Lon S. Walker v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Lon Walker, filed a petition for post-conviction relief from his conviction for second degree murder, alleging that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. Following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. In his appeal to this court, Petitioner raises the issue of whether the trial court erred in finding that Petitioner received effective assistance of counsel at trial. After a careful review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Putnam | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kenneth R. Laws
|
Washington | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John Briggs
The appellant, John Briggs, a pharmacist, pled guilty in the Sullivan County Criminal Court to sixteen counts of unlawfully dispensing a controlled substance. The trial court sentenced the appellant to a total effective sentence of twenty years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction, with all but eight years to be served on probation. On appeal, the appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying full probation. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
David Lunsford v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner appeals the denial of his post-conviction relief petition, arguing his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to locate an alibi witness for his aggravated burglary trial. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court, which found trial counsel made reasonable efforts to locate the potential witness, and the petitioner was not prejudiced by the inability to present the witness's testimony at trial. |
Monroe | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Shaun Lamont Hereford
The petitioner, Shaun Lamont Hereford, appeals the Hamilton County Criminal Court's dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief, in which he alleged void convictions, misrepresentation by his trial attorney, and that he was entitled to DNA analysis of physical evidence. Discerning no error in the trial court's dismissal of the petition without an evidentiary hearing, we affirm. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Connie Lee Arnold v. State of Tennessee
|
Carter | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Connie Lee Arnold v. State of Tennessee - Dissenting
|
Carter | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Howard Duty, Jr.
A Sullivan County Criminal Court jury convicted the defendant, Howard Duty, Jr., of stalking, a Class A misdemeanor, and the trial court sentenced him to eleven months, twenty-nine days at seventy-five percent and imposed a one thousand dollar fine. The defendant appeals, claiming (1) that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction, (2) that his sentence is excessive, and (3) that he should have received an alternative sentence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Eric Bernard Chism
A Madison County jury convicted the defendant, Eric Bernard Chism, of first-degree murder, especially aggravated kidnapping, aggravated rape, and aggravated sexual battery in connection with the abduction and homicide of Beatrice Sue Westbrooks. The defendant received an effective sentence of life plus 25 years. On appeal, the defendant argues: (1) his right to a speedy trial was violated; (2) the trial court erroneously severed his case from that of his co-defendant; (3) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions; (4) the trial court erroneously admitted unfairly prejudicial and inflammatory photographs; (5) the trial court improperly ruled that his prior narcotics conviction could be used for impeachment should he elect to testify; (6) a new trial should have been granted based on newly discovered evidence, but, at any rate, the hearing on the motion for new trial should have been continued until the results of additional forensic testing were available; and (7) the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentencing. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgments and sentencing of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Johnny Owens and Sarah Owens
The defendants, Johnny Owens and Sarah Owens, who are husband and wife, were convicted of aggravated child abuse by a Haywood County Circuit Court jury. Johnny Owens was convicted on one count only, and Sarah Owens was convicted on five counts. Because Johnny Owens' motion for a new trial raised only issues of the sufficiency of the evidence, we review only that issue in his appeal. Sarah Owens raises evidentiary issues and claims that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the "missing witness" rule, in conditioning the defendants' release from custody during trial upon Ms. Owens' withdrawal of her motion to sequester the jury, and in imposing an excessive sentence. We affirm all convictions and sentences; however, we order Sarah Owens' sentences to be served concurrently. |
Haywood | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Antonius Harris
|
Gibson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Antonius Harris - Concurring
|
Gibson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Edward Coleman and Sean Williams
A Shelby County jury convicted the defendants, Edward Coleman and Sean Williams, of premeditated murder, felony murder, especially aggravated kidnapping, and aggravated kidnapping. The trial court merged the two murder convictions and sentenced the defendants to life. The trial court merged the kidnapping convictions and sentenced Coleman and Williams to twenty-two years and eighteen years, respectively, to be served consecutively to the life sentence. In this appeal of right, both defendants raise the following issues: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; (2) whether the trial court erred in denying the defendants' motion to sever; (3) whether the state failed to provide the defendants with timely discovery; and (4) whether the trial court erred in permitting testimony that Williams shot a witness in this case on a prior occasion. In addition, Coleman raises the following issues: (1) whether the trial court erred in permitting testimony regarding the loss of Coleman's leg, allegedly caused by the victim; and (2) whether the state knowingly presented perjured and conflicting testimony. Williams also raises the following issues: (1) whether the trial court erred in admitting photographs of the victim's body; and (2) whether the state during closing argument violated the Bruton rule by referring to Coleman's incriminating statement regarding Williams. After reviewing the record, we affirm the convictions for premeditated first degree murder but reverse and dismiss the other charges based upon insufficiency of the evidence. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Edward Jackson Thorpe
The defendant, Edward Jackson Thorpe, was convicted by a jury of the offense of aggravated vehicular homicide and leaving the scene of an accident involving death. He received sentences of twenty-two year's incarceration and two year's incarceration, respectively. In this appeal he maintains that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict. After a careful review of the record and the applicable law we must disagree and affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Spurling
|
McMinn | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jerry James Hayes v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant, Jerry James Hayes, appeals as of right from the judgment of the Carroll County Circuit Court denying his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, the Appellant argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. After review of the record, dismissal of the petition is affirmed. |
Carroll | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Carlos Haynes
The Defendant, Carlos Haynes, pled guilty to possession of marijuana with the intent to sell, a Class E felony, and possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor. As part of his plea agreement, he expressly reserved with the consent of the trial court and the State the right to appeal a certified question of law pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2)(i). The certified question of law concerns the validity of a search warrant. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Tony E. Brown v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in finding that he received effective assistance of trial counsel. We conclude that the petitioner has failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of the petition for post-conviction relief. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Wayne L. Holt
Appellant, Wayne L. Holt, was indicted by the Davidson County Grand Jury on one count of first degree felony murder, one count of premeditated first degree murder, and one count of especially aggravated robbery. At the close of the State's case-in-chief, the trial court granted Appellant's motion for judgment of acquittal as to the count of first degree felony murder and to the count of especially aggravated robbery, but not as to the remaining count of premeditated first degree murder. Appellant was convicted by a jury of his peers of the lesser-included offense of second degree murder and was sentenced, as a Range II multiple offender, to thirty (30) years imprisonment. In this appeal of right, Appellant raises five (5) issues for our review. He contends that the trial court committed reversible error in: 1) denying Appellant's pretrial motion to suppress his statement; 2) denying Appellant's motion for judgment of acquittal as to the count of premeditated first degree murder at the close of the State's case-in-chief; 3) overruling Appellant's objection to the State's closing argument; and 4) granting the State's request for a flight instruction. He further contends that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Shane Mahoney
The defendant, Christopher Shane Mahoney, pled guilty to two counts of money laundering, a Class B felony, and one count of conspiracy to engage in money laundering, a Class C felony, receiving a three-year sentence and two eight-year sentences, and to promoting prostitution, a Class E felony, receiving a two-year sentence. All sentences were to be served concurrently for an effective sentence of eight years. He timely appealed, arguing that he was improperly sentenced, both as to the lengths of the sentences and the trial court's not placing him on probation or community corrections. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Frederick Corlew
The defendant was convicted of aggravated robbery, attempted aggravated rape, both Class B felonies, and theft, which the trial court merged with the aggravated robbery conviction. The trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range II, multiple offender to fifteen years for aggravated robbery and twenty years for attempted aggravated rape. The sentences were imposed consecutively. The defendant argues on appeal that the evidence is insufficient to support a conviction of aggravated robbery because the victim's belief was unreasonable that the defendant was armed; the evidence is insufficient to support a conviction of attempted aggravated rape because the victim learned that the defendant was, in fact, unarmed prior to the rape; and his sentence of thirty-five years is excessive. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Dickson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kelvin Hooks
A Shelby County jury convicted the defendant, Kelvin Hooks, of second degree murder and felony murder. The trial court merged the two convictions and sentenced the defendant to life on the felony murder conviction. In this appeal as of right, the defendant raises the following issues: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for second degree murder and felony murder; (2) whether the state improperly questioned the defendant regarding his alibi after he withdrew a Notice of Alibi; and (3) whether the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on self-defense. After reviewing the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Allen Prentice Blye
|
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Arthur R. Simpson
Defendant, Arthur R. Simpson, was indicted for the offense of aggravated assault, allegedly committed by causing the victim to reasonably fear imminent bodily injury by the use of a deadly weapon, to wit: a handgun. At the conclusion of a jury trial, the trial court charged the jury with aggravated assault, as alleged, and also charged the jury as to lesser-included offenses of felony reckless endangerment and misdemeanor assault. The jury found Defendant guilty of felony reckless endangerment. He was sentenced to serve one year in the workhouse, which was suspended and he was placed on probation. Defendant appeals, with his sole issue being that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction of felony reckless endangerment. While we find that the evidence presented would be sufficient to support a conviction for felony reckless endangerment, if that offense had been charged, we hold that under the supreme court's decision of State v. Moore, 77 S.W.3d 132 (Tenn. 2002), felony reckless endangerment is not a lesser-included offense of aggravated assault as charged in the indictment. Therefore, the conviction must be reversed and this case remanded for a new trial on the charge of misdemeanor assault. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Markus Lamont Willoughby v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner appeals the trial court's denial of post-conviction relief. He argues trial counsel's failure to investigate and present an alibi defense deprived him of the effective assistance of counsel at his original trial. We find no merit to his argument and affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals |
