State of Tennessee v. Billy J. Coffelt and Lyle T. Van Ulzen
The Defendants, Billy J. Coffelt and Lyle T. Van Ulzen, were each convicted of one count of felony escape, two counts of aggravated assault, and three counts of especially aggravated kidnapping. The trial court subsequently sentenced both Defendants to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole on each of their especially aggravated kidnapping convictions. The Defendants were each sentenced to two years for their escape convictions, and to six years for each of their aggravated assault convictions. In this direct appeal, both Defendants contend that their convictions for aggravated assault and especially aggravated kidnapping violate due process, relying on State v. Anthony, 817 S.W.2d 299 (Tenn. 1991). Both Defendants also allege error with respect to the trial court's admission of the identification of the felonies for which they were serving time when they escaped, and with respect to their sentences on the kidnapping convictions. Individually, Coffelt challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and the admission of proof concerning two weapons. Coffelt also alleges that the prosecutor's closing argument constituted reversible misconduct. We affirm the Defendants' convictions. We reverse the trial court's finding that the Defendants are repeat violent offenders subject to mandatory sentences of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, and remand this matter for resentencing on the Defendants' convictions of especially aggravated kidnapping. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tony Alan Garretson
Tony Alan Garretson, along with Harold Garretson and Tonya Garretson, sought return of numerous guns alleged to have been unlawfully seized by law enforcement when Tony Garretson was arrested for aggravated assault. The trial court found: (1) Harold Garretson and Tonya Garretson failed to establish they were the lawful owners of the guns; and (2) the guns could not be returned to Tony Garretson because he was convicted of aggravated assault and cannot lawfully possess a weapon. On appeal, the state concedes the guns were unlawfully seized and Harold Garretson and Tonya Garretson established proper ownership. We reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for another hearing. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Robert Davidson v. Charles Lindsey
|
Henry | Supreme Court | |
2002-02685-COA-R3-CV
|
Cocke | Court of Appeals | |
Emma Johnson vs. Knox County Board of Education
|
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Vickie Nash vs. Thomas Nash
|
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Mitch Stooksbury vs. American National Property
|
Anderson | Court of Appeals | |
Lisa Kay Rogers vs. Richard Barrett Rogers
|
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
New Covenant Baptist Church vs. Panther Sark
|
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
New Covenant Baptist Church vs. Panther Sark
|
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Sam Weaver vs. Knox County Board of Zoning Appeals
|
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
E.C. Mitchell v. Larry Mitchell
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Paul Seibers v. Melissa Cunnningham
|
DeKalb | Court of Appeals | |
In The Matter of : Estate of J.C. Qeener
|
Loudon | Court of Appeals | |
Willis Edwards vs. Katherine Heckmann
|
Claiborne | Court of Appeals | |
Gloria Chambliss vs. DennisStohler
|
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Big Nine Productions vs. International Creative Management
|
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Bryan Pearson v. State of Tennessee
The pro se appellant appeals from the summary dismissal of his petition for the writ of habeas corpus. Finding that summary dismissal was appropriate under the circumstances of this case, we affirm the judgment of the lower court. |
Bledsoe | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Julia M. Ward
The Defendant, a teacher, was indicted for three counts of assault against one of her students. She offered to enter a plea of nolo contendere on Count II in exchange for judicial diversion and the dismissal of the remaining two counts. The State rejected the Defendant's plea of nolo contendere and maintained that the Defendant would have to plead guilty in order to receive judicial diversion. The Defendant refused the offer and requested pretrial diversion. The State denied the Defendant's request. The Defendant filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the Knox County Criminal Court. The trial court denied the petition. The trial court then filed an order permitting interlocutory appeal to this Court. This Court granted the Defendant's application for interlocutory review. In this appeal, the Defendant argues that the State abused its discretion by denying the Defendant pretrial diversion. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Bankers Trust y vs. Timothy Collins
|
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Dept of Children's Services vs. RB
|
Carter | Court of Appeals | |
KHB Holdings vs. Mark Duncan
|
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Fred Slaughter vs. Laura Slaughter & Daniel Crowe
|
Washington | Court of Appeals | |
Melvin E. Beard v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Melvin E. Beard, appeals from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. In his appeal, Petitioner alleges that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel in connection with the negotiation and entry of Petitioner's best interest plea to the charge of sale and delivery of cocaine, that his best interest plea was involuntary, and that the factual basis presented by the State was insufficient to support his plea. After a careful review of the record in this matter, we conclude that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court's findings of fact. We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Terrance W. Price
Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, Defendant, Terrance W. Price, pled guilty to fifteen counts of money laundering, a Class B felony, and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering, a Class C felony. He pled guilty reserving the right to appeal a certified question of law pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2)(i) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure. The certified question of law on appeal is whether Tennessee Code Annotated sections 39-14-901, - 903, Money Laundering Act of 1996, violates Article XI, Section 8 or Article I, Section 8 of the Tennessee Constitution by exempting from its application violation of gambling laws, found in Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-501 et seq. After a careful review, we conclude that the statutes do not violate the Tennessee Constitution, and therefore affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals |