Joseph L. Coleman v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Joseph L. Coleman, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s dismissal of his petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus. The Petitioner contends that the habeas corpus court erred when it dismissed his petition because his sentence is void and unconstitutional. Upon a review of the record in this case, we are persuaded that the habeas court properly dismissed the petition for habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, the judgment of the habeas corpus court is affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Demetrius Hollins
The defendant, Demetrius Hollins, appeals his Shelby County Criminal Court jury convictions of attempted second degree murder and especially aggravated robbery, challenging the sufficiency of the convicting evidence and the exclusion of certain evidence, as well as the imposition of consecutive sentencing. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Cynthia J. Finch
The Defendant, Cynthia J. Finch, was indicted for one count of fabricating evidence, a Class C felony; one count of forgery of $1,000 or more but less than $10,000, a Class D felony; and one count of forgery of less than $1,000, a Class E felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-14-105, -14-114, -16-503. Following a jury trial, the Defendant was acquitted of the fabricating evidence count and convicted of the two forgery counts. The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I, standard offender to two years to be served on unsupervised probation. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends (1) that the statute allowing a district attorney general to specially appoint the attorney general and reporter to conduct specific criminal proceedings violates the Tennessee Constitution; (2) that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the Defendant’s convictions; (3) that the trial court erred by excluding evidence of a settlement in a civil lawsuit between the Defendant and Knox County; (4) that the trial court erred in instructing the jury with respect to its definition of “value” and in denying the Defendant’s request for an instruction on the rule of cancellation; (5) that the State abused its discretion in denying the Defendant’s request for pretrial diversion; (6) that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the Defendant’s request for judicial diversion; and (7) that the trial court erred in its determination that the Defendant was not an especially mitigated offender. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Cynthia J. Finch - concurring and dissenting
I concur with the majority opinion in all respects save one. I believe the Defendant should have been granted judicial diversion, given the circumstances of this case, the Defendant’s excellent background, and the circumstances existing in Knox County relative to official misconduct and the granting of diversion. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Quamine Jones v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Quamine Jones, was convicted of first degree premeditated murder by a Shelby County jury. See State v. Quamine Jones, No. W2007-01111-CCA-R3-CD, 2008 WL 4963516, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App, at Jackson, Nov. 21, 2008), perm. app. denied, (Tenn. Apr. 27, 2009). Petitioner’s conviction was affirmed on direct appeal, and the supreme court denied permission to appeal. Id. Petitioner later sought post-conviction relief on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel. After a hearing on the petition, the post-conviction court denied relief. Petitioner appeals, challenging the denial of post-conviction relief. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court because Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the record preponderates against the post-conviction court’s findings. Accordingly, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Stanley Rooks
Appellant, Stanley Rooks, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of two counts of aggravated robbery, one count of attempted aggravated robbery, and one count of reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon. The trial court sentenced him to an effective sentence of thirty-four years. On appeal, he argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions because the identification by the victim was not reliable. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient. Therefore, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennesse v. Willie Gatewood
A Shelby County jury convicted the Defendant, Willie Gatewood, of attempt to commit first degree premeditated murder and aggravated burglary. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to fifty-five years for the attempt to commit first degree premeditated murder conviction and to thirteen years for the aggravated burglary conviction. The trial court ordered the sentences to be served consecutively in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities, we discern no error in the judgments of the trial court. Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennesse v. Cleo Henderson
Appellant, Cleo Henderson, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of second degree murder. The trial court sentenced him as a Range II, violent offender to forty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, appellant has presented several issues that we have deemed waived; however, we have reviewed his sufficiency of the evidence and sentencing issues. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Louis Mayes v. State of Tennessee
In 2006, the Petitioner, Louis Mayes, was convicted of first degree premeditated murder. The trial court sentenced him to life in prison. This Court affirmed the Petitioner’s convictions on appeal. State v. Louis Mayes, No. W2007-02483-CCA-R3-CD, 2009 WL 1312629, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. May 11, 2009), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Oct. 19, 2009). In 2013, the Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis in which he presented multiple claims, including his right to a hearing to present newly discovered evidence. The coram nobis court summarily dismissed the petition on the basis that the petition was timebarred. On appeal, the Petitioner alleges that the coram nobis court erred when it dismissed his petition, contending that the newly discovered evidence warrants a waiver of the statute of limitations. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities, we affirm the coram nobis court’s judgment. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Robert E. Bonds Peeples v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Robert E. Bonds Peeples, appeals as of right from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The Petitioner contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel failed to secure an expert witness to testify regarding the reliability of eyewitness identification. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Dexter F. Johnson v. State of Tennessee
In 1994, the Petitioner, Dexter F. Johnson, was convicted of two counts of first degree murder, one count of attempted first degree murder, and one count of attempted aggravated burglary. The Petitioner pled guilty in an agreement that provided that he would receive a life sentence for the two first degree murder convictions, twenty-five years for the attempted first degree murder conviction, and six years for the attempted aggravated burglary conviction. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed four unsuccessful petitions for habeas corpus relief. See Dexter F. Johnson v. Carlton, Warden, E2008-02032-CCA-R3-HC, 2010 WL 323126 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxville, Jan. 27, 2010), perm. app. denied (Tenn. June 30, 2010). The Petitioner then filed a fifth petition for habeas corpus relief, which the habeas corpus court summarily dismissed. The Petitioner appeals, contending that the habeas corpus court erred when it dismissed his petition because the State’s motion to dismiss did not comply with Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-21-116, as the State did not attach a judgment form or indictment to the motion to dismiss. Upon a review of the record in this case, we conclude that the habeas corpus court properly denied the petition for habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court. |
Wayne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kevin Clark
The defendant, Kevin Clark, appeals his Overton County Criminal Court jury convictions of two counts of first degree murder, aggravated arson, abuse of a corpse, reckless endangerment, and two counts of aggravated assault. In this appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court erred by admitting into evidence the videotaped deposition of a State’s witness in lieu of live testimony, that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of forensic testing conducted on the defendant’s shoes and clothing, and that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions of first degree murder. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Overton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Angelo John Amalio
Angelo John Amalio, alias Angelo Gustavo Amalio (“the Defendant”) pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated assault and one count of public intoxication. The plea agreement provided that the Defendant would serve an effective sentence of five years to be suspended to supervised probation following service of eleven months, twenty-nine days’ incarceration, with restitution to be determined by the trial court. After the restitution hearing, the trial court ordered the Defendant to pay $3,600 in restitution to the victim. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the amount of restitution imposed by the trial court and claims that the trial court failed to consider the Defendant’s ability to pay. Upon a thorough review of the record, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Corey Brian Austin
The defendant, Corey Brian Austin, appeals the trial court’s revocation of his probation and reinstatement of his eight-year sentence in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in revoking his probation. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hardin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Telly Savalas Johnson v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Telly Savalas Johnson, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of five counts of criminal attempt to commit first degree murder. Petitioner was sentenced by the trial court to an effective sentence of 75 years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On direct appeal, this court affirmed Petitioner’s convictions and sentences. The facts underlying Petitioner’s convictions can be found in this court’s opinion in State v. Telly Savalas Johnson, No. W2009-00764-CCA-R3-CD, 2010 WL 3245284 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Jackson, filed Aug. 17, 2010), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Jan. 12, 2011). In summary, the proof showed that Petitioner shot a .380 caliber pistol multiple times into a van which contained two adults and three minor children. One of the children was struck in the leg by a bullet. Petitioner filed a timely petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that he was denied the right to the effective assistance of counsel. Following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. After a thorough review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Terrance Demond Moses
The defendant, Terrance Demond Moses, was convicted by a jury of first degree (premeditated) murder and of the Class E felony of possession of a handgun after having been convicted of a felony. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for the first degree murder conviction and to a concurrent four years’ incarceration for the handgun possession. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence; asserts that the gun was admitted into evidence in error; and contends that the trial court erred in permitting the State to exercise a peremptory challenge against a prospective juror. Having reviewed the record, we discern no error and affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Claude Phillips v. State of Tennesse
Petitioner was convicted of one count of aggravated robbery and one count of aggravated assault. The trial court sentenced petitioner to twenty years as a Range II, multiple offender for his aggravated robbery conviction and to fifteen years as a Range III, persistent offender for his aggravated assault conviction, to be served consecutively. He unsuccessfully appealed his convictions and sentences. See State v. Claude Phillips, No. W2008-02810-CCA-R3-CD, 2010 WL 2695328, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. July 7, 2010). Petitioner then filed the current petition for post-conviction relief in which he alleged that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. Following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. On appeal, petitioner argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when trial counsel failed to properly investigate petitioner’s mental health condition and failed to present mitigating evidence at his sentencing hearing. Following our review of the parties’ arguments, the record, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Petition of Joby Lee Teal for Extraordinary Relief
Petitioner, Joby Lee Teal, filed a “Petition . . . for Extraodinary Relief” in the Criminal Court of Shelby County, asserting that four convictions in 1988 are invalid. The trial court dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, Petitioner asserts he is entitled to relief because the four convictions, entered as a result of a negotiated plea agreement, are void because they were illegally ordered to be served concurrently with each other. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the judgment of the trial court pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jose Luis Vizcaino-Ramos v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Jose Luis Vizcaino-Ramos, was convicted by a Hardeman County jury of first degree premeditated murder and sentenced to life in prison. His direct appeal was unsuccessful. See State v. Jose Luis Vizcaino-Ramos, No. W2010-01325-CCA-R3-CD, 2011 WL 3330294, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 3, 2011), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Nov. 16, 2011). Petitioner subsequently pursued post-conviction relief, which was denied by the post-conviction court. On appeal, petitioner contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial when trial counsel failed to properly investigate his case and failed to request a mental evaluation for appellant. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Verlin Ralph Durham v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Verlin Ralph Durham, appeals the dismissal of his petition for the writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner is currently serving a life sentence in the Department of Correction following his first degree murder conviction. On appeal, he contends that the dismissal of the petition was error because the indictment in his case was facially void and that his conviction is illegal because he was convicted pursuant to a prior repealed statute. Following review of the record, we affirm the dismissal of the petition. |
Johnson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Harold Lyons
In May 2010, the Defendant, Harold Lyons, was indicted for possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor, and selling less than .5 grams of cocaine within 1,000 feet of an elementary school, a Class B felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-17-417, -425, -432. Following a jury trial, the Defendant was convicted of possession of drug paraphernalia and the lesser-included offense of facilitation of the sale of less than .5 grams of cocaine, a Class D felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-403. The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range III, persistent offender, to an effective ten-year sentence to be served in confinement. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends (1) that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction for facilitation of the sale of less than .5 grams of cocaine and (2) that the trial court erred by denying the Defendant’s request for an alternative sentence. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jarron Deonte King v. State of Tennessee
Jarron Deonté King (“the Petitioner”) pleaded guilty to one count of second degree murder, two counts of attempted first degree murder, three counts of attempted especially aggravated robbery, and one count of aggravated assault. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced the Petitioner to an effective sentence of twenty-seven years’ incarceration. The Petitioner subsequently filed for post-conviction relief, which the post-conviction court denied following an evidentiary hearing. The Petitioner now appeals, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel in conjunction with his plea submission hearing and that his plea was constitutionally invalid. Upon our thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Randall Cagle
The defendant, Randall Cagle, pled guilty to four counts of sexual exploitation of a minor, a Class D felony, and was sentenced as a Range II, multiple offender to an effective sentence of eight years, suspended to supervised probation. As a condition of his guilty plea, the defendant attempted to reserve a certified question of law pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2)(A) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure regarding the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized during the search of his residence. After review, we conclude that the certified question is overly broad and, as a result, this court is without jurisdiction to consider the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. |
Hickman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tyler James Reed
Appellant, Tyler James Reed, stands convicted of felony murder committed in the perpetration of a burglary, aggravated burglary, and employment of a firearm with intent to go armed during the commission of a dangerous felony. The trial court sentenced him to life in prison for the murder conviction, six years for the aggravated burglary conviction, and six years for the firearm conviction, with all sentences to be served consecutively in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, appellant argues that (1) the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress all of the statements he made on October 30, 2009, and the physical evidence obtained as a result of those statements; (2) the evidence was insufficient to support the murder and aggravated burglary convictions; (3) the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury regarding self-defense and voluntary intoxication; and (4) he is entitled to a new trial due to prosecutorial misconduct. Following our careful review of the record, the arguments of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Brandon Ostein v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Brandon Ostein, pleaded guilty to possession of over 300 grams of cocaine with intent to sell in a drug-free school zone. In accordance with petitioner’s plea agreement, the trial court imposed the minimum sentence of fifteen years to be served at one hundred percent in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Petitioner filed the current petition for post-conviction relief, in which he alleged that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that his guilty plea was not entered knowingly, voluntarily, or intelligently. Following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. On appeal, petitioner argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when trial counsel: (1) failed to communicate with petitioner prior to his entering the guilty plea and (2) failed to properly advise him regarding his sentencing range. He further argues that these errors, compounded with the trial court’s failure to inform him of the applicable range of punishment, rendered his guilty plea involuntary. Following our review of the parties’ arguments, the record, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals |
