State of Tennessee v. Carla Moten
Defendant, Carla Moten, was indicted by the Shelby County Grand Jury for aggravated burglary and intentional aggravated assault. Defendant was convicted by a jury of the lesser-included offense of reckless aggravated assault. The jury also found Defendant guilty of aggravated criminal trespass as a lesser-included offense of aggravated burglary. Defendant was sentenced to two years for her reckless aggravated assault conviction and six months for her aggravated criminal trespass conviction, to be served concurrently. In her appeal as of right, Defendant argues that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support her conviction for reckless aggravated assault. We disagree, and affirm the judgment of the trial court regarding the conviction for reckless aggravated assault. However, we find plain error in the conviction for aggravated criminal trespass as a lesser-included offense of aggravated burglary and therefore reverse and dismiss the conviction for aggravated criminal trespass. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Danial R. Willcutt
|
Hardin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Danial R. Willcutt - Concurring
|
Hardin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Olivia Williams
The defendant pled guilty to one count of Class D felony theft over $10,000, received an agreed three-year sentence, and agreed to allow the trial court to determine the manner in which her sentence would be served. The trial court ordered the sentence to be served in incarceration. In this appeal, the defendant argues the trial court erred in denying alternative sentencing. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Cocke | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jesse Carter v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner appeals the denial of his post-conviction relief petition. He argues: (1) his trial counsel was ineffective in advising him regarding the sentence agreement in which he waived his right to appeal; and (2) he did not knowingly and voluntarily waive his right to appeal. We conclude that although the post-conviction court erroneously stated that the uncorroborated testimony of the post-conviction petitioner "should be summarily struck," the post-conviction court, nevertheless, made proper and adequate findings which support the denial of relief. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Anthony R. Parham
A Davidson County jury convicted the defendant, Anthony R. Parham, of sexual battery. In this appeal as of right, the defendant raises the issue of whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for sexual battery. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Tucker
|
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Tucker - Concurring
|
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Tucker - Dissenting
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion. I believe the trial court erred by limiting the definition of passion to anger relative to the adequate provocation necessary for voluntary manslaughter. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
John Parker Roe v. State of Tennessee
The Defendant, John Parker Roe, was convicted by a jury of first degree premeditated murder. His conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. See State v. John Parker Roe, No. 02C01-9702-CR-00054, 1998 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 39 (Jackson, Jan. 12, 1998), perm. appeal denied (Tenn., Jan. 4, 1999). The Defendant subsequently filed for post-conviction relief, alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. After an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. This appeal followed. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Derek T. Payne
The defendant, Derek T. Payne, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of second degree murder, a Class A felony, and attempted especially aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, and was sentenced by the trial court to an effective sentence of thirty-seven years in the Department of Correction. In this appeal as of right, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence in support of his convictions, the sentences imposed, and the trial court's evidentiary rulings. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. George R. Croft
A Shelby County jury found the Defendant guilty of especially aggravated robbery and felony murder in the perpetration of a robbery. The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I violent offender to life imprisonment for the felony murder conviction and to twenty-two years for the especially aggravated robbery conviction. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred by failing to give a requested jury instruction on lost or destroyed evidence, that the evidence presented by an accomplice was not sufficiently corroborated to support the convictions, and that the trial court erred in sentencing the Defendant for the especially aggravated robbery conviction by not including in the record specific findings regarding the enhancement and mitigating factors considered in sentencing him. We affirm the Defendant's convictions, but remand to the trial court for a new sentencing hearing for the especially aggravated robbery conviction. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Michael Edmondson v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Michael Edmondson, appeals as of right the Shelby County Criminal Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. He challenges his convictions pursuant to guilty pleas contending that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial attorney failed to investigate and prepare his case for trial. We affirm the trial court's denial of the post-conviction petition. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Gary Eugene Aldridge v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Gary Eugene Aldridge, was convicted by a jury in the Circuit Court of Hickman County of one count of aggravated kidnapping, two counts of aggravated rape, one count of rape, and two counts of simple assault. The trial court sentenced the petitioner to an effective sentence of sixty years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction, followed by an effective consecutive sentence of seventeen months and twenty-nine days in the local workhouse. After an unsuccessful appeal of his convictions, the petitioner timely filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging, among other grounds, ineffective assistance of counsel. The petitioner now brings this appeal challenging the post-conviction court's denial of his petition. After reviewing the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Hickman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Lillie Fran Ferguson
After entering a guilty plea, the defendant reserved certified questions for review: (1) whether the Terry search was justified, and (2) whether the incriminating nature of the contraband was immediately apparent. We hold that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to justify a Terry frisk and that the object felt was not immediately apparent as contraband. We reverse and dismiss the defendant's conviction. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Calvin T. Barham
Defendant pled guilty to possession of cocaine with intent to sell, a Class C felony. Defendant's motion to suppress evidence was denied by the trial court. Defendant claimed that evidence found on him was the result of an illegal search and should have been suppressed. The suppression issue was certified for review. We affirm the trial court and hold the evidence was properly admissible. |
Chester | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Douglas Willis
The defendant, Michael Douglas Willis, was charged with DUI, violating the open container law, and violating the implied consent law. A jury convicted the defendant of violating the implied consent law but acquitted him of the other charges. The trial court subsequently overturned the jury's guilty verdict but nevertheless revoked the defendant's license for one year for violating the implied consent law. The defendant now appeals the trial court's revocation of his license. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Campbell | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Milton Lee Cooper v. State of Tennessee
A Hamilton County jury convicted the petitioner of first degree felony murder and conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery. The petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder conviction and to eight years incarceration for the conspiracy conviction. This court affirmed the convictions, and the Tennessee Supreme Court denied permission to appeal. The petitioner then filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on direct appeal. Specifically, the petitioner alleged that counsel: (1) failed to request an alibi instruction at trial; (2) failed to raise the alibi instruction issue on direct appeal; and (3) failed to challenge an erroneous accomplice instruction at trial and on appeal. Also, the petitioner alleged that the trial court: (1) failed to instruct the jury on the defense of alibi, thus violating the petitioner's due process rights and his right to a jury trial; and (2) failed to instruct the jury on "the natural and probable consequences rule." Following a hearing, the post-conviction court denied the petition for post-conviction relief, and this appeal ensued. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Richard Lacardo Elliott
Defendant, Richard Lacardo Elliott, appeals his convictions in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County for aggravated robbery and aggravated kidnapping. Defendant argues that his conviction for aggravated kidnapping may not stand pursuant to the Tennessee Supreme Court’s holding in State v. Anthony, 817 S.W.2d 299 (Tenn. 1991). He further contends that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support his convictions, and that the trial court should have granted a motion for mistrial based upon the State’s improper comments during closing argument. We disagree, and affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Daniel James Cosgrove
|
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Quawn L. Lillard
The defendant, Quawn L. Lillard, appeals his Davidson County Criminal Court convictions for aggravated robbery and aggravated assault. On appeal, he insists that the convicting evidence is not legally sufficient to support his convictions, and he claims that the trial court should not have admitted the identification testimony of one of the victims. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Corey Edmiston
A jury convicted the Defendant, James Corey Edmiston, of attempted second degree murder, especially aggravated robbery, especially aggravated burglary, aggravated assault, vandalism and resisting arrest. The trial court merged the aggravated assault conviction into the attempted murder conviction. The court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I offender to ten years for the attempted murder; twenty-four years for the especially aggravated robbery; ten years for the especially aggravated burglary; and eleven months, twenty-nine days for each of the two misdemeanor convictions. The trial court ordered the felony sentences to run consecutively to each other, with the misdemeanor sentences to run concurrently with the attempted murder sentence, for an effective sentence of forty-four years. The Defendant now appeals, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence for the attempted second degree murder conviction, and the trial court's imposition of consecutive sentences. We affirm the trial court's judgment. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Felix M. Leach
A Williamson County grand jury indicted the defendant, Felix M. Leach, for possession with intent to sell or deliver cocaine, possession of marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia. In a negotiated plea agreement dated June 19, 2001, the defendant pled guilty as a Range II, multiple offender to each of the three counts of the indictment. The plea agreement specified that the three sentences would run concurrently and that all remaining sentencing issues would be determined by the trial court following a sentencing hearing. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the defendant to ten years for possession with intent to sell or deliver cocaine, eleven months and twenty-nine days for each of the other two counts, and ordered the sentences to be served consecutively to a previous sentence that he was on probation for at the time. The defendant raises two issues on appeal: (1) whether the ten-year sentence for possession with intent to sell or deliver cocaine was excessive; and (2) whether the three sentences should be concurrent or consecutive to the sentence for which he was on probation at the time. After reviewing the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Thomas Michael Shinavar
A Montgomery County jury convicted the defendant, Thomas Michael Shinavar, of driving under the influence (DUI), his fourth offense and a Class E felony. On appeal, the defendant presents the following issues: (1) whether the indictment charging DUI failed to satisfy constitutional and statutory requirements; and (2) whether the indictment failed to provide adequate notice to the defendant that he was charged with a felony rather than a misdemeanor. After reviewing the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jason Allen Mobley
The defendant, Jason Allen Mobley, appeals as of right from the Henry County Circuit Court's revoking his eight-year probation. The defendant contends that the trial court erroneously revoked his probation without sufficient proof that he was using drugs. We affirm the trial court. |
Henry | Court of Criminal Appeals |
