State of Tennessee v. Evangeline Combs and Joseph D. Combs
The Defendants, Joseph D. Combs and Evangeline Combs (husband and wife), were charged by presentment returned by a Sullivan County grand jury with numerous offenses: Joseph Combs was indicted for one count of especially aggravated kidnapping, two counts of aggravated assault, one count of aggravated perjury, one count of aggravated rape, and seven counts of rape. Evangeline Combs was indicted for one count of especially aggravated kidnapping, three counts of aggravated assault, two counts of assault, and four counts of aggravated child abuse. Following the close of all proof, the trial court dismissed one count of aggravated assault in the presentment against both Defendants and three counts (one for aggravated assault and two for simple assault) against Evangeline, finding the offenses in these four counts were barred by the statute of limitations. Following deliberation, the jury found Defendant Evangeline Combs guilty of especially aggravated kidnapping and four counts of aggravated child abuse, and not guilty of one count of aggravated assault. Defendant Joseph Combs was found guilty of especially aggravated kidnapping, aggravated assault, aggravated perjury, and aggravated rape, in addition to seven counts of rape. Evangeline Combs received a sentence of 65 years, and Joseph Combs received an effective sentence of 114 years. The Defendants, represented by different counsel, filed separate notices of appeal. Thereafter, the two cases were consolidated to form the instant appeal which presents the following issues: (1) whether the trial court properly conducted voir dire proceedings; (2) whether the trial court erred by allowing the State to amend the presentment for especially aggravated kidnapping; (3) whether the State properly complied with Defendants’ request for a bill of particulars regarding the charge of especially aggravated kidnapping; (4) whether the trial court improperly admitted evidence of prior bad acts; (5) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendants’ convictions; (6) whether the trial court’s instructions to the jury included all appropriate lesser-included offenses; (7) whether the trial court failed to fully and properly instruct the jury concerning the especially aggravated kidnapping charge; (8) whether the trial court erred by failing to merge the convictions for certain offenses; and (9) whether the sentences imposed on both Defendants were proper. Defendant Joseph Combs additionally presents the issue of whether seven of his eight rape convictions should be reversed because the State failed to allege sufficient facts in the presentment to properly toll the statute of limitations for these offenses. After a thorough review of the record, we reverse Defendant Joseph Combs’ conviction for aggravated perjury and remand the matter for a new trial on that charge. In all other respects, we affirm the judgments of the trial court as modified. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joseph and Evangeline Combs - Concurring
While I concur in the results reached by the majority, it is my view that the failure to charge the lesser included offenses of facilitation of especially aggravated kidnapping and false imprisonment on the charge of especially aggravated kidnapping and reckless endangerment and assault on the charge of aggravated assault was, in fact, error. The majority implies that but does not so assert. I also believe that the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt as to each of those convictions. Most recently, in State v. Allen, 69 S.W.3d 181, 189 (Tenn. 2002), our supreme court established that a contextual analysis of the entire record was necessary in order to determine whether the failure to charge a lesser included offense qualified as harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. In my opinion, the Allen ruling negates any implication in State v. Williams, 977 S.W.2d 101, 106 (Tenn. 1998), that the failure to instruct on lesser included offenses will always be harmless when the jury returns a verdict two levels in excess of an omitted lesser included offense. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tyler Ward Enix
The defendant, Tyler Ward Enix, appeals from the Blount County Circuit Court's revoking his probation that was ordered for his sentences for harassing and stalking his estranged wife. The defendant contends that although he violated his probation, the trial court erred in sentencing him to confinement. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Nelson Keith Foster
The Defendant, Nelson Keith Foster, pled guilty to and was convicted of violating a motor vehicle habitual offender order. The Defendant was subsequently sentenced to three years, to be served on probation. The Defendant appealed to this Court from the trial court's denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. See State v. Nelson Keith Foster, No. E2001-01259-CCA-R3-CD, 2002 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 172 (Knoxville, Mar. 7, 2002). Pending the Defendant's appeal, he twice violated the terms of his probation. Still pending the outcome of the Defendant's appeal, the trial court revoked the Defendant's probation. The Defendant now appeals the trial court's revocation of his probation. We reverse the trial court's order revoking the Defendant's probation and remand this matter for further proceedings. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Issac Earl Edgin v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, claiming: (1) the trial judge, at petitioner's original trial, should have recused himself from hearing the trial under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10, Canon 3(E); and (2) the public defender, at the original trial, rendered ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 9 of the Tennessee Constitution. At the conclusion of an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. Based upon our review of the entire record and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Adrian Patterson
The Appellant, Adrian Patterson, appeals the decision of the Montgomery County Circuit Court revoking his two community corrections sentences and resentencing him to the Department of Correction. On appeal, Patterson argues: (1) that his sentences were actually sentences of probation rather than community corrections and, as such, the trial court was without authority to enlarge his sentences; (2) that the evidence was insufficient to support two of the alleged violations of his Community Corrections Behavioral Contract; and (3) that allowing a cooperating individual to testify about Patterson’s drug activity in a pending federal drug case impaired his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination at the revocation proceeding. Finding no merit to Patterson’s claims, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jonathan Blanchard
The Appellant, Jonathan Blanchard, was convicted in 1988 of the sale or delivery of cocaine and sentenced to seven years in prison. Following the successful completion of his sentence, the Appellant was granted a pardon by the governor of Tennessee. The Appellant subsequently petitioned for an expungement of all public records relating to his arrest and conviction. The trial court denied the Appellant's petition and the Appellant appealed as of right. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Greene | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Shirley Spina
The Defendant, Shirley Spina, was indicted in Sullivan County for custodial interference. On the morning of trial, the trial court dismissed the charge for lack of venue. The State now appeals. We reverse the ruling of the trial court and remand this cause for further proceedings. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Edward Buck Franklin
Defendant, Edward Buck Franklin, pled guilty to two counts of attempted rape and one count of aggravated burglary. He received a sentence of three years for each conviction, with two of the sentences to be served concurrently with each other but consecutive to the sentence for the third conviction, for an effective sentence of six years. After receiving credit for time previously served in jail, his sentences were suspended and he was placed on probation. Thereafter, three probation violation warrants were filed against him. Following a hearing on the third warrant, the trial court revoked Defendant's probation and ordered that he serve his sentence in the Department of Correction. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Michael Scott
|
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Ray Bartlett - Order
Defendant appeals the circuit court judgments denying him probation on two misdemeanor counts of passing worthless checks. We affirm pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. |
Lincoln | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Allen Prentice Blye
|
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Allen Prentice Blye - Concurring
|
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James A. Mellon
The defendant, James A. Mellon, pled guilty to first degree felony murder and especially aggravated robbery and waived his right to a trial by jury. As part of the plea agreement, the State agreed to recommend concurrent sentences on these charges of life imprisonment with the possibility of parole and twenty-five years imprisonment, respectively, in exchange for the defendant's agreement to testify truthfully and consistent with his previous statement at the trials of his codefendants. Thereafter, the defendant refused to testify as required by his plea agreement, instead, moving to withdraw his guilty pleas. That motion was denied, the State withdrew its sentencing recommendation, and a sentencing hearing was held. The jury, at the sentencing hearing, found the statutory aggravating circumstance that the defendant had previously been convicted of a felony involving violence to the person and sentenced the defendant to death. For the conviction of especially aggravated robbery, the defendant was sentenced to a consecutive term of twenty-five years imprisonment. He then filed a timely appeal. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court and the imposition of the death penalty. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Rodney Williams
The defendant, Rodney Williams, appeals his Shelby County Criminal Court conviction for aggravated robbery. He challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence and insists that the trial court erred in failing to suppress the victim's pretrial and in-court identification. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Stacey Renee Moore
|
Washington | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jonathan Omar Echevarria
The Appellant, Jonathan Omar Echevarria, appeals from the sentencing decision of the Davidson County Criminal Court imposing a sentence of four years incarceration. The sentence arose from a guilty plea entered by Echevarria to one count of attempted aggravated robbery. In this appeal, Echevarria raises the issue of whether the trial court erred by ordering a sentence of total confinement rather than a less restrictive alternative. After review, we find no error. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Michael A. Carter v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner originally pled guilty to aggravated robbery on June 1, 2000. He sought post-conviction relief alleging he received ineffective assistance of counsel which led to an involuntary guilty plea. Following a hearing, the trial court dismissed the petition. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Corey Lamont Radley v. State of Tennessee
In this appeal from the denial of post-conviction relief, the sole issue is whether petitioner was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel in proceedings that led to his conviction for first degree murder with a resulting life sentence. We find no merit to his arguments and affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Randal Wayne Faulk
The defendant was convicted by a Davidson County jury of driving under the influence, third offense, and driving on a revoked license. He appeals only his DUI conviction, arguing the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that he was under the influence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
John David Neblett v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner originally pled guilty to aggravated vehicular homicide, vehicular assault, and second offense driving on a revoked license. The trial court sentenced him to an effective sentence of twenty-four years. The effective sentence was affirmed on direct appeal. The petitioner sought post-conviction relief, alleging an unknowing guilty plea and ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court denied relief. In this appeal, the petitioner contends the post-conviction court erred in summarily dismissing the petition based solely upon the guilty plea transcript. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v.Vasile Cavopol
Apparently serving probationary terms on judicial diversion, Vasile Cavopol attempts to appeal from the Davidson County Criminal Court. He claims (1) that the lower court should have dismissed the vandalism and resisting arrest cases against him when the state's witnesses did not appear for trial on two occasions and (2) that the evidence insufficiently supports the determinations of guilt. Because the defendant who was granted judicial diversion has no rightful appeal, we dismiss this appeal. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kevin Island
Kevin Island appeals from his Shelby County conviction of robbery. He claims that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to sustain the conviction. We disagree and affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Asata Lowe
A Blount County jury convicted the Defendant of two counts of first degree premeditated murder and imposed concurrent sentences of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The jury also convicted the Defendant of especially aggravated robbery, and the trial court sentenced the Defendant to twenty-five years incarceration, to be served consecutive to the two sentences for first degree premeditated murder. The Defendant now appeals, raising the following issues: (1) whether the trial court properly instructed the jury on all lesser-included offenses raised by the evidence, (2) whether the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on duress, necessity and accessory after the fact, (3) whether the trial court erred by allowing into evidence testimony regarding the Defendant's pending aggravated assault trial, (4) whether the trial court erred by allowing into evidence a magazine clip confiscated from the Defendant by police two months before the murders, (5) whether the trial court erred by refusing to find the sentencing provisions of the Tennessee homicide laws to be unconstitutional, (6) whether the Defendant's convictions for especially aggravated robbery and theft violated his right against double jeopardy, (7) whether the indictment was constitutionally defective on its face, and (8) whether there was sufficient evidence to convict the Defendant of the charged offenses. We affirm the judgment of the trial court, but remand for entry of a corrected judgment form in Count III of indictment number 11329. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jason Howard Copely
The Defendant pled guilty to facilitation of attempt to commit especially aggravated robbery. The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range II multiple offender to seven years in the Tennessee Department of Correction, with eleven months of the sentence to be served in the Knox County jail followed by probation for the remainder of the sentence. A probation violation warrant was subsequently issued against the Defendant, alleging that the Defendant had violated his probated sentence by leaving his residence without permission and by removing his electronic monitor. An amended probation violation warrant was later filed alleging that the Defendant had also violated his probation by committing misdemeanor theft. Following a hearing, the trial court revoked the Defendant's probation and ordered him to serve his sentence in the Tennessee Department of Correction. This appeal ensued. After reviewing the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals |
