State of Tennessee v. Randy R. Wilson
The defendant contends that the State should be barred from revoking his Community Corrections sentence because no detainer was placed on him while he served a six-year prison sentence in North Carolina while his revocation warrant was pending in Tennessee and the State knew of his location. We conclude that the State was under no obligation to file a detainer against the defendant, and that the State was not time barred from proceeding with the Community Corrections revocation after the defendant's return to this state. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Robertson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ralph Phillip Claypole, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, claiming that the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy was violated by his multiple sentences. The post-conviction court denied the petition, finding that the judgments of conviction were facially valid. We affirm the order of the post-conviction court dismissing the petition. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jashua Shannon Sides
This is a state appeal from the suppression of evidence. The defendant was indicted for driving under the influence (DUI), second offense, and leaving the scene of an accident. The defendant filed a motion to suppress which the trial court granted. In this appeal, the state alleges that the trial court erroneously concluded the defendant was unlawfully arrested, or, in the alternative, the order of suppression was overbroad. Upon review of the record, we modify the order of suppression to allow evidence gathered prior to the unlawful arrest. We remand for further proceedings. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jashua Shannon Sides - Dissenting
I must dissent from the holding of the majority opinion in this case for the following reasons: |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Noah J. Love
The defendant, Noah J. Love, appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to correct his sentence. The single issue presented for review is whether the trial court properly denied relief. Because the trial court had no jurisdiction to amend the sentence four years after the defendant had been transferred to the Department of Correction, the judgment is reversed. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Shannon Smith, et al. v. State of Tennessee
Pursuant to a plea agreement, the Petitioners in the instant case each pled guilty to one count of murder in the perpetration of a robbery under Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-202, one count of especially aggravated robbery under Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-403, and one count of aggravated assault under Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-102. The Petitioners were sentenced to concurrent sentences of life, twenty-five years, and six years, respectively. On April 20, 1995, the Petitioners filed a petition for post-conviction relief. Special Judge Bobby Capers was appointed to hear the post-conviction petition. The trial court heard the Petitioners' petition between August 9, 1999 and August 19, 1999, and granted post-conviction relief to Petitioners Smith and Versie. On December 3, 1999, the State filed a notice of appeal, challenging the post-conviction court's findings that neither of the Petitioners received effective assistance of counsel. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the trial court was correct in granting post-conviction relief to the Petitioners. The judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Timothy C. Jewell, Jr.
The Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated burglary, a Class C felony, and two counts of theft over one thousand dollars, Class D felonies. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective sentence of three years incarceration in the local workhouse. The Defendant now appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in denying him alternative sentencing. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Calvin T. Barham
Defendant entered a best interest plea of guilty to possession of cocaine with the intent to sell and was sentenced to four years on community corrections. The plea attempted to reserve a certified question of law relating to the suppression of evidence. Upon our review of the record, we conclude that we do not have jurisdiction to address the certified question of law. The appeal is dismissed. |
Chester | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Cyrus D. Wilson v. State of Tennessee
The Defendant, Cyrus D. Wilson, was convicted by a jury of first degree murder and sentenced to life in prison. His conviction was affirmed on direct appeal.1 The Defendant subsequently filed for post-conviction relief alleging that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and that his trial was tainted by due process violations. After an evidentiary hearing the post-conviction court denied relief. The Defendant now appeals as of right. The judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Antonio Teran Seay
Upon his guilty plea, the Defendant was sentenced to two concurrent ten year sentences to be served on community corrections. Several months into service of his sentences, the Defendant was arrested and his community corrections sentences were revoked. The trial court subsequently resentenced the Defendant to two consecutive ten year sentences. The Defendant now appeals, contending that the trial court was without authority to impose consecutive sentences and that consecutive sentences are improper. We affirm the trial court's judgment. |
Wilson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jerry Lynn Sanders
The Defendant, Jerry Lynn Sanders, appeals from his convictions of aggravated burglary, theft of property less than $500.00, and possession of a Schedule VI controlled substance. He asserts that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his convictions and that the trial court erred by denying his request to admit into evidence a notarized statement wherein the alleged victim stated that he wanted to dismiss the charges in this matter. We find no error; thus, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Benton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William Tony Melton
The Defendant pleaded guilty to manufacturing methamphetamine, a Schedule II controlled substance. The Defendant was sentenced as a Range I standard offender to five years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The Defendant now appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in denying him alternative sentencing. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Carroll | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Rain Thomas Chesher
A jury convicted the Defendant of first degree premeditated murder, and he was sentenced to life imprisonment. In this direct appeal, the Defendant contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Henry | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Dwayne Simmons
The defendant, indicted for the false reporting of a bomb threat at an elementary school, was convicted of the offense of harassment, and fined $1000. No motion for a new trial was filed. In a pro se appeal to this court, the defendant raises essentially four issues: (1) whether he was denied effective assistance of counsel; (2) whether he was denied the right to testify at trial; (3) whether the State withheld exculpatory evidence; and (4) whether the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction of harassment. After a careful review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Laverne M. Lain, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner appeals from the denial of his post-conviction petition, contending that his guilty plea was not entered voluntarily and intelligently and that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the trial court's denial of the petition. |
Coffee | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ronald Stanley
The Defendant pled guilty to selling over twenty-six grams of cocaine, possession with intent to sell over 300 grams of cocaine, and possession with intent to sell between ten and seventy pounds of marijuana. As to his conviction for possession with intent to sell over 300 grams of cocaine, the Defendant reserved the following certified question of law: whether the search warrant was void for execution more than 120 hours after issuance. We hold that the five-day period in which a search warrant must be executed is to be computed using calendar days rather than hours. Thus, a search warrant is valid if executed by midnight of the fifth day after its issuance, with the calculation of days to exclude the day of issuance. We further hold that the search warrant in this case was properly executed within the five-day period and therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Thomas Jared Richardson
The defendant, Thomas Jared Richardson, pled guilty to two counts of possession of less than .5 grams of cocaine with the intent to manufacture, deliver, or sell, a Class C felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-417. The trial court imposed concurrent sentences of six years for each count, to be served in the Davidson County Workhouse. The trial court also assessed a fine of $3,500 and ordered the defendant to forfeit his weapon. In this appeal of right, the defendant argues that the trial court should have imposed probation or some other alternative sentence. The judgment is affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Winslow B. Roberts
The Defendant, Winslow B. Roberts, was found guilty by a Shelby County jury of two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping and two counts of aggravated robbery. The Defendant was sentenced to twenty years on each count of especially aggravated kidnapping, with the terms to be served concurrently, and ten years on each count of aggravated robbery, with the terms to be served concurrently. The trial court ordered that the Defendant's sentences for especially aggravated kidnapping be served consecutively to his sentences for aggravated robbery, for an effective sentence of thirty years. The Defendant now appeals, arguing that there was insufficient evidence presented at trial to convict him of especially aggravated kidnapping and aggravated robbery. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William M. Fahr
Defendant was indicted by a Shelby County grand jury on the charge of rape of a child. Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, defendant entered a plea of nolo contendere to sexual battery and received a two-year sentence. The issue of how his sentence should be served was submitted to the trial court. Upon our review of the record, we conclude that it is necessary to remand for a new sentencing hearing since the trial court relied upon the defendant's failure to make a public confession at a church in determining the sentence. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Freddie L. King
The Defendant pled guilty to several offenses in 1992, receiving an agreed effective sentence of twenty-four years. He subsequently filed for post-conviction relief, which was denied after a hearing. The Defendant filed a second post-conviction petition which the trial court summarily dismissed. The Defendant now appeals; we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Charles Roy Cole
The defendant, Charles Roy Cole, was charged with aggravated assault and rape of a child. He was acquitted on the first charge and convicted on the second. The trial court imposed a sentence of 20 years. In this appeal of right, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and argues that the trial court erred in its jury instructions regarding admissions against interest. The judgment is affirmed. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Thomas Leon Lewis, II
Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, the defendant pled guilty to contributing to the delinquency of a minor, a Class A misdemeanor, and unlawful use of an altered vehicle registration plate, a Class E felony. He received concurrent sentences of eleven months, twenty-nine days and two years, respectively, to be served on probation. The defendant appeals the trial court's denial of his request for judicial diversion. Upon our review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Anthony J. Robinson v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner was originally convicted by a Shelby County jury of aggravated rape, a Class A felony, and sentenced to thirty-seven years as a Range II offender. Petitioner now appeals the denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus in which he alleged his indictment was void. Upon our review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
David Patrick Pearson v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner appeals from the Knox County Criminal Court's dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief, by which he sought to set aside his earlier guilty pleas. On appeal, the petitioner presses his claim that because he received ineffective assistance of counsel, his guilty pleas were not voluntary and knowing. Finding that the services of the petitioner's trial counsel were below the range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases and that the petitioner was thereby prejudiced, we reverse the judgment of the post-conviction court, vacate the petitioner's convictions, and set aside the petitioner's guilty pleas without prejudice to further proceedings on the underlying charges. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Mark A. Stacy
The defendant was indicted by a Polk County Grand Jury for first degree murder. Following a two-day trial, he was found guilty of second degree murder, a Class A felony. The trial court sentenced the defendant to twenty-three years as a Range I, violent offender in the Tennessee Department of Correction. In this appeal as of right, the defendant does not challenge his conviction but contends only that his sentence is excessive. Having reviewed the entire record, including the transcript of the sentencing hearing, we conclude that the defendant's issues concerning the length of his sentence are without merit. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Polk | Court of Criminal Appeals |
