State vs. Glenda Dotson E1999-02330-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: Lynn W. Brown
Sullivan
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Frank Michael Vukelich M1999-00618-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry Smith
Trial Court Judge: Walter C. Kurtz
On December 8 through December 17, 1998, Frank Vukelich, the defendant and appellant, was tried in the Davidson County Criminal Court for one count of conspiracy to deliver 700 pounds or more of marijuana, three counts of conspiracy to commit money laundering, and five counts of money laundering. The jury found the defendant not guilty of one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering, but guilty on all other counts. Following a subsequent sentencing hearing, the court effectively sentenced the defendant to thirty-four years of incarceration and ordered the defendant to pay fines totaling $180,000. After a hearing regarding the defendant's motion for new trial, however, the trial court dismissed four money laundering counts. The defendant appeals here, arguing; (1) that the trial court erroneously allowed the consolidation of indictments; (2) that although the trial court correctly dismissed four money-laundering counts, the trial court erred by refusing to dismiss the counts prior to trial, thus prejudicing the defendant; (3) that the trial court erroneously denied the defendant's motion to suppress the fruits of two search warrants executed at the defendant's home; (4) that the defendant's confrontation rights were violated by the introduction of hearsay at trial; (5) that the trial court erroneously refused to grant a mistrial; (6) that the trial court erroneously allowed the introduction of prior acts of the defendant at trial; and (7) that his sentence is excessive. The State also appeals here, arguing that the trial court's dismissal of the four money-laundering counts was erroneous. After a review of the record, we hold that the trial court erroneously dismissed the four money laundering counts, and those counts must be reinstated. As to the defendant's claims, we find no merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Davidson
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Charles S. Jones M1999-02335-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry Smith
Trial Court Judge: John H. Gasaway, III
On October 30, 1997, the defendant offered guilty pleas to six counts of aggravated burglary, five counts of theft over one thousand dollars, one count of theft under one thousand dollars, and one count of possession of an illegal weapon. After a December sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered the defendant placed on probation and granted him post-trial diversion for a period of six years during which he was to comply with a variety of requirements. Subsequently, separate affidavits were filed in July and September of 1998 alleging that the defendant had violated the terms of his probation. Following a March 1999 hearing concerning these allegations, the trial court entered judgment on the defendant's aforementioned twelve guilty pleas and sentenced him as a Range I Standard Offender to serve an effective sentence of four years for the burglary and theft charges consecutively to eighteen months for the possession of an illegal weapon offense. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court erred by (1) failing to consider him for alternative sentencing; (2) improperly enhancing his possession of an illegal weapon sentence and one of his aggravated burglary sentences; and (3) ordering the possession of an illegal weapon charge to run consecutively. After having reviewed the record and applicable authorities, we find these issues to be without merit and, therefore, affirm the trial court's sentence.
Montgomery
Court of Criminal Appeals
James Earl Kirk, et al. vs. State M1999-01369-CCA-OT-CO
Authoring Judge: Judge John Everett Williams
Trial Court Judge: Jim T. Hamilton
In this interlocutory appeal the State raises the question of whether the Maury County Circuit Court, relying on Tenn. R. Crim. P. 5(a), erred by ordering that all proceedings in a case heard in general sessions court must be heard in the court closest to the location of the offense. It is the opinion of this Court that the plain language of Tenn. R. Crim. P. 5(a) controls the outcome of this case. The controversy in this case turns on the word "nearest" as used in the statute. A cursory reading of the statute could understandably lead one to believe that the term "nearest" was intended to convey geographic proximity. However, such a narrow reading of the word does not yield the desired result the Rule was intended to have, and cannot be read within the strict confines of the plain language set forth therein. The term "nearest" is broader in scope than mere geographical distance. It is the opinion of this Court that as used in Tenn. R. Crim. P. 5(a), "nearest" was intended to be analyzed temporally.
State vs. Rhonda Jennings M1999-01093-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry Smith
Trial Court Judge: Timothy L. Easter
On October 28, 1998, at the conclusion of a bench trial, Rhonda Jennings, the defendant and appellant, was found guilty of one count of theft over five-hundred dollars and one count of theft under five-hundred dollars. Following a sentencing hearing on February 26, 1999, the trial court ordered the defendant to serve two years on community corrections after serving twenty days in jail. On April 29, 1999, a warrant was filed against the defendant alleging that she had violated a condition of her community corrections sentence. After an evidentiary hearing on July 12, 1999, the trial court revoked the defendant's community corrections sentence and re-sentenced her to eighteen months incarceration. On appeal, the appellant claims that her sentence is excessive. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Williamson
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Bobby Garner M1999-01427-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry Smith
Trial Court Judge: Robert W. Wedemeyer
Following a Montgomery County Grand Jury indictment, Bobby Garner, the defendant and appellant, pled guilty to one count of aggravated burglary and one count of theft of property over one-thousand dollars. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the defendant to serve five years for aggravated burglary and three years for theft. The trial court ordered the defendant to serve the sentences consecutively. On appeal, the defendant argues (1) that the sentences imposed were excessive, (2) that he should have been sentenced alternatively, and (3) that consecutive sentences were inappropriate. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Montgomery
Court of Criminal Appeals
Joey Lee Smith vs. State M1999-01896-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry Smith
Trial Court Judge: William Charles Lee
In April of 1995, a Bedford County jury convicted the petitioner of one count of child rape, multiple counts of aggravated sexual battery, one count of sexual battery, and two counts of reckless endangerment. For these offenses he received an effective sentence of nineteen years. Having unsuccessfully pursued a direct appeal, the petitioner filed a pro se post-conviction petition and subsequently received appointed counsel. Through his amended petition the petitioner contended that counsel's alleged misdeeds had risen to the level of ineffective assistance of counsel and also that certain actions taken by the trial court had violated his due process rights. The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing on these matters and denied the petitioner relief. From this denial the petitioner brings this action again asserting that he received ineffective assistance both at trial and on direct appeal. However, following our review of the record, we find that the trial court correctly denied the petition, and we, therefore, affirm the lower court's decision.
