Mitchell Tarver v. State of Tennessee
The pro se petitioner, Mitchell Tarver, appeals from the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We conclude that the circuit court erred in summarily dismissing the habeas petition under the peculiar circumstances presented in the instant case. We therefore reverse the judgment of the circuit court and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Obion | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Mona Ray Cloud alias Mona R. Headrick, alias Mona R. Cloud, alias Mona Headrick
The defendant, Mona Ray Cloud, pled guilty in the Blount County Circuit Court to aggravated burglary, a Class C felony; violating the Motor Vehicle Habitual Offender (MVHO) Act, a Class E felony; and criminal impersonation, a Class A misdemeanor. Pursuant to the plea agreement, she received four-year, one-year, and six-month sentences, respectively, with the one-year and six-month sentences to be served concurrently to each other but consecutively to the four-year sentence for an effective sentence of five years in the Department of Correction (DOC). The manner of service was to be determined by the trial court. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered the defendant to serve her sentences in confinement. The defendant appeals, claiming that she should have received alternative sentences. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Charles Lawuary
Defendant, Charles Lawuary, appeals from the trial court's order revoking Defendant's community corrections sentence and requiring him to serve the sentence in incarceration. Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking the community corrections sentence. After a review of the record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Barry Inman
The appellant, Barry Inman, was convicted by a jury in the Williamson County Circuit Court of possession of over .5 grams of cocaine with the intent to sell or deliver, possession of Alprazolam with the intent to sell or deliver, possession of marijuana, possession of drug paraphernalia, and speeding. Additionally, the appellant pled guilty to driving on a revoked license. The trial court sentenced the appellant to a total effective sentence of nine years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant contends that the trial court should have granted his motion for judgments of acquittal and that the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to sustain his convictions. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Bobby Joe Carter v. State of Tennessee
The appellant, serving an effective twenty-year sentence on three counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, argues the trial court erred in denying his petition for post-conviction relief because: (1) his guilty plea was not entered voluntarily and intelligently; and (2) his trial counsel was ineffective. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Paul Pettibone
The appellant, Paul Edward Pettibone, Jr., pled guilty to the offense of attempted aggravated robbery, a Class C Felony. He was sentenced to four years as a Range I, standard offender. The trial judge ordered the appellant to serve his sentence in incarceration, but asserted that if the appellant successfully completed an addiction treatment program known as Lifeline Therapeutic Community, he could apply to the court to suspend the rest of his sentence.1 In this appeal as of right, the appellant contends that the trial court erred by failing to grant either an alternative sentence or a term of probation after a period of confinement. After a review of this case, we conclude that the evidence did not support the grant of an alternative sentence or a term of probation after a period of confinement and thus affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James Eugene Parks, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, James Eugene Parks, appeals the Knox County Criminal Court's denial of his petitions for post-conviction relief from robbery-related convictions. He contends that he did not voluntarily enter guilty pleas because he was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the pleas. He also claims that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorneys did not investigate the case adequately. We affirm the trial court's denial of the petitions. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Claude W. Cheeks
The appellant, Claude W. Cheeks, was convicted by a jury in the Hamilton County Criminal Court of one count of especially aggravated robbery and two counts of aggravated assault. The trial court sentenced the appellant to a total effective sentence of twenty-five years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The appellant appealed and on July 22, 2002, this court reversed his convictions, finding that the appellant had met his burden of establishing his insanity at the time of the offenses. 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 for the sole purpose of remanding the case to this court for reconsideration in light of its opinion in State v. Flake, 88 S.W.3d 540 (Tenn. 2002). Upon reconsideration, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Willie Ira Poteat, Jr.
The Defendant, Willie Ira Poteat, Jr., was indicted by the Sullivan County Grand Jury for possession of more than 26 grams of cocaine for resale and criminal conspiracy to sell more than 26 grams of cocaine. The Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence taken during the execution of a search warrant, which the trial court denied. Thereafter, the Defendant entered a plea of nolo contendere to the charges against him, reserving the right to appeal a certified question of law regarding the trial court's ruling on the suppression issue. We now address the Defendant's appeal based upon this certified question of law. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
John Haws Burrell v. Howard Carlton, Warden
The petitioner, John Haws Burrell, has been convicted of twelve counts of sexual battery, three counts of rape, and two counts of coercion of a witness for which he is serving an effective twenty-four-year sentence. See State v. John Haws Burrell, No. 03C01-9404-CR-00157, 1997 WL 53455 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Knoxville, Feb. 11, 1997). The petitioner brings the instant appeal of the lower court's summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. We find that the lower court properly summarily dismissed the petition because several of the alleged bases for relief in the petition are not proper grounds for habeas relief and the remaining allegations lack merit. |
Johnson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Angelee Prater
The appellant, Angelee Prater, was convicted by a jury of aggravated child abuse, a Class A felony and fined $25,000. As a result of the conviction, the trial court sentenced her to twenty-one years and six months incarceration as a Range I, standard offender and classified her release eligibility at 100% as a violent offender. After the trial court denied the appellant's motion for a new trial, she appealed. The appellant argues on appeal that the aggravated child abuse statutes, Tennessee Code Annotated sections 39-15-401 and -402 are unconstitutionally vague as applied to her conduct and that the evidence was not sufficient to support a verdict of guilt. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the statutes in question are constitutional and that the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict of guilt. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Rhea | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Geraldrick Jones
This direct appeal of right for first degree murder for which the defendant received a sentence of life without parole raises five issues of alleged error: (1) sufficiency of evidence; (2) failure to suppress the defendant's statements; (3) improper admission of photographs; (4) improper testimony of experts at the penalty phase of trial; and (5) improper admission of evidence concerning a prior conviction of the defendant. We conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support the first degree murder conviction. The issue concerning admissibility of the defendant's statement is waived by the defendant's failure to include the suppression hearing in the appellate record. We conclude that the remaining issues were properly decided by the trial court, and we, therefore, affirm the conviction. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Carl Edward Bell
In a plea agreement, the defendant pled guilty to the sale of under .5 grams of cocaine and agreed to a seven-year sentence. The manner of service of the sentence was to be determined at a sentencing hearing. The trial court ordered the defendant to serve the entire sentence in the Tennessee Department of Correction, because the defendant had not demonstrated the potential for rehabilitation or treatment. We find no error in the sentence and, therefore, affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Roger L. Smith v. State of Tennessee
The Defendant, Roger L. Smith, pled guilty to three counts of child rape in 1998. He subsequently filed for post-conviction relief and for DNA testing. The trial court summarily dismissed the post-conviction petition on the grounds that it is time-barred. The trial court further summarily denied the Defendant's request for DNA testing. The Defendant now appeals. We affirm the judgment of the trial court dismissing the Defendant's claim for post-conviction relief, but reverse and remand for further proceedings the trial court's dismissal of the Defendant's request for DNA testing. |
Greene | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Charles R. Palmquist
Defendant, Charles R. Palmquist, pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, pled guilty to DUI first offense and reserved a certified question of law for appeal pursuant to Tenn. R. Crim. P. 37(b)(2)(i). After a review of the record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Putnam | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Deborah Kay Thomas Atkins
The defendant entered pleas of guilt to possession of a Schedule II controlled substance with the intent to deliver or sell, possession of a Schedule III controlled substance with the intent to deliver or sell, and possession of marijuana. The trial court imposed concurrent Range I sentences of eight years, two years, and 11 months and 29 days, respectively. The defendant was required to serve one year in jail followed by seven years in community corrections. Later, the community corrections sentence was revoked and an eight-year sentence imposed. An appeal resulted in a remand by this court with directions to credit both jail time and the length of service within the program. In this appeal, the defendant argues that the trial judge erred in the imposition of the resentence. The judgment is affirmed. |
Henry | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Darwin Treece
The defendant pled guilty to one count of delivering a Schedule II controlled substance (Hydromorphone). He was sentenced to 50 months to be served with Corrections Management Corporation, a community-based alternative, after service of 180 days in the county jail. The defendant appealed the sentence, contending that it was excessive. We hold that the trial court properly rejected mitigating factor one because drug dealing inherently involves the risk of bodily injury and that the defendant’s prior criminal behavior justified the sentence imposed. Finding no error, the judgment is affirmed. |
McNairy | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joel Anthony Davenport
The Defendant, Joel Anthony Davenport, pled guilty to multiple counts of passing worthless checks and was sentenced to probation. The Defendant's probation was violated and revoked. Upon revocation, the trial court sentenced the Defendant, and the Defendant asserts that he was sentenced to four years of incarceration, plus an additional year for the count which violated his probation, to be served consecutively to a six year sentence in another county. Accordingly, the Defendant asserts that his sentence was to total eleven years. The Tennessee Department of Corrections report showed that the Defendant was sentenced to fourteen years, not eleven, and the Defendant filed a motion with the trial court to enter an order correcting the "clerical mistake." The trial court denied that motion and the Defendant appeals. Finding no error in the trial court's denial of the Defendant's motion, we affirm. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jimmy Ray Robinson v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner appeals from the post-conviction court’s denial of relief. He contends he received ineffective assistance of counsel. After careful review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of relief. |
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Donald Franks
A Hardin County jury convicted the defendant, Donald Franks, of rape of a child. The trial court sentenced the defendant to thirty-seven years as a Range II multiple offender. On appeal, the defendant argues: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction; (2) the trial court erred in instructing the jury on flight; and (3) the trial court imposed an excessive sentence. Based upon our review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hardin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Paul Regan, Alias
The defendant appeals the trial court's denial of judicial diversion contending that the court abused its discretion by not articulating specific reasons on the record for the denial. We agree with the defendant and remand for a new sentencing hearing in order for the trial court to place its reasoning upon the record. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James H. Thompson
Following a conviction for DUI, third offense, after entering a guilty plea, Defendant James H. Thompson appeals, asserting that he has presented a certified question of law for review. Because we conclude that the question of law, even if properly reserved at the guilty plea hearing, is not dispositive of the case, we dismiss the appeal. |
Franklin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jeremy Christopher Hwang
The defendant appeals the trial court's revocation of his probation, arguing that his due process rights were violated because (1) the trial court allowed the State to amend the revocation petition to include as additional grounds his subsequent convictions for theft and criminal impersonation, without providing him prior written notice; and (2) the trial court failed to issue adequate findings of fact in support of its decision. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Sidney Joseph Ogle
The appellant, Sidney Joseph Ogle, pled guilty in the Knox County Criminal Court to aggravated assault. The trial court sentenced the appellant as a Range I standard offender to three years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The trial court denied the appellant's request for probation and the appellant timely appealed. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael S. Stacy
The defendant appeals the trial court's dismissal of his motion for correction of an illegal sentence. Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, the defendant entered a nolo contendere plea to a Class B felony and was sentenced by the trial court as a Range I, standard offender to ten years, two years above the presumptive minimum sentence in the range. Subsequently, the defendant filed a pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that the trial court violated the requirements of the 1989 Sentencing Reform Act by failing to state enhancement factors to support the increase in his sentence from the presumptive minimum eight-year sentence. The trial court dismissed the motion, and the defendant appealed to this court. Finding no error, we affirm the trial court's dismissal of the defendant's motion to correct illegal sentence. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals |
