State of Tennessee v. Jasper Turner
Following a jury trial, Defendant, Jasper Turner, was convicted of identity theft, a Class D felony. He was sentenced to twelve years incarceration as a career offender. On appeal, Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction, argues that the trial court erred in sentencing him, and contends that it was plain error for the trial court to allow the State to refer to the victim being attacked at the time the victim’s wallet and credit cards were taken. After a thorough review of the evidence, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Richard Dilling
Following a bench trial in the Circuit Court of Obion County, Defendant, Richard Dilling, was convicted of misdemeanor reckless endangerment. He was sentenced to serve 11 months and 29 days, with all but 30 days to be suspended. He now appeals, challenging both the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction and the sentence imposed by the trial court. After a careful review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Obion | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Calvin Reginald Edwards
The defendant, Calvin Reginald Edwards, entered a plea of guilt to simple possession of marijuana, explicitly reserving a certified question of law challenging the legality of an investigatory stop. See Tenn. R. Crim. P. 37(b)(2)(i). Because the stop was based upon a reasonable and articulable suspicion, the judgment is affirmed. |
Tipton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Detrick Cole
Capital defendant Detrick Cole appeals as of right his sentence of death resulting from the October 2000 murder of Santeife Thomas. A Shelby County jury found the defendant guilty of premeditated first degree murder. Following a separate sentencing hearing, the jury unanimously found the presence of one statutory aggravating circumstance, i.e., the defendant had previously been convicted of one or more violent felony offenses; determined that this aggravating circumstance outweighed any mitigating circumstances; and imposed a sentence of death. The defendant now appeals, presenting for our review the following issues: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to support premeditated first degree murder; (2) whether the trial court erred in permitting the state to introduce a photograph of the victim while he was alive; (3) whether the trial court erred in permitting the introduction of post-mortem photographs of the victim; (4) whether the fingerprinting of the defendant in the presence of the jury at the penalty phase was constitutional error; (5) whether the trial court erroneously prohibited the defendant from introducing hearsay evidence during the penalty phase; (6) whether the trial court's instructions to the jury as to the (i)(2) aggravating circumstance were contrary to the United States Supreme Court's holdings in Apprendi v. New Jersey and Ring v. Arizona; (7) whether there is a reasonable probability that the instruction on victim impact evidence coerced the death sentence from the jury; (8) whether the evidence is sufficient to establish the defendant had previously been convicted of one or more violent felony offenses; (9) whether the jury verdict form was clear as to whether the jury found the aggravating circumstance relied upon by the state; (10) whether the Tennessee death penalty statutory scheme is constitutional; and (11) whether the sentence of death imposed in this case is disproportionate. Upon review, we question, but need not determine, whether the trial court in the penalty phase had the authority under Apprendi and Ring to find the defendant's prior felony convictions were crimes of violence and to instruct the jury that these prior convictions were crimes of violence; however, we conclude that if there were error, any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, we discern no error of law requiring reversal. Accordingly, we affirm the defendant's conviction for first degree murder and the jury's imposition of the sentence of death. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Reginald D. Hughes
The Appellant, Reginald D. Hughes, was convicted by a Williamson County jury of felony evading arrest and misdemeanor possession of cocaine. As a result of these convictions, Hughes was sentenced as a Range III persistent offender to an effective sentence of five years in the Department of Correction. The single issue presented for our review is whether the evidence was sufficient to support the verdicts. After review of the record, we find the evidence sufficient and affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Garrett Nicholas Sons
The defendant pled guilty to aggravated robbery and felony evading arrest. The trial court ordered the sentences for the offenses committed in Loudon County to be served consecutively to a sentence for robbery in Knox County. The defendant contends on appeal that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentencing. The trial court did not err in imposing consecutive sentencing because the defendant was on probation when the current offenses were committed. The judgments of the trial court are affirmed. |
Loudon | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Frank Crittenden v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant, Frank Crittenden, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court's dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. Crittenden pled guilty to eight counts of aggravated rape and, following a sentencing hearing, received an effective one-hundred-year sentence in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the single issue presented for our review is whether Crittenden was denied the effective assistance of counsel. Following a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court dismissing the petition. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William O. Ewerling
The Appellant, William O. Ewerling, appeals his conviction by a Davidson County jury for driving under the influence of an intoxicant (DUI), first offense. On appeal, Ewerling raises three issues for our review: (1) whether the trial court's admission of certain evidence at trial was error; (2) whether the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction; and (3) whether Ewerling's refusal to submit to a breath alcohol test was protected by his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Because the record on appeal fails to include either a transcript of the evidence from Ewerling's trial or a statement of the evidence as permitted by Tenn. R. App. P. 24, we find that these issues are procedurally defaulted. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Traci L. Crews
The defendant entered a best interest plea to theft over $10,000, as a Range I, standard offender. She was sentenced to six years, with eight months of confinement and the remainder suspended with ten years of intensive probation. Restitution was included. On appeal of her sentence, the sentence was modified to three years and the remaining terms of the sentence affirmed in all respects. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Teresa Gail Presson
The defendant, Teresa Gail Presson, appeals from the Dickson County Circuit Court's order revoking her probation that she received upon her guilty plea to theft of property valued more than $10,000 but less than $60,000. The defendant contends that although she violated her probation, the trial court erred by ordering her to serve the remainder of her sentence in confinement. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Dickson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Michael Anderson Peek v. State of Tennessee
A Hamilton County jury convicted the Petitioner, Michael Anderson Peek, of four counts of aggravated rape, one count of attempted aggravated rape, three counts of rape, one count of aggravated robbery, two counts of robbery, and three counts of aggravated burglary. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of ninety-nine years in prison. On direct appeal, this Court affirmed the convictions, and the Tennessee Supreme Court denied the Petitioner's application for permission to appeal. The Petitioner then sought post-conviction relief, alleging that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. Following a hearing on the post-conviction petition, the trial court dismissed the petition, and this appeal ensued. We affirm the trial court's dismissal of the petition. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Torrance Maurice Knight
The defendant pled guilty to three counts of aggravated assault, two counts of solicitation of a minor, four counts of indecent exposure, and possession of a dangerous weapon. He agreed to an effective five-year sentence, with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. The defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying him an alternative sentence. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kevin D. Guffey
The appellant, Kevin D. Guffey, pled guilty in the Hamilton County Criminal Court to driving under the influence (DUI), a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced the appellant to eleven months and twenty-nine days in the county workhouse, to be suspended after serving forty-eight hours, and imposed a fine in the amount of three hundred sixty dollars ($360). The trial court also suspended the appellant's driver's license for one year and ordered the appellant to attend "DUI school." Pursuant to the plea agreement, the appellant reserved the right to appeal a certified question of law challenging the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ira Miles v. State of Tennessee
The Defendant, Ira Miles, brings this appeal from the trial court’s denial of post-conviction relief. The Defendant pled guilty to especially aggravated robbery and received an agreed sentence of seventeen years to be served at one hundred percent. In this appeal, he argues that he is entitled to post-conviction relief because he was denied the effective assistance of counsel during the course of his plea. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Richard Rehagen v. State of Tennessee
The Defendant, Richard Rehagen, pled guilty to one count of first degree murder, one count of attempted first degree murder, and one count of aggravated arson. He was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for the murder, and to twenty-five years for each of the other two offenses, to run concurrently. The Defendant subsequently challenged his pleas by filing a petition for post-conviction relief. The trial court denied the Defendant’s petition after an evidentiary hearing, and the Defendant now appeals. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Eslie L. Morgan
A Shelby County jury convicted the defendant, Eslie L. Morgan, of attempted voluntary manslaughter. The trial court sentenced him to eight years in confinement as a Range II multiple offender. On appeal, the defendant contends: (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction; and (2) the trial court erred in permitting the prosecutor to ask the victim an improper question during redirect examination. Upon review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John Johnson
The jury convicted the defendant of especially aggravated robbery and theft over $10,000. The trial court imposed consecutive twenty-five-year and ten-year sentences, respectively. On appeal, the defendant argues: (1) there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for especially aggravated robbery; (2) the trial court erred in not allowing him to move from the defense table to view evidence on a monitor; and (3) the trial court erred in sentencing him. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Nadia Coffer v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Nadia Coffer, appeals the lower court’s denial of her post-conviction relief petition. The petitioner originally entered guilty pleas in the Shelby County Criminal Court to especially aggravated kidnapping and attempted first degree murder and received two concurrent fifteen-year sentences, the minimum sentences for these Class A felonies. On appeal, the petitioner contends her pleas were unknowingly and involuntarily entered due to ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tim Holt
The defendant, Tim Holt, appeals as of right from his conviction by a jury in the Hancock County Criminal Court for first degree, premeditated murder. The defendant received a sentence of life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. He contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction, (2) the trial court erroneously allowed the defendant's wife to testify, violating his privilege regarding marital communications, (3) the trial court erroneously allowed prejudicial exhibits to be entered into evidence, and (4) the trial court erroneously instructed the jury on second degree murder. We affirm the trial court. |
Hancock | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Thomas Anthony Talley
The defendant was convicted of driving under the influence, fourth offense, and violation of the implied consent law. He contends on appeal that (1) there was no reasonable suspicion for the stop and (2) the evidence was insufficient because the officer used a non-standardized test. Crossing the yellow line on several occasions and almost hitting a trooper provided sufficient probable cause for the stop, and the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Gibson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Dennis Gilliland v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Dennis Gilliland, appeals the Dickson County Circuit Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his 1996 felony murder conviction. He contends that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the issue of alibi. He also raises ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney did not request an alibi instruction, requested the dismissal of the premeditated murder count instead of the felony murder count after the jury returned guilty verdicts on both counts, and did not raise relevant arguments about the jury seeing the petitioner in handcuffs. Last, the petitioner claims that he was denied the right to a fair trial by an impartial jury because the jury was allowed to hear evidence that he had been involved in two other, recent shooting deaths. We affirm the denial of the post-conviction petition. |
Dickson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christie Dianne Webb
The defendant pled guilty to reckless aggravated assault of her three-month-old son and was sentenced to four years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The trial court incorrectly applied some of the enhancement factors. However, the factors that were correctly applied substantially outweighed any incorrectly applied factors. There were no mitigating factors. The record does not indicate that the sentence was excessive. In light of the defendant's extensive criminal history, the trial court did not err in denying alternative sentencing. |
Wilson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Tavares Hill v. State of Tennessee
The appellant, Tavares Hill, appeals the denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus, which the trial court dismissed as an untimely petition for post-conviction relief. He argues that due process tolled the statute of limitations for post-conviction relief. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Larry S. Reese
The defendant, Larry S. Reese, was found guilty of aggravated assault based, in part, on the violation of a protective order obtained by the victim, see Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-102(c), and public intoxication, see Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-310. Upon finding that the order of protection had not been served on the defendant prior to the assault, the trial court modified the aggravated assault conviction to simple assault and ordered a sentence of eleven months, twenty-nine days. In this appeal, the state asserts that the trial court erred by reducing the defendant’s conviction to simple assault. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Larry S. Reese - Dissenting
Because I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that there was no valid order of protection at the time of the instant offense, I must respectfully dissent. Orders of protection are governed in general by Tennessee Code Annotated sections 36-3-601 through 36-3-324. Initially, an ex parte order of protection is issued, followed by a hearing to determine whether a permanent order should be entered: |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals |
