State of Tennessee v. Antonio F. Baker
The defendant, Antonio F. Baker, appeals from the trial court’s denial of his request to modify his sentence via Rule 35 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John Michael Whitlock
Following a jury trial, the Defendant, John Michael Whitlock, was convicted of two counts of sexual exploitation of a minor, a Class D felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1003(d). In this direct appeal, the Defendant raises the following issues for our review: (1) The State presented insufficient evidence to sustain his convictions for sexual exploitation of a minor; (2) The trial court erred when it allowed the State to give a rebuttal closing argument when the Defendant waived opening statements and offered no proof; and (3) The trial court erred when it instructed the jury regarding the factors contained in United States v. Dost, 636 F. Supp. 828, 832 (S.D. Cal. 1986). Following our review, we conclude that the State did not present sufficient evidence to support the Defendant’s convictions for sexual exploitation of a minor and, therefore, we reverse the judgments of the trial court and dismiss the charges against the Defendant. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Scott W. Grammar v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Scott W. Grammer, appeals the Hamilton County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for three counts of aggravated sexual battery and resulting effective twenty-two-year sentence. On appeal, the petitioner contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. In addition, he argues that the State engaged in egregious, improper, and deceptive practices during the trial; that the post-conviction court should have amended his improperly enhanced sentences; and that the evidence is insufficient to support one of his convictions. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Tyler King v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Tyler King, appeals as of right from the Dyer County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The Petitioner pled guilty to voluntary manslaughter, a Class C felony, and received an agreed sentence of 15 years in the Tennessee Department of Correction as a Range II, multiple offender. The Petitioner challenges the voluntariness of his guilty plea and the performance of trial counsel. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Daniel H. Jones
The Sullivan County Grand Jury charged by presentment Appellant, Daniel H. Jones, with possession of .5 gram of cocaine with intent to sell. This charge was the result of the execution of a search warrant during which officers arrested five individuals and found containers holding rocks of crack cocaine and other drug paraphernalia. After a jury trial held on August 26, 28, and 29, 2008, Appellant was convicted as charged. The trial court sentenced Appellant to eleven years as a Range I, standard offender. On appeal, Appellant argues that the trial court erred in allowing testimony of a prior bad act of Appellant in contravention of Rule 404(b) of the Tennessee Rules of Evidence and that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence in question and that the evidence was sufficient to support Appellant’s conviction. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jerry W. Alley, Jr.
The defendant, Jerry W. Alley, Jr., entered pleas of guilty in the Hardin County Circuit Court to one count of the initiation of a process intended to result in the manufacture of methamphetamine, see T.C.A. § 39-17-435 (2006); one count of simple possession of methamphetamine, see id. § 39-17-418(a); one count of possession of drug paraphernalia, see id. § 39-17-425(a)(1); and one count of child neglect, see id. § 39-15-401(a). The trial court imposed a total effective sentence of eight years to be served in confinement. On appeal, the defendant challenges the imposition of a fully incarcerative sentence. Finding no error, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Leonard Eugene Myers
The Defendant, Leonard Eugene Myers, was convicted following a jury trial in the Hamilton County Criminal Court of reckless aggravated assault, a Class D felony; vehicular assault, a Class D felony; and driving under the influence (DUI), a Class A misdemeanor. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-102(2)(A) (2006) (amended 2009, 2010), 39-13-106(a) (2010), 55-10-401 (2008) (amended 2010). The trial court merged the reckless aggravated assault and DUI convictions with the vehicular assault conviction and sentenced the Defendant to four years as a Range I offender. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions; (2) the trial court erred in admitting blood analysis evidence because the chain of custody was not properly established; (3) the trial court erred in excluding evidence of the victim’s civil judgment against the Defendant; and (4) the trial court erred in sentencing the Defendant based upon enhancement factors that were not found beyond a reasonable doubt by the jury. We affirm the convictions, but we vacate the judgments and remand the case to the trial court for entry of one judgment reflecting that the reckless aggravated assault and DUI convictions are merged with the vehicular assault conviction. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Demetrius Nacoyea Dunn aka Nick Dunn
The Defendant-Appellant, Demetrius Nacoyea Dunn, was convicted by a Tipton County jury of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, and burglary, a Class E felony. He was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to eight years for aggravated robbery and one year for burglary. On appeal, Dunn claims: (1) his convictions were not supported 1 by sufficient evidence; and (2) the trial court erred by failing to issue a curative instruction following hearsay testimony. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Tipton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Dusty B. Haynes v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Dusty Haynes, appeals the order of the post-conviction that denied him postconviction relief from his guilty plea conviction for burglary but nonetheless granted him a delayed appeal of his sentence. The petitioner argues that the post-conviction court instead should have reversed his conviction and granted him a new trial. Following our review, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief and reverse the granting of a delayed appeal. |
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Danny D. Holmes
The Defendant-Appellant, Danny D. Holmes, appeals the revocation of his probation. He pled guilty in the Circuit Court of Rutherford County to robbery and aggravated assault, both Class C felonies. Holmes received an effective sentence of six years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Pursuant to the plea agreement, he was granted an alternative sentence of six years on probation. Holmes claims on appeal that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his probation and imposing the original term of confinement. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Earnest Ulyessee McEwen
Defendant, Earnest Ulyessee McEwen, appeals the trial court’s revocation of his community corrections sentence. In 2006, Defendant was indicted for burglary and theft of property over $1,000. Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, Defendant pled guilty to burglary and was sentenced to twelve years as a career offender with one year to serve in confinement and eleven years on community corrections, and the theft charge was dismissed. A warrant was issued charging Defendant with a violation of his community corrections sentence. Following a hearing, the trial court revoked Defendant’s sentence and imposed his original twelve-year sentence, to be served in confinement. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Chris L. Robinson
The defendant, Chris L. Robinson, pleaded guilty to possession of more than 0.5 grams of cocaine with intent to sell, a Class B felony, in exchange for an eight-year sentence, leaving the trial court to determine whether he would serve the sentence concurrently with or consecutively to his six-year sentence in Davidson County Criminal Court case number 2009-I-508. The trial court ordered that the defendant serve the eight-year sentence consecutively to the six-year sentence. On appeal, the defendant argues that the imposition of consecutive sentences was inconsistent with the purposes and principles of the sentencing statutes. Following our review, we affirm the sentence of the trial court and remand solely for entry of an amended judgment reflecting that the defendant’s sentence in this case is to run consecutively to his sentence in case number 2009-I-508. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James Daniels v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, James Daniels, was convicted by a Cocke County jury of first degree murder and attempted second degree murder. He was sentenced to concurrent sentences of life in prison and twelve years, respectively. Petitioner’s convictions were affirmed on direct appeal and the supreme court denied permission to appeal. State v. James Wesley Daniels, No. E2006-01119-CCA-R3-CS, 2007 WL 2757636 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxville, Sept. 24, 2007), perm. app. denied, (Tenn. Feb. 4, 2008). Subsequently, Petitioner sought post-conviction relief on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel. After a hearing on the petition, the post-conviction court dismissed the petition for relief. Petitioner appeals. After a review, we determine that Petitioner has failed to present clear and convincing evidence that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Accordingly, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed. |
Cocke | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Anthony Dodson
The defendant, Anthony Dodson, was convicted of attempted first degree murder, a Class A felony, and sentenced to twenty-five years as a Range I, standard offender. The defendant now appeals, claiming insufficient evidence to support his conviction and that the sentence imposed by the trial judge was excessive. After reviewing the record, we find error in neither the defendant’s conviction nor his sentence, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kristopher Smith
Defendant-Appellant Kristopher Smith was convicted by a Shelby County jury of aggravated kidnapping and rape, both Class B felonies. He was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to an effective ten-year term of imprisonment in the Tennessee Department of Correction. In this appeal, Smith claims the trial court erred by: (1) failing to sustain his Batson challenge to the prosecution’s peremptory strikes of two African American males; (2) finding that “the prosecution’s explanation of its peremptory strike of a white male sufficiently sex neutral”; (3) finding that his prior aggravated robbery conviction was admissible for impeachment purposes; (4) denying his motion for judgment of acquittal and new trial; and (5) imposing an excessive sentence. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Larry Alan Whited and William Henry Rutherford
The co-defendants, Larry Alan Whited and William Henry Rutherford, appeal their resentencing, which resulted in their receiving effective sentences of forty-five years and twenty-seven years, respectively. Both defendants argue on appeal that the trial court misapplied enhancement factors, weighed the only applicable enhancement factor too heavily, and failed to apply an appropriate factor in mitigation. Following our review, we conclude that the trial court committed no error by not applying any factors in mitigation but that its use of the defendants’ juvenile adjudications and violations of probation to enhance the sentences violates the principles announced in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004). Accordingly, we modify the defendants’ respective sentences for second degree murder to twenty-one years, one year beyond the presumptive midpoint of twenty years, and their sentences for reckless endangerment to one year and six months, six months beyond the presumptive minimum sentence of one year. In addition, we modify Whited’s aggravated assault sentences to four years, one year beyond the presumptive minimum sentence of three years. This case is, therefore, remanded to the trial court for entry of modified sentences in accordance with this opinion. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Darryl Dewayne Bonds
The Defendant, Darryl Dewayne Bonds, pleaded guilty to one count of reckless aggravated assault, a Class D felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-102(a)(2). Sentencing was left to the discretion of the trial court. After conducting a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I, standard offender, to four years to be served in the Department of Correction. In this appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred in setting the length of his sentence and by denying alternative sentencing. After our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Mack Transou v. State of Tennessee
The pro se petitioner, Mack Transou, appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition for writ of certiorari or, in the alternative, petition for writ of error. After reviewing the record, the parties’ briefs, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Leon Booker
A Dyer County Circuit Court jury convicted the defendant, Leon Booker, of two counts of driving while his driver’s license was revoked, second or subsequent offense. See T.C.A. § 55-50-504. The trial court imposed concurrent sentences of 11 months and 29 days, to be served as six months’ incarceration followed by placement in a community corrections program. In this appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. Finding no evidentiary insufficiency, we affirm. |
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Shirley Larhonda Gagne
A Campbell County jury convicted the Defendant, Shirley LaRhonda Gagne, of driving under the influence (“DUI”), third offense; driving on a suspended license, second offense; possession of drug paraphernalia; violation of the seatbelt law; and violation of the open container law. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to eleven months and twenty-nine days, with 130 days to be served in confinement and the remainder to be served on probation. On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the trial court erred when it admitted into evidence testimony pertaining to a blood sample taken from her; and (2) the evidence is insufficient to support her conviction for DUI, third offense. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. |
Campbell | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Andrew Helton v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Andrew Helton, appeals the habeas corpus court’s order summarily dismissing his pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus. Following our review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and applicable law, we affirm the court’s judgment. |
Hickman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Alvin Phillips
assault by the use or display of a deadly weapon. After a bench trial, Appellant was convicted of the charge. Appellant was later sentenced to four years as a Range I, standard offender. He was ordered to serve the sentence on supervised probation and attend domestic violence counseling. On appeal, he argues that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction. After a review of the record, we determine that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Brooke Lee Whitaker
Defendant, Brooke Lee Whitaker, was indicted for aggravated rape. Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, she was allowed to plead guilty to the lesser included offense of rape, with the trial court to determine the length of the sentence after a sentencing hearing. Defendant was sentenced to serve twelve years, and she appeals, arguing that the sentence is excessive. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Carl Lee Bright
The Defendant, Carl Lee Bright, was convicted by a Monroe County Criminal Court jury of driving under the influence (DUI), fourth offense, a Class E felony, and was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to two years’ confinement. See T.C.A. § 55-10-401 (Supp. 2009) (amended 2010). On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred by (1) denying his motion to dismiss the case due to insufficient evidence, (2) denying his motion to suppress evidence, (3) denying his motion to dismiss the indictment or remand for a preliminary examination because his Sixth Amendment right to counsel had been violated, and (4) imposing confinement for the maximum allowable sentence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Monroe | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Assasdot Starling v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Assadot Starling, pled guilty in the Davidson County Criminal Court to possession of .5 grams or more of cocaine in a drug free zone with the intent to sell or deliver. He received a sentence of eight years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Thereafter, he filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that his counsel was ineffective and that his pleas were not knowingly and voluntarily entered. The postconviction court denied the petition, and the Petitioner appeals. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals |
