Alan E. Glenn

This case involved an appeal by Debo’s Bail Bond Company, LLC, challenging a trial court order denying its petition to be released from a $9,000 surety bond after defendant Sergio Lara failed to appear for arraignment on a domestic assault charge. The bond company argued that it should be relieved of liability under Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-11-201(c) because the defendant had fled to Illinois, where bounty hunting is illegal, and the district attorney’s office had refused to initiate extradition proceedings due to cost considerations. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the denial of the petition and the final forfeiture judgment. The court reasoned that the statute excuses a surety’s obligation only if the detaining authority refuses a detainer, not when the State declines to pursue extradition, and that prior precedent establishes sureties remain responsible when a defendant voluntarily flees the jurisdiction.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Willie Austin Davis, who was convicted by a jury of aggravated criminal trespass, a Class A misdemeanor, after entering the grounds of Covenant Presbyterian Church in Nashville despite repeated warnings and a formal ban stemming from his disruptive campaign alleging a coverup of child abuse by a former church member. Davis, representing himself on appeal, argued that he was denied a fair trial because the trial judge failed to disclose relationships with former and current church members, a magistrate, and others, which he claimed created an appearance of bias requiring recusal. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the defendant failed to show any reasonable basis to question the judge's impartiality under the applicable rules, noting that disclosed connections involved no personal bias, disputed facts, or improper influence and that the judge had granted the pro se defendant broad latitude during proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involves Robert Jason Burdick's consolidated appeal from the denial of his post-conviction petitions and the dismissal of his petition for writ of error coram nobis following convictions for aggravated rape, kidnapping, and related offenses in Williamson County. The petitioner claimed ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to challenge the trial court's use of enhancement factors in sentencing and for not moving to suppress evidence from a warrantless GPS device placed on his vehicle, and he also sought due process tolling of the coram nobis statute of limitations based on newly discovered evidence about a search warrant affidavit. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the lower court's rulings, holding that the petitioner did not establish deficient performance by counsel or prejudice, that no evidence from the GPS was used at trial, and that the alleged new evidence was not material and would not have altered the outcome. The court further found no abuse of discretion in denying tolling or relief on the coram nobis claims.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved two defendants, Glenn Brown and Thomas Byrd, who were jointly tried and convicted by a Knox County jury of multiple drug offenses, including possession with intent to sell or deliver 0.5 grams or more of cocaine within 1000 feet of a school, possession with intent to sell or deliver a controlled substance analogue, and possession of marijuana; Brown was additionally convicted on various firearm-related charges. On appeal, Byrd challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions and the admission of evidence concerning his failure to contest the forfeiture of seized cash, while Brown challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for his drug and firearm convictions, the denial of his motion to suppress evidence from the traffic stop, and alleged inconsistencies in jury instructions that affected verdict unanimity. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee reviewed the record and affirmed all judgments of the trial court, concluding that the evidence was sufficient, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in evidentiary rulings or the suppression decision, and any instructional issues did not warrant reversal.

criminal lawguns

The case involved Joshua Williams, who was convicted after a trial of multiple offenses including especially aggravated burglary, attempted first degree murder, and firearm-related charges arising from a 2014 armed burglary of an apartment that resulted in shootings. Williams appealed his convictions for attempted first degree murder, claiming insufficient evidence that he or his co-defendant intended to murder the victims. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the convictions, reasoning that the evidence supported a finding of criminal responsibility because Williams participated in planning the burglary, armed himself, and took actions consistent with assisting in the crimes that led to the attempted murders.

criminal lawguns

The case involved Javaris Wilson, who was convicted by a Davidson County jury of first degree premeditated murder and second degree murder (merged into one conviction) for the 2016 shooting death of Samuel Huff in Nashville. Wilson appealed his life sentence solely on the claim that the evidence was insufficient to establish his identity as the shooter. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, reasoning that direct eyewitness testimony from multiple witnesses who knew Wilson by sight, combined with motion-activated surveillance footage identified by a detective and additional circumstantial evidence from social media, allowed a rational jury to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

criminal law

The case involved Demetrie Darnell Owens, who was convicted by a jury in Marshall County Circuit Court on multiple counts of drug possession, including simple possession of cocaine, Xanax, methamphetamine, marijuana, and Suboxone, as well as possession of cocaine within 1000 feet of a school or park with intent to sell and attempted possession with intent to deliver. He received an effective 20-year sentence. On appeal, Owens challenged the admission of statements and text messages from an unavailable witness, alleged prosecutorial misconduct in closing arguments, claimed the accomplice instructions improperly commented on the evidence, and argued the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions. The Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed the record and affirmed the trial court's judgments, finding no error in the evidentiary rulings, arguments, or jury instructions and that the evidence, including corroboration of accomplice testimony, was sufficient.

criminal law

The case involved John Calvin Murray, who pled guilty to theft over $1000 and was sentenced to a term suspended to community corrections after initial jail time. Following revocation of his community corrections placement due to violations, he filed a motion seeking additional credits for time served in the program, which the trial court dismissed. The Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed the appeal as untimely under Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a), finding that the interests of justice did not support waiving the thirty-day filing requirement. The court further noted that the defendant's underlying claim lacked merit because, under Tennessee law, community corrections credits are mandatory only up to the issuance of a violation warrant, after which they cease.

criminal lawprocedure

In State of Tennessee v. Vernon Lee Ivey, the defendant pled guilty to multiple counts of aggravated burglary, burglary, automobile burglary, and theft of property in various value ranges arising from a series of break-ins and thefts in August 2017. The trial court imposed an effective 30-year sentence after classifying him as a career offender on the felony counts and ordering confinement rather than probation or alternative sentencing. On appeal, the defendant challenged the career-offender classification for the Class D and E felonies, the length of the sentence, and the denial of alternative sentencing. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, holding that the record supported the classification based on prior convictions, that the sentence was within the appropriate range, and that confinement was warranted due to the defendant's extensive criminal history, prior failures on parole and bond, and the need to protect the community. The court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's consideration of the sentencing factors and presentence report.

criminal law

The case involved Thomas Byrd, who was a passenger in a vehicle that crashed in Knoxville; a police officer smelled marijuana on him, detained and searched him, and found drugs, cash, and phones, leading to further evidence from a motel room including cocaine, marijuana, a loaded handgun, and drug paraphernalia. Byrd was convicted by a jury of multiple felony counts of possessing cocaine with intent to sell or deliver near a child care agency, possessing a firearm during a dangerous felony, and several misdemeanor drug and impersonation charges, resulting in a twelve-year sentence. He appealed the denial of his motion to suppress the evidence from the search of his person and challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for the felony convictions. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgments, holding that the officer had probable cause to arrest based on the marijuana odor and that the evidence, including the quantity of drugs, cash, scales, and gun, was sufficient for a rational jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

criminal lawgunsprocedure

The case involved the 2015 shooting death of Terry Stewart at a Nashville apartment complex, for which Javarius DeShawn Baugh was convicted by a jury of first-degree premeditated murder and unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, resulting in a life sentence. Baugh appealed solely on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to prove his identity as the shooter. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the convictions, reasoning that circumstantial evidence—including a matching Glock handgun recovered from a vehicle shortly after the shooting, shell casings from the scene, surveillance video of the shooter’s clothing, cellphone photos and videos linking Baugh to the weapon, and witness testimony about his presence and behavior near the scene—permitted a rational jury to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

criminal lawguns

The case involved Jarod Marges Phillips, who had pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and later sought to reopen his post-conviction relief petition based on a claimed new constitutional rule from a U.S. Supreme Court decision. The post-conviction court dismissed the motion, and Phillips filed a notice of appeal. The Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, ruling that the notice failed to meet statutory requirements by omitting the issues raised, reasons for review, and required attached documents from the trial court. The court noted that such an application must demonstrate an abuse of discretion by the lower court to proceed.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Kevin Caprice Smith, who was convicted by a Davidson County jury of premeditated first-degree murder, attempted first-degree murder, employing a firearm during a dangerous felony, possession of cocaine and heroin with intent to sell or deliver, possession of a firearm by a felon with a prior drug conviction, and possession of oxycodone, resulting in a sentence of life imprisonment plus ten years. On appeal to the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals, Smith challenged only the sufficiency of the evidence for these convictions. The court reviewed trial evidence including eyewitness accounts from the surviving victim, video recordings of the shooting in a public park, shell casings, drug quantities and cash found on Smith, and jail calls referencing drug sales. It determined this evidence was adequate for a rational jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on all counts and affirmed the convictions.

criminal law

The case involved a defendant who had pleaded guilty to multiple offenses, including employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, resulting in a ten-year sentence enhanced due to prior convictions. The defendant filed a motion under Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 to correct what he claimed was an illegal sentence, seeking to withdraw his guilty plea because his prior out-of-state convictions did not qualify for the enhancement. The trial court granted partial relief by amending the sentence to reflect only the first six years served at 100 percent as required by statute, rather than permitting withdrawal of the plea. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed this decision, concluding that the illegal aspect of the sentence was not a material component of the plea agreement and thus the appropriate remedy was sentence modification.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved James Andrew Weidekamp's appeal of the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, filed more than five years after he entered guilty pleas in 2014 to multiple counts of aggravated burglary and attempted introduction of contraband into a penal facility, resulting in an eleven-year sentence. The court affirmed the post-conviction court's summary denial of the petition as time-barred under the statute of limitations. The core reasoning was that due process tolling was not warranted, as the petitioner failed to demonstrate circumstances beyond his control—such as active misleading by counsel—that prevented timely filing, and receipt of his case file was not a prerequisite to filing a post-conviction petition.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Juan LaSean Perry's appeal from the dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his 2005 conviction for second-degree murder and 25-year sentence. Perry argued that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to convict him of second-degree murder after he was indicted for first-degree premeditated murder, and he also claimed for the first time on appeal that the court improperly applied enhancement factors at sentencing. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the dismissal, holding that the petition failed to meet statutory verification requirements and that second-degree murder has long been recognized as a lesser-included offense of first-degree murder, giving the trial court authority to enter the judgment. The court further noted that Perry's sentencing argument was waived because it was not raised below and that the issues had been previously determined in an earlier habeas petition.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Jamie Paul Dennis, who was charged with multiple counts of rape of a child and rape, along with corresponding incest charges, based on allegations of sexual contact with his daughter between November 2016 and April 2017. A jury convicted him of the lesser-included offenses of attempted rape of a child and attempted incest, acquitting him on the other charges, and he received consecutive sentences of twenty-eight and twelve years. On appeal, Dennis challenged the sufficiency of the evidence and the trial court's failure to provide a modified unanimity jury instruction due to the state's lack of offense election. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the convictions, finding the evidence sufficient to support the verdicts and determining that no unanimity issue existed because the child rape conviction was supported by detailed testimony about a specific incident occurring before the victim's thirteenth birthday.

criminal law

The case involved Kevin L. French's appeal from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief following convictions for first-degree premeditated murder, first-degree felony murder, and especially aggravated robbery in a 2008 shooting at a car wash. French argued that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal, that the State committed prosecutorial misconduct and a Brady violation by withholding surveillance video, and that he was actually innocent. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the post-conviction court's denial, finding that French failed to demonstrate deficient performance or prejudice from counsel's actions, that the withheld video would not have changed the outcome given the strength of other evidence, that no prosecutorial misconduct occurred, and that a freestanding actual innocence claim not based on new scientific evidence is not cognizable in post-conviction proceedings. The court therefore upheld the convictions and effective life sentence.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved defendant Weylin Trent Strode, who was indicted on charges including aggravated assault and pled guilty to one count in exchange for a four-year sentence, with restitution to be determined later. After the plea, Strode moved to withdraw it, initially citing the state's failure to hold a restitution hearing, and later raising concerns about his mental competency since a forensic evaluation had been requested but not completed. The trial court denied the motion after the state waived restitution, noting that the defendant had not timely amended his motion to include other issues and had not appeared for a scheduled mental evaluation. On appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the denial, holding that the defendant failed to establish sufficient grounds for withdrawal under Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(f) and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Jeffrey Neal Olive, who was convicted by a jury of second-degree murder of his ex-wife in Marshall County Circuit Court and sentenced to twenty years in prison. On appeal, the defendant argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction and that the sentence was excessive. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the evidence presented at trial supported the verdict and that the sentencing decision complied with statutory principles after weighing the defendant's criminal history, use of a firearm, and mitigating factors such as work history.

criminal law