Lois Miller v. James Miller
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Larry N. Wilson v. State of Tennessee
The post-conviction petitioner, Larry N. Wilson, seeks to set aside his four Davidson County Criminal Court convictions of aggravated robbery and his effective 24-year sentence. The convictions were based on guilty pleas. In his post-conviction proceeding, he posited that the pleas were involuntarily or unknowingly made and that they were the result of the ineffective assistance of counsel. After an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. Concluding that the record supports that determination, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
David Pitts v. Floyd Blackwell
|
Franklin | Court of Appeals | |
Ishaaq (aka Alonzo Stewart) v. Dept. of Correction, et al.
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Richard Wilson v. University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Washshukru Al-Jabbar vs. State
|
Lauderdale | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tony D. Johnson
The Defendant, Tony D. Johnson, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of felony possession of cocaine with intent to sell. After a sentencing hearing, the Defendant was sentenced to ten years as a Range I standard offender. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends that (1) the evidence presented at trial is insufficient to support the jury’s verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and (2) the trial court erred in imposing a ten year sentence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Debbie Risner vs. Nathan Harris
|
Obion | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ronald Dotson
A Shelby County jury convicted the Defendant of aggravated robbery, and the trial court sentenced him as a repeat violent offender to life imprisonment. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant argues (1) that insufficient evidence of his identity as the perpetrator was presented at trial and (2) that there was a material variance between the indictment and the proof at trial. Having reviewed the record, we conclude (1) that sufficient evidence was presented to support the Defendant's conviction and (2) that a variance between the indictment and the proof at trial existed, but that the variance did not affect the substantial rights of the Defendant and thus was not fatal. We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Angela Phillips vs. William Phillips
|
Hardin | Court of Appeals | |
State Children Serv. vs. Donald Grant
|
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Donavan Edward Daniel
After a jury trial, the defendant, a juvenile at the time of the offenses, was convicted of six counts arising out of the shooting deaths of two victims. The jury sentenced him to life in prison for Count One, first degree premeditated murder of the first victim, and for Count Two, first degree felony murder of the first victim based upon robbery of the first victim. The jury sentenced him to life in prison without the possibility of parole for Count Three, first degree felony murder of the second victim based upon premeditated murder of the first victim, and for Count Four, first degree felony murder of the second victim based upon robbery of the first victim. The trial court merged the conviction for Count Two into Count One, and the conviction for Count Four into Count Three. The trial court sentenced the defendant to twenty (20) years for Count Five, especially aggravated robbery, one (1) year for Count Six, possession of marijuana with intent to resell, and ordered the sentences to be served concurrently. On appeal, the defendant challenges the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress and his request for a state-funded mitigation expert, as well as the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions for first-degree murder. After careful review of the record, we hold that the trial court did not err in failing to suppress the defendant's statements. Further, we hold that although the defendant's status as a non-capital defendant did not preclude him from receiving state-funded expert services, our de novo review of the record reveals that the defendant failed to make the required showing of a particularized need for a mitigation expert. Therefore, the trial court's denial of the defendant's request for such services was correct. Finally, we hold the evidence is sufficient to sustain the defendant's convictions for premeditated and felony murder in the first degree. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Weakley | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joseph Matthew Maka
Indicted for the offense of premeditated first degree murder, defendant was convicted of the lesser-included offense of second degree murder and sentenced to twenty-three years. In this appeal as of right, defendant presents the following issues: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict; (2) whether the trial court erred in failing to grant a mistrial when the state referred to defendant's being in jail pending trial; (3) whether the trial court erred in admitting defendant's prior misdemeanor convictions for impeachment purposes; (4) whether the trial court erred in failing to grant a mistrial when the prosecutor misstated the evidence in final argument; (5) whether the trial court erred in failing to grant a mistrial when extraneous prejudicial information was present during jury deliberations; and (6) whether the sentence was excessive. We find no error and affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Candace Fleck vs. Cooper Realty
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Steffone McClendon, father of Damien O'Shay Maurice McClendon, the next of kind of Cyhthia Vanessa Francis, Deceased, v. Dr. Elaine Bunick
This case involves a medical malpractice claim that was dismissed on summary judgment by the trial court. The plaintiff, Steffone McClendon, appealed to this Court, seeking a reversal of the trial court’s summary judgment. We affirmed the trial court’s decision based on the legislative history and our interpretation of Section 20-1-119 of the Tennessee code. The plaintiff sought a review of this Court’s decision with the Tennessee Supreme Court. Although the supreme court refused to hear the case, it remanded the case to this Court for reconsideration in light of Townes v. Sunbeam Oster Co., Inc., 50 S.W. 3d 446 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001) released this year by the middle |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Harrison Driver v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc.
|
Rutherford | Workers Compensation Panel | |
State of Tennessee v. Eugene Floyd Lockhart, a/ka/ Floyd E. Lockhart
The defendant appeals the denial of probation for the five-year sentence he received for sexual battery by an authority figure, a Class C felony. He asserts that the record fails to support a conclusion that the statutory presumption of his eligibility for alternative sentencing has been rebutted. We modify the term of confinement and order supervised probation forthwith and remand the case to the trial court for imposition of appropriate conditions. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
E2001-01363-COA-R3-JV
|
Greene | Court of Appeals | |
Town of Greeneville vs. Jack Cobble, et ux
|
Greene | Court of Appeals | |
Monroe Davis vs. State
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Nathaniel Hampton v. Connecticut Indemnity Company
|
Shelby | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Johnson vs. CCA
|
Hardeman | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John A. Boatfield
I concur in all respects save one. I seriously question the conclusion that all of the victim’s statements to her mother were admissible as excited utterances. A declarant’s opinion about who caused an event would ordinarily not be admissible even if the declarant appeared and testified at a trial. Here, I do not believe that the victim’s opinion about who started the fire was admissible. However, given the location and timing of the fire, the inferences drawn by the victim as to the potential cause of it would be obvious to the jury in any event. Thus, I do not believe that the error affected the verdict. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John A. Boatfield
The defendant appeals his premeditated first degree murder and abuse of a corpse convictions for which he received concurrent sentences of life imprisonment and two years, respectively, arguing: |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Franklin Scott Keith v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The petitioner pled guilty to ten counts of rape of a child. On appeal, the petitioner raises the issues of whether the post-conviction court erred in finding that he received the effective assistance of counsel and whether his guilty plea was entered voluntarily and knowingly. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Cocke | Court of Criminal Appeals |