State of Tennessee v. Sheridan Armstrong
The defendant, Sheridan Armstrong, was convicted of felony murder and aggravated child abuse. The trial court ordered concurrent sentences of life with the possibility of parole and twenty years, respectively. In this appeal of right, the defendant contends that the trial court erred by failing to suppress his statement to police and argues that the evidence supporting each conviction was insufficient. The judgments of the trial court are affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Anthony Randaul v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Anthony Randaul, appeals from the Dyer County Circuit Court’s dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for kidnapping, robbery, and sale of cocaine weighing less than one-half gram and resulting sentence of nine years. He contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Johnson
The defendant, James Johnson, originally charged with first degree murder, was convicted of second degree murder. The trial court imposed a sentence of twenty-three years. In this appeal, the defendant asserts that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction; (2) the trial court erred by denying his motion for a preliminary hearing; (3) the trial court erred by permitting evidence of a California police chase involving the defendant; (4) the trial court erred in its instructions to the jury; (5) the cumulative effect of the errors at trial require reversal; and (6) the sentence is excessive. Because the trial court misapplied certain of the enhancement factors, the sentence is modified to twenty-one years. Otherwise, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Johnson - Concurring and Dissenting
I concur with the majority opinion on all issues except that portion which modifies the sentence to twenty-one years. I agree that the United States Supreme Court’s opinion in Blakely v. Washington, 542 US ____, 124 S.Ct. 2531 (2004), questions the validity of Tennessee’s sentencing scheme. I agree that prior to Blakely, this Court’s holding should be that enhancement factors (11) and (17) could not be applied, but that the remaining enhancement factors, (2), (6), and (10), would be applicable. However, under Blakely, it is clear that only evidence of prior convictions can be used to enhance a sentence without a jury making a determination of the existence of an enhancement factor, or where the jury determination is waived by the defendant, or where the application of another enhancement factor is “admitted” by the defendant. The term “admitted by Defendant,” while seemingly clear at first glance, has not been conclusively defined by judicial decision. The United States Supreme Court in Blakely may have meant “admitted” in the context of a judicial proceeding such as a guilty plea hearing with the solemnity of a guilty plea. Or, the Court possibly meant an admission by a defendant in testimony at a sentencing hearing. Thus, the meaning of the term “admitted by the defendant” is subject to debate, and is better left to appellate review when that precise issue has been squarely addressed by a trial court and thereafter raised on appeal. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James Lee Perry v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, James Lee Perry, appeals the trial court's dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court's denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner fails to assert a cognizable claim for which habeas corpus relief may be granted. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Wayne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Robert Ray Mills
This matter was presented to the Court upon the motion of the State of Tennessee, pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, for this Court to affirm the judgment of the trial court by memorandum opinion. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Early H. Miles v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Early H. Miles, appeals the trial court's dismissal of his petition for post- conviction relief or in the alternative for writ of habeas corpus. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court's denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner filed his petition outside the statute of limitations for post-conviction purposes. The petition was not filed in the proper court for habeas corpus purposes, and the petitioner did not give any reason in the petition for not applying to the nearest court as required by law. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Susan Daugherty v. State of Tennessee, Cherry Lindamood, Warden
Petitioner has appealed the dismissal of her petition for writ of habeas corpus. The State has filed a motion pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, for this Court to affirm the judgment of the trial court by memorandum opinion. We grant the motion and affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Randy Pruitt and Anet America
The defendants, who are brother and sister, were each convicted by a Cocke County jury of assault, a Class A misdemeanor, and sentenced by the trial court to serve 11 months, 29 days on supervised probation. Both defendants challenge the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal. We conclude that sufficient evidence was presented from which a rational trier of fact could reasonably find both defendants guilty of assault. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Cocke | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ricky Joe Awatt
The appellant was convicted in the Madison County Circuit Court of the first degree premeditated murder of Junecus Bolden. The appellant received a sentence of life imprisonment in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant raises issues regarding the admission of certain testimony and the propriety of the State’s rebuttal closing argument. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Robert Holloway v. State of Tennessee
This matter was presented to the Court upon the motion of the State of Tennessee, pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, for this Court to affirm the judgment of the trial court by memorandum opinion. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Dickson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Michael Brown v. State of Tennessee
This matter was presented to the Court upon the motion of the State of Tennessee, pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, for this Court to affirm the judgment of the trial court by memorandum opinion. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Wayne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Raymond Sunil Tate
The petitioner, Raymond Sunil Tate, appeals from the denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The state has filed a motion requesting that this court affirm the action of the trial court pursuant to Rule 20, Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. R. The petition does not establish either an expired sentence or a void judgment. Accordingly, the state's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James Dubose v. State of Tennessee, Kevin Myers, Warden
This matter was presented to the Court upon the motion of the State of Tennessee, pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, for this Court to affirm the judgment of the trial court by memorandum opinion. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Wayne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Patricia White and Craig White - Dissenting
The majority concludes that modification of the defendant, Patricia White’s, sentence is |
Gibson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Patricia White and Craig White
A Gibson County jury convicted Patricia White of theft of property valued over $10,000, a Class C felony; the trial court sentenced her to a term of four years, suspended, and fifteen years’ probation. The same jury also convicted Patricia White’s husband, Craig White, of facilitation of theft of property valued over $10,000; the trial court sentenced him to a term of two years suspended, and two years’ probation. As a condition of probation, the trial court held the couple jointly liable for $124,000 in restitution. On appeal the defendants contend that the trial evidence is insufficient to support their convictions. They also contest the amount of restitution they have been ordered to pay. After an exhaustive review of the record, the briefs of the parties, and applicable law, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support Patricia White’s conviction, but we are unable to reach the same conclusion for Craig White’s facilitation conviction. Accordingly, we affirm Patricia White’s conviction; the conviction of Craig White is reversed, and the charge is dismissed. Finding that the trial court made inadequate findings in assessing restitution, we further remand that issue for determination based on the required statutory findings. Finally, we take notice that based on three statutory enhancement factors (none of which involved prior criminal history), the trial court set the length of Patricia White’s sentence at one year above the presumptive minimum sentence of three years; pursuant to Blakely v. Washington, ___ U.S. ___, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), we modify her sentence to three years but leave undisturbed the length and terms of her probation. |
Gibson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ronnie W. Salmon
Following a jury trial, Defendant, Ronnie W. Salmon, was convicted of driving under the influence of an intoxicant, second offense, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced Defendant to eleven months, twenty-nine days, all suspended but sixty days. Defendant does not appeal his sentence. Defendant argues on appeal that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, that certain remarks made by the prosecutor during closing argument were improper, and that the trial court erred in not granting Defendant a mistrial on the basis of the prosecutor’s comments during closing argument. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hardin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Leslie Lamont Coleman v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Leslie Lamont Coleman, appeals the trial court's dismissal of his petition for post conviction relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court's denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner filed his petition outside the statute of limitations. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Donzel A. Watson v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Donzel A. Watson, appeals the trial court's dismissal of his petition for post conviction relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court's denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner filed his petition outside the statute of limitations. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Joe Bobby Yarbro v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Joe Bobby Yarbro, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for postc-onviction relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court's denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Because the petition for post-conviction relief is time-barred by the statute of limitations, we grant the State's motion and affirm the judgment of the lower court. |
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Alfonzo Williams v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Alfonzo Williams, appeals the post-conviction court’s summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that the post-conviction court erroneously found that his petition was barred by the statute of limitations. Upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we reverse the post-conviction court’s summary dismissal of the petition and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Anthony K. Goods v. Tony Parker, Warden
The petitioner, Anthony K. Goods, appeals the Lake County Circuit Court’s dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief. We affirm in part and reverse in part. |
Lake | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Johnny Proffitt v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Johnny Proffitt, appeals the trial court's dismissal of his petition for post conviction relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court's denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner cannot collaterally attack his probation revocation order. Moreover, the petitioner filed his petition outside the statute of limitations. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James Marvin Martin v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, James Marvin Martin, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in finding that his claim was beyond the statute of limitations. After careful review, we affirm the denial of the petition. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Joseph Matthew Maka v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner appeals theMadison County Circuit Court’s denial of post-conviction relief. Because the post-conviction court had no jurisdiction to rescind its earlier grant of post-conviction relief, we reverse. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals |
