Norris E. Ray v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Norris E. Ray, appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing he received the ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal. After review, we affirm the denial of the petition. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ivano Stamegna v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Ivano Stamegna, pled guilty to attempt to possess more than 300 grams of cocaine, and the trial court sentenced him to eight years. In 2010, the Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief. After a hearing, the post-conviction court dismissed the petition, concluding that he did not file his petition within the applicable statute of limitations. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred because either the statutory exception for new, retrospectively applicable constitutional rights or the constitutional exception for due process require the tolling of the statute of limitations. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable authorities, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Michael Vincent Ricco v. State of Tennessee
Michael Vincent Ricco (“the Petitioner”) was convicted by a jury of rape of a child and aggravated sexual battery. This conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. The Supreme Court denied the Petitioner’s application for permission to appeal. See State v. Michael Vincent Ricco, No. W2008-00756-CCA-R3-CD, 2009 WL 2191872 (Tenn. Crim. App. July 23, 2009), perm. app. denied, (Tenn. Dec. 14, 2009). The Petitioner filed for post-conviction relief, claiming that he was denied effective assistance of counsel at trial. After an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief, and the Petitioner has appealed. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the decision of the post-conviction court. |
Henderson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Debra Elaine Moore Kirk
The defendant, Debra Elaine Moore Kirk, stands convicted of criminally negligent homicide, a Class E felony, and aggravated child abuse, a Class A felony. The trial court sentenced her as a Range I, standard offender to an effective sentence of 25 years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. In a previous appeal, this court ruled that the defendant waived all issues other than sufficiency of the evidence by failing to file a timely motion for new trial and affirmed the judgments of the trial court. See State v. Debra Elaine Moore, No. E2007-00533-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, June 23, 2008). A postconviction court granted post-conviction relief in the form of a delayed appeal. In this appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred by allowing certain testimony from the medical examiner and that the evidence was insufficient to support her convictions. Our previous determination that the evidence was sufficient to support the defendant’s convictions is the law of the case, and we do not consider this issue. Following our review of the remaining issues, we conclude that the trial court committed no reversible error and affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Cocke | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Barry D. Harris, Jr.
Defendant-Appellant, Barry D. Harris, Jr., pled guilty in the Circuit Court of Williamson County to aggravated assault, a Class C felony, unlawful carrying or possession of a weapon, a Class E felony, and simple possession of a controlled substance, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced Harris as a Range I, standard offender to an effective term of six years’ imprisonment in the Department of Correction. Harris attempted to reserve a certified question of law under Rule 37 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure, addressing whether the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence discovered as a result of a search of his residence. Because Harris failed to comply with the proper procedure for reserving such a question, we conclude that we are without jurisdiction to consider it. Additionally, Harris appeals the length of his sentence, arguing that the sentence does not conform to the statutory purposes of sentencing. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joni Michelle Osborne
A Williamson County Circuit Court jury convicted the defendant, Joni Michelle Osborne, of simple possession of a controlled substance (methamphetamine), see T.C.A. § 39-17-418(a) (2006), and violation of the seatbelt law, see id. § 55-9-603. Following the jury’s verdict, the trial court found the defendant guiltyof felonious simple possession based upon her prior history of drug convictions, see id. § 39-17-418(e),and imposed an effective sentence of two years consisting of 30 days’ incarceration in jail and the service of the remaining portion of her sentence on probation. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred by denying her motion to suppress the fruits of the search of her vehicle, denying her motion to continue the trial, and referring to an exhibit as “illegal drugs” in its instructions to the jury, and that the cumulative effect of these errors deprived her of a fair trial. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Montez Duncan
The appellant, Montez Duncan, pled guilty in the Shelby County Criminal Court to attempted first degree murder, especially aggravated robbery, and especially aggravated kidnapping. The trial court sentenced the appellant to a total effective sentence of twenty-five years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant challenges the length of the sentences imposed by the trial court. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Landon Christopher McGahee
The Defendant, Landon Christopher McGahee, pled guilty to five counts of burglary of an automobile and was sentenced to serve six years on community corrections. He appeals as of right from the Hamilton County Criminal Court’s revocation of his community corrections sentence and order of incarceration. The Defendant contends that the trial court erred by ordering four years of the previously imposed sentence to be served in confinement. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ted Ormand Pate
A Davidson County jury convicted the Defendant, Ted Ormand Pate, of attempted rape of a child, a Class B felony, and aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony. The trial court merged the convictions and sentenced the Defendant as a Range I offender to ten years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred when it: (1) admitted the Defendant’s tape recorded confession to his daughter; (2) limited the scope of an expert witness’s testimony regarding the Defendant’s susceptibility to suggestion; and (3) disallowed the expert witness’s testimony regarding the interview techniques used during the victim’s forensic interview. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jeremy Lieutenant Fuqua
In May, 2007, Defendant, Jeremy Lieutenant Fuqua, pled guilty to various offenses, including three counts of aggravated burglary, a Class C felony, and one count of Class C felony theft. He received a sentence of four years for each conviction of aggravated burglary and a sentence of three years for the theft conviction, with all sentences to be served consecutively with each other for an effective sentence of fifteen years. Defendant was given the opportunity to serve the entire sentence on probation. Subsequently, there were three separate probation violation proceedings, but ultimately none resulted in revocation of the entire probation sentence. The fourth probation violation proceeding, which is the subject of this appeal, was filed based upon new criminal charges, failure to report arrests, and various technical violations. After a hearing the trial court revoked Defendant’s probation and ordered the entire effective sentence of fifteen years to be served by incarceration. On appeal, Defendant does not challenge the findings that he violated his probation; he does insist that he should not have been ordered to serve his entire sentence. We affirm the judgments of the trial court in each conviction. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Bryant Kelly Pride
A Sullivan County jury convicted the Defendant, Bryant Kelly Pride, of two counts of the sale of 0.5 grams or more of cocaine and two counts of the delivery of 0.5 grams or more of cocaine. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to serve an effective sentence of thirty-six years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) there is insufficient evidence to sustain his convictions, (2) the trial court erred when it denied the Defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictments for the State’s failure to provide the Defendant a speedy trial, (3) the trial court improperly allowed the State’s expert witness to testify without proper notice to the Defendant, and (4) the Defendant’s sentence is excessive. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kenneth D. Gann
A Hamilton County jury convicted the Defendant, Kenneth D. Gann, of second degree murder, and the trial court sentenced him to twenty years, to be served at 100%. On appeal, the Defendant contends the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress a statement he gave while in the hospital. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Tavarski Childress v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner filed for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel in conjunction with his trial that resulted in convictions of first degree felony murder and especially aggravated robbery. After an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief, and the Petitioner has appealed. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael D. Johnson
Defendant-Appellant, Michael D. Johnson, was convicted by a Hardin County jury of rape of a child, a Class A felony, and aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony. Johnson was sentenced to twenty-five years in the Department of Correction for rape of a child and ten years for aggravated sexual battery, to be served concurrently. On appeal, he argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hardin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Keven Scott v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner was convicted by a jury for possession of cocaine, possession of more than .5 grams of cocaine with the intent to deliver, and possession of marijuana. These convictions were sustained on appeal. The Petitioner subsequently filed for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. Specifically, the Petitioner argues that his trial counsel performed ineffectively by failing to file a motion to suppress the evidence obtained during a police search. Following an evidentiary hearing, the postconviction court denied relief, and the Petitioner has appealed. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the Petitioner has not met his burden of proving that he was prejudiced by his trial counsel’s failure to file a motion to suppress. Consequently, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Keele Camille Maynor a/k/a Keele Camille Payne
Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, Defendant, Keele Camille Maynor (a/k/a Payne), pled guilty to nine charges and was sentenced as follows: in Count 1, Defendant pled guilty to Class C felony theft and was sentenced to serve 42 months in the Tennessee Department of Correction (TDOC); in Count 2, Defendant pled guilty to Class C felony theft and was sentenced to five years in TDOC, suspended with probation for ten years; in Count 3, Defendant pled guilty to Class D felony theft and was sentenced to three years in TDOC, suspended with probation for six years; in Count 4, Defendant pled guilty to Class D felony theft (although the judgment, in error, reflects a conviction for Class E felony theft) and was sentenced to three years in TDOC, suspended with probation for six years; in Count 5, Defendant pled guilty to Class E felony theft and was sentenced to two years in TDOC, suspended with probation for four years; in Count 6, Defendant pled guilty to Class D felony theft and was sentenced to three years in TDOC, suspended with probation for six years; in Count 7, Defendant pled guilty to Class E felony theft and was sentenced to two years in TDOC, suspended with probation for five years; in Count 8, Defendant pled guilty to Class E felony theft and was sentenced to two years in TDOC, suspended with probation for five years; and in Count 9, Defendant pled guilty to Class E felony forgery and was sentenced to serve two years in TDOC. Pursuant to the plea agreement, Defendant was to receive concurrent Range I sentences, but the trial court, following a sentencing hearing, determined the length, range, and manner of Defendant’s sentences. The trial court also imposed an agreed upon amount of restitution. On appeal, Defendant challenges the trial court’s imposition of a 42-month sentence of incarceration in Count 1 and asserts that the sentence structure imposed by the trial court results in consecutive, rather than concurrent, sentences. We affirm the convictions and sentences imposed in all counts, except for Count 4, which we remand for entry of a corrected judgment. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Antonio Dodson
The Defendant, Michael Antonio Dodson, pled guilty to aggravated rape and two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, Class A felonies; two counts of aggravated robbery, Class B felonies; and aggravated burglary and employing a firearm during a felony, Class C felonies. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-502 (2010) (aggravated rape), 39-13-305 (2010) (especially aggravated kidnapping), 39-13-402 (2010) (aggravated robbery), 39-14-403 (2010) (aggravated burglary), 39-17-1324 (Supp. 2008) (amended 2009) (employing a firearm). He was sentenced to serve twenty-five years for aggravated rape, twenty-three years for each of the especially aggravated kidnapping convictions, ten years for each of the aggravated robbery convictions, five years for aggravated burglary, and ten years for employing a firearm. The trial court imposed partial consecutive sentencing yielding an effective sentence of eighty-six years. The Defendant contends that the trial court erred in choosing the length of his sentences and in imposing consecutive sentencing. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ricky Johnson v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Ricky Johnson, was convicted by a Madison County jury in 1989 of burglary of an automobile and grand larceny and was sentenced to concurrent eight-year sentences as a Range II, persistent offender. More than twenty-one years later, the Petitioner filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis, alleging that there was a variance between the indictment and the proof at trial and that his convictions violated double jeopardy protections. The Madison County Circuit Court summarily dismissed the petition. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the coram nobis court erred: (1) in dismissing the petition without an evidentiary hearing and without appointing counsel; and (2) in denying him relief. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the coram nobis court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Connie R. Martin
Defendant-Appellant, Connie R. Martin, appeals from the Gibson County Circuit Court’s order revoking her probation. She was originally convicted of two counts of solicitation of first degree murder, aggravated burglary, forgery, and misdemeanor theft. She received an effective twenty-year sentence, part of which was to be served on probation. In this appeal, Martin claims that the trial court erred in revoking her probation. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Gibson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Tarrean V. Nuby v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Tarrean V. Nuby, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for attempted first degree murder and aggravated robbery, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of both trial and appellate counsel. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Timothy Garvin Odom v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Timothy Garvin Odom, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his conviction for rape of a child. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in denying his petition because he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. After review, we affirm the denial of the petition. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Paul M. Stackhouse
The defendant, Paul M. Stackhouse, was convicted of one count of aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony, and sentenced to nine years in the Department of Correction. The defendant appeals his conviction, claiming that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction; (2) the trial court abused its discretion by admitting certain expert testimony and by failing to provide a requested special jury instruction regarding same; (3) the trial court abused its discretion by allowing a witness to testify regarding a prior inconsistent statement made by one of the State’s witnesses during the State’s case-in-chief and by refusing to provide a limiting jury instruction regarding same; and (4) the trial court erred by failing to grant a judgment of acquittal. After carefully reviewing the record and the arguments of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the court below. |
Hamblen | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Casey Treat
A Sevier County grand jury indicted the Defendant, Casey Treat, for driving under the influence and driving under the influence per se. The Defendant pled guilty but reserved a certified question of law, pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2), as to whether the absence of the video recording of his stop violated his constitutional rights. After review, we conclude that this Court does not have jurisdiction to address the certified question because it does not comply with the strict requirements of Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2), as the certified question is (1) not dispositive of the case and (2) overly broad. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. |
Sevier | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Charlotte McCarter
In this extraordinary appeal, the Defendant-Appellant,Charlotte McCarter, appeals the Sevier County Circuit Court’s order refusing to grant an interlocutory appeal regarding the denial of pretrial diversion. On appeal, McCarter argues that the prosecutor abused her discretion in denying her application for pretrial diversion by: (1) failing to properly consider her amenability to correction; (2) making “rote statements” that the evidence weighed in favor of denying pretrial diversion instead of properly weighing the relevant factors; (3) relying on the circumstances of the offense and the need for deterrence, where these factors were not of such “overwhelming significance” to justify the denial; and (4) failing to have “substantial evidence” to support her decision to deny pretrial diversion. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sevier | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. David Houston Greene
Defendant-Appellant, David Houston Greene, appeals the Sullivan County Circuit Court’s revocation of his probation in three different cases. He was originally convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to sell, aggravated perjury, and misdemeanor failure to appear. He received an effective eight-year sentence, all of which was suspended after thirty days incarceration. On appeal, Greene claims that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his probation and in ordering him to serve the sentences in confinement. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals |
