State of Tennessee v. Joseph George Schenck
The Petitioner, Joseph George Schenck, appeals the trial court’s summary denial and dismissal of his motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1, arguing that his sentence is illegal because he did not sign the circuit court judgment forms and it was neither explained to him nor announced on the record that he was required to serve 75% of his sentence before he was eligible for work release, furlough, trusty status, or rehabilitative programs. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Robert L. Hall, Jr.
A Knox County jury convicted the Defendant, Robert L. Hall, Jr., of one count of |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jullion Fain Culps
The Defendant, Jullion Fain Culps, appeals from the trial court’s denial of alternative sentencing on his effective nine-year sentence. The Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by not allowing the Defendant to serve his sentence on probation, given his age, employment status, and his desire to care for his child. The State asserts that the trial court acted within its discretion by imposing a sentence of confinement. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Darrnell Treshawn Wiggins v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Darrnell Treshawn Wiggins, appeals from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief challenging his 2019 convictions for second degree murder, first degree felony murder, and kidnapping. The Petitioner argues that he received the ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failure to challenge on direct appeal the admission of body camera footage showing the victim’s dying declaration. The State asserts that (1) the Petitioner has waived his claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel by not properly presenting the issue before the post-conviction court, and (2) waiver notwithstanding, the Petitioner failed to establish appellate counsel’s deficient performance and prejudice. Based on our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Shane Scott Caywood
The Defendant, Shane Scott Caywood, pleaded guilty to the sale or delivery of 0.5 grams |
Bradley | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Billy Gene Sliger
The Defendant, Billy Gene Sliger, appeals his convictions for two counts of rape of a child |
Jefferson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kerrington J'Kobe Lake
The Defendant, Kerrington J’Kobe Lake, entered guilty pleas to two felonies, felony evading arrest and attempted tampering with evidence; and three misdemeanors, speeding, reckless driving, and simple possession of marijuana, with the trial court to determine whether to grant judicial diversion or, alternatively, the length and manner of his sentence. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court denied the Defendant’s request for judicial diversion and imposed an effective sentence of three years, with the Defendant to serve 180 days in jail before serving the remainder of his sentence on supervised probation. On appeal, the Defendant argues the trial court (1) unreasonably denied judicial diversion, and (2) imposed an excessive sentence. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Melvin Lee Harth
The Defendant, Melvin Lee Harth, appeals from his guilty-pleaded convictions for aggravated assault involving strangulation, a Class C felony; two counts of aggravated assault involving the violation of a prior court order, a Class C felony; false imprisonment, a Class A misdemeanor; and resisting arrest, a Class B misdemeanor. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-102 (Supp. 2024) (aggravated assault); 39-13-302 (2018) (false imprisonment), 39-16-602 (2018) (resisting arrest). The trial court ordered the Defendant to serve an effective nine-year sentence in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant contends the court erred by denying alternative sentencing. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Tracy D. Boyd, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Tracy D. Boyd, Jr., appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, which challenged his guilty-pleaded convictions of three counts of impersonating a licensed professional, two counts of theft of property, and one count of forgery. He claims that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel and that his guilty pleas were not knowingly and voluntarily entered. Upon review of the record, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Cristobal Jose Vasquez
A Knox County jury convicted the Defendant, Cristobal Jose Vasquez, of solicitation of a minor and aggravated sexual battery, and the trial court sentenced him to an effective term of nine years’ imprisonment. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the evidence is legally insufficient to support his conviction for aggravated sexual battery. He also asserts that the trial court erred by (1) allowing testimony concerning uncharged criminal conduct; and (2) excluding extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement by the victim or, alternatively, prohibiting him from recalling the victim to lay a foundation for that evidence. Upon our review, we respectfully disagree and affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Diamond Leah Wilson
The Defendant, Diamond Leah Wilson, was convicted by a Maury County Circuit Court jury of aggravated neglect of a child who was age eight or less, a Class A felony, for which the Defendant is serving a sixteen-year sentence at 100% service. See T.C.A. § 39-15-402 (Supp. 2024). On appeal, she contends that (1) the trial court erred in approving the verdict in its role as thirteenth juror, (2) the evidence is insufficient to support her conviction, and (3) the trial court erred in sentencing. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ashley Nicole Thomas v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Ashley Nicole Thomas, appeals the denial of her post-conviction petition, in which she challenged her multiple convictions related to the sexual abuse of a child and her effective forty-year sentence. On appeal, Petitioner maintains that her trial counsel was ineffective. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Tipton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tyrone McCurdy
A Madison County jury convicted Defendant, Tyrone McCurdy, of multiple counts of vandalism and theft, and the trial court imposed an effective sentence of twenty-two years to be served in confinement as a persistent offender. On appeal, Defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Charles Hardy, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Charles Hardy, Jr., appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in denying his claims that trial counsel was ineffective in advising him not to testify, and provided ineffective counsel pretrial and at trial. He also argues he is entitled to relief due to the cumulative effect of trial counsel’s individual errors. Following our review of the record, the briefs of the parties, and oral arguments, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Michael Terrell McKissack v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Michael Terrell McKissack, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for a writ of error coram nobis, claiming that a codefendant’s recanted testimony constitutes newly discovered evidence. Based on our review, we affirm the coram nobis court’s denial of the petition. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Gary Rollins
Gary Rollins, Defendant, was charged with one count of rape of a child and two counts of aggravated sexual battery in September of 2020. At the conclusion of the first trial, the jury found Defendant not guilty of rape of a child but could not reach a verdict on the lesser-included offenses of rape of a child. The jury could not reach a verdict on either count of aggravated sexual battery. The trial court granted a mistrial for the remaining lesser-included offenses of rape of a child and the two counts of aggravated sexual battery. In a second trial on the same presentment, Defendant was again tried for rape of a child. The jury found Defendant guilty of rape of a child and two counts of aggravated sexual battery. At sentencing, Defendant challenged the rape of a child conviction for the first time on the basis that it violated double jeopardy. The trial court agreed, entering a judgment for the lesser-included offense of attempted rape of a child. The trial court sentenced Defendant to twenty years for the attempted rape of a child conviction and fifteen years for each aggravated sexual battery conviction. The trial court ordered the sentences to run consecutively, for a total effective sentence of fifty years. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the State to introduce evidence of a prior bad act in violation of Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b), that his second trial for rape of a child violated his right against double jeopardy, and that the trial court had no authority to modify the conviction on the jeopardy-barred offense to attempted rape of a child. Because the Defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability that he would not have been convicted of the attempted rape of a child absent the presence of the charge of rape of a child and because the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the State to introduce evidence of a prior bad act, we affirm the convictions. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tony Brasfield
The Defendant, Tony Brasfield, was convicted by a Madison County Circuit Court jury of violating the rules of community supervision for life, a Class A misdemeanor; and violating the sexual offender registry for failing to register or report in person within 48 hours of establishing or changing a primary or secondary residence, a Class E felony. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence for his felony conviction of violating the sexual offender registry, arguing that a plain reading of the statute shows that the State failed to prove the essential elements of the offense. We agree with the Defendant. Accordingly, the Defendant’s misdemeanor conviction for violating community supervision is affirmed, but we reverse and vacate his felony conviction for violating the sexual offender registry. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Mario Albanese
The Defendant, Mario Albanese, pleaded guilty to three counts of reckless aggravated |
Hawkins | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Nicholas Cornelius Conner
Defendant, Nicholas Cornelius Conner, pled guilty to one count of the sale of 0.5 grams or more of cocaine, a Schedule II drug. He received a nine-year community corrections sentence which was later transferred to probation. Thereafter, Defendant was arrested for new drug offenses. After a hearing, the trial court revoked Defendant’s probation and ordered him to serve his original sentence incarcerated. Defendant appeals, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by fully revoking his probation and by denying credit for time he successfully served on probation. Upon review of the record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Lincoln | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Johnny Tate v. Grady Perry, Warden
Petitioner, Johnny Tate, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Following our review of the entire record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court. |
Wayne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kimberly M. Smart
The Defendant, Kimberly M. Smart, was convicted by a Hamilton County Jury of reckless aggravated assault, for which she received a sentence of three years' incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant argues that (1) the trial court erred in admitting extrinsic evidence of a witness's prior inconsistent statement for impeachment, (2) the trial court erred in admitting a body camera recording depicting the victim shortly after she was stabbed, and (3) the prosecutor committed misconduct by attempting to shift the burden of proof to the Defendant during closing and rebuttal arguments. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Casey Lee Anderson v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Casey Lee Anderson, pled guilty to second degree murder and received a sentence of nineteen years’ imprisonment. He later filed a petition for post-conviction relief, claiming that the State had violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), by failing to disclose a witness statement before he entered the plea. After a hearing, the post-conviction court granted relief, finding that the State had violated Brady by failing to disclose the statement. On appeal, the State argues that the post-conviction court erred in granting relief, asserting that the Petitioner failed to prove that the statement was material. Upon our de novo review, we agree with the State. As such, we respectfully reverse the post-conviction court’s judgment and remand the case to reinstate the Petitioner’s conviction. |
Bledsoe | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Bryant Ward v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Bryant Ward, pleaded guilty to second degree murder, in exchange for a twenty-year sentence. The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective and that he was on a medication that inhibited his ability to enter a knowing and voluntary guilty plea. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. After review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Victor Valle v. State of Tennessee
A Shelby County jury convicted the Petitioner, Victor Valle, of rape of a child, and the trial court sentenced him to a term of twenty-two years imprisonment. Thereafter, he filed a petition for post-conviction relief, asserting that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. In relevant part, the Petitioner alleged that his attorneys were ineffective by (1) calling the victim’s mother and his former spouse as witnesses at trial; (2) failing to explain his right to testify and advising him not to testify; and (3) failing to advise him of his right to have the jury instructed regarding lesser-included offenses. The Petitioner also asserted that he was entitled to relief due to cumulative error. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief, and the Petitioner appealed. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Derek Morse
Defendant, Derek Morse, was convicted by a Hamilton County jury of three counts of premeditated first degree murder and one count of attempted premeditated first degree murder. Defendant was sentenced to three terms of life imprisonment without parole for the first-degree murder convictions, and he was ordered to serve a concurrent sentence of fifteen years for the attempted first degree murder conviction. In this direct appeal, Defendant contends that: 1) the evidence at trial was insufficient to sustain his convictions because the State failed to establish his identity as a shooter; 2) the trial court erred by allowing evidence of a prior bad act; 3) the State failed to establish a proper chain of custody for evidence of gunshot residue on Defendant's clothing; 4) the trial court should have granted a new trial based on newly discovered evidence; 5) the trial court should have granted a new trial based on proof that a State's witness gave false testimony that he did not receive favorable treatment from the State for his testimony against Defendant; 6) the State made improper comments during its opening statement and closing argument; and 7) the cumulative effect of these errors entitles Defendant to a new trial. Having reviewed the entire record and the briefs and arguments of the parties, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals |
