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 | |
State of Tennessee v. William R. McLeod, Jr.
The defendant, William R. McLeod, Jr., pled guilty in the Williamson County Circuit Court to two counts of aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the defendant received an eight-year sentence for each conviction with the issue of concurrent or consecutive sentencing to be decided by the trial court. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered that the defendant serve his sentences consecutively for an effective sentence of sixteen years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The defendant appeals, claiming that the trial court erred in ordering consecutive sentences. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Earley Story
The appellant, Earley Story, was convicted in the Shelby County Criminal Court of one count of selling not less than one-half ounce nor more than ten pounds of marijuana, a Class E felony. The appellant was sentenced to one year of incarceration in the Shelby County Jail, which sentence was immediately probated. On appeal, the appellant raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether the trial court erred in failing to conduct a hearing on the appellant's pro se motion alleging a failure to afford him a speedy trial; (2) whether the trial court wrongly forced the appellant to trial with unwanted counsel, which counsel were appointed without any evidence that the appellant was unable to employ counsel of his choosing; and (3) whether the trial court erred in admitting purported transcripts of tape recordings. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Carlos Bierner
Defendant, Carlos Bierner, was charged with aggravated sexual battery. After his trial had commenced, but prior to its conclusion, Defendant entered a plea of guilty to the lesser charge of attempted aggravated sexual battery, a Class C felony. In accordance with the negotiated plea agreement, Defendant received a sentence of eight years, as a multiple Range II offender, with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court denied probation or any other form of alternative sentencing and ordered that Defendant serve the eight years in confinement, at thirty-five percent eligibility. In this appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court erred by ordering a sentence of continuous confinement. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Morris Rucker v. State of Tennessee
On September 14, 1984, the petitioner, Morris Rucker, was convicted of three violent offenses and was sentenced to imprisonment for life plus sixty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On June 21, 2001, the petitioner mailed from prison a petition for post-conviction relief alleging four grounds for relief. The post-conviction court dismissed the petition as being time-barred. On appeal, the petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred in dismissing his petition. Upon reviewing the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher John Eddinger
|
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. David D. Bottoms
The Appellant, David D. Bottoms, appeals from the Davidson County Criminal Court's order of restitution following his conviction for arson. On appeal, Bottoms argues the amount of restitution was excessive. Upon de novo review, we find that the victim did not provide sufficient evidence of his pecuniary loss for damages to the rental property. Accordingly, the amount of restitution as imposed by the trial court is modified, and the case is remanded for entry of a sentencing order in accordance with this opinion. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joseph G. Batts
The appellant, Joseph Batts, was convicted by a jury of the offense of rape. He was sentenced to a term of twelve (12) years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. In this appeal he contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction for rape and that his sentence is excessive. After carefully reviewing the record as presented, we are of the opinion that the evidence is legally sufficient to support the conviction. Moreover, in the absence of a transcript of the sentencing hearing we must presume the sentence is correct. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kenneth Ray White
The Appellant, Kenneth Ray White, appeals from the sentencing decision of the Humphreys County Circuit Court denying his request for probation. In this appeal, White raises the issue of whether the trial court abused its discretion by ordering a sentence of incarceration rather than the less restrictive alternative of community corrections. After review, we find no abuse of discretion. As such, the trial court's decision is affirmed. |
Humphreys | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
R.B. Toby v. State of Tennessee
|
Sevier | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James William Dash v. Howard W. Carlton, Warden
The petitioner, James William Dash, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus which was denied by the trial court for lack of jurisdiction. In this appeal of right, the petitioner argues that the trial court clerk erroneously filed the petition in the criminal court rather than the circuit court, that his judgment of conviction is void, and that the trial court erred in the assessment of costs. The trial court's order taxing costs to the petitioner is reversed. Otherwise, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Johnson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Harold D. Roberts
The defendant was convicted of driving under the influence, third offense; driving on a revoked license; felonious evading arrest; and violating the open container law. The trial court granted a motion for judgment of acquittal as to the felonious evading arrest conviction and imposed the following sentences: eleven months, twenty-nine days, suspended after serving ten months in continuous confinement, for DUI, third offense; four months in the county jail, plus six months' probation, for driving on a revoked license; and thirty days for violating the open container law, with all sentences to be served concurrently. The defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by denying his request to give the jury the missing witness instruction and by improperly sentencing him. We affirm the judgments of the trial court but remand for entry of a corrected judgment as to Count 2 reflecting that the defendant was convicted of third offense DUI. |
Marion | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Harold D. Roberts
The defendant was convicted of driving under the influence, third offense; driving on a revoked license; felonious evading arrest; and violating the open container law. The trial court granted a motion for judgment of acquittal as to the felonious evading arrest conviction and imposed the following sentences: eleven months, twenty-nine days, suspended after serving ten months in continuous confinement, for DUI, third offense; four months in the county jail, plus six months' probation, for driving on a revoked license; and thirty days for violating the open container law, with all sentences to be served concurrently. The defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by denying his request to give the jury the missing witness instruction and by improperly sentencing him. We affirm the judgments of the trial court but remand for entry of a corrected judgment as to Count 2 reflecting that the defendant was convicted of third offense DUI. |
Marion | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Roy C. Smith, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Roy C. Smith, Jr., pled guilty to one count of rape of a child and was sentenced to fifteen years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Subsequently, the petitioner, acting pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that his conviction is illegal because he pled guilty to a crime that was not in effect at the time of the commission of the offense. The trial court dismissed the petition and the petitioner now appeals. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Roy C. Smith, Jr. v. State of Tennessee - Concurring
|
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Harley B. Upchurch
Defendant pled guilty to burglary, theft under $500, and vandalism under $500 and was sentenced by the trial court to an effective sentence of four years with the requirement that he serve one year "day for day" in the county jail followed by twelve years of supervised probation. On appeal, defendant contends (1) the length of his sentence is excessive; (2) he should have been granted full probation; and (3) the trial court erred in requiring him to serve his time of confinement "day for day." We remand for deletion of the "day for day" requirement because it deprives the defendant of the opportunity to earn statutory sentencing credits; however, we affirm the judgments of the trial court in all other respects. |
Overton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Harley B. Upchurch
Defendant pled guilty to burglary, theft under $500, and vandalism under $500 and was sentenced by the trial court to an effective sentence of four years with the requirement that he serve one year "day for day" in the county jail followed by twelve years of supervised probation. On appeal, defendant contends (1) the length of his sentence is excessive; (2) he should have been granted full probation; and (3) the trial court erred in requiring him to serve his time of confinement "day for day." We remand for deletion of the "day for day" requirement because it deprives the defendant of the opportunity to earn statutory sentencing credits; however, we affirm the judgments of the trial court in all other respects. |
Overton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. David Allen Lackey
A Davidson County jury convicted the Defendant of one count of premeditated murder, one count of felony murder during the perpetration of a theft, and one count of misdemeanor theft. The trial |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
David Michael Long v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, David Michael Long, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. In this appeal of right, the petitioner asserts that his plea was neither knowingly nor voluntarily made and that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed |
McMinn | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ivan E. Cummings
The defendant, Ivan E. Cummings, pled guilty in the Montgomery County Circuit Court to aggravated child abuse, aggravated child neglect, and second degree murder, Class A felonies. The trial court merged the aggravated child abuse and neglect convictions and sentenced the defendant as a Range I, standard offender to twenty-four years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. For the second degree murder conviction, the trial court sentenced the defendant to twenty-five years to be served concurrently with the twenty-four-year sentence. The defendant appeals, claiming that the trial court erroneously applied enhancement factors to his convictions. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Wendy Stevens
The appellant, Wendy Stevens, pled guilty in the Williamson County Circuit Court to one count of forgery involving a value of more than $500 but less than $1,000, and one count of fraudulent use of a credit card involving a value of more than $500 but less than $1,000, both Class E felonies. The trial court sentenced the appellant to eighteen months incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction for each offense, but immediately suspended the sentence in favor of supervised probation. On appeal, the appellant complains that the trial court erred by failing to grant her judicial diversion. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Johnny McClain v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant, Johnny McClain, appeals as of right from the judgment of the Davidson County Criminal 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, we find that the Appellant's brief fails to provide any argument in support of the issue as presented. Due to the Appellant's procedural default, the appeal is dismissed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Willie Neal Burton
The defendant, Willie Neal Burton, appeals as of right from the Chester County Circuit Court's revocation of his community corrections sentence. The trial court found that he had violated the terms of his community corrections sentence by conduct unbecoming good citizenship, involving arrests and convictions for subsequent offenses while serving his community corrections sentence. It sentenced the defendant to a six-year sentence as a career offender. The defendant contends that the trial court erroneously revoked his community corrections sentence and that the resulting six-year sentence is excessive. We affirm the trial court's revocation and sentence. |
Chester | Court of Criminal Appeals |
