State vs. Taniese A. Wilson
|
Coffee | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Lee Lance
|
McMinn | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Norman Sutton
|
Cocke | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Eric Dwayne McLemore
|
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Glenna Kidd
|
Wilson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Derrick Sawyers vs. State
|
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Edward C. Coker vs. State
|
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Robert D. Merritt, Jr.
|
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs.Robert A. Norris & Lida A. Meador
|
Cumberland | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Venson Terrell Taylor
|
Robertson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Ricky Crawford
|
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Ricky Crawford
|
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Edward Drummer
|
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Charles Justin Osborne
|
Perry | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Kelly A. Hancock
|
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. George Redd
|
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Larry Sneed vs. State
|
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Donnie Sisk
|
Franklin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Greg L. Baine vs. State
|
Polk | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. William B. Thurbley
|
Sevier | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jimmy Sills vs. State of Tennessee and Jack Morgan, Warden
The Defendant, Jimmy Sills, appeals the trial court’s summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. In his pro se brief to this C ourt, Defendant argues that his convictions for first degree murder and for use of a firearm during commission of a felony violate double jeopardy because the use of a firearm is an essential element of first degree murder. For the same reasons this issue was previously determined to be without merit, we affirm the judgment of the trial cou rt. |
Hickman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James Gordon Coons, III vs. State of Tennessee
I concur with the majority opinion. I note, though, that the case upon which the opinion relies to conclude that the statute of limitations may not be raised for the first time on appeal was decided under the former post-conviction procedure act. I am hesitant to say that such a total bar exists under the 1995 Post-Conviction Procedure Act, given the affirmative duty of the trial court to assess the timeliness of the petition regardless of whether it is raised by the state as a defense and the apparent jurisdictional effect of the running of the statute. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
William Lee Henderson vs. State
|
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Michael D. Keen
|
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Tina Swindle
|
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals |