State of Tennessee v. Jerry O. Summers
The defendant, Jerry O. Summers, appeals from the Williamson County Circuit Court’s revoking his probation that was ordered for his sentence for aggravated burglary. The defendant contends that although he violated his probation, the trial court erred in sentencing him to confinement. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Daryl Lee Madden and Marty Dale Williams
|
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
The Bank/First Citizens Bank v. Citizens And Associates
|
Bradley | Supreme Court | |
State vs. William Torres
|
Knox | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Edward Lucas
The appellant, Edward Lucas, was convicted in the Montgomery County Circuit Court of two counts of selling cocaine and one count of possession of marijuana with the intent to sell. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of six years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction, sixty days of which were to be served in confinement with the remainder to be served on probation. Subsequently, the trial court found the appellant guilty of violating his probation and ordered the appellant to serve his sentence in confinement. The appellant raises the following issues on appeal: (1) whether the allegation set forth in the violation of probation warrant states a violation of the conditions of probation; (2) whether the allegation set forth in the violation of probation warrant complies with due process requirements of the United States and Tennessee Constitutions; and (3) whether the evidence is sufficient to support the probation revocation. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Delaney E. Marcum
The Appellant, Delaney E. Marcum, appeals from the sentencing decision of the Williamson County Circuit Court. Marcum entered guilty pleas to one count of aggravated burglary, a class C felony, and one count of theft of property over $1,000.00, a class D felony. Under the terms of the agreement, Marcum received concurrent sentences of five years for aggravated burglary and four years for theft. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered that Marcum's sentences be served in the Department of Correction and, additionally, he was ordered to pay restitution on both counts. On appeal, Marcum contends that the trial court erred in (1) not sentencing him to probation or any other alternative to incarceration, and (2) ordering restitution in conjunction with total confinement. Finding no error, the judgment of the Williamson County Circuit Court is affirmed. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ricky Lynn Earls
|
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Philip R. Haven
A Williamson County grand jury indicted the defendant on alternative counts of driving under the influence of an intoxicant and of driving with a .10% or more alcohol concentration in his blood or breath. At the conclusion of the proof, the trial jury convicted the defendant of the latter offense and assessed a fifteen hundred dollar fine. At sentencing, the trial court approved the fine assessed and further sentenced the defendant to six months to be suspended after the service of thirty days, day for day. Additionally, the court placed the defendant on supervised probation for eleven months and twenty-nine days during which time, among other conditions, the defendant was to complete alcohol safety school. Subsequently, the defendant filed a motion for a new trial or judgment of acquittal, which the trial court denied. Through this appeal the defendant contends that the trial court erred in 1) not excusing four jurors for cause; 2) permitting the prosecutor to make ingratiating statements to the jury during voir dire; 3) overruling counsel's objection to the prosecutor's comment in opening statement that the defendant was "drunk, way too drunk to drive"; 4) finding that the involved forensic scientist for the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation was the custodian of the alcohol report, thereby allowing the admission of the report into evidence; 5) concluding that "adult driving while impaired" was not a lesser included offense of driving under the influence; 6) refusing to dismiss count two of the indictment as a nullity; and 7) sentencing the defendant to more than the seven-consecutive-day minimum sentence applicable here. After reviewing each of these assertions, we find that none merit relief and, therefore, affirm the defendant's conviction and sentence. However, in reviewing the case, we have observed an error in the judgment form and, therefore, remand the matter for entry of a corrected judgment. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Rhonda Patricia Mayes
Defendant was convicted of two counts of possession of cocaine with intent to sell and two counts of simple possession of cocaine. The trial court merged the two counts of possession of cocaine with intent to sell into one count and merged the two counts of simple possession of cocaine into one count. The trial court sentenced the defendant to concurrent sentences of eight years and eleven months and twenty-nine days, respectively, thus imposing an effective eight-year sentence. Defendant appealed on four grounds: (1) there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction for possession with intent to sell cocaine; (2) a search warrant failed to state sufficient facts to establish probable cause to search defendant's apartment; (3) the indictment was multiplicitous; and (4) the trial court erred in ruling that the State could use defendant's prior conviction to show intent. We conclude that all convictions should merge into a single judgment of conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to sell; thus, we vacate the sentence relating to simple possession of cocaine, although this will not change the effective eight-year sentence. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jason Brian Hargrove
The appellant, Jason Brian Hargrove, pled guilty in the Marshall County Circuit Court to numerous counts of theft and burglary. He received a total effective sentence of twenty years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant raises the following issue for our review: whether the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences. After reviewing the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Robert Chagrasulis v. Board of Medical Examiners
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Deadrick M. Pigg v. State of Tennessee
A Davidson County grand jury indicted the defendant on one count of felonious unlawful possession of a weapon and one count of misdemeanor evading arrest. Following a jury trial, the defendant was acquitted of the weapons offense but convicted of evading arrest. At the conclusion of a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the defendant to eleven months and twenty-nine days for this conviction. The court also ordered this sentence to run consecutively to another sentence stemming from a separate arrest. The defendant next unsuccessfully filed a motion for a judgment of acquittal or, in the alternative, a new trial. Through this appeal he continues to assert that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. However, after reviewing the record, we find that this issue lacks merit and, therefore, affirm the defendant's conviction for evading arrest. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Debra Kay Thomas
The defendant, Debra Kay Thomas, appeals the Henry County Circuit Court's resentencing her upon revocation of her community corrections sentence. She claims that the trial court erred in failing to give her credit for the time she served in confinement and in the community corrections program under her original sentence. The state agrees. We hold that the defendant was improperly sentenced and remand the case for resentencing. |
Henry | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Eva M. Lemeh, Trustee v. Emc Mortgage Corporation
|
Supreme Court | ||
Consumer Advocate Div. v. Tennessee Regulatory Authority
|
Court of Appeals | ||
Earnest Peeler v. Tempro Services, Inc.
|
Fayette | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Lewis Yunker v. Travelers Insurance
|
Knox | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Kimberly Haas v. Albert Haas
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Team Design v. Anthony Gottlieb
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jack Roger Norton
|
Washington | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jack Roger Norton - Concurring
|
Washington | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ricky Lee Hall
The defendant contests the trial court's revocation of his probation, more specifically its failure to dismiss the probation revocation warrant. We conclude the trial court did not err in not dismissing the warrant. We affirm the judgment of the trial court with instructions to enter a formal order revoking probation. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Wade P. Tucker
|
Franklin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Daryl Keith Holton
The appellant, Daryl Keith Holton, was convicted by a jury in the Bedford County Circuit Court of four counts of first degree premeditated murder. The same jury imposed a sentence of death for each count of murder. The appellant now appeals both his convictions and sentences, presenting the following issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence adduced at trial is sufficient to support the jury's verdicts; (2) whether the statute setting forth the defense of insanity in Tennessee is violative of the United States Constitution in the context of a prosecution for first degree premeditated murder; (3) whether under the United States Constitution inadequate acoustics in the courtroom during his trial denied the appellant his right to a fair trial; (4) whether under the United States and Tennessee Constitutions the imposition of a sentence of death violates a criminal defendant's fundamental right to life; (5) whether the evidence adduced during the guilt/innocence and sentencing phases of the appellant's trial supports the jury's imposition of sentences of death; and (6) whether the appellant's sentences of death are comparatively disproportionate. Following a thorough review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jerry Seymour v. Tomisa Sierra
|
Franklin | Court of Appeals |