Bernard Kane Johnson v. State of Tennessee
Following an evidentiary hearing on the issue whether Bernard Kane Johnson, the petitioner, had been denied effective assistance of counsel, the post-conviction court determined that no constitutional violation had been shown and that the petitioner's sexual battery, aggravated kidnapping, and aggravated assault convictions were not void or voidable. Finding no error, we affirm the post-conviction court's dismissal of the petition. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Larry Stephen Brumit v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Larry Stephen Brumit, filed for post-conviction relief from 1996 convictions for two counts of first degree murder and one count of conspiracy to commit first degree murder. The post-conviction court denied the petition. In this appeal, the petitioner argues (1) that the petition was not barred by the applicable statute of limitations; and (2) that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. The judgment is affirmed. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Bryan Christopher Hester
A Davidson County Criminal Court jury convicted the defendant, Bryan Christopher Hester, of second degree murder, a Class A felony, and the trial court sentenced him as a Range I, violent offender to twenty-five years in confinement. The defendant appeals, claiming that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction; (2) the trial court erred by denying his motion to continue when the state revealed three days before trial that the victim had been taking an antidepressant and seeing a psychiatrist; (3) the trial court erred by allowing hearsay into evidence; (4) the trial court erred by allowing the state to introduce a bow saw into evidence; (5) the trial court erred by allowing a witness to testify about experiments conducted on the murder weapon when the state failed to prove the chain of custody; (6) the trial court erred by allowing the state medical examiner to testify; and (7) the defendant's sentence is excessive. We conclude that the trial court erred by allowing hearsay into evidence but that the error was harmless. We also conclude that the defendant's sentence is not excessive, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Randy D. Vowell v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner appeals the Anderson County Criminal Court's denial of habeas corpus relief relating to his convictions for aggravated rape and rape. On appeal, the petitioner contends the original sentencing court erred in amending the judgments to reflect 100% release classification after they became final. We affirm the lower court's judgment denying habeas corpus relief. |
Anderson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James D. Rowland
This appeal involves review of a certified question of law following the Defendant, James D. Rowland's, guilty plea to DUI. See Tenn. R. Crim. P. 37(b)(2)(1). Because we find that the certified question is not dispositive, we are without jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jarret A. Guy
The defendant, Jarret A. Guy, was convicted of facilitation of first degree premeditated murder, felony murder, and robbery. The trial court merged the facilitation of premeditated first degree murder conviction into the conviction for felony murder and, after finding the existence of five aggravating circumstances, the jury imposed a sentence of life without the possibility of parole. The trial court imposed a concurrent sentence of fifteen years for the robbery conviction. In this appeal, the defendant asserts that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions; (2) the trial court included erroneous definitions of "knowing" and "intentional" in its instructions to the jury; (3) the trial court erred by severing his trial from that of his co-defendant, Jacob Edward Campbell; (4) the sentence is excessive; and (5) the cumulative effect of the errors at trial require reversal. The judgments of the trial court are affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Stanley Ray Davis In Re: Ray D. Driver, d/b/a Driver Bail Bonds
Ray D. Driver appeals the Campbell County Criminal Court’s judgment requiring his bail bonding company, Driver Bail Bonds, to pay $570.50 as a bond forfeiture because Stanley Ray Davis failed to appear at a general sessions court probation hearing. The appellant contends that T.C.A. § 40-11-138(b) relieved his company from liability under the bond because the defendant already had pled guilty and been sentenced. He also claims that his company is not liable for the defendant’s fine and costs because his company did not assume such obligations in the defendant’s bond. We hold that appellant remained obligated under the bond and that the trial court did not require him to pay the defendant’s fine and costs. The trial court is affirmed. |
Campbell | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Stanley Ray Davis in re: Ray D. Driver, d/b/a Driver Bail Bonds - Dissenting
I agree that Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-11-130 governs the issue of the duration of Driver Bail Bonds' obligation. The current statute, passed in 1996, permits the trial court to extend the liability of the surety on a bail bond for the length of a sentence of probation by providing in a written order that the current bond is sufficient. In this case, the General Sessions Court noted on the judgment form that the defendant and surety were to remain liable under the original bond. Thus, Driver remained obligated under the terms of the original bond to secure the defendant's appearance at the March 11, 2002, hearing. |
Campbell | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jama Elaine Penley
The appellant, Jama Elaine Penley, was convicted by a Greene County jury of facilitation of first degree premeditated murder, a Class A felony. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the appellant as a Range I standard offender to twenty-five years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant challenges the denial of her motion for judgment of acquittal and the sentence imposed by the trial court. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we remand to correct a clerical error in the judgment but otherwise affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Greene | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Patrick D. Paris v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Patrick D. Paris, appeals the denial of his post-conviction relief petition relating to his convictions for attempted first degree murder and especially aggravated robbery. On appeal, the petitioner contends: (1) he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial; and (2) the trial court erred in failing to charge attempted voluntary manslaughter as a lesser-included offense of attempted first degree murder. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Timothy Earl Waters, pro se v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Timothy Earl Waters, appeals the trial court's summary dismissal of his petition for common law writ of certiorari seeking relief from a post-conviction judgment. 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. Finding that the lower court properly dismissed the petition, theState's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Henry Rankins v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Henry Rankins, filed a petition for post-conviction relief based on the Post- Conviction DNA Analysis Act. The trial court denied relief and Petitioner now seeks review of the lower court’s decision. 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. After review, we conclude that the petition fails to satisfy the criteria of the Post-Conviction DNA Analysis Act. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Michael D. Hughes v. State of Tennessee
On November 30, 1992, the petitioner, Michael Douglas Hughes, entered a plea of no contest to one (1) count of aggravated rape and a plea of guilty to ten (10) counts of aggravated rape. He received an effective eighty-year sentence after a sentencing hearing. The petitioner’s sentence was affirmed in a delayed appeal. See State v. Michael Douglas Hughes, No. 01C01-9701-CR-00021, 1998 WL 301730, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville, June 10, 1998), perm. to appeal denied (Tenn. Feb. 22, 1999). The petitioner sought post-conviction relief on various grounds. After the trial court denied the petition as untimely, the petitioner appealed. This Court reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the petition and remanded for an evidentiary hearing. See Hughes v. State, 77 S.W.3d 801 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001). On remand, the trial court denied the petition after an evidentiary hearing. The petitioner then presented this appeal, arguing that the trial court erred finding that the petitioner received the effective assistance of counsel and that his guilty plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered. We affirm the dismissal of the petition. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Don Wesley McMillen v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Don Wesley McMillen, entered a plea of guilty to two (2) counts of attempted rape of a child in May of 1998. In exchange for the guilty pleas, the petitioner received concurrent, seventeen-year sentences at 35% as a Range II Offender. The petitioner timely filed a petition for post-conviction relief arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that his guilty plea was not knowing or voluntary because the trial court violated the provisions of State v. Mackey, 553 S.W.2d 337 (Tenn. 1977). The trial court denied the petition following an evidentiary hearing and this appeal followed. We affirm the dismissal of the post-conviction petition. |
Coffee | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Roxanne R. Vance
Following a bench trial, the defendant, Roxanne R. Vance, was convicted of DUI per se, a Class A misdemeanor, and was sentenced to eleven months, twenty-nine days, all suspended except seven days with the balance to be served on probation. In addition, her driver's license was suspended for one year and she was ordered to pay a fine of $350 and attend alcohol and drug safety school. On appeal, she argues that the trial court erred in finding that her breath alcohol test results created an irrebuttable presumption of DUI per se and that the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction. Based upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Patrick E. Simpson v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Patrick E. Simpson, pled guilty to two counts of aggravated assault and was sentenced to concurrent terms of three years to be served consecutively to his parole violation. He appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief, arguing that the trial court failed to enforce his guilty plea agreement and that his sentence has expired. Following our review, we affirm the dismissal of the petition. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ronald L. Johnson v. Flora Holland, Warden
The petitioner, Ronald L. Johnson, appeals as of right from the Davidson County Criminal Court's summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. He argues that his convictions for two counts of passing worthless checks are void because they were not ordered to be served consecutively to a sentence from which he had been paroled at the time of the check offenses, his parole subsequently being revoked. The habeas corpus court dismissed his petition without a hearing, and we affirm that action. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennesseev. Ira Ishmael Muhammed, alias Ira Ishamel Muhammed
The defendant, Ira Ishmael Muhammed, was convicted of attempted second degree murder, a Class B felony; two counts of aggravated assault, Class C felonies; attempted voluntary manslaughter, a Class D felony; and felony reckless endangerment which the trial court, acting as thirteenth juror, dismissed at the sentencing hearing. He was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to twelve years for the attempted second degree murder conviction, six years for each aggravated assault conviction, and four years for the attempted voluntary manslaughter conviction, with the sentences to be served consecutively, for an effective sentence of twenty-eight years. On appeal, the defendant argues: (1) the trial court erred in admitting an audiotape of telephone conversations between him and his ex-wife, one of the victims; (2) the trial court erred in not suppressing an audiotape of statements he made shortly after being shot; (3) the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentencing; and (4) the application of consecutive sentencing is unconstitutional. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Eddie Wayne Gordon v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant, Eddie Wayne Gordon, appeals the Gibson County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. In 1983, Gordon pled guilty to first degree murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment. In 1984, Gordon, proceeding pro se, filed the instant petition for post-conviction relief. For twenty years, Gordon has unsuccessfully sought an evidentiary hearing on his petition. Fundamental fairness dictates that Gordon receive the process that is due him. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and this matter is again remanded to the Gibson County Circuit Court for an evidentiary hearing upon Gordon’s petition for post-conviction relief. |
Gibson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Allen Bates
A jury convicted the Defendant, James A. Bates, of two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, three counts of assault (which the trial court merged into a single count), one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, one count of felony evading arrest, and one count of possession of marijuana. The trial court subsequently sentenced the defendant on the especially aggravated kidnapping convictions as a Range II, multiple offender to an effective term of thirty-eight years in the Department of Correction. The defendant now appeals, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions of especially aggravated kidnapping and the trial court's decision to sentence him as a Range II, multiple offender on those offenses. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Bobby Joe Gentry
A Knox County jury convicted the Defendant, Bobby Joe Gentry, of aggravated rape, and the trial court sentenced the Defendant as a repeat violent offender to life in prison without the possibility of parole. The Defendant appeals, contending that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction; (2) the trial court erred when it failed to dismiss the indictment; (3) the trial court erred when it charged the jury on the elements of aggravated rape and aggravated sexual battery and on the culpable mental state; (4) he was denied effective assistance of counsel; (5) Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-120 (1997), under which the Defendant was sentenced as a violent offender, is unconstitutional; and (6) the trial court erred when it found that the Defendant qualified as a violent offender pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-120. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the trial court's judgment. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
William Berrios v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, William Berrios, appeals the post-conviction court's denial of his post-conviction relief petition in relation to his guilty plea to felony murder for which he received a life sentence. On appeal, the petitioner contends: (1) the state failed to satisfy a condition of the plea agreement; and (2) his plea was unknowingly and involuntarily entered. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tyrie Brown
A Franklin County jury convicted the Defendant, Tyrie Brown, of possession with intent to deliver more than 0.5 grams of cocaine, assault and resisting arrest. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to thirteen years for the possession conviction and ninety days on both the assault conviction and the resisting arrest conviction. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Franklin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
William Alexander Cocke Stuart v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, William Alexander Cocke Stuart, pled guilty in the Davidson County Criminal Court to theft of property over $10,000 and received a five-year sentence to be served in split confinement. Subsequently, he filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel and that his guilty plea was not knowing or voluntary. The post-conviction court, without holding an evidentiary hearing, dismissed the petition and the petitioner appealed. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we reverse the judgment of the post-conviction court and remand for further proceedings. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Gary Johnson v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner pled guilty to one count of burglary and one count of theft of property between $1,000 and $10,000 on August 21, 2001. He was sentenced to twelve years for each offense to run concurrently to be served at sixty percent as a career offender. The petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief on April 16, 2002. The trial court denied the petition on January 13, 2003. The petitioner appeals this denial alleging that he was afforded ineffective assistance of counsel and his plea was not knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily entered. We affirm the decision of the trial court. |
Tipton | Court of Criminal Appeals |
