State vs. Henry M1995-00005-SC-R11-CD
Authoring Judge: Justice E. Riley Anderson
Trial Court Judge: Seth W. Norman
We granted this appeal to determine whether the trial court erred in admitting statements made by the co-defendant following the arrest of the defendant and the co-defendant for first-degree murder, attempted first-degree murder and related offenses. The Court of Criminal Appeals concluded that although the conspiracy to commit the offenses had ended, the co-defendant's statements were made during the course of and in furtherance of a separate conspiracy to conceal the offenses and were admissible pursuant to the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule set out in Tenn. R. Evid. 803(1.2)(E). After reviewing the record, we conclude that the co-defendant's statements were made after the conspiracy had ended and, therefore, were not admissible under Tenn. R. Evid. 803(1.2)(E). We further conclude, however, that the error was harmless, and we affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals.
Davidson
Supreme Court
State vs. Henry Daniels W2002-00193-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Trial Court Judge: Joseph B. Dailey
The defendant was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of aggravated burglary, a Class C felony, and aggravated rape, a Class A felony. He was sentenced by the trial court as a career offender to fifteen years for the aggravated burglary conviction and as a violent offender to forty years for the aggravated rape conviction, with the sentences to be served consecutively, for an effective sentence of fifty-five years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he raises the sole issue of whether the trial court committed reversible error by denying his request to represent himself at trial. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court but remand for entry of a corrected judgment as to the aggravated burglary conviction to reflect the defendant's conviction offense which was omitted from the judgment form.
Shelby
Court of Criminal Appeals
Ronald E. Walton vs. State E1999-01165-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge John Everett Williams
Trial Court Judge: Douglas A. Meyer
After a hearing, the petitioner appeals the criminal court's order dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief. Convicted in 1968 of assault and battery with intent to rape, the petitioner was sentenced to incarceration for ten years. The petitioner has fully served his sentence in Tennessee. However, his Tennessee conviction was used to enhance his 1980 conviction of rape in Indiana. The petitioner proceeds to challenge his Tennessee conviction, in hope of a sentence reduction in Indiana. After careful review, we affirm the criminal court's dismissal.
The petitioner, James William Taylor, appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief by the Williamson County Circuit Court on September 9, 1998. In August 1988, the petitioner was convicted of felony murder, robbery, and second degree burglary in the Williamson County Circuit Court. The trial court sentenced the petitioner to life imprisonment on the murder conviction, to a fifteen year sentence on the second degree burglary conviction, and to a fifteen year sentence on the robbery conviction, with all sentences to be served consecutively to one another. The petitioner appealed and this court affirmed the petitioner’s convictions and sentence on April 25, 1990. See State v. Taylor, No. 89-93-III, 1990 WL 50751 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville), perm. to appeal denied, (Tenn. 1990). The petitioner filed a timely pro se petition for post-conviction relief on April 10, 1991. The trial court appointed counsel and the petitioner amended the petition numerous times to allege additional grounds for relief. After hearing evidence on the issues raised by the petition, the post-conviction court filed a memorandum opinion denying relief. On appeal the petitioner presents the following issues for our consideration: (1) whether the post-conviction court erred by finding that the petitioner’s trial counsel was not ineffective; and (2) whether the post-conviction court erred by finding that the State did not violate the petitioner’s right to a fair trial by withholding exculpatory evidence. Following a review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.
State vs. Robin Dodson E1999-00387-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry Smith
Trial Court Judge: J. Curtis Smith
Rhea
Court of Criminal Appeals
Harris vs. Hensley M1999-00654-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Robert L. Jones
Wayne
Court of Appeals
State vs. Charles Eddie Hartman M1998-00803-CCA-R3-DD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: Robert W. Wedemeyer
Montgomery
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. William Douglas Ellis M1999-783-CCA-R3-CD
Trial Court Judge: Jane W. Wheatcraft
The appellant, William Donald Ellis, was convicted by a Sumner County jury of one count of rape of a child, two counts of aggravated sexual battery, and two counts of assault. The trial court imposed a sentence of twenty-five (25) years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction for the offense of rape of a child, ten (10) years incarceration in the Department for each count of aggravated sexual battery, and six (6) months incarceration in the Sumner County Jail for each count of assault. The trial court ordered that the appellant serve his sentences for rape of a child and aggravated sexual battery consecutively to each other and concurrently with his sentences for assault, resulting in an effective sentence of forty-five (45) years incarceration. On appeal, the appellant presents the following issues for our review: (1) whether the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained by police as a result of the warrantless search of his home; (2) whether the trial court should have required the State to elect between Counts One and Six of the indictment; (3) whether the evidence adduced at trial supports the jury's findings of venue; and (4) whether the evidence adduced at trial supports the jury's verdict of guilt of rape of a child. Following a review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm in part and reverse and remand in part the judgments of the trial court.
Sumner
Court of Criminal Appeals
State, ex rel vs. Xantus M2000-00120-COA-R10-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Carol L. Mccoy
