State of Tennessee v. Curtis Halliman
Following the defendant's guilty pleas to the offenses of theft over $1,000 and burglary, both Class D felonies, the trial court sentenced him to concurrent three-year terms in the Department of Correction. In this appeal, the defendant posits that minimum, two-year terms of probation, Community Corrections, or split confinement are more appropriate measures. We disagree, however, and affirm. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Richard Leonard Mendoza v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Richard Leonard Mendoza, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, which alleged ineffective assistance of counsel in connection with his guilty pleas to aggravated sexual battery and that his guilty pleas were involuntary. Additionally, he insists that the post-conviction court erroneously denied funding for expert psychological services at the post-conviction level. After a thorough review of the record, we are unpersuaded that the post-conviction court's rulings, findings and conclusion are anything other than proper, and we affirm the judgment. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Pacific Design Ventures v. Big River Breweries
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Michael Russo v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Michael Russo, filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging the ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court denied the petition and the petitioner timely appealed. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State Dept of Children's Srvcs v. D.D.B.
|
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Robert Miller
The defendant, Robert Miller, who represented himself at trial, was convicted of vandalism over $500 and criminal trespass. After the trial, the defendant was appointed counsel. The trial court ordered concurrent sentences of two years and thirty days, respectively, with all but ten days suspended, to be served in community corrections. In this appeal of right, the defendant asserts (1) that he did not knowingly and voluntarily waive his right to counsel; (2) that the trial court erred by the omission of a jury instruction; and (3) that the evidence was insufficient. Because the defendant was denied the assistance of counsel at trial, the judgments of conviction are reversed and the causes are remanded for a new trial. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Johnnie C. Weems
The defendant, Johnnie C. Weems, pled nolo contendere to three separate counts of Class C felony vehicular homicide, was sentenced as a Range I standard offender to five years on each count to run concurrently, and was denied alternative sentencing. On appeal, he contends the sentences are excessive and the trial court erred in denying alternative sentencing. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Robertson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. David L. Groom
The defendant, David L. Groom, pled guilty to driving under the influence, reserving a certified question of law. On appeal, the defendant contends, pursuant to the certified question of law, that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence resulting from an unlawful arrest or seizure. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Connie Parsons v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Connie Parsons, pled guilty to two counts of criminal responsibility for facilitation of rape of a child and was sentenced to an effective sentence of twenty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On September 17, 2001, the petitioner filed pro se in the Davidson County Circuit Court a petition for habeas corpus relief, alleging that the trial court impermissibly interfered in the plea negotiations and, thus, her convictions were void. The habeas corpus court dismissed the petition and the petitioner timely appealed. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Consuela P. Carter
The defendant, Consuela P. Carter, appeals the Rutherford County Circuit Court's denial of full probation for her conviction for possessing with intent to sell less than one-half gram of cocaine, a Class C felony. She was sentenced to five years, with probation after serving nine months. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Dept of Human Srvcs. / Dept of Children Srvcs. v. Debra Wilson
|
Warren | Court of Appeals | |
Dept of Human Srvcs. / Dept of Children Srvcs. v. Debra Wilson
|
Warren | Court of Appeals | |
Garcia Flores Isodoro v. State of Tennessee
The Defendant, Garcia Flores Isidoro, filed for post-conviction relief, which was denied without a hearing as being untimely filed. The Defendant now appeals as of right. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William Rhea Jackson
The Defendant, William Rhea Jackson, was convicted by a jury of aggravated burglary, robbery, misdemeanor theft, attempted rape, aggravated kidnapping, and two counts of rape. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective term of thirty-four years in the Department of Correction. In this direct appeal, the Defendant raises eight issues: (1) whether the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his statement to the police; (2) whether the trial court erred in admitting certain testimony concerning fingerprints; (3) whether the trial court erred in admitting hearsay testimony about the victim's response to a photographic line-up; (4) whether the Defendant was entitled to a mistrial due to statements made by the prosecutor during closing argument; (5) whether the evidence is sufficient to support his convictions; (6) whether the conviction for aggravated kidnapping violates due process under State v. Anthony; (7) whether the trial court properly instructed the jury concerning lesser-included offenses; and (8) whether the Defendant's sentences are excessive. Because the trial court committed reversible error when it failed to instruct the jury on all of the lesser-included offenses of the indicted offenses of robbery and aggravated rape, we reverse and remand for retrial the Defendant's convictions of robbery and rape. In all other respects, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Buren E. Laney
Buren E. Laney, convicted on his guilty plea to the offense of violation of an habitual traffic offender order, appeals from the lower court's imposition of a six-year incarcerative sentence. Because we disagree with Laney, a career offender, that the sentence imposed was improper, we affirm. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jesse David Teasley
The Defendant appeals from the Knox County Criminal Court's revocation of his probation. He contends that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his probation and ordering him to serve the remainder of his sentences in confinement. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Guadalupe Arroyo
The appellant, Guadalupe Arroyo, entered guilty pleas to two counts of vehicular homicide by intoxication, Class B felonies. The trial court sentenced the appellant on each count to twelve years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction and ordered that the sentences be served consecutively. On appeal, the appellant contends that the trial court erred in imposing the maximum sentences and in ordering the sentences to be served consecutively. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the convictions of vehicular homicide; however, finding error in the trial court's sentencing determinations, we remand for resentencing. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kenneth Russell Amick
The defendant challenges the revocation of his probation by the Sumner County Criminal Court. We affirm. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Leroy McBee v. David Elliott
|
Franklin | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Wallace Jones
In a four-count indictment, Defendant, Wallace Jones, was charged with statutory rape, sexual battery, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and exhibition of material harmful to a minor. He applied for pre-trial diversion, which the district attorney general declined to grant. Defendant filed a petition for writ of certiorari, and following a hearing, the trial court entered an order denying Defendant's request to be placed on pre-trial diversion. Defendant filed a motion for an interlocutory appeal pursuant to Rule 9 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, which was granted by the trial court and this court. On appeal, the State concedes that the district attorney abused his discretion and that the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and this case remanded to the district attorney general to properly consider all facts pursuant to State v. Bell, 69 S.W.3d 171 (Tenn. 2002). We agree. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and this case is remanded to the district attorney general to consider and weigh all relevant factors to the pre-trial diversion determination. Furthermore, we conclude that the trial judge should be recused from further proceedings in this matter. |
Wilson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Rachel N. Bennett
The appellant, Rachel N. Bennett, pled guilty in the Williamson County Circuit Court to eighteen felony offenses. The trial court sentenced the appellant to a total effective sentence of nine years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant contests the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentencing. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Edward Gray vs. Johnson Mobile Homes
|
Hardeman | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Lewis
A Lauderdale County jury convicted the defendant, Michael Lewis, of reckless aggravated assault. On appeal, the defendant contends (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction; (2) the trial court erred in conducting an ex parte hearing outside the presence of the defendant and his attorney; (3) the trial court erred in permitting a witness to testify to statements made by the co-defendant; (4) the trial court erred in refusing to admit into evidence a letter allegedly written by the victim; and (5) the trial court erred in permitting the defendant to represent himself. Upon reviewing the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Boyd L. Jones, III
The Defendant, Boyd L. Jones, III, pled guilty to possession of marijuana. As part of his plea agreement, he expressly reserved with the consent of the trial court and the State the right to appeal three related certified questions of law pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2)(i). The certified questions of law stem from the trial court's denial of the Defendant's motion to suppress. The central issue in this appeal is whether law enforcement officers violated the Defendant's Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures when they entered his residence without a search warrant and detained him until they obtained written consent to search from the lessee of the residence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Issac Milholen v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Isaac Milholen, was convicted in 1997 of rape of a child and incest and sentenced to twenty-three years and eight years, respectively. His convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. Subsequently, he filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court dismissed his petition because he had brought an ineffective assistance of counsel claim in his direct appeal, and he now appeals that dismissal. We affirm the order of the post-conviction court dismissing the petition. |
Chester | Court of Criminal Appeals |