State of Tennessee v. Jeremy Curtis Wells
The Defendant pled guilty to promoting the manufacturing of methamphetamine, a Class D felony, with the length and manner of service for the sentence left to the discretion of the trial court. The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I, standard offender to a four-year sentence of split confinement, with nine months to be served in the Blount County Jail and the remainder of the sentence on enhanced supervised probation. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred in imposing the maximum sentence and in determining the manner of service for his sentence. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. However, we remand the Defendant’s case with direction to the trial court to correct the judgment to reflect that the Defendant is serving his nine-month period of confinement in the Blount County Jail, not the Tennessee Department of Correction. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Eunus Alton Howell v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Eunus Alton Howell, appeals from the dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner was convicted in 1983 of armed robbery and sentenced to life imprisonment as a persistent offender. Petitioner’s sentence and conviction were affirmed on appeal. State v. Howell, 672 S.W.2d 442, 443 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1984). In 2010, Petitioner sought habeas corpus relief on the alleged basis that he was indicted on a charge that did not exist. The habeas corpus court dismissed the petition without a hearing. Petitioner appeals. After a review, we determine that the habeas corpus court properly dismissed the petition for relief. |
Wayne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jamie Scott Moore v. Sheriff Robert Arnold and State of Tennessee
This matter is before the Court upon the State’s motion to dismiss or in the alternative to affirm the judgment of the trial court by memorandum opinion pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Petitioner, Jamie Scott Moore, has appealed the trial court’s order dismissing his petition for writ of habeas corpus in which Petitioner alleged that his convictions for two counts of criminal attempt to sell methamphetamine are void because they were not ordered to be served consecutively to a previous conviction for which he was on parole at the time he committed the offenses. Upon a review of the record in this case, we are persuaded that the trial court was correct in dismissing the petition for habeas corpus relief and that this case meets the criteria for affirmance pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Accordingly, the State’s motion is granted, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Marlon Wiliams v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Marlon Williams, appeals the Fayette County Circuit Court’s denial of post-conviction relief from his convictions for possession of marijuana, a Class E felony, and possession of a firearm in the commission of a felony, a Class D felony. He is serving one year for possession of marijuana consecutively to three years for possession of a firearm. The Petitioner contends that he did not receive the effective assistance of counsel in connection with his guilty plea to the possession of a firearm charge and that his pleas were not knowingly and voluntarily entered because he did not understand that the firearm conviction required 100 percent service of the sentence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Fayette | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Mira Eva Harris
The defendant, Mira Eva Harris, pled guilty, in two different indictments, to two counts of driving under the influence (“DUI”), two counts of DUI as a prior offender, driving on a revoked license, driving on a revoked license as a prior offender, violation of the implied consent law, and violation of the open container law. After merger with the appropriate prior offender charges, the defendant was sentenced to eleven months and twenty-nine days on each of the two DUI convictions and eleven months and twenty-nine days on the driving on a revoked license conviction, all to be served consecutively, as well as eleven months and twenty-nine days for violation of the implied consent law with five days served consecutively to the other sentences. On appeal, the defendant presumably challenges the sentences imposed by the trial court. Following our review, we affirm the judgments below. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Rhonda Louise Medley
The defendant, Rhonda Louise Medley, was convicted in the Bedford County Circuit Court of five counts of rape of a child and subsequently sentenced to an effective term of forty years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant challenges her convictions and sentences, specifically asserting that: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions; (2) the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentencing; and (3) the trial court erred in denying the motion to declare Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-522(b)(2)(A) unconstitutional. Following review of the record, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and that the challenged portion of the statute is not unconstitutional. However, while the trial court appears to have appropriately applied consecutive sentencing, it erred in imposing fifteen-year terms for Counts Two through Five because Tennessee Code Annotated Section 39-13-522(b)(2)(A) mandates that these sentences be set at a minimum of twenty-five years each. As such, we vacate those sentences and remand for resentencing with regard to those convictions, as well as for reconsideration of the imposition of consecutive sentencing in light of the ordered changes in the sentence lengths. The decision of the trial court is affirmed in all other respects. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Talmadge S. Crowder
The defendant, Talmadge S. Crowder, challenges the revocation of his diversionary status, maintaining that the trial court abused its discretion in determining that he violated an Order of Protection and using that violation as a basis for the revocation. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence for the trial court to determine that the defendant violated the terms of his release by violating an Order of Protection, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Wilson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Travis Lurry
The defendant, Travis Lurry, appeals the denial of his request for judicial diversion, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by improperly weighing the factors for and against diversion. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Fayette | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Demario Thomas
The Defendant, Demario Thomas, pled guilty to second degree murder, a Class A felony, and the trial court sentenced him to twenty-three years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court’s sentence is excessive. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we modify the trial court’s judgment to a sentence of twenty-one years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Commercial Bank, Inc., et al., v. Hollis Fay Summers, et al.
Plaintiffs alleged that defendants had borrowed money from the Bank and executed a trust deed to secure the loan and the property was properly foreclosed by the Bank as the successful bidder. Further, that defendants then filed numerous documents in the Register of Deeds office to slander plaintiffs' title. Defendants never answered the Complaint and after several months plaintiffs moved for a default judgment which was granted at a hearing before the Trial Court. The Trial Court ruled that the various documents filed by the defendants in the Register of Deeds office were null and void and assessed costs to the defendants. Defendants appealed pro se, and we dismiss the appeal on the grounds that they failed to comply with any of the applicable rules of appellate procedure governing appeals. |
Union | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Raymond Bradley, Jr.
The defendant, Raymond Bradley, Jr., appeals from the trial court’s revocation of probation for failure to pay restitution. The defendant pleaded guilty in 2009 to facilitating aggravated burglary, a Class D felony, in exchange for a four-year suspended sentence, and the trial court ordered him to pay $15,500 in restitution. This court affirmed the trial court’s judgment. On August 11, 2010, the trial court found that the defendant violated the terms of his suspended sentence and revoked his probation. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his probation without finding that the defendant had the ability to pay, that he willfully failed to pay, and that no alternative measure to incarceration was available. Following our review, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Steven Q. Stanford
The defendant, Steven Q. Stanford, was convicted by a Campbell County jury of one count of initiation of a process to manufacture methamphetamine, a Class B felony, and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor. Following a sentencing hearing, the defendant was sentenced, as a Range III offender, to serve thirty years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he raises the single issue of sufficiency of the evidence. Following review of the record, we find that the evidence presented at trial is sufficient to support the convictions, and we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Campbell | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Angela L. (Lyles) Melton v. Jackie B. Melton
In this divorce case, the husband challenges the trial court’s distribution of the marital property, valuation of the marital residence, and award of alimony to the wife. Without a transcript or statement of the evidence, this court cannot adequately review the issues raised by the husband. Finding that the trial court did not err as a matter of law, we affirm. |
Roane | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Damon Houston
On March 8, 2009, the defendant was convicted of especially aggravated robbery, a Class A felony, and sentenced to fifteen years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant claims that: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction; (2) the trial court erred by admitting certain evidence; (3) his due process rights were violated by prosecutorial misconduct; and (4) his sentence is excessive. After careful review of the record, we reject each of these claims and affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Anton Mayhew and Travis Brown
Defendant Anton Mayhew was convicted of two counts of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, and was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to a pair of concurrent twelve-year terms. Defendant Travis Brown was convicted of two counts of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, and one count of aggravated rape, a Class A felony. He was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to concurrent twelve-year terms for the aggravated robberies and to a concurrent twenty-five-year term as a violent offender for the aggravated rape, for a total effective sentence of twenty-five years. On appeal, Defendant Mayhew claims that the trial court erred in admitting a portion of one witness’s testimony and that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions. Defendant Brown claims that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions and that the trial court erred by denying his request for a jury instruction relating to missing evidence, by requiring him to stand next to an enlarged photograph in open court, and by sentencing him to the maximum sentence. After careful review of the record and the arguments raised by both defendants and the State, we affirm the judgments of the trial court in all respects. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Farmer and Anthony Clark
The defendants, Michael Farmer and Anthony Clark, were convicted of especially aggravated robbery, a Class A felony, and aggravated robbery, a Class B felony. They were each sentenced to fifteen years for the especially aggravated robbery and to a concurrent eight years for aggravated robbery, for a total effective sentence of fifteen years. On appeal, both defendants claim that the evidence is insufficient to support their convictions, asserting that no evidence put forth at their trial established that they actually took money from either victim. Defendant Clark further claims that the straight, pass-through bullet wound inflicted on one victim’s left thigh failed to pose a substantial enough risk of death to qualify as a serious bodily injury of the type necessary to sustain a conviction for especially aggravated robbery. Defendant Farmer further claims that the trial court erred by failing to sentence him as an especially mitigated offender. After carefully reviewing the defendants’ arguments and the record evidence, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Farmer and Anthony Clark - Concurring/Dissenting
I dissent from the majority’s holding that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Terrell Westbrooks suffered serious bodily injury as that term is contemplated by Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-11-106(a)(34). I believe the majority’s holding upends the statutory definition of “serious bodily injury” by essentially declaring that any injury inflicted by a deadly weapon results in serious bodily injury. I do not believe the statutory definitions support such an interpretation. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Bryant Guartos v. State of Tennessee
A Davidson County jury convicted the Petitioner, Bryant Guartos, of first degree felony murder, especially aggravated robbery, aggravated robbery, and conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery, and the trial court sentenced him to an effective sentence of life plus forty-seven years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The Petitioner filed an appeal, and this Court affirmed the trial court’s judgments. State v. Bryant Guartos, M2003-03073-CCA-R3-CD, 2006 WL 163633, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Jan. 24, 2006), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Aug. 28, 2006). Thereafter, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari and remanded the Petitioner’s case for further consideration in light of new sentencing case law. Guartos v. Tennessee, 549 U.S. 1197 (2007). Upon review, this Court reversed the Petitioner’s judgments for especially aggravated robbery, aggravated robbery, and conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery, and remanded the case for resentencing. State v. Bryant Guartos, No. M2003-03073-CCA-R3-CD, 2007 WL 4245084 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Dec. 4, 2007), perm. app. denied (Tenn. July 7, 2008). The Petitioner then filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which the post-conviction court denied after a hearing. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the trial court erred in failing to find that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Calvin Oliver
The defendant, Calvin Oliver, appeals his effective sentence of twenty-two years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he asserts that the trial court erred in the imposition of consecutive sentencing. Following review of the record, we find no error and affirm the sentences as imposed. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Lakeisha Margaret Watkins
A Davidson County jury convicted the Defendant, Lakeisha Margaret Watkins, of attempted child neglect, four counts of aggravated child abuse, and two counts of aggravated child neglect. The trial court sentenced her to an effective sentence of forty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain her convictions for aggravated child abuse and aggravated child neglect; and (2) the trial court erred when it ordered her sentences to run consecutively. Because the Defendant’s delay in seeking medical treatment for the victim, as proven in Count 5, did not cause serious bodily injury separate and apart from the serious bodily injury caused by the Defendant and proven in Count 4, we are constrained to reverse the conviction for aggravated child neglect in Count 5. The trial court’s judgments are affirmed in all other respects. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William Randall Crawford
The defendant, William Randall Crawford, pled guilty to three counts of attempted first degree murder, two counts of aggravated assault, and one count of simple assault. He received an aggregate sentence of forty-six years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, he challenges the sentencing determinations made by the trial court, specifically arguing that he should have received the minimum sentence for each individual offense and that the sentences should not have been ordered to run consecutively. After careful review, we conclude that the trial court imposed a lawful sentence and affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Grainger | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In the matter of: Shyronne D. H., et al.
This is a termination of parental rights case with an unusual procedural history. Following an incident with one of her children, Appellant Mother was charged with one count of aggravated child neglect or endangerment and one count of aggravated child abuse of a child under eight years of age. She pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and was sentenced to six years’ incarceration. In a separate proceeding, the children were adjudicated to be dependent and neglected and victims of severe child abuse. At the termination of parental rights hearing, which is the subject of this appeal, the trial court determined that the previous finding of severe child abuse was res judicata and did not permit the parties to relitigate the issue. We conclude that the trial court erred in finding the issue of severe child abuse to be res judicata because the order finding the children to be dependent and neglected and victims of severe child abuse is not a final judgment. Consequently, Appellant should have been permitted to present evidence and argument at the termination proceeding as to whether she committed severe child abuse. The judgment of the trial court is vacated and remanded. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Rebecca Gribble Waddell v. Gregory C. Rustin
This case stems from a lawsuit over an alleged implied partnership. Rebecca Gribble Waddell (“Waddell”) and Gregory C. Rustin (“Rustin”) were involved romantically for a number of years. After the couple separated, Waddell sued Rustin in the Chancery Court for Jefferson County (“the Trial Court”), alleging, among other things, that a partnership existed between Waddell and Rustin. The Trial Court held, inter alia, that there was no partnership between Waddell and Rustin and ordered divestiture of certain property from Waddell to Rustin. Waddell appeals to this Court, and both parties raise multiple issues. Rustin also argues that this appeal is frivolous. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court on all issues except for that concerning divestiture of certain property from Waddell, which we reverse. We decline to hold this appeal frivolous. We affirm, in part, and, reverse, in part. |
Jefferson | Court of Appeals | |
Ann Laure Chamberlain v. Jeremy Steven Moore
On December 10, 2010 the Trial Court entered an Agreed Order on Parenting Time. Ann Laure Chamberlain (“Appellant”) filed a motion to set aside the December 10, 2010 order. On February 28, 2011 the Trial Court entered its order, inter alia, denying the motion to set aside, reserving child support matters, and stating that the parties may mediate any remaining issues regarding parenting time. Appellant appeals to this Court. We dismiss this appeal for lack of a final judgment. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Gabriel D.A., ET AL
The order from which the appellant William E. J. seeks to appeal was entered on Tuesday, April 12, 2011. A notice of appeal was filed by the appellant on Thursday, May 19, 2011, the 37th day following the entry of the trial court’s order. Because the notice of appeal was not filed timely, we have no jurisdiction to consider this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. |
Anderson | Court of Appeals |