State of Tennessee v. Doyan Anderson
The Defendant, Doyan Anderson, was indicted for aggravated assault involving the use or display of a deadly weapon, a Class C felony; aggravated assault based on violation of a court order, a Class C felony; domestic assault, a Class A misdemeanor; and unlawful possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a felony involving the use or attempted use of violence, a Class C felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-13-102(a)(1)(A)(iii), -13-102(c), -13-111, -17-1307. Following a jury trial, the Defendant was convicted of domestic assault and both counts of aggravated assault. The jury acquitted the Defendant of the unlawful possession of a firearm charge. The trial court merged the domestic assault conviction into the aggravated assault conviction based on violation of a court order. The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a career offender and imposed a total effective sentence of thirty years' incarceration. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends (1) that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction for aggravated assault involving the use or display of a deadly weapon and (2) that the trial court committed plain error by failing to require the State to make an election of the distinct conduct it was relying upon regarding the charge of aggravated assault based on violation of a court order. Following our review, we affirm the Defendant's convictions. However, we merge the Defendant's two convictions for aggravated assault and remand the case to the trial court for entry of corrected judgment forms reflecting said merger and the resulting sentence of fifteen years' incarceration. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Willie Gatewood v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Willie Gatewood, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. He argues that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance (1) by not filing a motion to suppress the results of a photographic identification by the victim, (2) by not filing a motion to suppress the results of a warrantless search of Petitioner's cellphone, and (3) by various failures during trial preparation. Because Petitioner has failed to prove his claims by clear and convincing evidence, the decision of the post-conviction court is affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Kenneth Dale Sanders v. State of Tennessee
The pro se petitioner, Kenneth Dale Sanders, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for writ of error coram nobis. Following our review, we affirm the summary dismissal of the petition as time-barred pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. |
Grundy | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. David Troy Firestone
David Troy Firestone (“the Defendant”) pled guilty to burglary and theft of property. At a bench trial, the trial court found that the value of the stolen property was over $10,000. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to concurrent sentences of four years for the burglary conviction and to five years for the theft of property conviction as a Range I standard offender. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the value of the stolen property exceeded $10,000, that he was improperly sentenced, and that the trial court erred in ordering the Defendant to pay $5,000 in restitution to Storage Town of America. After a thorough review of the record and case law, we affirm the Defendant’s convictions and sentences but reverse and vacate the trial court’s order of restitution to Storage Town of America. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Minor
In a bifurcated trial, a Madison County jury convicted the defendant, Christopher Minor, of two counts of first degree murder, two counts of aggravated burglary, one count of aggravated assault, one count of convicted felon in possession of a firearm, one count of employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, one count of employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony having been previously been convicted of a felony, and six counts of violating Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-121, the criminal gang offenses enhancement statute. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of life plus twenty years. The defendant appeals his conviction, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and the constitutionality of Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-121. The State argues the evidence was sufficient to support the defendant's convictions, and the defendant waived his constitutional challenge by raising his argument for the first time on appeal. We agree with the State and affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Minor-Concur In Part, Dissent In Part
I concur with the majority with respect to its resolution of the Defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. However, in light of this court;s holding in State v. Bonds, 502 S.W.3d 118 (Tenn. Crim. App. April 7, 2016), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Aug. 18, 2016), I respectfully disagree with the majority's conclusion that the Defendant has waived his challenge to the constitutionality of the gang enhancement statute. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Marcia Latrice Taylor
A Maury County grand jury indicted the Defendant, Marcia Latrice Taylor, for one count of possession of 0.5 grams or more of a Schedule II substance, cocaine, with the intent to sell or deliver and one count of possession of 14.175 grams of a Schedule VI substance, marijuana, with the intent to sell or deliver. The Defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence found as a result of a search of an establishment that she owned based upon the credibility and reliability of the confidential informant whose statement police used as a basis for the warrant. The trial court granted the motion, and the State appeals. On appeal, the State contends that the trial court erred because the confidential informant’s reliability and knowledge were corroborated by independent police investigation. After review, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jason Larry Russo
In the Bedford County Circuit Court, the defendant, Jason Larry Russo, pled guilty to second offense driving on a revoked license, a Class A misdemeanor, and was found guilty by a jury of promotion of the manufacture of methamphetamine, a Class D felony. He was sentenced to eleven months and twenty-nine days for the driving offense and twelve years for the drug offense, to be served consecutively. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. George A. Belt
The defendant, George A. Belt, was convicted by a Bedford County Circuit Court jury of two counts of rape, Class B felonies; one count of incest, a Class C felony; and one count of purchasing alcohol for a minor, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court merged the rape convictions and imposed a sentence of twenty years for that conviction. The court imposed a sentence of ten years for the incest conviction and eleven months and twenty- nine days for the purchasing alcohol for a minor conviction. The court ordered that all the sentences be served concurrently. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence convicting him of rape and incest and also argues that the trial court imposed an excessive sentence. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Alexis Mason v. State of Tennessee
Alexis Mason (“the Petitioner”) was convicted of one count of second degree murder and three counts of aggravated assault by a Shelby County jury, for which the Petitioner received an effective sentence of thirty-seven years. The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief arguing that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to argue self-defense. The post-conviction court denied relief after finding that trial counsel’s failure to argue self-defense was not deficient and did not prejudice the Petitioner. On appeal, we affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of relief. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Horace E. Hollis, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
This appeal of the denial of post-conviction relief is before this court pursuant to remand by the Tennessee Supreme Court, which vacated this court’s August 2015 opinion upholding the post-conviction court’s denial of post-conviction relief because the transcript of the post-conviction hearing was not included in the appellate record. In August 2001, the Petitioner, Horace E. Hollis, Jr., was charged in an eighty (80) count presentment with forty counts of aggravated sexual battery and forty counts of rape of a child. The sexual abuse was committed against the Petitioner’s two minor granddaughters by marriage and, based on the presentment, occurred every other weekend from October 2000 to July 2001. The counts in the presentment were identical except for the victim’s name and date range. Before trial, the Petitioner’s third appointed counsel agreed to sever the counts of the indictment into separate groups of four, one count of rape of a child and one count of aggravated sexual battery for each of the two victims, theoretically resulting in twenty separate trials. The Petitioner was acquitted at his first trial. At his second trial, the Petitioner was convicted of rape of a child and aggravated sexual battery of each victim, for which he received an effective sentence of forty (40) years’ incarceration. Following his second trial, the remaining counts of the presentment were dismissed by the State. Although the Petitioner presents a multitude of issues for our review, we consider his primary issue to be whether third counsel was ineffective in failing to require an election of offenses in his first trial, which resulted in an acquittal. Because there was no election of offenses in his first trial, the Petitioner further contends that third counsel was ineffective in failing to object to his second trial based on double jeopardy principles. Following a thorough review of the record and applicable authority, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Dickson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Victor Sharmell Sparkman
Defendant, Victor Sharmell Sparkman, filed a motion pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1, alleging that he received illegal sentences for his convictions of second degree murder, Range I, 33 years with a release eligibility of “violent 100%” and especially aggravated robbery, Range I, 33 years with a release eligibility of “violent 100%” pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement. The trial court denied the motion without a hearing, and Defendant has appealed. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Montez Adams v. Cherry Lindamood, Warden
The Appellant, Montez Adams, 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. |
Wayne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Tornita N. Crenshaw v. State of Tennessee
In 2008, a jury found the Petitioner, Tornita N. Crenshaw, guilty of two counts of aggravated robbery, one count of aggravated burglary, one count of especially aggravated kidnapping, and one count of coercion of a witness. The jury also convicted three co-defendants related to these offenses. On joint direct appeal, this Court affirmed the Petitioner’s convictions. See State v.Lance Sandifer, Stephon Dante Cunningham, Tornita Crenshaw, & Glenard Thorne, No. M2008-02849-CCA-R3-CD, 2010 WL 5343202, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Dec. 21, 2010), perm. app. denied (Tenn. May 26, 2011). On April 11, 2016, the Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis alleging numerous errors. The trial court issued an order on April 25, 2016, dismissing the petition as time-barred. We affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Tamir Clark v. State of Tennessee
In 2012, the Petitioner, Tamir Clark, pleaded guilty to especially aggravated kidnapping, arson, especially aggravated robbery, and attempted first degree murder. The Petitioner later filed a post-conviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and that his guilty plea was involuntary. The post-conviction court denied the petition, and this Court affirmed the denial on appeal. See State v.Tamir Clark, No. M2014-00618-CCA-R3-PC, 2014 WL 7191536, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Dec. 18, 2014), perm. app. denied (Tenn. April 13, 2015). On February 24, 2016, the Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis alleging newly discovered evidence. In March 2016, the trial court issued an order dismissing the petition as time-barred. We affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Rodney Lee Scott
Defendant, Rodney Lee Scott, was found guilty by a jury of attempted voluntary manslaughter, aggravated assault, reckless aggravated assault, leaving the scene of the accident, and public intoxication as the result of an incident described as road rage on December 16, 2013. As a result of the convictions, Defendant received an effective sentence of six years. Defendant appeals, challenging: (1) the sufficiency of the evidence; (2) the denial of a motion to sever; (3) the denial of a motion in limine which sought to allow Defendant to cross-examine the victims about their criminal history; (4) his dual convictions for attempted voluntary manslaughter and aggravated assault; and (5) the trial court’s denial of a mistrial. After a review of the evidence and authorities, we affirm the judgments of the trial court with respect to Defendant’s convictions for attempted voluntary manslaughter, aggravated assault, leaving the scene of the accident, and public intoxication. Because reckless aggravated assault cannot be a lesser included offense of aggravated assault based upon fearing imminent bodily injury, we reverse and dismiss Defendant’s conviction for reckless aggravated assault. On remand, the trial court should enter judgment forms dismissing Counts Four and Seven of the indictment. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Antonio Richardson
The Defendant, Antonio Richardson, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of first degree premeditated murder. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-202 (2014). The trial court sentenced the Defendant to life imprisonment. On appeal, he contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction and (2) the trial court erred by admitting in evidence a photograph of the victim from the crime scene. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Billy Hill
The Defendant, Billy Hill, was convicted by a Knox County Criminal Court jury of second degree murder, a Class X felony, for the 1986 killing of his mother. See T.C.A. § 39-2-211 (1986) (repealed 1989). The trial court sentenced the Defendant to twenty-four years‘ confinement. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the trial court erred by denying his motions to dismiss based upon lost and destroyed evidence, a due process violation created by the extensive pre-indictment delay, and a violation of his right to a speedy trial, (2) the trial court erred by allowing improper witness testimony, (3) the trial court erred by denying his motion for a mistrial after a witness violated a court order prohibiting testimony about the Defendant‘s alleged violent conduct against the witness, (4) the trial court erred by refusing to provide a jury instruction relative to the State‘s obligation to corroborate his statements, and (5) the prosecutor engaged in misconduct during closing argument. We have also considered whether the statute of limitations for second degree murder had expired before the commencement of the prosecution. Although we affirm the Defendant‘s conviction, we remand for the entry of a corrected judgment reflecting the proper felony classification for second degree murder at the time of the offense. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Travis Pallaria
The Defendant, Travis Pallaria, appeals as of right from the Blount County Circuit Court’s revocation of his community corrections sentence. The Defendant cites evidence excusing his violation and contends that the trial court was unduly harsh and abused its discretion in ordering the Defendant to serve the balance of his sentence in confinement. Following our review, we affirm the revocation and confinement order of the trial court. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Robreka Jay Quan Sullivan
The Appellant, Robreka Jay Quan Sullivan, was found guilty by a Davidson County Criminal Court Jury of aggravated robbery and aggravated burglary, and she received a total effective sentence of ten years. On appeal, the Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence sustaining her convictions. Specifically, she contends that the victim’s testimony was not credible and that the State proved, at most, that she was involved in the disposition of stolen property. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Michael Joseph Lugiai, Sr. v. State of Tennessee
In July 2012, the Petitioner, Michael Joseph Lugiai, Sr., entered a “best interests” guilty plea to four counts of aggravated assault. He timely filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that his plea was unknowing and involuntary. Following a hearing on the petition, the post-conviction court denied relief. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Eddie A. Medlock v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant, Eddie A. Medlock, is appealing the trial court’s order denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The State has filed a motion asking this Court to affirm pursuant to Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20. Said motion is hereby granted. |
Trousdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Herman Sowell, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
In 2011, the Petitioner, Herman Sowell, Jr., pleaded nolo contendreto attempted aggravated rape, attempted aggravated sexual battery, and incest, and the trial court sentenced him to fifteen years, at 30%. The trial court ordered a “time served” sentence followed by probation. In April 2013, after the statute of limitations had expired, the Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, using a separate case number but challenging as ineffective the representation of his counsel for the November 2011 case. At some point thereafter, the trial court revoked the Petitioner’s probation. The Petitioner amended his petition for post-conviction relief to challenge his November 2011 convictions. The post-conviction court summarily dismissed the post-conviction petition. We affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Misty Ann Miller
The defendant, Misty Ann Miller, appeals the trial court’s denial of her Rule 35 motion to modify the sentences imposed against her pursuant to a negotiated plea deal. On appeal, the defendant argues the trial court abused its discretion in finding no new post-sentencing developments exist to justify a modification of her sentences. After our review, we affirm the decision of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Wesley Howard Luthringer
Wesley Howard Luthringer (“the Defendant”) was convicted of two counts of aggravated vehicular homicide by a Bedford County jury. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to twenty-four years for each count to be served consecutively as a Range I standard offender. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient for a rational juror to find him guilty of aggravated vehicular homicide beyond a reasonable doubt and that the trial court erred in ordering his sentences to be served consecutively. After a thorough review of the record and case law, we affirm. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals |
