John Patrick Tracy, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, John Patrick Tracy, Jr., pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated sexual battery and two counts of attempted aggravated sexual battery, and the trial court imposed the agreed upon effective sentence of fifteen years in the Tennessee Department of Correction, followed by an additional fifteen years to be served on Community Corrections. The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, claiming that he had received the ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and that his guilty pleas were not voluntary. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to file essential motions, failed to investigate, and misrepresented his legal experience. He also argues that his guilty pleas were unknowingly and involuntarily entered. He further contends that the cumulative effect of his attorney’s errors entitles him to relief. After review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Douglas E. Alvey v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Douglas E. Alvey, appeals from the denial of his petition seeking post-conviction relief from his conviction of first degree murder. On appeal, he argues: (1) trial counsel were ineffective in failing to present expert testimony negating the mens rea; and (2) that he did not knowingly understand the nature of his constitutional right to testify at trial. After review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Rhea | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Curtis Keller v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Curtis Keller, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for writ of error coram nobis as “utterly devoid of accuracy.” Following our review of the entire record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the coram nobis court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Richard Townsend v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Richard Townsend, appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in denying his claim that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel and that his plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered. Following our review of the entire record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Decatur | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Cameron Henderson
Defendant, Cameron Henderson, appeals his Shelby County convictions for sexual battery and aggravated sexual battery for which he received an effective sentence of 7.2 years of confinement as an especially mitigated offender to be served at a rate of 100 percent. On appeal, Defendant contends that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of other bad acts pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b), in declining to instruct the jury on child abuse and neglect as a lesser included offense of aggravated sexual battery, and in ordering him to serve 100 percent of his sentence. Because Defendant failed to file a timely motion for new trial and a timely notice of appeal, we dismiss the appeal. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. HARLAN V. FERGUSON
A Knox County jury convicted Defendant, Harlan V. Ferguson, alias Harley T. Martin, of two counts of vehicular homicide, evading arrest, reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon, driving under the influence (“DUI”), DUI per se, and failure to drive within a single lane of traffic. The trial court merged the vehicular homicide and DUI convictions into one vehicular homicide conviction and imposed an effective ten-year sentence with one year to be served in confinement followed by probation. While Defendant’s direct appeal was pending in this court, he filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis, in which he alleged that newly discovered evidence may have resulted in a different judgment. The trial court denied the petition, and this court consolidated Defendant’s direct appeal of his convictions and his appeal from the denial of coram nobis relief. On appeal, Defendant challenges (1) the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress his statements to law enforcement; (2) the State’s failure to establish the chain of custody of Defendant’s blood samples; (3) the trial court’s denial of his motion to dismiss due to the destruction of evidence; (4) the trial court’s admission of lay testimony regarding the cause of the victim’s injuries; (5) the trial court’s admission of Defendant’s medical records; (6) the trial court’s exclusion of defense evidence; (7) the trial court’s failure to issue a missing witness instruction; (8) the State’s comments during closing arguments; (9) the State’s failure to disclose evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); and (10) the trial court’s denial of Defendant’s petition for writ of error coram nobis. Defendant also argues that the cumulative effect of the errors entitles him to relief. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Reggie Horton v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Reggie Horton, was found guilty in an October 2016 trial of the offenses of attempted voluntary manslaughter, aggravated kidnapping, and simple assault related to conduct occurring on April 27, 2015. State v. Horton, No. W2017-00676-CCA-R3-CD, 2018 WL 1598895 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 29, 2018), no perm. app. filed. On April 27, 2023, while post-conviction proceedings were pending, the Petitioner filed a writ of error coram nobis petition challenging only his conviction of aggravated kidnapping, claiming newly discovered evidence entitled him to a new trial on this offense. The Petitioner appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s dismissal of his petition for writ of error coram nobis, arguing he is entitled to due process tolling of the statute of limitations and the merits of his claim warrant relief. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the coram nobis court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Juwan Jaheim Gaines
The Defendant, Juwan Jaheim Gaines, appeals from his convictions for attempted first degree premeditated murder wherein the victim suffered serious bodily injury, employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, and reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon. He asserts that the trial court’s refusal to instruct the jury on self-defense constitutes reversible error, that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions, and that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing an excessive sentence. After review, we remand the case to the trial court for entry of corrected judgment forms. In all other respects, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Kenneth Brown v. State of Tennessee
In October 2012, a jury convicted Petitioner, Kenneth Brown, of one count of first degree premeditated murder, twelve counts of criminal attempt to commit first degree murder, twelve counts of aggravated assault, one count of employment of a firearm during a dangerous felony, and one count of reckless endangerment, for which he received an effective sentence of life imprisonment plus 308 years. In August 2023, Petitioner filed pro se petitions for post-conviction DNA and fingerprint analysis and a petition for writ of error coram nobis. The post-conviction court summarily dismissed the petitions. On appeal, Petitioner asserts that the post-conviction court improperly dismissed the petition for post-conviction fingerprint analysis and the petition for writ of error coram nobis. Following a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tra'Shawn Glass
Defendant, Tra’Shawn Glass, entered guilty pleas to three counts of vehicular homicide, four counts of drag racing resulting in serious bodily injury, and two counts of reckless aggravated assault resulting in serious bodily injury. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court merged various convictions and imposed an effective twelve-year sentence to be served in confinement. On appeal, Defendant contends that the trial court erred in ordering him to serve a sentence of full confinement and in imposing consecutive sentences. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jonnella Risharra Hambrick
The Defendant, Jonnella Risharra Hambrick, was convicted by a Davidson County Criminal Court jury of attempted second degree murder, employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, and two counts of aggravated assault and received an effective twenty-year sentence. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred by denying her the right to counsel at the trial and by imposing a sentence without her being present. Because we agree that the Defendant was denied her right to counsel and that she had a constitutional right to be present for sentencing, we reverse the judgments of the trial court and remand for a new trial. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Flamini, Jr.
The lead opinion considers the Defendant to have preserved for appeal his constitutional issue concerning the admission of the civil forfeiture order, although it ultimately subjects the issue to a relevancy analysis. I respectfully disagree that the constitutional claim on appeal was preserved in the trial court. The Defendant’s non-contemporaneous reference to his right to remain silent arguably preserved a Fifth Amendment self-incrimination claim. The problem for the Defendant, however, is that he raises a Fourteenth Amendment due process claim on appeal that was never presented to or ruled upon by the trial court. As such, the issue concerning the admission of the civil forfeiture order is waived, and the Defendant is not otherwise entitled to relief. For this reason, I concur only in the result of the lead opinion as to this issue. I fully join the lead opinion as to the other issues raised by the Defendant. |
Court of Criminal Appeals | ||
State of Tennessee v. Michael Flamini - Concurring in part
I join the court’s judgment affirming the convictions and agree with much of the reasoning in the lead opinion. I write separately, however, to express my respectful disagreement with how the lead opinion treats the trial court’s error in admitting evidence that the Defendant did not contest the asset forfeiture order. |
Court of Criminal Appeals | ||
State of Tennessee v. Michael Flamini, Jr.
The Defendant, Michael Flamini, Jr., was convicted by a Knox County Criminal Court |
Court of Criminal Appeals | ||
Randall L. Pruitt v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Randall L. Pruitt, entered open guilty pleas to three counts of rape, and following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed an effective sentence of twenty-eight and one-half years. This court affirmed Petitioner’s sentences on direct appeal. Petitioner then filed a petition for post-conviction relief in which he claimed ineffective assistance of counsel, and the post-conviction court denied the petition after a hearing. On appeal, Petitioner asserts that trial counsel was ineffective in advising him of his potential sentences by pleading guilty without a sentencing agreement with the State. After review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Monroe | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jacorey Tyvon Forte
The Defendant, Jacorey Tyvon Forte, was found guilty by a Hamilton County jury of aggravated robbery, and he received a sentence of eleven years in prison. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to establish his identity as one of the perpetrators of this offense. Following our review, we affirm the Defendant’s conviction. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
David Sands v. Grady Perry, Warden
The Petitioner, David Sands, appeals the habeas corpus court’s summary dismissal of his second petition for writ of habeas corpus for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. Specifically, the Petitioner alleges that his sentence has expired due to “missing” pretrial jail credit and improper calculation of behavioral and work credits. After review, we affirm. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Valerie Garrett
Defendant, Valerie Garrett, was convicted following a bench trial of driving under the influence (“DUI”), third offense, and failure to maintain lane of travel. Defendant claims that the deputy who arrested her lacked reasonable suspicion for the traffic stop and that the trial court erred by failing to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of the stop. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Roy Frazier II and Bionka McGaughy
In June 2021, the Shelby County Grand Jury issued a three-count indictment charging Roy Frazier II (“Defendant Frazier”) with two counts of aggravated rape of a child (Counts 1 and 2) and Bionka McGaughy (“Defendant McGaughy”) with child abuse or neglect of a child eight years of age or less (Count 3). Following a joint trial, a jury convicted Defendant Frazier of aggravated rape of a child in Count 1 and the lesser-included offense of aggravated sexual battery in Count 2, for which he received a sentence of life without parole plus twenty years. The jury convicted Defendant McGaughy of child neglect of a child eight years of age or less, for which the trial court imposed a sentence of two years to be served in the workhouse. On appeal, Defendant Frazier contends that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions for aggravated rape of a child and aggravated sexual battery; (2) the trial court erred by admitting multiple hearsay statements; (3) the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on identity; (4) the trial court misapplied two enhancement factors in sentencing; and (5) the trial court abused its discretion by imposing consecutive sentencing. For her part, Defendant McGaughy argues that the evidence is insufficient to support her conviction for child neglect of a child eight years of age or less. Following a thorough review, we affirm the judgments of conviction in all respects. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Glenn Clark
A Montgomery County jury convicted the defendant, Christopher Glenn Clark, of first-degree premeditated murder, Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-202(a)(1); first-degree murder in perpetration of a felony, id. § 39-13-202(a)(2); burglary of a building other than a habitation, id. § 39-13-1002(a)(1); theft under $1000, id. § 39-14-103; unlawful possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a prior violent felony, id. § 39-17- 1307(b)(1)(A); and unlawful possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a prior felony drug offense, id. § 39-13-1307(b)(1)(B). After a sentencing hearing, the defendant received an effective sentence of life plus twenty-five years in confinement. On appeal, the defendant contends the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his convictions for first-degree premeditated murder, murder in perpetration of a felony, and burglary. Additionally, he contends the trial court erred in sentencing him to consecutive terms. Upon our review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and the applicable law, we affirm the defendant’s convictions. However, we also conclude the trial court failed to make the required findings in support of its sentencing determinations, and therefore, vacate the defendant’s consecutive terms and remand the case for a new sentencing hearing to determine the appropriateness of consecutive terms. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jay Walker
The Defendant, Jay Walker, appeals from his convictions for attempted first degree murder and employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the State failed to meet its burden of proving identity beyond a reasonable doubt and that the trial court gave an erroneous instruction to the jury during their deliberations. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Gary Dyquanne Cross
The defendant, Gary Dyquanne Cross, was convicted by a Hamilton County Criminal |
Court of Criminal Appeals | ||
State of Tennessee v. Jeremiah Devon Cohill
Defendant, Jeremiah Devon Cohill, was convicted by a jury of carjacking (count one), employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony (count two), aggravated assault (count three), and conspiracy to commit carjacking (count four). The trial court imposed an effective sentence of twenty-four years as a Range I offender to be served in confinement. On appeal, Defendant argues that (1) the trial court committed plain error in its jury instruction for employment of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony; (2) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; (3) his sentence is excessive; and (4) the judgment for count one contains a clerical error. Following our review of the entire record, the parties’ briefs and the applicable law, we reverse, vacate and dismiss Defendant’s conviction for employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony (count two). In all other aspects, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tristan Weatherspoon
The defendant, Tristan Weatherspoon, appeals the order of the trial court denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the trial court’s denial. |
Court of Criminal Appeals | ||
State of Tennessee v. Christ M. Christopher
A Bedford County jury found the Defendant, Christ M. Christopher, guilty of two counts of rape of a child. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of forty years. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the length of the sentences imposed. He argues that the trial court misapplied two enhancement factors and imposed an effective sentence greater than necessary to achieve the purposes and principles of sentencing. Upon our review, we respectfully disagree and affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals |
