Antonio Bonds v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Antonio Bonds, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s preliminary order dismissing his third petition for post-conviction relief. The petitioner claims the post-conviction court erred in dismissing his petition as time-barred. Upon review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s preliminary order dismissing the petition. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Danny R. Mays v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Danny R. Mays, appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition, arguing the post-conviction court erred in finding he received effective assistance of counsel at trial and on direct appeal. After our review of the record, briefs, and applicable law, we affirm the denial of the petition. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Antonio Champion
The defendant, Antonio Champion, appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Rule 36.1 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure. Because the challenged sentences are expired, the defendant is not entitled relief. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jordan Gregory Love
The Defendant, Jordan Gregory Love, was convicted by a Davidson County Criminal Court Jury of two counts of aggravated child abuse of a child eight years of age or less, Class A felonies, and two counts of aggravated child neglect of a child eight years of age or less, Class A felonies. See T.C.A. § 39-15-402 (2010) (amended 2011, 2012, 2016). The trial court merged the aggravated child abuse convictions and merged the aggravated child neglect convictions and sentenced the Defendant to concurrent eighteen-year sentences at 100% service. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions, (2) the trial court erred by limiting his cross-examination of a State’s witness, and (3) the trial court erred by admitting the non-testifying codefendants’ statements into evidence. We conclude that although the evidence sufficiently established that the victim suffered bodily injury, the evidence is insufficient to show that the victim suffered serious bodily injury and that the victim’s injury was inflicted by a dangerous instrumentality. Furthermore, we conclude that the trial court erred by admitting the non-testifying codefendants’ statements into evidence. The Defendant’s convictions for aggravated child abuse and aggravated child neglect by inflicting serious bodily injury are reversed. Because the trial court erred by admitting evidence at the trial, the case is remanded to the trial court for a new trial on the lesser charges of child abuse and child neglect. The Defendant’s convictions for aggravated child abuse and aggravated child neglect by inflicting injury with a dangerous instrumentality are vacated, and the charges are dismissed |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jordan Gregory Love-Dissent
I agree with the majority’s conclusions regarding Mr. Pilarski’s testimony and the trial court’s committing reversible error by admitting the codefendants’ statements. To me, the fact that the State even pursued charges against everyone in the home and the victim’s father is troubling. I write separately, though, to dissent from the majority’s conclusion that the evidence is insufficient to support the Defendant’s convictions. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jerrico Lamont Hawthorne
The Defendant, Jerrico Lamont Hawthorne, was convicted by a Hamilton County Criminal Court jury of first degree premeditated murder, first degree felony murder during the perpetration of or attempt to perpetrate a robbery, attempt to commit first degree murder, a Class A felony, especially aggravated robbery, a Class A felony, and attempt to commit especially aggravated robbery, a Class B felony. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-202 (2014), 39-13-403 (2014), 39-12-101 (2014). The trial court merged the felony murder conviction with the premeditated murder conviction and sentenced the Defendant to life imprisonment. The court also sentenced the Defendant to concurrent sentences of twenty-five years for attempted first degree murder, twenty-five years for especially aggravated robbery, and twelve years for attempted especially aggravated robbery. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions, (2) the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress the pretrial identifications, (3) the trial court erred by permitting evidence of cell phone data, (4) the trial court erred by permitting evidence pursuant to the dying declaration exception to the rule against hearsay, and (5) the trial court erred by failing to provide jury instructions on the lesser included offenses of voluntary manslaughter, reckless homicide, and criminally negligent homicide. Although we affirm the Defendant's convictions for first degree premeditated and felony murder, attempted first degree murder, and especially aggravated robbery, we reverse the trial court's judgment for attempted especially aggravated robbery, vacate the conviction, and dismiss the charge because of insufficient evidence. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jayme Conkin
A Sullivan County Criminal Court jury convicted the Defendant-Appellant, Jayme Conkin, of first offense driving under the influence (DUI), a Class A misdemeanor, and she received a sentence of eleven months and twenty nine days, suspended to supervised probation after forty-eight hours' incarceration in the Sullivan County jail. On appeal, Conkin contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support her conviction; (2) the trial court erred in denying her motion in limine; (3) the Tennessee DUI statute is unconstitutionally vague; and (4) the State failed to disclose exculpatory evidence, requiring a new trial. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Dyron Norm Yokley v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Dyron Norm Yokley, appeals the Hamilton County Criminal Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his second degree felony murder conviction and resulting thirty-five-year, Range II sentence. The Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred in denying his petition. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joseph A. Cundiff
Defendant, Joseph A. Cundiff, was indicted by a Sumner County Grand Jury for premeditated first degree murder of his wife and unlawful possession of a handgun by a felon. After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of second degree murder. Defendant pled guilty to unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon. The trial court imposed concurrent sentences of twenty-five years for second degree murder and two years for unlawful possession of a handgun by a felon. On appeal, Defendant argues that: 1) the trial court erred by denying his motions for judgment of acquittal; 2) the evidence was not sufficient to support his second degree murder conviction; and 3) the trial court erred in sentencing him to the maximum sentence for second degree murder. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Gregory L. Hatton v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Gregory L. Hatton, pleaded guilty on July 18, 1977, to armed robbery, first degree burglary, two counts of simple kidnapping, assault with intent to commit murder, grand larceny, and rape in the Giles County Circuit Court. The offenses in this case occurred in Maury County, and Petitioner’s brief states that a motion for a change of venue had been filed in 1977. Maury and Giles County are in the same judicial district. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of life plus thirty years. Gregory Hatton v. State, No. M2000-00756-CCA-R3-PC, 2001 WL 567845 (Tenn. Crim. App. May 25, 2001). He filed a request pursuant to the Post-Conviction DNA Analysis Act of 2001 seeking testing of any physical evidence in his case. The post-conviction court summarily denied relief based upon affidavits from the relevant authorities stating that no physical evidence remained for testing. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Giles | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Cordalle Benton
The Shelby County Grand Jury indicted Cordalle Benton (“the Defendant”) for one count of rape of a child that allegedly occurred between December 1, 2012, and July 16, 2013. Following a jury trial, the Defendant was convicted as charged and sentenced to thirty-two years’ incarceration. On appeal, he argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Antoine Perrier
The Defendant-Appellant, Antoine Perrier, was convicted in the Shelby County Criminal Court of attempted voluntary manslaughter in Count 1, employment of a firearm during the attempt to commit a dangerous felony in Count 2, aggravated assault in Counts 3 through 7, and assault in Count 8. The trial court merged Count 3 with Count 1 before sentencing Perrier to an effective sentence of thirty years. In this delayed appeal, Perrier argues: (1) the trial court erroneously instructed the jury on self-defense; (2) the trial court committed plain error in failing to instruct the jury on possession of a firearm during the attempt to commit a dangerous felony as a lesser included offense of employment of a firearm during the attempt to commit a dangerous felony; (3) the employment of a firearm count is void because it fails to name the predicate felony for the firearm offense; (4) the trial court erred in declining to instruct the jury on the defense of necessity; and (5) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction for assault. We conclude that although the self-defense instruction was erroneous, the error was harmless. Therefore, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Pamela Moses
The Defendant-Appellant, Pamela Moses, entered guilty pleas to theft of merchandise worth $500 or less, tampering with or fabricating evidence, forgery, perjury, stalking, and escape in exchange for an effective sentence of seven years. Shortly after entry of these judgments, Moses filed a motion to withdraw her guilty pleas, which was denied by the trial court following a hearing. On appeal, Moses argues that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to withdraw her plea. We affirm the trial court's denial of the motion to withdraw the guilty plea but remand for correction of clerical errors in the judgment forms. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Randall Evans
The Defendant-Appellant, Randall Evans, was convicted by a Bradley County jury of one count of casual exchange of a controlled substance. See T.C.A. § 39-17-418. Evans received a sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days, with fifteen days’ incarceration and the remainder on supervised probation, and a $750 fine. He subsequently filed a motion to reconsider his sentence, which the trial court interpreted as a motion for a reduction of sentence pursuant Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 35, and, following a hearing, the motion was denied. The sole issue raised on appeal is whether the trial court improperly denied Evans’s motion for sentence reduction. Upon review, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Bradley | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Bradley Keith Cathey
The defendant, Bradley Keith Cathey, appeals the Dickson County Circuit Court’s finding of criminal contempt for failing to appear at a scheduled attorney setting. The trial court found the defendant in direct contempt of court and summarily sentenced him to ten days incarceration. On appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court erred in finding him in summary contempt. Following our review, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and vacated. The cause is remanded for a hearing in accordance with Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 42(b). |
Dickson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Baby Dashea Nix
The Defendant, Baby Dashea Nix, appeals as of right from the Sumner County Criminal Court’s partial revocation of her effective twelve-year community corrections sentence.The Defendant contends that the evidence presented at the revocation hearing was insufficient to establish that a violation of the conditions of her sentence occurred and that, therefore, the trial court abused its discretion. The Defendant also submits that she was not afforded due process because counsel failed to present the testimony of the Defendant’s mother at the revocation hearing. Following our review, we affirm the trial court’s partial revocation of the Defendant’s community corrections sentence. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Thomas H. Bullington
The Defendant, Thomas H. Bullington, was convicted by a Lincoln County Circuit Court jury of violation of an order of protection, a Class A misdemeanor. See T.C.A. § 39-13-113(a)(1) (2014). The Defendant received a sentence of eleven months, twenty-nine days. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction and (2) the trial court erred by ordering the maximum sentence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Lincoln | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Anthone Tyrone Love
Following his conviction for delivery of not less than one-half ounce of schedule VI drugs, the Defendant, Anthone Tyrone Love, received a two-year sentence, sixteen months of which was to be served on probation. Following a hearing, the trial court revoked the Defendant’s determinate release probation and ordered him to serve the balance of his sentence in confinement. On appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court erred in ordering him to serve the remainder of his sentence in confinement and that ninety days of split confinement and treatment for substance abuse is an appropriate sanction for the violation. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jonathan D. Drewry v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Jonathan D. Drewry, pleaded guilty to aggravated rape, aggravated assault, and aggravated kidnapping and received an effective sentence of twenty-five years in the Department of Correction. The Petitioner filed a post-conviction petition, and the post-conviction court denied relief following a hearing. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel in the trial court. We affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jerry Floyd
The Defendant, Jerry Floyd, was arrested without a warrant for driving under the influence (DUI), third offense, a Class A misdemeanor, and several other traffic offenses not relevant to this review. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 55-10-401, -402(a)(3)(A). The Defendant consented to a bench trial in Sullivan County General Sessions Court and was found guilty of DUI, third offense. The Defendant then appealed to the Sullivan County Criminal Court. Following a bench trial, the Defendant was again found guilty of DUI, third offense. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to eleven months and twenty nine-days with 120 days to be served in confinement. The Defendant now appeals to this court, contending that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction. Following our review, we conclude that the affidavit of complaint filed after the Defendant’s arrest was void and that no valid arrest warrant was issued in this case. Therefore, prosecution was never commenced in this matter within the applicable statute of limitations. Accordingly, we reverse and dismiss the judgment of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Rachel Kay Bond
A Lawrence County jury found the Defendant, Rachel Kay Bond, guilty of first degree premeditated murder, and she was sentenced to life imprisonment in the Department of Correction. The Defendant asserts that the evidence is insufficient and that the trial court erred when it admitted into evidence incriminating text messages allegedly sent by the Defendant. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Lawrence | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Frederick E. Braxton v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Frederick E. Braxton, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his 2010 convictions for selling less than 0.5 gram of cocaine within 1000 feet of a school zone, evading arrest, and criminal impersonation and his effective fifteen-year sentence. The Petitioner contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Johnny Malcolm Vinson
The Defendant, Johnny Malcom Vinson, was convicted by a Davidson County Criminal Court jury of attempt to commit second degree murder, a Class B felony, two counts of aggravated assault, Class C felonies, and employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, a Class C felony. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-210 (2014), 39-12-101 (2014), 39-13-102 (2014) (amended 2015); 39-17-1324 (2014). The trial court sentenced the Defendant to concurrent sentences of twenty-four years for attempted second degree murder, fifteen years for aggravated assault, and ten years for aggravated assault. The court also sentenced the Defendant to ten years for the firearm violation and ordered consecutive service, for an effective thirty-four-year sentence. The court further ordered the effective sentence in the present case to be served consecutively to a ten-year sentence in another case, for an overall effective forty-four-year sentence. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Brooke Lee Whitaker
The Appellant, Brooke Lee Whitaker, is appealing the trial court’s order dismissing her motion to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to Rule of Criminal Procedure Rule 36.1. The State has filed a motion asking this Court to affirm pursuant to Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20. Said motion is hereby granted. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Lawrence Taylor III aka "PIG"
The defendant, Lawrence Taylor III, aka “Pig,” was indicted for first degree murder, especially aggravated kidnapping, and aggravated assault. After trial, a jury found the defendant guilty of the lesser-included offense of second degree murder, especially aggravated kidnapping, and aggravated assault. The defendant argues on appeal that the guilty verdict is not supported by the evidence and the trial court improperly admitted a prior written statement of an unavailable witness into evidence. The State argues the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions, and the trial court properly allowed the witness's prior statement to be read into evidence. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Tipton | Court of Criminal Appeals |
