Daryl Turner vs. State of Tennessee
The appellant, Daryl Turner, appeals the Sumner County Criminal Court’s dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. In 1993, appellant was convicted of selling a Schedule II controlled substance, to wit: cocaine, and was sentenced to twelve (12) years as a Range III persistent offender. His conviction and sentence were affirmed by this Court on direct appeal. See State v. Darrel Tucker1, No. 01-C-01-9310-CR00347 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville, Oct. 6, 1994), per. app. denied (Tenn. 1995). The appellant, thereafter, filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, malicious prosecution, and invalid “reasonable doubt” jury instructions.2 Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court dismissed appellant’s petition upon finding no ground to warrant post-conviction relief. We affirm the judgment of the trial court pursuant to Rule 20 of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Daryl Turner vs. State of Tennessee
The appellant, Daryl Turner, appeals the Sumner County Criminal Court’s dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. In 1993, appellant was convicted of selling a Schedule II controlled substance, to wit: cocaine, and was sentenced to twelve (12) years as a Range III persistent offender. His conviction and sentence were affirmed by this Court on direct appeal. See State v. Darrel Tucker1, No. 01-C-01-9310-CR00347 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville, Oct. 6, 1994), per. app. denied (Tenn. 1995). The appellant, thereafter, filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, malicious prosecution, and invalid “reasonable doubt” jury instructions.2 Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court dismissed appellant’s petition upon finding no ground to warrant post-conviction relief. We affirm the judgment of the trial court pursuant to Rule 20 of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee vs. William F. Hegger
On May 17, 1994, a Davidson County jury found Appellant, William F. Hegger, guilty of driving under the influence of an intoxicant, first offense. The trial court sentenced Appellant as a Range I standard offender to eleven months and twenty-nine d ays incarceration (all but ten days suspended), imposed a two-hundred and fifty dollar fine, ordered Appellant to attend alcohol treatment school, and suspended Appellant’s driver’s license for a period of one year. Appellant was further ordered to perform two hundred hours of public service work. On February 22, 1996, following a hearing upon Appellant’s motion, the trial court modified Appellant’s sentence, waiving the fine and public service work. The trial court found that Appellant had completed his jail time and the one year suspension of his license. Appellant filed a timely notice of app eal, raising several issues, namely: 1) whether the trial court erred in allowing evidence regarding the horizontal gaze nystagmus HGN) test; 2) whether the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of Lt. Louise Kelton; After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial co urt. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Randy Hicks v. State of Tennessee
Randy Hicks appeals the McMinn County Criminal Court's summary dismissal of his "Motion for New Trial Based on Newly Discovered Evidence Rule 22, FRCrP." The lower court considered this "motion" under the law applicable to motions for new trial, petitions for writ of error coram nobis, and petitions for post-conviction relief, found it without merit, and summarily dismissed Hicks's claim without conducting a hearing. Hicks's underlying conviction is for criminal facilitation of first degree murder, for which he is serving a 25 year sentence. State v. Hicks, 835 S.W.2d 32 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1992). In his pro se appellate brief, Hicks never directly attacks the lower court's denial of his "motion," but he does raise several issues relating to the admission of evidence, denial of a severance and the sufficiency of the convicting evidence at his trial. He also filed with his pro se appellate brief a document entitled Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis, in which he alleges that the district attorney knowingly and willfully submitted false evidence in his trial.1 Having painstakingly reviewed the record and Hicks's brief, we affirm the trial court's summary dismissal of the claim. Likewise, we find the petition filed in this court proper for dismissal. |
McMinn | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Manning
|
Bradley | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Garrison
|
Bledsoe | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Trampas Sweeney
|
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
01C01-9512-CR-00414
|
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
01C01-9602-CC-00052
|
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
01C01-9608-CR-00347
|
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Dewayne Cathey
|
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Gabriel Blackman
|
McNairy | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Millsaps
|
Monroe | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Alfonzo Chalmers
|
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Crain
|
Unicoi | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
03C01-9608-CR-00309
|
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Jones
|
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Chad Swatzell vs. State
|
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Robert Bitner
|
Carroll | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Donald Long
|
Henderson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Jeffery Casey
|
Decatur | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Henderson Dellinger &Amp; Gary
|
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. McConnell
|
Hamblen | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Winn
|
Hamblen | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Knoxville News Sentinel vs. Huskey
|
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals |
