Sandra Krug vs. Jean Wahl
|
Sevier | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Janet Lawson
The defendant pled guilty to one count of theft over $1,000.00 and the trial court sentenced her as a Range I standard offender to three years probation. The defendant appeals from the revocation of her probation, contending that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering her to serve the remainder of her sentence in confinement. Because we conclude that the record supports that trial court's decision to revoke the defendant's probation, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Cumberland | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
CH-00-0135-2
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Vince Mullins vs. Theresa Mullins
|
Greene | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. David D. Harris
The State appeals the judgment of the Davidson County Criminal Court suspending the appellee's sentences for aggravated robbery and granting the appellee probation for a term of twenty-four years. Following a review of the record and the State's brief, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this case for proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
David Brown vs. Ruth Johnson, Commissioner, TN Dept. of Revenue
|
Coffee | Court of Appeals | |
Pilgrim Emmanual Baptist Church vs. Albert Buckingham, et al
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Morris Jason Pepper
The appellant, Morris Jason Pepper, was convicted by a jury in the Lincoln County Circuit Court of one count of first degree premeditated murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal, the appellant raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain his conviction; and (2) whether the trial court erred by failing to grant the appellant's motion to suppress. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Lincoln | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Sandra Brown
The defendant appeals the judgment of the trial court revoking her probation. She raises two issues: (1) whether the evidence supported the trial court's finding that she violated the terms of her probation by committing the offense of accessory after the fact; and (2) whether the trial court had the authority to order her to continue her supervised probation pending this appeal. After a thorough review of the record, we find both issues have merit; therefore, we reverse the judgment of the trial court. |
White | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Marilyn Reddick v. Murray, Inc.
|
Madison | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Charles David Killion vs. Johnny Huddleston
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Walter W. Carlen, Sr., et al vs. Ronald E. Jackson
|
Putnam | Court of Appeals | |
Ronald Dwayne Carter vs. Paulette D'Anne Carter
|
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Dean Kinningham vs. State of TN
|
Claiborne | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Robert G. Bean
The appellant, Robert G. Bean, challenges his conviction in the Williamson County Circuit Court of one count of driving under the influence of an intoxicant (DUI), third offense. He presents the following issues for our determination: (1) whether the trial court erred in denying the appellant's challenge for cause of prospective juror Thelma Woodard; (2) whether the trial court erred in denying the appellant's motion to suppress the State's use at trial of the videotape of the traffic stop of the appellant's vehicle; (3) whether the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on adult driving while impaired as a lesser-included offense of driving under the influence; and (4) whether the trial court erred in using the appellant's 1996 conviction of DUI to enhance the appellant's sentence. Following a thorough review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
John E. Gaines vs. TN Dept. of Correction
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William A. Tansil
The defendant, William A. Tansil, appeals from his conviction for driving under the influence of an intoxicant (DUI), third offense, for which he received a sentence of eleven months, twenty-nine days, with all but one hundred fifty days being suspended. He contends that the trial court erred in finding him to be a third-time offender, arguing that the judgment for one of his prior convictions is void on its face. We affirm the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Joan Schmitt vs. James Smith
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
April Price vs. Kenneth Price
|
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
Mitzi Lyne vs. George Price
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Mitchell Anderson vs. Dr. Ken Warren
|
Gibson | Court of Appeals | |
Roger Wayne Braden v. State of Tennessee
On April 29, 1999, the petitioner's status on community corrections was revoked and he was resentenced. On May 15, 2000, he filed a pro se post-conviction relief petition. The issue is whether the petition is time-barred by the Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-30-202. Because the revocation and resentencing became final thirty days after its entry, which was May 29, 1999, as the State concedes, and we agree, the petition was timely filed. We reverse the summary dismissal of the petition and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Robert Morrow
The defendant entered a best-interest guilty plea in the Cocke County Criminal Court to one count of especially aggravated kidnapping, two counts of aggravated rape, and one count of criminal exposure to HIV. The trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range I standard offender to six years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction for the criminal exposure to HIV conviction, as a violent offender to 24 years incarceration for the especially aggravated kidnapping conviction, as a violent offender to 24 years incarceration for one of the aggravated rape convictions, and as a multiple rapist to 24 years incarceration for the other aggravated rape conviction. The trial court ordered consecutive service of the sentences for an effective sentence of 78 years incarceration. On appeal, the defendant takes issue with the length of the sentences and the consecutive service imposed. Based upon our review, we affirm the sentences imposed. |
Cocke | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
CH-00-1635-3
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Daniel Paul Batchelor
Following a bench trial, the defendant was convicted of hindering a secured creditor, a Class E felony. On appeal, the defendant alleges that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction. After a careful review of the record, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient and affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Bradley | Court of Criminal Appeals |