State of Tennessee v. Erika Y. Johnson
The Defendant, Erika Y. Johnson, appeals as of right from the Williamson County Circuit Court’s revocation of her probation and order that she serve the remainder of her sentence in confinement. The Defendant contends that the trial court erred by ordering her to serve the remainder of her sentence in confinement. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Deborah Vivien v. Keith W. Campbell
This appeal involves child support arising out of a paternity action. After paternity was established, the mother sought discovery regarding the father’s income. After protracted discovery disputes, the juvenile court set child support based on income that included the father’s winnings from gambling. The juvenile court did not permit the gambling winnings to be offset by the father’s gambling losses. After the father requested a rehearing on child support, years of delay ensued, and his rehearing request was ultimately dismissed. The father now appeals. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand, holding inter alia, that in determining an obligor parent’s income for child support purposes, provable gambling losses may offset gambling winnings, up to the amount of the gambling winnings for the year in question. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jeffery Lance Cochran
Appellant, Jeffrey Lance Cochran, pled guilty to violations of the Motor Vehicle Habitual Offender Act, implied consent law, and driving under the influence, fourth offense. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently to each other; Appellant was sentenced to an effective sentence of one year and six months. He was ordered to serve a mandatory minimum sentence of 150 days and the remainder of the sentence on probation. On the same day, Appellant also pled guilty to failure to appear. He was sentenced to one year and six months for this conviction, to be served consecutively to the effective sentence for the other convictions. Subsequently, Appellant was charged with violating the terms of his probation. Following a hearing, Appellant’s probation was revoked. The trial court ordered Appellant to serve the remainder of his sentence in confinement. Appellant appeals this decision. Because we determine that the trial court properly revoked Appellant’s probation, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
William Paul Bogus v. Jim Morrow, Warden and State of Tennessee
Petitioner, William Paul Bogus, was convicted of first degree felony murder. See State v. William Paul Bogus, No. 02C01-9506-CC-00169, 1998 WL 22031, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, Jan. 22, 1998), perm. app. denied, (Tenn. Nov. 2, 1998). Petitioner later alleged in a petition for habeas corpus relief that his conviction was void because he was not convicted of the underlying felony and because the indictment was defective. The lower court dismissed the petition without a hearing. Petitioner appeals. Because nothing on the face of the judgment shows that Petitioner’s life sentence has expired or that the conviction is void, we affirm the dismissal of the petition for habeas corpus relief. |
Bledsoe | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Rodrickus Carlos Jefferson
Following a jury trial, Defendant, Rodrickus Carlos Jefferson, was convicted of first degree premeditated murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. On appeal, Defendant argues: (1) that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction; (2) that the trial court erred in allowing him to represent himself; and (3) the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on self-defense. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Eric C. Pendleton v. 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, Eric C. Pendleton, has appealed the trial court’s order dismissing his petition for writ of habeas corpus in which Petitioner alleged that the indictments upon which he was convicted were void for failing to name all the essential elements of the crimes. 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. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John Anthony Lethco
A Sevier County Circuit Court jury convicted the defendant, John Anthony Lethco, of aggravated burglary, see T.C.A. § 39-14-403; possession of burglary tools, see id. § 39-14-701; theft of property valued at $60,000 or more, see id. § 39-14-103, -105(5); and theft of property valued at more than $500 but less than $1,000, see id. § 39-13-103, -105(2). At sentencing, the trial court ordered the defendant to serve an effective sentence of 27 years’ incarceration. On appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court erred (1) by denying his motion to sever offenses, (2) by allowing hearsay testimony from witnesses other than the victim concerning ownership of stolen items at trial, (3) by denying him the opportunity to confront his accuser at trial, (4) by denying his motion for new trial, and (5) by allowing argument by the State at trial concerning his reputation as a drug dealer. Because the defendant filed his notice of appeal prior to filing his motion for new trial, the trial court was without jurisdiction to rule on the motion for new trial. Thus, any issues raised therein are waived. We discern, however, an anomaly in the judgment of theft of property valued at more than $500 but less than $1,000 that requires correction on remand. In all other respects, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Sevier | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James L. Crawford v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, James L. Crawford, filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging that his guilty pleas to various felonies were not knowingly and voluntarily entered. The trial court summarily dismissed the petition as barred by the statute of limitations. The Petitioner appeals the dismissal, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Rodney Laron Thomas v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Rodney Laron Thomas, appeals the trial court’s denial of his request for a delayed appeal concerning the denial of his post-conviction relief petition. He urges that his delay in filing his appeal should be excused because (1) his post-conviction counsel never pursued an appeal despite assuring him to the contrary, and (2) the circuit court clerk never provided him with a copy of the final order, as required by Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-30-112. We conclude that this petitioner has no right to appeal from a denial of a motion for delayed appeal of a denial of post-conviction relief. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed. |
Henderson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Ivory Williams
Defendant-Appellant, Christopher Ivory Williams, was convicted by a Madison County Circuit Court jury of first degree premeditated murder and felony murder. The trial court merged the felony murder conviction with the first degree premeditated murder conviction and sentenced Williams as a violent offender to life imprisonment. On appeal, Williams argues that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction for first degree premeditated murder; (2) the trial court erred in failing to dismiss the felony murder count of the indictment on the ground that no underlying felony was specified in the indictment; (3) the trial court erred in allowing the victim’s mother to authenticate pictures of the victim at trial; (4) the State committed prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments; (5) the trial court erred in considering Williams’ prior arson conviction for impeachment purposes. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tavarus Detterio Griffin
Following a jury trial, Defendant, Tavarus Detterio Griffin, was convicted of two counts of aggravated robbery and two counts of aggravated kidnapping. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of twenty years. Judgments of conviction were entered on October 2, 2008. An untimely motion for new trial was filed on January 30, 2009. On May 12, 2009, the trial court entered an order purporting to deny the motion for new trial, rather than dismissing the untimely motion as requested in a written response filed by the State. An untimely notice of appeal was filed May 12, 2009. Defendant, through counsel, has raised only two issues on appeal: (1) whether Defendant was denied his right to due process and a fair trial because the jury pool was allowed to see Defendant in the courtroom wearing jail clothing and restrained by leg irons and handcuffs; and (2) whether counsel who represented Defendant throughout the trial and sentence hearing (who is not the same counsel who filed the motion for new trial) rendered ineffective assistance of counsel. Because the only issues raised on appeal are waived as a result of not being included in a timely-filed motion for new trial, we conclude that this is not a case where timely filing of the notice of appeal should be waived. Accordingly, Defendant’s appeal is dismissed. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Maximo Marin In Re: E-Z Out Bail Agency
The defendant, Maximo Marin, failed to appear for his scheduled court date, and a conditional forfeiture was issued against E-Z Out Bail Agency in the amount of $100,000. With the final forfeiture date rapidly approaching, E-Z Out Bail Agency filed a motion to extend the final forfeiture date. The issue on appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to extend the final forfeiture date. We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion and affirm the judgment from the trial court. |
Henderson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Torrez Talley v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Torrez Talley, appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief in which he alleged that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel because counsel failed to sufficiently argue the standard of reasonable doubt during closing argument. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that Petitioner has failed to show that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel and affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Phillip Wayne Flowers
The defendant, Phillip Wayne Flowers, who pled guilty to one count of sexual battery, a Class E felony, and was sentenced to one year on community corrections, appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Gibson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Christine Heyne, et al. v. Metropolitan Nashville Board of Public Education
This is a common law writ of certiorari review of a student’s ten-day suspension for a violation of the Student-Parent Code of Conduct for reckless endangerment. The student was suspended by the school principal following an incident where he drove his vehicle toward a group of students resulting in injury to one student. The suspension was appealed to a disciplinary panel, then to a discipline administrator, and lastly to the school board. The suspension was upheld at each level. Thereafter, this petition for common law writ of certiorari was filed. The trial court found that the suspended student’s due process rights were violated by the failure to provide an impartial panel and that the decision was arbitrary as it was not supported by the evidence. The court also awarded the petitioners their attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We reverse finding the student’s due process rights were not violated and that the decision was not arbitrary because it is supported by material evidence. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Walter Odell Savage
The Defendant, Walter Odell Savage, pled guilty to three counts of sale of . 5 grams or more of cocaine, a Class B felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-417. The trial court sentenced the defendant to an effective ten-year sentence to be served in confinement. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred by ordering his sentence served in confinement. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Court of Criminal Appeals | ||
State of Tennessee v. Antonio T. Smith
In Hamilton County, Appellant, Antonio T. Smith, pled guilty to one count of possession of less than .5 grams of cocaine for resale and one count of attempted possession of contraband in a penal facility. The trial court sentenced him to an effective sentence of eight years to be served on probation. Subsequently, a probation violation report was filed, and the trial court held a hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court revoked Appellant’s probation and ordered him to serve his six-year sentence in confinement and his remaining two-year sentence on probation. Appellant appeals the revocation of his probation. He argues that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his probation because the testimony of the arresting officers was not credible. He also claims the trial court erred in denying his request for a mental evaluation. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. Therefore, we affirm the decision of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael C. Bennett
A Grainger County Circuit Court jury convicted the appellant, Michael C. Bennett, of aggravated burglary, a Class C felony, and theft of property valued one thousand dollars or more but less than ten thousand dollars, a Class D felony. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced him as a Range III, persistent offender to fifteen years for the aggravated burglary conviction and twelve years for the theft conviction. The sentences were to be served concurrently. On appeal, the appellant contends that the trial court’s failure to rule on his pretrial motion to prohibit the State from impeaching him with prior convictions pursuant to Rule 609, Tennessee Rules of Evidence, affected his right to a fair trial. The State contends that the issue is waived. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the appellant waived the issue and affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Grainger | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Margo Freshwater v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Margo Freshwater, was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced by the jury to imprisonment for 99 years. In 1970, she escaped from the Tennessee Prison for Women and was at large until 2002, when she was arrested in Columbus, Ohio, and returned to Tennessee to resume service of her sentence. She filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis which twice has been remanded to the trial court. The main issue in this appeal is whether the State withheld from the petitioner’s counsel the statement of Johnny Box that the petitioner’s co-defendant told him that he had been the lone shooter of the victim, which, had it been revealed to her counsel, more probably than not, according to the petitioner, would have resulted in a different judgment. Following our review, we concur with the argument of the petitioner in this matter. Accordingly, we reverse the petitioner’s conviction for first degree murder and remand for a new trial. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jason R. McCallum
The defendant, Jason R. McCallum, was convicted by a Dyer County Circuit Court jury of the sale of more than 0.5 grams of a Schedule II controlled substance, methamphetamine, within 1000 feet of a school, a Class A felony. He was sentenced to eighteen years as a Range I offender. On appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Nabeeh Jameel Mateen v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Nabeeh Jameel Mateen, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his especially aggravated robbery conviction, arguing that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ben W. Watkins v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Ben W. Watkins, appeals from the Blount County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Because the trial court correctly found that the petitioner failed to present a cognizable habeas corpus claim, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re: Caleb L. C.
This is a dependency and neglect case. The child’s mother is deceased, and the child’s father has a long history of physically abusing family members. Both the juvenile court and the circuit court, on de novo appeal, found the child to be dependent and neglected and determined that the child’s best interests were served by remaining in the custody of his maternal uncle and aunt. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Sullivan | Court of Appeals | |
Jonathan K. Price v. State of Tennessee
On October 11, 2006, the petitioner, Jonathan K. Price, pleaded guilty to aggravated burglary, solicitation of a minor, and two counts of statutory rape. He received a negotiated sentence of six years on probation. The petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, and the post-conviction court denied relief. On appeal, the petitioner argues that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance, and thus, he did not enter his guilty pleas knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. Following our review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and applicable law, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Mubashir Mahmood v. Maryam Mubashir
This is a divorce case. Mubashir Mahmood (“Husband”) appeals from a judgment of the trial court raising four issues, including an issue challenging the trial court’s decree awarding Maryam Mubashir (“Wife”) attorney’s fees as alimony in solido. The judgment from which Husband seeks to appeal is not a final judgment. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. |
Hamblen | Court of Appeals |