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 Following a hearing, his probation was revoked and he was remanded into custody for the remainder of his original sentence.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 | |
Timothy Roberson v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Timothy Roberson, appeals the denial of his motion to reopen his post-conviction petition that alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. This Court is without jurisdiction to entertain this issue because the Petitioner has failed to comply with the statutory requirements governing review of a denial of a motion to reopen. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-117. Also, in this appeal, the Petitioner, convicted of first degree murder and especially aggravated robbery in 1995, challenges the denial of his motion for a sample of his own blood. The Petitioner sought to determine his blood type in order to compare it with the blood type found on a towel in the victim’s residence. The court determined that the motion for the Petitioner’s blood sample should be denied as there was substantial evidence of the Petitioner’s guilt presented at trial. Finally, the Petitioner appeals the dismissal of his petition for a writ of error coram nobis that alleged newly discovered evidence in the context of a Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), violation. The coram nobis court1 concluded that any relief was time-barred and that the Petitioner had failed to state a cognizable claim. We affirm the judgment of the Gibson County Circuit Court. |
Gibson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Alton Campbell a/k/a Jamie Campbell
The defendant, James Alton Campbell, was convicted of aggravated assault and sentenced as a Range III, persistent offender to 15 years’ incarceration. In this appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, the admission of a photograph depicting the victim’s injury, and the length of his sentence. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Grundy | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Roger T. Johnson v. Wayne Brandon, Warden
The petitioner, Roger T. Johnson, appeals from the trial court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief from his convictions for first degree murder and second degree murder. Because we find that the petitioner has failed to allege a cognizable claim for habeas corpus relief, we affirm the denial of the petition. |
Hickman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Teresa L. Herman - Dissenting
I believe that the trial court acted well within its authority in granting Appellee credit against the full forty-eight hours of incarceration ordered as a result of her conviction first offense DUI. I would not grant the State’s request to treat this appeal as a common law writ of certiorari and I would dismiss the appeal. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Teresa L. Herman
The defendant, Teresa L. Herman, pled guilty to possession of marijuana and driving under the influence (DUI). For each offense, she was sentenced to eleven months and twenty-nine days, to be served consecutively. The sentences were to be suspended after the defendant served forty-eight hours in a jail or workhouse as required by Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-10-401(a)(1) (2004). At the defendant’s request, the trial court granted the defendant jail credit for time she spent during an inpatient evaluation for competency to stand trial, which credit was to apply toward the mandatory service of forty-eight hours in a jail or workhouse. On appeal, the State challenges the trial court’s authority to grant such credit. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the defendant was entitled to sentencing credit to be applied toward the satisfaction of her sentence; however, the credit should not have applied toward the mandatory service of fortyeight hours in the jail or workhouse. Therefore, we must remand to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Paul S. Bush v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Paul S. Bush, appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief andcontends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel regarding his guilty plea. Specifically,the petitioner argues that counsel met with him only three or four times, failed to sufficiently reviewthe plea agreement with him, told him he had to take the plea, made no attempt to have him mentallyevaluated, failed to file a motion to suppress, and failed to review discovery materials with him priorto entering his guilty plea. After careful review, we conclude that no error exists and affirm thejudgment from the post-conviction court. |
Macon | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Denise Wiggins
The Appellant, Denise Wiggins, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of one count of aggravated child abuse and one count of aggravated child neglect of her five-year-old daughter. The trial court subsequently merged the two Class A felonies into a single conviction for aggravated child abuse. Following a sentencing hearing, Wiggins was sentenced to twenty years imprisonment as a violent offender. On appeal, Wiggins raises two issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to support the convictions; and (2) whether the sentence imposed is excessive. After review, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support Wiggins’ conviction for aggravated child abuse. We conclude, however, that the evidence is legally insufficient to support her conviction for aggravated child neglect. With regard to sentencing, we remand for resentencing based upon the misapplication of enhancing factors and for adherence with the holding of Blakely v. Washington. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Roy Nelson v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Roy Nelson, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in finding that he received effective assistance of counsel. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Willie Paul Watson
The appellant, Willie Paul Watson, was convicted by a jury in the Dyer County Circuit Court of two counts of assault, and he received a total effective sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days, suspended after service of ninety days. On appeal, the appellant argues that the trial court should not have required him to serve ninety days of his sentence. Upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Richard Michael Stephens v. State of Tennessee
In 2005, Petitioner, Richard M. Stephens, was indicted on ten counts of rape, ten counts of incest and seven counts of sexual battery by an authority figure. Petitioner pled guilty to two counts of rape, one count of incest and one count of sexual battery by an authority figure. As a result, Petitioner was sentenced to an effective sentence of twenty-two years. Petitioner subsequently filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief, alleging, among other things, that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court summarily dismissed the petition without a hearing.On appeal, Petitioner alleges that the trial court improperly dismissed the petition for post-conviction relief. We reverse and remand the dismissal of the post-conviction petition. |
Wilson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Demarcus Young
The defendant was convicted by a Shelby County jury of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, and sentenced to eight years in prison as a Range I, standard offender. On appeal, the defendant contends that the evidence produced at trial was insufficient to support the jury’s guilty verdict, and he also contends that the trial court committed plain error in admitting evidence of the robbery victim’s identification of the defendant as the perpetrator. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the evidence produced at trial was sufficient to support the defendant’s conviction, and that the identification issue is waived on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Antonio Oliver
The defendant, Antonio Oliver, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of first degree murder. He was sentenced as a violent offender to life in the Department of Correction. In this direct appeal, he claims that insufficient evidence exists to support his conviction and that he is entitled to a new trial based upon prosecutorial misconduct during voir dire, opening statement, and closing argument. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Alberto Camacho
Appellant, Alberto Camacho, was indicted on six counts of theft and one count of impersonation of a licensed professional. After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of four counts of theft over one thousand dollars, a Class D felony, two counts of theft over five hundred dollars, a Class E felony, and one count of impersonation of a licensed professional, a Class E felony. The trial court sentenced Appellant to four years for each Class D felony and two years for each Class E felony. The trial court ordered the sentences to run concurrently, for a total effective sentence of four years. The trial court further ordered Appellant to serve 200 days of the sentence day-for-day, with the balance of the sentence to be served on supervised probation. Appellant was also ordered to pay $750 per month toward restitution. Appellant appeals, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions, that the trial court improperly instructed the jury on the charge of impersonation of a licensed professional and that his sentence is improper. Because the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, the trial court properly instructed the jury and the trial court properly applied enhancement factors (2) and (16), we affirm the judgments of the trial court. However, because the trial court erred in imposing a sentence ordering Appellant to serve 200 days of the sentence day-for-day, we reverse that portion of the sentence and remand to the trial court for entry of an order deleting the requirement that the sentence be served day-for-day. |
Sevier | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Bobby Joe McCauley v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Bobby Joe McCauley, pled guilty to first degree felony murder and received a sentence of life without the possibility of parole. In this post-conviction appeal, he argues that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel relative to his mental health condition and whether his plea was knowingly entered. The trial court denied relief, and we affirm that judgment. |
Henderson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Antonio Lamar Osborn
The defendant, Antonio Lamar Osborn, appeals the revocation of his probation, arguing that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to modify his probation order because more than thirty days had elapsed since the entry of the order. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Szumanski Stroud
The defendant, Szumanski Stroud, appeals from his Shelby County Criminal Court jury trial convictions of two counts of aggravated assault, Class C felonies, for which he received seven-year and six-month sentences, to be served consecutively in the Department of Correction as a Range II offender. In this appeal, he claims (1) that the evidence is not sufficient to support his convictions, (2) that the trial court erroneously instructed the jury on the definition of “intentionally” and “knowingly” mental states, and (3) that he was excessively sentenced. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Gregory Lee Smith
Defendant, Gregory Lee Smith, was indicted for aggravated rape. Following a jury trial, he was convicted of the lesser included offense of aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony. The trial court sentenced Defendant as a Range I, standard offender, to twelve years. On appeal, Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence and argues that the sentence imposed by the trial court is excessive. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals |
