COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OPINIONS

State vs. Michael Spadafina
W1999-00268-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge J. Curwood Witt, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Julian P. Guinn
The Benton County Circuit Court dismissed Michael Joseph Spadafina's petition for post-conviction relief in which Spadafina raised a number of issues of trial error and ineffective assistance of trial counsel in his conviction of first degree murder. On appeal, the petitioner limited his issues to the ineffective assistance of counsel in not seeking an individual, sequestered voir dire of the jury and in not challenging the use of damaging character evidence. Because we conclude that the petitioner failed to carry his post-conviction burden to prove his claims by clear and convincing evidence, we affirm the dismissal of the post-conviction petition.

State vs. Clint T. Melton
E1999-02090-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Trial Court Judge: Ray L. Jenkins

State vs. Charles Swaffer
M2000-00058-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas T. Woodall
Trial Court Judge: J. O. Bond
Defendant Charles E. Swaffer was convicted by a Macon County jury of one count of Class C theft of property over $10,000 and one count of Class D vandalism over $1,000. The trial court subsequently imposed concurrent sentences of five years and three years, with Defendant to serve one year of incarceration followed by supervised probation. Defendant challenges his convictions, raising the following issues: (1) whether the trial court erred when it failed to grant a motion for a mistrial; (2) whether the evidence was sufficient to support his convictions; and (3) whether the trial court erred in applying improper enhancing factors and rejecting his mitigating factors. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

State vs. Ernest E. Pride
M2000-00319-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: Seth W. Norman
The appellant, Ernest E. Pride, was convicted by a jury in the Davidson County Criminal Court of one count of tampering with evidence, a class C felony; one count of possession of less than .5 grams of cocaine with the intent to sell, a class C felony; one count of simple possession of marijuana, a class A misdemeanor; one count of criminal trespass, a class C misdemeanor; one count of resisting arrest, a class B misdemeanor; and one count of unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, a class A misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced the appellant, as a Range II offender, to the following terms of incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction: eight years for the tampering with evidence conviction, eight years for the possession of cocaine with intent to sell conviction, eleven months and twenty-nine days for the possession of marijuana conviction, thirty days for the criminal trespass conviction, and six months for the resisting arrest conviction. Additionally, the trial court ordered the appellant to serve all of the sentences concurrently. The trial court entered a verdict of not guilty for the possession of drug paraphernalia. The appellant raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence contained in the record is sufficient to support a finding by a rational trier of fact that the appellant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of possession of less than .5 grams of cocaine with intent to sell and tampering with the evidence as charged in the indictment; and (2) whether the trial court imposed excessive sentences for the convictions of tampering with evidence and possession of less than .5 grams of cocaine with intent to sell. Based upon our review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State vs. Robert Mallard
M2000-00351-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas T. Woodall
Trial Court Judge: J. Steve Daniel
In a two count indictment, Defendant was charged in Rutherford County Circuit Court with attempting to tamper with or fabricate evidence, and with resisting arrest. Following a jury trial, he was convicted of both offenses. In this appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence and he further asserts that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction for attempting to tamper with or fabricate evidence. After a review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

James Dubose vs. State
M2000-00478-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: Donald P. Harris
The petitioner, James DuBose, was convicted by a jury in the Williamson County Circuit Court of one count of first degree felony murder with the underlying felony being aggravated child abuse. The trial court sentenced the petitioner to life imprisonment in the Tennessee Department of Correction. This court and the Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the petitioner's conviction. The petitioner subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied the petitioner's request for relief. On appeal, the petitioner raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether the State engaged in prosecutorial misconduct during the course of the petitioner's trial; (2) whether petitioner's trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel; (3) whether the trial court erred in failing to give curative jury instructions; and (4) whether the petitioner was charged pursuant to a faulty indictment. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

State vs. John Charles Johnson
M2000-00529-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas T. Woodall
Trial Court Judge: J. Randall Wyatt, Jr.
Defendant John Charles Johnson was convicted by a Davidson County jury of second degree murder, facilitation of aggravated kidnapping, and especially aggravated robbery. The trial court sentenced Defendant to twenty-five years for second degree murder, five years for facilitation of aggravated kidnapping, and twenty years for especially aggravated robbery. The trial court further ordered that Defendant's sentences for second degree murder and facilitation of aggravated kidnapping be served consecutive to each other and concurrent with Defendant's sentence for especially aggravated robbery, resulting in an effective sentence of thirty years. Defendant raises the following issues in this appeal: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support his three convictions; (2) whether the trial court erred in not granting Defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal on the ground that the testimony of a co-defendant was uncorroborated; (3) whether the trial court erred in not allowing Defendant to play a tape containing exculpatory statements; (4) whether the trial court erred by failing to charge the lesser-included offenses of voluntary manslaughter and facilitation to commit voluntary manslaughter; and (5) whether the length of the sentences imposed by the trial court were proper. Following a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court concerning Defendant's convictions and the lengths of Defendant's sentences. We reverse the trial court's order of consecutive sentencing and remand for a new hearing solely on the issue of concurrent or consecutive sentencing.

State vs. Amelia Kay Stem
M2000-00600-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: Stella L. Hargrove
The appellant, Amelia Kay Stem, entered a plea of nolo contendere in the Lawrence County Circuit Court to one count of second degree murder. The trial court sentenced the appellant to twenty-five years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The appellant raises the following issue(s) for our review: whether the trial court erred in sentencing the appellant by incorrectly applying enhancement factors, by failing to apply mitigating factors, and by neglecting to make specific findings of fact on the record. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State vs. Gregory Lynn Redden
M2000-00761-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: Donald P. Harris
The appellant, Gregory Lynn Redden, pled guilty in the Williamson County Circuit Court to one count of burglary, a class D felony. The trial court sentenced the appellant as a Range III persistent offender to eleven years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The trial court further ordered the appellant to serve this sentence consecutively to the appellant's unserved sentences imposed in Greene County, Missouri, in the United States District Court in the Northern District of Ohio, and in Robertson County, Tennessee. The appellant raises the following issue for our review: whether the trial court erred in ordering the appellant to serve his sentence in this case consecutively to his other sentences. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Toscar C. Carpenter, Sr.
M2000-00990-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: Donald P. Harris

State vs. Richard M. Far, Jr.
M1999-01998-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas T. Woodall
Trial Court Judge: James K. Clayton, Jr.
Defendant, Richard M. Far, Jr., was convicted by a Rutherford County jury of Class D forgery of a document valued at more than $1,000. Subsequently, the trial court sentenced Defendant as a Range III persistent offender to ten (10) years to be served consecutively to Defendant's sentence in an arson case (F-45893). Defendant raises two issues on appeal: 1) whether the trial court erred in excluding Defendant from his trial and sentencing hearing and 2) whether the trial court properly considered the sentencing guidelines in sentencing Defendant. After a review of the record, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this matter for a new trial.

State vs. Andre L. Mayfield
M1999-02415-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: Seth W. Norman
In 1999, the Defendant was tried by a Davidson County jury and found guilty of aggravated robbery, aggravated rape, rape, and two counts of aggravated kidnapping for crimes perpetrated on two victims. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective sentence of fifty years. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant argues that (1) the trial court erred by failing to sever the offenses against one victim from those against the second victim; (2) the trial court erred by failing to admonish the jury not to view, listen to, or read any news coverage of the case during trial; (3) the trial court erred by failing to grant his two motions for a mistrial; (4) the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his convictions; (5) the trial court erred by allowing the State to introduce evidence of the age of one victim; (6) the trial court erred by allowing into evidence altered documents and by instructing the jury that the documents were altered to remove inadmissible evidence; (7) the trial court erred by allowing into evidence inadmissible hearsay statements; (8) the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on lesser-included offenses requested by the defense; and (9) the trial court sentenced him improperly. Having thoroughly reviewed the record in this case, we affirm the judgment of the trial court, as modified to indicate that the Defendant was sentenced as a Range II Multiple Rapist for the rape conviction.

Joseph Whitwell vs. State
M1999-02493-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas T. Woodall
Trial Court Judge: Cheryl A. Blackburn
Petitioner, Joseph Whitwell, filed a Petition for Post-Conviction Relief in the Davidson County Criminal Court, which the post-conviction court subsequently denied. Petitioner challenges the denial of his petition, raising the following issue: whether the trial court erred in dismissing his Petition for Post-Conviction Relief, based upon a ruling that Petitioner's allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel were without merit. After a thorough review of the record, we find that the Petitioner did not receive the ineffective assistance of counsel. We therefore affirm the trial court's denial of the Petitioner's Petition for Post-Conviction Relief.

State vs. Nicholas Williams
M1999-00780-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: Jim T. Hamilton
In 1998, the Giles County Grand Jury indicted the Defendant for one count of statutory rape and ten counts of sexual battery. In 1999, a Giles County jury tried the Defendant and found him guilty of one count of statutory rape and five counts of sexual battery. Following a hearing, the trial court sentenced the Defendant to two years incarceration for each conviction and ordered that five of the six sentences be served consecutively, resulting in an effective sentence of ten years. The Defendant now appeals as of right, arguing (1) that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his convictions for sexual battery; (2) that the trial court erred by consolidating all counts for trial; and (3) that he was improperly sentenced. We conclude that the evidence is insufficient as to one count of sexual battery and thus reverse one of the Defendant's convictions for sexual battery. In addition, we conclude that the trial court erred by consolidating all counts for trial, but conclude that this error was harmless. Finally, following our reversal of the sexual battery conviction in case 8652, count one, with a two-year sentence, and a de novo review of the remaining sentences imposed by the trial court, we conclude that an effective sentence of eight years in the Tennessee Department of Corrections is appropriate.

State vs. Nicholas Robert Brown
E1999-00110-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: Richard R. Vance
The Defendant, Nicholas Roberts Brown, pleaded guilty to one count of statutory rape. Pursuant to his plea agreement, he received a sentence of one year, with the manner of service of the sentence to be determined by the trial court. After a sentencing hearing, the Defendant was ordered to serve sixty days in jail, with the remainder of his sentence to be served in community corrections. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant argues that he should have been placed on immediate probation. We hold that the Defendant failed to establish his suitability for full probation, but we modify the his sentence to sixty days incarceration followed by supervised probation because the Defendant is statutorily ineligible to participate in the community corrections program. The case is remanded for the trial court to determine the conditions of probation.

State vs. Robby Cox
E1999-00159-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge John Everett Williams
Trial Court Judge: Phyllis H. Miller
The defendant pled guilty to facilitation of the sale of cocaine under Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-17-417. The defendant was sentenced to a six-year term at the Department of Correction, as a Range I offender, and fined $2000. The defendant requested alternative sentencing but, after a review of the defendant's background by the trial court, the request was denied. The defendant now appeals his sentence contending that the trial court erred by denying him alternative sentencing. After a thorough review of the record, we find that the trial court did not err in denying the defendant alternative sentencing. The defendant's sentence is affirmed.

State vs. Ezra Ervin & Andrew McKinney
E1999-00287-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Acree
Trial Court Judge: Rebecca J. Stern
The defendants were found guilty of robbing a Krystal restaurant in Chattanooga. In this direct appeal, they allege four errors. They contend the evidence was insufficient to support their convictions; the trial court erred in allowing certain items of clothing found in one of the defendant's vehicle to be admitted into evidence because the clothing could not be positively identified as clothing worn by the people robbing the restaurant; the trial court erred in failing to suppress a statement made by one of the defendants at the time of his arrest because the defendant had not been given Miranda warnings; and the trial court erred in failing to declare a mistrial after the jury reported improper verdicts. We conclude there was no error made by the trial court, and the judgments below are affirmed.

State vs. Joseph Miles
M1998-00682-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas T. Woodall
Trial Court Judge: Robert W. Wedemeyer
Defendant Joseph Miles was convicted by a Robertson County jury of second degree murder. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Defendant as a Range II violent offender to forty years. On appeal, Defendant raises the following issues: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to support his conviction for second degree murder, (2) whether the sentence imposed by the trial court is excessive, and (3) whether a finding of plain error pursuant to Tenn. R. Crim. P. 52(b) justifies a dismissal of charges on the ground that the State participated in a conspiracy to kill Defendant. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Phyllis McBride vs. State
M2000-00034-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: James K. Clayton, Jr.
The Petitioner, Phyllis McBride, was convicted by a Rutherford County jury of first degree murder. On appeal, this Court affirmed the conviction. The Petitioner filed an application for permission to appeal to the Tennessee Supreme Court which was denied. The Petitioner then filed a petition for post-conviction relief. Following a hearing, the petition was dismissed. The Petitioner now appeals the trial court's denial of post-conviction relief. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Charles A. Reynolds
M2000-00087-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: Buddy D. Perry

State vs. Larry Coulter
M1999-00784-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: J. Steve Daniel
The appellant, Larry Coulter, appeals his conviction by a jury in the Rutherford County Circuit Court of one count of first degree premeditated murder. For his offense, the appellant received a sentence of life imprisonment in the Tennessee Department of Correction. In this appeal, the appellant presents the following issues for our review: (1) whether the trial court erred in failing to disqualify the office of the District Attorney General for the Sixteenth Judicial District from participating in the appellant's case; (2) whether the trial court erred in denying the appellant's pre-trial motion to suppress a statement that he made to officers of the La Vergne Police Department following his offense; (3) whether the trial court erred in denying the appellant's pre-trial motion to suppress the fruits of a warrantless search of his home by officers of the La Vergne Police Department; (4) whether the trial court erred in denying the appellant's pre-trial motion to exclude from evidence notes and letters written by the appellant to the victim prior to this offense; (5) whether the trial court erred in denying the appellant's pre-trial motion to exclude from evidence any proof of the victim's plans to move away from the Coulters' mobile home; (6) whether the trial court erred in overruling the appellant's objection to testimony by Sybil Victory concerning a telephone conversation; (7) whether the trial court erred in overruling the appellant's Tenn. R. Evid. 615 objection to testimony by Fawn Jones; (8) whether the trial court erred in overruling the appellant's objection to testimony by the State's firearms identification expert concerning a bullet recovered from the victim's body; (9) whether the trial court erred in permitting each member of the jury to "dry-fire" the murder weapon during the State's case-in-chief; (10) whether the trial court erred in permitting a State's witness to testify by deposition pursuant to Tenn. R. Crim. P. 15; (11) whether the trial court erred in permitting the State to impeach the appellant's psychologist with a "learned treatise" without satisfying the requirements of Tenn. R. Evid. 618; (12) whether the trial court erred in overruling the appellant's objection to rebuttal testimony by the State's psychologist that violated Tenn. R. Crim. P. 12.2(c); (13) whether the trial court erred in failing to charge the jury with certain special instructions requested by the appellant; (14) whether the trial court erred in permitting the State to alter or amend an exhibit immediately prior to the jury's deliberations; (15) whether the evidence adduced at trial is sufficient to support the jury's verdict; and (16) whether the cumulative effect of any errors requires the reversal of the appellant's conviction and the remand of this case for a new trial. Following a review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State vs. Joey Salcido
M1999-00501-CCA-R3-CD
Trial Court Judge: Jim T. Hamilton
Defendant Joey L. Salcido was indicted by the Giles County Grand Jury for three counts of incest and three counts of rape of a child. Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of three counts of aggravated sexual battery as a lesser-included offense of child rape and acquitted of the charges of incest. On March 15, 1999, the trial court sentenced Defendant as a violent 100% offender to a term of twelve years for each of his three convictions and ordered that all sentences be served consecutively. On April 15, 1999, thirty-one days after Defendant's judgment was entered, Defendant filed an untimely motion for new trial. The motion was nevertheless heard on April 19, 1999 and denied on April 20, 1999. On April 23, 1999, Defendant filed a notice of appeal which was also untimely due to the late filing of Defendant's motion for new trial. On May 25, 2000, Defendant filed a motion to waive the timely filing of his notice to appeal and on June 7, 2000, this Court granted Defendant's motion. In this appeal Defendant raises the following issues: (1) whether the Defendant's conviction of aggravated sexual battery, an offense which was neither charged in the indictment nor a lesser-included offense of the offenses charged, was error; (2) whether, assuming aggravated sexual battery is determined to be a lesser-included offense of child rape, the trial court erred in its jury instruction regarding the mental state necessary to convict him; (3) whether the trial court erred when it admitted certain evidence over Defendant's objections; (4) whether the cumulative effect of the trial court's errors renders the trial fundamentally unfair so as to offend Defendant's due process guarantees; and (5) whether the trial court erred when it imposed consecutive sentences. Defendant asserts that his first issue concerns subject matter jurisdiction and, therefore, must be heard by this Court pursuant to Tenn. R. App. P. 13(b). Defendant also urges this Court to exercise its discretion under Tenn. R. Crim. P. 52(b) or Tenn. R. App. P. 13(b) and consider the remaining four issues. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we find no errors requiring reversal and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Wardell Lewis vs. State
E2000-01735-CCA-R3-CD
Trial Court Judge: E. Shayne Sexton
The petitioner appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. The trial court dismissed the petition because it was not filed within one year of the date on which the judgments became final. We affirm the trial court.

Kenneth Lee Weston vs. State
E1999-02095-CCA-R3-CO
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: E. Eugene Eblen
The Defendant, Kenneth Lee Weston, appeals as of right from the summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. He asserts that his convictions are void because the trial judge did not sign the court minutes reflecting the judgment. We hold that the failure of the trial judge to sign the court minutes does not render a judgment of conviction void. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

John Haws Burrell vs. State
E1999-02762-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: James B. Scott, Jr.
The Defendant, John Haws Burrell, appeals as of right from the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. The trial court dismissed his petition without an evidentiary hearing as barred by the statute of limitations. The Defendant argues on appeal that the statute of limitations should not have expired until one year after certiorari had been denied by the United States Supreme Court. We affirm the judgment of the trial court dismissing the Defendant's post-conviction petition as time-barred.