State of Tennessee v. Latwan R. Coleman
Defendant, Latwan R. Coleman, pled guilty to possession of over 0.5 grams of cocaine with intent to sell, a Class B felony, in case number 2003-A-265, and to sale of less than 0.5 grams of cocaine, a Class C felony, in case number 2003-A-280. The plea agreement contained a recommended sentence of nine years for the Class B felony conviction and a sentence of three years for the Class C felony conviction. Defendant's request for community corrections was left for the trial court to determine. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court denied Defendant's request for a community corrections sentence, and ordered Defendant to serve the recommended sentences in confinement. The trial court ordered the sentences to be served concurrently for an effective sentence of nine years. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his request that he be sentenced to community corrections rather than incarceration. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Michael Wright v. State of Tennessee
Appellant, Michael Wright, filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief, which was subsequently amended by appointed counsel. Following an evidentiary hearing, the petition was denied. On appeal, Appellant argues that he was entitled to post-conviction relief on his claim that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. After careful review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Antonio Jones
Convicted of aggravated robbery and sentenced as a career offender to a prison term of 30 years, the defendant, Michael Antonio Jones, appeals and challenges both the sufficiency of the convicting evidence and the propriety of the sentence. Discerning no error, we affirm the Marshall County Circuit Court's judgment. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Calvin Louis Hill
A Marshall County jury convicted the Defendant, Calvin Louis Hill, of carjacking, theft of property valued over $1000.00, and three counts of forgery. The trial court sentenced the Defendant, as a Range II offender, to an effective sentence of eighteen years. On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions for carjacking and forgery; and (2) his sentence was excessive. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Brandon Patrick
The defendant, Brandon Patrick, was convicted of one count of violation of the Habitual Motor Vehicle Offenders Act, one count of felony evading arrest with risk of death, and two counts of felony reckless endangerment. The trial court later merged the two counts of reckless endangerment into one count. The trial court held a sentencing hearing on November 7, 2002. The defendant received the maximum sentences as a career offender of six (6) years for violation of the Habitual Motor Vehicle Offender Act, twelve (12) years for Class D felony evading arrest with the risk of death, and six (6) years for reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon. The trial court ordered the defendant to serve the six-year sentences for violation of the Habitual Motor Vehicle Offender Act and the reckless endangerment sentence concurrently. The trial court then ordered that the six (6) year sentences be served consecutively to the twelve (12) year sentence for Class D felony evading arrest for an effective sentence of eighteen (18) years as a career offender to be served in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant argues: (1) that the evidence was legally insufficient to support a verdict of guilty; (2) his dual convictions for Class D felony evading arrest and felony reckless endangerment violated the principles of double jeopardy; (3) the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on applicable lesser-included offenses; and (4) the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences. We conclude: (1) that the evidence was sufficient to support his convictions; (2) the dual convictions for Class D felony evading arrest and felony reckless endangerment violate principles of double jeopardy and must be merged; (3) it was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt when the trial court failed to instruct on the lesser-included offenses; and (4) consecutive sentencing was proper in the defendant's case. We reverse and remand the judgments of the trial court. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jack Sherrill
The defendant was convicted of rape of a child, a Class A felony, and aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony, and was sentenced to an effective sentence of thirty years. The defendant now appeals his conviction contending that: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction; (2) the trial court erred in failing to grant a new trial based on newly discovered evidence; and (3) the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion for continuance. The defendant also seeks review of sentencing issues in light of Blakely. After review, we conclude there is no reversible error and affirm the judgments of the trial court as to convictions and sentencing. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Vandergriff
Following the trial court's denial of the defendant's motion to suppress, the defendant pled guilty to possession with the intent to deliver a Schedule II controlled substance, cocaine, in an amount greater than .5 grams, a Class B felony, in exchange for a sentence of eight years as a standard Range I offender in the Department of Correction. The defendant sought to reserve a certified question of law regarding the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress. The issue before us is whether the trial court erred in its determination that probable cause existed for the defendant to be stopped. After a careful review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hawkins | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Shelborne Mason
The defendant, Shelborne Mason, was convicted for the sale and/or delivery of .5 grams or more of cocaine, a Class B felony. The trial court imposed a sentence of thirty years. In this appeal, the defendant asserts that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
John Haws Burrell v. Howard Carlton, Warden
The Appellant, John Haws Burrell, proceeding pro se, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Because the petition fails to raise a cognizable claim for habeas relief, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Johnson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Bobby L. Ingram v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Bobby L. Ingram, appeals the Greene County Criminal Court's summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. Because the criminal court correctly ruled that the statute of limitation barred the petition, that court's order is affirmed. |
Greene | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Milburn Edwards v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Milburn L. Edwards, appeals the trial court's summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Wayne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tenessee v. Christopher Demotto Linsey
A Montgomery County jury convicted the Defendant, Christopher Demotto Linsey, of one count of possession of more than .5 grams of cocaine with the intent to sell, one count of possession of more than half an ounce of marijuana with the intent to sell, and one count of possession of an altered serial number item. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective sentence of fourteen years in prison. The Defendant appeals, contending: (1) the evidence presented at trial is insufficient to sustain his conviction for possession of cocaine; and (2) the trial court erred when it sentenced him. After thoroughly reviewing the record and applicable authorities, we affirm the trial court's judgments. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Dale Eugene Walker v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner Dale Eugene Walker 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. 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. |
Fayette | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Earl Jefferson v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Earl Jefferson, was convicted by a jury of premeditated first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. His conviction was affirmed by this Court on appeal. See State v. Earl T. Jefferson, No. W2000-00608-CCA-R3-CD, 2001 WL 687061, at *5 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Jackson, June 12, 2001) perm. app. denied (Tenn. Oct. 29, 2001). The petitioner’s Rule 11 application for permission to appeal to the Tennessee Supreme Court was denied on October 29, 2001. Id. The petitioner then filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief. After counsel was appointed, an amended petition was filed, alleging that the petitioner received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and that his right to a speedy trial was denied. The post-conviction |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Stanley Adams v. Warden, David Mills
The Petitioner, Stanley Adams, 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. 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. Perry Barnum
The defendant appeals his conviction for robbery, (1) contesting the sufficiency of the identification evidence, and (2) contending that his enhanced sentence of fourteen years was imposed errantly in light of Blakely v. Washington. Upon review, we conclude that the evidence was indeed sufficient to support the jury’s verdict and that the defendant’s prior convictions warrant the enhanced sentence of fourteen years. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ginger Jackson
The defendant, Ginger Jackson, was convicted of solicitation of first degree murder. The trial court imposed a Range I sentence of eight years and six months. In this appeal, the defendant asserts (1) that the trial court erred by the admission of certain testimony; (2) that the trial court erred by admitting into evidence certain audiotape recordings; (3) that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury regarding the inaudible portions of the audiotape recordings; (4) that the trial court erred by failing to suppress the audiotape recording of the defendant's arrest; (5) that the trial court erred by denying the defendant's motion for a judgment of acquittal at the close of the state's proof; (6) that the trial court erred by excluding certain evidence offered by the defendant; (6) that the trial court erred by admitting into evidence testimony regarding lawsuits involving the defendant and various public entities; (7) that the trial court erred by failing to require the state to elect the specific date on which the offense occurred; (8) that the trial court erred by denying alternative sentencing; and (9) that the sentence is excessive. The defendant has also asked this court to review her sentence under the guidelines of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. ___, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. The sentence is modified and the cause is remanded for consideration of the defendant's suitability for probation. |
Franklin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Cornelius Boales
The Appellant, Cornelius Boales, was convicted by a Henderson County jury of one count of felony possession of cocaine with the intent to sell, a class B felony, and one count of felony possession of marijuana with the intent to sell, a class E felony. For these crimes, Boales received an effective twelve-year sentence as a Range I offender. In addition, the trial court imposed a $100,000 fine as assessed by the jury for the cocaine conviction. On appeal, Boales argues (1) that the evidence is insufficient to support either of his convictions and (2) that the trial court erred in imposing the maximum sentence and the maximum fine for his class B felony conviction. After review, we conclude that the evidence supports the convictions and the length of the sentence imposed. However, we modify Boales’ fine of $100,000 to reflect assessment of a fine in the amount of $50,000. |
Henderson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Calvin J. Oliver v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that his guilty pleas were unknowing and involuntary and that his trial counsel were ineffective for failing to adequately explain the consequences of the pleas and for failing to raise the issue of his mental competency at the sentencing hearing. Following our review, we affirm the post-conviction court's denial of the petition. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Antonio D. Aziz
The defendant, Anthony D. Aziz, appeals from the Sullivan County Criminal Court's denial of alternative sentencing. We affirm the judgment. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jamie L. Bailey
The defendant attempts to appeal a certified question of law pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37 while a motion is pending in the trial court. The trial court has held the defendant’s remaining motion in abeyance because the defendant has pursued this appeal. We find this appeal premature and remand the case to the trial court to complete the proceedings and issue a final judgment, from which the defendant may then appeal. |
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Christopher Lee Tuttle v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Christopher Lee Tuttle, appeals as of right the judgment of the Davidson County Criminal Court dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for drug-related offenses and effective forty-year sentence. The petitioner contends (1) that the state breached his plea agreement which undermined the voluntariness of his guilty plea and (2) that the state engaged in prosecutorial misconduct by acting vindictively and violating Rule 8(a), Tenn. R. Crim. P., requiring mandatory joinder. We affirm the trial court's denial of post-conviction relief. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jerry Glen Yates
The Appellant, Jerry Yates, appeals the denial by the trial court of a motion to suppress all evidence in a prosecution for driving under the influence, alleging an illegal warrantless misdemeanor arrest because he left the scene of the accident. We affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion. |
Obion | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Barry Wayne Dunham
The defendant, Barry Wayne Dunham, was convicted by a Macon County Criminal Court jury of the first degree premeditated murder of his father and sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred by: (1) restricting defense counsel’s voir dire of the jury venire; (2) interfering with defense counsel’s examination of a witness and denying the defendant’s motion for a mistrial based on the court’s allegedly prejudicial commentary on the witness’s testimony; and (3) disallowing a defense expert witness on the subject of domestic violence. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Macon | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Barry Wayne Dunham - Dissenting
I concur in most of the reasoning and results reached in the majority opinion. I respectfully disagree, though, with the conclusion that Dr. Goetting was not qualified to testify as an expert in this parent-child homicide case. The trial court excluded her testimony because it was the first time she had testified in such a case, she was a sociologist, and she relied on facts that were not in evidence. It concluded that her testimony would not be a substantial help to the jury. |
Macon | Court of Criminal Appeals |
