State of Tennessee v. Stanley Jason Daniels
The appellant, Stanley Jason Daniels, pled guilty to sexual contact with an inmate and was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to one year to be served on probation. On appeal, the appellant contends that the trial court erred by denying his request for judicial diversion. Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ briefs, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Claiborne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Stanley Jason Daniels - Separate Dissent Opinion
In keeping with the directions provided in State v. James Allen Pollard, No. M2011-00332-SC-R11-CD, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 1011 (Tenn. Dec. 20, 2013), the majority takes a reasonable (and what I feel may be the preferred) action suggested by the Tennessee Supreme Court and elects to simply remand this case due to the trial court’s failure to discuss some of the seven legally-relevant factors (listed in State v. Electroplating, Inc., 990 S.W.2d 211, 229 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998)) during its sentencing soliloquy. Like the majority, I too believe that trial courts should endeavor to address each and every criterion discussed in Electroplating during their judicial diversion decisions, and I urge them to do so in order to avoid having their cases remanded. In this case, however, I would address the trial court’s omission by simply choosing the other option provided by our supreme court in Pollard: “conduct[ing] a de novo review to determine whether there is an adequate basis” for the trial court’s decision. See Pollard, 2013 Tenn. LEXIS 1011, at *32. |
Claiborne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Omar Biviano
A jury convicted Omar Biviano (“the Defendant”) of one count of aggravated robbery, one count of carjacking, and one count of facilitation of employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. After a hearing, the trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I offender to an effective term of twelve years’ confinement. In this direct appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence was not sufficient to support his convictions and that his sentence is excessive. Upon our thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Roosevelt Brice Jr.
Roosevelt Brice, Jr. (“the Defendant”) was convicted by a jury of attempted premeditated first degree murder and aggravated assault. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the Defendant to twenty-five years’ incarceration for his attempted premeditated first degree murder conviction and fifteen years’ incarceration for his aggravated assault conviction. The trial court ordered that the two sentences be served concurrently for a total effective sentence of twenty-five years. In this direct appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction for attempted premeditated first degree murder. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Stephen McKinley v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Stephen McKinley, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that his guilty plea was unknowing and involuntary. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Brandi Clutts
The Defendant-Appellant, Brandi Clutts, appeals the trial court’s revocation of her probation and reinstatement of her original four-year sentence in the Department of Correction. On appeal, Clutts argues that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering a sentence of full confinement rather than imposing split confinement. Upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Bryan R. Milam v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Bryan R. Milam, appeals the Wayne County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for first degree murder and second degree murder and resulting sentence of life plus twenty-three years. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred in denying relief because he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial, at the motion for new trial hearing, and on appeal. Specifically, the Petitioner argues that his various attorneys (1) failed to present rebuttal medical evidence concerning the “tight” nature of the victim’s wound or challenge the credibility of the medical examiner, Dr. Charles Harlan, who had lost his medical license following the Petitioner’s convictions; and (2) failed to present a firearms expert who had tested the condition of the murder weapon and determined that it was not working properly. Following our review, we affirm the denial of relief. |
Wayne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Antonio Dockery
Appellant, Antonio Dockery, was indicted by the Shelby County Grand Jury for aggravated assault, stalking, and aggravated kidnapping. After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of the offenses as charged in the indictment. As a result of the convictions, Appellant was sentenced to a total effective sentence of thirty-four years in incarceration. After the denial of a motion for new trial, this appeal followed. On appeal, Appellant presents the following issues for our review: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions; (2) the trial court improperly instructed the jury on aggravated kidnapping; (3) the convictions for aggravated assault and stalking violate double jeopardy; and (4) the trial court erred in admitting evidence of prior bad acts in violation of Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b). After a review of the record and the authorities, we determine: (1) that the evidence is sufficient to support the convictions; (2) Appellant’s convictions for aggravated assault and stalking do not violate double jeopardy where the trial court properly instructed the jury on the evidence to consider when reviewing the stalking charge; and (3) Appellant waived any issue with respect to the admission of prior bad acts for failing to raise the issue in a motion for new trial. Further, we determine that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on aggravated kidnapping by failing to give the instruction from State v. White, 362 S.W.3d 559 (Tenn. 2012). The error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, Appellant’s aggravated kidnapping conviction must be reversed, and he must receive a new trial at which the jury is instructed in accord with White. The remaining judgments of the trial court are affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Mark Weatherly
Appellant, Mark Weatherly, was indicted by the Shelby County Grand Jury for vehicular homicide and two counts of aggravated assault. The jury acquitted Appellant of vehicular homicide and was unable to reach a verdict on the lesser included offense of reckless homicide and the other charged offense of aggravated assault. The trial court declared a mistrial with regard to these offenses. Appellant’s request for pretrial diversion was denied by the prosecutor. Appellant filed a writ of certiorari with the trial court. The trial court granted Appellant’s writ of certiorari and concluded that the assistant district attorney general had abused his discretion and ordered the prosecutor to enter into a memorandum of understanding that placed Appellant on pretrial diversion. This Court granted the State’s application for interlocutory appeal. After a thorough review of the record, we find that the trial court’s decision is supported by a preponderance of the evidence and affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Dennis Murphy
Dennis Murphy (“the Defendant”) was convicted by a jury of attempted rape. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the Defendant to five years’ incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that the trial court erred in admitting testimony regarding pictures not provided in discovery. He also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction. Finally, the Defendant contends that cumulative errors denied him a fair trial. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Monroe | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jennifer Hannah
Appellant, Jennifer Hannah, was indicted by the Davidson County Grand Jury for four counts of child neglect, one count of first degree felony murder during the perpetration or attempt to perpetrate aggravated child neglect, and two counts of delivering a controlled substance to a minor. At the conclusion of a jury trial, she was found guilty of all counts as charged. The trial court sentenced her to an effective sentence of life imprisonment. On appeal, Appellant argues: (1) the trial court erred in allowing the testimony of Michael Orman under the provisions of Rule 404(b) of the Tennessee Rules of Evidence; (2) the trial court erred in denying Appellant’s motion for continuance; (3) the trial court erred in denying her motion to suppress statements made to law enforcement officers; (4) the trial court erred in denying her request for an instruction regarding lost or destroyed evidence; (5) the trial court erred in instructing the jury on the elements of aggravated child neglect; and (6) the trial court erred in allowing the admission of an audio recording of a deceased witness. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jermaine Mitchell Gray v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Jermaine Mitchell Gray, was found guilty by a Madison County jury of aggravated robbery, and he was subsequently sentenced to serve 12 years as a Range I standard offender. This court affirmed the conviction, and our supreme court denied Petitioner’s application for permission to appeal. State v. Jermaine Mitchell Gray, No. W2009-01260-CCA-R3-CD, 2010 WL 4544395 (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 10, 2010) perm. app. denied (Tenn. April 13, 2011). He subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief which was denied by the trial court following an evidentiary hearing. Petitioner appeals asserting that the trial court erred by denying him post-conviction relief because his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the judgment of the trial court which denied post-conviction relief. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jonathan Wesley Stephenson v. State of Tennessee
A Cocke County jury convicted petitioner, Jonathan Wesley Stephenson, of first degree premeditated murder and conspiracy to commit first degree murder. The jury imposed the death penalty for the murder conviction, and the trial court sentenced petitioner to twentyfive years for the conspiracy conviction. After several appeals, remands, and collateral proceedings, petitioner’s resulting sentence was the death penalty for the murder conviction and a sixty-year sentence for the conspiracy conviction. Petitioner then sought postconviction relief. Following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. Petitioner now appeals the denial of relief, alleging multiple claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Following our review of the record, we discern no error and affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Cocke | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Charles Clevenger
The defendant, Charles Clevenger, appeals from his Knox County Criminal Court jury conviction of aggravated robbery, claiming that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, that the trial court erred by ruling that the State would be permitted to utilize his prior convictions to impeach his testimony, that the testimony of a State witness violated the Confrontation Clause, and that the trial court erred by ordering the 30-year sentence imposed in this case to be served consecutively to the 30-year sentence imposed in an unrelated case. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Neal Noon
The Defendant, Christopher Neal Noon, appeals the Sevier County Circuit Court’s order revoking his probation for convictions for the sale of a Schedule II controlled substance and theft of property valued at less than $500 and ordering his effective three-year sentence into execution. The Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his probation. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sevier | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Charles Edgar Ledford
The defendant, Charles Edgar Ledford, appeals from the Monroe County Criminal Court to challenge via certified questions of law his guilty-pleaded convictions of two counts of sexual exploitation of a minor, see T.C.A. § 39-17-1003, a Class D felony; child neglect, see id. § 39-15-402(a), a Class E felony; two counts of aggravated sexual battery, see id. § 39-13-504, a Class B felony; and two counts of rape of a child, see id. § 39-13-522, a Class A felony. The defendant received an effective sentence of 56 years to be served in the Department of Correction. The certified questions relate to law enforcement officers’ discovery and seizure of child pornography materials in the defendant’s house, which had been condemned for demolition by the City of Sweetwater. Upon our review, we hold that the certified questions are not dispositive of some of the convictions, and we dismiss the appeal relative to those convictions. As to the remainder of the convictions, including those for aggravated sexual battery and rape of a child, we hold that the defendant had no expectation of privacy in the seized materials and that the motion to suppress was properly denied. Thus, we affirm the trial court’s order with respect to these latter convictions. |
Monroe | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
David Wayne Britt v. Jerry Lester, Warden
The Petitioner, David Wayne Britt, appeals the Hardeman County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court’s judgment pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Following our review, we grant the State’s motion and affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William James Watt
A Davidson County jury convicted the Defendant, William James Watt, of three counts of rape of a child and three counts of aggravated sexual battery. The trial court sentenced the Defendant, a Range I, standard offender, to twenty-five years at 100 percent for each of the rape of a child convictions and to ten years at 100 percent for each of the aggravated battery convictions. The court ordered the Defendant to serve some of the sentences consecutively, for a total effective sentence of thirty-five years, at 100 percent. On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain two of his convictions for rape of a child and one of his convictions for aggravated sexual battery; (2) the trial court erred when it denied his motion for substitution of counsel and to continue his trial; and (3) his sentence is excessive. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jerome Maurice Teats
Jerome Maurice Teats (“the Defendant”) was convicted by a jury of one count of aggravated robbery and four counts of especially aggravated kidnapping. The trial court subsequently imposed an effective sentence of fifty years’ incarceration. In this direct appeal, the Defendant raises the following issues: (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress; (2) the trial court erred in denying his motion to disqualify the district attorney general’s office; (3) his convictions for especially aggravated kidnapping must be reversed on due process and double jeopardy grounds; (4) the trial court improperly instructed the jury on criminal responsibility; (5) the evidence was not sufficient to support his convictions; (6) cumulative error; and (7) his sentence is excessive. Upon our thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jerome Maurice Teats - Dissent
I respectfully dissent from the result reached by the majority. First, I believe the trial court’s ruling regarding the admissibility of the Defendant’s statements is insufficient for us to conduct a proper review of the suppression issue. Second, I believe that the Defendant was entitled to a jury instruction regarding kidnapping pursuant to State v. White, 362 S.W.3d 559 (Tenn. 2012), and that the failure to give the instruction constitutes reversible error. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Hummons In Re: Danny Blankenship Bonding Company
Appellant bonding company, Danny Blankenship Bonding Company, filed a petition for exoneration of bond in the Madison County Circuit Court case of State v. John Thomas Hummons, case number 12-162. The petition was denied by the trial court. In this Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 10 appeal by the appellant, we reverse the ruling of the trial court and remand with instructions for the trial court to enter an appropriate order granting the petition to exonerate Appellant bonding company from the defendant’s bond. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Roderick Sammual Chadwick v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Roderick Sammual Chadwick, was convicted by a jury of attempted voluntary manslaughter and aggravated assault, for which he received concurrent sentences of twelve years and fifteen years, respectively, as a Range III, career offender. Upon his guilty plea to another count in the indictment, being a felon in possession of a handgun, he received an additional six-year sentence to be served consecutively, for an effective sentence of twenty-one years. Following an unsuccessful direct appeal, petitioner filed the instant petition for post-conviction relief. The court denied relief after conducting an evidentiary hearing. This appeal follows, in which petitioner claims multiple instances of ineffective assistance at trial and on direct appeal. Upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ernest Jackson
Ernest Jackson (“the Defendant”) was convicted by a jury of sale and delivery of less than 0.5 grams of cocaine and possession of drug paraphernalia. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court merged the Defendant’s conviction for delivery of cocaine into his conviction for sale of cocaine and sentenced the Defendant to an effective sentence of fifteen years’ incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions for sale and delivery of cocaine. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Charles Edward Wagner
Following a jury trial, appellant, Charles Edward Wagner, was found guilty of the following offenses: aggravated criminal trespass; two counts of aggravated assault; five counts of aggravated kidnapping; one count of especially aggravated kidnapping; one count of false imprisonment; and one count of kidnapping. The trial court imposed concurrent sentences of eleven months, twenty-nine days each for aggravated criminal trespass, false imprisonment, and assault; four years each for both counts of aggravated assault; ten years each on the five counts of aggravated kidnapping; nineteen years for especially aggravated kidnapping; and four years for kidnapping. Appealing his convictions and effective nineteen-year sentence, appellant raises the following issues: (1) ineffective assistance of counsel; (2) sufficiency of the convicting evidence; and (3) errors with regard to sentencing. Following our careful review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Brian Alan Lambright
The defendant, Brian Alan Lambright, was convicted by a Davidson County Criminal Court jury of four counts of aggravated child abuse, Class A felonies, which the trial court merged into two convictions and sentenced the defendant to twenty-two years on each conviction, to be served consecutively, for an effective term of forty-four years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence and the sentences imposed by the trial court. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals |
