Eric Thomas v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Eric Thomas, appeals the Circuit Court of Lake County’s denial of his pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court’s judgment pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Following our review, we grant the State’s motion and affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Lake | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Thomas James Heffner
The defendant, Thomas James Heffner, appeals the revocation of the community corrections sentence imposed for his Hamilton County Criminal Court conviction of theft of property valued at $10,000 or more but less than $60,000. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Tom Perry Bell v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Tom Perry Bell, appeals the summary dismissal of his petitions for post-conviction relief, wherein he challenged his 1983 conviction of petit larceny and his 1978 conviction of receiving stolen property. Because the petitions are time-barred and because the petitioner failed to establish grounds for tolling the statute of limitations for filing a petition for post-conviction relief, we affirm the judgments of the post-conviction court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jerry Kirkpatrick
The defendant was convicted of burglary and theft, both Class D felonies. The defendant was sentenced to two concurrent seven-year terms in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of the defendant’s participation in an additional burglary and by ordering him to serve his sentence in confinement. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Wayne Davis
A Davidson County Criminal Court Jury convicted the appellant, Michael Wayne Davis, of attempted second degree murder and aggravated assault. The trial court merged the convictions and sentenced the appellant to nineteen years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence sustaining his attempted second degree murder conviction, the trial court’s denial of his motion for continuance based upon an unavailable witness, the trial court’s admission of an alleged hearsay statement by a witness, and the trial court’s admission of his statement that was not timely disclosed during discovery. Upon review, we conclude that there is no error. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Stephanie Rena Holt
The defendant, Stephanie Rena Holt, after pleading guilty to various offenses, was granted probation and placed into the Williamson County Drug Court program, with a condition of probation being that she complete the program. While serving an initial seventy-day period of incarceration, she received write-ups for infractions of several jail rules, resulting in her termination from the drug court program. Following a revocation hearing, her probation was revoked because she had not completed the drug court program. On appeal, she argues that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking her probation and requiring that she be incarcerated for the remainder of her sentence. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Dexter Cox
A Shelby County grand jury indicted appellant for first degree premeditated murder, first degree felony murder, attempted first degree murder, and especially aggravated robbery. A jury returned verdicts of guilty on both counts of first degree murder, the lesser-included offense of attempted second degree murder, and especially aggravated robbery, for which the trial court sentenced appellant to an effective sentence of life without the possibility of parole. Appellant challenges his convictions, claiming that his confession was the product of an illegal arrest and was involuntary. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Nicholas Larsen
The Defendant-Appellant, Nicholas Larsen, entered a guilty plea to driving under the influence of an intoxicant (DUI), a Class A misdemeanor, after the trial court denied his motion to dismiss the indictment. Larsen’s guilty plea hearing indicated that he attempted to reserve a certified question of law on appeal pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37 at the time he entered his guilty plea. Following the dismissal of his appeal on the basis that the appellate record contained no attachment or corrective order setting out a certified question of law, Larsen filed a petition to rehear, arguing that the attachment containing the certified question referenced on the judgment form “became detached from the judgment sheet before the record was prepared and transmitted.” This Court subsequently granted Larsen’s petition to rehear and motion to supplement the appellate record with this attachment and vacated its previous order dismissing the appeal. Larsen timely supplemented the appellate record with the missing attachment, which stated the following certified question of law: “[W]hether the Court erred in denying the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss based on the fact that his pre-trial detention was not for a valid remedial purpose but rather was punitive.” Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Mario Morris v. State of Tennessee
The pro se petitioner, Mario Morris, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in finding that he received effective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court denying the petition. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Shavon Page v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Shavon Page, pled guilty to five counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, three counts of aggravated rape, two counts of aggravated sexual battery, two counts of aggravated robbery, and one count of aggravated burglary, in exchange for an effective sentence of thirty years, to be served at 100%. The Petitioner filed a timely petition for postconviction relief, alleging that he had received the ineffective assistance of counsel. On appeal, the Petitioner contends first that the post-conviction court erred when it denied his request, pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Evidence 615, to have his trial counsel excluded from the courtroom during the post-conviction hearing. He next contends that the post-conviction court erred when it dismissed his petition because his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to adequately investigate his case, which rendered the Petitioner’s guilty plea unknowingly and involuntarily entered. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Brenda Reynalda Inzunza v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Brenda Reynalda Inzunza, appeals the dismissal of her petition for post-conviction relief as time-barred, arguing that her trial counsel provided ineffective assistance for failing to advise her of the deportation consequences of her guilty plea and that the statute of limitations should be tolled because Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. ___ , 130 S. Ct. 1476 (2010), announced a new rule of constitutional law that did not exist at the time she entered her plea. In the alternative, she argues that due process considerations should operate to toll the statute of limitations. Following our review, we affirm the summary dismissal of the petition. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James William Floyd
Defendant, James William Floyd, pled guilty in the Blount County Circuit Court to the offense of robbery. Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, Defendant received a sentence of four years to be served by split confinement with incarceration of 49 days and the balance on supervised probation. He was released from jail on June 3, 2011, to begin the probation portion of his sentence. On March 9, 2012, a probation violation warrant was issued. Following a hearing, the trial court revoked probation and ordered him to serve the balance of his sentence by incarceration. Defendant appeals, and does not challenge the revocation of probation, but argues that the trial court erred by ordering the entire sentence to be served by incarceration. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
William Glenn Wiley v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, William Glenn Wiley, appeals the denial of post-conviction relief from his convictions for first degree felony murder and aggravated robbery, arguing that he is entitled to a new trial based on "the State’s systematic late-disclosures of exculpatory evidence," which rendered his trial counsel presumptively ineffective under United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (1984). In the alternative, he argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel under the Strickland standard based on counsel’s inadequate response to the late-disclosed evidence and failure to call two exculpatory witnesses at his trial. Finally, the petitioner argues that he is entitled to a new post-conviction evidentiary hearing because of the post-conviction court’s denial of his request for a continuance and an order to have the potentially exculpatory fingerprint evidence analyzed. Following our review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of the petition. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Robert M. Deunes-Cruz
The Defendant, Robert M. Deunes-Cruz, was convicted by a Montgomery County Circuit Court jury of statutory rape by an authority figure and incest, Class C felonies. SeeT.C.A. §§ 39-13-532, 39-15-302 (2010). The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I, standard offender to concurrent terms of three years’ confinement. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Lavon Douglas Robertson
The Defendant, Lavon Douglas Robertson, was convicted by a jury of one count of promotion of methamphetamine manufacture, a Class D felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-433. The Defendant was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to four years of supervised probation. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends (1) that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress the evidence seized during a search of a one-room "dwelling" used by the Defendant and (2) that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the Defendant’s conviction. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Lawrence | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Lavon Douglas Robertson-separate concurring opinion
Respectfully, I would not engage in an analysis of standing relative to the dirt road leading from the public road to the defendant’s building. |
Lawrence | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jose Rodriguez A.K.A. Alex Lopez v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Jose Rodriguez, brings a post-conviction challenge to his guilty plea, asserting that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. The petitioner claims that, under Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 1483 (2010), his counsel was deficient in failing to advise him regarding the deportation consequences of his guilty plea. The petition was filed more than one year after the guilty plea, and the post-conviction court denied relief based on the statute of limitations pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-30-102(a). We conclude that a post-conviction action does not lie when the petitioner’s record has been expunged and no conviction exists. In addition, the trial court was correct in concluding the petition was time-barred. Accordingly, we affirm the post-conviction court’s summary dismissal. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jose Rodriguez A.K.A. Alex Lopez vs. State of Tennessee-concurring and dissenting opinion
I concur with affirming the trial court’s summary dismissal of the petition for post-conviction relief. I respectfully disagree, however, with the majority opinion’s reasoning. I believe the Petitioner’s expunction of his legal proceedings is not a legal impediment to his bringing a post-conviction action. On the other hand, the petition was filed late, and the decision in Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S.Ct. 1473 (2010), as to being advised of potential immigration consequences of a guilty plea has been held not to apply retroactively. See, e.g., Francisco Miquel Jose v. State, No. M2011-00295-CCA-R3-PC (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 28, 2012). |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ronald Gene Pullon
Defendant was convicted after a trial by jury of two counts of sexual battery, Class E felonies. He was sentenced to eighteen months probation on each count, with the sentences to be served concurrently. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court erred by ruling that the defendant could not cross-examine the victim concerning her history of mental illness and use of prescription medications. After review, we conclude that the trial court did not err by limiting the scope of the defendant’s cross-examination of the victim. We affirm the judgments of the trial court accordingly. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Raymond Lee Swett, Jr.
The defendant, Raymond Lee Swett, Jr., appeals his Davidson County Criminal Court jury convictions of aggravated burglary, especially aggravated kidnapping, second degree murder, and felony murder, claiming that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions of especially aggravated kidnapping, second degree murder, and felony murder; (2) the trial court erred by refusing to grant his motion for a mistrial; (3) the trial court erred by effectively amending the indictment via the instructions to the jury; and (4) the sentence was excessive. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Perry Kirkman v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Perry Kirkman, pled guilty in the Davidson County Criminal Court to two counts of aggravated sexual battery and received concurrent sentences of fifteen years in the Tennessee Department of Correction (TDOC). Thereafter, he filed for post-conviction relief, alleging that his counsel was ineffective and that his guilty pleas were not knowingly and voluntarily entered. The post-conviction court denied the petition, and the petitioner timely appealed. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jimmy Lee Whitmire v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Jimmy Lee Whitmire, was convicted of one count each of especially aggravated kidnapping, aggravated assault, and aggravated burglary. He received an effective sentence of eighteen years. State v. Jimmy Lee Whitmire, No. M2007-01389-CCA-R3-CD, 2009 WL 2486178, at *7 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Aug. 13, 2009). He subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief arguing that he was afforded ineffective assistance of counsel. After conducting a hearing on the matter, the post-conviction court denied the petition. On appeal, Petitioner argues that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because trial counsel failed to properly advise him regarding testifying at trial. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that Petitioner has not shown that trial counsel was ineffective or that if trial counsel was ineffective that he suffered prejudice from such. Therefore, we affirm the denial of the petition for post-conviction relief. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ray Neil Thompson
Appellant, Ray Neil Thompson, was convicted by a Davidson County jury of one count of aggravated robbery. He was sentenced to twenty-seven years in incarceration as a Range III, persistent offender. After the denial of a motion for new trial, Appellant initiated an appeal. On appeal, he argues: (1) that the trial judge improperly refused to recuse himself; (2) that the trial court improperly denied a motion to suppress Appellant’s statement; and (3) that the trial court improperly sentenced Appellant. After a review of the evidence and authorities, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the request for recusal or the motion to suppress and that the trial court properly sentenced Appellant. As a result, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Bradley Hawks
The appellant, Bradley Hawks, pled guilty in the Crockett County Circuit Court to possession of .5 grams or more of a Schedule II controlled substance, methamphetamine, with intent to sell and received an eight-year sentence to be served in confinement. As part of the plea agreement, the appellant reserved a certified question of law, namely whether exigent circumstances justified law enforcement’s searching his residence without a warrant. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that evidence of exigent circumstances does not exist in this case. Therefore, the appellant’s conviction is reversed, and the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Crockett | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. David Eugene Breezee
The Defendant, David Eugene Breezee, was found guilty by a Benton County Circuit Court jury of rape, a Class B felony, and incest, a Class C felony. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-503(b); 39-15-302(b). At the sentencing hearing, the incest conviction was merged with the rape conviction, and the Defendant was sentenced to ten years’ confinement. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions and that he erroneously received more than the minimum sentence of eight years because the trial court applied the multiple victims enhancement factor. We affirm the Defendant’s conviction and sentence for rape, but we reverse the trial court’s merger of the incest conviction into the rape conviction, reinstate the incest conviction, and remand for sentencing as to that conviction. |
Benton | Court of Criminal Appeals |
