David Johnson v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner appeals the denial of post-conviction relief. Specifically, he contends that trial counsel was ineffective in (1) failing to discover the true identity of the State’s primary witness at an earlier date; and (2) failing to adequately meet with him in preparation for trial. Upon review, we conclude that the petitioner has failed to meet his burden with respect to both claims; therefore, we affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of relief. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Gary Lee Miller v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Gary Lee Miller, stands convicted of aggravated kidnapping, for which he was classified as a habitual offender and, therefore, ordered to serve 100 percent of his 16-year sentence. See State v. Gary Lee Miller, No. M1998-00788-CCA-R3-CD, slip op. at 2 (Tenn. Crim. App., Nashville, Mar. 6, 2000). He filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied the petition. Aggrieved by the lower court's ruling, the petitioner now brings the instant appeal. After a thorough review of the issues and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the lower court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Frankie Sue Dees
The defendant, Frankie Sue Dees, pled guilty to one count of theft over $1,000. The trial court imposed a Range I sentence of two years in the Department of Correction. In this appeal, the defendant asserts that the trial court should have placed her on community corrections or full probation. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Hardin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Johnny L. Butler v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Johnny L. Butler, appeals the dismissal of his petition for writ of error coram nobis. In this appeal, he asserts that his conviction is void because the indictment was defective and that his guilty plea was not knowingly and intelligently made. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Billy Ray Riley
A Madison County Circuit Court jury convicted the appellant, Billy Ray Riley, of theft of property valued one thousand dollars or more but less than ten thousand dollars, and the trial court sentenced him as a Range III offender to twelve years in the Department of Correction. In this appeal, the appellant claims that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Michael Keith Kennedy v. Kevin Myers, Warden
The petitioner, Michael Keith Kennedy, entered pleas of nolo contendere in Chester County and in Henderson County to aggravated burglary, possession of marijuana, and numerous counts of burglary of an automobile, theft, and vandalism. The petitioner received a total effective sentence of fifteen years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The habeas corpus court summarily denied the petition, and the petitioner appeals the denial. Upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court. |
Wayne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Kevin Joseph Karr v. State of Tennessee
Appellant, Kevin Joseph Karr, has appealed from the trial court's order summarily dismissing, without an evidentiary hearing, his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The State has filed a motion for the trial court's judgment to be affirmed pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals. We grant the motion and affirm the judgment of the trial court. After the State's motion was filed, Appellant filed a motion for an attorney to be appointed to represent him. In light of our ruling on the State's motion, the defendant's motion is denied by separate order. |
Wayne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Willie Joe Frazier
In 1980, the Appellant, Willie Joe Frazier, was indicted for multiple counts of armed robbery and related assaults stemming from his participation, along with two other accomplices, in the robbery of a number of employees and customers of a pharmacy in Lewisburg. However, Frazier escaped from jail before his scheduled trial and was not apprehended until 2002. In 2003, Frazier was convicted by a Marshall County jury of two counts of malicious shooting, one count of assault with intent to commit voluntary manslaughter, one count of assault with intent to commit first degree murder, one count of aggravated assault, six counts of armed robbery, and two counts of assault with intent to commit robbery. The jury sentenced Frazier to indeterminate sentences for all the convictions except the six armed robberies, for which the jury fixed sentences of life imprisonment. The trial court grouped the thirteen convictions into three categories for purposes of consecutive sentencing, resulting in six concurrent life sentences consecutive to concurrent sentences of eight to twenty years and consecutive to a ten to twenty-five year sentence. This resulted in an effective sentence of life plus eighteen to forty-five years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, Frazier argues: (1) he was sentenced to crimes for which no guilty verdicts were returned by the jury; (2) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions for assault with intent to commit robbery of Ollie Bagley and assault with intent to commit robbery of Goldie Crabtree; (3) the jury's sentencing verdicts reflect two sentences which were not authorized for the crimes for which he was convicted; (4) his convictions for malicious shooting must be set aside because (a) he was never indicted for these crimes, (b) they are not lesser offenses of any indicted offenses, and (c) his dual convictions for malicious shooting and assault with intent to commit voluntary manslaughter of Judy Watson constitute double jeopardy; and (5) the trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences. After review, we find no error with regard to issues (1) and (5). With regard to issue (2), we conclude that the evidence is insufficient to support his two convictions of assault with intent to commit robbery; therefore, the convictions are modified to reflect convictions for aggravated assault, with the respective sentences fixed at not less than two years nor more than ten years. Issue (3) is rendered moot in view of our holding in issue (2). With regard to issue (4), we conclude that double jeopardy principles preclude dual convictions for assault with intent to commit voluntary manslaughter and malicious shooting. Accordingly, we merge the Appellant's conviction for assault with intent to commit voluntary manslaughter into his conviction for malicious shooting and remand for entry of a single judgment of conviction for malicious shooting. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Thomas White Jr.
After pleading guilty to various charges, the appellant, Thomas White, Jr., was placed on intensive probation for seven (7) years in 2002. In February of 2003, the appellant was arrested twice for violation of the Motor Vehicle Offencer Act, Tennessee Code Annotated sec. 55-10-616. A probation violation warrant was issued against the appellant. After a bench trial, the appellant was found guilty of both counts of violating Tennessee Code Annotated sec. 55-10-616. As a result, the trial court revoked the appellant's probation and ordered the appellant to serve an effective fourteen (14) year sentence. Because we are unable to discern the trial court's intentions from either the transcript of the hearing or the judgments, we reverse and remand this case for entry of corrected and clarified judgments. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Samuel Pendergrass v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant, Samuel Pendergrass, appeals the Hamilton County Criminal Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, Pendergrass argues that his guilty pleas to four misdemeanor counts of passing worthless checks and one count of felony theft of property over $1,000 were not knowing and voluntary due to the ineffective assistance of counsel. After review, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jorge Acosta Rubio v. Tony Parker, Warden
The Petitioner, Jorge Acosta Rubio, 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. |
Lake | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Christopher Robert Smith v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Christopher Robert Smith, seeks post-conviction relief on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel. After being convicted by a jury of conspiracy to possess with intent to manufacture, deliver or sell over 300 grams of cocaine, the petitioner appealed. On direct appeal this Court affirmed both his conviction and sentence. State v. Christopher Robert Smith, No. M2001-02297-CCA-R3-CD, 2002 WL 31202132 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Sept. 27, 2002), perm. app. denied (Feb. 24, 2003). The petitioner then filed a petition for post-conviction relief. After a hearing, the post-conviction court dismissed the petition. For the following reasons, we affirm the post-conviction court's dismissal of the petition for post-conviction relief. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Christopher Cook v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Christopher Cook, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. After our review, we affirm the post-conviction court's denial of the petition. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Mark S. Armstrong
A Rutherford County jury convicted the Defendant, Mark S. Armstrong, of aggravated rape, and the trial court sentenced the Defendant to twenty years, as a Range I offender. On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the trial court erred when it failed to grant the Defendant’s motion for a mistrial when inadmissible evidence was admitted through an inadequate redaction of a videotaped statement; (2) the trial court erred in failing to provide an adequate limiting instruction to the jury regarding a videotape sound malfunction; (3) the trial court erred when it failed to require the State to make an election of the offense for which it sought a conviction; (4) the trial court erred in failing to grant the Defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal; and (5) the evidence is insufficient to sustain the Defendant’s conviction. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Melvin E. Waters v. Kenneth Locke, Warden
This matter is before the Court upon the State’s motion to affirm the judgment of the trial court by memorandum opinion pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The petitioner has appealed the trial court’s order summarily dismissing the petition for the writ of habeas corpus. In that petition the petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus to release him from his sentence for facilitating aggravated robbery. We are persuaded that the trial court was correct in summarily dismissing the habeas corpus petition and that this case meets the criteria for affirmance pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Accordingly, the State’s motion is granted, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Anthony D. Forster v. State of Tennessee
In an opinion filed June 24, 2005, this court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the petitioner's petition for post-conviction relief, concluding that the single issue presented in the petition, whether the waiver of the right to counsel was voluntary, had been previously determined by this court on direct appeal. On July 11, 2005, the petitioner, Anthony Forster, filed a petition to rehear pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 39. He complains that this court misapprehended a material fact and that this court ruled on an issue upon which the parties had not been heard. He asserts that this court erred by concluding that the issue had been previously determined because the propriety of this court's opinion on direct appeal had not been addressed. Further, he contends that the parties were not heard on the issue because the state in its brief asserted that the issue had been waived and did not address the merits of the claim. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Walter Earl Preston v. David Mills, Warden
The petitioner, Walter Earl Preston, appeals the Lauderdale County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. He claims that his sentences are illegal, thereby rendering his judgments of conviction void. We affirm the trial court. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Daniel Cleveland and Matthew Harville
This is a direct appeal as of right by the State from a denial of its petitions to have Defendants Daniel Cleveland and Matthew Harville declared habitual offenders pursuant to the Motor Vehicle Habitual Offender (MVHO) statute. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-10-601 et seq. On appeal, the State argues that the language of section 603(2)(A) of the MVHO statute contains an error, and therefore legislative intent and the “entire scheme” of the statute require this Court to interpret the provision in question by changing its conjunctive construction to disjunctive. We disagree, and we affirm the |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Billy Dewayne Walker
The state appeals the McNairy County Circuit Court’s order suppressing drug-related evidence seized from the home of the defendant, Billy Dewayne Walker, pursuant to a search warrant. The state contends that the trial court erred in finding that the information contained in the affidavit accompanying the search warrant was insufficient to establish probable cause for the search. We agree and reverse the trial court’s ruling. |
McNairy | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Kirkendall
The defendant, Christopher Kirkendall, was convicted of facilitation of attempted second degree murder and two counts of facilitation of aggravated robbery. On appeal, this court affirmed the convictions but modified the sentences, holding that enhancement factors (3), (10), and (21) were applied in violation of the United States Supreme Court's ruling in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. ___, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). The state filed an application for permission to appeal to our supreme court pursuant to Rule 11 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. The supreme court granted the state's application and remanded the case to this court for reconsideration as a result of its opinion in State v. Edwin Gomez and Jonathan S. Londono, ___S.W.3d ___, No. M2002-01209-SC-R11-CD (Tenn. Apr. 15, 2005). Based upon the Gomez decision, the judgments of the trial court must be affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jeffery Yates
The Defendant, Jeffery Yates, was convicted by a jury of aggravated robbery. The trial court sentenced him as a Range III, career offender to thirty years in the Department of Correction. In this direct appeal, the Defendant raises the following challenges to his conviction: (1) the sufficiency of the evidence; (2) the trial court’s handling of the victim’s statement to the police; (3) the trial court’s admission of testimony regarding the Defendant’s involvement in a prostitution sting; (4) the trial court’s refusal to allow the Defendant to cross-examine his co-defendant about gang affiliation; (5) the trial court’s decision to allow the State to cross-examine the Defendant about prior convictions; and (6) the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of theft. Finding no reversible error in the issues raised by the Defendant, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Eddie Hatchett
A Shelby County Criminal Court jury convicted the defendant, Eddie Hatchett, of aggravated assault, a Class C felony, and the trial court sentenced him as a Range II, multiple offender to eight years in the Department of Correction. The defendant appeals, claiming the evidence is insufficient because the state failed to negate his claim of self-defense. We affirm the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Philip Navel
This is a direct appeal of the sentence imposed for an aggravated sexual battery conviction entered pursuant to a guilty plea. The Defendant was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to twelve years to be served in the Tennessee Department of Correction (TDOC). He now challenges his |
Gibson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Steven Andrew Tidwell
The defendant, Steven Andrew Tidwell, tried for aggravated burglary and theft of property between $500 and $1,000, was convicted of theft. The trial court imposed a two-year sentence to be served in the Department of Correction. In this appeal of right, the defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient, that the trial court erred by ruling that the state could cross-examine him with a prior burglary offense for which he had received judicial diversion, and that the sentence is excessive. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ronnie Lee Holt v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner challenges the denial of his habeas corpus petition, in which he contended that his absence from voir dire violated his constitutional rights and Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 43(a) because he did not personally waive the right to be present. We initially note that, at the time of the petitioner's trial, a personal waiver of the right was not required. We conclude that there is no jurisdictional defect apparent from the record. Therefore, we affirm the denial of habeas relief. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals |
