Robert Lindiment v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Robert Lindiment, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that the court erred in finding that he received effective assistance of counsel. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John Smith
The Defendant, John Smith, appeals his conviction of official oppression and his two year sentence in the county workhouse. He argues that his acquittal of a charge of rape and conviction of official oppression represent inconsistent verdicts and that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of official oppression. Following review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Janice Darlene Helbert
Defendant, Janice Darlene Helbert, was issued a Uniform Citation of Complaint for the offenses of driving under the influence and following too closely. The citation included the officer's narrative of the facts underlying the offenses. The officer also prepared an affidavit of complaint, which he signed under oath before a notary public. Three days later, the affidavit of complaint was signed by a deputy clerk. Over one year later, Defendant waived her right to a preliminary hearing and agreed to have her case bound over to the grand jury. The grand jury subsequently returned a presentment against Defendant for the misdemeanor offenses above, as well as one count of felony reckless endangerment. Subsequent to the presentment, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the two misdemeanor counts as time barred, arguing that the affidavit of complaint was void because the officer did not make the oath in the presence of an authorized official capable of making a probable cause determination. The trial court granted Defendant's motion to dismiss the misdemeanor charges. The State sought and was granted an interlocutory appeal of the trial court's decision. On appeal, the State contends that the fact that the affidavit of complaint was sworn before a notary public rather than a qualified judicial officer was a “technical defect” that should not render it void. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Louis Grieco
Defendant, Louis Grieco, was arrested on August 24, 2013, without a warrant for driving under the influence (DUI). On the date of the arrest, the arresting officer summarized the facts underlying the offense in an affidavit of complaint, which he signed under oath before a notary public. Two days later, a general sessions judge found probable cause that the offense was committed based on the officer's affidavit of complaint. Over one year later, on October 6, 2014, Defendant waived his right to a preliminary hearing in General Sessions Court and agreed to have the case bound over to the Sullivan County Grand Jury. The grand jury indicted Defendant for DUI on January 21, 2015. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the indictment as time barred, arguing that the affidavit of complaint was void because the officer did not make it on oath in the presence of an authorized official capable of making a probable cause determination. The trial court granted Defendant's motion to dismiss. The State appeals. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jabari Reynolds
The Appellant, Jabari Reynolds, was convicted by a Knox County Criminal Court Jury of first degree premeditated murder, and he was sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal, the Appellant contends that the trial court erred (1) by allowing a police officer to testify regarding recordings of telephone calls the Appellant made while in jail instead of requiring a telephone company employee to authenticate the calls, (2) by refusing to instruct the jury on voluntary intoxication, (3) by refusing to give a special instruction that the lesser-included offense of second degree murder was “homicide in the 'heat of passion' without adequate provocation,” and (4) by accepting the jury's verdict as thirteenth juror. The Appellant also contends that he is entitled to relief due to cumulative error. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Henry Lee Burrell v. State of Tennessee
Henry Lee Burrell (“the Petitioner”) pled guilty to six counts of first degree murder and was sentenced to four concurrent and two consecutive life sentences under the terms of a plea agreement. The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which the post-conviction court denied after a hearing. The Petitioner now appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, contending: (1) that the post-conviction court erred in denying his request for a psychological examination at the post-conviction hearing; (2) that his guilty plea was unknowing and involuntary; and (3) that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel. After a thorough review of the record and applicable case law, we affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of relief. |
Lincoln | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Timothy Allen Johnson v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Timothy Allen Johnson, appeals the denial of post-conviction relief from his 2013 Davidson County Criminal Court jury conviction of tampering with evidence, for which he received a sentence of 12 years. In this appeal, the petitioner contends only that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Anthony Thompson
The defendant, Anthony Thompson, was convicted of the first degree premeditated murder of Barris Jones and sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in allowing testimony regarding a hearsay statement of the victim as a dying declaration, in limiting the cross-examination of a co-defendant, and in allowing autopsy and crime scene photographs into evidence. Additionally, he argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Sarita Alston
The defendant, Sarita Alston, was sentenced to an effective sentence of twenty-five years in confinement by the trial court for the merged convictions of reckless endangerment, aggravated child neglect, and aggravated child endangerment. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court improperly enhanced her aggravated child neglect sentence to the maximum within-range sentence of twenty-five years in violation of the purposes and principles of the Tennessee Criminal Sentencing Reform Act. Following our review of the briefs, the record, and the applicable law, we affirm the twenty-five year sentence. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Yusuf Rahman
A jury convicted the Defendant, Yusuf Rahman, of one count of attempted second degree murder, two counts of aggravated assault, and one count of domestic assault. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to thirty years for attempted second degree murder, fifteen years for each aggravated assault conviction, and eleven months and twenty-nine days for domestic assault. The trial court ran the sentences concurrently and merged the aggravated assault convictions. The Defendant asserts that the evidence is insufficient to support the attempted second degree murder conviction and that the trial court should have instructed the jury on self-defense. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Quanya Revell Prewitt v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Quanya Revell Prewitt, filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging various claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court denied relief, and the Petitioner appeals. Upon review, we conclude that because of the post-conviction court’s failure to comply with the mandates of section 9(D)(1)(b)(i) of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 28, we are compelled to reverse the denial of post-conviction relief and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Justin Daniel Adams
The Defendant, Justin Daniel Adams, pleaded guilty to aggravated assault, agreeing to an out-of-range sentence of eight years. The parties agreed to allow the trial court to determine the manner of service of his sentence. After a hearing, the trial court ordered that the Defendant serve his sentence in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it denied him an alternative sentence and that his judgment form should be amended to reflect applicable pretrial jail credit. We affirm the trial court’s judgment. We remand the case to the trial court for the entry of an amended judgment that reflects the Defendant’s applicable pretrial jail credit. |
Lawrence | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Joe Turner v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Joe Turner, filed a petition in the Knox County Criminal Court seeking post-conviction relief from his convictions of two counts of aggravated rape, one count of especially aggravated kidnapping, one count of aggravated assault, and the accompanying effective sentence of one hundred years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The Petitioner alleged that his appellate counsel was ineffective by failing to appeal the trial court‟s refusal to admit potentially exculpatory DNA evidence. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James Hardin v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, James Hardin, appeals the Madison County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions of two counts of aggravated robbery and one count of aggravated burglary and resulting effective sentence of twenty-two years in confinement. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Sonia Gonzales v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Sonia Gonzales, appeals the denial of her petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that the court erred in finding that she received effective assistance of counsel. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Dondre Johnson
The Defendant, Dondre Johnson, was convicted by a Shelby County Jury of first degree murder committed during the perpetration of an attempted robbery and received a sentence of life imprisonment. In his sole issue on appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ioka Kimbuke Kyles
The Defendant, Ioka Kimbuke Kyles, entered guilty pleas in the Davidson County Criminal Court to two counts of facilitation of aggravated child abuse and one count of facilitation of aggravated child neglect. The trial court imposed concurrent eight-year sentences for each count, to be served in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying alternative sentencing. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Gerome Smith v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Gerome Smith, appeals from the Sumner County Criminal Court’s denial of his pro se motion to vacate the post-conviction court’s judgment. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in dismissing his motion. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Donnie Davenport v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Donnie Davenport, appeals from the Cumberland County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his jury trial conviction of promotion of the manufacture of methamphetamine, for which he is serving a twelve-year, Range III sentence. He contends that the post-conviction court erred in denying his claim, which is premised upon ineffective assistance of counsel allegations. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Cumberland | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Bobby Dewayne Presley v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner sought post-conviction relief alleging that trial counsel’s ineffectiveness prevented him from seeking a direct appeal. The post-conviction court denied relief after a hearing, finding that Petitioner failed to show he was prejudiced by trial counsel’s actions. We determine that the record does not preponderate against the findings of the post-conviction court. Therefore, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief. |
Coffee | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Bobby Dewayne Presley v. State of Tennessee - Dissent
I agree with the majority that this case has a “mystifying” procedural history. I write separately to express my concerns regarding the authority of the Petitioner’s mother, acting through a standard form durable power of attorney, to dismiss the Petitioner’s direct appeal of his 2011 conviction. Equally concerning is the waiver by the Petitioner’s mother of appellate counsel’s conflict in representing the Petitioner during his direct appeal and post-conviction proceedings. As the majority notes, the issue of the Petitioner’s mother authority to act on behalf of the Petitioner was not raised. |
Coffee | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kelly Nicole Henderson
We granted this interlocutory appeal to review the trial court’s order granting the Defendant’s motion to suppress the results of a breath alcohol test. Prior to trial, the Defendant filed a motion to suppress the results of the breath alcohol test based upon a violation of State v. Sensing,843 S.W.2d 412 (Tenn. 1992). The trial court granted the Defendant’s motion to suppress, and the State filed for an interlocutory appeal. After review of the record and applicable authority, we hold that the trial court erred in suppressing the results of the blood alcohol test because the State attempted to properly admit them through expert testimony in accordance with Tennessee Rules of Evidence 702 and 703. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Johnny Lynn a.k.a. Jerome Buss
Defendant, Johnny Lynn, appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion under Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 to correct an illegal sentence. Defendant contends that the trial court erred by concluding that relief was not available because his sentence was legal and, thus, he failed to state a colorable claim under Rule 36.1. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee. |
Perry | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Humphre Ford
A Shelby County Criminal Court jury convicted the defendant, Humphre Ford, of unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, unlawful possession of a handgun by a convicted felon, and two counts of simple possession of marijuana. Due to his extensive criminal history, the trial court imposed a within-range consecutive sentence of twelve years, eleven months, and twenty-nine days. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the unlawful possession of a firearm and unlawful possession of a handgun convictions and the imposition of consecutive sentences. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Clifton
Defendant, Christopher Clifton, was charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Subsequently, Defendant entered a guilty plea to aggravated assault as a Range I standard offender. The State recommended and the trial court imposed a four-year sentence at thirty percent with the ability to apply for probation. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea based on his assertion that the plea was not voluntarily or knowingly entered. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals |
