Thomas Nathaniel Allen v. State of Tennessee
After trial, a jury convicted the Petitioner, Thomas Nathaniel Allen, of first degree murder, and he received a life sentence in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The Petitioner appeals the Hamblen County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief and writ of error coram nobis. He argues that he is entitled to post-conviction relief based on the ineffective assistance of his trial counsel and prosecutorial misconduct committed by the State. The Petitioner claims that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because trial counsel failed to (1) investigate or call several witnesses at trial and (2) retain a jury consultant. He asserts that the State committed prosecutorial misconduct by instructing a witness not to talk to the defense. The Petitioner additionally argues that the post-conviction court erred in denying him coram nobis relief based on newly discovered evidence. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the post-conviction court. |
Hamblen | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William Alexander Gant
A Davidson County Criminal Court jury found the appellant,William Alexander Gant,guilty of the sale of less than .5 grams of cocaine, tampering with evidence, and evading arrest. The trial court imposed a total effective sentence of fifteen years in the Tennessee Department of Correction, to be served consecutively to sentences from two prior convictions. On appeal, the appellant contends that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction for selling less than .5 grams of cocaine, that the trial court erred “in allowing the State to present proof derived from evidence that it intentionally destroyed,” and that the trial court erred in sentencing. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jose Garcia (a/k/a Hilberto Alejandro Rentira Lerma)
A Montgomery County jury convicted the Defendant, Jose Garcia, of conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery, four counts of aggravated robbery, and especially aggravated kidnapping, and the trial court sentenced him to an effective sentence of sixteen years, to be served at 100%. On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions; and (2) the trial court erred when it made several evidentiary rulings. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael D. Williams
A Davidson County jury convicted the Defendant, Michael D. Williams, of first degree murder, and the trial court sentenced him to life in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tina Gail Williamson
Appellant, Tina Gail Williamson, was convicted by a Rutherford County Jury of second degree murder, felonymurder, and especially aggravated robbery. The trial court merged the second degree murder conviction into the felony murder conviction. Appellant was sentenced to life plus twenty years. On appeal, Appellant argues that the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to support her convictions and that the trial court erred in instructing the jury with a sequential jury instruction. We have thoroughly reviewed the record on appeal and have concluded that the circumstantial evidence presented is sufficient to support the conviction. With regard to the jury instructions, Appellant has failed to include them in the record. It is Appellant’s responsibility to do so. Therefore, we are unable to review this issue and it is waived. For these reasons, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Randall Lee Brown
The defendant, Randall Lee Brown, was sentenced, as a Range III, persistent offender, to an effective sentence of eleven years incarceration following his guilty pleas to multiple offenses in Hamilton County. On appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court imposed an excessive sentence and erred by denying him an alternative sentence. However, we are unable to review the defendant’s issues because the record before us does not contain a transcript from the guilty plea hearing, which is needed for complete review. As such, we must presume that the trial court’s determinations were correct and, accordingly, affirm the sentences as imposed. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jackie Hardin v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Jackie Hardin, appeals the denial of post-conviction relief from her aggravated assault conviction, claiming she was denied effective assistance of counsel. Petitioner alleges that trial counsel failed to call important witnesses, did not allow her to testify, and failed to conduct discovery. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Fred Allen Owens v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Fred Allen Owens, appeals as of right from the Knox County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The Petitioner contends that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel because counsel failed to investigate and present a mental health defense. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the postconviction |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Denny Merrill Phillips
The defendant, Denny Merrill Phillips, was convicted of one count of solicitation to commit rape in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-528(a)(3), a Class C felony, on the grounds that he followed the victim into a public men’s room and verbally requested that the victim perform fellatio on him. The defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction, arguing that the State failed to present any facts or evidence from which the jury could have reasonably concluded that the sexual penetration solicited by the defendant would have occurred without the victim’s consent. We note that a jury, when determining whether the sexual act being solicited is to be accomplished with or without consent, may consider the totality of a defendant’s conduct - not just the particular words used by the defendant. However, in this case, even viewing the defendant’s conduct in its entirety, we cannot conclude that the evidence presented was sufficient to establish that the sexual act being solicited by the defendant would have been accomplished absent the victim’s consent. A verbal request for sex or an offer to pay for sex, without more, is simply not a solicitation to commit rape as it lacks proof of the non-consent element which is required. We agree that the evidence presented was sufficient to support a conviction for solicitation to commit statutory rape. However, because our supreme court has established that statutory rape is not a lesser included offense of rape, see State v. Stokes, 24 S.W.3d 303, 305-06 (Tenn. 2000), the defendant’s conviction cannot be amended to reflect that charge. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction must be reversed. |
Campbell | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Fredrick Darnell Alexander v. State of Tennessee
Appellant,Frederick Darnell Alexander,was convicted by a Davidson County jury of the sale of less than. 5 grams of cocaine within 1000 feet of a school. As a result, he was sentenced to twelve years in incarceration, to be served at one hundred percent. Appellant appeals the conviction, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction and that the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress Appellant’s statement to police. After a review of the record, we conclude that the evidence, although mostly circumstantial, was sufficient to show that Appellant sold cocaine to an undercover officer within 1000 feet of a school. Further, Appellant not only failed to raise any issue with regard to the motion to suppress in a motion for new trial but also failed to a provide a transcript of the hearing on the motion to suppress. Therefore, Appellant is not entitled to relief unless there is plain error. The record is not clear as to what happened in the trial court because of the lack of a transcript of the suppression hearing. Therefore, we will not review the issue for plain error. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Roger W. Christy
A Montgomery County grand jury charged the defendant, Roger W. Christy, with one count of sexual battery by an authority figure, see T.C.A. § 39-13-527 (2006), and one count of sexual battery accomplished by force or coercion, see T.C.A. § 39-13-505. Following a bench trial,the trial court convicted the defendantof sexual battery by an authority figure and acquitted him of sexual battery accomplished by force or coercion. At sentencing, the trial court sentenced the defendant to three years’ probation as a Range I, standard offender. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction. Having determined that a fatal variance exists between the offense charged in the indictment and the proof presented at trial, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and dismiss the case. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Alex C. Nolan
The defendant, Alex C. Nolan, appeals the sentence of incarceration he received following the revocation of his probation by the Bedford County Circuit Court. He was convicted of possession of cocaine with the intent to sell and sentenced to eleven years of incarceration. However, the defendant was released onto probation by the Department of Correction through the boot camp program. Thereafter, a probation violation warrant was issued, charging the defendant with multiple violations of the terms and conditions of his probation. The defendant pled guilty to violating those terms, but he now contends that the trial erred by ordering the remainder of his sentence be served in incarceration. After review, we conclude that the defendant has not shown that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering the revocation or in imposing a sentence of incarceration. Therefore, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Rabon Gibson
Appellant, Rabon D. Gibson, pled guilty to three counts of attempted aggravated sexual battery. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court denied all forms of alternative sentencing and sentenced appellant to an eight-year sentence in theTennesseeDepartmentof Correction. On appeal, appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying his request for an alternative sentence. After reviewing the record, the parties’ briefs, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sequatchie | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Brandon Trevon Williams
The appellant, Brandon Trevon Williams, appeals the revocation of his probation claiming that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his probation and ordering execution of the original sentence. Finding no error, we affirm the order of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Benjamin William Riffey, Alias
In February 2005, the Defendant, Benjamin William Riffey, alias, pled guilty to facilitation to commit aggravated robbery. He was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to six years and was placed on probation. Subsequently, the Defendant was transferred to enhanced probation. On February 22, 2011, a violation of probation warrant was filed, the third against the Defendant. Following a hearing, the trial court revoked the Defendant’s sentence of probation and ordered that he serve the remainder of his six-year sentence in the Department of Correction. In this appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred by revoking his probation. After a review of the record, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joshua Caleb Morris
Joshua Caleb Morris (“the Defendant”) pled guilty to two counts of aggravated burglary, three counts of theft, and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia. The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I standard offender to a total effective sentence of six years, to be suspended on twelve years probation under the supervision of the Community Alternative to Prison Program. Upon the filing of a revocation warrant, the Defendant was taken into custody and a probation revocation 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. The Defendant has appealed the trial court’s ruling. Upon our review of the record, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Brandon Trent Patterson
Defendant, Brandon Trent Patterson, was indicted by the Maury County Grand Jury for attempted first degree murder. By agreement between the parties, Defendant was also charged by criminal information with one count of aggravated assault. Following a jury trial, Defendant was acquitted of attempted first degree murder and convicted of aggravated assault. Defendant was sentenced to eight years of imprisonment. Defendant appeals his conviction, asserting that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction. After a careful review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Anthony Eugene Poole
Defendant, Anthony Eugene Poole, was indicted by the Davidson County Grand Jury for aggravated assault. Defendant was convicted of the lesser included offense of assault and sentenced by the trial court to 11 months and 29 days to be suspended on probation. Defendant appeals his conviction and sentence and asserts that: 1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction; 2) the trial court erred by not instructing the jury as to the defenses of duress and necessity; 3) the statute of limitations barred his prosecution; 4) his sentence of intensive probation and imposition of a fine was improper; and 5) the trial court erred by ordering Defendant to pay restitution to the victim. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Matthew Whitehair
The Rutherford County Grand Jury indicted Defendant, Matthew Whitehair, for three counts of rape of a child, two counts of rape, eight counts of incest, three counts of statutory rape by an authority figure, and one count of sexual battery by an authority figure. During the investigation of the case, officers interviewed Defendant at the police station and videotaped the interview. Prior to trial, Defendant filed a motion to suppress the videotaped interview. After a hearing, the trial court granted Defendant’s motion to suppress. The trial court held that the videotape was not relevant because Defendant’s answers were ambiguous. Following the granting of the motion to suppress the State moved the trial court for an interlocutory appeal pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 9. The trial court denied this motion and the State applied in this Court for an extraordinary appeal pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 10. This Court granted the State’s application solely on the basis that the trial court acted arbitrarily in denying the application for a Rule 9 appeal. This Court did not address the merits of the granting of the motion to suppress. On appeal, the State argues that the trial court erred. We have reviewed the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the motion to suppress. Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s decision to grant Defendant’s motion to suppress |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Tyrone E. Montgomery v. Ricky Bell, Warden
The petitioner, Tyrone E. Montgomery, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his pro se petition for the writ of habeas corpus seeking relief from his first degree murder conviction and life sentence. On appeal, the petitioner contends that the trial court erred and that his conviction is void because: (1) the indictments did not allege the “knowingly” and “intentionally” mental states; (2) the trial court improperly instructed the jury on premeditation and felony murder; (3) he was charged with “Murder By Use of A Firearm” but convicted of first degree felony murder, a crime for which he did not have proper notice from the indictment; and (4) his judgment of conviction is facially invalid and void. Following review of the record, we conclude that the trial court properly dismissed the petition and affirm the judgment. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Claudia O. Draime
The Defendant, Claudia O. Draime, pled guilty to theft over $60,000, a Class B felony, for an agreed Range I sentence of eight years, with the trial court to determine the manner of service of the sentence and restitution. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court denied probation and ordered the Defendant to serve her eight-year sentence in confinement. It is from that judgment that the Defendant now appeals, arguing that the trial court improperly imposed a sentence of full confinement. After a thorough review of the law and relevant authorities, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Michael Wayne Davis v. Dwight Barbee, Warden and Henry Steward, Warden
The Petitioner, Michael Wayne Davis, 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. Larry Wayne Webb
A Davidson County jury found the Defendant, Larry Wayne Webb, guilty of forgery in an amount over one thousand dollars and identity theft, and the trial court sentenced him to an effective sentence of twelve years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions; (2) the trial court improperly admitted a vehicle certificate of title into evidence at trial; and (3) his convictions for forgery and identity theft should merge. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Leroy Poston
The Defendant-Appellant, James Leroy Poston, was indicted by the Cumberland County Grand Jury for one count of second degree murder. Poston subsequently entered a guilty plea to reckless homicide in the Cumberland County Criminal Court. Pursuant to his plea agreement, Poston received a sentence of two years as a Range I, standard offender, with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a sentence of confinement in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, Poston argues that the trial court erred in denying his request for an alternative sentence. Upon review, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for entry of a judgment sentencing Poston to serve his two-year sentence on supervised probation. |
Cumberland | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Nickolus L. Johnson
A Sullivan County jury convicted the Defendant, Nickolus L. Johnson, of premeditated first degree murder, see Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-202(a)(1) (2006), for the shooting death of Officer Mark Vance of the Bristol Police Department. Following penalty phase proceedings, the jury found the presence of the following two aggravating circumstances: (1) that thedefendant previously had been convicted of one or more felonies whose statutory elements involved the use of violence to the person; and (2) that the defendant knew or should have known when he committed the murder that the victim was a law enforcement officer engaged in the performance of his official duties. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-204(i)(2), (9) (2006). After finding that these aggravating circumstances outweighed any mitigating factors presented by the defense, the jury sentenced the Defendant to death. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-204(g)(1) (2006). In this appeal, the Defendant challenges both his conviction and accompanying death sentence. He raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence presented during the guilt phase was sufficient to support his conviction; (2) whether Tennessee’s death penalty statute violates article I, section 19 of the Tennessee Constitution; (3) whether the exclusion of jurors from the jury based on their views on the death penalty violates article I, sections 6 and 19 of the Tennessee Constitution; (4) whether the trial court erred in admitting into evidence the videotape of the Defendant taken in Officer Graham’s patrol car immediately following the Defendant’s arrest; (5) whether the trial court erred in failing to require defense counsel to present mental health mitigation evidence despite the Defendant’s objection to the presentation of such evidence; (6) whether individual and cumulative instances of prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument at the penalty phase denied the Defendant his right to a fair trial and should have resulted in the trial court declaring a mistrial; (7) whether the trial court erred in denying defense counsel’s requests for special jury instructions during the penalty phase in response to the prosecutor’s assertion during closing that the Defendant had failed to express remorse; (8) whether the trial court erred in denying the Defendant’s oral motion for a change of venue based on the effect pretrial publicity in the case had on potential jurors; (9) whether the trial court erred in denying defense counsel’s request for authorization of funds with which to hire an expert to support the claim that pretrial publicity in the case required a change of venue in order to protect the Defendant’s right to a fair trial; and (10) whether the trial court erred in denying defense counsel’s request for additional peremptory challenges during jury selection. Following our review of the record, and our mandatory review of the sentence, see Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206(c)(1) (2006), we affirm the judgments including the sentence of death. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals |
