George Osborne Wade v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, George Osborne Wade, appeals the Circuit Court of Obion County’s dismissal of his petition for writ of error coram nobis. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court’s dismissal 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. |
Obion | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Alisha J. Glisson v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Alisha J. Glisson, appeals the denial of post-conviction relief by the Davidson County Criminal Court. She was convicted of felony murder, aggravated robbery, and three counts of attempted aggravated robbery and received an effective sentence of life imprisonment. The sole issue raised in this appeal is whether trial counsel was ineffective by failing to subpoena a co-defendant at trial. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Hector Alonzo v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Hector Alonzo, appeals pro se from the denial of post-conviction relief by the Criminal Court for Davidson County. He was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to possess with intent to sell more than seventy pounds of marijuana within one thousand feet of a school zone, a Class A felony.The petitioner was sentenced to fifteen years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, he claims: (1) he received ineffective assistance of counsel; and (2) the trial court abused its discretion by prohibiting him from raising a selective prosecution claim. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
D'Angelo Marquez Jenkins v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, D’Angelo Marquez Jenkins, pled guilty in the Montgomery County Circuit Court to facilitation of aggravated robbery and being a felon in possession of a handgun. Pursuant to the plea agreement, he received a total effective sentence of nine years and six months. Thereafter, the petitioner filed for post-conviction relief, alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective and that his pleas were not knowingly and voluntarily entered. Specifically, the petitioner complained that trial counsel failed to interview or subpoena witnesses on the petitioner’s behalf or pursue DNA evidence. The petitioner also contended that his guilty pleas were the result of counsel’s ineffective assistance and prosecutorial misconduct. The post-conviction court denied the petition, and the petitioner now appeals. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jeremy O'Neal
On October 1,2007, Appellant, Jeremy O’Neal, pled guilty in Blount County to one count of felony robbery. He was originally placed on judicial diversion. On April 5, 2010, the trial court set aside Appellant’s judicial diversion for violating the terms thereof. The trial court sentenced Appellant to six years with split confinement of thirty-five days with the remainder to be served on probation. Appellant’s probation officer subsequently filed a violation of probation report in September 2010. After conducting a probation revocation hearing, the trial court determined that Appellant had violated the terms of his probation and revoked Appellant’s probation. The trial court ordered Appellant to serve the balance of his six year sentence in incarceration. Appellant argues on appeal that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering Appellant to serve his sentence in incarceration. We conclude that there is ample evidence to support the trial court’s decision to revoke Appellant’s probation and to order him to serve the balance of his sentence in incarceration. Therefore, we affirm the revocation of probation and the order that Appellant to serve the balance of his sentence in incarceration. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Billy Tate, a/k/a James Moore, a/k/a Larry Moore
Appellant, Billy Tate, a/k/a James Moore, a/k/a Larry Moore, was indicted by the Hamilton County Grand Jury for burglary of a business and theft of property. Appellant was convicted of burglary of a business and theft of property valued at more than $1,000. As a result, Appellant was sentenced to twelve years of incarceration as a Career Offender. The trial court denied a motion for new trial. On appeal, Appellant complains that the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress; the trial court erred in failing to grant a mistrial; and the trial court erred in admitting testimony about “bootprints” left at the scene of the crime. Because Appellant has failed to provide an adequate record for review on appeal, these issues are waived, and the judgments of the trial court are affirmed. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ricky Ronell Jones
The appellant, Ricky Ronell Jones, pled guilty to rape, incest, and two counts of sexual battery relating to his eldest daughter and was convicted at trial of rape of a child and incest relating to his youngest daughter. He received a total effective sentence of thirty-seven years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions and the imposition of consecutive sentencing. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Latasha Reid
The appellant, Latasha Reid, pled guilty in the Madison County Circuit Court to nine counts of identity theft and one count of felony theft. She received an effective four-year probation sentence for the identity theft convictions and a two-year probation sentence for the felony theft conviction, to be served consecutively, for a total effective sentence of six years. Almost six years later, the trial court revoked the appellant’s probation and ordered her to serve her entire sentence anew. On appeal, the appellant contends, and the State concedes, that the trial court erred by ordering her to serve her effective six-year sentence anew because part of the sentence had expired. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we reverse the trial court’s revocation of the appellant’s expired four-year probation sentence. The trial court’s revocation of the appellant’s two-year probation sentence is affirmed. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Shaun Alexander Hodge v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Shaun Alexander Hodge, was convicted of first degree murder in 2001 and sentenced to life in prison. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition seeking post-conviction relief, which was denied by the post-conviction court. The petitioner appeals, claiming constitutional violations arising from the ineffective assistance of his trial counsel and the State’s failure to disclose certain exculpatory evidence. The petitioner also seeks relief based on newly discovered evidence. After careful review of the record and the arguments of both parties, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Donna Dotson
The defendant, Donna Dotson, pled guilty to violating her probation and now appeals the trial court’s order requiring her to serve her sentence in confinement. We affirm the judgment of the trial court in accordance with Rule 20 of the Rules of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Emory Leslie Letson
In a three-count indictment returned by the Hamilton County Grand Jury, Defendant, Emory Leslie Letson, was charged in Count 1 with attempted first degree murder of Jason Kellogg, and in Counts 2 and 3, with reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon, with each count involving a different named victim. Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, Count 1 was amended to a charge of aggravated assault to which Defendant pled guilty. He also pled guilty to Count 2 as charged (which involved a minor as the victim), and Count 3 was dismissed. Pursuant to the agreement, the length and manner of service of sentences for the convictions was determined by the trial court. Defendant was sentenced to serve six years as a Range I standard offender for the aggravated assault conviction, and to serve two years as a Range I standard offender for the reckless endangerment conviction. The sentences were ordered to be served concurrently with each other, and all forms of alternative sentencing were denied. On appeal, Defendant argues that the sentences are excessive and that the trial court erred by denying full probation or some other form of alternative sentencing. After a review of the record and the briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Frederick Edward Braxton and Leonard Cardell Harris
The Defendants, Frederick Edward Braxton and Leonard Cardell Harris, were indicted for attempted premeditated first degree murder. Additionally, Defendant Braxton was charged with possession of marijuana, which was severed as unrelated. Following a jury trial, Defendants were convicted of attempted second degree murder. Defendant Braxton was sentenced to serve nineteen years in confinement as a Range II offender, and Defendant Harris was sentenced to serve eleven years in confinement as a Range I offender. On appeal, both Defendants argue that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions, and that the trial court erred in denying their motion for judgments of acquittal; (2) the trial court erred in precluding Defendants from questioning the victim about being previously shot in a home burglary and about the victim’s prior arrest sixteen months before the shooting; (3) their sentences are excessive; and (4) trial counsel were ineffective for failing to request a juryinstruction on the lesser-included offense of reckless endangerment. Defendant Braxton argues that the trial court erred in allowing the jail custodian of records to testify in rebuttal concerning Defendant Braxton’s period of confinement in the Davidson County jail; (b) trial counsel was ineffective for (i) failing to object to the sentence or request a continuance when the State did not provide proper notice of intent to seek enhanced punishment or provide certified copies of the convictions; (ii) failing to amend the original notice of alibi, filed by previous counsel, to include an additional witness; (iii) failing to investigate possible defenses and alibi witnesses; (i.v.) failure to adequately meet with Defendant Braxton and prepare for trial. Defendant Harris argues that trial counsel was ineffective for asking the victim about a prior altercation with Defendant Harris which opened the door to the victim’s testimony about an earlier attempt by Defendant Harris to harm or kill the victim. After careful review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kerry Douglas Calahan
A Marshall County Circuit Court jury convicted the appellant, Kerry Douglas Calahan, of aggravated assault, aggravated criminal trespass, simple assault, two counts of theft of property valued less than five hundred dollars, and resisting arrest. After a sentencing hearing, the appellant received an effective sentence of six years, six months to be served in confinement. On appeal, the appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction foraggravated assaultand thathissentence foraggravated assaultis excessive. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Karen Ann Matthews
Following her Davidson County General Sessions Court conviction of criminal contempt based upon the violation of an order of protection, the defendant, Karen Ann Matthews, was charged via an indictment returned by the Davidson County grand jury with violating an order of protection, see T.C.A. § 39-13-113 (2006). The trial court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment as violative of double jeopardy principles. In this State appeal, the State contends that the trial court erred by dismissing the indictment because convictions for criminal contempt and violating an order of protection do not violate double jeopardy principles. Discerning no error in the judgment of the trial court, we affirm. |
Court of Criminal Appeals | ||
State of Tennessee v. Ezra Taylor Shelton
Defendant, Ezra Taylor Shelton, was charged with first degree premeditated murder and felony murder. Following a jury trial, he was convicted of second degree murder and voluntary manslaughter. The trial court merged the offenses and imposed a sentence of fifteen years in the Department of Correction for the resulting conviction of second degree murder. On appeal, Defendant argues that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for second degree murder; and (2) the trial court failed to “properly address an improper statement made by the prosecution during closing arguments.” After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Barron Lamar Currie
The Defendant-Appellant, Barron Lamar Currie, entered a guilty plea to aggravated burglary, a Class C felony, and theft of property of property over $500, a Class E felony. Pursuant to his plea agreement, the Defendant-Appellant received an effective sentence of eight years with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. The trial court ordered the Defendant-Appellant to serve the eight-year term in confinement. The Defendant-Appellant’s sole issue for our review is whether the trial court erred in denying any form of alternative sentencing. Finding no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Kevin Wilkins v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Kevin Wilkins, appeals the Criminal Court of Shelby County’s dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The State has filed a motion requesting 1 that this court affirm the trial court’s dismissal 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. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Danthony Michael Pender
Appellant, Danthony Michael Pender, was indicted by the Sullivan County Grand Jury for aggravated robbery in August of 2008. After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted as charged and sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to twelve years in incarceration. Appellant seeks a review of his conviction after the denial of a motion for new trial. On appeal, the following ssues are presented for our review: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction; (2) whether the jury verdict was contrary to the law and evidence; (3) whether the trial court erred by failing to grant the motion for judgment of acquittal; and (4) whether the trial court erred by denying the motion for new trial. after a review, we determine that all of appellant’s issues involve the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. We determine that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Shannon Lee Jarnigan v. State of Tennessee
A Hamblen County Jury convicted Petitioner, Shannon Lee Jarnigan, and her co-defendants of one count each of first degree premeditated murder. They were each sentenced to life in prison. State v. George Arthur Lee Smith, et. al., No. E2009-00984- CCA-R3-CD, 2007 WL 4117603, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxville, Nov. 19, 2007), perm. app. denied, (Tenn. Feb. 25, 2008). Petitioner was unsuccessful on direct appeal to this Court. Id. Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging that she was afforded the ineffective assistance of counsel and her constitutional rights were violated by various means. The post-conviction court denied the petition. Petitioner appeals this decision. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that Petitioner has not proven her allegations. Therefore, we affirm the denial of the petition for post-conviction relief. |
Hamblen | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Damien Neely
A Shelby County jury convicted the Defendant, Damien Neely, of facilitation of second degree murder, and the trial court ordered him to serve twelve years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the trial court erred when it denied his motion to exclude recorded telephone calls he made from jail; (2) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction; and (3) the trial court erred in applying to his sentence enhancement factor (9), pursuant to T.C.A. § 40-35-114, that the Defendant possessed or employed a firearm during the commission of the offense. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Marlow Williams v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Marlow Williams, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his aggravated robbery conviction, arguing that his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise a Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), challenge to the trial court’s use of enhancement factors in sentencing. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Earl Garrett, Jr.
The defendant appeals the 20-year effective sentence imposed for his Dickson County Circuit Court convictions of two counts of the facilitation of second degree murder, claiming that the trial court erred by misapplying the enhancement factors and by imposing consecutive terms. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. |
Dickson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Sandy L. Binkley
A Sumner County jury convicted the Defendant,Sandy L.Binkley,of two counts of statutory rape by an authority figure. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to six years in prison for each conviction and ordered the sentences to be served consecutively, for a twelve-year effective sentence. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred: (1) when it excluded testimony from her expert witness; and (2) when it improperly sentenced her to the maximum sentence within her range and improperly imposed consecutive sentences. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities, we conclude the trial court properly excluded the expert’s testimony and also properly sentenced the Defendant. We, therefore, affirm the trial court’s judgments. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Leslie L. Coleman v. Jim Morrow, Warden
The petitioner, Leslie L. Coleman, pled guilty to one count of felony murder and one count of especially aggravated robbery. He was sentenced to concurrent terms of life in prison and fifteen years. He now appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief, arguing that the court below erred in concluding that the trial court had the authority to sentence him to life in prison. Because the petitioner has failed to establish that his judgment is void or that he is otherwise entitled to relief, we affirm the dismissal of his habeas corpus petition. |
Bledsoe | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Timothy Evans and Michael Daniels
A Hamilton County Criminal Court jury convicted the appellants, Timothy Evans and Michael Daniels, of first degree premeditated murder and conspiracy to commit first degree premeditated murder. In addition, the jury convicted Evans of carrying a dangerous weapon. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Evans to concurrent sentences of life for the murder conviction, sixteen years for the conspiracy conviction, and thirty days for the carrying a dangerous weapon conviction. The trial court sentenced Daniels to consecutive sentences of life for the murder conviction and twenty-three years for the conspiracy conviction. On appeal, the appellants argue that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions, (2) the trial court erred by refusing to grant their motions to sever, (3) the trial court erred by using extreme and unnecessary security measures that prejudiced the jury against them, and (4) the trial court erred by failing to grant their motions for a new trial because the State’s gang expert committed perjury. In addition, Daniels argues that (5) the trial court erred by failing to redact the indictments properly and (6) the trial court failed to control a witness adequately while the witness was testifying. Finally, the appellants contend that the cumulative effect of the errors warrants a new trial. Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals |
