State of Tennessee v. Rick Braden
The defendant, Rick Braden, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of two counts of aggravated robbery, and he received concurrent nine-year sentences. On appeal, he argues that (1) the trial court erred in not allowing him to introduce the guilty pleas of two named co-defendants, (2) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions, and (3) the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of facilitation. Following our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the trial court erred in failing to charge the lesser-included offense of facilitation, and therefore, reverse the judgments of the trial court and remand for a new trial. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Dickey L. Cotton v. David Mills, Warden (State of Tennessee)
This case is before us after remand by the Tennessee Supreme Court for reconsideration in light of its holdings in Summers v. State, 212 S.W.3d 251 (Tenn. 2007); Smith v. Lewis, 202 S.W.3d 124 (Tenn. 2006); and Shaun Hoover v. State, 215 S.W.3rd 776 (Tenn. Jan. 23, 2007). The petitioner, Dickey L. Cotton, appeals the circuit court’s summary dismissal of his pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus. Upon reconsideration, we affirm the court’s dismissal of the habeas corpus petition. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Mohamed Medhet Karim
In November 2004, the defendant, Mohamed Medhet Karim, was indicted by a Wayne County grand jury on one count of attempted first degree murder. On August 31, 2005, following a jury trial in Wayne County Circuit Court, the jury convicted the defendant of attempted second degree murder and imposed a fine of $10,000. Following a sentencing hearing on October 13, 2005, the trial court sentenced the defendant to twelve years of incarceration as a Range I, standard offender, the maximum sentence allowed under the statute. The defendant timely filed a motion for a new trial on November 1, 2005; this motion was denied on January 4, 2006. The defendant now appeals, claiming his sentence was excessive. In making his claim, the defendant argues that two of the enhancement factors provided in Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-114 were improperly applied to his sentence. Concluding that application of the two enhancement factors which the defendant does not challenge is sufficient to support the twelve-year sentence imposed by the trial court, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Wayne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Carroll Carson Sanders
The Defendant, Carroll Carson Sanders, pled guilty in two cases to eight counts of theft over $10,000, five counts of theft over $1000, and one count of theft over $500. The parties agreed to an effective sentence of ten years, with the trial court to determine the manner of service of the ten-year sentence, followed by five years of probation. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered the Defendant to serve his effective ten-year sentence in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it denied him an alternative sentence. Concluding there exists no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Carter | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Eric Michael Goldman
The Appellant, Eric Michael Goldman, was convicted by a Marshall County jury of misdemeanor reckless endangerment and public intoxication and received sentences of eleven months and twenty-nine days and thirty days, respectively. On appeal, the Appellant raises the single issue of sufficiency of the evidence. After review, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. George Robert Waggoner
The defendant, George Robert Waggoner, was convicted by a DeKalb County jury of two counts of premeditated murder, two counts of murder committed during the perpetration of a theft of property valued at over one thousand dollars, and one count of theft of property valued at over one thousand dollars, a Class D felony, involving the deaths of his grandparents. The premeditated murder and felony murder counts merged, and the trial court imposed two consecutive life sentences for the murder convictions concurrent with a three year sentence, as a Range I, standard offender, for the theft conviction. The defendant now appeals, claiming the trial court erred in admitting prior bad acts committed by the defendant, in admitting photographs of the deceased victims taken at the crime scene, and in imposing consecutive life sentences. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
DeKalb | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Cornelius D. Pierce v. Tommy Mills, Warden
The Petitioner, Cornelius D. Pierce, 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 comply with the procedural requirements for seeking habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's dismissal. |
Lake | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Johnny Parker v. Stephen Dotson, Warden, And State Of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Johnny Parker, 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 assert a ground that would entitle him to habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's dismissal. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jeffrey A. Sundahl, Alias
Knox County- The defendant, Jeffrey A. Sundahl, was charged with four counts of unlawfully and knowingly depriving the state of the realization of its lawful revenue by failing to remit sales tax revenue, a Class E felony; one count of unlawfully and knowingly delaying, hampering, impeding, obstructing, and thwarting the state in its collection of its lawful revenue by failing to register with the state under Tennessee Code Annotated section 67-6-601, a Class E felony; and one count of theft over $60,000, a Class B felony. The trial court dismissed all six charges on statute of limitations grounds. The state appeals the dismissals. We affirm the judgments of the trial court as to counts 1 through 5. We conclude, however, that the trial court wrongly applied a three-year statute of limitations to the theft count, count 6, and we reverse the judgment as to that count. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William Shane Bright
The defendant was indicted for three counts of solicitation to commit first degree murder, committed while he was in prison for a previous, unrelated conviction. The defendant pled guilty to the three counts. As part of his plea agreement, he received three sentences of ten years each to be served concurrently. In a separate sentencing hearing, the trial court determined that the three concurrent sentences should be served consecutively to the sentence he was serving at the time the crimes were committed. The defendant appeals, arguing that he should have received concurrent sentences and that he was entitled to pre-trial jail credits for time served between the continuation of a parole hearing and his sentencing. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Bledsoe | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Shad Tankersley
The Appellant, Shad Tankersly, was found guilty of violating his probation and ordered to serve his sentence in incarceration. On appeal, he challenges the trial court’s decision to revoke probation, asking this Court to determine whether a warrant is required to initiate a probation revocation proceeding and toll the time limitation within which to revoke probation. We hold that T.C.A. § 40- 35-311 plainly requires the issuance of a warrant to initiate a probation revocation proceeding, and, that in the absence of the issuance of a warrant during the probationary period, as is the case here, there is no tolling of the period. Therefore, we reverse and remand the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Raymond Lee Gibson
The defendant, Raymond Lee Gibson, was convicted by a Hamilton County jury of one count of manufacturing methamphetamine. On appeal, he raises several evidentiary issues for our review and argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. After review of the record, we are not persuaded that the evidentiary issues merit relief, and we hold that the evidence at trial was sufficient to support the manufacturing conviction. The judgment of conviction is, therefore, affirmed. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Shannon Richard Hudson, alias Richard Shannon Hudson
The defendant, Shannon Richard Hudson, was found guilty by a Hamilton County jury of three counts of aggravated sexual battery and one count of attempted aggravated sexual battery. The three counts of aggravated sexual battery were merged, and the defendant received an effective twenty-seven-year sentence in the Department of Correction. He was sentenced to twenty years for the aggravated sexual battery conviction and to seven years for the attempted aggravated sexual battery conviction, to be served consecutively for a total effective sentence of twenty-seven years. On appeal, he contends that: the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions; the trial court erred in allowing the jury to have access to the indictment during their deliberation; and the trial court should have merged all of his convictions. After careful review, we find no error and affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jamie Lou Haneline v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Jamie Lou Haneline, appeals the Decatur County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction and error coram nobis relief. He contends that he is entitled to post-conviction relief because he received the ineffective assistance of counsel and that he is entitled to error coram nobis relief based upon newly discovered evidence. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Decatur | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Joseph W. Wilson v. State of Tennessee
A Madison County jury convicted the petitioner, Joseph W. Wilson, of three counts of aggravated rape and one count each of attempted second degree murder, especially aggravated robbery, especially aggravated burglary, conspiracy to commit aggravated burglary, and misdemeanor vandalism committed in 1999. He was sentenced to 71-years’ confinement. In 2005, he filed a post-conviction petition requesting DNA testing pursuant to the Post Conviction DNA Analysis Act of 2001. The court denied the petitioner's post-conviction petition, and on appeal he contends that the post-conviction court erred by denying his petition. After thoroughly reviewing the record and the applicable law, we conclude that there is no reversible error in the lower court’s judgment. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Matthew Lee Rogers v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Matthew Lee Rogers, appeals the judgment of the habeas court denying his petition for habeas corpus relief. After reviewing the record and applicable law, we note that this Petitioner was recently granted a new trial on direct appeal, and his grounds for habeas corpus relief are now moot. Thus, we find no error in the judgment of the habeas court and affirm the denial of the habeas corpus petition. |
Johnson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Charles Edward Harrison
The defendant, Charles E. Harrison, waived his right to a jury and proceeded with a bench trial. The trial court found the defendant guilty of theft of property over $1000 (Class D felony), Driving Under the Influence (D.U.I.) fourth offense (Class E felony), driving on a revoked license (Class A misdemeanor), and violation of the implied consent law (Class A misdemeanor). The trial court sentenced the defendant to an effective sentence of seven years and six months. The defendant received six years and six months as a Range II offender for the theft conviction; eleven months and twenty-nine days for the D.U.I. conviction; eleven months and twenty-nine days for the driving on a revoked license conviction; and five days for violation of the implied consent law. The misdemeanor sentences were imposed concurrently with each other but consecutively to the felony conviction. At the sentencing hearing, the D.U.I. fourth offense conviction was amended to D.U.I. third offense (Class A misdemeanor). The defendant challenges only the sufficiency of the evidence to support the theft conviction, contending that the State failed to prove the defendant intended to deprive the owner of his property. We conclude that sufficient evidence was presented to support the theft conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Roger A. Weaver, Jr.
The Appellant, Roger A. Weaver, Jr., appeals the sentencing decision of the Lauderdale County |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Michael Hooper v. Steven Dotson, Warden
The petitioner, Michael Hooper, appeals the trial court’s dismissal of his pro se petition for writ of |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Donald Clark v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Donald Clark, who was convicted of especially aggravated robbery, sought postconviction relief from the Shelby County Criminal Court, which denied relief after an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, the petitioner presents several issues of the ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the denial of post-conviction relief. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Greg Goff
Probation for the defendant, Greg Goff, was revoked after he tested positive for cocaine and admitted he had possessed and sold cocaine while on probation. In this appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court erred in revoking his probation and that his sentence is excessive in light of the circumstances surrounding his violation and past criminal history. After review, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking the defendant’s probation. Further, we conclude that our review is limited to whether the trial court abused its discretion in revoking the defendant’s probation and not the length of the sentence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Dwight K. Pritchard v. State of Tennessee
This appeal is before this Court after remand by order of the Tennessee Supreme Court. The Petitioner, Dwight K. Pritchard, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The Petitioner contends that the guilty pleas he entered were not knowing and voluntary because the sentences imposed by the trial court were illegal. A recent decision of the Tennessee Supreme Court compels our conclusion that summary dismissal was proper. The judgment of the Davidson County Criminal Court summarily dismissing the petition is affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Dennis Jarrett
Following a jury trial, Defendant, Dennis Jarrett, was convicted of driving after being declared a |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Roy Gene Russom
The Appellant, Roy Gene Russom, was convicted by a Henderson County jury of violating the Motor Vehicle Habitual Offender Act and was subsequently sentenced, as a Range II offender, to four years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, Russom raises the single issue of sufficiency of the evidence. Following review, the judgment of conviction is affirmed. |
Henderson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Mathis Lamar Meadows
|
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals |
