Frank Robert Bigsby v. State of Tennessee
|
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Mark Maynard
The defendant, Mark Steve Maynard, appeals from the Montgomery County Circuit Court's ruling on a probation violation warrant. On September 11, 2002, the court revoked the defendant's October 20, 2000 probation that had resulted from four felony bad check convictions. The court ordered the defendant to serve his original effective sentence of eight years in the Department of Correction. Although the defendant admitted that he had violated his probation, he challenges the trial court's decision to require him to serve the original sentences in incarceration. Discerning no error in the lower court's judgment, we affirm. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Shannon Pattum v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Shannon Pattum, appeals from the Davidson County Criminal Court’s denial of post-conviction relief. He claims that his 1999 conviction for attempt to commit second degree murder is the result of ineffective assistance of counsel and an unknowing, involuntary guilty plea. The lower court disagreed and dismissed the petition. Upon our review of the record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Michael T. Guthrie v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner appeals the summary dismissal of his post-conviction petition, alleging that proof of counsel's substance abuse was a "late-arising" claim that involved due process concerns. The petitioner also challenged his hybrid sentence as to voluntary manslaughter as illegal and unconstitutional. We affirm the trial court's dismissal. |
Lincoln | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Bobby D. Canada v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner was indicted for first degree murder and aggravated arson. Pursuant to a plea agreement, he pled guilty to second degree murder and setting fire to personal property. The petitioner filed for post-conviction relief, contending that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary. The post-conviction court denied the petitioner relief. The judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed. |
Campbell | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Steven Brian Wooley
A Madison County jury convicted the defendant, Steven Brian Wooley,1 of theft of property over $10,000. The trial court sentenced him to four years in confinement as a Range I standard offender. On direct appeal, the defendant contends he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. We affirm the judgment of the trial court |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Dominic O. Woods
The defendant contends on appeal that the trial court erred in denying alternative sentencing. The defendant pled guilty to possession of crack cocaine (Schedule II controlled substance) with intent to sell (Class B felony). He agreed to an eight-year sentence, with the manner of service to be determined at a sentencing hearing. The trial court ordered the sentence to be served in the Tennessee Department of Correction, based on the defendant’s prior criminal record and his inability to reform his conduct. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Hardin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Melissa A. Mellinger
The appellant, Melissa A. Mellinger, was convicted by a jury in the Wilson County Criminal Court of two counts of first offense driving under the influence (DUI), Class A misdemeanors. The trial court merged the convictions, imposed a three hundred fifty dollar ($350) fine, and sentenced the appellant to eleven months and twenty-nine days to be suspended upon serving two hundred seventy-three (273) days in the county jail. The trial court also suspended the appellant's driver's license for one year. On appeal, the appellant argues that the sentence imposed by the trial court was excessive. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Wilson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Corwyn E. Winfield v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner appeals the denial of post-conviction relief relating to his conviction for second degree murder. He argues: (1) the trial court at his original trial improperly instructed the jury regarding the definition of “knowing”; (2) the prosecutor committed misconduct during closing argument at the original trial; and (3) he did not receive the effective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kenneth Pence
The defendant pled guilty to aggravated assault in exchange for a three-year sentence to be served on supervised probation with the trial court to determine the amount of restitution. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered the defendant to pay approximately $7,900.00 in restitution. In this appeal, the defendant argues: (1) the trial court erred in refusing to allow proof at sentencing regarding the circumstances surrounding the offense; and (2) the trial court erred in imposing restitution for the victim’s lost wages, attorney’s fees, and bond expenses, the latter two expenses resulting from the victim’s defending himself against baseless criminal charges brought by the defendant. We affirm the trial court’s decision regarding the admissibility of evidence and its order requiring the defendant to pay restitution for the victim’s lost wages; we reverse the portion of the judgment which requires the defendant to pay restitution for the victim’s attorney’s fees and bond expenses. |
Gibson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kenneth E. Coffey
The Johnson County Grand Jury indicted the Defendant, Kenneth E. Coffey, for possession with intent to sell and deliver 241.1 grams of marijuana, in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-17-417 (Supp. 2000). Following the trial court's denial of the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence, the Defendant pled guilty to Possession of Marijuana for Purpose of Sale. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to one year in prison and imposed a $2,000.00 fine. The Defendant reserved the right to appeal a certified question of law regarding the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress. Finding no error, we affirm the trial court's judgment. |
Johnson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Darrow Lynn Williams v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Darrow Lynn Williams, seeks post-conviction relief from his 2001 second degree murder conviction. The Tipton County Circuit Court denied post-conviction relief, and now on appeal, the petitioner claims that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to prepare and devise a trial strategy. Because the record supports the lower court’s decision, we affirm the dismissal of the post-conviction petition. |
Tipton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Dwan L. Crisp v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Dwan L. Crisp, pled guilty in the Obion County Circuit Court to one count of rape and was sentenced to eight years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Subsequently, the petitioner filed for testing of human biological evidence under the Post-Conviction |
Obion | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Carlos Curry
The Appellant, Carlos A. Curry, was convicted by a jury of first offense driving under the influence of an intoxicant. However, the jury acquitted the Appellant of four counts of vehicular homicide. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered the Appellant to serve eleven months and twenty-nine days in the county jail. Because we find that the trial court did not err in sentencing the Appellant, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Morgan L. Ray
The defendant pled guilty to driving while under the status of a habitual motor offender; two counts of driving under the influence, seventh offense; two counts of driving on a revoked license, eighth offense; and violation of the implied consent law. The trial court gave the defendant an effective sentence of nine years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The defendant contends on appeal that the trial court erred by not granting him alternative sentencing. Plain error requires us to vacate the judgment of conviction for driving on a revoked license (count three) because of double jeopardy prohibitions. The other judgments from the trial court are affirmed in all respects. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joseph Scott Hayes
Defendant, Joseph Scott Hayes, was indicted for two counts of aggravated assault, one count of stalking and one count of coercion of a witness. Following a bench trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of aggravated assault and one count of coercion of a witness. The trial court found the evidence insufficient to sustain a conviction on the charge of stalking. The trial court sentenced Defendant to four years imprisonment on each count of aggravated assault and three years imprisonment for his conviction for coercion of a witness. The trial court ordered Defendant's sentences for aggravated assault to run consecutively, and his sentence for coercion of a witness to run concurrently with his aggravated assault convictions for an effective sentence of eight years. Defendant now appeals challenging the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. Following a review of the record, we affirm the trial court's judgments. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Fred Elliot Hunter
The appellant, Fred Elliot Hunter, was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to possess with the intent to deliver three hundred (300) grams or more of a substance containing cocaine, a Class A felony. The appellant was sentenced to twenty-one (21) years as a Range I Standard Offender and fined $2,000. The trial court denied the appellant's motion for new trial, and he appeals, arguing: (1) that the trial court erred in failing to grant the appellant's motion for judgment of acquittal; (2) that the trial court erred in failing to grant the appellant's motion to dismiss for want of a speedy trial; (3) that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction; (4) that the trial court erred in admitting the appellant's manslaughter conviction; (5) that the trial court erred in failing to consider appropriate mitigating factors in sentencing; and (6) that the trial court failed to order alternative sentencing. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Shawn Hodge
Convicted by a jury of first degree murder, the defendant, Shawn Hodge, appeals and claims (1) the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction, (2) the trial court erred in denying a jury view of the crime scene, (3) the trial court erroneously excluded evidence of a threat made against a defense witness, (4) the defendant was prejudiced by an attempt by the state to pay a prosecution witness, (5) the court inadequately instructed the jury on the elements of the offense, and (6) the court erroneously admitted the testimony of an allegedly incompetent defense witness. We affirm the lower court's judgment. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Thomas E. Dunn v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief as time-barred, arguing that he made out a prima facie case of mental incompetence and should therefore have been granted an evidentiary hearing to determine whether due process required that the statute of limitations be tolled. Based on our review, we affirm the post-conviction court's dismissal of the petition. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Dewayne Jordan
The Defendant, Dewayne Jordan, was found guilty by a Shelby County jury of first degree premeditated murder of one victim, first degree felony murder of a second victim and aggravated robbery. The Defendant was sentenced to two consecutive life sentences for the murder convictions and to ten years imprisonment for the aggravated robbery conviction. The ten-year sentence was to be served concurrently with the two life sentences. The Defendant now appeals his convictions, raising the following issues: (1) whether there was sufficient evidence to convict the Defendant of first degree premeditated murder, first degree felony murder and aggravated robbery, (2) whether the trial court properly admitted the Defendant's statement into evidence, and (3) whether the trial court properly ordered that the Defendant's two life sentences be served consecutively. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Bobby Blair
The defendant, Bobby Blair, appeals as of right the sentence imposed by the Humphreys County Circuit Court following his plea of nolo contendere to the sale of methamphetamine, a Class B felony. The trial court sentenced him as a Range I, standard offender to ten years in the Department of Correction consecutive to an effective sixteen-year sentence for prior convictions for manufacturing methamphetamine and felonious possession of methamphetamine. The defendant contends that the trial court erroneously imposed consecutive sentences. We affirm the trial court's judgment of conviction. |
Humphreys | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
David L. Robinson, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, David L. Robinson, appeals the Putnam County Criminal Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his conviction for first degree murder and resulting sentence of life imprisonment. He claims he received the ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial attorneys (1) failed to challenge the fact that no African-Americans were on the jury, (2) failed to appeal an issue properly regarding a state witness's testimony, (3) failed to file a motion to sever his case from his codefendant's case, and (4) failed to call a potential defense witness to testify. We affirm the trial court's denial of the petition. |
Putnam | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Charity H. Keith
Defendant, Charity H. Keith, appeals from the revocation of her probation, arguing that the trial court erred in ordering her original sentence to run consecutively to her subsequent sentences in Davidson County. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Dewayne M. McDaniel a/k/a Anthony McDaniel
The appellant, Dewayne A. McDaniel, a/k/a Anthony McDaniel, was convicted by a jury of theft of property. Specifically, the jury convicted the appellant of the second charge contained in the indictment, exercising control over property with a value of $10,000 but less than $60,000 without the consent of the owner, a Class C felony. The trial court sentenced the appellant to fifteen years as a Range III, persistent offender. The appellant’s motion for new trial was denied by the trial court in an order entered May 10, 2001. The trial court entered an order granting a delayed appeal on June 28, 2002. The trial court’s order granting the delayed appeal indicates that the request for the delayed appeal was made by the appellant’s attorney, even though no motion for a delayed appeal appears in the technical record before this Court. The notice of appeal was not filed until September 13, 2002. Because of the untimeliness of the filing of the notice of appeal the appeal is dismissed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jaye Wesley Mitts
The State appeals contending the trial court erred in allowing the defendant to receive jail credit from an unrelated charge against the 150-day mandatory minimum sentence he received in his plea to sixth offense D.U.I. Also, the State alleges error in the trial court modifying the defendant's payment plan for paying fines and costs to less than the defendant agreed to pay when the trial court accepted the defendant's plea agreement. We conclude it was error to allow this defendant to receive any jail credit toward his mandatory minimum of 150 days for his sixth D.U.I. offense where the credit accumulated on an unrelated charge. We further conclude the trial court was within its discretion to modify the payment plan, not the overall fine, upon determining the defendant did not have the ability to pay. We reverse in part and affirm in part the judgments of the trial court and remand for entry of a corrected judgment consistent with this opinion. |
Campbell | Court of Criminal Appeals |
