State of Tennessee v. Robert N. Rogers
The defendant contends that the trial court erroneously ordered service of his original sentences upon the revocation of his probation. We affirm the trial court's judgment. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Suzanne C. Douglas
The defendant appeals from her conviction for driving under the influence, contesting the sufficiency of the indictment. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Dickson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. David Johnson
The defendant appeals from his Shelby County Criminal Court conviction and sentence for second degree murder. The trial court sentenced the defendant to 37 years in the Department of Correction as a Range II multiple offender. In this direct appeal, the defendant complains that the evidence is insufficient; that double jeopardy barred his retrial following the grant of a mistrial; that Jencks Act material, police reports, and arrest histories of state witnesses were improperly withheld; that he was not allowed to impeach a key witness in violation of his confrontation rights; that the trial court erred in ruling that his prior convictions could be used to impeach him if he testified; that the jury was improperly instructed; and that his sentence is excessive. We are unpersuaded that reversible error occurred and therefore affirm the judgment and sentence of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Richard Crawford
Defendant, Richard Crawford, was convicted at a bench trial of theft of a motor vehicle valued over $10,000. On appeal, the defendant raises the following two issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction for theft; and (2) whether the value of the vehicle was properly established. The judgment of the Shelby County Criminal Court is affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Richard Crawford - Dissenting
Our law provides: “A person charged with an offense has no burden to prove his innocence.” TENN.CODE ANN.§39-11-201(c). Because I am unable to disregard this most basic principle of law, I am also unable to affirm the judgment of conviction in this case. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Sherman Shaw
A Shelby County jury convicted the defendant of aggravated robbery. The trial court sentenced him to 15 years as a Range II multiple offender. In this appeal, the defendant alleges (1) the trial court erroneously admitted the defendant's custodial statement; (2) the evidence was insufficient to sustain the defendant's conviction; (3) the cumulative effect of the trial court's errors requires a new trial; and (4) the defendant's sentence is excessive. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment and sentence imposed by the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
LaKreasha Kimble v. State of Tennessee
This is an appeal of a denial of post-conviction relief. The petitioner and two codefendants were each convicted of murder in the perpetration of robbery and of especially aggravated robbery for the robbery and killing of a man who had given them a ride in his car. The petitioner appealed her convictions to the post-conviction court, arguing, inter alia, that her counsel provided ineffective assistance by his failure to petition for a severance of trial from her codefendants. The post-conviction court denied relief, finding the petitioner's claims to be without merit. Based upon a thorough review, we affirm the post-conviction court's denial of relief. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Earnest L. White v. State of Tennessee - Order
The petitioner, Earnest L. White, appeals the order of the Shelby County Criminal Court summarily dismissing his habeas corpus/post-conviction petition without conducting an evidentiary hearing or appointing counsel. Though styled as a petition for habeas corpus relief, White asserts therein that ten of his 1984 convictions should be set aside because of constitutional infirmities in the process surrounding the entry of his guilty pleas for these offenses. As the issues raised provide no basis for habeas corpus relief but rather set out traditional post-conviction concerns, the trial court considered this pro se petition as one for post-conviction relief. However, the trial court thereafter found that the petition had been filed past the applicable statute of limitations and, therefore, dismissed the petition. After a review of the record before this Court, we find that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. C. Curtis Brown
The defendant, after having his authority to write bonds in the 30th Judicial District revoked, appeals the trial court's decision and asserts that there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court's findings. Furthermore, the defendant asserts that the trial court's action was excessive. After review, we affirm the trial court in all respects. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Osborne
A Williamson County jury convicted the defendant of attempted first degree murder and felony reckless endangerment. The trial court sentenced him to concurrent sentences of twenty-four years and two years, respectively, as a Range I standard offender. In this appeal, the defendant alleges (1) the attempted first degree murder presentment was defective; (2) the proof was insufficient to sustain his attempted first degree murder conviction; (3) the trial judge erroneously failed to satisfy his "thirteenth juror" role; and (4) his sentence is excessive. Upon review of the record, we find no reversible error and affirm the judgments and sentences imposed by the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Billy J. Grooms v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Billy J. Grooms, appeals the trial court's denial of a pro se petition to correct an illegal judgment/sentence. The trial court's order of dismissal is affirmed. |
Cocke | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joseph Vella
The Defendant, Joseph Vella, appeals as of right from his criminal trespass conviction. He asserts that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his conviction. We disagree; accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Prentiss Phillips
The defendant was convicted by a Shelby County jury of first degree murder and especially aggravated kidnapping. He was sentenced by the jury to life without the possibility of parole for the murder conviction. He also received a sentence of twenty-five years for the especially aggravated kidnapping conviction, to be served consecutively to his life sentence. The events of this case arose out of a confrontation between rival gangs living in the Hurt Village Apartments in Memphis. The defendant, a high-ranking member of the Gangster Disciples, was prosecuted for the crimes on a theory of criminal responsibility. In this appeal as of right, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions. After a thorough review of the extensive record in this case, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient to show that the defendant, acting with the intent to promote the commission of the charged offenses, directed and aided other members of the Gangster Disciples in the commission of the offenses. His convictions for first degree murder and especially aggravated kidnapping are, therefore, affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Brad Stephen Luckett
The Defendant was convicted by a jury of driving under the influence of an intoxicant, second offense. In this direct appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred by admitting the results of his breath-alcohol test. The Defendant argues that the State failed to prove that he was continuously observed for twenty minutes prior to taking the test, and that one of the requirements for the admissibility of the test results was therefore not satisfied. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Srirasack Srisavath
The defendant, Srirasack Srisavath, was convicted of possession of marijuana with intent to sell. The trial court imposed a sentence of one and one-half years and assessed a fine of $2,000.00. In this appeal of right, the defendant challenges the propriety for the investigatory stop which led to the discovery of the marijuana. Because the stop was not adequately supported by articulable facts, the trial court erred by overruling the motion to suppress evidence. The judgment is, therefore, reversed and the cause dismissed. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. David Lunsford
The Defendant, David Lunsford, was convicted by a jury of aggravated burglary. In this appeal as of right, he asserts that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. We respectfully disagree; thus, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Monroe | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Richard Hale Austin
In 1977, Richard Hale Austin was found guilty by a Shelby County jury of accessory before the fact to the first degree murder of Julian Watkins. Austin's conviction stemmed from his role in commissioning the murder of Watkins, a reserve deputy sheriff. The jury subsequently found the presence of aggravating factor (i)(4), murder for remuneration, and imposed a sentence of death. In 1997, Austin was granted habeas corpus relief in the form of a new sentencing hearing by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. At the re-sentencing hearing, twenty-two years after his original trial, a jury again found the presence of the (i)(4) aggravating factor and again imposed a sentence of death. It is from this sentencing decision that Austin appeals. In this appeal, Austin presents numerous issues for our review, including (1) the disqualification of the Tennessee Supreme Court; (2) challenges to the selection of various jurors; (3) the admission and exclusion of evidence; (4) the introduction of victim impact evidence; (5) prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument; (6) the propriety of the jury instructions; (7) whether application of the (i)(4) aggravator violates State v. Middlebrooks; (8) prejudice due to the delay in imposing a sentence of death; (9) the constitutionality of Tennessee's death penalty statutes; and (10) whether the jury imposed a proportionate sentence. After a careful review of the record, we affirm the imposition of the sentence of death. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Richard E. McCullough
Defendant pled guilty to one count of violating the Habitual Motor Vehicle Offender Act and one count of driving under the influence, eighth offense, both Class E felonies. He was sentenced to consecutive terms of one year and six months for each offense. In this appeal, defendant challenges the trial court's denial of alternative sentencing. Upon our review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Raymond Hardie Cox v. State of Tennessee
The Defendant, Raymond Hardie Cox, appeals as of right from the dismissal of his post-conviction petition. He asserts that the trial court erred by dismissing his petition as barred by the statute of limitations. We find no error; thus, we affirm the trial court's dismissal of the petition. |
Marion | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael R. Floyd - Order
The defendant Michael R. Floyd pled guilty to possession with intent to sell over .5 grams of cocaine and over one half ounce of marijuana. For these offenses he received agreed upon sentences of eight (8) years and one (1) year, respectively, as a Range I, standard offender. In addition, his plea agreement included two-thousand dollar ($2,000.00) fines for each offense. Following a subsequent sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered the sentences to run concurrently to one another and the defendant to serve six months of this period in the county jail with the remainder to be served on supervised probation. The defendant thereafter brought this appeal contending that the trial court erred by ordering him to serve a period of incarceration. However, we are unable to determine whether error occurred because of the insufficiency of the record on appeal. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the trial court pursuant to Rule 20 of the Court of Criminal Appeals. |
Hardin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tammy Yvonne Knight
The defendant pled guilty to four counts of obtaining prescription drugs by use of a forged prescription, and the trial court sentenced her to an effective sentence of fourteen years incarceration. The defendant contests the sentences imposed. We affirm the trial court. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Henry J. White, Jr. v. Howard Carlton, Warden
The petitioner challenges the trial court's denial of his habeas corpus petition for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. We affirm the denial of the petition. |
Johnson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. David Plunk
A Crockett County jury convicted the defendant of premeditated first degree murder, and the trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment. In this appeal as a matter of right, the defendant challenges (1) the introduction of statements he made to officers, and (2) the sufficiency of the evidence. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Crockett | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Anthony M. Freeman v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Anthony M. Freeman, appeals the dismissal of his petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus and/or post-conviction relief. We conclude the petition does not state a cognizable claim for habeas corpus relief, and the petition was filed beyond the statute of limitations for post-conviction relief. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jeffery Scott Shands
The defendant, Jeffery S. Shands, challenges the trial court's order upholding the District Attorney General's denial of pretrial diversion for the charges of criminally negligent homicide and reckless driving. He contends that the District Attorney abused his discretion in failing to consider and weigh all of the relevant factors presented in the evidence. After a review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the trial court's order denying pretrial diversion. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals |
