COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OPINIONS

01C01-9611-CC-00473
01C01-9611-CC-00473
Trial Court Judge: J. S. Daniel

01C01-9612-CR-00516
01C01-9612-CR-00516

01C01-9704-CR-00141
01C01-9704-CR-00141
Trial Court Judge: Seth W. Norman

State vs. Gregory Simmons
02C01-9611-CR-00432
Trial Court Judge: Carolyn Wade Blackett

State vs. Donald Spicer
02C01-9610-CR-00369

Of This Case Are Analogous To The Facts In State v. Hoyt, 928 S.W.2D 935 (Tenn.
02C01-9610-CR-00369Cecil
Trial Court Judge: Arthur T. Bennett

State vs. Danny Anderson
02C01-9707-CC-00241

State vs. Aubrey Brigance
02C01-9709-CR-00342

McDonald vs. State
03C01-9703-CC-00103
Trial Court Judge: Steve R. Bebb

Mitchell vs. State
03C01-9704-CR-00125
Trial Court Judge: Lynn W. Brown

Logan vs. State
03C01-9610-CR-00387

State vs. Roger Kimmel
02C01-9701-CR-00006
Trial Court Judge: Joseph B. Dailey

State vs. Roger Kimmel
02C01-9701-CR-00006
Trial Court Judge: Joseph B. Dailey

State vs. John Thomas
02C01-9611-CR-00436
Trial Court Judge: Joseph B. Dailey

State vs. Myron Garmon
02C01-9611-CR-00437
Trial Court Judge: James C. Beasley, Jr.

State vs. Cavious Watkins
02C01-9701-CR-00031
Trial Court Judge: James C. Beasley, Jr.

State vs. John Roe
02C01-9702-CR-00054
Trial Court Judge: Jon Kerry Blackwood

03C01-9703-CR-00098
03C01-9703-CR-00098
Trial Court Judge: R. Jerry Beck

State of Tennessee vs. Venson Earl Woodard
01C01-9511-CC-00379
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry L. Smith
Trial Court Judge: Judge Charles Lee

A Bedford County Circuit Court jury found Appellant Venson Woodard guilty of two counts of aggravated assault. As a Range II multiple offender, he received a sentence of nine years and eight months in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The trial court ordered the sentence to be served consecutive to a sente nce for which Appellant was on parole at the tim e of the offense. In this appeal, Appellant presents the following issue for review: whether the trial court violated its duty to act as a thirteenth juror by refusing to grant Appellant’s motion for a new trial. Specifically Appellant maintains the weight of the evidence shows he was acting in self-defense.
 

After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial co urt.

Dennis P. Neilan vs. State of Tennessee
03C01-9611-CC-00411
Authoring Judge: Judge William M. Barker
Trial Court Judge: Judge Rex Henry Ogle

The appellant, Dennis P. Neilan, appeals from the judgment of the Sevier County Circuit Court which dismissed, without hearing, his petition seeking postconviction relief. We affirm the trial court pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals.

State of Tennessee vs. Buffy Twadell
01C01-9606-CR-00231
Authoring Judge: Judge Gary R. Wade
Trial Court Judge: Judge Jane W. Wheatcraft

The defendant, Buffy Mae Twadell, has been indicted on two counts of aggravated perjury. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-16-703. The district attorney general denied the defendant's application for pretrial diversion. Thereafter, the trial court denied her petition for a writ of certiorari. In this extraordinary appeal made pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, the defendant insists that the district attorney general abused his discretion by the denial of pretrial diversion. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Tyrone Watkins
01C01-9610-CR-00433
Authoring Judge: Judge Gary R. Wade
Trial Court Judge: Judge Jane W. Wheatcraft

The defendant, Tyrone Watkins, was convicted on July 18, 1994, of two Class A misdemeanors. While allowing pretrial jail credit, the trial court imposed consecutive sentences of eleven months and twenty-nine days, the remainder of which was to be served on probation. On February 16, 1996, a warrant was issued which resulted in the revocation of probation. The question of law certified for review is whether the probationary term had expired prior to the commencement of the revocation proceeding. Rule 37(b)(2)(i), Tenn. R. Crim. P. We must reverse the judgment of the trial court; the cause is dismissed.

Phillip Pomeroy vs. State of Tennessee
01C01-9610-CR-00424
Authoring Judge: Judge Gary R. Wade
Trial Court Judge: Judge Walter C. Kurtz

The petitioner, Phillip W. Pomeroy, appeals the trial court's dismissal of his petition for  post-conviction relief. The single issue presented for review is whether the petition is barred by the statute of limitations.

State of Tennessee vs. Ricky Krantz
01C01-9406-CR-00207
Authoring Judge: Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: Judge J. Randall Wyatt, Jr.

The defendant, Ricky Hill Krantz, appeals as of right from his conviction by a jury in the Davidson County Criminal Court for felony murder and aggravated assault, a Class C Felony. The defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment for the felony murder conviction and as a Range II, multiple offender to seven years in the custody of the Department of Correction for the aggravated assault conviction. The trial court ordered the defendant’s sentences to be served consecutively. The defendant contends that:

(1) the evidence is insufficient to support the first degree
murder conviction;
(2) the trial court erred by not dismissing the indictment due to
the state’s failure to preserve a blood sample taken from the
defendant on the evening of the offense;
(3) the trial court erred by not dismissing the indictment upon
grounds of fundamental fairness because the defendant
should not have been retried after a mistrial upon a theory that
was not relied upon by the state in the first trial; and
(4) the trial court erred by allowing the state to use a
peremptory challenge in a discriminatory manner in violation of
the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution and in violation of Article I, Section 9 of the
Tennessee Constitution.

We conclude that the evidence is sufficient and that the trial court did not err as the defendant claims. We affirm the trial court’s judgment of conviction.

State of Tennessee vs. Robert Allen McKenzie
01C01-9701-CR-00008
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe B. Jones
Trial Court Judge: Judge Jane W. Wheatcraft

The issue which this court must resolve is whether the statute of limitations commences in an accessory after the fact prosecution when (a) the crime is committed or (b) the principal offender is convicted. The trial court found the statute of limitations does not commence until the principal offender is convicted. The defendant contends the statute of limitations commences when the crime of accessory after the fact is committed. After a thorough review of the record, the briefs submitted by the parties, and the law pertaining to the issue presented for review, it is the opinion of this court the statute of limitations commenced to run in this prosecution for accessory after the fact when the offense was committed. Therefore, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the prosecution is dismissed since the prosecution was barred by the statute of limitations.