State of Tennessee v. Richard C. Rogers
Defendant, Richard C. Rogers, appeals his convictions in the Lauderdale County Circuit Court for burglary of a vehicle, a class E felony, and theft of property in an amount over $1,000 and less than $10,000, a class D felony. Following a jury trial, Defendant was sentenced as a career offender to six years for his burglary conviction and twelve years for his theft conviction, to be served concurrently. In this appeal as of right, Defendant contends that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support his convictions beyond a reasonable doubt. After review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Terell Lawrence v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Terrell Lawrence, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for second degree murder, aggravated assault, and carjacking, arguing that his guilty pleas were not knowing, understanding, and voluntary and that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel during the plea process. The post-conviction court denied the petition and, following our review, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Frankie Ledbetter
The defendant was convicted of incest and rape of a child and sentenced to twenty-three years at 100% for the rape of a child conviction and eight years as a Range II, multiple offender for the incest conviction, the sentences to be served concurrently. The defendant was also fined $50,000 for the rape of a child conviction and $10,000 for the incest conviction. On appeal, the defendant presents the following claims: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; (2) the trial court erred in determining that the six-year-old victim was competent to testify and improperly vouched for the credibility of the child-victim; (3) the trial court erred in giving the expert witness instruction to the jury; and (4) the trial court denied the defendant a fair trial by refusing to let him conduct a voir dire examination of each juror individually and out of the presence of the other jurors. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court but remand for entry of corrected judgments to reflect that the defendant was convicted of Counts 3 and 4, rather than Counts 1 and 2, of the indictment and to reflect the defendant's fines which were omitted from the judgments. |
Marion | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Donald Wade Goff
The defendant appeals from jury-trial convictions for multiple counts of rape of a child, rape, incest, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and attempted rape. In this appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence related to his rape and contributing to the delinquency of a minor convictions, alleges that the trial court committed reversible error in failing to sever the charged offenses, and complains that his effective 80-year sentence is excessive. Based on our review, we find insufficient evidence to support the rape convictions, dismiss those convictions without prejudice to further prosecution on lesser-included offenses, reverse one conviction of contributing to the delinquency of a minor and dismiss that charge, and remand for modification of the defendant's sentences on the remaining convictions. |
Campbell | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Donald Wade Goff
The defendant appeals from jury-trial convictions for multiple counts of rape of a child, rape, incest, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and attempted rape. In this appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence related to his rape and contributing to the delinquency of a minor convictions, alleges that the trial court committed reversible error in failing to sever the charged offenses, and complains that his effective 80-year sentence is excessive. Based on our review, we find insufficient evidence to support the rape convictions, dismiss those convictions without prejudice to further prosecution on lesser-included offenses, reverse one conviction of contributing to the delinquency of a minor and dismiss that charge, and remand for modification of the defendant's sentences on the remaining convictions. |
Campbell | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Gerald W. McCullough v. State of Tennessee
The Defendant, Gerald W. McCullough, was convicted of aggravated sexual battery. This Court affirmed the Defendant's conviction on direct appeal. See State v. Gerald W. McCullough, No. M1999-01525-CCA-R3-CD, 2000 WL 1246432, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., Nashville, Aug. 18, 2000). The Defendant was represented at trial by the Public Defender's Office. On direct appeal, the Defendant was represented by Nashville attorney John E. Herbison. After the Defendant's conviction was affirmed on direct appeal, the Defendant filed for post-conviction relief. In this effort, the Defendant was again represented by John E. Herbison. The trial court, on its own motion, conducted an evidentiary hearing with respect to the conflict of interest inherent in Mr. Herbison's representation of the Defendant on post-conviction following his representation of the Defendant on direct appeal. Following the hearing, the trial court ordered Mr. Herbison removed from his representation of the Defendant on post-conviction, and further ordered Mr. Herbison to return the entire retainer fee he had been paid in conjunction with the post-conviction proceeding. The trial court's ruling is now before this Court pursuant to an interlocutory appeal. See Tenn. R. App. P. 9. We affirm the trial court's order removing Mr. Herbison from further representation of the Defendant in this case. We remand the trial court's ruling regarding the refund of Mr. Herbison's fee for further proceedings. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Anthony Nathaniel Guerard
In 1999, the Defendant was placed on judicial diversion for four years after pleading guilty to aggravated assault. In 2001, while the Defendant was on probation for aggravated assault, the Montgomery County Grand Jury indicted the Defendant for attempted first degree murder, attempted robbery, and aggravated kidnapping. In 2002, pursuant to a plea agreement, the Defendant pled guilty to reckless endangerment and nolo contendere to attempted robbery. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the Defendant to eleven months and twenty-nine days incarceration for reckless endangerment and to three years in the Tennessee Department of Correction for attempted robbery. The trial court also revoked the Defendant's judicial diversion probation for the 1999 aggravated assault charge, entered a judgment of conviction, and imposed a sentence of four years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. It ordered that the sentences for reckless endangerment and attempted robbery be served concurrently to each other but consecutive to the sentence for aggravated assault, resulting in an effective sentence of seven years. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant argues that his sentences are excessive and that the trial court erred by denying alternative sentencing. We conclude that the Defendant's sentences are proper and thus affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Quinten M. Turnage
A Shelby County jury convicted the Defendant of escape, and the Defendant now appeals his conviction. The sole issue on appeal is the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. Concluding that the evidence is legally sufficient to support the Defendant’s conviction, we affirm the conviction. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Sanders Caldwell
The Appellant was convicted of burglary of a building and vandalism in the Criminal Court for Shelby County, and was sentenced to a total of seven years of confinement by the trial court. The sole issue the Appellant raises on appeal is whether sufficient evidence was presented at trial to convict him of the charged offenses of burglary and vandalism. Finding no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Leslie Thurman Mitchell
The State of Tennessee appeals the Knox County Criminal Court’s suppression and exclusion of evidence in the second-degree murder prosecution of Leslie Thurman Mitchell. The evidence consists, first, of the defendant’s statements to law enforcement officers pertaining to the homicide following his arrest for an unrelated matter, and second, of the defendant’s wife’s testimony regarding marital communication pertaining to the alleged crime. We granted the state’s application for interlocutory appeal, see Tenn. R. App. P. 9, and upon review, we reverse the lower court’s rulings. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Walter Grooms
On March 4, 2002, the Hamblen County Grand Jury returned an indictment against the appellant, James Walter Grooms, charging him with driving with a blood alcohol concentration greater that .10% and child endangerment. After a bench trial the appellant was found guilty as charged, and a sentence was imposed of 11 months and 29 days for each count to be served concurrently. In addition, the trial court ordered the appellant driver's license to be suspended for one year, and he was ordered to attend DUI school. The appellant now challenges the lawfulness of his warrantless arrest and the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his driving under the influence conviction. After a review of the record we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hamblen | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James P. Hyde v. Howard Carlton, Warden, and State of Tennessee
The petitioner, James P. Hyde, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Because the petitioner has failed to state a claim for habeas corpus relief, the state's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Johnson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Vance E. Shelton v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant, Vance E. Shelton, appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief by the Greene County Criminal Court. In 1996, Shelton was convicted of one count of rape of a child and one court of aggravated sexual battery. Shelton collaterally attacks these convictions arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, which resulted in prejudice to his defense. After review, we conclude that Shelton was denied his right to the effective assistance of counsel, as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, with respect to his conviction for aggravated sexual battery. With regard to his conviction for rape of a child, we conclude no relief is warranted. Accordingly, Shelton's conviction and sentence for aggravated sexual battery is vacated and remanded for a new trial. |
Greene | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Steven Shelton
The appellant, Steven Shelton, was convicted by a jury in the Greene County Criminal Court of theft of property valued $1000 or more but less than $10,000, a Class D felony. The trial court sentenced the appellant as a Range I standard offender to two years six months confinement in the Greene County Jail. On appeal, the appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and that the trial court erred in denying alternative sentencing. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. However, we remand to the trial court for the correction of the judgment of conviction to reflect the fine imposed by the jury. |
Greene | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James Clark Blanton, III v. State of Tennessee
A Davidson County grand jury indicted the petitioner, James Clark Blanton, III, of two counts of especially aggravated robbery, two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, and one count of coercion of a witness. The petitioner pled guilty to two counts of especially aggravated robbery with an agreement that he would serve two concurrent sentences of fifteen years each at 100%. The petitioner filed a post-conviction petition alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court held an evidentiary hearing to determine the merits of the petitioner's claim and subsequently denied the petition in a written order. The petitioner now appeals that denial. After reviewing the petitioner's claims and the evidence presented at the post-conviction hearing, we find that none of his allegations merit relief. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Mikel U. Primm
A Dickson County jury convicted the defendant, Mikel U. Primm, of possession of drug paraphernalia and failure to appear. The trial court sentenced the defendant to serve eleven months and twenty-nine days for his possession of drug paraphernalia conviction and two years for failure to appear conviction, for which he was classified as a Range II multiple offender. The trial court ordered the defendant to serve these sentences concurrently. The defendant now brings this direct appeal challenging his convictions and his sentence, alleging that (1) the evidence introduced at trial is insufficient to support his two convictions, (2) the trial court erroneously denied, within the hearing of the prospective jurors, the defense motion for a continuance, and (3) that the trial court improperly sentenced him by failing to apply several relevant mitigating factors. After a thorough review of the record, we find that none of the defendant's allegations merit relief and therefore affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Dickson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Johnny D. Roberts
The defendant, Johnny D. Roberts, was convicted by a Davidson County Criminal Court jury of aggravated rape and aggravated sexual battery. The trial court merged the defendant's convictions into one conviction for aggravated rape and sentenced him as a Range I, violent offender to twenty-five years in the Department of Correction. The defendant appeals, claiming that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions, (2) the trial court erroneously admitted into evidence a tape recording and transcript of the victim's 9-1-1 telephone call to the police, (3) the trial court erred by failing to declare a mistrial after the prosecutor commented on the defendant's failure to testify, and (4) the trial court erred by refusing to apply a mitigating factor in sentencing him. We affirm the judgment of conviction. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Harold Russell Gregory
The defendant, Harold Russell Gregory, was convicted in the Davidson County Criminal Court of driving under the influence (DUI), second offense, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced him to eleven months, twenty-nine days to be served as forty-five days, day for day, in the county jail and the remainder to be served on probation. In addition, the trial court suspended the defendant's driving privileges for two years, ordered that he participate in an alcohol evaluation and treatment program, and imposed a six hundred dollar fine. The defendant appeals, claiming (1) that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction; (2) that the trial court should have granted his motion to suppress evidence that was obtained pursuant to an illegal stop; (3) that his request for an attorney was not an express refusal to take a breathalyzer test; and (4) that the trial court erred by refusing to allow a defense witness to testify. We affirm the trial court's actions. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Patrick Deshun Paris, alias Patrick Deshon Parris
A jury found the defendant guilty of first degree premeditated murder, first degree felony murder, and especially aggravated robbery. The two first degree murder convictions merged, and the jury sentenced the defendant to life without the possibility of parole. The trial court sentenced the defendant to twenty-four years for especially aggravated robbery, to run concurrently with his previous sentence for abuse of a corpse. The defendant argues that the trial court erred in failing to suppress an incriminating statement he made on December 2, 1998, that the jury charge regarding criminal responsibility was in error and that his sentencing was erroneous. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Tommy Joe Walker v. State of Tennessee
Convicted in 1990 of first-degree felony murder, aggravated robbery, and conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery, the petitioner, Tommy Joe Walker, appeals the Knox County Criminal Court's dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief, through which he claimed that ineffective assistance of trial counsel fouled his convictions. Because the record supports the denial of post-conviction relief, we affirm. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Charlene Denise Franks
The defendant, Charlene Denise Franks, entered pleas of guilt to two counts of aggravated burglary. The trial court imposed Range I concurrent sentences of three years on each offense and granted supervised probation. A probation violation warrant resulted in a revocation. The issue on appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion. The judgment is affirmed. |
Hardin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Samuel Pegues v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant, Samuel Pegues, appeals the Madison County Circuit Court's dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. Pegues was convicted of second degree murder and received a sentence of twenty-one and one-half years. On appeal, the single issue presented for our review is whether Pegues 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. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Brenda F. Jones
The Appellant, Brenda F. Jones, was indicted by a Madison County Grand Jury for the offenses of vehicular homicide and driving under the influence of an intoxicant (DUI). Following a jury trial, the Appellant was convicted of DUI but acquitted of vehicular homicide. For the DUI conviction, the trial court sentenced Jones to eleven months, twenty-nine days, with sixty days confinement. On appeal, Jones argues that a term of sixty days confinement is excessive because (1) the trial court's sentence reflects consideration of conduct for which Jones was exonerated, and (2) the trial court improperly applied enhancement factors and failed to apply relevant mitigating factors. After review of the record, we find merit to both issues. Accordingly, we modify Jones' sentence to eleven months, twenty-nine days with service of twenty days confinement. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Melvin Cofer
The defendant, Melvin Cofer, was convicted of aggravated vehicular homicide, see Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-13-213, -218, and vehicular assault, see Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-106. The trial court imposed Range I, concurrent sentences of twenty-one years and three years, respectively. In this appeal, the defendant asserts (1) that the trial court erred by refusing to suppress the results of the blood alcohol test; (2) that the trial court erred by limiting defense counsel's questioning of potential jurors; (3) that the evidence is insufficient to support the aggravated vehicular homicide conviction; (4) that the trial court erred by refusing to qualify a defense witness as an expert; (5) that the state failed to establish a proper chain of custody prior to the admission of the results of the blood alcohol test; and (6) that the trial court erred by denying his request for special jury instructions. The judgments of the trial court are affirmed. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Antonio Huntsman
The defendant, Antonio Huntsman, was convicted of reckless homicide and the trial court ordered a sentence of three years and six months. In this appeal of right, the defendant asserts (1) that the trial court erroneously limited cross-examination of an eyewitness; (2) that the trial court allowed the admission of irrelevant evidence; (3) that the sentence was excessive; and (4) that he was erroneously denied some form of alternative sentencing. The judgment is affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals |
