The defendant, Edward T. Flye, challenges the sufficiency of the evidence used to convict him of aggravated burglary and evading arrest. Because the evidence is adequate to support the convictions, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: L. Craig Johnson
The Defendant appeals from the trial court's dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. The trial court found that the petition was barred by the statute of limitations. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: L. Craig Johnson
The Defendant appeals from the trial court's dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. The trial court found that the petition was barred by the statute of limitations. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: Buddy D. Perry
The Defendant, John Wayne Gray, appeals as of right from his conviction of the sale of a schedule II controlled substance. On appeal, he argues (1) that the trial court erred by failing to grant his motion for acquittal or directed verdict because the State failed to establish circumstances and facts that would provide for a reasonable assurance of the identity of the evidence and because the State failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody; (2) that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to support the jury verdict; and (3) that the trial court erred in sentencing the Defendant to a mid-range sentence as a Range III offender. We find no error. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Trial Court Judge: Buddy D. Perry
On September 9, 1998, the Defendant, Daniel Joe James, was charged with possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. The Defendant was convicted by a jury of simple possession of a controlled substance. He received a sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days probation and was fined $2,500.00. The Defendant now challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. On appeal, the State has conceded that the evidence is insufficient to support a conviction. After a careful examination of the record, we agree that there is insufficient evidence against the Defendant to support a conviction. Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.
Authoring Judge: Judge John Everett Williams
Trial Court Judge: William Charles Lee
The petitioner argues that in finding that his trial counsel was not ineffective and denying his post-conviction petition, the petitioner appeals from the trial court's denial of his post-conviction petition. He argues that the trial court erred by finding that his trial counsel was not ineffective. The trial court's order is affirmed.
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Trial Court Judge: C. Creed Mcginley
This appeal results from the defendant's conviction by a Carroll County jury for introducing contraband into a penal institution. He was sentenced to six years incarceration and fined $2,500. On appeal, the defendant asserts that the trial court erred in not granting his motion for a new trial based on the lack of evidence to corroborate the testimony of his accomplice required for a conviction. After careful review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Authoring Judge: Sr. Judge L. Terry Lafferty
Trial Court Judge: J. O. Bond
The appellant, Daniel Christian Russell, referred herein as "the defendant," appeals as of right from the judgment of the Wilson County Circuit Court imposing concurrent sentences for aggravated assault and vandalism. The trial court imposed sentences totaling five (5) years to be served concurrently in the Department of Correction. The defendant presents two appellate issues: 1) whether the length of the sentences imposed by the trial court are excessive; and 2) whether the trial court erred by denying the defendant's request for probation. Because the defendant received illegal concurrent sentences, we vacate the judgments of conviction and remand the case for further proceedings.
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Trial Court Judge: James K. Clayton, Jr.
This is an appeal arising from the summary dismissal of a petition for post-conviction relief. The trial court's dismissal was based upon the failure to file the petition within the one-year statute of limitations. Upon review of the record, we reverse and remand for further proceedings since the petition was filed within one year of the date of the final action of the Tennessee Supreme Court in the direct appeal.
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: Lynn W. Brown
The defendant appeals the sentence imposed for the offense of furnishing alcohol to a minor. The defendant contends that he should have been granted judicial diversion and full probation. We affirm the trial court.
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: R. Jerry Beck
The Defendant, pursuant to a plea agreement, pleaded guilty as a Range II multiple offender to two counts of facilitation of the sale of a Schedule IV drug (a Class E felony) and three counts of facilitation of the sale of a Schedule VI drug (a Class A misdemeanor). The Defendant received sentences of three years for each of the felonies and eleven months, twenty-nine days for each of the misdemeanors. All five sentences were to be served concurrently, for an effective sentence of three years. The manner of service of the sentence was not part of the plea agreement but was to be decided by the trial court after a sentencing hearing. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court determined that the sentence should be served in the Department of Correction. In this appeal, the Defendant argues that he was wrongfully denied probation or alternative sentencing. Finding no merit to the Defendant's argument, we affirm the ruling of the trial court.
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: Stephen M. Bevil
The Defendant was convicted by a Hamilton County jury of second degree murder and was sentenced to twenty-years incarceration. On direct appeal, this Court affirmed his conviction and sentence, and the Tennessee Supreme Court denied permission to appeal. The Defendant subsequently filed a post-conviction petition, alleging that he was denied his right to effective assistance of counsel and his right to a fair trial. The post-conviction court denied post-conviction relief. We conclude that the Defendant was denied neither his right to effective assistance of counsel at trial nor his right to a fair trial. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of trial court denying post-conviction relief.
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: Phyllis H. Miller
The Defendant, Gary Anthony Burns, pleaded guilty to two counts of theft over $500.00. The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I standard offender to two years on each theft count and ordered the sentences to be served concurrently. The trial court then suspended the two-year sentence and ordered the Defendant to be placed on six years probation after service of ninety days in the Sullivan County jail, day for day. The Defendant now appeals, arguing that the trial court unlawfully denied him alternative sentencing. We conclude that the Defendant's sentence is proper and therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: Thomas W. Graham
A Bledsoe County jury convicted the Defendant of rape of a child, and the trial court sentenced the Defendant to eighteen years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The Defendant now appeals, arguing (1) that his conviction should be reversed because a prospective juror for this case stated in the presence of other prospective jurors that he had been a prospective juror in a previous criminal case in which the Defendant was on trial; (2) that the trial court erred by not ordering a new trial for the Defendant based on a letter that the Defendant's mother received from the victim subsequent to the Defendant's trial in which the victim stated that "nothing happened" between the Defendant and the victim; (3) that the trial court erred by not granting the Defendant a new trial based on evidence presented during the hearing on the Defendant's motion for new trial that a document introduced into evidence at trial as a filed divorce complaint had actually not been filed and contained prejudicial and improper statements about the Defendant; (4) that the State, during its closing argument, improperly mentioned facts not in the record; (5) that the trial court erroneously instructed the jury concerning a "deadlock" in a supplemental instruction; and (6) that the trial court erred by giving the jury the dictionary definition of "captious" and by sending the definition in writing to the jury room without reading it to the jury. After a thorough review of the record, we find no reversible error and therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Authoring Judge: Judge John Everett Williams
Trial Court Judge: E. Eugene Eblen
The defendant pled guilty to reckless vehicular homicide, simple possession of marijuana, and sale of a Schedule VI controlled substance. The trial court sentenced the defendant to four years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction (DOC), and the defendant appeals from this sentence, requesting probation. We affirm the sentence of incarceration from the trial court.
In July 1999, the defendant entered a plea of nolo contendre on two counts of vehicular homicide and one count of aggravated assault. The defendant contends that the trial court erred by not granting judicial diversion. We conclude that the defendant was not a "qualified defendant" for judicial diversion. His 1992 conviction for driving while under the influence of an intoxicant qualifies as a Class A misdemeanor, and therefore he is not "qualified" for judicial diversion. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Authoring Judge: Judge John Everett Williams
Trial Court Judge: Lynn W. Brown
On August 3, 1992, the defendant pled guilty to two counts of theft under Tennessee Code Annotated sections 39-14-103, -105(4). The defendant was sentenced to two consecutive nine-year sentences and ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $51,000. On June 8, 1999, the defendant filed a Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence. It was denied. In this appeal, the defendant contends that 1) the trial court erred in its finding that the defendant's sentence of incarceration and restitution was legal as a matter of law; and 2) the trial court erred by finding that the defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered into a plea agreement involving an illegal sentence. After a careful review, we find no merit in these issues, and find that the defendant's sentence is legal. The defendant's sentence of incarceration and the court's imposition of restitution is affirmed.
Authoring Judge: Judge John Everett Williams
Trial Court Judge: E. Eugene Eblen
The defendant was convicted by a jury of one count of driving while his driver's license was revoked, one count of criminal impersonation, and was found guilty of violating the implied consent law. The defendant claims there was insufficient evidence introduced to support his convictions. After a careful review, we affirm the defendant's conviction of criminal impersonation and reverse and dismiss the defendant's conviction for driving on a revoked driver's license.
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: E. Eugene Eblen
A Roane County jury convicted the Defendant of theft of an automobile valued at greater than $1,000.00, a Class D felony. He now appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of unauthorized use of an automobile. We conclude that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the requested lesser-included offense but that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Authoring Judge: Judge John Everett Williams
Trial Court Judge: R. Jerry Beck
After pleading guilty to vehicular homicide by intoxication, a Class B felony, the trial court ordered the defendant to serve his eight-year sentence on intensive probation, in-house arrest circumstances, subject further to the following conditions: (a) zero use of alcohol; (b) not own or drive an automobile; (c) alcohol counseling after evaluation; (d) payment of liquidated restitution to the victim's family within twenty-four (24) months; (e) any other conditions deemed prudent after intake of the Probation Department. The State appeals and asserts that the trial court erred in placing this defendant on probation because the trial court failed to consider the victim's impact testimony at the sentencing hearing. We agree that the trial court misapplied the applicable law characterizing the victim's impact testimony as a "victim's impact statement" and unduly limited the consideration of such statement to enhancing and mitigating factors. However, after de novo review of the record, we affirm the trial court's judgment, after considering all evidence presented, including the victim's impact testimony, concluding that the factors favoring an alternative sentence, specifically intensive probation, clearly outweigh any factors favoring incarceration.
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: Ray L. Jenkins
The Defendant was convicted of murder perpetrated in an attempt to commit a robbery. His conviction was affirmed on appeal to this Court, and the Tennessee Supreme Court denied permission to appeal. The Defendant subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied the petition. The Defendant now appeals the trial court's denial of post-conviction relief, arguing that conflicts with his attorneys prevented the attorneys from providing him effective assistance of counsel at trial and that the trial court forced him to proceed to trial despite those conflicts. Finding no error in the record before us, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Authoring Judge: Judge John Everett Williams
Trial Court Judge: E. Eugene Eblen
The petitioner sought writ of habeas corpus, alleging that he was entitled to relief because the judgments of conviction were not signed by the trial judge. We hold unsigned judgments do not render judgments void, such as entitles a defendant to habeas corpus relief. We affirm the trial court's dismissal.
