State of Tennessee v. Lyle T. Van Ulzen and Billy J. Coffelt
The Defendants, Lyle T. Van Ulzen and Billy J. Coffelt, were each convicted of one count of felony escape, two counts of aggravated assault, and three counts of especially aggravated kidnapping and were each sentenced to an effective sentence of ninety years in prison. Coffelt now appeals, contending that: (1) the trial court erred in sentencing the Defendant when it found that no mitigating factors applied; and (2) the trial court erred when it ordered that his sentences run consecutively. Van Ulzen also appeals, contending that the sentence imposed was not justly deserved in relation to the seriousness of the offense and is greater than that deserved under the circumstances. Finding no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jason D. Norris
The Appellant, Jason D. Norris, appeals the sentencing decision of the Davidson County Criminal Court. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Norris pled guilty to five counts of aggravated robbery, stemming from two separate indictments, with the manner and service of the sentences to be determined by the trial court. Following a sentencing hearing, Norris was sentenced to eight years for each conviction, with two of the sentences to be served consecutively, for an effective sentence of sixteen years. On appeal, he argues that his sentences are excessive and that the trial court erred by ordering total confinement as opposed to sentences of community corrections. Additionally, Norris argues that the imposition of consecutive sentences violates Blakely v. Washington. After review, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher David Parsley
The defendant, Christopher David Parsley, appeals his sentence of three years for aggravated burglary and one year for sexual battery, to be served concurrently. A split confinement sentence was imposed of seven months to serve followed by three years of supervised probation. The defendant contends that the trial court erred in failing to grant judicial diversion or, alternatively, full probation. After review, we affirm the sentence of the trial court. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Devon Crawford v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant, Devon Crawford, appeals the judgment of the Shelby County Criminal Court denying post-conviction relief. On appeal, Crawford argues that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel. After review, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Eli J. Landry, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Eli J. Landry, Jr., pled guilty in the Davidson County Criminal Court to two counts of aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony, and the trial court sentenced him as a Range II, multiple offender to concurrent sentences of thirteen years. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that he received the ineffective assistance of trial counsel and that his guilty pleas were not knowingly and intelligently entered. The post-conviction court denied the petition, and the petitioner appeals. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Richard Frank D'Antonio
The defendant appeals his conviction for premeditated first degree murder and presents nine issues for review: (1) Sufficiency of the evidence; (2) Failure to dismiss the indictment due to prosecutorial delay; (3) Failure to suppress the defendant's statements; (4) Failure to suppress a crime scene photograph; (5) Admission of hearsay under the state of mind exception; (6) Admission of hearsay under the co-conspirator exception; (7) Admission of conduct and activities by Chuck Dixon with Cashbox magazine; (8) Admission of a tape recording and transcript of the defendant's conversations; and (9) Error in instructing the jury on aiding and abetting. After careful review, we find no reversible error and affirm the defendant's conviction. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Dane Lee Duckett
Cumberland County Criminal Court jury convicted the appellant, Dane Lee Duckett, of attempting to manufacture methamphetamine, simple possession of marijuana, possession of drug paraphernalia, and driving on a suspended license, and the trial court sentenced him to an effective sentence of six years in confinement. On appeal, the appellant claims that the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions and that his sentence is excessive. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Cumberland | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James Yates v. State of Tennessee
The Defendant, James Yates, filed a pro se pleading seeking to have a conviction and sentence set aside as unconstitutional. The trial court treated the pleading as seeking a writ of habeas corpus and summarily denied the Defendant’s claim for relief. The Defendant now appeals as of right. We affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Charles Goode v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Charles Goode, appeals the trial court’s dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. In this appeal, Petitioner argues that his counsel’s representation at trial was deficient because he failed to adequately investigate Petitioner’s case and failed to effectively cross-examine the victim. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jesse Teasley v. Jack Morgan, Warden
The petitioner, Jesse Teasley, appeals from the trial court's order denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The State has filed a motion requesting that this court affirm the trial court's denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The petitioner has failed to establish a cognizable claim for habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Morgan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Terry Boyd Collins
The defendant, Terry Boyd Collins, stands convicted by a Sullivan County jury of arson and presenting a fraudulent insurance claim, for which he received an effective nine-year sentence. Aggrieved of his sentence and convictions, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions and claims that prosecutorial comments during closing arguments constitute reversible error, that the trial court's sentencing determination conflicted with the mandates of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), and that the trial court erred when denying all forms of alternative sentencing. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the lower court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Donald Luke Seiber, alias - Concurring
Respectfully, I find I cannot fully concur in the opinion because, based upon the absence of a contemporaneous objection, it treats as waived the issue of the trial court’s “reading the aggravated kidnapping as a lesser-included offense out of order during the charge to the jury.” The instructional problem alleged is one of instructional error, not instructional omission. In the case of the former, no contemporaneous objection is required, unlike when an instruction is omitted. See, e.g., State v. Johnny Wade Meeks, No. 03C01-9811-CR-00411, slip op. at 8-9 (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, Dec. 3, 1999). |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Donald Luke Seiber
The appellant, Donald Luke Seiber, was convicted of aggravated kidnapping, aggravated assault, and two counts of sexual battery, and he received a total effective sentence of sixteen years. On appeal, the appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, the trial court’s evidentiary rulings, the trial court’s jury instructions, and sentencing. Upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the appellant’s convictions but remand for a new sentencing hearing. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Sarah Martin
The defendant was convicted following a jury trial in Knox County for arson and aggravated burglary, as charged. The trial court sentenced the defendant six (6) months confinement and five (5) years and (6) months on probation to be followed by a second six (6) year sentence to be served entirely on probation. The defendant argues three (3) issues on appeal: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support her convictions; (2) the trial court erred in allowing testimony at trial contrary to the defendant's motion in limine which was granted by the trial court; and (3) the defendant's sentence was imposed contrary to Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. ----, 124 S.Ct. 2531 (2004) and Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). After a careful review of the record, we affirm the defendant's convictions and remand for resentencing. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Antonio Gibson v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Antonio Gibson, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The single issue presented for review is whether the petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial. The judgment is affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Gay Nathan Yarbro
The Defendant, Gay N. Yarbro, was convicted by a jury of introducing a controlled substance into a penal institution. The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range II, multiple offender to eight years in the Department of Correction for this offense, to be served consecutively to a sentence for |
Hardin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jimmy M. Millican v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant, Jimmy M. Millican, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, Millican argues that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel. After review, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Tabatha R. White v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Tabatha R. White, was convicted by a Davidson County Criminal Court jury of first degree premeditated murder, and the trial court sentenced her to life imprisonment. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, claiming that (1) the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on circumstantial evidence and (2) that she received the ineffective assistance of trial counsel because her attorney failed to object to hearsay testimony, failed to request a circumstantial evidence instruction, failed to file pretrial motions requesting that the State reveal any plea bargain agreements it had made with the State's witnesses, and denied her the right to testify. The post-conviction court denied the petition, and the petitioner now appeals. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James Ray Bartlett v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, James Ray Bartlett, appeals from the denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. In this appeal as of right, the petitioner asserts that the judgments of conviction for aggravated assault and four counts of theft are void because the sentences are illegal. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Wayne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Byron Black v. State of Tennessee
This appeal is before us following the reopening of Petitioner's post-conviction petition for the limited purpose of determining whether Petitioner is mentally retarded and thus ineligible for the death penalty pursuant to our supreme court's decision in Van Tran v. State, 66 S.W.3d 790 (Tenn. 2001) and the United States Supreme Court's decision in Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 122 S. Ct. 2242 (2002). The post-conviction court ultimately determined that Petitioner had failed to prove that he was mentally retarded and that the weight of the proof was that he was not mentally retarded. Accordingly, the court denied Petitioner's request for a new trial and denied and dismissed the petition for post-conviction relief. In this appeal as of right, this court must determine the following issues: (1) whether Petitioner proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he is mentally retarded; (2) whether Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-203, as interpreted by the supreme court in Howell v. State, 151 S.W.3d 450 (Tenn. 2004), is constitutional in light of the principles outlined in Atkins v. Virginia; and (3) whether the absence of mental retardation is an element of capital murder requiring the State to bear the burden of proof and requiring submission of the issue to a jury. After review of the record and the applicable law, we find no errors of law requiring reversal. Accordingly, we affirm the post-conviction court's denial of post-conviction relief. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joseph Gunter
The defendant, Joseph Gunter, was convicted by a Fentress County jury of first degree felony murder and especially aggravated robbery, a Class A felony, and was sentenced to concurrent terms of life without parole and twenty years, respectively. On appeal, he contends that the jury was exposed to extraneous prejudicial information about his case; the trial court erred in various of its evidentiary rulings and made improper commentary on the evidence; the State deprived him of potentially exculpatory evidence by failing to perform scientific testing on physical evidence recovered from the crime scene and by withholding new evidence discovered after the trial; and the cumulative effect of the various errors resulted in the denial of his right to a fair trial. The State argues, inter alia, that the defendant's appeal should be dismissed because his motion for a new trial was untimely. We agree with the State, and, accordingly, dismiss the appeal. |
Fentress | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ernest Anderson v. David Mills, Warden
This matter is before the Court upon the State’s motion to affirm the judgment of the trial court by opinion pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner is appealing the trial court's denial of habeas corpus relief. A review of the record reveals that the Petitioner is not entitled to habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Nicholas Sanders v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Nicholas Sanders, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court's denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner has failed to allege any ground that would render the judgment of conviction void. Accordingly, we grant the State’s motion and affirm the judgment of the lower court. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jerome Mayo
This is an appeal as of right from a conviction on a jury verdict of aggravated robbery, and an appeal by the State from the sentencing decision. The Defendant originally received an enhanced sentence of eighteen years as a Range II, multiple offender, but his sentence was subsequently reduced to fifteen years by the trial court based upon Blakely v. Washington, 124 S.Ct. 2531 (2004). On appeal, the Defendant argues there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction for aggravated robbery. The State appeals the modified sentence, arguing the trial court erred in reducing the Defendant's sentence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court as to the conviction, but remand for re-sentencing in accordance with this opinion. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Lonnie Lee Owens
The Defendant, Lonnie Lee Owens, was convicted by a jury of second degree murder, abuse of a corpse, and theft over $10,000. The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I, standard offender to twenty-five years for the murder, one year for the abuse of a corpse, and four years for the theft. The trial court ordered these sentences to be served consecutively in the Department of Correction for an effective term of thirty years. In this direct appeal, the Defendant challenges the length of his sentence for the murder and also challenges the trial court's order that his sentences be served consecutively. We reduce the Defendant's sentence for the second degree murder conviction to twenty-four years. We further reverse the trial court's imposition of consecutive sentences. |
Franklin | Court of Criminal Appeals |
