State of Tennessee v. Brian Webb
The State appeals the ruling of the Cocke County Circuit Court amending its judgments pertaining to the sentencing of Defendant, Brian Webb, pursuant to Rule 36 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure. Under the terms of a plea agreement involving Defendant's four theft convictions in Cocke and Jefferson counties, the trial court sentenced Defendant on January 8, 2001 to an effective three-year sentence to be served concurrently with Defendant's federal sentence of twenty-four months arising out of the same incident. The trial court's judgment was entered on January 30, 2001 following Defendant's incarceration in federal prison on January 29, 2001. On August 22, 2002, Defendant filed a motion to correct a mistake in the trial court's judgment. After a brief hearing, the trial court granted Defendant's motion and ordered that Defendant's state sentences be modified to time served and the balance served on probation to reflect the trial court's understanding at the time of sentencing that Defendant's sentences would run "coterminous" rather than "concurrently" with his federal sentence. The State argues that the record in this matter does not contain any clerical errors, and the trial court was without jurisdiction to modify Defendant's sentence. After a careful review of this matter, we reverse the judgment of the trial court, and this case is remanded for reinstatement of the judgments of conviction as originally entered. |
Cocke | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Steve A. White
The defendant, Steve A. White, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of attempted first degree premeditated murder, a Class A felony; theft of property valued $10,000 or more but less than $60,000, a Class C felony; and violating the sales tax law, a Class E felony. The trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range I, standard offender to an effective sentence of thirty-one years in the Department of Correction. The defendant appeals, claiming (1) that the evidence is insufficient; (2) that the trial court erred by denying his motion for a bill of particulars; (3) that the trial court erred by denying his motion to exclude evidence; (4) that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury after the prosecution asked a witness an inappropriate question; (5) that the trial court improperly excluded impeachment evidence; (6) that the trial court made several errors regarding the victim's testimony; (7) that the trial court improperly restricted the defense expert's testimony; and (8) that the trial court improperly allowed the state to make inappropriate comments during its closing argument. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Stephon Harden
The Appellant, Stephon Harden, appeals from the judgment of the Sullivan County Circuit Court revoking his probation and remanding him to the Department of Correction. In March of 1999, Harden pled guilty to two counts of class E felony theft, one count of forgery, aggravated burglary, and failure to appear. He received an effective six-year sentence to be served in the Department of Correction. Harden was released following completion of the "boot camp" program and was administratively granted probation by the Commissioner of Correction. Warrants alleging violations of his probationary sentence were issued on February 21st and 28th of 2002. Following a hearing, he was found in violation of his probation and resentenced to the Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred by failing to consider alternatives to revocation. Finding no merit to Harden's claim, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Clint Ray McCoy
The Defendant, Clint Ray McCoy, pled guilty to twelve counts of theft: one Class C felony, nine Class D felonies, one Class E felony, and one Class A misdemeanor. Sentencing was left to the discretion of the trial court. The trial court ordered the Defendant to serve an effective sentence of eight years, with one year to be served in confinement and the balance to be served in the Community Corrections program. In this direct appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred by enhancing his sentences and by ordering him to serve one year in confinement. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Henry | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jeremiah Wiseman
The Appellant, Jeremiah Wiseman, pled guilty to carjacking, a class B felony, and was sentenced as a mitigated offender to the Department of Correction for a term of 7.2 years. On appeal, the Appellant argues that the trial court erred by denying him a probated sentence. Finding no error in the record, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jeffery W. Alexander
Convicted of burglary and theft of property valued at more than $1,000 but less than $10,000, the defendant, Jeffery W. Alexander, claims on appeal that the convictions are unsupported by sufficient evidence, that the trial court erred in admitting copies of photographs of the crime scene, and that the trial court erroneously sentenced him as a career offender. Because our review of the record, the briefs, and the applicable law exposes no reversible error, we affirm. |
McNairy | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Steve Kyger v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant, Steve Kyger, appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief by the Rutherford County Circuit Court. On December 21, 1987, Kyger was convicted of first degree murder, armed robbery, and joyriding, and received a sentence of life imprisonment plus thirty-five years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, Kyger challenges these convictions raising the single issue of ineffective assistance of counsel. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Thurman G. Ledford
Thurman G. Ledford appeals a certified question of law whether the strong odor of ammonia emanating from his residence supported probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant, which resulted in his arrest for drug-related activities. Because we conclude that the issue is not dispositive of the defendant's case, we dismiss his appeal. |
Hamblen | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Christopher Curry v. Fred Raney, Warden
The petitioner, Christopher Curry, filed in the Lake County Circuit Court a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, alleging that his confinement was illegal due to the expiration of his sentence. The habeas corpus court summarily dismissed the petition and the petitioner appealed. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we reverse the dismissal of the petition for habeas corpus relief and remand to the habeas corpus court for the appointment of counsel and an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the petitioner's sentence has expired. |
Lake | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Bruce Hollars
The Overton County Criminal Court revoked the probation of the defendant, Bruce Hollars, and ordered his original sentences of two consecutive terms of eleven months and twenty-nine days be served in confinement. On appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court erred by requiring him to serve the entire sentence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Overton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Sandra Ann Whaley, alias Sandy Ann Whaley
The appellant, Sandra Ann Whaley, was convicted by a jury in the Hamilton County Criminal Court of driving under the influence (DUI) and assault. The trial court imposed a total effective sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days incarceration in the workhouse, to be suspended upon service of thirty days in confinement. On appeal, the appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting her DUI conviction and she also complains about the sentences imposed. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Michael J. Bailey v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Michael J. Bailey, filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. Following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief and the petitioner timely appealed. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Mario Antoine Leggs
The Defendant, Mario Antoine Leggs, was convicted by a jury of theft, robbery, two counts of reckless endangerment, aggravated robbery, two counts of evading arrest, three counts of reckless aggravated assault, leaving the scene of an accident, and driving on a suspended license. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered the Defendant to serve an effective sentence of twenty-three years, eleven months, and twenty-eight days in the Department of Correction. In this direct appeal, the Defendant raises the following issues: (1) whether the trial court erred by denying the Defendant's motion to sever the offenses; (2) whether the trial court erred by admitting prior identification testimony; (3) whether the Defendant is entitled to a new trial based upon improper remarks made by the prosecutor during closing argument; (4) whether the trial court erred by not reducing the Defendant's three convictions for reckless aggravated assault to simple assault; (5) whether the trial court erred by not merging one of the Defendant's convictions for evading arrest with his conviction for leaving the scene of an accident; and (6) whether the trial court properly sentenced the Defendant. We hold that the trial court erred by not severing the offenses that occurred on November 16, 2000. However, we deem the error harmless. Because we find insufficient evidence to support the Defendant's second conviction for evading arrest, we reverse it and dismiss that charge. In all other respects, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Tracy Lebron Vick v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant, Tracy Lebron Vick, appeals the Hamilton County Criminal Court's dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. Vick pled guilty to second-degree murder and received a forty-year sentence, as a range II multiple offender. On appeal, Vick challenges the validity of his guilty plea upon grounds of voluntariness and ineffective assistance of counsel. Following a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court dismissing the petition. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Clara Jean Neblett
Appellant, Clara Jean Neblett, was indicted by the Robertson County Grand Jury for aggravated assault and unlawful possession of a weapon. A jury found Appellant guilty of both counts. Appellant was sentenced to four years for her aggravated assault conviction and thirty days for her possession of a weapon conviction, to be served concurrently. In this appeal, Appellant challenges: (1) the trial court's ruling that defense counsel could not impeach the victim's testimony using extrinsic evidence of a prior bad act; (2) the trial court's denial of post-trial diversion; and (3) the trial court's refusal to apply mitigating factors to Appellant's sentence. After a careful review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Robertson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Robert F. Smythers
The Defendant was indicted for first degree premeditated murder and a Monroe County jury convicted him of the lesser-included offense of second degree murder. The trial court sentenced him to twenty years' incarceration. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant argues (1) that he was denied his right to a speedy trial; (2) that the trial court erred by refusing to allow the defense to question police officers about the victim's reputation for violence; (3) that the trial court erred by excluding from evidence an audiotape of a pretrial statement by witness Casey Miller; and (4) that the trial court erred in instructing the jury regarding first degree murder and second degree murder. After a careful review of the jury instructions in this case, which fail to define "knowingly," we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for a new trial. |
Monroe | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Casey C. Boylan
A Cumberland County jury convicted the Defendant for possession of a handgun while under the influence, a Class A misdemeanor. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. Because we conclude that the evidence is sufficient, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Cumberland | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Hughes D. Cadwell
Defendant, Hughes D. Cadwell, was convicted in the Williamson County General Sessions Court for driving on a suspended license on December 23, 1997. He received a ninety-day suspended sentence and six months probation. On June 22, 1998, a probation violation warrant was issued, alleging that Defendant had failed to maintain monthly contact with his probation officer and that he had failed to pay probation fees and respond to a written request for action. Defendant was not arrested on the warrant until February 6, 2002. At the February 13, 2002, hearing in Williamson County General Sessions Court, Defendant pled true to the probation violation, and the court ordered him to serve the ninety-day sentence. Defendant appealed to the Williamson County Circuit Court on February 15, 2002. The circuit court conducted a hearing to determine whether to reinstate Defendant's probation. The court then dismissed the appeal on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction because Defendant had pled true to the probation violation. We conclude that the circuit court had jurisdiction to hear Defendant's appeal from the general sessions court, de novo, and therefore, we remand the case to the circuit court for proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Robert Frost
A Tipton County jury convicted the defendant, Robert Frost, of bribery of a public servant. The trial court subsequently ordered the defendant to serve three years as a standard offender in community based alternative sentencing. The defendant now brings this direct appeal of his conviction, challenging (1) the trial court's decision to admit certain exhibits over his objection; (2) a certain portion of the trial court's instruction to the jury regarding his indicted offense; and (3) the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction. After a thorough review of the record, we find that none of the defendant's allegations merit relief and accordingly affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Tipton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Stephen Daniel Grande, Sr.
The appellant, Stephen Daniel Grande, Sr., was convicted by a jury of the unlawful manufacturing of methamphetamine and of introducing contraband into a penal institution. He received two concurrent three year sentences to be served on community corrections following service of a year of incarceration. In this appeal the appellant raises seven issues including whether the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict. However, in his brief the appellant cites no relevant authority to support his arguments. Indeed, the brief of the appellant is little more than a written diatribe describing alleged unlawful activities on the part of the authorities in Henry County, Tennessee, and characterizing those alleged activities as unconstitutional. Under these circumstances we find that the appellant has waived review of the issues on appeal. Nevertheless, we have in the interests of justice, reviewed the primary issue of the sufficiency of the evidence. We hold that the evidence is more than sufficient to support the verdict of the jury. Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed. |
Henry | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jimmy Wayne Dudley
A Madison County grand jury indicted the defendant for aggravated assault. Subsequently a trial jury convicted the defendant as charged. By the time of the sentencing hearing, the parties had reached an agreement involving a pending probation revocation matter, a pending assault charge, and the instant conviction. With respect to the probation revocation, the trial court ordered the defendant to serve four years at 30% as a standard offender. On the assault conviction, the court ordered the defendant to serve eleven months and twenty-nine days at 75%. Finally, the defendant received an agreed upon four-and-one-half-year sentence to be served at 30% as a standard offender for the aggravated assault conviction at issue in this case.1 The sentences were ordered run in such a manner that the defendant by agreement received an effective sentence of eight and one-half years. The defendant later filed a motion for new trial and an amended motion for new trial unsuccessfully raising five issues. Through this appeal the defendant continues to assert that 1) the evidence is insufficient to support his aggravated assault conviction; 2) the trial court erred in not allowing the defense to present evidence that the victim's bodily injury resulted from another incident, not the defendant's purported use of a deadly weapon; and 3) the trial court erred in admitting a photograph allegedly showing the victim's injuries and in admitting a shirt allegedly worn by the victim at the time of the offense as these items were not provided to the defense in pre-trial discovery. However, after reviewing the record and relevant authorities, we find that these contentions lack merit or have been waived. We, thus, affirm the lower court's denial of relief. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Howard Jefferson Atkins
Following a transfer of this case from juvenile court to circuit court for trial, a Tipton County jury convicted the defendant, sixteen-year old Howard Jefferson Atkins, of first-degree premeditated murder. The trial court subsequently ordered the defendant to serve a life sentence with the possibility of parole. The defendant now brings this direct appeal of his conviction, challenging: (1) whether the trial court properly denied his motion to suppress his pre-trial statements to police; (2) whether the state's peremptory strike of four female jurors violated Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S.79 (1986); (3) whether the state improperly extracted a promise from the jury during voir dire; (4) whether the trial court erred by allowing the victim's son to offer certain testimony regarding the victim's peaceable character; (5) whether the trial court erred by failing to give a curative instruction following the victim's son's testimony; (6) whether the trial court erred by allowing testimony describing the graphic nature of photos that the court ruled were inadmissible because of their overly prejudicial nature; (7) whether the trial court erred by allowing the medical examiner to testify that she had retained certain bones from the victim's body for forensic pathology; and (8) whether the evidence is sufficient to support the defendant's conviction for first degree murder. After reviewing the record and applicable law, we find that none of the defendant's allegations merit relief and accordingly affirm the judgment of the lower court. |
Tipton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Anthony Humphrey
The defendant was convicted of voluntary manslaughter, attempted voluntary manslaughter, attempted aggravated robbery, and attempted especially aggravated robbery. He was sentenced to six years for the voluntary manslaughter conviction, four years for the attempted voluntary manslaughter conviction, six years for the attempted aggravated robbery conviction, and twelve years for the attempted especially aggravated robbery conviction. The attempted voluntary manslaughter conviction was ordered concurrent with the other three convictions which were ordered consecutive to one another, for an effective sentence of twenty-four years. On appeal, the defendant raises three issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support his convictions; (2) whether the trial court committed plain error by allowing testimony concerning his gang affiliations; and (3) whether the trial court appropriately sentenced the defendant. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Wesley D. Whittington
Defendant, Wesley D. Whittington, entered guilty pleas to the charges of possession of marijuana with the intent to sell or deliver, a Class E felony, and possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor. Defendant and the State agreed to sentences of one year for the felony conviction and eleven months and twenty-nine days for the misdemeanor conviction, to be served concurrently. The negotiated plea agreement further stated that the trial court would determine the manner in which Defendant would serve his sentences. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered Defendant’s sentences to be served in confinement. Defendant appeals the trial court’s refusal to order alternative sentencing. After a careful review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Douglas R. Beecham
After pleading guilty in the Cheatham County Circuit Court to felony possession of a firearm, the appellant, Douglas R. Beecham, was placed on probation. Immediately after the institution of probation, the appellant submitted a falsified urine sample to his probation officer to use in a drug screen. Based upon the falsified sample, the trial court revoked the appellant's probation and ordered the appellant to serve a portion of his sentence in confinement and the balance on probation. On appeal, the appellant complains that the trial court erred in revoking his probation. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Cheatham | Court of Criminal Appeals |
