Alexa Williams EL v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Alexa Williams El, appeals from the trial court's summary dismissal of her three pro se petitions for writ of habeas corpus filed on January 20, 21, and 29, 2015, in which she alleged a number of statutory and procedural violations with regard to the requirements for notifying state officials of a driving infraction after the judgment had issued. She also asserted that the arrest warrants were insufficient with respect to her convictions for driving a motor vehicle while the privilege to drive was suspended, driving an unregistered vehicle, and operating a motor vehicle without evidence of financial responsibility. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Carroll | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Luis Jorge Diaz
Appellant, Luis Jorge Diaz, was convicted of six counts of aggravated sexual battery. The trial court sentenced appellant to ten years for each conviction and aligned two of the convictions consecutively, for a total effective sentence of twenty years. Appellant now challenges his convictions, arguing that: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; (2) the trial court erred in allowing the State to use leading questions during the State’s direct examination of the victim; and (3) the trial court erred in sentencing. Following our review of the briefs, the parties’ arguments, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jameson Ross Owen
The defendant, Jameson Ross Owen, was convicted by a Bedford County Circuit Court jury of violation of an order of protection, a Class A misdemeanor, and was sentenced by the trial court to eleven months, twenty-nine days in the county jail. The sole issue the defendant raises on appeal is whether the trial court erred by admitting Rule 404(b) evidence of his alleged history of stalking the victim. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Randy Anthony Sanders
Appellant, Randy Anthony Sanders, was convicted of theft valued at $1,000 or more but less than $10,000, a Class D felony. The trial court sentenced appellant as a Range II, multiple offender to seven years in confinement. On appeal, appellant argues that: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction; (2) the indictment was improperly aggregated into one count and that because of the aggregation, the State should have made an election of facts; (3) the State improperly asked the jury to view the crime from the victim’s perspective during closing argument; (4) the State improperly argued facts that were not in the record during closing argument; and (5) the cumulative effect of these errors requires a new trial. Following our review of the parties’ briefs, the record, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James Fitz v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, James Fitz, pleaded guilty to first degree murder, attempted rape, especially aggravated kidnapping, and theft of property valued over $1,000 but under $10,000. He received an effective sentence of life imprisonment. Subsequently, he filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which he later withdrew. More than four years after his guilty plea, petitioner filed a second petition for post-conviction relief. The trial court summarily dismissed the petition as untimely and alternatively as a failed motion to re-open post-conviction proceedings. Following our review, we conclude that petitioner’s notice of appeal was not timely and dismiss his appeal. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
LeSergio Wilson v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, LeSergio Wilson, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. After review, we affirm the denial of the petition. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Rivera L. Peoples v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Rivera L. Peoples, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing thathe received the ineffective assistance of counsel. After review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Athanasios Diakos Edmonston
The defendant, Athanasios Diakos Edmonston, appeals his Williamson County Circuit Court jury convictions of especially aggravated kidnapping, aggravated burglary, aggravated assault, and assault, contending that the trial court erred by refusing to suppress the statements he made to law enforcement officers and that the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to support his convictions. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Thomas Andrew Bell
The defendant, Thomas Andrew Bell, appeals the six-year sentence imposed for his Knox County Criminal Court guilty-pleaded convictions of possession with intent to sell more than one-half ounce of marijuana within 1,000 feet of a public park, possession of drug paraphernalia, simple possession, and possession with intent to sell cocaine, claiming that the trial court erred by ordering a fully incarcerative sentence. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
LeDarren Hawkins v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Ledarren Hawkins, appeals the post-conviction court's dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief as untimely. On appeal, he argues that due process grounds warrant a tolling of the statute of limitations. Upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Angel Manuel Rivera
A Davidson County Criminal Court Jury convicted the appellant, Angel Manuel Rivera, of first degree felony murder, second degree murder, attempted especially aggravated robbery, and three counts of aggravated assault. After merging the murder convictions, the trial court imposed a total effective sentence of life plus five years. On appeal, the appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence sustaining his convictions, the trial court’s denial of his motion for a judgment of acquittal, the trial court’s permitting witness testimony about the appellant’s character, and the trial court’s failure to allow counsel to withdraw prior to trial. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Donald Edward Daniel
The defendant, Donald Edward Daniel, appeals his Davidson County Criminal Court bench conviction of violating an order of protection pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-113, contending that the trial court’s interpretation of the order of protection was overly broad and that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Forrest David Agostinho v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Forrest David Agostinho, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, which challenged his 2012 convictions of 14 counts of aggravated sexual battery, five counts of Class B felony sexual exploitation of a minor, and one count of Class D felony sexual exploitation of a minor. In this appeal, the petitioner asserts that the post-conviction court denied him a full and fair hearing on his post-conviction petition and that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial. Discerning no error, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William Thomas Umfleet
The defendant, William Thomas Umfleet, appeals his Hardin County Circuit Court jury conviction of first degree premeditated murder, claiming that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hardin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Mindy Dodd v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Mindy Dodd, appeals the Rutherford County Circuit Court’s denial of her petition to reopen her petition for post-conviction relief, seeking DNA analysis of evidence pursuant to the Post-Conviction DNA Analysis Act of 2001. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kevin Ladell Grandberry
The Defendant, Kevin Ladell Grandberry, appeals from his convictions for burglary, theft over $10,000, vandalism over $1,000, and felon in possession of a handgun. He contends that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering the Defendant to be shackled during trial and that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his convictions. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Fayette | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Darryl Weems
The Defendant, Darryl L. Weems, pleaded guilty to attempt to obtain a controlled substance by fraud, forgery, and identity theft, in exchange for an effective six-year sentence with the trial court to determine the manner of service. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered the Defendant to serve his sentence in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that the trial court erred in denying his request for alternative sentencing. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James Davis, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, James Davis, Jr., appeals as of right from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The Petitioner contends that, due to his mental condition at that time, he should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea because it was not entered voluntarily. The Petitioner also contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel due to counsel’s failure to request a mental evaluation. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Freddie Lee Johnson
The Defendant, Freddie Lee Johnson, appeals his conviction for first degree felony murder, arguing: (1) the State failed to establish a sufficient chain of custody for a latent fingerprint lifted from the crime scene; (2) the Defendant’s right to confrontation was violated when the trial court allowed testimony that the Defendant’s fingerprint was lifted from an area in the crime scene that “raised a red flag”; (3) the Defendant’s right to present a defense was violated when the trial court prohibited trial counsel from arguing an alternative location for the Defendant’s fingerprint; (4) the trial court erred by failing to grant a mistrial when a witness testified that the latent print was lifted from a cup; (5) the trial court erred by refusing to dismiss the indictment pursuant to State v. Ferguson; (6) the trial court erred by allowing the victim’s daughter to testify about comments made by the victim about the Defendant; (7) the trial court violated the Defendant’s right to present a defense by refusing to allow the defense to introduce a prior statement from an unavailable witness; (8) the State committed prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument; (9) the trial court erred in its instruction to the jury on flight; (10) the trial court erred by allowing the State to introduce into evidence portions of the Defendant’s police interview; and (11) the trial court erred by ruling that the State could use the Defendant’s prior theft convictions for impeachment. Following a careful review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the Defendant’s convictions but remand for correction of the judgments. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Gregory Hill v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Gregory Hill, appeals from the Knox County Criminal Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, wherein he challenged his jury convictions for two counts of aggravated assault and resulting sixteen-year sentence. In this appeal as of right, the Petitioner contends that he received the ineffective assistance of trial counsel in the following ways: (1) because trial counsel advised him to reject a favorable guilty plea with a six-year sentence and for which he could apply for probation, opining to the Petitioner that there was a strong chance of acquittal if he proceeded to trial; (2) because trial counsel advised him against testifying on his own behalf, and his decision to do so, based upon that advice, severely limited the evidence put forth to the jury supporting his claim of self-defense; and (3) because, following the trial court's ruling excluding the Petitioner's brother's testimony about a similar act of violence by one of the victims, trial counsel failed to make an offer of proof of said testimony. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Brooks
A Shelby County Grand Jury returned an indictment against Defendant, Michael Brooks, charging him with two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, two counts of aggravated robbery, two counts of aggravated assault, aggravated burglary, and employing a firearm during the commission of a felony. Two co-defendants were also indicted with Defendant, but Defendant was tried by himself. After the jury trial, Defendant was convicted of one count of especially aggravated kidnapping, two counts of facilitation of aggravated robbery, one count of assault, and aggravated burglary. He was acquitted of the other charges. The trial court imposed a sentence of eighteen years for especially aggravated kidnapping, four years for each count of facilitation of aggravated robbery, eleven months and twenty-nine days for assault, and four years for aggravated burglary. The trial court ordered the sentences to be served concurrently for an effective eighteen-year sentence. On appeal, Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for especially aggravated kidnapping and that his sentence is excessive. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Anderson (In Re: David W. Camp)
Appellant, David W. Camp, appeals from the Madison County Circuit Court’s finding of criminal contempt for his failure to appear at a scheduled court appearance for Mr. Camp’s client, Christopher Anderson, the defendant in this case. The trial court summarily convicted Appellant under Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 42(a), finding that Appellant was in direct contempt of court and that Appellant’s conduct was in the presence of the court. The trial court relied upon text messages received from Appellant explaining his whereabouts at the time of the scheduled court appearance. We conclude that the trial court’s finding that Appellant’s conduct was in the presence of the court is error, and therefore, we remand this case for a hearing in accordance with Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 42(b). |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Dung Tran
Appellant, Dung Tran, was convicted of theft of property valued at $1,000 or more but less than $10,000, a Class D felony; vandalism valued at $1,000 or more but less than $10,000, a Class D felony; burglary, a Class D felony; and unlawful possession of burglary tools, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced appellant to eight years as a Range II, multiple offender for each conviction of theft, vandalism, and burglary and to eleven months, twenty-nine days for the possession of burglary tools conviction. The sentences were aligned concurrently for an effective sentence of eight years. On appeal, appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his theft and vandalism convictions. Following our thorough review of the record, the parties' arguments, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Louis Still
A Shelby County Criminal Court Jury convicted the appellant, Louis Still, of operating a motor vehicle after having been declared a motor vehicle habitual offender, a Class E felony, and the trial court sentenced him to four years to be served as one month in confinement and the remainder on supervised probation. On appeal, the appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction because the State's key witness, the arresting officer, was not credible. Based upon the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Benjamin Foust
The Defendant, Benjamin Foust, was indicted and, following a jury trial, convicted of ten counts of felony first degree murder, two counts of premeditated first degree murder, four counts of especially aggravated robbery, three counts of aggravated arson, and two counts of unlawful possession of a firearm. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-13-202, -13-403, -14-302, -17-1307(b). The trial court sentenced the Defendant to a total effective sentence of two consecutive life sentences plus 105 years. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends (1) that the trial court erred by allowing the State to admit, as substantive evidence, the prior statement of a co-defendant in violation of Tennessee Rules of Evidence 613 and 803(26); (2) that the trial court erred by failing to merge all of the Defendant‘s convictions for aggravated arson; (3) that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the Defendant‘s convictions; (4) that the trial court erred by not allowing the Defendant to stipulate that he had been convicted of prior felonies without disclosing that the convictions were for crimes of force and violence; (5) that the trial court erred by admitting an autopsy photograph of the charred body of one of the victims; (6) that the State improperly vouched for the credibility of a co-defendant who testified against the Defendant at trial; (7) that the trial court erred in instructing the jury regarding the inferences that could be drawn from the possession of recently stolen property; and (8) that the trial court erred by imposing partial consecutive sentences.1 Following our review, we conclude that the trial court erred by allowing the State to introduce, as substantive evidence, the prior statement of a co-defendant in its entirety, and that this error was not harmless. Accordingly, we reverse the judgments of the trial court and remand this case for a new trial. We also conclude that the evidence was insufficient to sustain one of the Defendant‘s convictions for aggravated arson. With respect to that conviction, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and dismiss the charge. We will address the remainder of the Defendant‘s arguments so as not to pretermit his remaining issues. See State v. Parris, 236 S.W.3d 173, 189 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2007) (following a similar procedure) |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals |
