State of Tennessee v. Shawn Hatcher
Appellant, Shawn Hatcher, was involved in a shooting which resulted in the death of one victim and the serious injury of two other victims. As a result of the incident, Appellant was convicted by a Shelby County jury of first degree felony murder, first degree premeditated murder and two counts of attempted first degree murder. The trial court sentenced Appellant immediately to a mandatory life sentence for the first degree murder convictions. Appellant filed a motion for new trial. The trial court held a joint sentencing hearing and hearing on the motion for new trial. The trial court merged the two convictions for first degree murder and sentenced Appellant to fifteen years for each attempted murder conviction to be served concurrently with each other. The trial court ordered the life sentence to be served consecutively to the fifteen-year sentence. The trial court also denied the motion for new trial and appointed new counsel at the conclusion of the hearing for sentencing and the motion for new trial. Newly-appointed counsel filed an amended motion for new trial more than thirty days after the trial court denied the original motion for new trial. The trial court held a hearing on the amended motion for new trial and denied the motion. Appellant appealed. On appeal, the State argues that this appeal is not properly before this Court. We have determined that the issues presented in the amended motion for new trial are not properly before this Court because it was not filed with thirty days from the trial court’s denial of the original motion for new trial. We have waived the timely-filing of the notice of appeal with regard to the original motion for new trial and address those issues on appeal. Therefore, the issues presented on appeal are that the evidence was insufficient to support the Appellant’s convictions, the trial court erred in allowing in photographs of the murder victim into evidence, the trial court erred in not allowing Appellant to present medical evidence of his injuries to support his theory of defense, and the trial court erred in instructing the jury on the special instructions Appellant presented. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Daniel Ronald Vengrin v. State of Tennessee
The appellant, Daniel Ronald Vengrin, pled guilty to vandalism in an amount greater than $500, a Class E felony. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced the appellant to one year and six months in the Tennessee Department of Correction and ordered that the appellant have no contact with the victim and pay restitution. Subsequently, the appellant was found guilty of twenty-one counts of criminal contempt for failing to comply with the terms of the no-contact order that was a condition of his plea agreement. The trial court sentenced the appellant to a total effective sentence of 210 days for his contempt convictions. On appeal, the appellant contends that the trial court did not have jurisdiction “to modify or otherwise enforce the terms and conditions of the [j]udgment in [the appellant’s] case.” Upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Howard Jefferson Atkins v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Howard Jefferson Atkins, appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, he argues that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel because: (1) trial counsel failed to pursue suppression of the petitioner’s statement to police on the basis that police did not have probable cause to effectuate his arrest; and (2) appellate counsel failed to challenge the petitioner’s transfer from juvenile court on appeal. After a thorough review of the record and the parties’ briefs, the judgment of the post-conviction court denying post-conviction relief is affirmed. |
Tipton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Leonard Ray Fitzgerald
The defendant, Leonard Ray Fitzgerald, was convicted of two counts of sale of over .5 grams of cocaine, a Class B felony, and sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to concurrent eight-year sentences, with seven years to be served on probation after one year in the Department of Correction. The jury assessed a $100,000 fine in each count, which the trial court imposed. On appeal, the defendant argues that the jury’s verdict was not unanimous, the fines were excessive, and he should have been sentenced as an especially mitigated offender and granted full probation. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Henry | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Almeko Chiffon Woods
On February 4, 2005, the defendant, Almeko Chiffon Woods, pled guilty to one count of forgery less than $200 and one count of fraudulent use of a credit card between $500 and $1000, both Class E felonies. The trial court sentenced the defendant to two years probation for each offense, with the sentences to run concurrently. On January 22, 2007, a probation violation report was prepared, alleging that the defendant failed to meet with her probation officer and failed to pay restitution and court costs. However, this report was not filed until February 20, 2007. On January 30, 2007, the trial court issued what the defendant considered a capias and the state considered an arrest warrant in connection with the alleged probation violation. Following a June 28, 2007 hearing, the trial court found the defendant in violation of her probation and extended her probation another year. That same day, an additional probation violation was filed with the trial court, alleging that the defendant violated her probation by being arrested for simple possession of a controlled substance and failing to report this arrest to her probation officer. In August 2007, the trial court revoked the defendant’s probation and ordered her to serve a two-year sentence in the Department of Correction. The defendant appeals, arguing that because the probation violation report was not filed until February 20, 2007, her probation expired on February 4, 2007. She further argues that because the document issued by the trial court in January 2007 was not an arrest warrant, the limitations period for filing the probation violation was not tolled, and therefore the trial court’s extension and revocation of her probation were nullities because her probation expired on February 4, 2007. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the expiration of the defendant’s probation was properly tolled and that the trial court acted properly in extending and subsequently revoking the defendant’s probation. As such, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jeffery Yates v. State of Tennessee, Tommy Mills, Warden
The Petitioner, Jeffery Yates, 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. |
Lake | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Dwayne Anthony Dixon
The defendant, Dwayne Anthony Dixon, pleaded guilty in the Sullivan County Criminal Court in case number S51,198 to one count of possession of less than .5 grams of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver, possession of less than one-half ounce of marijuana, speeding, and felony evading arrest. In case number S52,716, the defendant pleaded guilty to one count of possession of .5 grams or more of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver. Pursuant to a plea agreement between the parties, the trial court imposed sentences of five years for possession of less than. 5 grams of cocaine, 11 months and 29 days for possession of less than one-half ounce of marijuana, 30 days for speeding, one year for felony evading arrest, and ten years for possession of .5 grams or more of cocaine. The agreement provided for partially consecutive sentencing, for an effective sentence of 15 years to be served in the Department of Correction. In this appeal, the defendant challenges the denial of alternative sentencing. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Donald Blevins
The defendant, Donald Blevins, pleaded guilty in the Sullivan County Criminal Court to a single count of reckless homicide in exchange for a two-year sentence with the manner of service of the sentence to be determined by the trial court. The trial court denied all forms of alternative sentencing, and the defendant now appeals. We reverse the judgment of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ronald Dotson v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Ronald Dotson, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. In this appeal, he asserts that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial and that this court should remand his case to the trial court for a hearing based upon the holding in State v. Copeland, 226 S.W.3d 287 (Tenn. 2007). Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Rain Thomas Chesher v. Stephen Dotson, Warden
The petitioner, Rain Thomas Chesher, appeals the Hardeman County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The State has filed a motion requesting that this court affirm the lower court’s denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Because the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that his conviction is void, we conclude that the State’s motion is well-taken. Accordingly, we affirm the lower court’s summary dismissal of the petition. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Sammie Lee Netters v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Sammie Lee Netters, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for coram nobis 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. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Tracy Lynn Harris v. Jim Worthington, Warden (State Of Tennessee)
The Petitioner, Tracey Lynn Harris, 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 | |
Michael Hooper v. Steven Dotson, Warden (State of Tennessee)
The Petitioner, Michael Hooper, 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. Cordaro Hughes
The defendant, Cordaro Hughes, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of first degree felony murder; especially aggravated robbery, a Class A felony; and attempted especially aggravated robbery, a Class B felony. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for the first degree murder conviction, fifteen years at 100% for the especially aggravated robbery conviction, and eight years at 30% for the attempted robbery conviction, with the trial court ordering that the sentences be served concurrently, for an effective sentence of life imprisonment. The defendant raises four issues on appeal: (1) whether this court should waive his untimely notice of appeal in the interests of justice; (2) whether the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his statements to police; (3) whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain his convictions; and (4) whether the trial court erred in granting the State’s motion in limine to suppress evidence that he initially denied any involvement in the crimes. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Rapheal Love
The defendant, Rapheal Love, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of two counts of first degree premeditated murder and sentenced by the trial court to two consecutive terms of life imprisonment in the Department of Correction. The sole issue he raises on appeal is whether the trial court erred in ordering consecutive sentencing. Following our review, we affirm the consecutive sentences imposed by the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Keven Scott
The appellant, Keven Scott, was convicted by a jury in the Shelby County Criminal Court of possession of more than .5 grams of cocaine with the intent to deliver, possession of cocaine, and possession of marijuana. The trial court merged the cocaine convictions and sentenced the appellant to a total effective sentence of seventeen years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction for possession of more than .5 grams of cocaine with the intent to deliver. Upon our 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. Sanford Lee Parker
The Defendant, Sanford Lee Parker, was convicted of felony driving under the influence (fourth offense or greater), child endangerment, violation of the implied consent law, and driving on a revoked license. For these convictions, the Defendant received consecutive terms of four years, eleven months and twenty-nine days, eleven months and twenty-nine days, and six months respectively. In this direct appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions for driving under the influence and child endangerment and contends that his sentence is excessive. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Sevier | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Thornton Shayne Snapp
The Sullivan County Grand Jury indicted Appellant, Thornton Shayne Snapp, for theft of property valued over $1,000 but less than $10,000. At the conclusion of a jury trial, the jury found Appellant guilty as charged. On appeal, Appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction for theft, and instead only supported a conviction for joyriding. After a thorough review of the record, we have found the evidence to be sufficient to support the conviction and affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Thomas Jefferson Teague, Jr.
A Davidson County Criminal Court grand jury indicted the defendant, Thomas Jefferson Teague, Jr., on one count of possession of a handgun by a convicted felon and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia. The trial court accepted a plea agreement in which the defendant agreed to plead guilty to only felony possession of a weapon in exchange for a Range I sentence of two years’ confinement in a regional workhouse. Subsequently, the defendant filed a motion seeking placement in a community corrections program. Adopting the State’s view that the incarcerative sentence was embraced in a binding plea agreement and was not subject to modification, the trial court denied the motion, and the defendant appealed. Although the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard in denying relief, we affirm its order because the record demonstrated no factual basis for relief. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ray Charles Nelson
A Montgomery County Circuit Court jury convicted the defendant, Ray Charles Nelson, of theft and criminal trespass, and the defendant, now on appeal, challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. Because we hold that the evidence was sufficient, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Adrienne Hollowell
The defendant, Adrienne Hollowell, pled guilty to one count of theft of property valued over $500, a Class E felony. The Shelby County Criminal Court sentenced the defendant to one year in the Department of Correction as a Range I, standard offender. At the time of her guilty plea, the defendant filed a petition to suspend her sentence; following an August 2006 hearing, the trial court denied the petition and ordered the defendant to serve her sentence in incarceration. The defendant appeals, asserting that the trial court erred by ordering a sentence of full incarceration. After reviewing the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Craig Robert Nunn v. State of Tennessee - Concurring
I join in the results reached by the majority but write separately to express a different conclusion regarding the tolling of the post-conviction statute of limitations. The majority opinion concludes that the trial court erred in finding that the post-conviction petition filed more than five years after the entry of judgment in this case is time-barred. This conclusion is based upon the belief that the evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing showed that the petitioner was misled by trial counsel regarding his right to pursue post-conviction relief under the terms of his guilty plea agreement. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Craig Robert Nunn v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Craig Robert Nunn, appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his aggravated sexual battery convictions. The petitioner first argues that the post-conviction court erred in finding that due process considerations did not toll the statute of limitations. He further argues that the post-conviction court, which also considered his claims on the merits, erred in finding that he received effective assistance of trial counsel. Following our review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s denial on its merits of the petition. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Bryan Dale Farmer
A Montgomery County jury convicted the Defendant, Bryan Dale Farmer, of one count of sexual battery by an authority figure, and the trial court sentenced him to three years in prison, suspended after the service of sixty days. On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction because he did not use his supervisory power over the victim to accomplish a sexual act; and (2) the trial court erred by not granting him full probation. After a thorough review of the applicable record and law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tony Draine
The defendant, Tony Draine, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of one count of theft of property over $10,000, a Class C felony, and sentenced to thirteen years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, specifically with regard to the requisite mental state. After review of the record, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient and affirm the judgment of conviction. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals |
