State of Tennessee v. Roderick Quatel Bates and Emmett Jones
In this consolidated case, the defendants, Roderick Quatel Bates and Emmett Jones, appeal their convictions of aggravated burglary and first degree murder. Mr. Jones challenges the trial court's admission of a photograph of him provided by the Department of Correction and the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress the out-of-court identification of him as a perpetrator. Both defendants challenge the admission of the audio-recorded statements of two witnesses, the admission of the audio recording of a 9-1-1 call made by a State's witness, and the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Shaun Steven Kidd v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Shaun Steven Kidd, appeals the Hamilton County Criminal Court's summary dismissal of his petition for a writ of error coram nobis. Based upon the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the dismissal of the petition. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Terry Lee Adams
The defendant, Terry Lee Adams, filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, complaining because concurrent, rather than consecutive, sentences were imposed on him in 1996 and 1998. The trial court denied relief, concluding that since he was on probation for the first conviction when the second sentence was imposed, consecutive sentencing was not required. Based upon our review, we affirm the denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. |
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. A.D. Smith, III
Defendant, A.D. Smith III, was arrested for driving under the influence (“DUI”) in Shelby County. Based on his prior conviction for DUI, Defendant was informed that he was subject to a mandatory blood draw under Tennessee's implied consent law. Defendant filed a motion to suppress, arguing that his consent was not freely and voluntarily given. The trial court granted the motion to suppress, and the State filed for an interlocutory appeal. Upon our review of the record, arguments, and authorities, we conclude that the trial court erred in finding that Defendant's consent was not voluntary. Therefore, we reverse the decision of the trial court and remand the case for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. A.D. Smith, III - Dissenting
I respectfully disagree with the conclusions of the majority opinion for two reasons. First, the implied consent law does not satisfy the consent exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. Second, the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court's findings that the defendant did not freely and voluntarily, and without duress or coercion, consent to the blood test. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Quincy Howze
Appellant, Quincy Howze, stands convicted of one count of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony. The trial court sentenced him as a Range II, multiple offender to serve twenty years at 100% release eligibility based on his two prior convictions of the same. Appealing his conviction and sentence, appellant raises three issues: (1) whether the trial court erred in omitting a special jury instruction on identity; (2) whether the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction; and (3) whether the trial court erred in sentencing him to the maximum term allowed by law. Upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the criminal court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Carlos Gonzalez
Appellant, Carlos Gonzalez, stands convicted of one count of second degree murder, three counts of attempted second degree murder, one count of misdemeanor reckless endangerment (a lesser-included offense of attempted second degree murder), three counts of aggravated assault, and three counts of employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. He was acquitted of one count of employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. The trial court sentenced him to an effective sentence of fifty-two years. On appeal, appellant argues that the trial court erred in its admission and exclusion of evidence, that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for second degree murder, and that the trial court erred in its sentencing. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court but remand for correction of the judgment documents. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Anthony H. Dean
The Defendant, Anthony H. Dean, was convicted in 2000 of aggravated rape of a ninety-two-year-old victim and received a forty-year sentence as a violent offender. In 2015, the Defendant allegedly filed a motion pursuant to Tennessee Criminal Procedure Rule 36.1 requesting the correction of the judgment. The trial court summarily dismissed the motion for failure to state a colorable claim. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred by dismissing the motion. We reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for further proceedings. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Victor McMiller v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Victor McMiller, appeals the denial of post-conviction relief from his 2009 Sullivan County Criminal Court jury convictions of the sale and delivery of a Schedule III controlled substance, claiming that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ronald Bennett
Defendant, Ronald Bennett, appeals the summary dismissal of his motion to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1. Because Defendant's sentences have long since expired, he has not asserted a colorable claim for relief. Therefore, we affirm the trial court's decision to summarily dismiss the motion. However, we remand the matter to the trial court for the entry of corrected judgments pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ronald Bennett - concurring
JAMES CURWOOD WITT, JR., J., concurring. I concur in the majority opinion in this case but write separately to pose the question: How may the term “at any time” mean one thing in the text of Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 and yet mean an entirely different thing in the text of Rule 36.1? Compare State v. Adrian R. Brown, ___ S.W.3d ___, ___, No. E2014-00673-SC-R11-CD, slip op. at 12-13 (Tenn. Dec. 2, 2015) (construing the term “at any time” in Rule 36.1 and holding that a Rule 36.1 motion may not be used to attack an expired sentence) with State v. James D. Wooden, ___ S.W.3d ___, ___, No. E2014-01069-SC-R11-CD, slip op. at 11 (Tenn. Dec. 2, 2015) (referencing the use in Rule 36 of the term “at any time” with respect to the correction of clerical errors). In the present case, the court utilizes Rule 36 to correct errors in judgments that imposed sentences which have expired. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Walter H. Webb
Defendant, Walter H. Webb, was convicted by a Wilson County jury of one count of aggravated burglary, one count of aggravated assault, four counts of aggravated domestic assault, one count of employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, and one count of aggravated cruelty to animals. The trial court sentenced Defendant to a total effective sentence of twenty years’ incarceration. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court erred by failing to dismiss the charge of employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony on the ground that it violated the protection against double jeopardy, that the State failed to prove the requisite mens rea for aggravated assault, and that the trial court erred in determining the length of Defendant’s sentences and ordering that some of the sentences run consecutively. Upon our review of the record, we conclude that Defendant’s convictions do not violate double jeopardy principles, that the evidence is sufficient to sustain Defendant’s convictions, and that the trial court did not err in determining the length of Defendant’s sentences. After de novo review of Defendant’s consecutive sentences, we affirm the alignment of the sentences imposed by the trial court. |
Wilson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Anthony Wilson and Deangelo Taylor
Both of the appellants, Anthony Wilson and Deangelo Taylor, stand convicted of first degree murder and attempted first degree murder. The trial court sentenced them to life for the first degree murder conviction and to twenty years for the attempted first degree murder conviction. The trial court aligned appellant Taylor‘s sentences consecutively and appellant Wilson‘s sentences concurrently. On appeal, appellant Taylor argues that: (1) the trial court erred in instructing the jury on criminal responsibility for the conduct of another; (2) the evidence was insufficient to support appellant‘s convictions; (3) the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on self-defense and defense of others; (4) the trial court erred in failing to declare a mistrial after the State told the jury that appellant was in jail; (5) the trial court erred in admitting into evidence a close-up autopsy photograph of the victim‘s face; (6) the trial court erred in admitting Chris Williams‘ statement as substantive evidence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Evidence 803(26); (7) there was cumulative error that requires reversal; and (8) the trial court erred in aligning appellant‘s sentences consecutively. Appellant Wilson argues that the trial court erred in failing to grant his Motion for Acquittal because the proof at trial was inconsistent and insufficient and also erred in admitting into evidence Jarquez McKinley‘s police statement as substantive evidence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Evidence 803(26). Following our thorough review of the arguments, record, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court but remand for correction of appellant Taylor‘s attempted murder judgment. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Larry Prewitt v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Larry Prewitt, appeals the summary denial of his petition for writ of error coram nobis, which the trial court also considered as a petition for post-conviction relief and as a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Because Petitioner has not made an allegation of newly discovered evidence, he is not entitled to coram nobis relief. Because Petitioner is no longer restrained of liberty by the underlying convictions, he is not entitled to habeas corpus relief. Because Petitioner's filing is beyond the one-year post-conviction statute of limitations and because he has alleged no grounds for due process tolling of the statute of limitations, he is not entitled to post-conviction relief. Therefore, the trial court's summary dismissal of the petition is affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Gerald Hobbs
The defendant, Gerald Hobbs, was convicted of one count of assault and one count of aggravated assault, while an order of protection was in effect, upon his former girlfriend and sentenced to an effective term of four years imprisonment. On appeal, he argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the convictions, that the trial court erred by not instructing the jury as to self-defense, and that the court erred in sentencing. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Lewis | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Scott Benjamin Carroll, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Scott Benjamin Carroll, appeals the DeKalb County Criminal Court’s denial of post-conviction relief from his conviction for initiation of a process intended to result in the manufacture of methamphetamine. See T.C.A. § 39-17-435(a). On appeal, the Petitioner argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel’s failure to file a motion to dismiss or request a jury instruction based on the State’s destruction of evidence recovered from a methamphetamine laboratory. Upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
DeKalb | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Emmanuel Bibb Houston
Following a jury trial, the Defendant-Appellant, Emmanuel Bibb Houston, was convicted as charged in count 1 of possession of a Schedule VI drug with intent to sell, a Class E felony; in count 2 of possession of a Schedule VI drug with intent to deliver, a Class E felony; in count 3 of possession of a firearm with the intent to go armed during the commission of or attempt to commit a dangerous felony, a Class D felony; and in count 4 of possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor. See T.C.A. §§ 39-17-417(a), -1324(a), -425(a)(1). The trial court merged count 2 with count 1 and imposed an effective sentence of six years. Houston’s sole issue on appeal is that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his felony convictions. Upon our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Keiahtee Jamal Terrell
The defendant, Keiahtee Jamal Terrell, pled guilty to aggravated burglary and robbery, Class C felonies, in exchange for an effective four-year sentence at 30%, with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in denying judicial diversion or probation. After review, we affirm the sentencing decision of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Troy Lynn Fox v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Troy Lynn Fox, appeals the Wilson County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief from his conviction of first degree premeditated murder and resulting sentence of life in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he contends that his petition states a colorable claim for relief under the Post-Conviction Procedure Act, thus entitling him to counsel and to an evidentiary hearing. The State concedes that the trial court erred. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we agree with the Petitioner and the State, reverse the trial court’s order dismissing the petition, and remand this case to the trial court for the appointment of counsel and an evidentiary hearing. |
Wilson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Russell Leaks v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Russell Leaks, filed a petition for habeas corpus relief. He contended that he was entitled to relief because he was arrested without a warrant while he was on probation. The habeas corpus court summarily dismissed the petition, and the Petitioner appealed. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Tavaria L. Merritt v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Tavaria L. Merritt, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. He argues that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate his mental capacity and for failing to meet with him a sufficient number of times. He also argues that his guilty pleas were not knowing and voluntary. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Wilson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jennifer Lee Dickey
The defendant, Jennifer Lee Dickey, appeals the trial court’s decision ordering her to serve her sentence in incarceration. She argues that the trial court erred in denying her an alternative sentence. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Lawrence | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jonathan Christopher Carey
A Davidson County jury convicted the Defendant, Jonathan Christopher Carey, of driving while intoxicated (“DUI”), and the trial court found him guilty of violating the implied consent law. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to eleven months and twenty nine days for the DUI conviction and ordered that he lose his driving privileges for one year for violating the implied consent law. On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) his constitutional right pursuant to the Confrontation Clause was violated; (2) the trial court erred when it declined to instruct the jury about a missing witness; (3) the trial court erred when it admitted the video recording of his traffic stop into evidence; (4) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions; and (5) the trial court erred when it enhanced the Defendant’s sentence based upon a reckless driving charge. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we conclude that the Defendant’s right to confront a witness against him was violated when the trial court allowed the admission of the videotape of him performing field sobriety tasks and the officer conducting those tasks was not present at trial. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s judgments, vacate the Defendant’s convictions, and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Emily Virginia Helton
Pursuant to a plea agreement, the Defendant, Emily Virginia Helton, pleaded guilty to promotion of methamphetamine manufacture, with the trial court to determine the sentence. After a hearing, the trial court ordered the Defendant to serve three years and six months in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that the trial court erred when it denied her an alternative sentence. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Steven O. Hughes-Mabry v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Steven O. Hughes-Mabry, appeals the Sullivan County Circuit Court‘s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions of possession of 0.5 gram or more of cocaine with the intent to sell or deliver within 1000' of a school zone, introduction of contraband into a penal institution, and driving on a suspended license, for which he is serving an effective fifteen-year sentence. He contends that the post-conviction court erred in denying relief on his ineffective assistance of counsel claims and that the court erred in excluding evidence relevant to an issue that was not raised in the petitions. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals |
