State of Tennessee v. Louis Tyrone Robinson - Order
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. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Cecil Eugene Brannan v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Cecil Eugene Brannan, pled guilty in the Bedford County Circuit Court to three counts of vehicular assault and one count of driving under the influence (DUI), fourth offense. The plea agreement stipulated that the petitioner would receive a total effective sentence of eight years incarceration. The petitioner subsequently filed for post-conviction relief, alleging that trial counsel failed to advise him that his plea agreement violated double jeopardy principles. The post-conviction court dismissed the petition and the petitioner timely appealed. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Pharez Price
A Maury County jury convicted the defendant, Pharez Price, of facilitation of felony murder, facilitation of attempted first degree murder, facilitation of attempted second degree murder, facilitation of attempted especially aggravated robbery, and criminal responsibility for the conduct of another for felony reckless endangerment. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of forty-three years. On appeal, the defendant contends (1) the trial court improperly found a child witness competent to testify, and (2) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions for any of the offenses other than felony reckless endangerment. We reverse and dismiss the convictions for facilitation of attempted first degree murder and facilitation of attempted second degree murder, affirm the other convictions, and remand for a determination of concurrent/consecutive sentencing. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ricky Blair
The defendant was convicted by a jury of attempted second degree murder, aggravated assault, and setting fire to personal property. The defendant received an effective sentence of nine years. The sole issue on appeal is whether the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction for attempted second degree murder. We affirm the judgments from the trial court. |
Haywood | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Vincent Howard
The defendant appeals his convictions of first degree felony murder and especially aggravated robbery. He received a life sentence for the first degree felony murder conviction and an additional twenty-one year sentence for his especially aggravated robbery conviction. The defendant contends the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions. The defendant also argues his twenty-one- year sentence for especially aggravated robbery is excessive. The defendant alleges the trial court misapplied enhancement factors (1), (8), (13), and (16) and erred in finding him a dangerous offender to support its consecutive sentence determination. We affirm the convictions, but remove the presumption of correctness due to the misapplication of four enhancement factors and remand for a new sentencing hearing on the especially aggravated robbery conviction only. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Larry D. Anderson
The defendant was found guilty by a jury of first degree felony murder and especially aggravated burglary. He was sentenced to life plus twelve years, respectfully, in the Department of Correction. The defendant contends that he was mentally incompetent to stand trial or to give a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of his Miranda rights and that his sentences were in error. We affirm the judgments from the trial court. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Mohamed F. Ali v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Mohamed F. Ali, appeals from the judgment of the Washington County Criminal Court denying him post-conviction relief from his convictions for rape and attempted bribery. He is serving an effective sentence of fifteen years in the Department of Correction. The petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred in (1) applying incorrect law governing judicial bias, (2) finding that the convicting trial judge was not biased against him, (3) excluding evidence of judicial bias, (4) refusing the petitioner's discovery requests regarding the issue of bias, and (5) denying the petitioner's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the post-conviction court. |
Washington | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kenneth Lee England
The defendant, Kenneth Lee England, was convicted by a Campbell County Criminal Court jury of retaliation for past action, a Class E felony, and the trial court sentenced him as a career offender to six years in the Department of Correction. The defendant appeals, claiming that the evidence is insufficient and that the trial court erred by allowing the state to impeach him with his prior retaliation for past action convictions under Tenn. R. Evid. 609. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Campbell | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kristina Dawn Catron
The defendant, Kristina Dawn Catron, pleaded guilty to one count of fabricating evidence, one count of making a false report, and one count of misdemeanor theft under $500. The negotiated plea agreement produced an effective sentence of three years. The manner of service of the sentence was to be determined by the trial court. Following a presentence investigation and a sentence hearing, the trial court ordered the defendant to serve the sentence in confinement. It is from this sentencing determination that the defendant appeals. We affirm the judgment of the trial court based on the need to avoid depreciating the seriousness of the offense. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
M2002-02603-COA-R3-JV
|
Lawrence | Court of Appeals | |
Billy Culp v. Billie Grinder
|
Wayne | Court of Appeals | |
State v. R.S. and K.S.
|
Franklin | Court of Appeals | |
Shin Yi Lien v. Ruth Couch
|
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
Reta Tompkins v. Kevin Helton
|
Putnam | Court of Appeals | |
Elizabeth Snodgrass v. Allen Freemon
|
Lawrence | Court of Appeals | |
Judy Burroughs v. Robert W. Magee
|
Lauderdale | Supreme Court | |
State v. Christopher M. Flake
|
Shelby | Supreme Court | |
State v. Christopher M. Flake
|
Shelby | Supreme Court | |
State v. Christopher M. Flake
|
Shelby | Supreme Court | |
State v. Robert Tait
|
Shelby | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Gdongalay P. Berry
[Deleted: Introductory Paragraph] Tenn. R. App. P. 3; Judgment of the Criminal Court Affirmed. DAVID G. HAYES, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which JERRY L. SMITH and JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, JJ., joined. |
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
Judy Burroughs v. Robert W. Magee
|
Lauderdale | Supreme Court | |
Judy Burroughs v. Robert W. Magee
|
Lauderdale | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Gabor Palasti
The defendant, Gabor Palasti, was convicted upon his pleas of guilty to the charges of vehicular assault and three counts of reckless endangerment. He originally received a four year effective sentence with 11 months, 29 days of incarceration followed by probation. This was ultimately altered by the trial judge to require that the defendant serve six (6) months in confinement with thirty days of continuous confinement followed by five months of work release and then supervised probation. In this appeal the defendant contends he should have received full probation for these offenses and he cites numerous alleged deficiencies in the trial court's sentencing procedures. We find that in sentencing the defendant the trial court failed to make appropriate findings on the record and that therefore our review of the defendant's sentence is de novo without a presumption of correctness. Nevertheless, we find that the record contains sufficient evidence from which this Court concludes that six (6) months confinement of the defendant is appropriate. However, we believe the entire confinement should be served on work release. We therefore AFFIRM the decision of the trial court with the modification that the entire period of incarceration be served on work release. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Evan Roberts vs. Miller Industries
|
Hamilton | Court of Appeals |