State of Tennessee v. Jeremiah Ginn
A Warren County Circuit Court jury convicted the defendant, Jeremiah Ginn, of second degree murder, a Class A felony, and the trial court sentenced him to twenty-four years in the Department of Correction. The defendant appeals, claiming that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction; that the trial court erred in instructing the jury by referring to statements made by the defendant as “admission against interest;” by not repeating mens rea definitions for lesser included offenses; and by not including a charge on the doctrine of “mutual combat”; that the trial court erred in allowing the state to introduce certain photographs into evidence; and that his sentence is excessive. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Warren | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jeremiah Ginn - Concurring and Dissenting
I concur with all portions of the majority opinion except for that portion which holds that application of enhancement factors (9) (previous history of unwillingness to comply with conditions of sentencing involving release into the community) and (10) (defendant employed a deadly weapon during the commission of the offense), was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt, though in violation of the dictates of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. ____; 124 S.Ct. 2531 (2004). Assuming arguendo, for the purposes of this case, that Blakely error is subject to constitutional harmless error analysis, the particular facts of this case leave me where I cannot conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury would have found it proper to apply enhancement factors (9) and (10). |
Warren | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Horace Demon Pulliam v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Horace Demon Pulliam, appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief alleging that the post-conviction court erred in finding that he received effective assistance of counsel. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. David A. Langley
In a three count indictment returned by the Houston County Grand Jury, Defendant, David A. Langley, was charged with rape of a child in the first two counts and with aggravated assault in count three. Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of rape of a child, a Class A felony, in count one; of the lesser included offense of aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony, in count two; and of reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon, a Class E felony, in count three. Defendant was sentenced as a Range I standard offender to twenty-three years for the rape of a child conviction, ten years for the aggravated sexual battery conviction, and two years for the reckless endangerment conviction. The trial court ordered Defendant's sentence for aggravated sexual battery to be served consecutively to his sentence for rape of a child, and his sentence for reckless endangerment to be served concurrently with his sentence for aggravated sexual battery, for an effective sentence of thirty-three years. On appeal, Defendant argues (1) that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions; (2) that the trial court's demeanor denied Defendant his due process right to a fair trial; (3) that the trial court erred in not suppressing Defendant's statements which he made on the night he was arrested; (4) that the trial court erred in not granting a mistrial when the State's witnesses made references to Defendant's previous incarceration and offenses; (5) that the State failed to make a proper election of offenses; (6) that the trial court erred in not permitting Defendant to call a certain witness and in limiting Defendant's cross-examination of Officer Chad Smith; (7) that the trial court erred in not allowing Defendant to introduce evidence pursuant to Rule 412 of the Tennessee Rules of Evidence; and (8) that the trial court erred in deferring its ruling of Defendant's motion to suppress the pornographic photographs found on his computer after his arrest. Defendant does not appeal the length or manner of service of his sentences. Following a thorough review of the record, we dismiss Defendant's conviction of felony reckless endangerment and remand for a retrial on count three of Defendant's indictment in accordance with this opinion. We otherwise affirm Defendant's judgments of conviction for rape of a child and aggravated sexual battery. |
Houston | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Faron Douglas Pierce v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Faron Douglas Pierce, appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief in which he alleged the ineffective assistance of counsel at trial when he was convicted of robbery. After a thorough review, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Freddie T. Inman, Jr.
The defendant was convicted of theft of property greater than $1,000 but less than $10,000, a Class D felony, and was sentenced as a career offender to twelve years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant raises the following issues: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain his conviction; and (2) whether the trial court erred in granting the State a continuance over the defendant’s motion to dismiss, in not granting the defense a continuance because of a missing witness, in limiting cross-examination of a witness, in denying a continuance due to a witness who was not subpoenaed, in not allowing the testimony of two witnesses at the hearing on the motion for a new trial, and in sentencing the defendant as a career offender. Finding the evidence sufficient to support the conviction and no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
McNairy | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jason White
The appellant, Jason White, was convicted by a jury in the Shelby County Criminal Court of first degree felony murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal, the appellant contends that (1) the trial court improperly limited the scope of cross-examination of a State’s witness; (2) the trial court erred by admitting gruesome photographs of the deceased victim; (3) the trial court’s improper remarks in the presence of the jury prejudiced the appellant; (4) the trial court erred by admitting hearsay evidence as an excited utterance; and (5) “[t]he form of the jury verdict [was] so lacking in meaning as to render it ineffective to convict the [appellant].” Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Carlos Sommerville
The Defendant, Carlos Sommerville, was convicted of second degree murder, first degree felony murder, and attempted first degree murder. On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions; and (2) the trial court erred when it admitted certain autopsy x-rays and photographs into evidence at trial. Finding no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William Belchia
The defendant, William Belchia, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of theft of property over $1000 but less than $10,000, a Class D felony, for failing to return a rental car. He was sentenced as a career offender to twelve years in the Department of Correction. In a timely appeal to this court, he argues that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to deprive the rental car company of its property and that the trial court erred by not instructing the jury on the temporary taking of a vehicle, Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-5-104, as a lesser-included offense of theft of property. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Beasley
On appeal, the defendant challenges (1) the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdicts, and (2) the trial court’s denial of his request for a mistrial. Following our review, we conclude that the evidence presented was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant’s request for a mistrial. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Larry Porter
The Defendant, Larry Porter, was convicted of aggravated assault, and the trial court sentenced the Defendant to eight years, as a multiple offender. On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction; and (2) the trial court erred when it sentenced him. Finding no reversible error in the judgment of the trial court, we affirm the Defendant’s conviction and sentence. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Barnett Bills aka Micheal/Michael Burnett Bills
On appeal, the defendant contends that: (1) the trial court erred in ruling that he could not use his peremptory challenges to “strike back” jurors after the first two rounds of challenges; and (2) the State failed to comply with Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 16, by failing to disclose a letter written by the defendant to his girlfriend, thus disadvantaging his trial preparation. Upon our review, we affirm the defendant’s conviction. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Carl McIntosh
The Defendant, Carl McIntosh, was convicted by a jury for: the sale of 0.5 grams or more of cocaine on October 5, 2001, the delivery of 0.5 grams or more of cocaine on October 5, 2001; and two counts of simple possession on October 9, 2001. The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I, |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Carl McIntosh - Concurring and Dissenting
I concur in all parts of the majority opinion except to that portion which holds that the felony sentence imposed in violation of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. ___, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004) is harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Johnny Issac Law
The defendant pled guilty in the Lincoln County Circuit Court to eleven counts of forgery, eleven counts of transferring a forged instrument, sale of more than .5 grams of cocaine, delivery of more than .5 grams of cocaine, and aggravated perjury. The trial court merged the forgery convictions with the transferring a forged instrument convictions and sentenced the defendant as a Range I, standard offender to one year on each count, to be served concurrently. He was sentenced to ten years for the sale of cocaine conviction, which the trial court merged with the delivery conviction, to be served concurrently with the forgery sentence, and four years for the aggravated perjury conviction, to be served consecutively to the sale of cocaine sentence, for a total effective sentence of fourteen years. On appeal, he alleges the trial court erred in applying several enhancement factors in violation of the recent United States Supreme Court case, Blakely v. Washington, and in not sentencing him to the community corrections program. Following our review, we affirm the sentences but remand for entry of corrected judgments in all three cases to reflect the conviction offenses, which were omitted, and to reflect the correct offense date in Case No. S0300119. |
Lincoln | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Howard Thomas
The defendant, Howard Walter Thomas, was convicted of first degree premeditated murder; especially aggravated robbery, a ClassAfelony; especially aggravated kidnapping, a Class A felony; and attempted first degree murder, also a Class A felony. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for the first degree murder conviction and sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to twenty-two years for the especially aggravated robbery conviction, twenty-two years for the especially aggravated kidnapping conviction, and twenty-five years for the attempted first degree murder conviction, with the twenty-two-year sentences to be served concurrently and the twenty-five-year sentence to be served consecutively, for an effective sentence of life plus twenty-five years. On appeal, the defendant raises the following claims: (1) the circumstances surrounding his identification by one of the victims amounted to prejudicial error; (2) the trial court erred by allowing the State to exercise a peremptory challenge based on the juror’s learning disability, by utilizing the pattern jury instructions on the element of deliberation, by proceeding with a death-qualified jury after the State withdrew its intent to seek the death penalty post-trial, and by failing to provide any weight to the mitigating factor of childhood/family background in sentencing for the attempted first degree murder conviction; (3) the evidence was insufficient to support a verdict of guilt with respect to the element of deliberation; (4) the death penalty is unconstitutional under the Tennessee and United States Constitutions; and (5) that cumulative error denied the defendant a fair trial. Following our review, we affirm the convictions but, in light of the subsequent decision of the United States Supreme Court in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. __, 123 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), reduce the sentences for attempted first degree murder, especially aggravated robbery, and especially aggravated kidnapping to twenty-one years, eighteen years, and eighteen years, respectively. We affirm the consecutive sentencing of the defendant. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Howard Walter Thomas - Dissenting
The majority concludes that modification of the defendant’s sentence is required in light of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. __, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). I must respectfully dissent. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Richard Allen Butler and State of Tennessee v. Re'Licka DaJuan Allen
The issues presented by these consolidated Rule 9 interlocutory appeals are whether Tennessee's sexual exploitation of a minor statute is constitutional in light of Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234, 122 S. Ct. 1389 (2002), and whether the trial court may require the State to provide the defense with a copy of the alleged child pornography that forms the basis for the prosecution's case. As to these questions, the trial courts ruled that the State had to provide the defense with copies of the alleged pornographic materials and that while a portion of the statute is unconstitutional, the remainder is not. Following our review, we affirm the rulings of the trial courts. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jerry Allen Millsaps v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Jerry Allen Millsaps, challenged his 1998 Monroe County Criminal Court jury conviction of first degree murder via filing the October 1, 2001 post-conviction relief proceeding now under review. The post-conviction court conducted an evidentiary hearing and dismissed the post-conviction petition. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the conviction was the result of ineffective assistance of counsel and that the post-conviction court erred in dismissing the petition. We disagree and affirm the dismissal. |
Monroe | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Antonio Jackson v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant, Antonio Jackson, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief by the Shelby County Criminal Court. On appeal, Jackson contends that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial. Specifically, he contends that his trial attorneys were ineffective by failing to pursue an alibi defense and by failing to properly investigate and prepare the case for trial. After review, we affirm the denial of the petition. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Keith D. Henderson v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Keith D. Henderson, appeals from the dismissal of his petition for the writ of habeas corpus. The State has filed a motion requesting that the Court affirm the trial court's denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. We find the State's motion has merit. Accordingly, the motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
La Southaphanh v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, La Southaphanh, appeals from the Rutherford County Circuit Court's dismissal of his two petitions for post-conviction relief from his convictions for aggravated burglary, a Class C felony, aggravated assault, a Class C felony, and theft over one thousand dollars, a Class D felony. He contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel at his trial for aggravated burglary and theft over one thousand dollars because his attorney failed to move to suppress his confession, failed to move for a mistrial when his co-defendant stated that the petitioner was in a gang, failed to attack the credibility of one of the investigating officers, and failed to meet with him and prepare for trial adequately. He contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel at his trial for aggravated assault because his attorney failed to meet with him and prepare for trial adequately. We affirm the trial court. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Malinda L. Mason
Defendant, Malinda L. Mason, was indicted for driving under the influence of an intoxicant and for violation of the implied consent law. Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of driving under the influence, fifth offense, and sentenced to twenty-one months in the county workhouse as a Range I, standard offender. Defendant's sole issue on appeal challenges the trial court's denial of her request for a mistrial. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Anthony L. Harris v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Anthony L. Harris, was found guilty by a jury of armed robbery by use of a deadly weapon and aggravated kidnapping. The petitioner received a total effective sentence of ninety years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition for relief under the Post-Conviction DNA Analysis Act of 2001. The post-conviction court dismissed the petition, and the petitioner appealed. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James Burns v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner pled guilty to one count of second degree murder and one count of aggravated assault on February 7, 2003. The trial court sentenced him to twenty (20) years and five (5) years, respectively, for the above convictions. The petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief. The trial court held a hearing and stated upon the record that the petition was denied. However, a written order was never entered by the trial court. Because there is no final order from which the petitioner may appeal, we dismiss the appeal. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals |
