State of Tennessee v. Christopher Robert Smith
The appellant, Christopher Robert Smith, was convicted in the Criminal Court of Davidson County of conspiracy to possess with the intent to manufacture, deliver or sell 300 grams or more of any substance containing cocaine, a Class A felony. The trial court sentenced the appellant to twenty-four years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction and imposed a fifty thousand dollar ($50,000) fine. On appeal, the appellant complains that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and that his sentence was excessive. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Robert Spooner v. State of Tennessee
Robert Spooner appeals from the Wayne County Circuit Court's denial of his petition for the writ of habeas corpus. The petition was filed in an effort to avoid Spooner's extradition to the state of Alabama, where he is charged with having violated his probation on a conviction of receiving stolen property. Because the lower court properly denied the petition, we affirm. |
Wayne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Terry W. Smith v. State of Tennessee
This is an appeal from the denial of post-conviction relief concerning petitioner's conviction for aggravated kidnapping. The sole issue in this appeal is whether the petitioner was deprived of effective assistance of counsel when trial counsel, during the trial of the case, "opened the door" to the state's introduction of evidence of defendant's prior arrests. We agree with the post-conviction court's finding that petitioner failed to establish prejudice; thus, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Cheatham | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Charles William Young v. State of Tennessee
The appellant, Charles WilliamYoung, was convicted in a jury trial of the offense of theft over $500. He was sentenced to one year and six months and ordered to serve 60 days of incarceration, to pay a $500 fine and restitution of $800. The appellant's probation was revoked for the first time in 1997, but he was again placed on probation for 18 months. Two years later his probation was again revoked and the appellant was ordered to serve his original sentence with 94 days of jail credit. He subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief, or in the alternative, a writ of habeas corpus and alleged inter alia that a number of alleged constitutional errors occurred at both probation revocation hearings. The trial court summarily dismissed the petition. We hold that the Post-Conviction Procedures Act, Tennessee Code Annotated Section 40-30-201, et seq., does not provide a cause of action for a collateral attack on a probation revocation proceeding. Moreover, the appellant's allegations, taken as true, would at most render the results of the probation revocation proceedings voidable, not void, and therefore the writ of habeas corpus is not available to the appellant. The judgment of the trial court is therefore affirmed. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Cornelius Devon Hicks
The Appellant, Cornelius Devon Hicks, appeals the sentencing decision of the Humboldt Law Court enlarging his community corrections sentence following revocation. Hicks argues on appeal that it was error to increase his sentence from eight to ten years, when no proof was introduced at the revocation hearing supporting an increased sentence and the trial court made no findings to justify the ten-year sentence. After review, we agree. Accordingly, the trial court's re-sentencing order is reversed, and this case is remanded to the trial court for a new sentencing hearing. |
Gibson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Kevin Shawn Taylor v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Kevin Shawn Taylor, pled guilty in the Warren County Circuit Court to one count of attempted aggravated sexual battery. He received a sentence of ten years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Subsequently, the petitioner filed for post-conviction relief, alleging that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel and that his guilty plea was not knowing or voluntary. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. On appeal, the petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred in denying his petition. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Warren | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. J. C. Bruce
The Appellant, J.C. Bruce, was convicted after a trial by jury of robbery and, as a multiple offender, received a sentence of ten years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, Bruce raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict and (2) whether his sentence was proper. After a review of the record, the judgment of the Humphreys County Circuit Court is affirmed. |
Humphreys | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jerry Britt v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner was charged with one count of aggravated sexual battery; five counts of rape of a child; two counts of possession with intent to sell or deliver a controlled substance; and six counts of the delivery of a controlled substance. The Petitioner subsequently pled guilty to two counts of possession with intent to sell or deliver a controlled substance and to six counts of the delivery of a controlled substance. He also entered an Alford plea to three counts of attempted rape of a child. Pursuant to his plea agreement, the trial court sentenced the Petitioner to an effective sentence of forty-eight years. The Petitioner subsequently filed a timely petition for post-conviction relief which was heard and denied by the trial court. In this post-conviction appeal, the Petitioner contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when he entered his pleas; that his counsel's deficient performance rendered his guilty pleas unknowing and involuntary; and that he should be granted post-conviction relief because of newly discovered evidence. Concluding that the Petitioner received adequate representation when he entered his plea; that his pleas were entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently; and that the Petitioner is not entitled to post-conviction relief on the basis of newly discovered evidence, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hamblen | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Melissa D. Hayman
A jury convicted the Defendant, Melissa D. Hayman, of aggravated burglary, aggravated assault, and aggravated kidnapping. The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I standard offender to six years each for the burglary and the assault convictions, and to twelve years as a Range I violent offender for the kidnapping. The six year sentences were ordered to be served consecutively to the twelve year sentence and to each other, for an effective sentence of twenty-four years. All of the Defendant's sentences were ordered to be served in the Department of Correction. In this direct appeal the Defendant contends that the kidnapping conviction violates her constitutional rights under State v. Anthony, and further challenges the length and manner of service of her sentences. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joseph Lantrip
Defendant pled guilty to aggravated rape and aggravated kidnapping. On appeal, defendant (1) asserts that the trial court erred in its application of enhancement factors to the sentences and (2) asserts that the imposition of consecutive sentences was improper. After reviewing the sentence de novo, we conclude that the trial court erred in sentencing defendant. We reverse and remand for resentencing. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jeremy White
|
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Freddie Dean Bledsoe
The appellant was convicted by a jury of the offense of aggravated assault. He was sentenced to a term of six years incarceration and the jury assessed a $10,000 fine. On appeal he contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict. After a careful review of the record we find that the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict and we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Cumberland | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
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 | |
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 | |
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. 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 |
