State of Tennessee v. Deon LaMonte Young
Defendant, Deon Lamonte Young, was convicted of possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a violent felony, driving on a revoked or suspended license, driving with an open container, and failing to stop at a stop sign. The State filed notice of intent to seek enhanced punishment based on six of Defendant’s prior felony convictions. The trial court imposed an effective twenty-five year sentence with eighty-five percent release eligibility as a Range III, persistent offender. On appeal, Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for possession of a firearm; that his sentence was excessive; and that the trial court committed plain error by “abrogat[ing] its duty to ensure a fair trial when it did not address whether [Defendant] intended to stipulate to his felony status, and failed to provide adequate instructions to the jury.” However, because the appeal is untimely and the interest of justice does not require waiver of the timely filing of the notice of appeal, we dismiss the appeal. |
Hamblen | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Frederick Demetrius DeBerry v. State of Tennessee
A Fayette County jury convicted the Petitioner, Frederick Demetrius Deberry, of aggravated rape, and the trial court imposed a twenty-year sentence to be served consecutively to a federal sentence. The Petitioner thereafter filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus, asserting that his conviction and sentence were void for the following reasons: (1) the trial court improperly overruled his objections to the State’s peremptory strikes of Black jurors; (2) the trial court improperly admitted hearsay testimony; (3) trial and appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance; (4) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction; (5) the court unlawfully enhanced his sentence and ordered it to run consecutively to his federal sentence; and (6) the post-conviction court erred by dismissing his earlier petition without a hearing. The habeas corpus court summarily dismissed the application, concluding that the alleged claims, even if true, would render the challenged judgment voidable rather than void. The Petitioner now appeals. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kevin McDougle
In 2024, the Defendant, Kevin McDougle, filed his eighth motion pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 36.1 seeking to correct an illegal sentence. The trial court summarily denied the Defendant’s motion for failure to state a colorable claim. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it denied his motion. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Charles Edward Blankenship
Defendant, Charles Blankenship, was convicted by a Monroe County jury of possession of 300 grams or more of methamphetamine with the intent to sell or deliver and possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a violent felony. He received an effective sentence of fifty-two years’ incarceration. Defendant appeals, arguing that 1) he was denied his right to an impartial jury; 2) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his statement; 3) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for possession of methamphetamine; 4) the trial court erred in revoking his bond during the trial; and 5) the trial court abused its discretion in ordering his sentences to be served consecutively. Upon review of the entire record, the briefs and oral argument of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Monroe | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Johnny Robert Bowen, Jr.
The Defendant, Johnny Robert Bowen, Jr., appeals from the order of the trial court revoking his probation. The Defendant contends the admission of the drug screening report violated his confrontation rights because there was an insufficient showing of good cause or reliability. He additionally argues the trial court abused its discretion in fully revoking his probation by failing to consider any other alternative to incarceration. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Gary Douglas Craigo, Jr.
The Defendant, Gary Douglas Craigo, Jr., appeals his Sumner County Criminal Court convictions of aggravated rape and extortion, for which he received an effective sentence of twenty-nine years’ incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence for each of his convictions. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Kejuan King v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Kejuan King, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, claiming the post-conviction court erred in concluding that he received the effective assistance of trial counsel related to his conviction for second degree murder and his resulting twenty-five-year sentence. Petitioner argues that trial counsel failed to adequately investigate Petitioner’s self-defense claim, failed to effectively present a self-defense theory at trial, and failed to advocate against certain jury instructions. Petitioner further argues that the cumulative effect of trial counsel’s failures amounts to a Sixth Amendment violation. After review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Arthur Davis Hicks, Jr.
Arthur Davis Hicks, Jr., (“Defendant”) appeals his convictions for reckless aggravated assault resulting in death and felon in possession of a weapon, for which he received a total effective sentence of twenty-eight years’ incarceration. Defendant contends that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions; (2) the trial court abused its discretion by admitting testimony from the State’s expert forensic scientist regarding gunshot residue analysis performed by her co-worker; (3) the trial court erred in excluding testimony regarding the victim’s prior history of carrying a weapon and his “violent tendencies”; and (4) the trial court imposed an excessive sentence. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Lincoln | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Timothy Aaron Baxter
The petitioner, Timothy Aaron Baxter, appeals from the Madison County Circuit Court’s denial of his pro se motion to correct a clerical error pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36. Based on our review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and the applicable law, we affirm the decision of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Quincy Collins v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Quincy Collins, appeals from the Madison County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing he received the ineffective assistance of counsel due to trial counsel’s failure to challenge the sufficiency of the convicting evidence in the Petitioner’s direct appeal. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Destiny Sharina Williams
The State appeals the trial court’s dismissal of the indictment against the defendant, Destiny Sharina Williams, charging her with assault and abuse of a vulnerable adult. The State argues that dismissal was in error because the trial court based its decision on the State’s failure to object to a delayed dismissal of warrants against the defendant in city court. Upon our review of the record, the applicable law, and the parties’ briefs, we reverse the trial court’s order dismissing the indictment, reinstate the charges against the defendant, and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Tarvis Weatherly v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Tarvis Weatherly, appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition, arguing the post-conviction court erred in finding he received the effective assistance of counsel. After our review of the record, briefs, and applicable law, we affirm the denial of the petition. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Timothy D. Stanton
A Knox County jury convicted the Defendant, Timothy Stanton, of aggravated kidnapping, aggravated assault, and domestic assault. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of twelve years’ incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal upon conclusion of the State’s case. He also asserts that his conviction for aggravated kidnapping cannot stand because the victim’s confinement was merely incidental to the accompanying assault under State v. White, 362 S.W.3d 559 (Tenn. 2012). Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. KORTNEY DALON BALL
The Appellant, Kortney Dalon Ball, is appealing his conviction and the sentence he |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. KORTNEY DALON BALL
The Appellant, Kortney Dalon Ball, is appealing his conviction and the sentence he |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Andrew Hayes v. State of Tennessee
In 2010, a Shelby County jury convicted the Petitioner, Andrew Hayes, of first degree felony murder and aggravated robbery, and the trial court imposed an effective sentence of life imprisonment. After unsuccessfully pursuing a variety of post-conviction remedies in state and federal court, the Petitioner filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis, wherein he included nine pieces of “new” evidence and argued that he was entitled to equitable tolling of the one-year statute of limitations. He then filed an amended petition for writ of error coram nobis, wherein he included a tenth piece of “new” evidence as well as some allegedly exculpatory evidence and argued that the statute of limitations should be tolled because this newly discovered evidence met the standard in Clardy v. State, 691 S.W.3d 390 (Tenn. 2024). The coram nobis court summarily dismissed the coram nobis petition, holding that it was untimely because the Petitioner was not entitled to equitable tolling. The Petitioner now appeals, arguing that the summary dismissal of his petition for writ of error coram nobis was in error. After review, we affirm the judgment of the coram nobis court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Harold Wayne Nichols v. State of Tennessee
|
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Nikolaus L. Johnson v. State of Tennessee
|
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Gary Sutton v. State of Tennessee
|
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Rebecca M. Davis
Defendant, Rebecca M. Davis, appeals her convictions for one count of aggravated child abuse of a child eight years of age or less, one count of aggravated child neglect of a child eight years of age or less, and two counts of aggravated child endangerment of child eight years of age or less. After a sentencing hearing, Defendant received an effective sentence of fifteen years’ incarceration. On appeal, Defendant argues that (1) the trial court erred by denying her motion for judgments of acquittal for aggravated child endangerment and aggravated child neglect of a child eight years of age or less; (2) the trial court erred by not merging her convictions for aggravated child endangerment with her respective convictions for aggravated child abuse of a child eight years of age or less and aggravated child neglect of a child eight years of age or less; and (3) the trial court violated her due process rights by allowing the State to comment on and elicit testimony regarding her pre-arrest, post-Miranda silence. After review, we reverse the trial court’s denial of Defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal for her aggravated child neglect conviction but otherwise affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jordan Harp v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Jordan Harp, appeals the denial of his post-conviction relief petition. Petitioner was indicted by the Shelby County Grand Jury for first degree premeditated murder and especially aggravated kidnapping. Pursuant to a March 2022 negotiated plea agreement, Petitioner pleaded guilty to the lesser offense of second degree murder and to especially aggravated kidnapping and received an effective sentence of forty years.1 Petitioner timely sought post-conviction relief, alleging several instances of ineffective assistance of counsel and that his guilty pleas were unknowingly and involuntarily entered. After only hearing from Petitioner’s trial counsel, the post-conviction court stated, “I don’t need to hear anything from [Petitioner],” and denied Petitioner the opportunity to testify and present witnesses. The post-conviction court then denied relief. Because we conclude that Petitioner was not afforded a full and fair hearing on his post-conviction petition, we reverse the judgment of the post-conviction court and remand this case for a new hearing on his post-conviction petition. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Dallas Wayne Tomes, Jr. - Concurring Opinion
I concur in the majority’s conclusions that the trial court did not err in denying the |
Bradley | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Dallas Wayne Tomes, Jr.
The Defendant, Dallas Wayne Tomes, Jr., was convicted in the Criminal Court of Bradley |
Bradley | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Victor Curtell Scruggs
The Defendant, Victor Curtell Scruggs, was indicted by a Davidson County Grand Jury for the attempted first degree murder of his wife, the victim in this case. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the Defendant entered a guilty plea to attempted second degree murder, with the length and manner of service to be determined by the trial court. Following a hearing, the trial court imposed a sentence of eleven years to be served in the Tennessee Department of Correction. In this appeal, the Defendant argues the trial court abused its discretion in imposing sentence and in ordering confinement. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Daversea Armen Fitts v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Daversea Armen Fitts, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing the post-conviction court erred in finding he received the effective assistance of counsel. Following our review of the record and the applicable law, we conclude that the amended post-conviction petition was not properly before the post-conviction court; however, the court retained jurisdiction over the original pro se petition. Additionally, we affirm the post-conviction court’s determination that the petitioner failed to meet the burden required of him and is not entitled to relief. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals |
