State of Tennessee v. Reginald Merriweather
This case returns to this court after remand by order of the Tennessee Supreme Court. The defendant appeals his jury convictions of attempted second degree murder, aggravated assault, and especially Because Ely and Bowers involve the issue of lesser-included offenses only, the remand does not alter the analyses in our original opinion as to other issues. However, the necessity of a new trial does render premature our earlier determination to dismiss the conviction for aggravated assault. So as to avoid confusion, sections I and II from our original opinion will be restated in their entirety. Sections III and IV, dealing with the conviction for aggravated assault and the issue of lesser-included offenses, have been changed. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Barry Dunham v. State of Tennessee
On October 5, 1998, the defendant, Barry Dunham, pled guilty in the Macon County Criminal Court to one count of second degree murder and received a sentence of twenty-five years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The defendant filed for post-conviction relief which was granted by the post-conviction court. The State now appeals. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court and remand for new trial. |
Macon | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kenneth Herring
The Defendant was convicted in Wayne County Circuit Court of five counts of rape of a child and two counts of aggravated sexual battery. The Defendant received an effective sentence of seventy-five years incarceration. This Court subsequently reversed the five rape of a child convictions and remanded the case to the trial court to determine whether the remaining two twelve-year sentences for aggravated sexual battery should be served consecutively or concurrently. The trial court determined that the sentences should be served consecutively for an effective sentence of twenty-four years incarceration. The Defendant now appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in ordering that the Defendant's sentences for aggravated sexual battery run consecutively. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Wayne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Timothy Johnson
Pursuant to a plea agreement, the Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of possessing with intent to sell less than 0.5 grams of a substance containing cocaine, and the trial court sentenced him as a Range I standard offender to five years incarceration in the workhouse. The trial court suspended the sentence and placed the Defendant on probation for five years. Approximately four months later, a warrant was issued against the Defendant alleging that he had violated the terms and conditions of his probation. The warrant alleged that the Defendant had been arrested for evading arrest and aggravated assault, that the Defendant had failed to report these arrests to his probation officer, and that the Defendant had failed to report to his probation officer after being released from jail. Following a hearing on the warrant, the trial court revoked the Defendant's probation and ordered him to serve the remainder of his sentence in confinement. The Defendant now brings this appeal, in which he challenges the trial court's order requiring him to serve the remainder of his sentence in confinement. Because we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Mark A. Caldwell
The defendant was convicted of first degree premeditated murder, first degree felony murder, and especially aggravated robbery, with the murder convictions merged into a single conviction for first degree murder following the jury's verdict. The jury sentenced him to life imprisonment on the murder conviction, and the trial court sentenced him to twenty-two years on the especially aggravated robbery conviction, to be served concurrently to the life sentence. Following the denial of his motion for a new trial, the defendant filed a timely appeal to this court, raising four issues: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support his convictions; (2) whether the trial court erred in allowing testimony about a statement of denial he made to police; (3) whether the trial court erred in allowing a photograph of the victim's body to be introduced into evidence; and (4) whether the jury should have been instructed that the State had taken the position, in a dismissed conspiracy indictment, that the defendant's accomplice was the shooter. After a careful review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court but remand for entry of corrected judgments. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Marvin Anthony Mathews v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Marvin Anthony Mathews, is currently serving a life sentence as an habitual criminal as a result of a larceny conviction. He filed for post-conviction relief, which petition the post-conviction court dismissed because of its untimeliness. The petitioner now appeals this ruling, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in finding the petition to be time-barred because the petitioner is serving an illegal sentence. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Anthony Norfleet
Defendant was convicted by a jury of aggravated robbery. Defendant appeals on three grounds: (1) that insufficient evidence exists to uphold the conviction, (2) that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury as to the lesser-included offense of theft, and (3) that the trial court erred in rejecting defendant's guilty plea. We conclude there was no error and affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Maurice LaShaun Nash
The Appellant, Maurice LaShaun Nash, was found guilty by a Tipton County jury of possession of a Schedule VI controlled substance with the intent to deliver, a Class E felony. The trial court sentenced Nash, as a Range I standard offender, to eighteen months in the Department of Correction. On appeal, Nash raises three issues for our review: (1) whether the search warrant was issued upon probable cause; (2) whether introduction of Nash's presence during a prior drug sale at the same residence constituted evidence of a prior bad act in violation of Rule 404(b) of the Tennessee Rules of Evidence; and (3) whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the verdict. After review, we find the issues presented are without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed. |
Tipton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Maurice LaShaun Nash
The Appellant, Maurice LaShaun Nash, was found guilty by a Tipton County jury of possession of a Schedule VI controlled substance with the intent to deliver, a Class E felony. The trial court sentenced Nash, as a Range I standard offender, to eighteen months in the Department of Correction. On appeal, Nash raises three issues for our review: (1) whether the search warrant was issued upon probable cause; (2) whether introduction of Nash's presence during a prior drug sale at the same residence constituted evidence of a prior bad act in violation of Rule 404(b) of the Tennessee Rules of Evidence; and (3) whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the verdict. After review, we find the issues presented are without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed. |
Tipton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jermaine Driver
The defendant, Jermaine Driver, appeals his conviction of attempted first-degree murder, which was based on an assault by the defendant and two other men upon the victim. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that there is sufficient evidence to establish that the assault was a premeditated and intentional attempt to kill the victim. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Alan Dale Bailey v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Alan Dale Bailey, appeals the Coffee County Circuit Court's denial of post-conviction relief. The petitioner sought relief from his 1999 Coffee County convictions of aggravated burglary and sexual battery on the basis that his guilty pleas to those charges were unknowing and involuntary and were prompted by ineffective assistance of counsel. The petitioner's primary complaints focus upon trial counsel's failure to inform the petitioner about the impact of a conviction of a sexual offense, including the risk that parole might not be granted. The trial court denied relief after an evidentiary hearing, and we affirm. |
Coffee | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Javon Webster
The Defendant, Javon Webster, was convicted of felony murder and attempted especially aggravated robbery. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to life in the Department of Correction for the felony murder conviction. The trial court merged the Defendant's attempted especially aggravated robbery conviction with the felony murder conviction. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions, (2) the trial court erred by admitting photographs of the deceased, (3) the trial court erred by denying the Defendant's request for a special jury instruction on duress, and (4) the trial court erred by denying the Defendant's motion to suppress his statement to police. The State also raises an issue on appeal, arguing that the trial court erred by merging the Defendant's conviction for attempted especially aggravated robbery into his felony murder conviction. We affirm the felony murder conviction and reinstate and remand for sentencing the especially aggravated robbery conviction. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Anthony Dewayne McElrath
|
Decatur | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Donald Mays
The Appellant, Donald Mays, appeals the verdict of a Shelby County jury finding him guilty of one count of aggravated robbery and two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping. Mays was sentenced to 30 years for aggravated robbery and to 60 years on each count of kidnapping. The kidnapping sentences were ordered to be served concurrently, but consecutive to the aggravated robbery sentence, for an effective sentence of 90 years. On appeal, Mays raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence presented at trial is sufficient to support the verdict; (2) whether there was a material variance between the indictment and the proof; and (3) whether Mays' two convictions for kidnapping constitute double jeopardy. After review, we find Mays' multiple convictions for kidnapping violate double jeopardy principles. Accordingly, one count of kidnapping is dismissed. In all other respects, the remaining judgments of conviction are affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. George Langford
The Defendant, George Langford, was convicted of first degree felony murder, aggravated burglary, aggravated assault, and reckless endangerment. He was sentenced to life without the possibility for parole for the murder and to concurrent sentences of four, five, and two years for the other crimes respectively. The Defendant appealed his convictions and this Court affirmed the convictions and the sentences. Our supreme court granted the Defendant's application for appeal and also affirmed his convictions and sentences. The Defendant then filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court dismissed the petition. The Defendant now appeals to this Court alleging that the trial court erred in denying him relief. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Roosevelt Fleming, aka "Woo"
The defendant was convicted of three counts of delivery of .5 grams or more of cocaine, a Schedule II controlled substance, and one count of simple possession of cocaine. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of twenty-six years. On appeal, the defendant argues that his sentences were excessive and the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentencing. After a careful review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court but remand for entry of corrected judgments in Counts 2 and 3. |
Tipton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Anthony Richardson
Petitioner, Anthony Richardson, was convicted of first-degree murder in the Shelby County Criminal Court. This Court affirmed the conviction on direct appeal. See State v. Richardson, 995 S.W.2d 119 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998). Petitioner filed a petition for post conviction relief, which the post-conviction court subsequently denied. Petitioner challenges the denial of his petition, raising the following issues: (1) whether the trial court's comments during a witness' testimony deprived him of his sixth amendment right to a jury trial; (2) whether Petitioner was denied his sixth amendment right to a jury trial when the trial court "forced" counsel to proceed to trial; (3) whether the prosecutor's biblical reference at trial constituted reversible error; and (4) whether there was a conflict of interest when the same judge presided at both his trial and post-conviction hearing. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James P. Stout
On March 12, 1996, the petitioner, James P. Stout, was convicted by a jury in the Shelby County Criminal Court of one count of especially aggravated robbery and was sentenced to forty years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The petitioner elected not to pursue a direct appeal of his conviction and instead filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging the ineffective assistance of his trial counsel. The post-conviction court denied the petition, and the petitioner now appeals this ruling. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Hugh Peter Bondurant and Kenneth Patterson Bondurant v. Ricky Bell, Warden, et al.
The petitioners, Hugh Peter Bondurant and Kenneth Patterson Bondurant, appeal the summary dismissals of their petitions for habeas corpus relief. In this appeal of right, each alleges that his sentence was illegally imposed. Because the judgments are facially valid, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Thomas L. Condra
The defendant, who was charged with vehicular homicide and failure to yield right of way, filed a petition for writ of certiorari to review district attorney's denial of pretrial diversion. The trial court found that district attorney general did not abuse his discretion in denying pretrial diversion. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sequatchie | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Roland G. Ransom
Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, the defendant pled guilty to facilitation of the sale of cocaine greater than 0.5 grams for an agreed sentence of four years, with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court denied alternative sentencing. In this appeal, the defendant challenges the denial of alternative sentencing. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Edward Arnold Rivera
The Defendant, Edward Arnold Rivera, was indicted by a Hardin County grand jury on two counts of official misconduct, each a felony, and one count of misdemeanor theft. The Defendant submitted an application for pre-trial diversion which was denied by the District Attorney General. The Defendant filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the Hardin County Circuit Court pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 38 for review of the denial of pre-trial diversion. The Circuit Court found no abuse of discretion, denied the petition, and granted the Defendant leave to seek an interlocutory appeal to this Court pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 9(a). The Defendant contends on appeal that (1) the District Attorney General abused his discretion in denying pre-trial diversion and (2) the record does not support the denial. This Court granted the Defendant's application, and we now affirm the Circuit Court's denial of the petition. |
Hardin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William Ray Collier
The Defendant, William Ray Collier, was convicted by a jury of two counts of possessing heroin with intent to sell or deliver within one thousand feet of a school, one count of possessing heroin with intent to sell or deliver, and three counts of driving on a suspended license. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective term of seventy-one years. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant raises three issues: whether the trial court erred in admitting certain expert testimony; whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain his convictions; and whether his sentence is excessive. Finding no merit in any of the Defendant's contentions, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Bikrev
The Defendant, Michael Bikrev, was convicted of theft of property over $1,000.00 by a Williamson County jury. After a sentencing hearing, the Defendant was sentenced as a Range I standard offender to three years in the Department of Correction. The trial court suspended the sentence conditioned upon the Defendant serving one year in the Williamson County jail and completing four years of probation. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction, (2) the State did not prove venue, (3) the trial court erred in admitting evidence of a tacit admission made by the Defendant, and (4) the trial court erred in sentencing the Defendant. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Amos L. Brown
In May 1999, a McMinn County jury found the Defendant guilty of the felony murder of one victim and of the criminally negligent homicide of a second victim. The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I standard offender to concurrent sentences of life in prison for the felony murder conviction and two years incarceration for the criminally negligent homicide conviction. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant presents the following issues for our review: (1) whether sufficient evidence was presented at trial to support his conviction for felony murder; (2) whether the trial court erred by refusing to order the State to reveal the identity of a confidential informant; (3) whether the trial court erred by allowing the Defendant's co-defendant to testify against him at trial; (4) whether the trial court erred by allowing the jury to view a video tape of the Defendant's arrest; (5) whether the trial court allowed the jury to hear inadmissible hearsay testimony; (6) whether the trial court erred by allowing into evidence the entire written statement of the co-defendant; (7) whether the Defendant was denied a fair trial as a result of the State's failure to disclose exculpatory information; and (8) whether the trial court erred by denying the Defendant's motion requesting individual voir dire of the potential jurors concerning pretrial publicity. Finding no error by the trial court, we affirm the Defendant's convictions. |
McMinn | Court of Criminal Appeals |
