State of Tennessee v. William Andrew Long
The Defendant, William Andrew Long, appeals from the sentencing decision of the Campbell County Circuit Court. In February of 2006, the Defendant pled guilty to kidnapping and robbery. Pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, he received an effective twelve-year sentence as a Range I, standard offender, and the trial court was to determine the manner of service. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered the sentence to be served in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred by ordering a sentence of total confinement rather than a less restrictive alternative. After review, the sentencing decision is affirmed. |
Campbell | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Alonzo Ladon Mason
The defendant, Alonzo Ladon Mason, appeals from his Bedford County Criminal Court jury conviction of possession of a handgun by a convicted felon. He claims that the trial court erred in admitting a 9-1-1 tape recording into evidence and that the verdict is not supported by legally sufficient evidence. Because we disagree, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Albert Pippin
The Defendant, James Albert Pippin, was convicted by a Putnam County jury of seven counts of aggravated assault and one count of resisting arrest. On appeal, he alleges the trial court improperly denied him judicial diversion at sentencing. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Putnam | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Klein Adlei Rawlins
The Defendant, Klein Adlei Rawlins, was convicted by a Sumner County jury of aggravated child abuse and first degree felony murder. On appeal, he alleges that: (1) his right to counsel was violated during police questioning in jail; (2) the trial court erred when it allowed autopsy photographs of the victim into evidence; (3) the trial court erred when it allowed an unqualified witness to give expert testimony; and (4) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions. Because we conclude that no reversible error exists, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Larry Daniel
The Defendant, Larry Daniel, appeals the sentence imposed after his probation was revoked due to an arrest for driving under the influence. Additionally, the Defendant asserts that the statute which prohibits credit from being given for time spent on probation is unconstitutional. After reviewing the record and applicable law, we find no error in the judgment of the trial court and affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Carl Anthony Watson v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Carl Anthony Watson, was convicted of rape, and the trial court sentenced him to ten years. This Court affirmed the conviction and sentence on appeal. The Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which the post-conviction court dismissed after a hearing. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at his original trial, and that the post-conviction court erred in failing to grant a continuance of the evidentiary hearing. We affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Marcus Nixon v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Marcus Nixon, was convicted by a Lauderdale County jury of rape of a child. His conviction was affirmed on appeal. State v. Marcus Vashawn Nixon, No. W2003-01909-CCA-R3-CD, 2004 WL 2058927, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 15, 2004). The petitioner subsequently filed a petition for DNA analysis pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-30-304, that was denied by the trial court; the denial was affirmed by this court. Marcus Nixon v. State, No. W2005-02158-CCA-R3-WM, 2006 WL 851764 (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 3, 2006). On September 15, 2005, he filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and due process violations. After the appointment of counsel, appropriate amendment to the petition, and a full evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied relief. Following our review, we affirm. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Marlon Meacham
Following a jury trial, Defendant, Marlon Meacham, was convicted of one count of aggravated robbery and one count of aggravated burglary. Defendant was sentenced to serve nine years for the robbery conviction and six years for the burglary conviction, to be served concurrently in the Tennessee Department of Correction, for a total effective sentence of nine years. In this appeal, Defendant argues that 1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions for aggravated robbery and aggravated burglary, (2) the State improperly refreshed the recollection of Javonta Charles, and (3) the State improperly questioned Defendant about his pre-arrest silence in violation of his Fifth Amendment due process rights. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Devonna Barbee
Following a jury trial, the defendant, Devonna Barbee, was found guilty of felony reckless endangerment (Class E felony). She was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender, to a one-year community corrections sentence with sixty days to be served in jail. She appeals, contending the trial court erred by failing to grant her judicial diversion. After careful review, we conclude the trial court properly denied judicial diversion, and we affirm the judgment from the trial court. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Barry Sotherland v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Barry Sotherland, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The Petitioner claims that his concurrent life sentences for aggravated rape and aggravated kidnapping are illegal because he was convicted of these charges while on parole for another felony and the sentencing court failed to explicitly order that this new sentence be served consecutively to the sentence for the paroled offense. Following a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the Wayne County Circuit Court summarily dismissing the petition. |
Wayne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tony Bell
After a bench trial, the Shelby County Criminal Court convicted the appellant of burglary of a building, a Class D felony, and sentenced him as a career offender to twelve years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant claims the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction. Upon 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. Jonathan P. Taylor
The defendant, Jonathan P. Taylor, was convicted by a Dyer County jury of aggravated robbery and was sentenced to eight years incarceration. On appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. Following our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Stephen Cox
Michael Stephen Cox, the defendant, appeals from a denial of his application for alternative sentencing. The defendant entered a best interest guilty plea, pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S. Ct. 160 (1970), to reckless aggravated assault (Class D felony) for a two-year sentence, with the manner of service to be determined by the trial judge. After a hearing, alternative sentencing was denied and the defendant was ordered to serve two years of confinement as a Range I, standard offender. After review, we conclude that the denial of alternative sentencing was proper and affirm the sentence. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Richard Odom
The defendant, Richard Odom, filed a motion to access closed files in the Shelby County District Attorney’s Office pursuant to the Tennessee Public Records Act, and the state opposed said motion. After two hearings on the matter, the trial court entered an order granting the defendant’s ex parte motion for the trial court to view the state’s file in camera for specific limited exculpatory material. We granted the state’s Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 10(a) application for extraordinary appeal to determine whether the trial court erred in granting the defendant’s ex parte motion, requiring the state to relinquish its file for in camera inspection by the trial court. Upon our review of the record and due consideration of the issue, we reverse and vacate the trial court’s order. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Michael Hanners
The appellant, James Michael Hanners, was convicted by a Rutherford County jury of misdemeanor assault, a lesser-included offense of abuse of a child under six years of age, in September 2002. In January 2003, the trial court sentenced the appellant to eleven months and twenty-nine days. In |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Patty Grissom
The appellant, Patty Grissom, was convicted of misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-17-425, and she was sentenced to eleven months and twenty-nine days, with forty-five days to be served in confinement. She appealed, arguing that she was improperly sentenced and that trial counsel was ineffective. We conclude that the record on appeal is insufficient for our review, and, therefore, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Warren | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Pauline Lacy
The Defendant, Pauline Lacey, appeals from the sentencing decision of the Davidson County Criminal Court. The Defendant was indicted for four counts of aggravated assault, and she subsequently pled guilty as charged. Pursuant to the terms of the negotiated plea agreement, the Defendant received an effective four-year and six-month sentence, and the trial court was to determine the manner of service. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered the Defendant to serve sixty days in jail, followed by probation for the remainder of her sentence. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying her request for full probation. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Scotty Wayne Henry
The Defendant, Scotty Wayne Henry, pled guilty to one count of promoting the manufacture of methamphetamine and one count of felony reckless endangerment. Pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37, the Defendant reserved as a certified question of law the issue of whether the search and seizure of evidence that led to his indictment and guilty plea were unconstitutional. We conclude that the search and seizure were constitutional, and the judgments of the trial court are therefore affirmed. |
Tipton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Dennis Jarrett
Defendant, Dennis Jarrett, was indicted on the following charges: count one, driving after being declared a habitual motor vehicle offender; count two, driving under the influence of an intoxicant and/or drug; count three, driving under the influence, seventh offense; count four, felony reckless endangerment; count five, felony evading arrest; count six, possession of drug paraphernalia; count seven, violation of implied consent law; and count eight, failure to appear. Following a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty on counts one, four, five, six, seven, and eight. In a separate proceeding, Defendant entered pleas of guilty on counts two and three. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Defendant to an effective sentence of six years for his convictions, the length and manner of service of which Defendant does not challenge on appeal. Defendant argues on appeal that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction of felony reckless endangerment. After a review of the record, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Antonio Hoyle v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Antonio Hoyle, appeals from the post-conviction court’s denial of post-conviction relief. On appeal, he contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel which caused him to enter an unknowing and involuntary guilty plea. Following our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court denying post-conviction relief. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jeffrey Lee Fields
A Carroll County Circuit Court jury convicted the defendant of driving under the influence of an intoxicant (DUI), third offense, see T.C.A. § 55-10-401 (2006), possession of a handgun while under the influence of an intoxicant, see id. § 39-17-1321(a) (2006), and possession of marijuana, see id. § 39-17-418(a), all Class A misdemeanors. The jury acquitted the defendant of unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, rolling papers, see id. § 39-17-425(a)(1) (2006), and unlawful possession of a prohibited weapon, a throwing star, see id. § 39-17-1302(a)(8) (2006). The court sentenced the defendant for the DUI conviction to 11 months and 29 days suspended after serving 120 days. For the possession of a handgun charge he received 11 months and 29 days suspended after serving 30 days. Likewise, he received 11 months and 29 days suspended after 30 days for the possession of marijuana conviction. All sentences were to run concurrently. The defendant filed a timely notice of appeal and complains, only in regards to his DUI conviction, that (1) the trial “was fundamentally unfair due to the State’s failure to preserve the video tape of the field sobriety tests . . ., which . . . would have been exculpatory in nature,” and (2) “the verdict . . . was unreliable based upon [the deputy’s] erroneous testimony . . . concerning the Breathalyzer Machine and the test he gave and the manner in which he gave it.” After review of the record and the briefs submitted by the parties, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Carroll | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Wadie Michael Holifield
The defendant, Wadie Michael Holifield, was convicted of aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony, and sentenced as a violent offender to serve eighteen years in the Department of Correction. He appeals two issues: (1) the sufficiency of the evidence; and (2) whether the trial court erred by denying his motion for a new trial because the jury allegedly was tainted by overhearing courtroom conversations between the victim and her family. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court but remand for entry of a corrected judgment to reflect the date of the offense as January 16, 2005, rather than February 4, 2005. |
Tipton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Linda Kay Batts
Following a jury trial, Defendant, Linda Batts, was convicted of possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver and possession of drug paraphernalia. She was sentenced to serve eight years in the Department of Correction for the intent to deliver conviction, and eleven months, twenty-nine days in the county jail for the paraphernalia conviction, with the sentences to be served concurrently, for a total effective sentence of eight years. Defendant now appeals the judgments of the trial court arguing (1) the trial judge failed to exercise his duty to act as thirteenth juror and overturn the jury’s verdict, (2) the jury selection process was tainted in violation of her constitutional rights; and (3) the trial court improperly denied her motion to suppress evidence. After a thorough review of the record, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed. |
Weakley | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ronald Robinson v. Howard Carlton, Warden, and the State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Ronald Robinson, appeals the dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The state has filed a motion requesting that this court affirm the trial court's judgment pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The petition fails to establish a cognizable claim for habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, the state's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Johnson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Maron Donta Brown
The appellant, Maron Donta Brown, pled guilty in the Bradley County Criminal Court to one count of possession of more than .5 grams of cocaine with the intent to sell or deliver and one count of speeding.1 The appellant received a total sentence of fifteen years as a Range II multiple offender. As part of the plea agreement, the appellant properly reserved a certified question of law, challenging the stop and subsequent search of his vehicle during which the cocaine was discovered. Upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Bradley | Court of Criminal Appeals |
