State of Tennessee v. Geremy Paul Mathis
The Appellant, Geremy Paul Mathis, was convicted by a Coffee County Circuit Court Jury of initiating a process intended to result in the manufacture of methamphetamine, a Class B felony. The trial court sentenced the Appellant as a Range I, standard offender to eleven years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Appellant contends that the trial court erred by (1) denying his motion to suppress the “meth lab” discovered after an officer ordered the Appellant to exit the vehicle in which he was a passenger, (2) denying his motion for mistrial after a defense witness made repeated references to the Appellant’s previous incarceration, and (3) refusing to grant the alternative sentence of community corrections. The Appellant further contends that the evidence was not sufficient to sustain his conviction. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Coffee | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Roy Smith v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Roy Smith, was convicted at trial of several drug-related offenses and sentenced to twelve years to be served consecutively to a prior aggregate sentence of thirty-seven years. Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when trial counsel advised him to reject a favorable plea offer in favor of attempting to have the charges dismissed at trial based on a jurisdictional argument. The post-conviction court denied relief. Petitioner now appeals, asking this Court, among other things, to require the State to re-extend the alleged plea offer pursuant to Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156, 174 (2012). We decline and affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Roy Smith v. State of Tennessee - Dissent
I respectfully disagree with the conclusion reached by the majority in this case. In this appeal, the Petitioner contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at the plea negotiation stage. Specifically, the Petitioner argues that trial counsel was deficient in proceeding to trial based on an erroneous jurisdictional argument. As a result, the Petitioner argues that, but for trial counsel’s erroneous advice, he would have accepted the State’s more favorable plea offer. The State argues that the Petitioner has failed to overcome the presumption that trial counsel exercised reasonable judgment in all strategic decisions. Moreover, the State asserts that because the Petitioner has failed to prove he would have accepted the ten-year offer extended to him instead of the twentyyear offer, he has failed to prove prejudice. For the reasons that follow, I would have reversed the judgment of the post-conviction court and remanded this matter for a rehearing. The facts underlying the Petitioner’s convictions stem from the execution of a search warrant upon his home resulting in the discovery of oxycodone and several hundred dihydrocodeinone pills. State v. Roy Allen Smith, No. M2014-01172-CCA-R3- CD, 2015 WL 3550106, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 8, 2015) perm. app. denied (Tenn. Oct. 15, 2015). The Petitioner was ultimately convicted after a jury trial of simple possession of a Schedule II controlled substance, possession of a Schedule III controlled substance with the intent to manufacture, deliver, or sell, maintaining a dwelling used for keeping or selling controlled substances, and possession of drug paraphernalia, for which he received an effective twelve-year sentence. Id. The trial court ordered the Petitioner’s twelve-year sentence to be served consecutively to six prior convictions with an aggregate sentence of thirty-seven years for which the Petitioner had been on probation at the time that the instant offenses were committed. Roy Allen Smith, at *3. In total, it appears that the Petitioner received an effective forty-nine-year sentence, the bulk of which is for driving offenses. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Wellington Thomas
Defendant, Wellington Thomas, pled guilty to driving under the influence (“DUI”), second offense, and evading arrest. In doing so, Defendant reserved a certified question of law regarding the legality of his traffic stop. The police officer that stopped Defendant observed Defendant’s vehicle touching the fog line twice and crossing the centerline dividing southbound lanes of traffic without a signal. The basis for the traffic stop cited by the police officer was that Defendant had failed to maintain his lane. Defendant filed a motion to suppress and contended that the traffic stop was unconstitutional. The trial court denied the motion to suppress. After a review of the record and the dash camera video depicting Defendant’s driving, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Scott | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Joshua L. Carter v. State of Tennessee
Joshua L. Carter, Petitioner, was convicted in separate jury trials of sale of less than .5 grams of cocaine in a drug-free zone; possession with the intent to sell or deliver more than .5 grams of cocaine in a drug-free zone; simple possession of marijuana; and evading arrest in case number 2011-B-1648 and of voluntary manslaughter, attempted especially aggravated robbery, and felony murder in case number 2011-D-3013. Petitioner received a total effective sentence of forty years as a multiple offender in case number 2011-B-1648 and received a life sentence in case number 2011-D-3013, to be served consecutively to his forty-year sentence. These cases were consolidated on appeal, and this court affirmed Petitioner’s convictions. Petitioner filed petitions for post-conviction relief. The post-conviction court consolidated the petitions and denied relief. On appeal, Petitioner asserts that: (1) trial counsel in case number 2011-D-3013 failed to call an alibi witness; (2) trial counsel in case numbers 2011-B-1648 and 2011-D- 3013 failed to properly investigate the cases; and (3) trial counsel in case number 2011- B-1648 failed to withdraw. After a thorough review of the facts and applicable case law, we affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of relief. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Andrea Spencer
The Appellant, Andrea Spencer, appeals as of right from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s summary denial of his Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 motion to correct an illegal sentence. The Appellant contends that the trial court erred because his motion stated a colorable claim for sentencing outside the statutory ranges and a Blakely v. Washington violation. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Dedrick Wiggins
Dedrick Wiggins (“Defendant”) was convicted by a Shelby County jury of second degree murder and sentenced to thirty-five years’ incarceration. In this direct appeal, Defendant contends that the trial court erred in admitting the victim’s statement under the dying declaration hearsay exception and that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his conviction. Following a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the criminal court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jonathon C. Hood v. Robert Baggett, Circuit Court Clerk
Appellant, Jonathan C. Hood, appeals the trial court’s summary dismissal of his petition seeking habeas corpus relief. The State has filed a motion asking this Court to affirm pursuant to Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20. Said motion is hereby granted. |
Franklin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Donald Ray Mahaffey
Defendant, Donald Ray Mahaffey, was convicted of the sale of more than 0.5 grams of methamphetamine; delivery of more than 0.5 grams of methamphetamine; conspiracy to sell and deliver more than 0.5 grams of methamphetamine; possession of a firearm during the commission of or attempt to commit a dangerous felony; unlawful possession of a weapon after having been convicted of a felony involving the use or attempted use of force, violence, or a deadly weapon; possession of marijuana for resale; and possession of drug paraphernalia. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of thirty-two years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for possession of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. Having reviewed the entire record and the briefs of the parties, we find no error and affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Katherine Louise Holmes v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Katherine Louise Holmes, appeals the denial of her petition for post-conviction relief, which petition challenged her 2012 conviction of attempted first degree murder, alleging that she was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel at trial. Discerning no error, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Joshua Brown v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Joshua Brown, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel and that his guilty pleas were unknowingly and involuntarily entered. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Dewayne Wade
The defendant, Michael Dewayne Wade, appeals the revocation of his community corrections placement, arguing that the trial court erred by ordering the balance of his 12- year sentence to be served in confinement. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jose Ortiz
The Appellant, Jose Ortiz, was convicted of child abuse and aggravated sexual battery. The trial court imposed a total effective sentence of eight years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence sustaining his convictions and contends that “to enable reasonable appellate review[, this] court must establish a standard of performance for the trial court to satisfy its duty as the thirteenth juror.” Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Eugene David Sanders, Jr.
Defendant, Eugene David Sanders, Jr., appeals from his Davidson County Criminal Court convictions of aggravated assault and aggravated criminal trespass, for which he received an effective sentence of fifteen years to serve in the Department of Correction. On appeal, Defendant contends that: (1) the jury’s verdict was against the weight of the evidence; (2) the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on self-defense; and (3) the trial court erred by allowing the State to call Defendant’s court-appointed private investigator as a rebuttal witness. Following a thorough review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Anthony Sinquarius Marks
The Appellant, Anthony Sinquarius Marks, is appealing the trial court’s denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence. The State has filed a motion asking this Court to affirm pursuant to Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20. Said motion is hereby granted. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Russell
The Defendant, Christopher Russell, appeals his convictions for second degree murder and aggravated child abuse and his effective twenty-five-year sentence. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions; (2) the trial court erred in denying his motion to continue the trial; (3) the trial court erred in denying his motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence; and (4) his sentences are excessive. Upon reviewing the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Marion | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Claude Delanore Maney, Jr.
The Defendant, Claude Delanore Maney, Jr., was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault by strangulation and was sentenced as a Range II, multiple offender to eight years of incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Teddy Lynn Sams
The Defendant, Teddy Lynn Sams, pleaded guilty to three counts of violating a condition of community supervision in exchange for an effective sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days with the trial court to determine the manner of service of the sentence. After a hearing, the trial court ordered that the Defendant serve his sentence in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant contends the trial court erred when it did not order an alternative sentence. We affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jamie L. Woods
On April 28, 2017, the Defendant, Jamie L. Woods, entered a guilty plea to theft of property valued at more than $10,000.00 and received a three-year sentence of probation with the amount of restitution to be determined by the trial court. Following a hearing, the trial court ordered the Defendant to pay $19,442.36 in restitution at $540 per month. In this appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in determining the amount of restitution and the Defendant’s ability to pay the restitution. Upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Robertson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Monica Leigh-Ann Briggs
The Defendant, Monica Leigh-Ann Briggs, was convicted by a Campbell County Criminal Court jury of first degree murder and second degree murder. See T.C.A. §§ 39- 13-202 (2014) (first degree murder), 39-13-210 (2014) (second degree murder). The trial court merged the convictions and sentenced the Defendant to life imprisonment. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the trial court erred in denying her motion to suppress her pretrial statement, (2) the evidence is insufficient to support her convictions, (3) the trial court erred by not requiring the State to make an election of the offenses, (4) the trial court erred in denying her motion for a bill of particulars, (5) the trial court erred in admitting an exhibit depicting a Facebook page, (6) the trial court erred in admitting a “ledger” found in the victim’s wallet, (7) the trial court erred during jury instructions, and (8) due process requires relief due to the existence of cumulative error. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Campbell | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Daniel H. Jones v. State of Tennessee
The pro se Appellant, Daniel H. Jones, appeals from the Sullivan County Criminal Court’s order denying his motion for declaratory relief. Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-14- 102(a). The State has filed a motion requesting that this court affirm the trial court’s denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals. Following our review, we conclude that the State’s motion is well-taken and affirm the judgment of the Sullivan County Criminal Court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Robert Simons v. State of Tennessee
According to the allegations in the pro se post-conviction petition, the Petitioner, Robert Simons, was convicted by a Washington County Criminal Court jury of two counts of aggravated child abuse and six counts of child neglect and received an effective eighteenyear sentence. He alleged that the date of the judgment was April 13, 2012, and that no appeal was filed. He filed a post-conviction petition on February 16, 2016, alleging that the one-year post-conviction statute of limitations should not bar his petition because he was tried pursuant to an invalid indictment, he was asserting actual innocence, and his severe mental disability prevented him from “understanding the laws and rules to present and articulate the violations occurring in the trial court proceedings.” The post-conviction court summarily dismissed the petition as time-barred after considering the statutory factors that allow for tolling the statute of limitations. See T.C.A. § 40-30-102(b)(1)-(3) (2012). On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred in dismissing the case on the basis of the statute of limitations. We reverse the judgment of the post-conviction court and remand the case for consideration of whether due process requires tolling the statute of limitations pursuant to State v. Nix, 40 S.W.3d 459, 463 (Tenn. 2001), and to consider whether the appointment of counsel is appropriate. |
Washington | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James T. Hutchins
The Defendant, James T. Hutchins, appeals the Hamilton County Criminal Court’s order revoking his probation for his criminal exposure of another to human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) conviction and ordering him to serve the remainder of his four-year sentence in confinement. The Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering him to serve his sentence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
William Darryn Busby v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, William Darryn Busby, filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis in the Lewis County Circuit Court, asserting that newly discovered evidence entitled him to a new trial. The coram nobis court summarily dismissed the petition, and the Petitioner appeals. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the coram nobis court’s summary dismissal of the petition must be reversed and the case remanded to the coram nobis court for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether due process principles require tolling the statute of limitations. |
Lewis | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Quartez Gary
A Shelby County jury convicted the Defendant, Quartez Gary, of attempted first degree premeditated murder and employment of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective twenty-three-year sentence. On appeal, the Defendant claims that the evidence was insufficient as to the element of premeditation and that the trial court’s instructions to the jury were unclear. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals |
