defendant’s sole issue on appeal is that the evidence produced at trial was insufficient to support his felony conviction. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Antonio Arnold v. State of Tennessee
The pro se petitioner, Antonio Arnold, appeals as of right the Shelby County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. The post-conviction court dismissed the petition based upon its finding that the petition did not contain sufficient and specific factual bases in support of his claim for relief. Following our review, we reverse the judgment of the post-conviction court and remand the case for an evidentiary hearing. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Henry Lee Hawkins, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Henry Lee Hawkins, Jr., appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions on four counts of aggravated robbery and effective sentence of 34 years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the petitioner argues that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. After reviewing the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Andrew Michael Rodriguez
A Hardeman County grand jury indicted the defendant, Andrew Michael Rodriguez, for one count of rape of a child, a Class A felony. The defendant entered a best interest plea to one count of sexual battery by an authority figure, a Class C felony, with an agreed sentence of six years as a Range I, standard offender. The manner of service of the sentence was left to the discretion of the trial court. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court denied the defendant’s request for judicial diversion, probation, or other alternative sentencing and ordered the defendant’s sentence to be served in the custody of the Department of Correction. In this appeal as of right, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his request for probation or alternative sentencing. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Nabeeh Jameel Mateen
The defendant, Nabeeh Jameel Mateen, was convicted by a Davidson County Criminal Court jury of especially aggravated robbery, a Class A felony, and was sentenced by the trial court to forty years as a Range II, multiple offender. On appeal, the defendant contends that the evidence is not sufficient to support his conviction and that the trial court erred in sentencing regarding an enhancement factor and a mitigating factor. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Betsy B. Hull
The Defendant-Appellant, Betsy B. Hull (“Hull”) appeals the revocation of her probation by the Circuit Court for Fayette County. She contends that the trial court erred in denying her motion to continue and in its decision to revoke her probation. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Fayette | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Anthony Drake
Upon his pleas of guilty, the Defendant, Anthony Drew Drake, was convicted of one count of burglary of a building other than a habitation (a Class D felony), eight counts of burglary of an automobile (Class E felonies) and six counts of misdemeanor theft. Sentencing was left to the discretion of the trial court. Following a sentencing hearing, the Defendant was sentenced as a Range II, multiple offender to terms of five years for the Class D felony and three years for each Class E felony conviction. Three of the three-year sentences were ordered to be served concurrently with one another and consecutively to the five-year sentence. Two of the remaining three-year sentences were ordered to be served concurrently with one another and consecutively to the five-year and three-year consecutive sentences, for an effective sentence of eleven years. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred by refusing to allow him to serve his sentences in community corrections. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Barry Singleton
The defendant, Barry Singleton, appeals his convictions for aggravated kidnapping and aggravated rape. The defendant was sentenced to twelve years as a Range I, standard offender for the aggravated kidnapping conviction and to twenty-five years as a violent offender for the aggravated rape conviction. The sentences were ordered to run consecutively for an effective sentence of thirtyseven years. On appeal, he contends that: the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; the trial court erred in allowing the State to introduce photographs into evidence that had not been provided to the defense prior to trial; it was error to allow a witness not provided to the defendant to testify; it was error to allow the victim to testify without providing the tape recording of her initial statement to police; and the court erred in imposing his sentence with regard to both the length and manner. After careful review, we affirm the judgments from the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Timothy D. Qualls v. Ricky J. Bell, Warden
In 2003, the Petitioner, Timothy D. Qualls, pled guilty to second degree murder, and the trial court sentenced him to serve eighteen years. The Petitioner file a petition for habeas corpus relief, and the habeas court denied his petition. On appeal, the Petitioner alleges the habeas court erred because: (1) the trial court sentenced the Petitioner in contravention of his constitutional rights; and (2) thetrial court sentenced the Petitioner in contravention of state statutes. After a thorough review of the record and relevant authorities, we affirm the judgment of the habeas court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Larry Frank
A Shelby County Criminal Court jury convicted the appellants, Larry Frank and Shurrod Towns, of attempted first degree premeditated murder in case number 04-01201 and first degree premeditated murder and four counts of attempted first degree premeditated murder in case number 04-01202. The trial court imposed life sentences for their murder convictions and twenty years for each attempted murder conviction, with the sentences to be served concurrently. On appeal,1 Frank contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions and that the trial court improperly imposed five-hundred-dollar fines. Towns argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions, that the trial court should have dismissed the indictments because he was denied his right to a preliminary hearing, that the trial court should have declared a mistrial when a State witness testified that Towns had an arrest record, and that the trial court should have granted his motion for a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the trial court improperly fined both appellants. However, judgments of the trial court are affirmed in all other respects. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Travis Knotts
The defendant, Travis Knotts, pled guilty to theft of property over $10,000, a Class C felony, and was sentenced to six years on probation. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in denying his request for judicial diversion. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Nancy Blue
The defendant, Nancy Blue, appeals as of right her jury convictions for two counts of rape of a child and two counts of incest. She received sentences of twenty-five years for each rape of a child conviction and six years for each incest conviction. 1 The rape of a child sentences were ordered to be served consecutively and the incest convictions were ordered to be served concurrently, for a effective sentence of fifty years. The defendant argues that the evidence is insufficient to support her convictions and that the trial court imposed an excessive sentence both in length and manner of service. Following our review, we affirm the convictions but remand for the entry of modified and corrected judgments consistent with this opinion. |
Haywood | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Derek Smith
The defendant, Derek Smith, pled guilty as a Range I, standard offender to aggravated burglary, a Class C felony, and assault, a Class A misdemeanor. He received sentences of three years and eleven months, twenty-nine days to be served consecutively in the community corrections program. After the defendant was charged with theft while in the community corrections program, the trial court found that the defendant violated the terms of his community corrections sentence, revoked the sentence, and imposed a new sentence of eleven years as a Range III, persistent offender. On appeal, the defendant contends the trial court erred in resentencing the defendant in a range higher than that of the original sentence. We agree, and we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for resentencing of the defendant as a Range I offender. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Mike Brotherton
The defendant, Mike Brotherton, pled guilty to the offense of driving under the influence, first offense, and reserved a certified question of law regarding the validity of the traffic stop that resulted in his arrest. After careful review, we conclude that the trooper lacked reasonable the traffic stop and dismiss the charge against the defendant. |
Carroll | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Charles Orlando Fields v. Henry Steward, Warden
The petitioner, Charles Orlando Fields, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief by the Lauderdale County Circuit Court. In his appeal, he contends that the indictment was void because: (1) it did not include all the essential elements for the offense for which he was convicted; (2) his sentencing range was illegal; and (3) the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to sentence him. After careful review, we conclude the petitioner has not established that he is entitled to habeas corpus relief. The judgment of the habeas corpus court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Earl Pinchon, Jr.
In 2008, the Defendant pled guilty to introduction of contraband into a penal institution, and the trial court sentenced him to serve four years and nine months in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The Defendant now appeals his sentence claiming that the trial court erroneously denied his request for alternative sentencing. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we conclude that the trial court properly sentenced the Defendant. |
Coffee | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Edward P. Porter v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Edward P. Porter, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for writ of error coram nobis. The petitioner pled guilty in 1998 to possession with intent to sell over .5 grams of cocaine, a Class B felony, and was sentenced to eight years in the Department of Correction. In 2007, the petitioner filed the instant petition, alleging that he was being restrained by an illegal sentence. The trial court summarily dismissed the petition because it was filed outside the statute of limitations and because it failed to state a cognizable claim. On appeal, the petitioner contends that the court erred in determining that the petition was time-barred, asserting that the one-year statute of limitations is not applicable and that his assertion of an illegal sentence in violation of Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 32 relief. Following review of the record, we find no error and affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Richard F. Stroud
The Defendant, Richard F. Stroud, was indicted on one count of driving under the influence, first offense, a Class A misdemeanor. After a motion to suppress was heard and denied, the Defendant entered a guilty plea. In the negotiated plea agreement, the parties purported to reserve a certified question of law pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2). After review, we conclude that the Defendant has failed to comply with the strict requirements of Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2). The appeal is dismissed. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Frank Lee Tate v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Frank Lee Tate, appeals the Circuit Court for Fayette County’s dismissal of his pro se petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for aggravated rape, a Class A felony, and incest, a Class C felony. He received concurrent sentences of sixty years for aggravated rape and fifteen years for incest. The trial court dismissed his petition without appointing counsel and without holding a hearing. On appeal, the petitioner lists over thirty claims. We affirm the dismissal of the petition for post-conviction relief. |
Fayette | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jeffrey Scott
The defendant, Jeffrey Scott, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of two counts of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony; conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery, a Class C felony; and conspiracy to commit robbery and attempted robbery, both Class D felonies. He was sentenced by the trial court to concurrent terms of ten years for the aggravated robbery convictions, three years for the conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery conviction, and two years each for the conspiracy to commit robbery and attempted robbery convictions. In a timely appeal to this court, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence and argues that the trial court erred indenying his motion to suppress his statement to police and in limiting defense counsel’s cross-examination of a witness. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Solon Atwell Brown v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Solon Atwell Brown, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief as time-barred. The State has filed a motion requesting that this court affirm the post-conviction court’s dismissal pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Because the petitioner has failed to establish that the petition was timely filed or that a recognized exception to the rule applies, we grant the State’s motion and affirm the judgment from the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Oliver J. Higgins v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Oliver J. Higgins, appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition for postconviction 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. |
Hardin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John Fred Howard
The defendant, John Fred Howard, was convicted of first degree premeditated murder by a Shelby County jury and subsequently sentenced to a term of life imprisonment. On appeal, he has raised eight issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence at trial was sufficient to support the verdict, specifically the jury’s rejection of his claim of self-defense and the element of premeditation; (2) whether the trial court erred in refusing to sequester the jury; (3) whether the trial court erred in failing to suppress graphic photographs of the deceased; (4) whether the trial court erred in admitting test results from two blood samples which the defendant did not get until the second day of trial; (5) whether the trial court erred in admitting certain evidence without the establishment of a valid chain of custody; (6) whether the trial court erred in allowing witness testimony which was highly prejudicial to the defendant; (7) whether the trial court erred by refusing to allow defense counsel to publish certain exhibits to the jury immediately after they were admitted, which minimized their impeachment value and violated the defendant’s right of cross-examination; and (8) whether the cumulative error at trial demands a reversal in the case. Following review of the record, we find no reversible error and affirm the judgment of conviction. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals |
