William K. Robison v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant, William K. Robison, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief by the Hickman County Circuit Court. Robison is currently serving an effective sentence of fifteen years as a result of his guilty pleas to aggravated assault, setting fire to personal property, escape and theft over $10,000. On appeal, Robinson argues the post-conviction court erred in finding that: (1) he received effective assistance of counsel and (2) his guilty pleas were knowingly and voluntarily entered. Finding no error, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed. |
Hickman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Manny T. Anderson v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner pled guilty to two counts of aggravated assault and one count of aggravated kidnapping on September 10, 1998, and was sentenced as a Range II, multiple offender to concurrent sentences of eight years at 35% for each count of aggravated assault and as a Range I, standard offender to eight years at 30% for the aggravated kidnapping charge, with the sentence suspended and the petitioner placed on eight-year probation. As a result of a probation violation, the trial court, on September 14, 2001, revoked probation and amended the judgments so that the sentence to be served for aggravated kidnapping was modified to eight years at 100%. Challenging the amendment, a pro se petition for post-conviction relief was filed on January 2, 2002, which was denied as being untimely. On appeal, the petitioner argues that, because the one-year statute of limitations began to run at the time of entry of the amended judgment for the kidnapping conviction, his post-conviction petition was timely. We agree and reverse the order of the post-conviction court dismissing the petition as untimely. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Danyelle Dewain Parker
The petitioner, Danyelle Dewain Parker, appeals the trial court's denial of post-conviction relief. The single issue presented for review is whether the petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial. The judgment is affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Randall Eugene Best v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Randall Eugene Best, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. In this appeal, he asserts that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal. The judgment is affirmed. |
Monroe | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Edward Clay and Timothy B. Clay
The co-defendants pled guilty to conspiracy to sell "ecstasy," a Schedule I controlled substance. After a sentencing hearing, each received a sentence of eight years to be served in split confinement, with all but eight months on probation. The co-defendants contend that the trial court erred in not granting them full probation. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. George Mears
Following a jury trial, Defendant, George Mears, was found guilty of theft of property of not less than $1,000 nor more than $10,000, a Class D felony. In his motion for a new trial, Defendant raised one issue, alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. Defendant contended that his counsel failed to adequately investigate and develop all available defense strategies and failed to adequately prepare for trial. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied Defendant's motion for a new trial. The trial court concluded that Defendant's counsel should have interviewed two witnesses prior to the day of trial but that Defendant failed to show that he was prejudiced by counsel's delayed interviews. As to all other claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, the trial court found that Defendant failed to show that his counsel's performance was deficient. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Cannon | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Cleophis King
The petitioner appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in finding that his guilty pleas were knowing and voluntary and that he received the effective assistance of counsel. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Dwayne A. Williams
The defendant was convicted by a jury of possession of more than 300 grams of cocaine with the intent to deliver. The trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range I standard offender to twenty years incarceration. The defendant contends the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction. We conclude the evidence is sufficient to sustain the defendant's conviction and affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Maurice Whitlock
Pursuant to a plea agreement, the defendant pled guilty to aggravated assault, a Class C felony and received a three-year sentence with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered that the defendant serve his three-year sentence in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The defendant now appeals, arguing that the trial court erred by failing to grant the defendant probation or alternative sentencing. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Sammie Don Logue
The Maury County Grand Jury indicted the defendant for selling less than 0.5 grams of cocaine, and following a trial, a Maury County jury convicted the defendant of the casual exchange of a controlled substance. The trial court sentenced him to eleven months, twenty-nine days' incarceration and suspended all but forty-five days of the sentence. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred by refusing to allow him to introduce evidence concerning the source of the cocaine and by denying him full probation. We find no error by the trial court and therefore affirm the defendant's conviction and sentence. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kevin Lee Pennell
|
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kevin Lee Pennell - Dissenting
|
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Gregory Lance
Defendant, Gregory Lance, appeals his convictions in the Putnam County Criminal Court for two counts of first degree premeditated murder, especially aggravated burglary, and arson. For the first degree murder convictions, the trial court imposed two concurrent sentences of life imprisonment. For the especially aggravated burglary conviction and arson conviction, defendant was sentenced to serve eight years and three years respectively, to be served concurrently with his life sentences. In this direct appeal, defendant argues: (1) he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial; (2) the trial court erred in denying his requested jury instruction regarding circumstantial evidence; and (3) there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions. After a careful review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Putnam | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Marcus Tramane Green
The defendant, Marcus Tramane Green, appeals the sentence imposed by the Montgomery County Circuit Court following his guilty pleas to especially aggravated robbery, a Class A felony, and aggravated burglary, a Class C felony. The trial court sentenced him to respective concurrent terms of seventeen years as a Range I, violent offender and four and one-half years as a Range I, standard offender to be served in the Department of Correction. The defendant contends that his sentences are excessive, arguing that the trial court misapplied enhancement factors and failed to apply certain mitigating factors. We affirm the effective seventeen-year sentence imposed by the trial court. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Dock Walker v. State of Tennessee
Dock Walker appeals from the Knox County Criminal Court's dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. He claims that the court should not have dismissed the petition without appointing counsel and affording him the opportunity to amend the petition. He also claims that based upon due process principles, his petition should not be barred by the statute of limitations. Because the lower court properly discerned that the petitioner had not presented a timely claim for relief, we affirm. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Katrina A. Callahan
The defendant appeals her Sullivan County conviction, pursuant to a bench trial, of tampering with or fabricating evidence. On appeal, the defendant challenges only the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. Because we conclude that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction, we reverse the conviction and dismiss the charge. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joshua Alan Steakley
The defendant was convicted of burglary, a Class D felony, after a jury trial and was sentenced to two years, six months, with all but fifteen days suspended, and the balance to be served on supervised probation. The defendant was also ordered to pay $353.95 in restitution to North Elementary School. On appeal, he argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and that the trial court erred in denying full probation and ordering that he serve fifteen days in confinement. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hardin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Thurman L. Whitsey and Charlie Mae Whitsey - Concurring
|
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Thurman L. Whitsey and Charlie Mae Whitsey
|
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joe Charles Degrafenreid
The defendant, Joe Charles Degrafenreid, was convicted by a jury of driving under the influence (DUI) as a second offender. In this direct appeal, the defendant argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction for DUI and that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Tipton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Wendell Clarke Chambers
Following a jury trial, the defendant was found guilty of first degree premeditated murder and reckless homicide. The reckless homicide conviction was merged with the murder conviction and the defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment. The defendant appeals, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and that the trial court erred in overruling his motions for judgment of acquittal and in allowing a videotape and photograph of the crime scene into evidence. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Stewart | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. David Wayne Fountain
David Wayne Fountain, who pleaded guilty to Class E felony attempted theft, appeals from the Rhea County Circuit Court's determination that he serve a two-year, split-confinement sentence for his crime. He claims that he should have received a minimum, one-year probationary sentence. We disagree and affirm the lower court's sentencing pronouncement. However, we modify the sentence imposed to the extent that it mandates day-for-day confinement. |
Rhea | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jeffery Wayne Robertson
The defendant was found guilty of first degree premeditated murder by a Lawrence County jury and sentenced to life imprisonment. In his appeal, he argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction, the trial court erred in allowing opinion testimony of a lay witness based on an experiment regarding the canning of green beans in a pressure cooker, and erred by allowing the statements of three witnesses to be read aloud by the witnesses to the jury and then become exhibits. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Lawrence | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jimmy Gene Blankenship
The Defendant was indicted for driving under the influence, driving on a revoked license, evading arrest, reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon, vehicular assault, and violation of the implied consent law. A Rhea County jury convicted the Defendant of driving under the influence, driving on a revoked license, reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon, and vehicular assault. The trial court merged the DUI and reckless endangerment convictions into the vehicular assault conviction. It sentenced the Defendant to four years for vehicular assault and to six months for driving on a revoked license, to be served concurrently. The trial court ordered that the Defendant serve one year in the county jail, perform one hundred hours of public service, pay $800 in restitution, and imposed a fine of $5,500. The Defendant now appeals, arguing the following issues: (1) whether the trial court properly allowed testimony about the Defendant's erratic driving in Hamilton County; (2) whether the trial court erred by allowing the results of a blood alcohol test into evidence; (3) whether the trial court erred by permitting witnesses to testify about the percentage of alcohol in the samples of blood tested; and (4) whether the trial court properly sentenced the Defendant. Finding no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Rhea | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Hugh Peter Bondurant v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant was convicted in 1991 of second degree murder, and his conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. He subsequently filed a "PETITION FOR RELIEF FROM CONVICTION OR SENTENCE PURSUANT TO TENNESSEE CODE ANNOTATED 40-30-301 THROUGH 40-30-312," and the trial court summarily dismissed the petition relying upon the Post-Conviction Procedure Act. The Appellant now appeals the summary dismissal of his opinion. Our review of the complete petition filed by the Appellant reveals that, despite the statutory sections inappropriately cited in its title, the Appellant sought relief under the Post-Conviction DNA Analysis Act. We therefore reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand to the trial court for findings of fact pursuant to the Post-Conviction DNA Analysis Act. |
Giles | Court of Criminal Appeals |
