Verico Dewayne Jackson v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant, Verico Dewayne Jackson, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. Jackson, who was convicted of first degree murder, is currently serving a sentence of life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. On appeal, he argues that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel, specifically arguing that trial counsel was ineffective in: (1) failing to adequately communicate with Jackson and the investigator assigned to the case, resulting in a lack of preparation for trial; (2) failing to seek a severance in the case; and (3) failing to request and argue for certain lesser-included offense instructions. After review, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Reginald Anthony Laye
Appellant, Reginald Anthony Laye, pled guilty to evading arrest and criminal impersonation prior to a jury trial, during which he was convicted of possession of .5 grams or more of cocaine with the intent to sell and possession of .5 grams or more of cocaine with the intent to deliver. The trial court merged the two convictions for possession into one conviction for possession of a Schedule II drug for resale. As a result of the convictions, Appellant was sentenced to an effective sentence of ten years and six months. After the denial of a motion for new trial and the filing of a timely notice of appeal, Appellant argues in this Court that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction for possession of cocaine with the intent to sell or deliver. After a review of the record, we determine that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for possession of cocaine with the intent to sell or deliver and, therefore, affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Eric T. Armstrong v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant appeals the trial court's dismissal of his petition for post conviction relief. The Appellant has presented a new claim on appeal. The Court concludes that the claim is waived due to Appellant's failure to raise it in his petition below. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John Britt
The defendant, John Britt, appeals as of right his jury convictions in Shelby County Criminal Court for two counts of solicitation of first degree murder. The trial court imposed consecutive sentences of ten years as a Range I, standard offender for each count, resulting in a total effective sentence of twenty years. On appeal, he asserts that the trial court committed plain error in its admission of allegedly improper testimony, in failing to declare a mistrial due to improper behavior by the prosecutors during the trial, and in failing to adequately instruct the jury after the defendant was improperly impeached regarding a prior bad act. He also asserts that the trial court improperly overruled the defendant’s objection to testimony and commented on the evidence in the presence of the jury. Finally, he urges this court to find plain error in the trial court’s sentencing for multiple reasons, including allegations that the imposition of the enhanced length and consecutive manner of service violates Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). Following our review, we affirm the defendant’s convictions for solicitation of first degree murder but conclude that the trial court’s imposition of sentences beyond the presumptive minimum violated Blakely. Therefore, upon remand, the trial court shall enter judgments to reflect sentences of eight years, for each count, to be served consecutively. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Timothy Ray Azbill
The defendant, Timothy Ray Azbill, was found guilty by a Decatur County jury of aggravated burglary, rape of a child, and especially aggravated kidnapping, and received an effective sentence of twenty-five years in the Department of Correction. The defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions and the trial court’s application of sentencing enhancement factors. After review, we conclude that the defendant’s claims are without merit and affirm the judgments. However, we additionally conclude that, as to the convictions for rape of a child and especially aggravated kidnapping, the court began at the midpoint of the range, rather than the minimum as required, and, therefore, remand for resentencing as to those two offenses. |
Decatur | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Tony Carruthers v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Tony Carruthers, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. In April 1996, a Shelby County jury convicted the petitioner of the first degree murders of Marcellos Anderson, Delois Anderson, and Frederick Tucker and imposed a sentence of death for each conviction. The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences on direct appeal. State v. Carruthers, 35 S.W.3d 516 (Tenn. 2000). In December 2001, the petitioner filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief. By order entered April 16, 2002, the supreme court appointed a Davidson County post-conviction court to preside over the case. Post-conviction counsel was appointed and an evidentiary hearing was subsequently conducted on various dates between August 29, 2005, and November 3, 2005. On February 2, 2006, the post-conviction court entered an order denying the petition. On appeal to this court, the petitioner raises issues of ineffective assistance of pretrial and appellate counsel and prosecutorial misconduct. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Sammy Morrison
A Grundy County jury convicted the Defendant, Sammy Morrison, of driving under the influence and resisting arrest. The trial court sentenced him to eleven months, twenty-nine days, with all but forty hours suspended for the DUI and to five days, suspended, for the resisting arrest conviction. On appeal, the Defendant argues that there was not sufficient evidence to support his convictions. After a thorough review of the evidence and applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Grundy | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Sherman Boddie
The defendant, Sherman Boddie, was convicted in the Tipton County Circuit Court of driving under the influence (DUI) and DUI per se. The trial court merged the convictions and sentenced the defendant to eleven months and twenty-nine days, to be served on unsupervised probation after fortyeight hours incarceration. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence of his intoxication, because the sobriety roadblock where he was stopped violated the Tennessee Constitution. We hold that the roadblock was constitutional and affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion to suppress. |
Tipton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Danny Ray Thornhill
The Defendant, Danny Ray Thornhill, appeals from the order of the Blount County Circuit Court revoking his probation. In May of 2006, the Defendant pled guilty to aggravated assault, a Class C felony, and was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to three years in the Department of Correction. His sentence was suspended, and he was placed on supervised probation. Approximately four months later, the trial court issued a violation of probation warrant. After a hearing, the trial court found that the Defendant had violated the conditions of his probation and ordered that his original three-year sentence be served in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by finding that he had violated the terms of his probation. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Rodney Smith v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant, Rodney Smith, appeals the trial court's dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The Appellant fails to assert a cognizable claim for which habeas corpus relief may be granted. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Wayne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Randy Bernard Mitchell v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Randy Bernard Mitchell, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to adequately investigate his case and for failing to fully explain the ramifications of his guilty plea. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition. |
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John Kenneth Hayes
The defendant, John Kenneth Hayes, was convicted of theft of property over $10,000, a Class C felony, and sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to four years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in ordering that he serve 120 days in confinement prior to being placed on community corrections. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court but remand for entry of a corrected judgment to reflect the community corrections service of the defendant’s sentence. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Thomas Len Proffitt v. Howard Carlton, Warden, and the State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Thomas Len Profitt, appeals the Johnson County Criminal Court’s dismissal of his 2007 petition for habeas corpus relief. In response, the State moved this court pursuant to Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20 to summarily affirm the criminal court’s order. Because the record shows that the Rule 20 terms for summary affirmance are met, we grant the motion and affirm the criminal court’s order. |
Johnson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Justin Bradley Haynie
A jury convicted the Defendants, Justin Bradley Haynie, Jonathan Anthony Morris, and Judson F. Ouzts, of one count of possession of over .5 grams of cocaine with the intent to deliver, a Class B felony, and one count of possession of alprazolam with the intent to deliver, a Class D felony. Defendants Haynie and Morris were both sentenced to eight years and ten months for the cocaine conviction and to a concurrent, two-year sentence for the alprazolam conviction. Defendant Ouzts was sentenced to eight years for the cocaine conviction; in all other regards, his sentence was the same. Each Defendant was ordered to complete his sentence through the Community Corrections Program after serving part of the sentence in the county jail. In this appeal, the Defendants collectively raise three issues: (1) whether the trial court erred by denying the Defendants’ pretrial motions to suppress the evidence recovered from a search of Defendant Ouzts’s vehicle; (2) whether the evidence was sufficient to support their convictions; and (3) whether the State’s closing argument was improperly prejudicial. Defendant Ouzts raises two additional issues: (1) whether the trial court erred in allowing testimony amounting to a legal conclusion; and (2) whether a juror’s bias required a new trial. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court on the cocaine convictions, but we reverse the judgments entered on the alprazolam convictions and remand for resentencing and proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jose Ramirez v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Jose Ramirez, pled guilty to aggravated assault and the trial court, pursuant to a plea agreement, sentenced him to a three-year sentence to be served on supervised probation. The court dismissed the petition, finding that the petitioner had filed his petition outside the one-year statute of limitations period. After review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Wilson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Leodish Coe
The defendant, Leodish Coe, pled guilty to fourth offense driving under the influence (DUI) and reserved a certified question of law. The question presented for review is whether the indictment properly charged a fourth offense DUI and whether the defendant’s present offense constitutes a fourth offense DUI under Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-10-403. After review, we conclude the answer to both questions is affirmative and affirm the judgment from the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Charles Thomas Lard, II and Doreen Rebeca Gates Lard
The Appellants, Charles Thomas Lard, II, and Doreen Rebeca Gates Lard, each pled guilty in the Tipton County Circuit Court to possession of one-half ounce or more of marijuana with intent to deliver and to the manufacture of one-half ounce or more of marijuana, both Class E felonies. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the Lards reserved the following certified question for consideration by this court on appeal: whether the trial court erred in denying their respective motions to suppress evidence and statements obtained by the police after a search of their home, based upon its finding that the Lards knowingly and voluntarily consented to the search. After thorough consideration of the arguments of the parties and the record on appeal, we affirm. |
Tipton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Pervis Payne v. State of Tennessee
In 1988, the Petitioner, Pervis Payne, was convicted of two counts of first degree murder and one count of assault with intent to commit first degree murder. For the capital offenses, the jury imposed sentences of death. The trial court imposed a sentence of thirty years confinement for the non-capital conviction. The convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal by the Tennessee Supreme Court. State v. Payne, 791 S.W.2d 10 (Tenn. 1990), aff’d by, 501 U.S. 808, 111 S. Ct. 2597 (1991). The Petitioner later sought post-conviction relief which pursuit was unsuccessful. See Pervis Tyrone Payne v. State, No. 02C01-9703-CR-00131 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, Jan. 15, 1998), perm. to appeal denied, (Tenn. Jun. 8, 1998). On September 7, 2006, the Petitioner filed a motion to compel testing of evidence under the Post-Conviction DNA Analysis Act of 2001. The post-conviction court denied the motion on March 29, 2007. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael D. Boon
Following a bench trial, Defendant, Michael D. Boon, was found guilty of driving under the influence (DUI), first offense, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced Defendant to eleven months, twenty-nine days, to be suspended after serving forty-eight hours in confinement. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress and contends that the admission of certain testimony violated his constitutional right to confront witnesses. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Napoleon James Moore, Alias
The Defendant, Napoleon James Moore (alias), pled guilty to and was convicted of attempted possession of over .5 grams of cocaine with the intent to sell, a Class C felony. In accordance with his plea agreement, he was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to five years in the Department of Correction. The manner of service of the sentence was left to the discretion of the trial court. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred by denying probation. Following our review, we affirm the sentence of confinement ordered by the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Heath Alan Womble
The defendant, Heath Alan Womble, pled guilty to possession with the intent to sell a schedule II drug, a class B felony, possession with the intent to sell a schedule III drug, a class D felony, and possession of a schedule IV drug, a class A misdemeanor, and received an effective total sentence of nine years and six months. The trial court denied his application for alternative sentencing and ordered that his sentence be served in confinement. He appeals the manner of service of his sentence, particularly the denial of community corrections. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Moore | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Steven Allen Jones
Following a jury trial Defendant, Steven Allen Jones, was found guilty of first degree murder. The trial court sentenced Defendant to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. On appeal Defendant argues that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction of first degree murder and (2) the trial court erred by instructing the jury as to the punishment for first degree murder. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Carter | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Gary Aldridge v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant, Gary Aldridge, appeals the trial court's dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The Appellant fails to assert a cognizable claim for which habeas corpus relief may be granted. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Wayne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Paul T. Davis v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Paul Tobias Davis, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief. In his petition, the Petitioner asserted that his sentence is illegal because he was denied pretrial jail credits. The habeas corpus court summarily dismissed the petition because the petition did not state a sufficient reason for not being filed in the county nearest to the Petitioner. On appeal, the Petitioner raises two issues: (1) whether a motion filed in the habeas corpus court to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Rule 59.04 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure can operate to limit the jurisdiction of this Court; and (2) whether the fact that the convicting court possesses relevant records relating to a petitioner’s sentence and retains the authority to correct an illegal sentence at anytime is a sufficient reason under Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-21-105 to file a habeas corpus petition in the convicting court rather than the court closest in point of distance to a petitioner. Following our review, we hold that motions filed pursuant to Rule 59 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure do not effect the jurisdiction of this Court in actions for habeas corpus relief and that the Petitioner presented a sufficient reason for filing his petition in the Davidson County Criminal Court. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the habeas corpus court and remand for the appointment of counsel and further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Paul T. Davis v. State of Tennessee - Dissenting and Concurring
I concur in the result that this court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal, but respectfully, I disagree with the holding that the habeas corpus petition was filed in an appropriate court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals |
