Frederick E. Braxton v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Frederick E. Braxton, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for a writ of error coram nobis from his attempted second degree murder conviction, for which he received a nineteen-year sentence. The Petitioner contends that the court erred by denying relief. We affirm the judgment of the coram nobis court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Rebecca Doles
The Defendant-Appellant, Rebecca Doles, appeals from the revocation of supervised probation by the Hardeman County Circuit Court. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking the Defendant’s probation and ordering her to serve the balance of her sentence in confinement. Upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Terry Craighead and Sinead St.Omer
The State appeals the trial court’s order dismissing the charges against the Defendants, Terry Craighead and Sinead St. Omer, for two counts of felony murder, aggravated child abuse, and aggravated child neglect. The trial court found that the State failed to collect and preserve certain evidence in accordance with the mandates of State v. Ferguson, 2 S.W.3d 912 (Tenn. 1999). We conclude that the State’s failure to collect evidence did not result in a Ferguson violation and that the trial court erred in dismissing the charges. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s judgments, reinstate the indictment, and remand for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Angela Buchanan
Defendant, Angela Buchanan, was indicted by the Rutherford County Grand Jury for felony murder, aggravated child abuse, and aggravated child neglect in December of 2014. A superseding indictment, issued in August of 2016, eliminated the charge of aggravated child abuse from the indictment. Following a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of criminally negligent homicide as a lesser-included offense of felony murder and aggravated child neglect. Defendant received an effective sentence of twenty-two years for the convictions. After the denial of a motion for new trial, Defendant presents the following issues to this Court on appeal: (1) whether the trial court erred by refusing to grant a mistrial after a comment made by the prosecutor prior to jury selection; (2) whether the trial court erred by refusing to grant a mistrial after informing the jury that Defendant was charged with aggravated child abuse; (3) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; and (4) whether the trial court properly sentenced Defendant. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John Orise Adams, III
The Defendant, John Orise Adams III, was convicted by a jury of one count of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-402. The trial court then imposed an eight-year sentence. On appeal, the Defendant contends (1) that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the Defendant’s conviction; (2) that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of the Defendant’s drug use; (3) that the trial court erred in allowing a witness to testify that the Defendant was “aware” of certain events prior to the robbery because the witness could not have had personal knowledge of what the Defendant was “aware” of; and (4) that the cumulative effect of these errors denied the Defendant a fair trial. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Putnam | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jarvis Gray aka Prophet Gray
A Shelby County jury convicted the Defendant, Jarvis Gray, of rape of a child and aggravated sexual battery, and the trial court sentenced him to fifty-two years to be served in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it: did not allow his expert witness to testify; limited his cross-examination of the victim; and admitted into evidence statements from a rape crisis report. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Eddie Harris
The Defendant-Appellant, Eddie Harris, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of first degree premeditated murder (counts 1 and 2), first degree murder in perpetration of robbery (counts 3 and 4), and felon in possession of a handgun (count 5), for which he received an effective sentence of life plus twelve years. See T.C.A. §39-13-202 and §39-17-1307 (2014). In this direct appeal, the Defendant argues that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions of first degree premeditated murder and first degree felony murder and (2) the trial court erred in allowing inadmissible hearsay. Upon our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Shannon Haney
Shannon Haney, Defendant, was convicted of sexual battery. The trial court sentenced him, as a career offender, to six years in the Tennessee Department of Correction with release eligibility after service of sixty percent of the sentence. On appeal, Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient for a rational juror to have found him guilty of sexual battery beyond a reasonable doubt. He also asserts that the trial court erred by denying his motion to strike an exhibit from the record that was not moved into evidence by the State. After a thorough review of the record and applicable case law, we affirm. |
Cocke | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Matthew Edwards
Defendant, Matthew Edwards, was convicted of two counts of cruelty to animals against a pony and a dog. The trial court sentenced Defendant to an effective sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days. On appeal, Defendant argues that: (1) the evidence was insufficient for a rational juror to have found him guilty of two counts of cruelty to animals beyond a reasonable doubt, and (2) the trial court erred in allowing the State to admit evidence of Defendant’s prior statutory rape conviction. After a thorough review of the facts and applicable case law, we affirm. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Martez Dante Smith
Martez Dante Smith, Defendant, pled guilty to two counts of robbery in case 109738 and to one count each of aggravated robbery, robbery, and possession of a weapon after being convicted of a felony drug offense in case 109776. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Defendant as a Range II multiple offender to consecutive terms of eight years in case 109738 and fourteen years in case 109776. On appeal, Defendant claims that the trial court erred in finding that he had no hesitation in committing a crime when the risk to human life was high, erred in finding him to be a dangerous offender, and erred by ordering the sentences to be served consecutively. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jameel Davis
The Appellant, Jameel Davis, pled guilty in the Dyer County Circuit Court to conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery, a Class C felony, and received an eight-year sentence. Pursuant to the plea agreement, he was released from jail and placed on supervised probation for seven years, three months. On appeal, the Appellant contends that the trial court erred by revoking his probation and ordering that he serve his sentence in confinement. Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Tamaine Works v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Tamaine Works, appeals summary dismissal of his petition for relief under the Post-Conviction DNA Analysis Act, his motion under Rule 60.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, and his petition for writ of error coram nobis. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Lisa M. Chibbaro
Defendant, Lisa M. Chibbaro, appeals from the entry of an order denying her motion for modification of sentence pursuant to Rule 35 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure. Following guilty pleas on May 8, 2017, Defendant was convicted of aggravated vehicular assault, two counts of aggravated assault, and driving under the influence of an intoxicant (“DUI”). Following a sentencing hearing conducted immediately after the entry of Defendant’s guilty pleas, the trial court imposed a total effective sentence of ten years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. In denying Defendant’s motion, the trial court found that there had not been a substantial and/or material change in circumstances since Defendant’s guilty pleas that would allow a change of the sentence as previously imposed. Following our review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Cody Darand Marks
Defendant, Cody Darand Marks, was convicted of one count of .5 grams or more of cocaine within 1000 feet of a school zone and was sentenced as a Range II offender to fifteen years of incarceration with mandatory minimum service of twelve years at 100%. On appeal, Defendant argues the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction because the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the amount of cocaine that was exchanged within the drug free zone as opposed to the amount that was exchanged earlier at a separate location. Based on his same argument regarding the weight of the cocaine, Defendant additionally argues that the trial court erred by failing to grant his motion for judgment of acquittal, erred by failing to overturn the verdict as thirteenth juror, and erred by failing to provide an enhanced unanimity instruction to the jury. Upon our review of the record and applicable authorities, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Giles | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Mardoche Olivier
The Defendant, Mardoche Olivier, was convicted by a jury of driving on a suspended license in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-50-104. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to six months of incarceration to be served concurrently with a pre-existing sentence. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the evidence presented at trial is insufficient to support the jury’s verdict. After a review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kristen L. Van De Gejuchte
Defendant, Kristen L. Van De Gejuchte, appeals her conviction for driving under the influence. In her appeal, she contends that the evidence is insufficient to support her conviction and that the trial court erred by denying her motion to suppress. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support her conviction and that the trial court did not err. Therefore, we affirm the judgments of the trial court but remand for entry of a corrected judgment document for Count One reflecting its merger with Count Two. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Rodney Alan Kiefner
The Defendant, Rodney Alan Kiefner, appeals from the Madison County Circuit Court’s denial of his Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(f) motion to withdraw his 2017 guilty pleas to attempted first degree murder and two counts of aggravated assault, for which he is serving an effective fifteen-year sentence. The Petitioner contends that the trial court erred by denying his motion because his guilty pleas were involuntary and because he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Rodney Alan Kiefner
The Defendant, Rodney Alan Kiefner, appeals from the Madison County Circuit Court’s denial of his Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(f) motion to withdraw his 2017 guilty pleas to attempted first degree murder and two counts of aggravated assault, for which he is serving an effective fifteen-year sentence. The Petitioner contends that the trial court erred by denying his motion because his guilty pleas were involuntary and because he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jerry Wade Sherrill
The Defendant, Jerry Wade Sherrill, was convicted by a Wayne County Circuit Court jury of two counts of rape, Class B felonies, and two counts of incest, Class C felonies. See T.C.A. §§39-13-503 (2014) (rape), 39-15-302 (2014) (incest). The trial court sentenced the Defendant to five years for the incest convictions and to eight years for the rape convictions, with all sentences to be served concurrently. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions, (2) the trial court erred in denying his claim pursuant to Brady v. Maryland based upon the State’s failure to disclose alleged incentives offered to the codefendant, (3) the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss pursuant to State v. Ferguson based upon lost evidence, (4) the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss based upon alleged prosecutorial misconduct, and (5) he is entitled to a new trial due to cumulative errors in the conviction proceedings. The State raises an additional allegation of error based upon the trial court’s reduction of the Defendant’s rape sentences from ten to eight years. We affirm the incest judgments and the rape convictions, but we remand for entry of amended judgments for the rape convictions. |
Wayne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James Allen Pollard v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, James Allen Pollard, appeals the post-conviction court’s dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. After thorough review, we affirm the dismissal of the petition. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Steve M. Jarman
The Defendant, Steve M. Jarman, was convicted by a jury of voluntary manslaughter and received a sentence of five years to be served in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant challenges: (1) the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction; (2) the admission of evidence of a prior assault charge for which the Defendant was acquitted and of prior threats against the victim’s sister; (3) the admission of evidence of the Defendant’s attempt to cash a check made out to the victim after the victim’s death; (4) the admission of the victim’s testimony in a prior trial as violating the Confrontation Clause; (5) and his five-year sentence to be served in confinement. We conclude that the trial court committed reversible error in admitting evidence of a prior criminal offense for which the Defendant was acquitted and evidence of the Defendant’s prior threats against the victim’s sister. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for a new trial. |
Dickson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Steve M. Jarman - concurring Opinion
I join in the majority's disposition of this case. I write separately because it is my view that the references to passion and provocation by their very nature express neither elements of voluntary manslaughter that the State is required to prove nor an absolute defense; instead, they are a type of built-in mitigation to a knowing or intentional killing. |
Dickson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jeremy Arthur Kimble
The Defendant, Jeremy Arthur Kimble, received an effective thirty-five-year sentence for his guilty-pleaded convictions to four counts of rape of a child, two counts of rape, and one count of continuous sexual abuse of a child. The Defendant appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in enhancing his sentencing terms for his rape of a child convictions above the minimum in the range. The Defendant contends that the trial court improperly applied certain enhancement factors and failed to apply a pertinent mitigating factor. Following our review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court given that the Defendant held and violated a position of trust as the victim’s step-father, that the offenses were committed to gratify the Defendant’s desire for pleasure or excitement, and that the repeated abuse resulted in an unwanted pregnancy. However, in accordance with this opinion, we remand the case for entry of corrected judgment forms and for additional judgment forms for each count of the indictment. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Robert Wayne Garner v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Robert Wayne Garner, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that the post-conviction court abused its discretion by not allowing one of his witnesses to finish testifying at the evidentiary hearing. After review, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. |
Giles | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Alexander R. Vance and Damonta M. Meneese
The Defendants, Alexander R. Vance and Damonta M. Meneese, were each convicted of second degree murder, first-degree murder in perpetration of a felony, especially aggravated robbery, and three counts of aggravated assault. As to each, the trial court merged the second degree murder conviction into that for first-degree murder, imposing an effective sentence of life imprisonment plus 21 years. In these consolidated appeals, both defendants argue that the trial court erred in allowing hearsay testimony by a State witness regarding a statement made by a co-defendant whose charges had been severed from the two defendants in this matter. Additionally, the Defendant Vance argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions, and the Defendant Meneese argues that the trial court erred by ordering partial consecutive sentencing. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court as to both defendants. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals |
