State of Tennessee v. Jimmy Gene Blankenship
E2001-01372-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: Judge J. Curtis Smith

The Defendant was indicted for driving under the influence, driving on a revoked license, evading arrest, reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon, vehicular assault, and violation of the implied consent law. A Rhea County jury convicted the Defendant of driving under the influence, driving on a revoked license, reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon, and vehicular assault. The trial court merged the DUI and reckless endangerment convictions into the vehicular assault conviction. It sentenced the Defendant to four years for vehicular assault and to six months for driving on a revoked license, to be served concurrently. The trial court ordered that the Defendant serve one year in the county jail, perform one hundred hours of public service, pay $800 in restitution, and imposed a fine of $5,500. The Defendant now appeals, arguing the following issues: (1) whether the trial court properly allowed testimony about the Defendant's erratic driving in Hamilton County; (2) whether the trial court erred by allowing the results of a blood alcohol test into evidence; (3) whether the trial court erred by permitting witnesses to testify about the percentage of alcohol in the samples of blood tested; and (4) whether the trial court properly sentenced the Defendant. Finding no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Hugh Peter Bondurant v. State of Tennessee
M2002-00863-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: Judge Stella L. Hargrove

The Appellant was convicted in 1991 of second degree murder, and his conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. He subsequently filed a "PETITION FOR RELIEF FROM CONVICTION OR SENTENCE PURSUANT TO TENNESSEE CODE ANNOTATED 40-30-301 THROUGH 40-30-312," and the trial court summarily dismissed the petition relying upon the Post-Conviction Procedure Act. The Appellant now appeals the summary dismissal of his opinion. Our review of the complete petition filed by the Appellant reveals that, despite the statutory sections inappropriately cited in its title, the Appellant sought relief under the Post-Conviction DNA Analysis Act. We therefore reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand to the trial court for findings of fact pursuant to the Post-Conviction DNA Analysis Act.

State of Tennessee v. Tonya M. Jennings
M2002-01190-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: Judge Steve R. Dozier

A trial court found the Defendant not guilty by reason of insanity of the offense of stalking. Following judicial hospitalization in the Middle Tennessee Mental Health Institute, the Defendant filed a motion requesting the trial court to expunge all public records pertaining to the stalking offense. The trial court denied the Defendant's request. The Defendant now appeals, arguing that the trial court erred by denying the Defendant's request to expunge her records. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Robert E. Pugh v. State of Tennessee
W2001-02349-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry L. Smith
Trial Court Judge: Judge J. C. Mclin

A Shelby County grand jury indicted the petitioner on multiple offenses. At the conclusion of a trial on the indictment first prosecuted, a jury convicted the petitioner of aggravated robbery. See State v. Robert E. Pugh, No. W1999-01260-CCA-R3-CD, 2000 WL 298697, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Jackson, Mar. 17, 2000). For this offense he received a twelve-year sentence as a standard offender. Id. He subsequently pled guilty to ten additional charges. The trial court then sentenced him as a multiple offender for nine of these counts and as a violent offender for one count. His agreed upon sentences for these offenses in combination with the aforementioned twelve-year sentence resulted in an effective twenty-six-year sentence for all eleven convictions. However, the petitioner later filed a pro se post-conviction petition attacking his pleas by alleging that his counsel at that time provided him ineffective assistance. The trial court appointed counsel, who filed an amended petition also alleging ineffective assistance at trial. Following a hearing, the trial court found none of the petitioner's allegations meritorious and denied him relief. Through this appeal the petitioner continues to assert that he received ineffective assistance of counsel regarding his guilty pleas and the trial at issue. However, after reviewing the record provided and appropriate authorities, we affirm the trial court's denial of the post-conviction relief.

State of Tennessee v. Abebreellis Zandus Bond
W2002-00943-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: Judge C. Creed Mcginley

The Defendant, Abebreellis Zandus Bond, was convicted by a jury of two sales of cocaine. The trial court subsequently sentenced the Defendant to a nine-year term and an eighteen-year term for these convictions, to be served concurrently in the Department of Correction. The trial court also imposed the two $100,000 fines assessed by the jury. The Defendant now appeals as of right, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence; the admission of certain testimony; the trial court's failure to issue a missing witness instruction; the chain of custody; and the sentences and fines. We modify the Defendant's fines to $25,000 each. In all other respects, we affirm the trial court's judgments.

Ricky Harris v. State
E1999-02771-SC-R11-PC
Authoring Judge: Justice Frank F. Drowota, III
Trial Court Judge: R. Jerry Beck

Ricky Harris v. State
E1999-02771-SC-R11-PC
Authoring Judge: Justice Frank F. Drowota, III
Trial Court Judge: R. Jerry Beck

Ricky Harris v. State
E1999-02771-SC-R11-PC
Authoring Judge: Justice Frank F. Drowota, III
Trial Court Judge: R. Jerry Beck

State of Tennessee v. James Arthur Kimbrell
M2000-02925-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: Judge E. Shayne Sexton

On September 3, 1999, a Fentress County jury convicted the Defendant of four counts of rape of a child, a Class A felony; five counts of rape, a Class B felony; and thirteen counts of incest, a Class C felony. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of forty years. The Defendant now appeals arguing that ineffective assistance of counsel at trial, along with newly discovered evidence, prejudiced the Defendant to the point of depriving him of a fair trial with a reliable result. After a review of the record, we conclude that the Defendant was denied due process through ineffective assistance of counsel. We therefore reverse the Defendant's convictions and remand this case to the Fentress County Circuit Court for a new trial.

State of Tennessee v. Nathan Alex Weaver
M2001-00873-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: Judge Donald P. Harris

A Williamson County jury convicted the Defendant of attempt to possess with intent to sell or
deliver ten pounds or more of marijuana and conspiracy to sell or deliver between ten and seventy pounds of marijuana. The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a multiple offender to consecutive sentences of four years’ incarceration for attempt to possess with intent to sell or deliver ten pounds or more of marijuana and to two years’ incarceration for conspiracy to sell or deliver between ten and seventy pounds of marijuana. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant presents the following issues for our review: (1) whether the trial court erred by failing to suppress evidence obtained as a result of a search warrant; (2) whether the trial court improperly allowed testimony regarding statements made by Defendant after the search; (3) whether the trial court erred in allowing the State to proceed on one count from an original presentment and one count from a superceding presentment; (4) whether the trial court properly denied the Defendant’s motion for a judgment of acquittal; and (5) whether the trial court improperly allowed testimony concerning statements made by a non-testifying accomplice. Following oral argument, this Court ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefs concerning an additional issue: whether the Defendant was deprived of his right to confront a material witness and whether this was plain error. Having reviewed the record, we conclude that the Defendant’s confrontation rights were violated in this case, but that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. We therefore affirm the judgments of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Derick Bailey
M2001-02411-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: Judge Seth W. Norman

The appellant, Derick Bailey, was convicted by a jury in the Davidson County Criminal Court of one count of felony murder and one count of premeditated first degree murder. The trial court merged the convictions and sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment. On appeal, the appellant contends that the evidence was not sufficient to support the verdicts. Although we conclude that the evidence was not sufficient to support the conviction for premeditated murder, the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction of felony murder. Accordingly, we affirm the appellant's conviction for first degree felony murder.

Author R. Turner v. State of Tennessee - Order
M2002-00541-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes

The Appellant, Author R. Turner, appeals the order of the Davidson County Criminal Court summarily dismissing his pro se petition for post-conviction relief. In 1995, the Appellant pled guilty to aggravated robbery, especially aggravated kidnaping, and two counts of aggravated rape.  As a result of these convictions, he was sentenced to forty years imprisonment. In April 1996, the Appellant filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging as grounds ineffective assistance of counsel and improper imposition of consecutive sentences. This petition was dismissed, and this court affirmed the dismissal on appeal. Arthur R. Turner¹ v. State, No. 01C01-9707-CR-00274 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville, Sept. 23, 1998), perm. to appeal denied (Tenn. 1999). On January 7, 2002, the Appellant filed a second petition for post-conviction relief, which is the subject of this appeal, again alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and that his plea was involuntary because “. . . the State caused him to be influence (sic) by four mind-altering drugs.”

State of Tennessee v. Brian Antione Starks
M2002-00179-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Trial Court Judge: Judge Steve R. Dozier

The defendant, Brian Antione Starks, was convicted, by jury, of first degree felony murder and attempted especially aggravated robbery. The defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder conviction and eleven years as a Range I, standard offender for the robbery conviction, to be served consecutively to the life sentence. The defendant timely appealed, alleging that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions and that the testimony of his accomplices was not sufficiently corroborated. Based upon our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court but remand for entry of a corrected judgment in Count 2.

Connie Lee Arnold v. State of Tennessee
E2003-00691-CCA-RM-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Trial Court Judge: Judge Robert E. Cupp
The petitioner appealed from the criminal court’s dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief.  This court agreed with the determination of the post-conviction court that the petition consisted only of conclusory allegations without supporting facts, and, thus, affirmed the dismissal. See Connie Lee Arnold v. State, No. E2001-02526-CCA-R3-PC, 2002 WL 31512404 (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 13, 2002). On March 10, 2003, our supreme court granted the petitioner’s application for permission to appeal and remanded this case to us for reconsideration in light of Burnett v. State, 92 S.W.3d 403 (Tenn. 2002). Following our reconsideration, we affirm the post-conviction court’s dismissal of the petition.

Connie Lee Arnold v. State of Tennessee - Dissenting
E2003-00691-CCA-RM-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: Judge Robert E. Cupp
Even considering Burnett v. State, 92 S.W.3d 403 (Tenn. 2002), in which counsel was appointed and an opportunity to amend was provided, I believe the pro se petition in the present case adequately complies with the 1995 Post-Conviction Procedure Act and states a colorable claim for relief. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.

Ann Wing v. Estate of James Wing
M2001-01598-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Marietta M. Shipley
The Circuit Court of Davidson County ordered the husband involved in a divorce to pay $230 per week in support payments to the wife after the husband retired from the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County. When the husband retired he elected to receive guaranteed payments for 120 months and designated his daughter as the beneficiary to receive the payments if he died within the 120 month period. The court then modified its prior order to provide that the payments were a division of the husband's pension from the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County. After the husband's untimely death, the court ordered the Metropolitan Government and/or the husband's daughter who had been made the beneficiary of the pension to make the payments. Because we find that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over Metro and the daughter, we reverse the court's order and remand for further proceedings.

Maylene E. Ledbetter v. Bryan K. Ledbetter
E2004-00239-SC-S09-CV
Authoring Judge: Justice Adolpho A. Birch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: William E. Lantrip
In this interlocutory appeal, we must determine whether the trial court had the authority to enforce a mediated marital dissolution agreement when one of the parties repudiated its terms prior to court approval. Here, the parties, Maylene and Bryan Ledbetter, reached, through mediation, a marital dissolution agreement pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 31. Shortly after the mediation, and prior to presentation for court approval, Mr. Ledbetter repudiated the agreement. Mrs. Ledbetter then filed a motion to enforce the terms of the agreement. Following a hearing, the trial court overruled Mrs. Ledbetter's motion, ruling that the oral agreement reached in mediation was not binding and enforceable against the parties. After a thorough review of the record and relevant case law, we conclude that because Mr. Ledbetter repudiated the terms of the agreement prior to its presentation to the court, the trial court lacked authority to enter a judgment on the agreement. Further, because the agreement had not been reduced to writing and signed by the parties, it is not an enforceable contract. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Rodney Dimitri Caples v. State of Tennessee - Order
W2001-01976-CCA-MR3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: Judge Chris B. Craft

The Defendant, Rodney Dimitri Caples, was originally indicted for rape of a child. He subsequently entered a “best- interest” plea of guilty¹ to the lesser-included offense of aggravated sexual battery. He later filed for post-conviction relief, alleging that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel and that, as a result, his guilty plea was not knowing or voluntary. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied his petition. This appeal followed.

State of Tennessee v. Sandra Lynn Baumgartner
W2003-00038-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: Judge John P. Colton, Jr.

The defendant, Sandra Lynn Baumgartner, appeals the mandatory outpatient treatment (MOT) plan imposed by the Shelby County Criminal Court following her acquittal of first degree murder due to her insanity at the time of the crime. She contends that the trial court erroneously required mandatory outpatient treatment because the evidence does not show that her mental condition is likely to deteriorate rapidly, making it substantially likely that she would cause serious harm. She also argues that the MOT plan imposed by the trial court is contrary to the medical proof, punitive, oppressive, and impossible to perform. We conclude that the evidence preponderates against the MOT plan’s requirements that the defendant live in a supervised residential facility and have someone supervise the administration of her medicine. We affirm the MOT plan as modified to exclude these requirements and remand the case for the trial court to reinstate the original condition that the defendant reside with her parents in their home.

State of Tennessee v. Robert J. Williams
W2002-02366-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: Judge Julian P. Guinn

The defendant, Robert J. Williams, pled guilty in the Henry County Circuit Court to one count of selling one-half gram or more of cocaine, a Class B felony, and two counts of selling less than one half gram of cocaine, a Class C felony. As a Range I, standard offender, he received one eight-year sentence and two three-year sentences to be served concurrently as one year in confinement and the remainder in a community corrections program. The defendant appeals, claiming that his sentences are excessive. We affirm the defendant’s sentences, but we remand the case for entry of corrected judgments.

State of Tennessee v. William Rhea Jackson
M2002-02567-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: Judge Steve R. Dozier

The defendant, William Rhea Jackson, pled guilty in the Davidson County Criminal Court to aggravated assault and aggravated burglary, Class C felonies, and the trial court sentenced him as a Range I, standard offender to consecutive sentences of six and five years, respectively. The trial court also ordered that the defendant serve his effective eleven-year sentence consecutive to an effective thirty-four-year sentence that he received for offenses committed five days before the current crimes. He appeals, claiming that his sentences are excessive. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

James L. Feenin v. Kevin Myers, Warden
M2002-01770-CCA-R3-CO
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Trial Court Judge: Judge Jim T. Hamilton

The Appellant, James L. Feenin, proceeding pro se, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Feenin is currently a Department of Correction inmate at the South Central Correctional Facility in Wayne County, where he is serving an effective nineteen-year sentence. On appeal, Feenin argues that his incarceration stems from a void indictment. Specifically, he contends that two counts of the indictment, to which he pled guilty, were not signed by the district attorney general. Finding this argument without merit, the judgment of the Wayne County Circuit Court is affirmed.

Mark A. Mitchell v. State of Tennessee
M2002-01500-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Gary R Wade
Trial Court Judge: Judge Seth W. Norman

The petitioner, Mark A. Mitchell, appeals the trial court's dismissal of his petition, which sought post-conviction relief and post-conviction DNA analysis. The single issue presented for review is whether the petition was properly dismissed. The judgment is affirmed.

Willie Tom Ensley v. State of Tennessee
M2002-01609-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Gary R Wade
Trial Court Judge: Judge Walter C. Kurtz

The petitioner, Willie Tom Ensley, appeals the trial court's denial of his post-conviction petition requesting DNA analysis. The issue presented for review is whether the trial court erred by summarily dismissing the petition without the appointment of counsel, an opportunity to amend, or an evidentiary hearing. The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.

State of Tennessee v. Louis Tyrone Robinson - Order
M2002-01641-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry L. Smith

In this appeal the appellant, Louis Tyrone Robinson, complains that the Davidson County Criminal Court erroneously dismissed his petition for the writ of habeas corpus without affording the appellant a hearing on the petition. After reviewing the record in this matter we are of the opinion that the criminal court was correct in its summary dismissal of the petition and we therefore affirm the action of the trial court pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.