State of Tennessee v. Scott E. Snow
On June 19, 2000, the defendant, Scott E. Snow, was indicted by the Roane County Grand Jury for driving on a revoked license and driving under the influence, 3rd offense. On August 6, 2001, he was convicted by a jury of DUI 3rd, and acquitted of driving on a revoked license. The defendant received a sentence of 11 months and 29 days and was ordered to serve at least 240 days prior to release on probation. The defendant now brings this appeal claiming that the evidence was insufficient for the conviction of DUI. After a thorough review of the record, we find that the evidence is sufficient to sustain his conviction and there is no reversible error. Therefore the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Roane | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William Ramsey
The defendant was convicted by a Warren County Circuit Court jury of one count of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, and one count of theft over $1000, a Class D felony, based on his participation in separate criminal acts that occurred over four months apart. The trial court sentenced him as a Range I, standard offender to nine years for the aggravated robbery conviction and three years for the theft conviction, with the sentences to be served concurrently, for an effective sentence of nine years in the Department of Correction. In this appeal as of right, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to sever the offenses; in refusing to find him indigent and denying his request for funds to hire an expert witness; and in enhancing his sentences from the presumptive minimum in the range. Following our review, we conclude the trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motion for severance; the trial court erroneously based its refusal to declare the defendant indigent, in part, on the defendant's mother's financial resources, but there was no error in the trial court's denial of the defendant's request for funds for an expert witness; and the defendant's theft sentence should be modified. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the trial court, but reduce the defendant's sentence for theft over $1000 from three years to two years, to be served concurrently to his nine-year sentence for aggravated robbery. |
Warren | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Aubrey A. Davis
A jury found the defendant guilty of especially aggravated kidnapping and attempted aggravated sexual battery. The trial court sentenced him to concurrent terms of twenty-two years for the especially aggravated kidnapping and three years for the attempted aggravated sexual battery. On appeal, the defendant contends the trial court erred in allowing him to be convicted of both especially aggravated kidnapping and attempted sexual battery, since both crimes arose from a single act. Additionally, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in charging the jury as to the mens rea element of attempted aggravated sexual battery, erred in not suppressing a photograph identification, and erred in sentencing him to twenty-two years for the especially aggravated kidnapping. We find no errors in the trial court's rulings and affirm the judgments of the trial court on both convictions. However, we conclude the trial court misapplied aggravating and mitigating factors in sentencing the defendant for the especially aggravated kidnapping and modify the sentence accordingly. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ezell Wallace
A jury convicted the defendant of attempted first degree murder, a Class A felony. The trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range I, standard offender to twenty-five years' incarceration. The defendant now appeals, arguing that the trial court erred by denying his motion for new trial because (1) insufficient evidence was presented to support his conviction; (2) the trial court made an improper evidentiary ruling; and (3) the trial court gave the jury improper and inadequate instructions. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Shatha Litisser Jones
|
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Dennis Michael Richardson
Following a jury trial, the defendant, Dennis Michael Richardson, was convicted of Class B misdemeanor assault. The trial court sentenced him to serve six months in the county jail. In this appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in its application of one of the sentencing enhancement factors. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Greene | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Steven Ray Hicks
The defendant appeals from an order of the trial court which found him to be in violation of the conditions of his probation and ordered his sentence to be served in confinement. The State concedes that the trial court erred. Because the defendant's term of probation had expired at the time the probation violation warrant was issued, the trial court's order finding the defendant to be in violation of his probation is vacated. |
Cocke | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Antonio T. Seay
The defendant, Antonio T. Seay, pled guilty in the Wilson County Criminal Court to possession of a weapon by a convicted felon, a Class E felony, and the trial court sentenced him as a Range I, standard offender to one year in the Department of Correction. He appeals upon certified questions of law from the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence that was seized pursuant to a stop and frisk. See T.R.A.P. 3(b); Tenn. R. Crim. P. 37(b). He claims that the trial court should have granted his motion because (1) a federal district court had granted his motion to suppress in an earlier federal proceeding and (2) the police lacked reasonable suspicion to stop him. We hold that the trial court was not bound by the federal district court's ruling and affirm the trial court's denial of the motion to suppress. |
Wilson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
William Kirk Riley v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, William Kirk Riley, appeals the trial court's summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. The issue presented for review is whether the petition was properly dismissed without any opportunity to amend, without the appointment of counsel, and without an evidentiary hearing. The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for an evidentiary hearing. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Thomas A. Carter
A Campbell County Jury convicted the Defendant of theft of property valued over $10,000, evading arrest, reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon, and simple possession of marijuana. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective sentence of eight years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The Defendant now appeals, alleging (1) that insufficient evidence identifying the Defendant as the perpetrator of the felony offenses was presented at trial, and (2) that the trial court erred in its sentencing determinations. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Campbell | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William Brian Robinson
The Davidson County Grand Jury indicted the defendant for first degree premeditated murder. A Davidson County jury found the defendant guilty as charged, and the trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment. The defendant now appeals, claiming that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to sustain the verdict, and in particular, that the evidence was insufficient to prove premeditation. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Randy Carroll v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for six counts of sexual battery and one count of aggravated sexual battery, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in finding he received the effective assistance of counsel and in failing to address as plain error the trial court's erroneous jury instructions on aggravated sexual battery. Following our review, we affirm the post-conviction court's denial of the petition for post-conviction relief. |
Lewis | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Euel Franklin Lockhart
The defendant, Euel Franklin Lockhart, pled guilty to possession of less than .5 grams of methamphetamine with the intent to distribute, a Class C felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-417. Pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37, the defendant reserved as a certified question of law the issue of whether the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Carroll | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Duane Brian Brooks
The defendant, Duane Brian Brooks, was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. In this appeal, the defendant asserts that the trial court erroneously instructed the jury as to the culpable mental states for first and second degree murder and failed to provide an instruction on causation. Because it is our view that any error with regard to the jury instructions can be classified as harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Earl Dewayne Holloway v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Earl Dewayne Holloway, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, alleging numerous instances of ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. We conclude that the evidence does not preponderate against the findings of the post-conviction court and affirm the dismissal of the petition. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Felix Bartolo Jose
The Appellant, Felix Bartolo Jose, was convicted of one count of aggravated sexual battery, a class B felony, following a jury trial. The trial court sentenced Jose to an eight-year sentence in the Department of Correction. On appeal, Jose raises the single issue of whether the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict. After review of the record, we affirm the conviction. |
Henry | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James C. Breer v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant, James C. Breer, appeals the summary dismissal of his pro se petition for postconviction relief. The Henry County Circuit Court dismissed Breer’s petition upon the ground that it failed to state a colorable claim. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-206(f) (1997). After review, we conclude that a colorable claim is presented and the postconviction court erred in dismissing Breer’s petition without conducting an evidentiary hearing and without appointing counsel. Accordingly, we remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Henry | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Robert I. Gwin v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Robert I. Gwin, appeals the trial court's denial of habeas corpus relief. The single issue presented for review is whether the trial court erred by denying an evidentiary hearing on the petition. The judgment is affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Eric James Taylor, alias
The Defendant, Eric James Taylor, Alias, was convicted by a jury of first degree premeditated murder and aggravated assault. The Defendant now appeals as of right from his murder conviction, alleging seven errors: (1) the trial court should have allowed him to cross-examine a prosecution witness about pending theft charges; (2) the trial court should have instructed the jury about the State's duty to preserve evidence; (3) the prosecutor impermissibly shifted the burden of proof to the Defendant during closing argument; (4) the trial court should have instructed the jury on the lesser-included offense of vehicular homicide; (5) the trial court should have allowed him to cross-examine a prosecution witness about the victim's pre-offense surgery; (6) the evidence is not sufficient to support his murder conviction; and (7) a police officer testifying for the State improperly referred to prior contacts with the Defendant. Finding no merit to the Defendant's contentions, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Alorra D. Puckett
|
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Alorra D. Puckett - Dissenting
|
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Gene Booker
The Appellant was convicted of aggravated robbery by a jury in the Criminal Court for Shelby County, and the trial court sentenced him to sixteen years of confinement as a Range II Multiple Offender. The Appellant raises the following issues on appeal: (1) whether sufficient evidence was presented at trial to convict the Appellant of the charged offense, and (2) whether the trial court erred in failing to charge the jury on the lesser-included offenses of robbery and theft. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joseph Harold Rucker
The defendant, Joseph Harold Rucker, appeals the Roane County Criminal Court's imposition of a 23-year Department of Correction sentence for the second-degree murder of his girlfriend, Tommy Jean Trinkle. Because we determine that the length of the Class A, Range I sentence is supported in the record, we affirm. |
Roane | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Charles Weston Elsea, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Charles Weston Elsea, Jr., appeals the trial court's denial of post-conviction relief. The single issue presented for review is whether he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tracy Washington
A Rhea County grand jury indicted the defendant on one count of sexual battery. At the conclusion of a trial, the jury convicted him as charged and fined him one thousand dollars. The trial court subsequently imposed a sentence of one year and six months, of which the defendant was ordered to serve thirty days. After unsuccessfully pursuing a judgment of acquittal or alternatively a new trial in the trial court, the defendant brings this appeal. Herein, he asserts that the record lacks sufficient evidence to sustain his conviction, that the trial court erred in failing to give the jury a curative instruction to disregard a hearsay statement made by the victim in court, and that the trial court erred in permitting the victim's brother to testify regarding a hearsay statement made by the victim. After reviewing the record and relevant authorities, we find that the defendant has waived one of these claims and that the remaining issues merit no relief. We, therefore, affirm the defendant's conviction. |
Rhea | Court of Criminal Appeals |
