King David Johnson v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, King David Johnson, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The issue presented for review is whether the petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial. The judgment is affirmed. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Kelvin A. Taylor v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant, Kelvin A. Taylor, appeals from the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief by the Weakley County Circuit Court. Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, Taylor entered a "best interest" plea to class D felony child abuse, and was sentenced to six years in the Department of Correction as a range II offender. In this collateral attack of his conviction, Taylor presents two issues for our review: (1) whether the general sessions court's revocation of his bond without a hearing and the resulting confinement prior to indictment violated double jeopardy and due process rights; and (2) whether trial counsel was ineffective. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Weakley | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Terry A. Rogier
The appellant, Terry A. Rogier, by means of an interlocutory appeal seeks review of the trial court's decision affirming the district attorney general's denial of pre-trial diversion. Rogier was indicted by a Madison County Grand Jury for the offenses of reckless endangerment, a class E felony, and reckless driving, a class B misdemeanor. After review, we find that the prosecutor failed to consider all the relevant factors in denying diversion. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's finding that the prosecutor did not abuse his discretion and remand to the trial court for further proceedings. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Sandra Brown
The defendant appeals the judgment of the trial court revoking her probation. She raises two issues: (1) whether the evidence supported the trial court's finding that she violated the terms of her probation by committing the offense of accessory after the fact; and (2) whether the trial court had the authority to order her to continue her supervised probation pending this appeal. After a thorough review of the record, we find both issues have merit; therefore, we reverse the judgment of the trial court. |
White | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Morris Jason Pepper
The appellant, Morris Jason Pepper, was convicted by a jury in the Lincoln County Circuit Court of one count of first degree premeditated murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal, the appellant raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain his conviction; and (2) whether the trial court erred by failing to grant the appellant's motion to suppress. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Lincoln | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. David D. Harris
The State appeals the judgment of the Davidson County Criminal Court suspending the appellee's sentences for aggravated robbery and granting the appellee probation for a term of twenty-four years. Following a review of the record and the State's brief, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this case for proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Janet Lawson
The defendant pled guilty to one count of theft over $1,000.00 and the trial court sentenced her as a Range I standard offender to three years probation. The defendant appeals from the revocation of her probation, contending that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering her to serve the remainder of her sentence in confinement. Because we conclude that the record supports that trial court's decision to revoke the defendant's probation, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Cumberland | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Charles R. Francis
In an indictment returned by the Morgan County Grand Jury, defendant, Charles R. Francis, was charged with fourth offense DUI. Count 1 of the indictment alleged that the triggering offense of DUI occurred on December 10, 1998. Count 2 of the indictment alleged that he had previously been convicted of DUI on three separate occasions in Morgan County, Tennessee. The defendant entered a "blind plea" to DUI, fourth offense, and sentencing was submitted to the trial court for a later hearing. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court ruled that defendant was convicted of the Class E felony of DUI, fourth offense, ordered a sentence of two (2) years, with service by split confinement of 150 days in the county jail, and the balance of the sentence to be served in the Community Corrections program. Asserting that he should have been sentenced for commission of a Class A misdemeanor DUI, fourth offense, rather than a Class E felony, defendant has appealed. The original judgment entered by the trial court reflected conviction of a Class A misdemeanor, but the judgment was later amended to reflect conviction of a Class E felony, in accord with the trial court's ruling at the conclusion of the sentencing hearing. We affirm the amended judgment of the trial court. |
Morgan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Scott Ray Anderson
The defendant appeals the judgment entered by the Circuit Court of Blount County revoking his community corrections sentence. The sole issue on appeal is whether the court abused its discretion in ordering the defendant to serve the remainder of his sentence in the penitentiary. After careful review, we affirm the trial court's judgment. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ronnie D. Denson
he defendant pled guilty to aggravated assault with an agreed four-year sentence, and the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. The trial court denied the defendant any alternative sentence and ordered that the defendant serve his sentence in the Department of Correction. The defendant appeals the trial court's judgment denying him an alternative sentence. After review, we affirm the trial court's judgment. |
Cheatham | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Robert G. Bean
The appellant, Robert G. Bean, challenges his conviction in the Williamson County Circuit Court of one count of driving under the influence of an intoxicant (DUI), third offense. He presents the following issues for our determination: (1) whether the trial court erred in denying the appellant's challenge for cause of prospective juror Thelma Woodard; (2) whether the trial court erred in denying the appellant's motion to suppress the State's use at trial of the videotape of the traffic stop of the appellant's vehicle; (3) whether the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on adult driving while impaired as a lesser-included offense of driving under the influence; and (4) whether the trial court erred in using the appellant's 1996 conviction of DUI to enhance the appellant's sentence. Following a thorough review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William A. Tansil
The defendant, William A. Tansil, appeals from his conviction for driving under the influence of an intoxicant (DUI), third offense, for which he received a sentence of eleven months, twenty-nine days, with all but one hundred fifty days being suspended. He contends that the trial court erred in finding him to be a third-time offender, arguing that the judgment for one of his prior convictions is void on its face. We affirm the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Daniel Paul Batchelor
Following a bench trial, the defendant was convicted of hindering a secured creditor, a Class E felony. On appeal, the defendant alleges that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction. After a careful review of the record, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient and affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Bradley | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Robert Morrow
The defendant entered a best-interest guilty plea in the Cocke County Criminal Court to one count of especially aggravated kidnapping, two counts of aggravated rape, and one count of criminal exposure to HIV. The trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range I standard offender to six years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction for the criminal exposure to HIV conviction, as a violent offender to 24 years incarceration for the especially aggravated kidnapping conviction, as a violent offender to 24 years incarceration for one of the aggravated rape convictions, and as a multiple rapist to 24 years incarceration for the other aggravated rape conviction. The trial court ordered consecutive service of the sentences for an effective sentence of 78 years incarceration. On appeal, the defendant takes issue with the length of the sentences and the consecutive service imposed. Based upon our review, we affirm the sentences imposed. |
Cocke | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Roger Wayne Braden v. State of Tennessee
On April 29, 1999, the petitioner's status on community corrections was revoked and he was resentenced. On May 15, 2000, he filed a pro se post-conviction relief petition. The issue is whether the petition is time-barred by the Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-30-202. Because the revocation and resentencing became final thirty days after its entry, which was May 29, 1999, as the State concedes, and we agree, the petition was timely filed. We reverse the summary dismissal of the petition and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tracy Gober
The issue is how to compute the number of prior offenses available for consideration in determining multiple offender status pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-10-403(a)(3). We conclude to compute the number of prior convictions available for consideration, the court must first determine whether the defendant has any prior convictions occurring within ten years of the date of the instant conviction. If so, all prior convictions shall be counted occurring within twenty years of the date of the instant conviction provided no period greater than ten years has elapsed between any two preceding prior convictions. An example is contained in the opinion. We reverse the trial court’s order amending the indictment to charge third offense and reinstate the original indictment charging ninth offense driving under the influence. |
Bradley | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Paul H. Clever
The defendant pled guilty to driving under the influence and was sentenced as a multiple offender. In this appeal as of right, the defendant alleges that (1) the trial court erred in finding that he was a third offender for purposes of sentencing, and (2) the DUI sentencing statute is unconstitutional because it is vague and has an ex post facto effect. After careful review, we affirm the defendant's conviction and sentence. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Karl Hamilton, a.k.a. R. Prewitt v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner appeals the order of the Shelby County Criminal Court dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief. Following an evidentiary hearing, the court held that the petition was time-barred by the statute of limitations. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the petition was filed timely, and reverse the decision of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Doney D. Miles
The defendant appeals his conviction for aggravated robbery and sentence of eight years and six months, arguing: (1) there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction; (2) the trial court erred in allowing hearsay into evidence under the excited utterance exception; (3) the trial court erroneously failed to charge the jury on lesser-included offenses; and (4) his sentence is excessive. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Quincy Bledsoe v. State of Tennessee
The appellant, Quincy Bledsoe, appeals from the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief by the Fayette County Circuit Court. In 1997, Bledsoe pled guilty to aggravated kidnapping and attempted felony escape and received an effective nine-year Department of Correction sentence as a violent offender. On appeal, Bledsoe seeks to set aside his convictions upon grounds that his pleas were "based upon an uncounseled statement that was not knowingly and voluntarily given." Finding this issue without merit, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed. |
Fayette | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Marcus J. Turco
This is an appeal by the State of Tennessee from an order granting the defendant judicial diversion for the offense of sexual battery. This order was the result of a Tenn. R. Crim. P. 35 motion to reduce a previously ordered sentence of one year in the county jail with all time suspended and supervised probation for one year. Although the Tenn. R. Crim. P. 35 motion was timely filed, the trial court did not act upon the motion until after the original probated sentence had been fully served and expired. Two issues of first impression are presented in this appeal. We conclude that (1) judicial diversion is not a “sentence” and, therefore, may not be granted as Rule 35 relief; and (2) a trial court may not modify a sentence under Rule 35 after the sentence has been fully served and expired. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Marcus J. Turco - Concurring
I join with the majority in concluding that the trial court was without authority to modify the defendant’s sentence after the sentence had expired. I write separately because I also find that the trial court was without authority to grant judicial diversion in this case even if the sentence had not expired. Absent appropriate legislation, the trial court is without authority to invent its own sentencing programs. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Eric Terrell Glover
In July of 1999, a Fayette County Grand Jury indicted the appellant, Eric Terrell Glover, for the following offenses: (1) first-degree premeditated murder; (2) first-degree felony murder; (3) especially aggravated kidnapping; and (4) especially aggravated robbery. Following a jury trial, Glover was convicted on all charges and, in accordance with the jury's verdict, was sentenced to life imprisonment for first-degree premeditated murder. For his convictions of especially aggravated kidnapping and especially aggravated robbery, Glover was sentenced, as a violent offender, to concurrent twenty year sentences on each charge, with these sentences running concurrently to his life sentence. On appeal, Glover challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions as a principal offender under a theory of criminal responsibility for the conduct of another. He argues that the proof, at best, supports only the subordinate criminal responsibility of "facilitating." After review, we find no error and affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Fayette | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jon Robert Goodale
The defendant, Jon Goodale, was convicted of first degree premeditated murder, felony murder, and especially aggravated robbery in the Criminal Court of Davidson County. The first conviction was merged into the felony murder conviction and the defendant was sentenced to life. The trial court then conducted a sentencing hearing and imposed a twenty-five year sentence for the especially aggravated robbery to be served consecutive to the life sentence. In his appeal as of right pursuant to Rule 3(b) of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, the defendant argues that (1) the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his convictions, (2) the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury concerning accessory after the fact as a lesser-included offense to all charges, and (3) the sentence imposed by the trial court is excessive. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Adrian S. Lennox
The defendant, Adrian S. Lennox, was convicted by a jury of aggravated burglary, vandalism, felony evading arrest and driving on a revoked license. The defendant was then sentenced as a Range II offender to nine years on the aggravated burglary conviction, three years on the vandalism conviction, five years on the felony evading arrest conviction, and six months on the conviction for driving on a revoked license. The trial court ordered that the aggravated burglary and the felony evading sentences run consecutively. On appeal, the defendant argues that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support the defendant's convictions, (2) the trial court improperly denied the defendant's motion for the preparation of trial transcripts prior to his motion for new trial hearing, and (3) the trial court improperly sentenced the defendant. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals |
