Clifton D. Wallen v. State of Tennessee
The summary dismissal of the petition for post-conviction relief is affirmed because the petitioner failed to adequately allege ineffective assistance of counsel based upon conflict of interests and the claim of incompetency to stand trial is waived. |
Hawkins | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Clarence Boling
After waiving his right to a trial by jury, the defendant was convicted of possession of marijuana with the intent to sell or deliver. For this offense he received a sentence of two years as a Range I, standard offender. However, the trial court ordered this sentence suspended after the service of thirty days. Through this appeal the defendant alleges that the trial court erred in allowing impeachment evidence to be introduced through Officer Steve Blankenship and that the evidence is insufficient to support his having possessed the marijuana with the intent to sell or deliver it. After reviewing the record, we find that neither of these claims merit reversal and, therefore, affirm the defendant's conviction, but remand for correction of the judgment to reflect the defendant was convicted at a bench trial. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Thomas Paul Gagne, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
Thomas Paul Gagne, Jr. appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief in which he alleged he received the ineffective assistance of counsel in his conviction proceedings, which ultimately caused him to plead guilty rather than take his case to trial. Gagne is serving an effective term of two consecutive life sentences consecutively to a prior twelve-year sentence. His petition involves his convictions upon guilty pleas for crimes of larceny, theft, aggravated burglary and two counts of felony murder. Following an evidentiary hearing, the lower court ruled that Gagne failed to establish his ineffective assistance claim. We hold that he has failed to demonstrate the error of that ruling, and we therefore affirm the lower court's dismissal of the petition. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John Wayman Orr
The defendant, John Waymann Orr, appeals from his probation revocation which resulted primarily from his conviction for public intoxication and alcohol abuse. He contends that with his alcohol abuse and mental health problems, he should be receiving treatment and should not be confined in jail. We affirm the trial court. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Vincent Thomas Gallo
The defendant was convicted upon his guilty pleas to three counts of unlawfully photographing individuals in violation of their privacy, a Class A misdemeanor, and received concurrent eleven-month-twenty-nine-day sentences to be served in confinement in the county jail. The defendant appeals the trial court's denying him probation of any type. We affirm the denial of probation, but we remand the case for entry of corrected judgments. |
Jefferson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Larry D. Upshaw
The defendant, Larry D. Upshaw, was convicted of second degree murder. The trial court imposed a sentence of 38 years in the Department of Correction. The sole issue on appeal is whether the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction for second degree murder. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Tracy Lamar Belle, Sr. v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Tracy Lamar Belle, Sr., appeals the denial of post-conviction relief contending that his right to due process has been violated by the application of the statute of limitations. Because the notice of appeal was not timely filed and because "the interest of justice" does not require the waiver of a timely notice, this appeal is dismissed. See Tenn. R. App. P. 4(a). |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jerry Floyd Caldwell
After trial, a Putnam County jury found Defendant guilty of the unlawful possession of a controlled substance, to wit: cocaine over .5 grams, for resale, driving under the influence of an intoxicant, the unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, and evading arrest. Further, the jury determined Defendant should pay fines of $100,000, $2,500, $2,500, and $1,500 for each respective offense. Subject to a sentencing agreement, the trial court imposed a sentence of nine (9) years on the cocaine offense and 11 months and 29 days for each misdemeanor. The trial court ordered the sentences to be served concurrently and imposed judgment for the fines in accordance with the verdict of the jury. Defendant presents two appellate issues: (1) Whether there is sufficient evidence to convict Defendant of sale of cocaine over 0.5 grams, driving under the influence and possession of drug paraphernalia?; and (2) Whether Defendant's fines are excessive? After a review of the entire record, briefs of the parties and applicable law, we affirm the trial court's judgment |
Putnam | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Augusto Oviedo
The appellant, Augusto Oviedo, was convicted by a jury in the Shelby County Criminal Court of robbery and was sentenced as a Range III persistent offender to fifteen years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence in this case is sufficient to sustain his conviction, and (2) whether the trial court failed to fully consider all mitigating factors when it sentenced the appellant to the maximum in the range for the crime. 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. Timmy Herndon
The defendant was convicted of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-402. The defendant was sentenced to a fifteen-year sentence at the Tennessee Department of Correction as a Range II offender. The defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the evidence presented at the defendant’s trial was sufficient to support his conviction. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jeremy Michael Shelton
The defendant, Jeremy Michael Shelton, was convicted of theft of property over $10,000. The trial court imposed a three-year sentence. One year is to be served in continuous confinement and the remaining two years are to be served in Community Corrections. In this appeal of right, the defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient and that the sentence is excessive. The conviction is affirmed. The judgment is modified, however, to reflect that the confinement portion of the split sentence is to be served in the local jail. |
Henry | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Albert Johnson
The defendant was indicted for attempted especially aggravated robbery, and a Shelby County jury subsequently convicted the defendant as charged. In this appeal, the defendant alleges that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction. We affirm the conviction. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Janice Floyd
The appellant was found not guilty by reason of insanity on two counts of second degree murder pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-210, and on one count of aggravated arson pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-14-302. After the court found the appellant not guilty by reason of insanity, the appellant was committed to Western Mental Health Institute for diagnosis and evaluation pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 33-7-303. At the conclusion of the appellant's diagnosis and evaluation, the doctors conducting the evaluation determined that the appellant was not committable under the Tennessee Code Annotated and refused to sign certificates of certification for the appellant to be involuntarily committed. At the end of the initial sixty (60) day diagnosis and evaluation period, the doctors at Western Mental Health Institute sought to have the appellant released into a mandatory outpatient treatment program. A hearing was conducted after the ninety (90) day mandatory release date, and the trial court ordered that the appellant be returned to Western Mental Health Institute. The appellant brought this appeal asserting that the trial court erred in ordering her continued detention after the expiration of the maximum ninety (90) day commitment period, and that such detention violates her rights. The state in its brief concedes error. After a thorough review of the issue presented in this case, we agree with the appellant and the state that the trial court erred. This case is remanded to the trial court for further action consistent with the instruction set forth herein. |
Chester | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Hill Jr.
A Fayette County jury convicted the defendant of attempted aggravated robbery. The trial court sentenced the defendant to the maximum term of 15 years as a Range III persistent offender. In this appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and the length of his sentence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Fayette | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Anthony Reid
The defendant, Anthony Reid, was convicted by a Bradley County jury of first degree felony murder and especially aggravated robbery, Class A felonies, aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, attempted aggravated robbery, a Class C felony, and evading arrest, a Class E felony. Thereafter, the trial court sentenced Defendant to life imprisonment for his first degree murder conviction, twenty-five years for his especially aggravated robbery conviction, ten years for his aggravated robbery conviction, six years for his attempted aggravated robbery conviction, and two years for evading arrest. The trial court further ordered Defendant's sentence for life imprisonment to be served consecutively to his other four sentences, which were ordered to be served concurrently with each other, for an effective sentence of life plus twenty-five years. On appeal, Defendant contends that his convictions cannot stand because the State failed to comply with the mandatory procedures concerning proper presentation and filing of the indictment in his case as required by statute, and the trial court erred by refusing Defendant's request for a mistrial after the State improperly solicited testimony concerning the fact that Defendant invoked his right to remain silent upon arrest. Defendant also alleges that the trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences. Following a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Bradley | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Daniel L. Scott
The appellant, Daniel L. Scott, entered a best interest guilty plea in the Shelby County Criminal Court to one count of animal fighting, one count of cruelty to animals, and one count of keeping unvaccinated dogs. The trial court sentenced the appellant to incarceration in the Shelby County workhouse for one year for the animal fighting conviction, six months for the animal cruelty conviction, and thirty days for the keeping unvaccinated dogs conviction. The trial court further ordered that the sentences be served concurrently. The appellant requested probation, which request the trial court denied. On appeal, the appellant raises the following issue for our review: whether the trial court erred in denying the appellant probation. 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. Wheatley Jamar Graham, III
After a jury trial, Defendant, Wheatley Jamar Graham, III, was convicted of two counts of attempted first degree murder, three counts of aggravated assault and possession of a weapon in commission of a felony. Defendant was sentenced to twenty-four (24) years incarceration as a Range I offender for two counts of attempted first degree murder, 4.5 years incarceration for three counts of aggravated assault and 1.9 years for possession of a weapon in the commission of a felony. The trial court ordered all sentences to be served concurrently, but merged two counts of aggravated assault with the two counts of attempted first degree murder. In this appeal as of right Defendant contends: (1) the evidence is insufficient to convict Defendant of attempted first degree murder in counts 3 and 4 of the indictment; (2) whether the trial court erred by permitting the State to introduce evidence that Defendant refused to permit law enforcement officers to obtain a "hand swab" from him; and (3) whether the trial court erred in not dismissing Defendant's convictions for aggravated assault in counts 7 and 8 instead of merging these convictions with counts 3 and 4, attempted first degree murder, as being in violation of the prohibition against double jeopardy. We conclude that the evidence in this record supports Defendant's convictions for attempted first degree murder, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by ruling Defendant's refusal for hand swabs was admissible and the trial court's merging of the two counts of aggravated assault with the attempted first degree murder conviction was not double jeopardy. Thus, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Margo Ellis
The Appellant, Margo Ellis, appeals from the Henderson County Circuit Court's judgment revoking her sentence of community corrections. Following revocation, Ellis' three-year sentence was ordered to be served in the Department of Correction. At the time of Ellis' indictment and on the date her guilty plea was entered, the trial judge who presided at Ellis' revocation hearing was employed as an assistant district attorney in the same office that prosecuted Ellis. On appeal, Ellis raises one issue for our review: Whether "the trial court erred by neglecting to disqualify himself from presiding over [her] revocation hearing." After review, we find no error and affirm the trial court's judgment. |
Henderson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ralph Phillips
The Defendant, Ralph Phillips, appeals as of right from the sentence imposed by the trial court, asserting that the trial court erred by denying his request for community corrections. We find no error; thus, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Tipton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jimmy Wardel Glenn
The Defendant, Jimmy Wardel Glenn, was convicted by a jury of possession with intent to deliver over .5 grams of cocaine. He was subsequently sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to nine years incarceration. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant asserts that the trial court erred by failing to grant a mistrial after a comment made by the State during its opening statement and that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction. We find no error; thus, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Bobby J. Armstrong
The Appellant, Bobby J. Armstrong, appeals from the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. Armstrong's convictions stem from his guilty pleas to two counts of felony murder and two resulting consecutive sentences of life without the possibility of parole. In this appeal, Armstrong raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether the guilty plea was knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily made; and (2) whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a competency hearing to determine Armstrong's mental condition. After review, we find Armstrong's guilty plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary and that he received effective assistance of counsel. As such, we affirm the judgment of the Madison County Circuit Court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joe L. Patrick, Sr.
This is an appeal by the State of Tennessee as to whether the trial court erred in granting the Appellee/Defendant's motion to award program credits toward his release date from the Department of Corrections. After docketing of this case on May 8, 2001, for disposition of the State's appeal, the State filed a motion to consider post-judgment fact pursuant to Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedures 14(a). After a review of the motion and the attached affidavit in support of the motion, we granted the State's motion. After a review of the entire record, and the motion for post-judgment of fact, we find that the Defendant has been released from the Department of Corrections and, thus, this appeal is dismissed. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Anthony E. Brasfield v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant, Anthony E. Brasfield, appeals from the dismissal by the Weakley County Circuit Court of his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, Brasfield asserts that the trial court erred in finding that his trial counsel was not ineffective by failing to preserve in his direct appeal the issues of (1) the trial court's suppression of his confession to the police and (2) the trial court's failure to charge misdemeanor escape as a lesser-included offense of felony escape. With regard to the first issue, we find that although trial counsel was deficient, no prejudice resulted. With regard to Brasfield's second issue, we find that misdemeanor escape is not a lesser-included offense of felony escape; therefore, no error occurred. Accordingly, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed. |
Weakley | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Gregory Scott Caudill v. State of Tennessee
A Cocke County grand jury indicted the petitioner on four counts of aggravated robbery and two counts of aggravated assault. On November 28, 1994, the petitioner pled guilty to all six counts. Following a sentencing hearing, he received twelve years on each aggravated robbery and six years on each aggravated assault. The trial court then ran some of the sentences consecutively resulting in an effective sentence of thirty years as a Range I, standard offender. On direct appeal this Court modified the sentence to twenty-four years. State v. Gregory Scott Caudill, No. 03C01-9510-CC-00338, 1997 WL 7009 at *7 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Knoxville, January 9, 1997). The petitioner's application for permission to appeal to the Tennessee Supreme Court was denied. Thereafter, he filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief alleging errors made with regard to his plea. Counsel was appointed to assist him; an amended petition was filed; and the trial court conducted a hearing thereon. At the conclusion of this hearing, the trial court dismissed the petition. Through this appeal the petitioner avers that the trial court failed to comply with Rule 11 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure in taking his plea. More particularly, he alleges that the trial court did not advise him of the mandatory minimum and maximum penalties that he could potentially receive. After reviewing the record, we find that the petitioner's specific claim lacks merit. However, through its brief the State observes that constitutionally mandated advice concerning the petitioner's confrontation rights was not provided by the trial court in its colloquy at the time of the petitioner's plea. Therefore, the State requests that this Court remand the case for a hearing to determine if this omission was harmless. We agree and remand the matter for this purpose. |
Cocke | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Christopher Stacy Long v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner pled guilty to first degree felony murder and to forgery, receiving concurrent sentences of life with the possibility of parole and one year's incarceration, respectively. The Petitioner subsequently petitioned the trial court for post-conviction relief. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied post-conviction relief. The Petitioner now appeals this decision. He argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when he entered his pleas of guilty, causing him to enter his pleas involuntarily and unknowingly. Having reviewed the record, we conclude that the Petitioner's representation was not deficient and thus affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hamblen | Court of Criminal Appeals |
