State of Tennessee v. Carl Junior Fritts
The defendant, Carl Junior Fritts, appeals the sentencing decision of the Rhea County Circuit Court. Following his guilty pleas to four counts of burglary (Class D felony), vandalism over $1000 (Class D felony), and evading arrest (Class E felony), the trial court imposed an eight-year sentence for each Class D felony conviction and a four-year sentence for the Class E felony. The court further ordered that all sentences be served concurrently with the exception of the vandalism conviction, which was to be served consecutively, resulting in an effective sentence of sixteen years. On appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court erred by: (1) imposing the maximum sentence within the range for each conviction, and (2) imposing partial consecutive sentencing. Following review of the record, we conclude that the trial court did not err and affirm the sentences as imposed. |
Rhea | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ronald Brown
Ronald Steven Brown, the defendant, was convicted of the following offenses under four separate indictments: No. 14233, attempted first degree murder (Class A felony); No. 14232, attempted second degree murder (Class B felony) and assault (Class A misdemeanor); No. 14235, aggravated assault (Class C felony); and No. 14231, felony evading arrest (Class E felony) and DUI, first offense (Class A misdemeanor). The defendant was sentenced as a standard offender to an effective sentence of forty-three years, consecutive to a ten-year federal sentence. On appeal, the defendant alleges error in four areas: (1) The failure of the State court reporter to preserve transcripts of the pretrial motions and sentencing hearing violated his right of due process: (2) The trial court imposed an excessive sentence; (3) The trial court permitted the State to amend an indictment over his objection after the jury was sworn; and (4) He was sentenced in violation of Gomez v. Tenn., 127 S.Ct. 1209 (2007). After careful review, we conclude that the defendant is not entitled to any relief and affirm the judgments from the trial court. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Sharon Virginia Hinkley
The defendant, Sharon Virginia Hinkley, appeals the revocation of her probation. After review, we conclude that the appellate record does not contain any documents pertaining to the conviction and sentence contested by the defendant. Therefore, we are compelled to dismiss this appeal. |
Dickson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jason Glen Jacobs
The defendant, Jason Glen Jacobs, pled guilty to the crime of child abuse, a Class D felony, in exchange for a three-year sentence with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. The crime occurred on September 17, 2004. Following a sentencing hearing on January 19, 2007, the trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range I offender to three years of probation. Additionally, the defendant was sentenced to serve the first six months in confinement and was required to complete parenting classes. On appeal, he argues that he should have been sentenced to serve the entire term on probation without confinement. After careful review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James Wayne Kimbrough v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, James Wayne Kimbrough, was convicted of first degree murder (Class A felony) and two counts of spousal rape (Class C felony) on October 17, 2002. He was sentenced to life without possibility of parole for the murder conviction and to fifteen years for the spousal rape conviction, to be served consecutive to the life sentence. On appeal, he argues that the post-conviction court erred in denying him relief. Specifically, he argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that he was denied due process because he was prosecuted with fabricated evidence and perjured testimony. After careful review, we affirm the judgment from the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Delmar K. Reed, a.k.a. Delma K. Reed
The defendant, Delmar K. Reed, was found guilty by a jury of ten counts of harassment (Class A misdemeanor), one count of attempted aggravated burglary (Class D felony), one count of vandalism over $1000 (Class D felony), one count of vandalism under $500 (Class A misdemeanor), and one count of setting fire to personal property (Class E felony). He was sentenced to an effective sentence of nineteen years as a Range II, multiple offender. On appeal, he argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions; the trial court improperly denied his motion for a mistrial; and his convictions for harassment should have been merged into two convictions. After careful review, we conclude that no error exists and affirm the judgments from the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Cornell Poe v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Cornell Poe, appeals as of right the Madison County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The petitioner alleges that his guilty pleas to two counts of aggravated burglary, one count of theft valued at over one thousand dollars, and three counts of aggravated assault were not voluntarily, knowingly and understandingly made due to the ineffective assistance of counsel and the alleged effects of the petitioner’s medication. After the appointment of counsel and a full evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court found that the petitioner failed to prove his allegations by clear and convincing evidence and denied the petition. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Stephen Hayes
A Gibson County Circuit Court jury convicted the appellant, Christopher Stephen Hayes, ofattempted second degree murder, two counts of reckless endangerment, and one count of possession of a deadly weapon with intent to use it in the commission of an offense, and he received an effective ten-year sentence to be served in confinement. On appeal, he contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support the attempted murder conviction, (2) his sentences are excessive and the trial court erred by granting his request for alternative sentencing, and (3) the trial court made a clerical mistake on the judgment form for the attempted murder conviction. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the appellant’s convictions but modify the appellant’s attempted murder conviction from ten to eight years. We also remand the case to the trial court in order for the court to sentence the appellant for the possession of a deadly weapon conviction, to address alternative sentencing, and to correct clerical mistakes on several judgment of conviction forms. |
Gibson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John Shields
The appellant, John Shields, was indicted in January 2007 for possession of cocaine with intent to sell, possession of cocaine with intent to deliver, and driving on a suspended license. In this interlocutory appeal, he argues that the instant criminal prosecution violates double jeopardy protections under both the state and federal constitutions because the State has previously assessed and levied a tax under the Tennessee Taxation of Unauthorized Substances Act for the same cocaine. He asserts that because the tax is punitive in nature, the present prosecution would impose a second punishment for the same offense. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the trial court’s order denying the appellant’s motion to dismiss the indictment. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Charles Hopson Stewart
he defendant, Charles Hopson Stewart, was convicted on his guilty pleas of four counts of possession of cocaine with intent to deliver, a Class B felony. He was sentenced to nine years for each offense, to be served on split confinement of thirty days of jail on the weekends and probation, with the sentences imposed concurrently. His probation was revoked, and the court also denied a motion to modify his sentence. On appeal, the defendant contends: (1) that the trial court erred in allowing the drug court team to determine whether his probation should be revoked and what consequence should follow the revocation, (2) alternatively, that the decision of the drug court team that the defendant should serve his sentence in confinement was too harsh given the facts and circumstances of the case, and (3) that the trial judge should be disqualified from presiding on remand. We reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for a new revocation hearing, at which another judge shall preside. |
Warren | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Antonio Maurice Batts
The defendant, Antonio Maurice Batts, pleaded guilty in the Davidson County Criminal Court to one count of aggravated assault in exchange for a six-year sentence, 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. Because the record supports the denial of probation, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jessie Edward West - Dissenting
I respectfully dissent from the result reached by the majority and do so because of my concerns that the defendant’s guilty pleas were entered absent any waiver of the conflicts of interest that are apparent from a review of the record in this case. Although not raised by either party, I conclude that plain error exists with respect to the District Attorney General and Circuit Court Clerk’s failure to recuse themselves from these proceedings. I do so pursuant to Rule 13(b)(2) and (3) of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure which grants this court the discretion to review any issue not presented for review in order “(2) to prevent injury to the interests of the public, and (3) to prevent prejudice to the judicial process” and Rule 52(b) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure which provides “[w]hen necessary to do substantial justice, an appellate court may consider an error that has affected the substantial rights of an accused at any time, even though the error was not . . . assigned as error on appeal.” |
Lincoln | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Thomas Earl Bradshaw v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Thomas Earl Bradshaw, appeals from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, wherein he challenged his 2005 Davidson County Criminal Court conviction of especially aggravated robbery. In this appeal, the petitioner contends that his guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered because it was the result of the ineffective assistance of his trial counsel. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jessie Edward West
Upon his pleas of guilty, the Defendant, Jessie Edward West, was convicted of conspiracy (to commit arson), burglary, arson, vandalism (with damages of $60,000 or more), introduction of contraband into a penal institution, and escape from a penal institution (while being held for a felony).1 In exchange for his pleas of guilty, the State dismissed three misdemeanor counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor and two misdemeanor counts of vandalism. Following a sentencing hearing, the Defendant was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to two years for conspiracy, a Class D felony, two years for burglary, a Class D felony, five years for arson, a Class C felony, three years for introducing contraband into a penal institution, a Class C felony, and ten years for vandalism causing damage of $60,000 or more, a Class B felony. These sentences were ordered to be served concurrently. He also was sentenced to two years for escape while being held for a felony, a Class E felony. This sentence was ordered to be served consecutively to the other sentences. The sentences are to be served in the Department of Correction. In this appeal, the Defendant argues that his sentences are excessive. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Lincoln | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Iwanda Anita Buchanan
The Defendant pled guilty to four counts of selling .5 grams or more of a Schedule II drug and one count of possession of .5 grams or more of a Schedule II drug for resale. The trial court sentenced her as a Range II, multiple offender to an effective twenty-seven year sentence. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred by sentencing her as a Range II offender. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Julie Ann Taylor Buchanan
The defendant, Julie Ann Taylor Buchanan, entered an open plea to one count of theft of property over $60,000 (Class B felony), one count of theft of property between $1000 and $10,000 (Class D felony), one count of forgery over $60,000 (Class B felony), two counts of forgery between $1000 and $10,000 (Class B felony), and four counts of money laundering (Class B felony), with all the crimes occurring between December 2000 and April 2003. Following a sentencing hearing, she was sentenced to eleven years on each Class B felony and four years on each Class D felony. The sentences were ordered to be served concurrently to each other except for the four-year sentence for the Class D felony theft, which was to be served consecutive to the other eight sentences, for a total effective sentence of fifteen years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in three areas: (1) enhancing her sentence based on facts neither admitted nor proven to a jury; (2) imposing consecutive sentences; and (3) application of mitigating factors. After careful review, the case is remanded for re-sentencing based upon the erroneous application of application factors in violation of Blakely. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jeffery Michael Mabery v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Jeffery Michael Mabery, pled guilty to one count of attempted especially aggravated robbery in exchange for a ten-year sentence. Subsequently, he filed a petition for post-conviction relief in which he argued that his guilty plea was unlawfully and involuntarily entered into and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court dismissed the petition, finding that it had no merit. Petitioner appeals. Although the notice of appeal in this case is untimely, we waive the timely filing of that document and reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing on the petition for post-conviction relief. |
Wilson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John David McDaniel
The defendant, John David McDaniel, was convicted of three counts of fraudulently obtaining a Schedule II controlled substance, one count of felony evading arrest, one count of misdemeanor evading arrest, and one count of theft of property with a value of less than $500. The defendant was sentenced to four years for his convictions for fraudulently obtaining a Schedule II controlled substance and felony evading arrest. He received a sentence of 11 months and 29 days for his convictions for misdemeanor evading arrest and theft of property with a value of less than $500. The defendant filed a motion for new trial which was denied after a hearing before the trial court. The defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. The defendant argues on appeal that the trial court erred by sentencing the defendant to the maximum sentence within the range for his convictions. In response, the state argues that the appellate court does not have jurisdiction to consider the defendant’s appeal. The state further argues that the sentencing determination made by the trial court was not in error. Following our review of the parties’ briefs, the record, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Obion | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John David McDaniel
The defendant, John David McDaniel, was convicted of three counts of fraudulently obtaining a Schedule II controlled substance, one count of felony evading arrest, one count of misdemeanor evading arrest, and one count of theft of property with a value of less than $500. The defendant was sentenced to four years for his convictions for fraudulently obtaining a Schedule II controlled substance and felony evading arrest. He received a sentence of 11 months and 29 days for his convictions for misdemeanor evading arrest and theft of property with a value of less than $500. The defendant filed a motion for new trial which was denied after a hearing before the trial court. The defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. The defendant argues on appeal that the trial court erred by sentencing the defendant to the maximum sentence within the range for his convictions. In response, the state argues that the appellate court does not have jurisdiction to consider the defendant’s appeal. The state further argues that the sentencing determination made by the trial court was not in error. Following our review of the parties’ briefs, the record, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Obion | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Alvin Malone
The defendant, Alvin Malone, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of two counts of first degree felony murder, one count of first degree premeditated murder, and two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping. The defendant’s first degree premeditated murder conviction merged into one of the felony murder convictions by operation of law, and he was sentenced to two life sentences and two twenty-year sentences, to be served consecutively in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant argues that: (1) the trial court erred in excluding statements of two unavailable witnesses; (2) the trial court erred in not granting a continuance; (3) the trial court erred in allowing the State to amend two counts of the indictment; (4) the trial court erred in allowing the State to impeach its own witness without giving a contemporaneous limiting instruction; (5) the trial court erred in allowing testimony concerning cartels and drug activity; (6) the trial court erred in not giving a jury charge on self-defense; (7) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; and (8) the trial court improperly applied an enhancement factor in sentencing. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Michael Lee v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Michael Lee, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief by the Circuit Court for Williamson County from his convictions for aggravated burglary and theft of property valued over $1000 for which he was sentenced to fifteen years and twelve years, respectively, to be served consecutively for a total of twenty-seven years. The petitioner claims the trial court erred in concluding he was provided the effective assistance of counsel. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Fredrick Milan
A Shelby County Criminal Court jury convicted the appellant, Fredrick Milan, of first degree premeditated murder and aggravated assault, and the trial court sentenced him to consecutive sentences of life and five years, respectively. On appeal, the appellant contends that (1) the trial court erred by consolidating the offenses; (2) the trial court improperly admitted the victim’s prior statement into evidence under the hearsay rule’s forfeiture by wrongdoing exception, Tennessee Rule of Evidence 804(b)(6); (3) the trial court erred by admitting into evidence the 9-1-1 tape of an eyewitness to the victim’s murder; (4) the trial court erred by admitting an autopsy photograph into evidence; (5) the evidence is insufficient to support the appellant’s murder conviction; and (6) the trial court erred by ordering consecutive sentencing and by assessing a five-hundred-dollar fine for the aggravated assault conviction. The State contends that the evidence is sufficient to support the murder conviction and that the trial court properly ordering consecutive sentencing. However, the State acknowledges that the trial court improperly fined the appellant. Regarding the appellant’s remaining issues, the State contends that the appellant waived them because he failed to include them in his motion for new trial and that he is not entitled to plain error relief. We conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support the murder conviction and that consecutive sentencing is proper in this case. Nevertheless, we also conclude that the trial court committed plain error as to the aggravated assault conviction by consolidating the appellant’s indictments for trial and that the trial court erred by imposing the appellant’s fine. Therefore, the appellant’s murder conviction is affirmed but his aggravated assault conviction and resulting fine are reversed. The case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Starbrough Jones
A Shelby County Criminal Court jury convicted the appellant, Starbrough Jones, of first degree felony murder, especially aggravated robbery, and attempted especially aggravated robbery, and the appellant received sentences of life, twenty-one years, and nine years, respectively. The trial court ordered that the appellant serve the twenty-one-year and nine-year sentences concurrently with each other but consecutively to the life sentence. On appeal, the appellant contends that (1) the trial court erred by allowing unreliable hearsay testimony into evidence in violation of Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S. Ct. 1354 (2004); (2) the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions; and (3) consecutive sentencing is excessive. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Mario Lester
The defendant, Mario Lester, was convicted of one count of burglary of a building (Class D felony) and was sentenced to twelve years as a career offender. On appeal, he argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction and that the trial court erred in denying community corrections. After careful review, we affirm the judgment from the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Isedore Lamont Parks
The defendant, Isedore Lamont Parks, was convicted of simple possession of cocaine, a Class A misdemeanor, and sentenced to eleven months, twenty-nine days in the county jail at seventy-five percent release eligibility, to be served consecutively to a prior sentence. On appeal, he argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals |
