State of Tennessee v. Lonnie Lee Angel, Jr.
The defendant, Lonnie Lee Angel, Jr., appeals his Bledsoe County Circuit Court jury conviction of second degree murder and the accompanying 23-year sentence, claiming that the trial court committed plain error by commenting on the testimony of a child witness, that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, that the trial court erred by providing jury instructions on flight and on second degree murder as a lesser included offense of first degree murder, and that the trial court erred by applying two enhancement factors. Discerning no error, we affirm.
|
Bledsoe | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ronnie Bradfield v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Ronnie Bradfield, appeals the trial court's denial of his pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Rule 36.1 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure. Following our review, we affirm the trial court's judgment pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Robert W. Roddy v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Robert W. Roddy, was convicted of two counts of first degree (premeditated) murder and one count of aggravated assault, a Class C felony. He received a sentence of two life terms and an additional four years, all to be served consecutively. In his post-conviction petition, the petitioner argues that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the testimony regarding his behavior after he was transported from the scene of the crime. The post-conviction court found that trial counsel did not perform deficiently. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Rhea | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Timothy Lewayne Morton
The defendant, Timothy Lewayne Morton, appeals the revocation of the probationary sentence imposed for his Sumner County Criminal Court convictions of disorderly conduct, public intoxication, repetitive telephone harrassment, and solicitation to bribe a witness. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Myron Tate v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Myron Tate, appeals as of right from the Knox County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel failed to advise him regarding the sufficiency of his indictment. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jessica Green
The Defendant-Appellant, Jessica Green, entered guilty pleas to one count of theft of property less than $1,000 and one count of forgery under $1,000, both Class E felonies. See T.C.A. §§ 39-14-103; 39-14-114. The trial court denied judicial diversion and imposed one-year concurrent sentences for each offense, which were suspended to probation. In this appeal, the Defendant-Appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying her request for judicial diversion. Upon our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Nicos Broadnax and Aaron Cook
A Shelby County jury convicted Nicos Broadnax and Aaron Cook of aggravated robbery. The trial court ordered Defendant Broadnax, as a Range I standard offender, to serve eleven years, and ordered Defendant Cook, as a multiple offender, to serve nineteen years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, Defendant Broadnax asserts that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. Defendant Cook also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence but additionally asserts that: (1) the trial court improperly declined to strike the jury venire following notice that the jury pool was tainted by comments from observers at the trial; (2) the prosecutor's misstatement of facts during closing argument unfairly prejudiced him; and (3) his sentence is excessive. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the trial court's judgments. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Wilmarcus H. Martin v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Wilmarcus H. Martin, appeals from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, wherein he challenged his guilty-pleaded conviction for cocaine possession with intent to sell within 1,000 feet of a park. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel, leading to an involuntary plea, because trial counsel told him incorrectly that his release eligibility would be changed from 100% to 85% by the Tennessee Department of Correction (“TDOC”) once he began serving his sentence, and because trial counsel failed to reserve a challenge to the search as a part of the guilty plea. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Sharon Donella Phillips
The defendant, Sharon Donella Phillips, appeals her Sullivan County Criminal Court jury convictions of reckless endangerment and aggravated arson, challenging the sufficiency of the convicting evidence on the arson conviction and the length of her sentence. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Termel Dowdy
The defendant, Termel Dowdy, pled guilty to introduction of contraband into a penal institution, a Class C felony, and DUI, a Class A misdemeanor, in exchange for a ten-year sentence with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered that the defendant serve his sentence in confinement, which he now appeals. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
White | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jeremiah Thomas Sullivan
The defendant, Jeremiah Thomas Sullivan, pled guilty in the Bedford County Circuit Court to one count of aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor involving one to twenty-four images, a Class C felony; eight counts of aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor involving twenty-five or more images, a Class B felony; one count of sexual exploitation of a minor involving 100 or more images, a Class B felony; and two counts of solicitation of a minor, a Class B felony. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court used a combination of concurrent and consecutive sentencing to sentence him to an effective term of twenty-eight years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred by not merging the multiple convictions for aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor involving twenty-five or more images into a single offense and by imposing an excessive sentence. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Undray Luellen v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Undray Luellen, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. After review, we affirm the denial of the petition. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Travis Lamonte Steed
The defendant, Travis Lamonte Steed, was convicted by a Madison County Criminal Court jury of first degree felony murder; second degree murder, a Class A felony; felony reckless endangerment, a Class E felony; convicted felon in possession of a handgun, a Class E felony; and attempted second degree murder, a Class B felony. The court sentenced the defendant as a Range I, violent offender to concurrent sentences of life for the felony murder conviction and twenty-five years for the second degree murder conviction. The court sentenced the defendant as a Range II, multiple offender to twenty years for the attempted second degree murder conviction and four years each for the felon in possession of a handgun and felony reckless endangerment convictions. The court ordered that the defendant serve the four-year sentences for felony reckless endangerment and felon in possession of a handgun concurrently to each other but consecutively to the twenty-year sentence for attempted second degree murder. The court also ordered that the defendant serve the twenty-year sentence for attempted second degree murder consecutively to the life sentence, for a total effective sentence of life plus twenty-four years in the Department of Correction. The defendant raises three issues on appeal: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain his murder and attempted murder convictions; (2) whether the jury's verdicts finding him guilty of first degree felony murder and attempted second degree murder are mutually exclusive; and (3) whether the trial court erred in ordering consecutive sentencing. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court but remand for entry of corrected judgments to reflect that the defendant's second degree murder conviction is merged into his felony murder conviction. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Robert Christensen, Jr.
Appellant, James Robert Christensen, Jr., stands convicted of resisting arrest, a Class B misdemeanor; promotion of methamphetamine manufacture, a Class D felony; initiation of methamphetamine manufacture, a Class B felony; and two counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, Class D felonies. He received an effective sentence of three years‟ incarceration followed by eight years suspended to supervised probation. On appeal, appellant contends that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence and that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions for two counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. Following our careful review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Tipton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Robert Christensen, Jr. - Concurring In Part, Dissenting In Part
I agree that in this case, there are three separate state actions to consider when determining whether the evidence seized, as a result of the warrantless search of the defendant's residence, should have been suppressed. First, the investigators entered the defendant's property to conduct a “follow-up investigation,” without a search warrant, despite the defendant's “no trespassing” signs. Second, after smelling methamphetamine, Investigator Chunn forcibly entered the defendant's residence and conducted a brief sweep, during which he saw the firearms and some of the components for making methamphetamine, but did not see the active nor inactive labs. Third, after the defendant told officers that the lab was in the freezer, the investigators re-entered the defendant's residence and collected the active lab from the refrigerator and the inactive lab from the deep freezer. I believe the majority has correctly analyzed actions two and three. My disagreement with the majority only relates to the State's first action. My review of the record leads me to conclude that this defendant had clearly revoked any implied consent for the officers to come upon his property without a search warrant. Without lawfully being upon the premises, the second and third actions are void and the fruit of the poisonous tree. |
Tipton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jerry Rommell Gray v. State of Tennessee
|
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Willy J. Hall
Willy J. Hall (“the Defendant”) appeals the trial court’s revocation of his community corrections sentences and order of incarceration. Although acknowledging that he violated the terms of his community corrections sentences, the Defendant nonetheless contends that it was improper for the trial court to revoke his sentences and order him to serve an effective seven-year sentence in the Department of Correction. Upon review, we affirm the trial court’s revocation of the Defendant’s community corrections sentences. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re: Hill's Bonding Company
The Appellant, Hill’s Bonding Company, filed a petition for permission to issue bail bonds in the Ninth Judicial District. The trial court denied the Appellant’s petition, stating that it was not considering any such petitions at the present time. The Appellant appeals the trial court’s denial. The State concedes that the trial court did not have the authority to deny the Appellant’s petition. After review, we reverse the trial court’s judgment.
|
Roane | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Charles Derrick Belk
|
Obion | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Dimitrie Colbert v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Dimitrie Colbert, murdered his girlfriend and was subsequently charged with one count of first degree (felony) murder, one count of first degree (premeditated) murder, one count of especially aggravated kidnapping, one count of aggravated rape, one count of aggravated kidnapping, and one count of evading arrest in a motor vehicle. The State sought the death penalty. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the petitioner pled guilty to one count of first degree (felony) murder and one count of evading arrest in a motor vehicle, a Class D felony. He received an agreed-upon life sentence for the murder conviction and a consecutive four-year sentence for the evading arrest conviction. The petitioner filed a timely post-conviction petition, alleging that trial counsel performed deficiently in investigating his mental health and in advising him to accept the plea offer. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the petitioner has not established that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel, and we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Marcus Deangelo Lee v. State of Tennessee
The defendant, Marcus Deangelo Lee, argues that the trial court erred in denying him relief under Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 after finding that his sentences were illegal and the illegality was a material component of the plea agreement. The State agrees with the defendant’s assertion. After review, we conclude that the trial court should have allowed the defendant the remedies available to him under Rule 36.1, and we, therefore, reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Marcus Deangelo Lee v. State of Tennessee-Dissenting
Something rather odd appears to be happening in this case and others similar to it. It appears that this defendant pled guilty to three offenses and received an agreed-to effective sentence of three years in December 1995. His sentences should have expired in December 1998. Yet this court has either denied or dismissed this defendant’s challenges to his convictions in 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012. And now in 2015, almost 20 years later, we feel obligated to set this defendant’s convictions aside as illegal and allow him to withdraw his 1995 guilty pleas because he did not receive twice as much time in jail as he should have in 1995. What makes this case stranger is that it is not the State who is asking for relief; rather, the defendant complains that he did not get consecutive sentencing when he should have in 1995. It is a rare case indeed when a defendant complains about not getting more time in jail. If the defendant was seeking the remedy of serving additional jail time because the law required it at the time he pled guilty, I would be happy to oblige him. But he is not. He is attempting to have his conviction set aside and presumably to have a trial, whereupon if he is found guilty, he will have to do additional time to that ordered in 1995. What, if anything, has changed to allow such a seemingly absurd result to take place? |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Rodney Williams
The defendant, Rodney Williams, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, and was sentenced to twelve years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction; (2) the trial court erred in allowing recordings of his jailhouse phone calls into evidence; (3) the trial court erred in admonishing him in the presence of the jury; and (4) the trial court erred in imposing the maximum sentence. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jimmie Lee Reeder
A Cheatham County Circuit Court Jury convicted the appellant, Jimmy Lee Reeder, of rape of a child, a Class A felony, and aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony. After a sentencing hearing, he received an effective thirty-five-year sentence to be served at 100%. On appeal, the appellant contends that he was denied his right to an impartial jury, that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct during the State’s case-in-chief and closing arguments, and that the trial court’s decision to exclude any evidence regarding prior allegations of sexual abuse of the victim deprived him of his right to present a defense. Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Cheatham | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Cauley
In 2005 Defendant, James Cauley, pled guilty to felony possession of less than 0.5 gram of cocaine, felony evading arrest, possession of contraband in a penal institution, and felony failure to appear. Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, Defendant received an effective sentence of nine years to be served on probation, and other pending charges were dismissed. In November 2012, a violation of probation warrant was issued. Additional amendments to the warrant were issued in January 2013, April 2013, and September 2013. At a hearing in October 2013, Defendant admitted that he had violated probation as alleged in the warrants. Defendant asserted he was entitled to jail credit for time he served in a federal prison while he was on state probation. The matter was continued to allow Defendant the opportunity to file a brief in support of his argument. Another hearing was held in February 2014, and the trial court ordered the effective sentence to be served by incarceration. Defendant appeals, arguing that the trial court erred by ordering him to serve the entire nine-year sentence at a time when he had less than one year remaining on probation and without giving him credit for the time he spent in federal custody. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals |
