Jerry Ray, Executor of The Estate of James Earl Ray v. State Of
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Allen Oliver v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Allen Oliver, appeals the post-conviction court’s dismissal of his pro se petition for post-conviction relief as barred by the one-year statute of limitations. The petitioner pled guilty to various offenses pursuant to a plea agreement on July 2, 2001, and his petition for post-conviction relief was stamped filed in the clerk’s office on July 3, 2002. Because the judgment of conviction did not become final until thirty days after its entry, the petition for post-conviction relief was timely filed. Thus, we reverse and remand to the post-conviction court for further proceedings. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Anthony Humphrey
The defendant was convicted of voluntary manslaughter, attempted voluntary manslaughter, attempted aggravated robbery, and attempted especially aggravated robbery. He was sentenced to six years for the voluntary manslaughter conviction, four years for the attempted voluntary manslaughter conviction, six years for the attempted aggravated robbery conviction, and twelve years for the attempted especially aggravated robbery conviction. The attempted voluntary manslaughter conviction was ordered concurrent with the other three convictions which were ordered consecutive to one another, for an effective sentence of twenty-four years. On appeal, the defendant raises three issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support his convictions; (2) whether the trial court committed plain error by allowing testimony concerning his gang affiliations; and (3) whether the trial court appropriately sentenced the defendant. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Robert Frost
A Tipton County jury convicted the defendant, Robert Frost, of bribery of a public servant. The trial court subsequently ordered the defendant to serve three years as a standard offender in community based alternative sentencing. The defendant now brings this direct appeal of his conviction, challenging (1) the trial court's decision to admit certain exhibits over his objection; (2) a certain portion of the trial court's instruction to the jury regarding his indicted offense; and (3) the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction. After a thorough review of the record, we find that none of the defendant's allegations merit relief and accordingly affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Tipton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Montrell Clements
The defendant, Montrell Clements, was convicted of aggravated rape and aggravated assault and sentenced to twenty-two years and six years, respectively, to be served concurrently. The defendant timely appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court but remand for entry of a corrected judgment in No. 00-14457 to reflect the defendant's conviction offense, which was omitted from the judgment form. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Chauncey Daugherty
A Shelby County jury convicted the defendant, Chauncey Daugherty, of driving under the influence, second offense. The trial court sentenced him to eleven months and twenty-nine days and ordered 180 days be served in the county workhouse followed by probation. On appeal, the defendant maintains the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
W2002-02767-COA-R3-CV
|
Hardeman | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Stephen Daniel Grande, Sr.
The appellant, Stephen Daniel Grande, Sr., was convicted by a jury of the unlawful manufacturing of methamphetamine and of introducing contraband into a penal institution. He received two concurrent three year sentences to be served on community corrections following service of a year of incarceration. In this appeal the appellant raises seven issues including whether the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict. However, in his brief the appellant cites no relevant authority to support his arguments. Indeed, the brief of the appellant is little more than a written diatribe describing alleged unlawful activities on the part of the authorities in Henry County, Tennessee, and characterizing those alleged activities as unconstitutional. Under these circumstances we find that the appellant has waived review of the issues on appeal. Nevertheless, we have in the interests of justice, reviewed the primary issue of the sufficiency of the evidence. We hold that the evidence is more than sufficient to support the verdict of the jury. Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed. |
Henry | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
W2002-03045-COA-R3-JV
|
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Mary Lee Dillihunt
The defendant was convicted of delivery of less than .5 grams of cocaine, a Class C felony, and sentenced to eight years as a Range II, multiple offender, to be served consecutively to a sentence for a prior conviction. In a timely appeal to this court, she raises the sole issue of whether the evidence was sufficient to support her conviction. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hardin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Howard Jefferson Atkins
Following a transfer of this case from juvenile court to circuit court for trial, a Tipton County jury convicted the defendant, sixteen-year old Howard Jefferson Atkins, of first-degree premeditated murder. The trial court subsequently ordered the defendant to serve a life sentence with the possibility of parole. The defendant now brings this direct appeal of his conviction, challenging: (1) whether the trial court properly denied his motion to suppress his pre-trial statements to police; (2) whether the state's peremptory strike of four female jurors violated Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S.79 (1986); (3) whether the state improperly extracted a promise from the jury during voir dire; (4) whether the trial court erred by allowing the victim's son to offer certain testimony regarding the victim's peaceable character; (5) whether the trial court erred by failing to give a curative instruction following the victim's son's testimony; (6) whether the trial court erred by allowing testimony describing the graphic nature of photos that the court ruled were inadmissible because of their overly prejudicial nature; (7) whether the trial court erred by allowing the medical examiner to testify that she had retained certain bones from the victim's body for forensic pathology; and (8) whether the evidence is sufficient to support the defendant's conviction for first degree murder. After reviewing the record and applicable law, we find that none of the defendant's allegations merit relief and accordingly affirm the judgment of the lower court. |
Tipton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jimmy Wayne Dudley
A Madison County grand jury indicted the defendant for aggravated assault. Subsequently a trial jury convicted the defendant as charged. By the time of the sentencing hearing, the parties had reached an agreement involving a pending probation revocation matter, a pending assault charge, and the instant conviction. With respect to the probation revocation, the trial court ordered the defendant to serve four years at 30% as a standard offender. On the assault conviction, the court ordered the defendant to serve eleven months and twenty-nine days at 75%. Finally, the defendant received an agreed upon four-and-one-half-year sentence to be served at 30% as a standard offender for the aggravated assault conviction at issue in this case.1 The sentences were ordered run in such a manner that the defendant by agreement received an effective sentence of eight and one-half years. The defendant later filed a motion for new trial and an amended motion for new trial unsuccessfully raising five issues. Through this appeal the defendant continues to assert that 1) the evidence is insufficient to support his aggravated assault conviction; 2) the trial court erred in not allowing the defense to present evidence that the victim's bodily injury resulted from another incident, not the defendant's purported use of a deadly weapon; and 3) the trial court erred in admitting a photograph allegedly showing the victim's injuries and in admitting a shirt allegedly worn by the victim at the time of the offense as these items were not provided to the defense in pre-trial discovery. However, after reviewing the record and relevant authorities, we find that these contentions lack merit or have been waived. We, thus, affirm the lower court's denial of relief. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Roosevelt Malone v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Roosevelt Malone, appeals the post-conviction court's dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred when it failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing and failed to grant Petitioner sufficient time to amend his petition. Upon review of this matter, we reverse the judgment of the post-conviction court and remand this case for proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Willie Lee Davidson
The appellant, Willie Lee Davidson, pled guilty to the offenses of hindering a secured creditor and the sale of cocaine. As part of the plea agreement the appellant agreed to a sentence of two years for the former offense and three years for the latter. By agreement the sentences were to run concurrently, with the manner of service to be left to the trial court. The trial court denied any form of alternative service of the appellant's effective three-year sentence and ordered the appellant to serve his sentence in incarceration. From this decision the appellant brings this appeal. After reviewing the record and applicable authorities, we hold there is no reversible error in this case. The judgment of the trial court is therefore affirmed. |
Sevier | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Christopher A. Johnson v. State of Tennessee
In his pro se appeal, Petitioner, Christopher Johnson, seeks to reverse the trial court's dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. In the petition, he contends that his sentence for second degree burglary has expired. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Randy Selby v. Highways, Inc.
|
Putnam | Workers Compensation Panel | |
State of Tennessee v. Jerry Lee Honey
The Defendant, Jerry Lee Honey, was convicted by a jury of two counts of first degree premeditated murder and sentenced to two concurrent terms of life imprisonment. The Defendant now appeals, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. N'Kosi Tuggle
The defendant, N'Kosi Tuggle, entered a plea of guilt to aggravated robbery. The trial court imposed a Range I sentence of eight years. In this appeal of right, the defendant argues that he should have been classified as an especially mitigated offender. The judgment is affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Donald Clark
A Shelby County jury found the defendant, Donald Clark, guilty of especially aggravated robbery. The trial court subsequently sentenced the defendant to serve twenty-seven years as a violent offender. The defendant now appeals his conviction, (1) challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction and (2) the trial court's failure to charge the lesser-included offense of reckless aggravated assault. After a thorough review of the record, we find that the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict, but that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on the offense of reckless aggravated assault. However, we find that error to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Rashad J. Chandler
A Shelby County grand jury indicted the defendant on charges of first degree premeditated murder, felony murder, and especially aggravated robbery. A trial jury subsequently convicted him of first degree premeditated murder and acquitted him of the remaining charges. The defendant then unsuccessfully pursued a new trial motion. In this appeal the defendant asserts that the trial court erred by not suppressing his statement and that the jury's verdict is inconsistent with the evidence presented at trial. After reviewing the record and relevant authorities, we find neither of the defendant's claims meritorious. We, therefore, affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Darrell M. Anderson
The defendant, Darrell M. Anderson, was convicted of aggravated assault and simple assault. The trial court imposed a Range III, ten-year sentence for the aggravated assault and a concurrent 11-month, 29-day sentence for the assault. In this appeal of right, the defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support either conviction. The judgments are affirmed. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. George Glenn King, Jr.
The defendant, George Glenn King, Jr., appeals his convictions by a Gibson County Circuit Court jury for first degree murder for which he received an effective sentence of life in prison. He was also convicted of especially aggravated burglary, a Class B felony, for which he received a concurrent sentence of eight years. He contends that he is entitled to a new trial because the state's eliciting expert testimony on the ultimate issue of his insanity and prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument constitute plain error. He also argues that the trial court should have merged his convictions for premeditated and felony murder arising from a single killing. We agree that the defendant's first degree murder convictions should be merged, but we otherwise discern no plain error and affirm the judgments of conviction as modified. |
Gibson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jarvis D. Cohen v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The petitioner contends his trial counsel failed to investigate his case and meet with him regularly. He further contends his trial counsel never held a hearing on his motion to suppress his identification, thus rendering his plea involuntary. We conclude that the evidence does not preponderate against the findings of the post-conviction court. We affirm the post-conviction court's denial of post-conviction relief. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Fred Delaney v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. He claims ineffective assistance of counsel and that his sentence is excessive. Because this Court previously determined that the petitioner's sentence was not excessive on direct appeal, we dismiss this issue. We conclude that the evidence does not preponderate against the findings of the trial court and affirm the post-conviction court's denial of post-conviction relief. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Allen Conrad
The defendant, Michael Allen Conrad, appeals as of right the Knox County Criminal Court's denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty pleas to three counts of attempted statutory rape, a Class A misdemeanor. He received the agreed sentences of two consecutive and one concurrent eleven-month-twenty-nine-day terms on probation. The defendant contends that his guilty pleas were involuntary because his attorney erroneously advised him that he would not have to register with Tennessee's sexual offender registry. He argues that had he known that he was subject to the registry, he would not have pled guilty but would have gone to trial. We conclude that the defendant should be allowed to withdraw his guilty pleas to prevent manifest injustice. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals |