Randy Lee Shatto, Sr. v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant appeals the trial court's dismissal of his petition for post conviction relief. The Appellant filed his petition outside the statute of limitations. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Arthur Buford v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Arthur Buford, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Carlos Bush
Appellant, Carlos Bush, was convicted by a jury of one count of aggravated robbery. As a result, Appellant was sentenced to serve fifteen years in incarceration as a Range II multiple offender. After the denial of a motion for new trial and a timely notice of appeal, Appellant presents the following issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction; (2) whether the photographic lineup was unduly suggestive; (3) whether the trial court erred in allowing a witness to testify regarding Appellant’s prior incarceration; (4) whether the trial court improperly admitted hearsay testimony; (5) whether the trial court improperly refused to grant a recess to allow Appellant to prepare curative measures for alleged evidentiary errors; and (6) whether the trial court improperly enhanced Appellant’s sentence by applying an enhancement factor that was not determined by a jury in violation of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004). We determine that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, that the photographic lineup was proper and that the trial court did not improperly admit hearsay or statements about Appellant’s prior incarceration. With regard to Appellant’s sentence, we determine that review of the issue is not necessary to do substantial justice, and consequently, that no plain error was committed on the part of the trial court. Further, the application of enhancement factors (1) and (16) justified the enhancement of Appellant’s sentence from twelve years to fifteen years. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Marquette Milan
The defendant was convicted by a Shelby County jury of first degree premeditated murder, first degree felony murder, and especially aggravated robbery, a Class A felony. The trial court merged the two murder convictions and sentenced the defendant to life in prison for first degree murder and twenty years for especially aggravated robbery, with the sentences to be served concurrently. On appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court erred in excluding the testimony of two itnesses, a forensic psychologist and the defendant’s mother, who would have offered testimony regarding the defendant’s ability to form the requisite culpable mental state. The defendant also contends that the evidence produced at trial was insufficient to support the jury’s guilty verdicts. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the testimony of the two witnesses, and that the evidence produced at trial was sufficient to support the defendant’s convictions. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Paul Welcome v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Paul Welcome, appeals the denial of his petitions for post-conviction relief and writ of error coram nobis. He asserts he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial and that he is entitled to relief based upon newly discovered evidence. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgments of the post-conviction court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Carl Johnson v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant, Carl Johnson, appeals the order of the Shelby County Criminal Court denying his petition for post-conviction relief. Johnson, who was convicted of especially aggravated robbery, is currently serving a sentence of twenty-five years in the Department of Correction. Following the affirmance of his conviction on direct appeal, Johnson filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging numerous instances of ineffective assistance of counsel, which was denied. On appeal, this court remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing “solely on the petitioner’s complaint of the ineffective assistance of counsel regarding lesser-included offense instructions and Owens.” Following an evidentiary hearing, during which Johnson challenged only trial counsel’s failure to request that aggravated assault be charged as a lesser-included offense of especially aggravated robbery, the post-conviction court again denied relief finding that trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to request the lesser charge. In the instant appeal, Johnson challenges the denial of relief. Following a review of the record and the law applicable at the time of trial, we find no reversible error and affirm the denial of post-conviction relief. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Derrick Settles
The Defendant, Derrick Settles, was convicted of two counts of first degree murder and two counts of possession of over .5 ounces of marijuana with the intent to sell. The jury sentenced him to life without the possibility of parole for one murder conviction, and the trial court ordered a consecutive life sentence for the other. The trial court also merged the possession offenses into a single conviction and imposed a concurrent sentence of one year for that conviction. In this appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred by denying his pretrial motions to suppress the evidence recovered from a search of his apartment and his confession because he lacked the intellectual capacity to validly consent to the search or effectively waive the rights guaranteed him by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 479 (1966). Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Michael W. Smith v. Delphus Hicks, Sheriff
The Petitioner, Michael W. Smith, appeals the lower court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner has failed to allege any ground that would render the judgment of conviction void. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Michael Ware v. Tommy Mills, Warden
The Petitioner, Michael Ware, appeals the lower court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner has failed to allege any ground that would render the judgment of conviction void. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal. |
Lake | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Marvin Anthony Matthews v. State of Tennessee (Tony Parker, Warden)
The Petitioner, Marvin Anthony Matthews, appeals the lower court’s denial of his petition |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Marcus Terry A/K/A Marcus Benson, A/K/A Torian Benson v. Tommy Mills, Warden
The Petitioner, Torian Benson,1 appeals the lower court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. As we conclude that the Petitioner has failed to allege a claim upon which habeas corpus relief may be granted, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Marvin Anthony Matthews v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Marvin Anthony Matthews, appeals the lower court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. As we conclude that the petition for post-conviction relief was time-barred, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John William Matkin, III
The defendant, John William Matkin, III, was convicted by a Sevier County Circuit Court jury of voluntary manslaughter, a Class C felony, and was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to serve six years in the Department of Correction. In this appeal, he claims that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction, that the trial court committed reversible error with respect to the jury instructions, and that he was improperly sentenced. Upon review, we hold that the defendant is not entitled to relief and affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sevier | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Edward Ray Armstrong v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Edward Ray Armstrong, appeals as of right from the judgment of the Dyer County Circuit Court denying post-conviction relief. In 2006, the Petitioner pled guilty as a Range I, standard offender to theft of property valued at $1000 or more but less than $10,000, a Class D felony. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a three-year sentence. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel due to trial counsel’s failure to subpoena his medical records and to adequately prepare for trial. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Sean Williams v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Sean Williams, was convicted of first degree (premeditated) murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. He filed a petition for post-conviction relief and alleged that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial, which was denied by the post-conviction court following a hearing. On appeal, he contends that the post-conviction court erred in denying his petition and specifically contends that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to secure a jury instruction for facilitation. After review, we conclude that trial counsel was not ineffective, and we affirm the judgment from the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Darnell Lavelle Welch v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Darnell Lavelle Welch, 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. 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. Andreco Boone
The defendant, Andreco Boone, appeals his conviction of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony. He contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and that the trial court improperly admitted a photo spread during the trial. After careful review, we affirm the judgment from the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Marshall Donnell Johnson v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Marshall Donnell Johnson, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that the post-conviction court erred by finding that he received effective assistance of trial counsel and entered his guilty plea knowingly and voluntarily. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William Earl Robinson
The defendant, William Earl Robinson, pled guilty to one count of rape, a Class B felony, and was sentenced to eight years in confinement. His sentence was suspended and he was placed on probation with credit for time served. The defendant was subsequently arrested for violation of probation. Following a hearing, his probation was revoked and he was remanded into custody for the remainder of his original sentence. The defendant appeals the revocation of his probation and argues that the trial court erred by placing his entire sentence into effect. We affirm the decision of |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Carter - Dissenting
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s holding that sufficient evidence supports the defendant’s conviction of the aggravated assault of Michael Langston. My departure centers around the assault element of “caus[ing] another to reasonably fear imminent bodily injury.” See T.C.A. § 39-13-101 (a)(2) (2006). |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Carter
A Shelby County grand jury indicted the defendant, Christopher Carter, on five counts of aggravated assault. Following a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of one count of aggravated assault, a Class C felony, and one count of assault, a Class A misdemeanor. The state dismissed the remaining counts, and the trial court sentenced the defendant to fifteen years in the Department of Correction as a career offender. On appeal, the defendant contends that the evidence produced at trial was insufficient to support the jury’s guilty verdicts. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the evidence produced at trial was sufficient to support the defendant’s convictions, and we therefore affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Taylor, Jr.
The defendant, James Taylor, Jr., was found guilty by a Lauderdale County jury of aggravated assault (Class C felony) and assault (Class A misdemeanor). He was sentenced to six years for his aggravated assault conviction and to eleven months and twenty-nine days for his assault conviction. On appeal, he contends that: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support either of his convictions; (2) the trial court erred in failing to dismiss the aggravated assault indictment because it did not allege the type of deadly weapon used by the defendant; (3) the trial court should have excluded testimony that the defendant was the subject of a restraining order; and (4) his sentence was improper. After review, we conclude that no reversible error exists and affirm the judgments from the trial court. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Billy Meeks v. Ricky J. Bell, Warden
In 1990, Appellant, Billy Merle Meeks, was convicted, following a jury trial, of aggravated kidnapping, especially aggravated robbery, especially aggravated burglary, and extortion. He received an effective sentence of thirty-nine (39) years. On October 29, 2004, he filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Circuit Court of Davidson County. A "Motion to Dismiss" was filed by Respondent on November 29, 2004, and the trial court entered an order summarily dismissing the petition on March 10, 2005. Appellant has appealed from the trial court's dismissal of the petition. The State has filed a motion for this Court to affirm the dismissal pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals. Finding merit in the motion, we grant same and affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Timmy Charles McDaniel v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Timmy Charles McDaniel, entered pleas of guilty to first degree felony murder and especially aggravated burglary in exchange for concurrent sentences of life without the possibility of parole and 12 years, respectively. Following his incarceration, the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging that his guilty pleas were not knowingly and voluntarily entered because he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. In this appeal, he challenges the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief and reasserts his claim that his guilty pleas were not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kenny Ray O'Dell
Defendant appeals his sentences as a result of guilty pleas to two counts of robbery, a class C felony. Defendant was sentenced by the trial court as a Range I Standard Offender to one six-year term for case number 0015 to be served in the Tennessee Department of Correction and one six-year term, suspended, for case number 0016 to be served on probation. Defendant was also ordered to pay $6,999.00 in restitution for case number 0015 and $621.00 in restitution for case number 0016. The sentences are to be served consecutively. On appeal Defendant argues that he should have received a sentencing alternative other than incarceration and that the sentences should have been ordered to be served concurrently with each other. He does not challenge the length of the individual sentences or the amounts of restitution. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Cocke | Court of Criminal Appeals |
