State of Tennessee v. Andrew Soimis
Andrew Soimis, the defendant, appeals his conviction for second degree murder (Class A felony) on the sole ground that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction. After review, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient, and we affirm the judgment of conviction. |
Putnam | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Mark A. Schiefelbein
A Williamson County Circuit Court jury convicted the defendant, Mark A. Schiefelbein, of seven counts of aggravated sexual battery and one count of especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor. The trial court imposed a 12-year sentence for each conviction and ordered consecutive service, thereby yielding an effective sentence of 96 years. Aggrieved of the convictions and sentences, the defendant appeals and raises the following issues: (1) the trial court erred by failing to require the State to furnish discovery materials to the defendant; (2) the trial court committed reversible error by configuring courtroom seating to shield the public from viewing certain exhibits; (3) the trial court improperly instructed the jury, sua sponte, to disregard certain truthful testimony of the defendant; (4) the trial court’s repeated questioning of State’s witnesses created an appearance of judicial bias and improperly bolstered the State’s case; (5) the trial court committed reversible error in excluding defense-proffered medical testimony that a physical examination of the victim rebutted the occurrence of sexual penetration, contact, or injury; (6) the trial court permitted the introduction of inadmissible and highly prejudicial hearsay and opinion testimony; (7) the trial court erroneously permitted the State to examine the defendant about his knowledge that a “voice stress analysis” could detect stress in an individual’s voice; (8) the trial court erroneously instructed the jury that the defendant could be guilty of aggravated sexual battery if he acted intentionally, knowingly, or “recklessly”; (9) the trial court erroneously instructed the jury that the State could prove the mental state for aggravated sexual battery in the disjunctive by showing that the defendant acted intentionally, knowingly, “or” recklessly; (10) the trial judge should be disqualified from further involvement in the case; and (11) the defendant’s effective sentence is excessive, illegal, and unconstitutional. As an adjunct to the issues raised on direct appeal, the defendant also pursues Appellate Procedure Rule 10 interlocutory review to bar future prosecution of three related child rape charges that were severed, over his objection, from trial of the aggravated sexual battery and especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor offenses. After thorough review of the record and careful consideration of the parties briefs, their oral arguments, and the applicable law, we hold that none of the errors require reversal of the defendant’s convictions for aggravated sexual battery or for aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor. However, we hold that the incarcerative 96-years’ sentence is inconsistent with the purposes and principles of sentencing and does not provide a fair sense of predictability of the criminal law and its sanctions; therefore, we modify the defendant’s effective sentence from 96 years to 36 years. We order that the trial judge who presided at trial is disqualified from conducting any further proceedings in this cause. Finally, we dismiss the child rape offenses, as improperly severed, and hold that further prosecution on such charges is barred by |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kenneth D. Hoover
The defendant, Kenneth D. Hoover a.k.a. Kenneth Johnson, appeals his convictions and sentence. The defendant was found guilty of second degree murder (Class A felony), reckless endangerment (Class A misdemeanor), and possession of a weapon with the intent to employ it in the commission of a felony (Class E felony). The defendant received an effective sentence of twenty-nine years. On appeal, the defendant alleges that the trial court erred in admitting certain autopsy photographs and erred in imposing an excessive sentence. After review, we affirm the judgments of conviction and sentencing. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ayatolah W. Wallace
The defendant, Ayatolah W. Wallace, was convicted of three counts of aggravated kidnapping and sentenced to sixteen years in the Department of Correction as a Range II, violent offender. He argues that his convictions must be overturned in light of State v. Anthony, 817 S.W.2d 299, 301 (Tenn. 1991), which precludes dual convictions for kidnapping and another accompanying felony when the movement or confinement supporting the kidnapping charge is merely incidental to that required to commit the accompanying felony. Because the defendant was convicted only of aggravated kidnapping, however, Anthony is inapposite. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Bradley | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Emanuel Lawrence Harris
The defendant, Emanuel Lawrence Harris,1 pled guilty to nine felony drug offenses and was sentenced to an effective term of twenty-three years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in ordering that some of his sentences be served consecutively. Upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Dickson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Frank Ray Ruth
The Defendant, Frank Ray Ruth, was indicted for thirty-seven counts of filing false sales tax returns and one count of Class C felony theft of property. The district attorney general denied the Defendant’s application for pretrial diversion. The trial court reversed, concluding that the district attorney abused his discretion. The State obtained an interlocutory appeal from this Court pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 10. Following our review of the record, the judgment of the Hamilton County Criminal Court ordering the district attorney general to grant the Defendant diversion is reversed. This case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Earnest F. Brown v. State of Tennessee
In October 2004, Petitioner, Earnest F. Brown, pled guilty to two counts of theft of property over $1,000.00, one count of burglary, two counts of burglary of a motor vehicle, and one count of assault. In exchange for his plea, the trial court sentenced Petitioner to serve two years as a Range I offender for the first conviction of theft over $1,000.00, four years as a Range II offender for the second conviction of theft over $1,000.00, two years as a Range II offender for each burglary of a motor vehicle conviction, and eleven months, twenty-nine days for the assault conviction, for a total effective sentence of fourteen (14) years, eleven (11) months, twenty-nine (29) days. In June 2005, Petitioner filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief. After appointing counsel and conducting a hearing, the post-conviction court denied Petitioner post-conviction relief. Petitioner now appeals that denial arguing that the trial court erred in denying his petition because (1) his guilty pleas were not knowingly and voluntarily entered, and (2) he did not receive effective assistance of counsel. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Wiley Hawthorne
OnNovember 2, 2004, the appellant, Wiley Hawthorne, was indicted on one count of attempted first degree murder and one count of felony reckless endangerment. On July 27, 2005, a jury found the appellant guilty on both counts. On August 26, 2005, the trial court sentenced the appellant to twenty-two years for attempting to commit first degree murder and eighteen months for reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon, the sentences to run concurrently. On September 9, 2005, the trial court denied the appellant’s motion for a new trial. The appellant filed a notice of appeal. On appeal, the appellant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions on both counts of the indictment. Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the State, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to have found the accused guilty of both counts of the indictment beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, we affirm the appellant’s convictions. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William Granville Howell
Defendant, William Granville Howell, was indicted for aggravated assault. Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of simple assault and sentenced to serve eleven months, twenty-nine days, with the sentence suspended. On appeal, Defendant argues that his conviction should be reversed because (1) the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction of simple assault beyond a reasonable doubt; (2) the trial court erred in admitting testimony pertaining to a prior assault claim against Defendant; and (3) trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to the admission of the prior conviction and for opening the door for introduction of this evidence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Percy Lee Palmer v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant, Percy Lee Palmer, appeals the trial court's dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. Appellant concedes on appeal that the trial court's judgment is correct. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Joseph Jackson, Jr., v. State of Tennessee
A Shelby County jury convicted the Petitioner, Joseph Jackson, Jr., of two counts of attempted first degree murder, and the trial judge imposed two twenty-year sentences to be served concurrently. The Petitioner filed a pro se petition for habeas corpus relief, which was dismissed by the habeas court without a hearing. On appeal, the Petitioner contends he could not have been convicted for these two criminal attempts under statutory law and the underlying judgment is therefore illegal and void. Finding no reversible error exists, we affirm the judgment of the habeas court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John Patrick Nash
The appellant, John Patrick Nash, was indicted by a Sumner County grand jury of six counts of sexual contact with a victim under the age of thirteen. On August 23, 2005, he pled no contest to an amended indictment charging two counts of aggravated assault and retiring the other four counts of the original indictment. He received sentences of six and four years respectively, to run consecutively, for a total effective sentence of ten years as a standard offender and placed on community corrections. In October 2005, the appellant failed a drug test after testing positive for cocaine, marijuana, and alcohol, and a violation of community corrections warrant was filed. Following a hearing on January 9, 2006, the community corrections sentence was revoked and the appellant was ordered to serve his underlying sentences in confinement. On appeal, the appellant argues that the trial court erred in finding that he had violated the terms and conditions of his community corrections sentence. After careful review, we find no reversible error exists and affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. David Michael Chubb - Concurring
I join with the majority in concluding that the State’s special instruction submitted to the jury constituted reversible error. I write separately only to note the following additional reasons for finding the instruction was error. The special instruction, in its entirety, is as follows: The court instructs you that in a sexual abuse case you may convict the defendant on the basis of the victim’s testimony alone. Corroboration of the victim’s testimony is not necessary. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. David Michael Chubb
The appellant, David Michael Chubb, was convicted by a jury in the Sumner County Criminal Court of four counts of aggravated sexual battery, one count of attempted aggravated sexual battery, one count of possession of marijuana, and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia. The trial court sentenced the petitioner to a total effective sentence of fourteen years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether the trial court erred in failing to inquire into the conflict of interest when it was revealed at trial that the appellant’s trial counsel had previously represented the mother of the minor victim; (2) whether the trial court erred in allowing the State to admit a videotape into evidence; (3) whether the trial court erred in denying the appellant’s motion for a bill of particulars; (4) whether the trial court erred in charging a special jury instruction requested by the State; (5) whether, according to the dictates of Blakely v. Washington, the trial court erred in sentencing the appellant; and (6) whether the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences. Upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we reverse the convictions for aggravated sexual battery and attempted aggravated sexual battery based upon an improper instruction, affirm the drug related convictions, and remand for a new trial on the aggravated sexual battery and attempted aggravated sexual battery charges. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Mario L. Smith
The defendant, Mario L. Smith, was convicted by a Davidson County Criminal Court jury of attempted second degree murder, a Class B felony, and vandalism over $1000, a Class D felony and was sentenced by the trial court as a Range I, standard offender to concurrent sentences of nine years and two years, respectively, in the Department of Correction. The sole issue the defendant raises on appeal is whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain his attempted second degree murder conviction. We conclude that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction and, accordingly, affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Sherry Floyd McAlister
The defendant, Sherry Floyd McAlister, was convicted of attempted first degree murder, a Class A felony, and sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to twenty-five years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, she argues that the trial court erred by imposing an excessive sentence. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Perry | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jeremy S. Crosby
Following a jury trial, Defendant, Jeremy S. Crosby, was convicted of possession of over .5 grams of cocaine with intent to sell and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia. He was sentenced to serve eighteen years in the Department of Correction for the cocaine conviction and eleven months, twenty-nine days for the paraphernalia conviction, for an effective sentence of eighteen years. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in failing to grant his motion to suppress, and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. After a review of the record, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Teresa Sue Skipper
The Defendant, Teresa Sue Skipper, was convicted of assault, resisting arrest, and obstruction of the execution of an arrest warrant. The Defendant filed a timely motion for a new trial, asserting that the trial judge infringed upon her constitutional rights by not properly instructing the jury. The motion for a new trial was denied. On appeal, the Defendant continues to assert that the jury instructions were erroneous. Furthermore, the Defendant now argues that her constitutional rights were violated because the law enforcement officers entered her home unlawfully and, but for the illegal entry of the officers, she would not have used force against them to protect and defend herself. We conclude that the trial judge properly instructed the jury and that the Defendant waived any claims regarding an unlawful search. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Loudon | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Latisha Jones
Following a jury trial Defendant, Latisha Jones, was convicted of first degree felony murder and especially aggravated robbery, both Class A felonies. Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment for her felony murder conviction. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Defendant as a Range I, standard offender, to twenty-three years for her especially aggravated robbery conviction and ordered her robbery sentence to be served consecutively to her sentence for felony murder. Defendant does not challenge the length or manner of service of her sentence. In her appeal, Defendant argues that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support her convictions; (2) the trial court erred in not suppressing her statement to the investigating officers; (3) the trial court erred in its instructions to the jury on facilitation; (4) the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of attempted especially aggravated robbery; and (5) Tennessee pattern instruction, criminal 43.04 is unconstitutional. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Gregory L. Anderson v. State of Tennessee
Aggrieved of his driving under the influence (DUI), fifth offense, conviction, the petitioner, Gregory L. Anderson, sought post-conviction relief, which was denied by the Criminal Court for Davidson County after an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, the petitioner pursues his claim of ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. We affirm the denial of post-conviction relief. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Lawrence Warren Pierce v. State of Tennessee
Aggrieved of his kidnapping and sexual battery convictions, the petitioner, Lawrence Warren Pierce, sought post-conviction relief, which was denied by the Davidson County Criminal Court 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. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Patterson
James Patterson, the defendant, appeals from his jury convictions of especially aggravated robbery (Class A felony), criminal attempt of second degree murder (Class B felony), and two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping (Class A felonies). The defendant presents two issues by contending that the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions and that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences. After review, we affirm the convictions and the sentence imposed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Robert Smith
The Appellant, Robert Smith, was convicted by a Madison County jury of the misdemeanor offenses of possession of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia. As a result of these convictions, Smith received two sentences of eleven months and twenty-nine days in confinement. The trial court further ordered that the two sentences be served concurrently but consecutively to two previously imposed suspended misdemeanor sentences, which Smith was currently serving on probation. On appeal, Smith raises two issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to support the convictions; and (2) whether the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentencing. After review of the record, we affirm. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Reginald E. Bost
The Defendant, Reginald E. Bost, appeals the decision of the Knox County Criminal Court revoking his alternative sentence. In July 2004, the Defendant pled guilty to possession with intent to sell .5 grams or more of cocaine and received an eight-year sentence. This sentence was suspended, and he was placed in the Community Alternative to Prison Program. On April 13, 2005, a warrant was issued, wherein it was alleged that the Defendant violated the conditions of the program. The warrant was later amended to include additional violations. After a hearing, the trial court concluded that the Defendant violated the conditions of his sentence and ordered that his original eight-year sentence to the Department of Correction be reinstated. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the evidence does not support full revocation of his alternative sentence. After a review of the record, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jermeil Ralph Tarter
The Defendant, Jermeil Ralph Tarter, was indicted by a Sullivan County grand jury for evading arrest, a Class A misdemeanor. Following a jury trial, the Defendant was convicted of the indicted offense. In this direct appeal, the Defendant alleges that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction beyond a reasonable doubt and (2) the trial court erred in requiring the Defendant to serve this sentence consecutively to his prior sentences. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals |
