State of Tennessee v. David Herl
In 2012, the Defendant, David Herl, entered a guilty plea to theft of property valued over $1,000, and he received a sentence of four years, suspended to probation. On July 2, 2013, a warrant was issued, alleging that the Defendant violated the terms of his probation. The warrant was not served on the Defendant until September 18, 2020. The Defendant moved to dismiss the prosecution, asserting that his right to a speedy trial had been violated. The trial court refused to dismiss the proceedings, found the Defendant to have violated the terms of his probation, and ordered the Defendant to serve his sentence in confinement. The Defendant appeals the trial court’s refusal to dismiss the charges. We conclude that the Defendant’s right to a speedy trial was not violated and affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Robert Brooks
Defendant, Robert Brooks, was convicted of reckless endangerment, aggravated robbery, two counts of aggravated assault, and one count of assault. The trial court imposed a sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days for reckless endangerment to be served consecutively to Defendant’s effective ten-year sentence for aggravated robbery, two counts of aggravated assault, and assault. On appeal, Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for aggravated robbery and that the trial court erred by denying his peremptory challenge to strike Juror 7. Following our review of the entire record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Zackari Tennant
The Appellant, Zackari Tennant, was convicted by a Davidson County Criminal Court Jury of especially aggravated robbery, a Class A felony; carjacking, a Class B felony; and employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, a Class C felony, and was sentenced by the trial court to an effective term of twenty-three years at 100% in the Department of Correction. The Appellant raises essentially three issues on appeal: (1) whether the trial court erred by precluding him from introducing evidence that he was only sixteen years old at the time of the offenses; (2) whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain his convictions; and (3) whether the trial court imposed an excessive sentence by not giving adequate weight to his youth as a factor in mitigation. Based on our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Terrance B. Smith
The Defendant, Terrance B. Smith, appeals the trial court’s summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 in which he challenged his life sentence resulting from his first degree murder conviction for an offense that occurred in 1998. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Tipton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Curtis O. Shelton, Jr.
The Defendant, Curtis O. Shelton, Jr., was convicted by a Montgomery County Circuit Court jury of felony murder in the perpetration of or attempt to perpetrate burglary, felony murder in the perpetration of or attempt to perpetrate theft, especially aggravated burglary, four counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, three counts of aggravated kidnapping, and seven counts of attempted aggravated robbery. The trial court merged the felony murder convictions and imposed an effective sentence of life plus twenty years. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his pretrial statement, (2) the evidence is insufficient to support the felony murder convictions, and (3) the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentencing. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tarik Deshawn Newman
The Davidson County Grand Jury indicted Defendant, Tarik Deshawn Newman, for one count each of aggravated robbery, especially aggravated kidnapping, evading arrest in a motor vehicle with risk of death or injury, and theft of property valued between $1,000 and $10,000. Following a trial, a jury convicted Defendant as charged, and the trial court sentenced Defendant to an effective sentence of nineteen years’ incarceration with a 100 percent release eligibility. On appeal, Defendant argues (1) that the State withheld evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and in violation of Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 16; (2) that the trial court erred in admitting evidence in violation of Tennessee Rules of Evidence 403 and 404(b); (3) that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; (4) that the trial court erred in denying Defendant’s Motion for Judgment of Acquittal; and (5) that the sentences were excessive. Following a thorough review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Frank E. Small v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Frank E. Small, was convicted in 2016, after a jury trial, of robbery and home improvement fraud. This Court affirmed Petitioner’s convictions and sentences on direct appeal. State v. Frank E. Small, No. E2017-01266-CCA-R3-CD, 2018 WL 2383033, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. May 25, 2018), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Sept. 13, 2018). Petitioner appeals from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, in which he alleged that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. Having reviewed the entire record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jerry Carter, Sr.
The Defendant, Jerry Carter, Sr., appeals from his jury convictions for three counts of rape of a child, three counts of incest, three counts of soliciting the sexual exploitation of a minor, and one count of child abuse and his resulting sentence of 168 years, 11 months, and 29 days. On appeal, the Defendant argues that (1) the trial court erred when it ruled that the Defendant’s prior 2003 convictions for statutory rape and sexual battery were relevant and admissible; (2) the trial court’s rulings regarding the defense’s ability to cross-examine witnesses impermissibly restricted the Defendant’s right to put on a defense; (3) the trial court erred when it characterized the text messages between the Defendant and one of the victims as a confession or admission against interest and gave the jury the corresponding instruction; and (4) the cumulative effect of the errors entitle him to a new trial. Though we do not find that any of the issues raised by the Defendant entitle him to relief, we remand this case due to errors with the judgment forms—there was no judgment form entered for Count 8 (aggravated sexual battery), which was dismissed, and the trial court’s imposed sentences of twelve years for both Counts 9 and 10, but the judgment forms incorrectly reflect sentences of eight years. In all other respects, the judgments are affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Shaun Rondale Cross v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Shaun Rondale Cross, pled guilty to possession with the intent to sell twenty-six grams or more of cocaine and was sentenced to twenty-five years as a Range III, persistent offender. After an unsuccessful post-conviction petition, Petitioner filed a second post-conviction petition along with an untimely petition for writ of error coram nobis based on a claim of newly discovered evidence of actual innocence. Following an evidentiary hearing, the coram nobis court dismissed the motion to reopen post-conviction and denied the error coram nobis petition. On appeal, Petitioner claims the coram nobis court erred by denying him error coram nobis relief. Following review of the record, the briefs of the parties, and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the coram nobis court in accordance with Rule 20 of the Rules of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Calvin Scott
The Appellant, Calvin Scott, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1. The Appellant also contends that the trial court had jurisdiction to address an issue regarding his pretrial jail credits and that the trial court should have recused itself from his case. Based upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Calvin Banks v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Calvin Banks, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of first degree premeditated murder and being a convicted felon in possession of a weapon. The trial court imposed an effective life sentence. Petitioner’s convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. Petitioner sought post-conviction relief, claiming that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. Following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. Upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Damian McGlown a/k/a Damion McGlown
Following a jury trial, Damian McGlown, Defendant, was convicted of one count of aggravated rape for “unlawfully, knowingly, or recklessly sexually penetrat[ing] and caus[ing] bodily injury” to his adult niece, and he was sentenced to seventeen years’ incarceration. On appeal, Defendant claims that the evidence failed to show that Defendant caused bodily injury to the victim and, therefore, was insufficient to support his conviction of aggravated rape. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of conviction. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Bert Newby v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Bert Newby, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for writ of error coram nobis. Petitioner contends that the coram nobis court improperly determined that his petition was time-barred and that he presented newly discovered evidence of a witness’s recanted testimony, which may have resulted in a different judgment had it been presented at trial. Following a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the coram nobis court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ethan Alexander Self v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Ethan Alexander Self, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his first-degree premeditated murder conviction, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in finding that he received effective assistance of counsel. Following our review of the entire record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the postconviction court. |
Hawkins | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Juan Lasean Perry
The Defendant, Juan LaSean Perry, appeals the trial court’s summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 in which he challenged his twenty-five-year sentence resulting from his second degree murder conviction in 2005. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Stevie Michael Irwin v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Stevie Michael Irwin, appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition, arguing the post-conviction court erred in finding he received the effective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal. After our review of the record, briefs, and applicable law, we affirm the denial of the petition. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Bryant Christopher Mitchell
Bryant Christopher Mitchell, Defendant, appeals from his conviction of first degree murder, for which he received a life sentence. On appeal, Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. After a complete review, we determine that the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant’s conviction. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jaquarius D. Carpenter
Defendant, Jaquarius D. Carpenter, was convicted by a jury of possession with the intent to sell 0.5 grams or more of cocaine, possession with the intent to deliver 0.5 grams or more of cocaine, simple possession of marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia. The trial court imposed an effective eighteen-year sentence, as a Range II multiple offender, to be served in the Department of Correction. On appeal, Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions for possession with the intent to sell or deliver cocaine and simple possession of marijuana. Following our review of the entire record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
William Casey v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, William Casey, appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief in which he challenged his convictions for first degree criminal sexual conduct and two counts of aggravated rape for offenses that occurred in 1979 and 1980. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on direct appeal, that the |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kenneth Barnett
The Knox County Grand Jury indicted Defendant, Kenneth Barnett, for ten counts of aggravated burglary with intent to commit theft, ten alternative counts of aggravated burglary while committing theft, ten counts of theft, and two counts of unlawful possession of a weapon by a convicted felon. Prior to trial, the trial court dismissed the ten alternative counts of aggravated burglary while committing theft. Following trial, the jury convicted Defendant of six counts of aggravated burglary, six counts of theft, and both counts of unlawful possession of a weapon by a convicted felon, for which the trial court imposed a total effective sentence of thirty-five years. On appeal, Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions for unlawful possession of a weapon by a convicted felon. Following a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Nicholas Maurice White
A Bradley County jury convicted the defendant, Nicholas Maurice White, of aggravated robbery and aggravated assault, and the trial court imposed an effective sentence of ten years’ incarceration. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions. Upon our review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Bradley | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joseph Griggs
A Hardeman County jury convicted the Defendant, Joseph Griggs, of aggravated rape, and the trial court sentenced him to twenty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction and that the trial court erred when it sentenced him. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Erik Sean Potts
The Defendant-Appellant, Erik Sean Potts, entered a guilty plea to driving under the influence (“DUI”) by impairment (second offense) in exchange for dismissal of four other charges stemming from his DUI offense and a sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days to be served on supervised probation after service of forty-five days of confinement. The Defendant reserved a certified question of law challenging the denial of his motion to suppress, which was based upon an unconstitutional search and seizure. After thorough review, we conclude that the certified question does not meet the requirements of Rule 37(b)(2)(A) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure and State v. Preston, 759 S.W.2d 647 (Tenn. 1988), and, as a result, this court is without jurisdiction to consider the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Dominick Ratliff v. State of Tennessee
In Case No. 113496, Dominick Ratliff, Petitioner, pled guilty to possession with intent to deliver more than 0.5 grams of methamphetamine in a drug-free zone and received a sentence of fifteen years’ incarceration with a 100 percent release eligibility. In Case No. 112791,1 Petitioner pled guilty to possession with intent to deliver more than 0.5 grams of methamphetamine and simple possession of a Schedule IV controlled substance. Pursuant to the plea agreement, Petitioner received concurrent sentences of eight years’ incarceration with a thirty percent release eligibility and eleven months and twenty-nine days’ incarceration, respectively. The trial court ran the sentences in both cases concurrently, for an effective fifteen-year sentence with a 100 percent release eligibility. Petitioner filed a timely post-conviction petition, alleging in part that his plea was unknowing and involuntary. The post-conviction court denied relief, and Petitioner now appeals. Following a thorough review of the record and law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Lorenzo ONeal Barnhill
Defendant, Lorenzo Barnhill, claims the trial court erred by finding that he was a dangerous offender and ordering his four-year sentence in Case No. 2019-A-106 to be served consecutively to his effective seven-year sentence in Case No. 2019-A-334. After a review of the record and applicable law, we determine that the trial court provided reasons on the record establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant was an offender whose “record of criminal activity is extensive.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115(b)(2). Because the trial court found one of the seven criteria listed in Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-115(b), the trial court did not abuse its discretion in aligning the sentences consecutively. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals |
