State of Tennessee v. Michael Jason Vance - Concurring
I respectfully write separately to express somewhat different views from the majority on two issues. First, relative to the 911 dispatcher’s testimony that the 911 system maintained a “flag” on the defendant’s address that indicated issues of officer safety, the majority relies upon the failure of the “flag” to identify the defendant as the source of the issue as a basis for denying the defendant relief. I believe that, given other evidence in the case, the officer-safety flag substantially implicated the defendant. Consequently, the trial court should have excluded the evidence. On the other hand, the totality of the evidence in the case renders the admission of this evidence harmless, and I would have affirmed the denial of relief on that basis. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Michael Aaron Pounds v. Roland Colson, Warden
The petitioner, Michael Aaron Pounds, appeals from the summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus, which challenged his 1988 conviction of felony murder. In this appeal, the petitioner lists some 65 issues for appellate review. His chief complaint, however, appears to be that an inconsistency between the wording of the indictment and the plea agreement documents renders his conviction void. Discerning no error, we affirm the summary dismissal of the petition for writ of habeas corpus. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Joseph Nelson v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Joseph Nelson, appeals the post-conviction court’s summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief on the basis that it was untimely. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that due process concerns should toll the one-year statute of limitations to allow review of his underlying claims. Because the Petitioner has failed to prove any grounds upon which to toll the statute of limitations, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kyto Sihapanya
The Defendant, Kyto Sihapanya, pleaded guilty to leaving the scene of an accident involving death, a Class E felony, and following too closely, a Class C misdemeanor. See T.C.A.§§ 55-10-101, 55-8-124 (2010). The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I, standard offender to two years’ confinement. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred (1) by denying judicial diversion, (2) by denying probation, and (3) by sentencing him to two years. We conclude that the trial court properly denied judicial diversion and sentenced the Petitioner to two years but that the court erred by denying probation. We reverse the judgments of the trial court. |
Fayette | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kyto Sihapanya-Concurring and Dissenting
I concur with the majority opinion, except I respectfully disagree with the conclusion by the majority that the trial court erred in denying appellant alternative sentencing. After considering the evidence presented at the sentencing hearing and the record as a whole, it is my view that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing appellant to a term of incarceration. Therefore, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s opinion reversing the trial court’s denial of alternative sentencing. |
Fayette | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Demarcus Sanders v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Demarcus Sanders, appeals from the trial court’s denial of post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. Petitioner attacked his guilty plea to second degree murder and his resulting twenty-five-year sentence on the basis that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel as a result of which Petitioner entered a guilty plea that was not knowingly and voluntarily entered. After a thorough review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
E. Louis Thomas v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, E. Louis Thomas, was convicted by a Shelby County jury for the offense of first degree murder, and he received a sentence of life imprisonment. The conviction was affirmed on appeal, and the Tennessee Supreme Court denied Petitioner’s timely filed pro se application for permission to appeal to that court. See State v. E. Louis Thomas, No. W2008-01360-CCA-R3-CD, 2010 WL 2977874 (Tenn. Crim. App. July 29, 2010) perm. app. denied (Tenn. Jan. 18, 2011). Both of Petitioner’s counsel were allowed to withdraw as counsel of record on August 24, 2010, pursuant to Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 14. Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief. The earliest it could be considered “filed,” under the “mailbox” rule, was March 22, 2012. The trial court summarily dismissed the petition because it was filed outside the one year statute of limitations. Petitioner appeals, and we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Johnny Tate v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Johnny Tate, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of post-conviction relief from his convictions for two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, two counts of aggravated robbery, and one count of aggravated burglary. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that both trial counsel and appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to challenge the especially aggravated kidnapping convictions on due process and double jeopardy grounds. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Stephen Wayne Davis
The defendant, Stephen Wayne Davis, appeals from his 2012 Madison County Circuit Court jury convictions of guilty of one count each of aggravated kidnapping, robbery, and attempt to commit rape. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. Because the record supports the jury verdicts and because we conclude that principles of due process do not invalidate the aggravated kidnapping conviction, we affirm the convictions. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Samuel Winkfield v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Samuel Winkfield, was indicted for first degree (premeditated) murder, first degree (felony) murder, especially aggravated kidnapping, tampering with evidence, and conspiracy to tamper with evidence. During his July 2007 trial, the petitioner was acquitted of the felony murder and conspiracy to tamper with evidence charges. Because the jury was unable to reach a decision regarding the remaining charges, he was retried in January 2008 and convicted of second degree murder, a Class A felony, and tampering with evidence, a Class C felony. The jury was again unable to reach a decision on the kidnapping charge, and this charge was eventually dismissed. On the direct appeal of his convictions, the petitioner challenged the admission into evidence of his testimony from the first trial, the exclusion from evidence of the MySpace page of the State’s chief witness, the sufficiency of the evidence, and his sentence. His convictions and sentences were affirmed. The petitioner then filed a timely post-conviction petition, asserting ineffective assistance of counsel. The petitioner asserted his trial counsel’s performance was deficient in failing to investigate and produce witnesses; in failing to obtain expert testimony; in failing to adequately cross-examine witnesses; and in failing to explore alternative defense strategies. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied the petition, and the petitioner appeals. Having reviewed the record, we discern no error and affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Chivous S. Robinson v. State of Tennessee
The pro se petitioner, Chivous S. Robinson, appeals as of right from the Knox County Criminal Court’s order denying his petition for writ of error coram nobis alleging that newly discovered evidence concerning the judicial misconduct of a trial judge affected the outcome of his 2000 jury trial and 2005 post-conviction proceedings. The State has filed a motion to affirm the trial court’s order pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals. Following our review, we conclude that the State’s motion is well-taken and affirm the order of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Stephanie D. Cooley v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Stephanie D. Cooley, pled guilty to two counts of obtaining controlled substances by fraud in Sumner County in 2007. As a result, she was sentenced to two, concurrent, two-year sentences. The sentences were suspended, and Petitioner was ordered to probation. Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging the Sumner County convictions in Davidson County in October of 2012. The petition was dismissed because there was nothing on the face of the judgments to indicate that the convictions were void. Petitioner appeals, arguing that the habeas corpus court improperly denied habeas corpus relief. After a review of the record and applicable authorities, we determine that the habeas corpus court properly denied habeas corpus relief where Petitioner failed to show that her judgments were void. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John T. Vine, II
John T. Vine, II (“the Defendant”) was convicted by a jury of two counts of aggravated sexual battery and one count of solicitation to commit aggravated sexual battery. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective sentence of twenty-two years’ incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions. He also argues that the trial court committed plain error in admitting as evidence the videotaped recording of the Defendant’s interview with police. Finally, the Defendant challenges the length of his sentences and the trial court’s imposition of partially consecutive sentences. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Roy L. McAlister
Roy L. McAlister (“the Defendant”) pleaded guilty to three counts of aggravated statutory rape and one count of sexual exploitation of a minor. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the Defendant was given an effective sentence of three years, suspended to supervised probation after service of 219 days in confinement. Upon the filing of a probation violation warrant, the Defendant was taken into custody, and a probation violation hearing was held. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court revoked the Defendant’s probation and ordered him to serve the remainder of his sentence in confinement. In his original appeal of the trial court’s ruling, we vacated the trial court’s judgment and remanded the case for the trial court to clarify its findings. Subsequently, the trial court issued an order clarifying its findings and affirming its previous order revoking the Defendant’s probation. The Defendant again appealed the trial court’s ruling. Upon our thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Robertson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Donald Keith Solomon v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Donald Keith Solomon, pled guilty in 2009 to numerous charges and, subsequently, sent a letter to the trial court, which apparently was treated as a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. Appointed counsel then filed an amended petition, setting out as claims for relief that trial counsel had failed to advise the petitioner of his “legal innocence” of three of the charges for passing worthless checks and that, contrary to his understanding at the plea submission, he was required to pay court costs. Following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court found that the petitioner’s trial counsel had “thoroughly investigated and reviewed the evidence” with him and “any decisions made about the timing of filing of motions were a strategic decision.” We conclude that the record supports the opinion and order of the post-conviction court denying the petition. |
Coffee | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Shelenda Nicole Windmon
Shelenda Nicole Windmon (“the Defendant”) pleaded guilty to one count of attempt to commit aggravated child abuse. Pursuant to her plea agreement, the Defendant was sentenced as a Range II offender to six years with manner of service to be determined by the trial court. After a hearing, the trial court granted probation but denied the Defendant’s request for judicial diversion. The Defendant now appeals the trial court’s denial of judicial diversion. Upon our thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Curtis Keller
After a jury trial, the defendant was found guilty of three counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, three counts of aggravated robbery, four counts of attempted aggravated robbery, one count of aggravated burglary, and one count of evading arrest. He received an effective sentence of three hundred years. The defendant was convicted on the theory of criminal responsibility for the conduct of another as he was not physically present in the home during the violent home invasion. On appeal, the defendant claims that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions, that his convictions should be reversed because the State failed to establish the chain of custody of a ski mask containing the defendant’s DNA that was recovered from the getaway vehicle after the crimes, and that the trial court erred by failing to declare a mistrial after a witness made a general remark to the effect that the defendant had engaged wrongful behavior in the past. After review, we find that the defendant’s claims lack merit. The judgments of the trial court are affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Frederick Moore v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Frederick Moore, was convicted by a jury of first degree (premeditated) murder; first degree (felony) murder, a Class A felony; aggravated kidnapping, a Class B felony; and two counts of tampering with evidence, Class C felonies. The petitioner was sentenced to life plus twenty years. The petitioner now appeals the post conviction court’s denial of his petition for post conviction relief in which he alleged he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. After review, we affirm the post conviction court’s denial of relief. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee vs. Edwina Johnson
The Defendant, Edwina Johnson, pled guilty to one count of theft of property valued over $1,000 and one count of identity theft. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective sentence of three years, to be served on probation, consecutive to an effective three year sentence of incarceration imposed in a separate case. The Defendant’s probation officer filed a probation violation warrant alleging that she had violated the terms of her probation. After a hearing, the trial court revoked the Defendant’s probation and ordered that she serve her sentence in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it found she had violated the rules and conditions of her probation and when it denied her request for an alternative sentence. She further contends that the trial court erred because it found she had committed the probation violation on a date not within the term of her supervised probation period. After reviewing the record, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Robin Lynn Cooper v. State of Tennessee
A Knox County jury convicted the Petitioner, Robin Lynn Cooper, of one count of attempted second degree murder, one count of rape, one count of aggravated rape, one count of especially aggravated kidnapping, and three counts of aggravated kidnapping. On direct appeal, this Court affirmed the Petitioner’s convictions. State v. Cooper, No. E2009-00291-CCA-R3-CD, 2010 WL 2490768, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxville, June 21, 2010), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Oct. 20, 2010). The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, asserting that he had received the ineffective assistance of counsel. After a hearing, the post-conviction court dismissed the petition. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred when it dismissed his petition. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jeffrey A. Simmons
The Petitioner, Jeffrey A. Simmons, was convicted of four counts of aggravated sexual battery and received an effective sentence of thirty-two years. At the hearing on his motion for new trial, which was denied by the trial court, the Petitioner claimed the ineffective assistance of Initial and Trial Counsel. The Petitioner later filed a petition for post conviction relief, in which he alleged the ineffective assistance of Initial, Trial, and Successor Counsel. The post-conviction court granted partial relief in the form of a delayed appeal after it determined, contrary to this court’s conclusion in State v. Jeffrey Simmons, No. M2007-01383-CCA-R3-CD, 2010 WL 27881 (Tenn. Crim. App. January 6, 2010), that the Petitioner had, in fact, filed a timely motion for new trial. The post-conviction court limited the delayed appeal to review of issues that were deemed waived by this court in the direct appeal. It dismissed the post-conviction relief petition reasoning that the ineffective assistance of counsel claims had been previously determined. In this consolidated appeal, the Petitioner argues that the post-conviction court erred by dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief. Following our review, we conclude that the post-conviction court properly granted the Petitioner a delayed appeal for review of issues raised but not addressed in his direct appeal. Upon consideration of whether the trial court erred by instructing the jury after it appeared to be deadlocked, the only issue not reviewed by this court in the Petitioner’s direct appeal, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. We additionally conclude that the post-conviction court erred in dismissing the post-conviction petition with respect to the Petitioner’s claims of ineffective assistance of Successor Counsel. Accordingly, we reverse the post-conviction court’s dismissal of the portion of the petition that alleged ineffective assistance of Success or Counsel and remand for an evidentiary hearing. In all other respects, we affirm the post-conviction court’s dismissal of the petition for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of Initial Counsel and Trial Counsel. |
Warren | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Torrey L. Frazier v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Torrey L. Frazier, appeals the Roane County Criminal Court’s dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief from his conviction of second degree murder and resulting twenty-two-year sentence. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that he received the ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Roane | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Guy L. Hines
The defendant was found guilty after a trial by jury of one count of robbery, a Class C felony, and one count of assault, which, depending on the circumstances, can be either a Class A misdemeanor or a Class B misdemeanor, but which the trial court treated as a Class A misdemeanor. The defendant was sentenced to four years for the robbery and eleven months and twenty-nine days for the assault. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court erred by failing to dismiss the robbery charge due to a defect in the indictment. The defendant also claims that the trial court erred in an evidentiary ruling and by failing to grant him a new trial on the grounds that the prosecutor made improper comments during voir dire. After carefully reviewing the record and the arguments of the parties, we find that the defendant’s arguments lack merit, but we conclude that the trial court erroneously classified the defendant’s assault conviction as a Class A misdemeanor when it was properly classified as a Class B misdemeanor. We modify the judgment of the trial court accordingly and impose a modified sentence of six months on this count. The judgments of the trial court are otherwise affirmed. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Mickey Lee Williams v. Bruce Westbrooks, Warden, et al
The pro se petitioner, Mickey Lee Williams, appeals as of right from the Bledsoe County Circuit Court’s order denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging that his Grainger County Circuit Court judgment of conviction for second degree murder is void due to the denial of pretrial jail credits. The State has filed a motion requesting that this court affirm the trial court’s denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals. Following our review, we conclude that the State’s motion is well-taken and affirm the judgment of the Bledsoe County Circuit Court. |
Bledsoe | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Sylvester Smith
A Shelby County jury convicted the Defendant-Appellant, Sylvester Smith, of aggravated kidnapping, a Class B felony, and two counts of aggravated burglary, a Class C felony. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-304, -14-403 (2010). The trial court merged the two counts of aggravated burglary and sentenced Smith as a Range III, persistent offender to fifteen-years imprisonment with a forty-five percent release eligibility for the aggravated burglary conviction. For the aggravated kidnapping conviction, Smith was sentenced as a Range II, multiple offender to twenty-years at one hundred percent release eligibility. The sentences were to be served consecutively for a total effective sentence of thirty-five years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, Smith argues that the trial court erred in: (1) failing to properly instruct the jury on aggravated kidnapping pursuant to State v. White; (2) sentencing him based on insufficient evidence; (3) excluding Smith’s written statement to the police as inadmissible hearsay; (4) admitting into evidence hearsay statements in violation of Smith’s right to confrontation; (5) permitting improper impeachment of Smith based on prior convictions; (6) imposing excessive sentences; and (7) depriving Smith of his due process rights based on cumulative error. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals |
