State vs. Vincent Sims
|
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Vincent Sims
|
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. James Hankins
|
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Pamela Hopper
|
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Tony Martin
|
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Jeffery Ray Jennings
|
Greene | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
E1999-01465-CCA-R3CD
|
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
03C01-9803-CR-00118
|
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
M1998-00118-CCA-R3-CD
|
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Jeffrey Eugene Wright, a.k.a Jeffrey Eugene Arnell
|
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Henry DeQuan Rhodes
|
Wilson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Kawaski Taylor
|
Gibson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Jerry Travis
|
Henry | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Samantha Heard
The appellant, Samantha Heard, appeals from a judgment of conviction entered by the Davidson County Criminal Court. The appellant pled guilty to one count of sale of cocaine in excess of .5 grams, a class B felony. As a condition of the plea agreement, the appellant reserved the right to appeal, as a certified question of law, the trial court's denial of her motion to suppress.1 See Tenn. R. App. P. 3(b); Tenn. R. Crim. P. 37(b). Specifically, she asserts that the facts alleged in the affidavit of the search warrant are insufficient to support a finding of probable cause for the search of her person. After review of the record, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion to suppress and affirm the judgment of conviction. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. La Southaphanh
The appellant, La Southaphanh, appeals his jury convictions for aggravated burglary and theft over $1,000. The trial court imposed, as a Range II offender, a nine year sentence for aggravated burglary and a concurrent seven year sentence for theft. On appeal, the appellant’s sole challenge is the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. Following review, we affirm. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Khanh V. Le - Concurring and Dissenting
I concur with Judge Ogle’s opinion concerning the issue of sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction for first degree murder and the issue regarding the suppression of identification testimony. I concur that the trial court did not err by refusing to charge voluntary manslaughter as a lesser-included offense. I also concur that the trial court erred by failing to charge second degree murder as a lesser-included offense. However, I dissent from the majority opinion’s conclusion that this error was not reversible error. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Khanh V. Le
The lead opinion of Judge Ogle, the separate concurring opinion of Judge Welles, and the separate opinion of Judge Woodall concurring in part and dissenting in part, filed in this case on March 6, 2000, are withdrawn. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Khanh V. Le
On November 10, 1997, the appellant, Khanh V. Le, was convicted by a jury in the Shelby County Criminal Court of first degree murder. The trial court sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment in the Tennessee Department of Correction. In this appeal as of right, the appellant presents the following issues for our review: (I) Whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain the appellant’s conviction of first degree murder; (II) Whether the trial court erred by refusing to charge any lesser included offenses to first degree murder; (III) Whether the trial court erred by denying the appellant’s motion to suppress identification testimony. Following a review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Gregory Austin
The appellant, Gregory Austin, appeals his jury conviction for first degree premeditated murder. The appellant was originally indicted for felony murder in the perpetration of attempted robbery and first degree premeditated murder. Because the State did not seek a sentence of death or life without parole, the trial court imposed a life sentence. On appeal, the appellant argues the trial court erred in failing to: (1) suppress the appellant’s statement to the police; (2) permit redaction of portions of appellant’s statement to the police prior to its admission; and (3) contemporaneously instruct the jury regarding prior inconsistent statements. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. David Remus
The appellant, David Remus, appeals the jury verdict of the Shelby County Criminal Court finding him guilty of burglary of a building, a Class D felony.. The trial court imposed a sentence of three years and three months in the county workhouse. On appeal, the appellant challenges (1) the sufficiency of the evidence; (2) the jury’s viewing of the appellant while “shackled;” and (3) the trial court’s application of an enhancement factor in determining the appellant’s sentence. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kermit Maurice Cozart
The defendant, Kermit Maurice Cozart, appeals from a guilty verdict returned against him by a Henry County jury for Aggravated Kidnapping, a Class B felony. The trial court sentenced the defendant to ten years at 100% as a violent offender for the aggravated kidnapping. The defendant contends that the trial court erred in failing to give the defendant’s requested special jury instruction. The defendant had requested that the trial court specifically charge the jury on aggravated kidnapping in the context of a robbery in accordance with the language of State v. Anthony, 817 S.W.2d 299 (Tenn. 1991). The defendant contends that the court’s instruction left the jury without guidance sufficient to decide whether the defendant should stand convicted for the offense of aggravated kidnapping. After careful review, we AFFIRM the instruction, judgment, and sentence from the trial court. |
Henry | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee vs. James Emmett Moses, Jr. a/k/a Ali Hakem Mahammed
The appellant, James Emmett Moses, Jr., a/k/a Ali Hakem Mahammed, appeals the sentencing decision of the Lauderdale County Circuit Court following his guilty pleas to the offenses of one count aggravated burglary, two counts of robbery, and one count of theft under $500. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed an effective sentence of twenty six years imprisonment.1 On appeal, the appellant challenges the length of the sentences and the imposition of consecutive sentences. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James A. Ayers also known as James Harris v. State of Tennessee
The appellant, James A. Ayers also known as James Harris, appeals the order of the Shelby County Criminal Court summarily dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief. In this appeal, the appellant challenges the trial court’s summary dismissal of his petition as being time-barred. Specifically, he argues that his claim was later arising under Burford and Sands. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Thomason
The defendant, Michael Thomason, appeals as of right his conviction by a Haywood County Circuit Court jury of four counts of sexual battery, one count of aggravated sexual battery, and one count of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. The trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range I standard offender to two years on each of the sexual battery charges; ten years on the aggravated sexual battery charge; and eleven months and twenty-nine days on the misdemeanor count of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, the sentences to be served concurrently. The defendant presents the following issues for review: |
Haywood | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Steven DeWayne Bolden v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Steven DeWayne Bolden, appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief by the Lake County Circuit Court on March 26, 1999. Following a review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Lake | Court of Criminal Appeals |
