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 | |
State of Tennessee v. Ralph Lester Nelson
The Defendant, Ralph Lester Nelson, pled guilty to one count of violating a motor vehicle habitual offender order, a Class E felony; one count of driving without a seatbelt, a Class C misdemeanor; and one count of driving without proof of financial responsibility, a Class E misdemeanor. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the Defendant as a multiple offender to an effective sentence of three years in the Tennessee Department of Correction (TDOC). On appeal, the Defendant claims that the trial court erred when it did not grant him alternative sentencing. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tamela Scott
The defendant, Tamela T. Scott, was convicted of vehicular homicide by intoxication, a class B felony, and three counts of vehicular assault, a class D felony. She received an effective sentence of eight years. The sentence was ordered to be served by one year in confinement and sixteen years on probation. Among the conditions of the defendant’s probation were 200 hours of community service per year, and the defendant was also prohibited from driving for eight years. The defendant appeals the judgments, arguing that (1) the convicting evidence is insufficient; (2) the trial court erred in admitting expert testimony of “retrograde extrapolation” related to the defendant’s blood alcohol level; (3) the trial court erred in its jury instruction regarding blood alcohol; and (4) the trial court erred in determining the conditions of her community service, the length of her probation, and that her driving privileges will be revoked for eight years. We affirm the judgments for the three counts of vehicular assault. We affirm the conviction of vehicular homicide by intoxication, but we modify the manner of service of the eight-year sentence to one year in confinement followed by eight years of probation. |
Cannon | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tamela Scott - Concurring/Dissenting
I concur in the well-reasoned opinion of the majority as to all issues except the issue of the Defendant’s sentence. The majority opinion modifies the Defendant’s sentence from one year of confinement followed by sixteen years of probation to one year of confinement followed by eight years of probation. |
Cannon | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Author Ray Turner v. Stephen Dotson, Warden
The petitioner, Author Ray Turner, appeals the circuit court’s order summarily dismissing his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Following our review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the court’s order. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Gordon McGee, Jr.
The defendant, Gordon McGee, Jr., was indicted by the Warren County grand jury for simple assault, a Class A misdemeanor, and applied for pretrial diversion. The state denied the application and the defendant sought certiorari review by the trial court. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court granted certiorari and ordered the state to enter into a memorandum of understanding granting pretrial diversion to the defendant. The state appeals as of right the order of the trial court. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Warren | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tryphena Nicole Jones
The defendant, Tryphena Nicole Jones, pled guilty to possession of cocaine and failure to appear, both Class A misdemeanors, and was sentenced to consecutive terms of eleven months, twenty-nine days at seventy-five percent release eligibility. On appeal, she argues that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentencing. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Travis Plummer v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant appeals the trial court's dismissal of his petition for a writ of error coram nobis and his motion to reopen post-conviction petition. The trial court properly concluded that the Appellant cannot prevail on the claims asserted in the two pleadings. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Erica Lynn Wyma - Concurring
I concur in the result and most of the reasoning in the majority opinion. I question, though, whether we can firmly say that the victim’s saying, “No, No,” and “Mommy hit me” was sufficiently relevant and not too prejudicial in the context of the trial. |
Hamblen | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Erica Lynn Wyma
The defendant, Erica Lynn Wyma, was convicted of attempted aggravated child abuse, a Class B felony, and sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to eleven years in the Department of Correction. She argues that the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction, the trial court erred in admitting a statement of the victim as an excited utterance, and her sentence is excessive. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hamblen | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Raymond McNeil
The defendant, Raymond McNeil, appeals from his Williamson County Circuit Court conviction of Class D felony evading arrest, alleging that the evidence was insufficient and that the trial court erred in the admission of certain evidence at trial. The defendant challenges neither his conviction of driving on a revoked license nor his 12-year effective sentence. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals |
