State vs. Terrence Jackson W2001-01001-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: Roy B. Morgan, Jr.
The defendant appeals the revocation of his probation and reinstatement of his original six-year sentence for aggravated assault. The trial court found the defendant violated the terms of his probation by failing to verify employment, failing to exhibit conduct consistent with good citizenship, and failing to comply with curfew requirements; thus, it revoked his probation. We affirm.
State vs. Clarence Weaver E1999-02005-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Trial Court Judge: Richard R. Baumgartner
This appeal arises from the sentence that the defendant received after pleading guilty to aggravated burglary. He challenges the trial court's application of one of the four enhancement factors found, refusal to apply three mitigating factors, and refusal to place him in the Community Alternatives to Prison Program (CAPP). Based upon our review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Knox
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Letivias Prince M1998-00005-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry Smith
Trial Court Judge: Robert W. Wedemeyer
The defendant, Letivias Prince, was convicted of first degree murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal, the defendant argues that the jury pool did not adequately represent the racial makeup of the community; that pre-trial publicity deprived him of a fair trial; that the trial court erred by permitting eight peremptory challenges in jury selection; that the trial court erred by allowing the state to either call a rebuttal witness or receive a missing witness instruction; that the trial court erred by instructing the jury regarding the order of consideration of offenses; and that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Montgomery
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Reggie Jones W1999-00898-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: William B. Acree
The defendant was found guilty of aggravated robbery, theft over $10,000 and felonious escape. The trial court merged the theft conviction into the aggravated robbery conviction. Defendant received a ten-year sentence for aggravated robbery and a consecutive one-year sentence for felonious escape. The defendant raises the following issues for review: (1) whether the defendant's prosecution in Haywood County for aggravated robbery, following an acquittal for the same offense in federal court, violated double jeopardy; (2) whether the trial court erred in failing to grant a new trial when it was discovered that a juror had a prior felony conviction; and (3) whether the defendant was improperly convicted of both aggravated robbery and the lesser-included offense of theft. Upon a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Haywood
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Lee Townes W1999-01126-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge J. Curwood Witt, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Julian P. Guinn
The trial court dismissed the petitioner's post-conviction relief petition, based upon its findings that trial counsel rendered effective assistance and that the other grounds for relief had been waived or previously determined. On appeal, the record supports the trial court's judgment, and we affirm.
Carroll
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Derrick Williams W1999-01231-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Trial Court Judge: Dick Jerman, Jr.
This appeal arises from the defendant's challenge to his sentence of twelve years plus a $10,000 fine for vehicular homicide, four years for reckless aggravated assault, one year for leaving the scene of an accident, and eleven months and twenty-nine days plus a $350 fine for driving under the influence. The sentences are to be served concurrently. The defendant disputes the trial court's application of three of four enhancement factors and refusal to apply a mitigating factor in reaching the sentence. Based upon our review, we affirm the convictions for vehicular homicide, reckless aggravated assault, and leaving the scene of an accident, and reverse and dismiss the conviction for driving under the influence, this offense being merged into the conviction for vehicular homicide. Additionally, we conclude that the trial court incorrectly applied certain enhancement factors. According, we reduce the sentence for vehicular homicide to ten years and the sentence for reckless aggravated assault to three years. All sentences are to be served concurrently, as ordered by the trial court.
State vs. James Snider W1999-01849-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Trial Court Judge: Roy B. Morgan, Jr.
The defendant was found guilty of rape of a child and aggravated sexual battery. He appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support a guilty verdict and that the trial court erred in allowing the victim's mother to testify to hearsay statements made by the victim, in prohibiting the defendant from questioning the victim's mother about sexual abuse in her childhood, and in sentencing the defendant in an excessive manner on the rape conviction. We conclude that these issues are without merit and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Madison
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Dana Louise Solomon E1999-01108-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: Mary Beth Leibowitz
The appellant, Dana Louise Solomon, was convicted by a jury in the Knox County Criminal Court of first degree murder and received a sentence of life imprisonment in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, she raises several issues for our review. However, because the appellant failed to timely file her motion for new trial, she has waived all issues with the exception of her challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence underlying her conviction. Moreover, the appellant failed to timely file her notice of appeal. Nevertheless, in the interest of justice, we address the sufficiency of the evidence. Upon a review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Knox
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Jesse Ross Tolbert E1999-02326-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas T. Woodall
Trial Court Judge: E. Eugene Eblen
Defendant appeals as of right from his conviction of aggravated assault. At trial the trial judge did not let defense counsel question the sole prosecution witness about the witness' guilty plea to extortion and subsequent judicial diversion. The court did allow questioning regarding the facts underlying the witness' prosecution. Defendant now alleges that this evidentiary ruling violated his rights under the confrontation clauses of the United States and Tennessee Constitutions. We hold that the trial court erred. Under Tennessee Rule of Evidence 608 defense counsel should have been allowed to question the witness regarding the guilty plea and judicial diversion. However, we conclude that the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. We thus affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Roane
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Joe W. Steward M1999-01284-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Gary R Wade
Trial Court Judge: Cornelia A. Clark
Because the defendant, Joe W. Steward, was lawfully stopped at a traffic enforcement roadblock, his conviction for driving under the influence, second offense, is affirmed. The issue reserved on appeal by the defendant does not warrant suppression of the evidence.
Lewis
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Gerald W. McCullough M1999-01525-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Gary R Wade
Trial Court Judge: William Charles Lee
The defendant, Gerald W. McCullough, was convicted of aggravated sexual battery. The trial court imposed a twelve-year sentence. In this appeal of right, the defendant contends that the trial court erred by allowing proof of more than one instance of sexual misconduct and by imposing an excessive sentence. Because the sentence was not excessive, and because the defendant waived the issue of the admissibility of uncharged sex crimes, the judgment is affirmed.
Bedford
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Ricky Lee Cook M2000-00178-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Cornelia A. Clark
Trial Court Judge: Jane W. Wheatcraft
Defendant appeals the revocation of his probation and reinstatement of a portion of his original sentence. The defendant plead guilty to possession of drug paraphernalia, and received a sentence of eleven (11) months, twenty-nine (29) days, which was completely suspended after the service of forty-eight (48) hours. After a revocation hearing, the trial court revoked defendant's probation and required him to serve a portion of his sentence. Concluding that the defendant violated at least four specific terms of his probation, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Sumner
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. William M. Hukowicz M1999-00073-CCA-R9-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry Smith
Trial Court Judge: J. O. Bond
Following a suppression hearing, the Wilson County Criminal Court, J.O. Bond, J., ordered certain portions of the defendant's statement given to police suppressed, holding that the defendant had exercised his right to remain silent. The state filed an interlocutory appeal. The Court holds that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court's finding that the defendant's refusal to answer other questions by stating "no comment" or a similar declaration was a proper assertion of the defendant's right to remain silent. However, the trial court should have suppressed the entire statement given following the defendant's assertion of his right to remain silent. Remanded.
Wilson
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Timothy C. Hutson M1999-00329-CCA-R9-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Trial Court Judge: Steve R. Dozier
This appeal arises from the order of the Davidson County Criminal Court upholding the district attorney general's refusal to accept the application of the defendant, Timothy C. Hutson, for pretrial diversion. The defendant asserts that the trial court erred in failing to determine that the district attorney general abused his discretion by relying on facts not supported by the evidence and by failing to consider all relevant factors. We conclude that substantial evidence was before the district attorney general to support the validity of each factor relied on in denying pretrial diversion and that there was substantial evidence to show that the district attorney general considered all relevant factors. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Davidson
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. William Dozier W1999-00243-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Trial Court Judge: William B. Acree
The defendant entered guilty pleas to three charges of sale of more than .5 grams of cocaine. The trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range I, standard offender to eight years in the Tennessee Department of Correction on each charge. The court ordered that the sentences be served concurrently for an effective sentence of eight years and fined the defendant $2,000. In this appeal as of right, the defendant challenges the sentence imposed by the trial court, arguing that the court erred by denying him an alternative method of punishment. We conclude that the trial court considered all relevant factors needed to reach an appropriate sentence and that its findings are adequately supported by the record. The defendant has failed to meet his burden of showing that the sentence was improper, and, accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
State vs. Wayne Michael Fuller E1999-01676-CCA-R3-CD
Trial Court Judge: Ray L. Jenkins
The defendant appeals from his sentence imposed for seven counts of statutory rape, a Class E felony, in the Knox County Criminal Court. The trial court imposed a sentence of two years for each count to be served in the Department of Correction. The trial court imposed consecutive sentencing on five counts and concurrent sentencing was imposed on two counts, for an effective sentence of ten years. In this direct appeal, the defendant challenges the length of the sentence and consecutive sentencing. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Knox
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Jerry W. Yancey, Jr. M1999-02131-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Sr. Judge L. Terry Lafferty
Trial Court Judge: Timothy L. Easter
The appellant/defendant, Jerry W. Yancey, Jr., was convicted by the Williamson County Jury on four counts, two counts of aggravated assault and two counts of felony reckless endangerment. In count five, the defendant was found not guilty of felony reckless endangerment. Upon the defendant's conviction for aggravated assault, the trial court imposed sentences of three and one-half (3-_) years in the Department of Correction. However, the trial court placed the defendant on probation for four (4) years with certain special conditions, mainly that the defendant serve sixty (60) days, day for day, in the Williamson County Jail. In his appeal, the defendant challenges: (1) Whether the trial court erred in finding that the District Attorney General did not abuse his discretion in denying the defendant pre-trial diversion?; and (2) Whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant full probation? Upon our review of the entire record, we find no reversible error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Williamson
Court of Criminal Appeals
Thomas H. Caffey vs. Kevin Myers, Warden M2000-00200-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Sr. Judge L. Terry Lafferty
Trial Court Judge: Jim T. Hamilton
Petitioner challenges the trial court's summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner was convicted in Davidson County in 1985 of two counts of armed robbery and felonious use of a motor vehicle. He was sentenced to two terms of life imprisonment and an additional four years, to be served consecutively to one another and consecutively to a prior Oklahoma sentence. Petitioner does not challenge the legality of the convictions underlying his current sentences, but rather asserts that equitable estoppel and a due process violation mandate that he not be required to serve his Tennessee sentences. Upon our review of the record, we affirm the dismissal of the petition for writ of habeas corpus.
Wayne
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Arnold K. Ward M1999-00357-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Sr. Judge L. Terry Lafferty
Trial Court Judge: Timothy L. Easter
The appellant/defendant, Arnold K. Ward, Jr., appeals as of right from a judgment of conviction and sentencing imposed by the Williamson County Circuit Court. Upon jury conviction for attempted murder second degree and assault, the trial court imposed sentences of eleven (11) years for attempted murder second degree and eleven (11) months and twenty-nine (29) days for assault. The trial court ordered the sentences to be served concurrently. In his appellate issues, the defendant asserts that: (1) the indictment for count one is defective; (2) the defendant was denied his right to compulsory process; (3) extra-judicial communication during the trial between a witness and a juror contaminated the proceedings; (4) there was insufficient evidence for which a rational trier of fact could find the defendant guilty; (5) the defendant was convicted of a charge that does not exist under Tennessee law; and (6) the defendant's sentence is excessive. After a review of the entire record, we find the appellate issues without merit and affirm the trial court's judgment.
Williamson
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Elpidio Valdez M1999-00791-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry Smith
Trial Court Judge: J. Randall Wyatt, Jr.
Davidson
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Elpidio Valdez M1999-00791-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry Smith
Trial Court Judge: J. Randall Wyatt, Jr.
Davidson
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Ronald Fielding M2003-01055-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: Cheryl A. Blackburn
The Defendant, Ronald Fielding, pled guilty to three counts of rape of a child, one count of rape of an incapacitated victim and two counts of aggravated sexual battery. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of fifty years in prison to be served at 100 percent. On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the trial court improperly weighed the enhancement and mitigating factors; (2) the trial court abused its discretion by ordering that his sentences run consecutively; and (3) his sentence is excessive. Finding no error, we affirm the trial court's judgments.
