George Thurman Haynie, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, George Thurman Haynie, Jr., filed a petition for post-conviction relief attacking a felony conviction for passing a worthless check and a misdemeanor conviction for passing a worthless check. The Circuit Court of Williamson County dismissed the petition and Petitioner now appeals. After a thorough review of the record, the pro se brief filed by the Appellant, the brief filed by the State, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Stephen Lester Thomas
The defendant was charged in the Williamson County Circuit Court with DUI, first offense, after a police officer observed him operating his vehicle in an erratic fashion. A videotape was made and admitted into evidence of the defendant's taking field sobriety tests, upon which the officer testified that he did poorly. Following his conviction for this offense, the defendant timely appealed. In his appeal, he raised several issues, including the refusal of the trial court to instruct as to a lesser-included offense, complaints about the admission of evidence, the conduct of the trial, and rulings of the trial court. Based upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Patrick E. Simpson v. State of Tennessee
|
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Pharez N. Price
The defendant was convicted by a Lewis County jury of criminal responsibility for facilitation of a felony and possession of drug paraphernalia. The underlying felony conviction was for possession of cocaine in an amount of .5 gram or more with intent to sell or deliver. The defendant's brother pled guilty to this felony, a Class B felony. The defendant was sentenced as a Range II, multiple offender to nine years in continuous confinement on the facilitation conviction and eleven months and twenty-nine days in the workhouse on the drug paraphernalia conviction, with the sentences to be served concurrently for an effective sentence of nine years. In this appeal as of right, the defendant contends that his sentence on the facilitation conviction was inappropriate both as to length and manner of service. Having reviewed the limited record, we conclude that the sentence is appropriate and therefore affirm the decision of the trial court. |
Lewis | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Donnie Wheeler, et al. v. State of Tennessee
ThePetitioners filed pro-se petitions for post-conviction relief on September 25, 1997, in accordance with the Post Conviction Relief Act. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-101. Amended petitions were subsequently filed by court appointed counsel on November 14, 1997. The Petitioners’ petitions were later dismissed and this appeal followed. In this appeal, the Petitioners set forth several grounds upon which they claim that post-conviction relief should have been granted. Specifically, the Petitioners allege ineffective assistance of counsel, claiming that counsel: failed to file a motion for judgment of acquittal; failed to appeal the judgment of conviction for second degree murder; failed to dismiss two jurors who were alleged to be biased against the Petitioners, which resulted in a denial of their right to a fair and impartial jury; failed to interview and cross-examine a witness of the State’s; and failed to file a motion to suppress photographs that were entered into evidence. Petitioner Donnie Wheeler also contends that post-conviction relief should have been granted because counsel failed to request an instruction on the lesser-included offense of criminal responsibility for the facilitation of a felony, and because the trial court failed to charge the jury with the same lesser-included offense. After careful examination of the issues set forth herein, we affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of post-conviction relief to the Petitioners. |
DeKalb | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Donnie Wheeler, et al. v. State of Tennessee - Concurring
I join the court's opinion and agree with its holding in affirming dismissal of the petition; however, because I do so for different reasons, I write separately. |
DeKalb | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Donnie Wheeler, et al. v. State of Tennessee - Concurring
I concur in the results reached by the majority on all of the issues and in the rationales employed to reach the results in all but one issue, that being the ineffectiveness of counsel regarding the failure to instruct the jury on the lesser offense of facilitation. I respectfully would have taken a different approach in resolving this issue. |
DeKalb | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
George Milton Brooks v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, George Milton Brooks, appeals as of right from the Dyer County Circuit Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. Petitioner contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel during his pre-trial proceedings when counsel: (1) failed to investigate all apparent substantial defenses on Petitioner's behalf; (2) failed to assert certain Fourth Amendment violations during the hearing on Petitioner's motion to suppress; and (3) incorrectly advised Petitioner whether he could properly reserve two questions of law for appellate review. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John Edward Johnson, Jr. - Dissenting
I am unable to join with my colleagues in concluding that “restoration of citizenship rights” to a felon convicted of a crime of violence restores to the felon his right to possess a handgun. My reasons are twofold. |
Obion | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John Edward Johnson, Jr.
The defendant pled guilty to felonious possession of a handgun for an agreed sentence of one year. The parties reserved a certified question of law; namely, whether an individual, who was previously convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon but subsequently had his full citizenship rights restored pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-29-101--105, can lawfully possess a handgun. We conclude that a convicted felon, otherwise prohibited from possessing a handgun under Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1307(b)(1)(A), may lawfully possess a handgun in his residence after his “full citizenship rights” have been restored. |
Obion | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
George Todd v. Warden Fred Raney - Order
The Petitioner, George Todd, appeals from the Lake County Circuit Court's denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. In 1985, the Petitioner entered into a negotiated plea agreement and pled guilty to second degree murder. As part of the plea agreement the Petitioner received a forty-five year sentence as a Range II offender. The Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The petition was denied and the Petitioner appealed the denial of his petition to this Court. On December 21, 1989, this Court affirmed the lower court's denial of the Petitioner's petition for post-conviction relief. On August 24, 2000, the Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Lake County Circuit Court, alleging that the passage of the Criminal Sentencing Reform Act of 1989 served to void his sentence and all other sentences in the State of Tennessee, and was the equivalent of a pardon. The Lake County Circuit Court denied the Petitioner's petition. |
Lake | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William P. Brooks
The defendant, William P. Brooks, was convicted of driving on a revoked license, third offense, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court imposed a sentence of 11 months and 29 days, requiring 90 days to be served in jail and the balance to be served on supervised probation. In this appeal of right, the defendant argues that the trial court erred by refusing to suppress evidence and by imposing an excessive sentence. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James Perry Hyde v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, James Perry Hyde, appeals the trial court's denial of post-conviction relief. The issue presented for review is whether the petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial. The judgment is affirmed. |
Hamblen | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Michael Wayne Dean v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner challenges the trial court's dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief. He contends that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter a judgment for second degree murder because that offense is not a lesser included offense of felony murder with which he was indicted. We affirm the trial court's dismissal of the habeas corpus petition. |
Bledsoe | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ali Mohsenzadeh
The Defendant was convicted by a jury of DUI and sentenced to thirty days, suspended upon the service of five days, and eleven-months, twenty-nine days probation. The Defendant now appeals, contending that the arresting officer had no reasonable suspicion to pull him over or probable cause to arrest him; that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction; that the State failed to prove venue; and that his sentence is excessive. We affirm the defendant's conviction and modify his sentence. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Lawrence Wyatt
The defendant appeals from his convictions for conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery and facilitation of aggravated robbery. He contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions and that his sentences are excessive. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
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. 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 | |
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. 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 | |
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 | |
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 | |
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 |
