The case involved the convictions of Miracle A’sha Bailey and Robert Jaylen Holland for the first-degree premeditated murder of seventeen-year-old Arahmonie Majors, along with related charges of evading arrest and theft/joyriding stemming from a December 2021 shooting in Clarksville, Tennessee. Following a joint trial, both defendants received life sentences, and they appealed on multiple grounds including the admission of evidence such as body camera footage and autopsy photos, chain of custody issues, jury instructions on flight and identity, sufficiency of evidence for Holland, and confrontation clause violations. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentences, finding no reversible errors in the trial court's rulings and determining that the evidence supported the jury's verdicts, while remanding only for a clerical correction on one judgment form.
The case involves Carrington Owens appealing the denial of post-conviction relief after his convictions for multiple counts of sexual offenses against two minor victims, including rape of a child, especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor, and aggravated sexual battery, resulting in a 37-year sentence. Owens claimed ineffective assistance of trial counsel for not effectively presenting a defense, failing to request a modified jury instruction on election of offenses as required in cases with generic evidence under State v. Qualls, and not raising issues of alleged perjury by witnesses via text messages in a motion for new trial. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the post-conviction court's denial, finding that counsel's performance was not deficient in these respects and that any omissions did not prejudice the outcome, as the evidence allowed specific elections and the text messages were unauthenticated and non-probative.
The case involves Carrington Owens appealing the denial of post-conviction relief after his convictions for multiple counts of sexual offenses against two minor victims, including rape of a child, especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor, and aggravated sexual battery, resulting in a 37-year sentence. Owens claimed ineffective assistance of trial counsel for not effectively presenting a defense, failing to request a modified jury instruction on election of offenses as required in cases with generic evidence under State v. Qualls, and not raising issues of alleged perjury by witnesses via text messages in a motion for new trial. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the post-conviction court's denial, finding that counsel's performance was not deficient in these respects and that any omissions did not prejudice the outcome, as the evidence allowed specific elections and the text messages were unauthenticated and non-probative.
Andrew Wylie petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that his sentence for forgery and identity theft had expired because the trial court improperly denied him credit for time served on community corrections. The trial court summarily dismissed the petition for failing to state a colorable claim. On appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the dismissal, holding that the petition did not comply with the mandatory procedural requirements of the habeas corpus statute, including verification by affidavit, attachment of relevant judgments and orders, and statements regarding prior adjudications. The court noted that the petitioner also failed to provide an adequate record to support his claims.
The case involved Rhonda Carole Sterbenz, who was convicted by a Coffee County Circuit Court jury of driving under the influence (fifth offense), DUI per se (fifth offense), violating the open container law, and failing to exercise due care, and received an effective sentence of two years and one day after the DUI convictions merged. On appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, the defendant argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the DUI convictions because no direct evidence showed she was intoxicated while driving an operable vehicle. The court affirmed the trial court's judgments, concluding that circumstantial evidence—including the defendant's proximity to her crashed vehicle with a warm engine, her admission to pulling over due to mechanical issues, officer observations of her impairment and a half-empty alcohol bottle in the car, and her blood alcohol concentration of .221% one hour after arrest—was sufficient for a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that she was under the influence while driving or in physical control of the vehicle.
In State of Tennessee v. Darrell Kindred Wakefield, the defendant pleaded guilty to one count of sexual battery in exchange for a two-year sentence but later moved to withdraw the plea under Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(f)(2), asserting that he did not fully understand the consequences of sex offender registry requirements. The trial court denied the motion after finding the plea was knowing and voluntary based on the plea colloquy and testimony. On appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the denial, holding that the record showed the defendant was advised of the registry obligation during the plea hearing and that he failed to establish manifest injustice warranting withdrawal.