State of Tennessee v. Christopher David Hodge
The defendant, Christopher David Hodge, appeals his conviction of second degree murder. The defendant alleges that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction and that the trial court erred in disallowing discovery of certain information relevant to preparation of a defense. From our review, we conclude there is no reversible error and affirm the conviction. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
David E. Garrison v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, David E. Garrison, 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 | |
State of Tennessee v. Lalon R. Davenport
The Defendant, Lalon R. Davenport, pled guilty to one count of violating the Motor Vehicle Habitual Offender Act. Pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37, the Defendant reserved as a certified question of law the issue of whether the three-year time period articulated in the Habitual Offender Act bars prosecution for violating the Act after the time period has expired. We conclude that such prosecution is not barred by the Act, and the judgment of the trial court is therefore affirmed. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jonathan B. Cutshaw
The defendant, Jonathan B. Cutshaw, pleaded guilty in the Cocke County Criminal Court to one count of burglary, in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-14-402, and to one count of vandalism, in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-14-408. Pursuant to his plea agreement with the state, he accepted joint and several liability for restitution, along with others involved in the vandalism, and he received an effective sentence of three years, with the manner of service of the sentences to be determined by the trial court. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered the defendant to serve his sentences in confinement and to pay restitution. It is from this order that the defendant appeals. We modify the judgment of the trial court as to manner of service of the sentences and remand for further findings regarding the appropriate amount of restitution. |
Cocke | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Carlos Eddings - Concurring and Dissenting
The majority concludes that modification of the defendant’s ten-year sentence is required in light of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. __, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). I must respectfully dissent. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Bobby Northcutt
The Defendant, Bobby Northcutt, pled guilty to two counts of rape of a child, and the trial court sentenced him to twenty-five years in prison on each count, ordering the sentences to run consecutively. The Defendant appeals his sentence, contending that the trial court: (1) improperly failed to apply one mitigating factor; (2) improperly applied two enhancement factors; and (3) erred when it ordered that his sentences run consecutively. Finding that reversible error exists, we reverse the judgments of the trial court and remand the case for resentencing. |
Warren | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Bryant Dunn
The defendant, Bryant Dunn, pled guilty to theft over one thousand dollars, a Class D felony, and the Sullivan County Criminal Court sentenced him to two years incarceration in the Department of Correction. The defendant appeals, claiming that the trial court erred by denying him probation or alternative sentencing. We affirm the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Robbie Chet Walley
The defendant, Robbie Chet Walley, was convicted of possession of drug paraphernalia and was sentenced to eleven months, twenty-nine days, all suspended except for sixty days. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in denying alternative sentencing. Based upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Obion | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jonathan Campbell
The defendant was convicted of driving under the influence ("DUI"), first offense, and sentenced to eleven months, twenty-nine days in the county jail, with all but forty-eight hours suspended and the balance to be served on probation. In addition, his driver's license was suspended for one year and he was ordered to pay a fine of $350. In his appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court should not have allowed the jury to compare his signature from the morning of the arrest with his signature from another day for the purpose of inferring impairment. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Washington | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Larry F. Litton
The appellant, Larry F. Litton, was indicted on charges of rape in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-503. A jury found the appellant guilty of the lesser-included offense of sexual battery and recommended a $3,000 fine. The appellant was sentenced to a one-year sentence as a Range I Standard Offender, but the trial court ordered the appellant to serve two years on probation in lieu of incarceration. The trial court also imposed the $3,000 fine recommended by the jury. After the denial of a motion for new trial, this appeal ensued. The appellant challenges: (1) the trial court's decision to allow the testimony of Dr. Scott Levine in which he recounted a conversation with the victim that occurred several weeks after the incident; (2) the trial court's instruction to the jury that a tape-recorded conversation between the victim and the appellant was an "alleged admission;" and (3) the sufficiency of the evidence. For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Steve Edward Leach v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Steve Edward Leach, entered pleas of guilt to first degree murder and rape of a child. The trial court imposed consecutive sentences of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole and 25 years, respectively. There was no direct appeal of the conviction or sentence. Later, the petitioner was denied his application for post-conviction relief. This court affirmed. Steven Edward Leach v. State, No. M1999-00774-CCA-R3-PC (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Feb. 16, 2001). Counsel for the petitioner failed to make a timely application for permission to appeal to the supreme court and our supreme court denied a request to waive the 60-day period of limitation as prescribed by Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 11. By motion, the petitioner then applied for relief in the post-conviction court. The post-conviction court found that the petitioner was not at fault for failing to timely file a Rule 11 application but denied relief based upon lack of jurisdiction. In this appeal, the petitioner has asked this court to vacate and re-enter its judgment filed February 16, 2001, in Cause No. M1999-00774-CCA-R3-PC. Because our supreme court has ruled under similar circumstances that the petitioner was not entitled to the effective assistance of counsel and was not denied due process of law, the judgment is affirmed. |
Smith | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Gregory Fairbetter
The defendant, Gregory Fairbetter, was charged with driving under the influence and violating the implied consent law. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that because the videotape of his arrest had been destroyed by the state, he could not receive a fair trial. The trial court agreed and dismissed the driving under the influence charge. In this appeal, the state asserts that the trial court erred. The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause is remanded. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Randy David Miles
The defendant, Randy David Miles, was convicted by a Franklin County Circuit Court jury of two counts of aggravated rape, a Class A felony, and aggravated kidnapping, a Class B felony, for his participation with a codefendant, Gary Allen Phillips, Jr., in grabbing a woman from the street in Northern Alabama and transporting her by car to the defendant's grandmother's abandoned farmhouse in Huntland, Tennessee, where the defendant raped her while his codefendant watched. The defendant was sentenced by the trial court as a Range I, standard offender to concurrent terms of eleven years, nine months for the aggravated kidnapping conviction and twenty-four years, six months for each of the aggravated rape convictions, for an effective sentence of twenty-four years, six months. His Tennessee sentences were ordered to be served concurrently to his Alabama sentence for kidnapping. On appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, the State's failure to make a proper election of offenses, and the sentences imposed by the trial court. Following our review, we conclude that one of the aggravated rape convictions is invalid because the facts upon which the State relied to support the separate convictions constitute only one offense. Accordingly, we reverse one of the defendant's convictions for aggravated rape. We affirm the judgments as to the other aggravated rape conviction and the aggravated kidnapping conviction but modify the sentences to twenty-two years and nine years, respectively. |
Franklin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Zina Beth Finnell
This is a direct appeal from a conviction of facilitation to commit felony murder. The defendant, Zina Beth Finnell, was indicted for felony murder by a Davidson County Grand Jury in connection with the murder of her step-father during the commission of an aggravated burglary. A jury convicted the defendant of facilitation to commit felony murder, and the trial court sentenced her to 21 years. On appeal, the defendant argues two issues: (1) the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion to suppress her statement to the police, and (2) there was insufficient evidence to find the defendant guilty of facilitation to commit felony murder. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Randal Todd Kemper
The defendant, Randal Todd Kemper, was convicted of driving under the influence. The trial court imposed a sentence of eleven months, twenty-nine days, with all but forty days suspended. In this appeal of right, the defendant complains that the trial court erroneously admitted the results of his blood alcohol test because the accompanying certificate bore a rubber-stamped signature. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Lawrence | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Worley K. Henry
On May 1, 2003, the defendant, Worley K. Henry, was convicted by a Sullivan County jury of theft of property valued at less than $500, possession of a Schedule IV controlled substance, and tampering with evidence. The trial court sentenced him to eleven months and twenty-nine days each for the theft and possession convictions and six years for the tampering with evidence conviction. The theft and evidence tampering sentences were to run concurrently to each other, but consecutively to the possession sentence. The defendant appealed his convictions for theft of property valued at less than $500 and tampering with evidence. He has alleged that the evidence is insufficient to support verdicts of guilty for these offenses. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Raymond Jones v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Raymond Roger Jones, appeals the Washington County Criminal Court's dismissal of his pro se combined motion to reopen his post-conviction petition, petition for writ of error coram nobis, and petition for DNA analysis. Petitioner was convicted by a jury in the Knox County Criminal Court of two counts of first degree murder. He received consecutive life sentences. This Court affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentences on direct appeal. See State v. Jones, 735 S.W.2d 803 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987). Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief in the Washington County Criminal Court. The trial court dismissed the petition, and this Court affirmed. See Raymond Roger Jones v. State, No. 03C01-9102-CR-00068, 1991 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 584, (Tenn. Crim. App. at Knoxville, July 26, 1991), perm. to app. denied (Tenn. 1992). On June 22, 2001, Petitioner filed a pro se motion to reopen his post-conviction petition, alleging that the United States Supreme Court's decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S. Ct. 2348, 147 L. Ed. 2d 435 (2000), established a new rule of constitutional law requiring retroactive application to his case. Petitioner subsequently filed a supplemental request for DNA analysis. The trial court dismissed the motion and denied Petitioner's request for DNA Analysis. Petitioner appeals. After reviewing the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Washington | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Larry Allen Blaylock
The defendant appeals his conviction for Class A misdemeanor assault and the refusal of the trial court to impose an alternative sentence of judicial diversion or full probation. After review, we reverse the conviction for the trial court’s failure to instruct on self-defense. In the event of further appellate review, we have considered all issues raised on appeal. The cause is remanded for a new trial. |
Carroll | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Anthony D. Cuttle v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that the postconviction court erred in finding he received effective assistance of counsel and in denying his request to represent himself at the post-conviction proceeding. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Anthony D. Cuttle v. State of Tennessee - Concurring
I concur in the majority opinion. I have chosen to write separately to express concern over two issues that appear from the record and that are not addressed by either party. Admittedly, the record is unclear but the majority opinion concludes that the petitioner originally filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief, that counsel was appointed, and that the petition was summarily dismissed in August of 1998. In February of 2001, the petitioner again filed a pro se motion to reopen his post-conviction petition, which was granted by the post-conviction court. I found nothing in the record that would support the reopening of the petitioner's original post-conviction relief petition. Next, it appears that the petitioner was appointed counsel and on the second day of the hearing, the petitioner filed a pro se amended petition for post-conviction relief and was allowed an additional day in which to present evidence. This procedure appears to be in conflict with the holdings of our supreme court in State v. William Lee Burkhart, 541 S.W.2d 365. The petitioner in the instant case did not have a constitutional right to participate in propria persona and, simultaneously, be represented by participating counsel. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Vincent Hatch v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Vincent Hatch, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief alleging that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. The judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ambreco Shaw
The defendant, Ambreco Shaw, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of second degree murder, a Class A felony, for shooting a man to death at a Memphis public housing development. The trial court sentenced him as a standard, violent offender to twenty-four years in the Department of Correction, applying four enhancement factors to increase his sentence from the presumptive twenty-year midpoint in the range. In a timely filed appeal to this court, the defendant raised as his sole issue whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain his conviction. However, following the United States Supreme Court’s opinion in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. ___ , 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), which was released during the pendency of this appeal, the defendant sought and received permission from this court to raise as an additional issue the impact of the Blakely decision on the sentencing imposed in his case. Based on our review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and applicable law, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the defendant’s conviction and that two of the four enhancement factors were appropriately applied under Blakely. We further conclude that the applicable factors justify the enhanced sentence in the case. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Wayne Davidson v. Ricky Bell, Warden
The petitioner, Wayne Davidson, was convicted in the Meigs County Criminal Court of second degree burglary. Upon being found by a jury to be an habitual criminal, the petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment. Subsequently, the petitioner filed in the Davidson County Circuit Court a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, alleging that the statutes under which he received a life sentence were unconstitutional. The trial court summarily dismissed the petition, and the petitioner timely appealed. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Mark Godsey
Defendant appeals the trial court's dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus in Case No. 242704 in which Defendant alleged that the municipal ordinance supporting his conviction for reckless driving was unlawfully enacted. Defendant also appeals the trial court's order declaring him to be an habitual motor vehicle offender in Case No. 239641. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the trial court's judgments in Case Nos. 242704 and 239641. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Billy Wayne Quillen
The defendant, Billy Wayne Quillen, pled guilty to two counts of attempt to obtain a controlled substance by fraud and was placed on judicial diversion for two years. His diversion was subsequently revoked, and the trial court reinstated his original two-year sentence to be served at 100%. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in ordering him to serve his sentence at 100% without release eligibility, and the State agrees. Based upon our review, we modify the defendant's sentence to reflect release eligibility after service of 30% of the two-year sentence. |
Greene | Court of Criminal Appeals |
