Camille R. McMullen

The case involved Devan Denton, who was convicted by a Shelby County jury of multiple crimes including aggravated rape and sentenced to fifteen years in prison, filing a petition for habeas corpus relief while temporarily held in the Shelby County Jail for post-conviction proceedings. He alleged that three counts of his indictment were defective, depriving the trial court of jurisdiction and rendering his convictions void. The habeas corpus court denied relief after a hearing, concluding that Denton failed to prove his confinement was illegal and that the petition had not been filed in the most convenient court. On appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the denial, ruling that habeas corpus petitions must generally be filed in the county of the petitioner's normal confinement unless sufficient reason exists otherwise, and that temporary presence in Shelby County, the indictment's location, or counsel's convenience did not qualify.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Xavier Young appealing the denial of post-conviction relief after he pleaded guilty to carjacking in exchange for dismissal of a related firearm charge and a sentence of just over seven years. Young argued that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to adequately explain the plea consequences, particularly regarding probation eligibility, which rendered his guilty plea unknowing and involuntary. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the post-conviction court's denial of relief. The court reasoned that the plea hearing transcript and counsel's credible testimony showed Young understood the terms, including that probation was only a possibility and not guaranteed, and that he had not established deficient performance or prejudice.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Bobby V. Summers's pro se appeal from the summary dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his 2019 conviction for facilitation of first-degree premeditated murder, entered via guilty plea under a negotiated agreement. Summers argued that facilitation of first-degree murder is not a valid offense, that his conviction was void without a principal offender's prosecution or conviction, that the indictment was defective, and that his plea was involuntary due to coercion by counsel. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the dismissal, holding that the petition was procedurally defective, raised no cognizable habeas claims, and lacked legal merit because Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-11-407 expressly permits conviction for facilitation without a principal's conviction or prosecution, the indictment charged a valid offense, and voluntariness challenges are not cognizable in habeas corpus proceedings. The court further noted that the issues had been previously litigated and rejected in Summers's prior collateral attacks.

criminal lawprocedure

A Carroll County jury convicted Bruce Allen Ivy, Jr. of one count of rape of a child and two counts of aggravated sexual battery based on allegations that he sexually abused his minor nieces, J.L. and S.L., over a period of years, and the trial court imposed a total effective sentence of fifty-two years in prison. On appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, Ivy challenged only the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions. The appellate court affirmed the judgments, holding that the victims' detailed testimony about specific incidents of abuse, combined with Ivy's confession that was consistent with the victims' accounts, provided a sufficient basis for a rational jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court noted that challenges to the voluntariness of the confession had been waived because they were not raised in the motion for new trial.

criminal law

In this case, Howard Jefferson Atkins, who was transferred from juvenile court to adult court in 2000 and later convicted of first-degree murder, appealed the trial court's denial of his pro se Rule 36 motion seeking to correct an alleged clerical error in the juvenile transfer order's findings on statutory criteria. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the summary denial of the motion. The court reasoned that the written transfer order accurately reflected the juvenile court's intended findings under Tennessee Code Annotated section 37-1-134, that any ambiguities in oral statements did not constitute a clerical mistake, and that Rule 36 cannot be used to challenge the substantive validity of the transfer or reopen long-resolved issues. The decision emphasized that the motion improperly sought to relitigate the juvenile court's discretionary determinations rather than address a true clerical error.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Nakeavious Milan, who entered a guilty plea to voluntary manslaughter for fatally shooting his uncle on February 4, 2023, and received an eight-year sentence as a Range II offender, with the trial court to decide on probation eligibility. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court denied full probation and ordered the defendant to serve the sentence in confinement, citing the seriousness of the offense, the need for deterrence, inconsistencies in the defendant's account of events, and his prior juvenile adjudications for unlawful weapon possession. On appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the court had properly considered mitigating evidence such as the defendant's rehabilitation programs, education, and remorse but appropriately weighed it against statutory sentencing factors under Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-103. The appellate court concluded there was no abuse of discretion in requiring confinement.

criminal lawprocedure

In State of Tennessee v. Markell Nolen, a jury convicted the defendant of possessing methamphetamine with intent to sell and deliver, as well as driving on a suspended license, after a traffic stop revealed suspected drugs in the trunk of a borrowed car; the trial court merged the drug counts and imposed a ten-year sentence. On direct appeal, the defendant challenged both the effectiveness of his trial counsel and the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the drug convictions. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of the ineffective-assistance claim. However, it reversed the drug convictions, holding that the evidence was insufficient because the State failed to prove the defendant knew the drugs were in the vehicle, given factors such as the absence of incriminating statements, lack of paraphernalia, the defendant's non-ownership of the car, and no signs of drug use. The court therefore vacated those convictions and dismissed the charges.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Jay Burroughs Chandler, who was charged with fifty-four counts of possessing material depicting a minor child engaged in sexual activity after police recovered such images from his cell phone and home devices following a report of him engaging in sexual activity with a minor. The trial court denied the defendant's motions to suppress the evidence obtained from the phone and home, convicted him after a bench trial, and sentenced him to an effective 100 years in prison. On appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the convictions, finding no error in the denial of the suppression motions. However, it vacated the sentence and remanded for a new sentencing hearing because the trial court misapplied an enhancing factor, failed to consider a risk and needs assessment, and improperly referenced religious beliefs during sentencing in violation of statutory requirements.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Jarvis Jones appealing the revocation of his probation after being charged with new offenses including especially aggravated kidnapping and aggravated assault while on supervised probation for prior convictions like aggravated burglary and firearm possession. The trial court revoked his eight-year probationary sentence in full, and the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed this decision. The court reasoned that the trial court properly considered the two-step revocation process, that Jones had a lengthy criminal history, had already received leniency with probation, committed similar evading offenses again, and was assessed as high-risk, making him unsuitable for continued community supervision.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Patrick Gardner Ford, who was stopped for speeding and found in possession of marijuana and a loaded handgun, leading to his indictment on multiple charges including unlawful possession of a firearm by a person convicted of a felony crime of violence. He petitioned to enter a guilty plea to that charge with an agreement for an 8-year sentence as a Range I offender, conditioned on his appearance and good behavior at a later hearing, but after failing to appear the trial court held a full sentencing hearing and imposed a 12-year sentence as a Range II offender. On appeal, Ford argued the trial court abused its discretion by denying his request for an alternative sentence such as community corrections. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the judgment, concluding that Ford was statutorily ineligible for community corrections due to his sentence length exceeding ten years and his criminal history, and that the trial court properly applied sentencing principles favoring confinement.

criminal lawguns

The case involved the revocation of probation for Corey Ellis, who had been convicted of aggravated assault and was serving a suspended sentence. The trial court revoked his probation after finding multiple violations, including failure to report to his probation officer, refusal to submit to drug screens, non-compliance with counseling, and new felony charges involving sexual offenses against a minor. Ellis appealed, arguing that the court did not adequately consider his potential for rehabilitation, public safety risks, or an updated risk assessment. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the revocation, holding that the trial court properly exercised its discretion based on the defendant's repeated non-compliance and the seriousness of the new allegations.

criminal lawprocedure

In State of Tennessee v. Jansen L. Smith, the defendant was convicted of first-offense DUI after a jury trial in Sequatchie County, following the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained during a police stop. The defendant appealed, arguing that the detention violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and the Tennessee Constitution because officers lacked reasonable suspicion or probable cause. The Court of Criminal Appeals held that the second stop unreasonably extended the initial Terry-type investigatory stop beyond its permissible scope, rendering the detention unconstitutional and requiring suppression of the evidence, including blood test results, as fruit of the poisonous tree. Although the court found that probable cause existed for the DUI arrest based on the defendant's behavior, lethargy, admission to taking medication, and field sobriety test results, the unconstitutional extension of the stop required reversal of the trial court's order. The court therefore reversed the judgment, vacated the conviction, and dismissed the charge.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

The case concerned Cedric Taylor's petition for post-conviction relief after he pleaded guilty to possession with intent to deliver cocaine and resisting arrest, receiving a 14-year sentence. Taylor argued that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to pursue a motion to suppress evidence from a vehicle search and by not appealing the sentence, and that his guilty plea was unknowing and involuntary due to counsel's advice about probation. The post-conviction court granted a delayed appeal on the sentencing issue but denied the remaining claims after a hearing. On appeal, the court affirmed the denial, finding that Taylor did not prove prejudice from the lack of a suppression hearing and that the stop and search were supported by the observed speeding violation and odor of marijuana.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved defendant Christopher Lance Osteen, who escaped from a Tennessee prison in 2020, committed new crimes in Kentucky and Tennessee including aggravated kidnappings, and was later arrested in Florida before being returned to Tennessee. After pleading guilty to two counts of aggravated kidnapping in Henry County, he sought under Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37 to reserve three certified questions of law for appeal concerning whether his speedy trial and due process rights attached upon his Florida arrest and were properly invoked through a verbal request or written letters and motions to dismiss. The Court of Criminal Appeals held that the certified questions were improperly reserved because they failed to clearly identify the legal issues, the defendant's supporting reasoning, or the trial court's reasoning without requiring the appellate court to comb the record. As a result, the court lacked jurisdiction to review the merits and dismissed the appeal.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involves Heath Bell's appeal from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief after his conviction for first-degree murder in the shooting death of Joe Howell in a Memphis apartment parking lot. Bell argued that trial and appellate counsel were ineffective for failing to challenge the admissibility of witness Chamere Talley's prior statement under Tennessee Rule of Evidence 803(26), that due process was violated by the lack of a required hearing on that statement, that counsel's closing argument was inadequate, and that cumulative errors warranted relief. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the post-conviction court's denial of relief, holding that Bell failed to prove counsel's performance was deficient or prejudicial, that no due process violation was established, that the closing argument was not shown to be inadequate, and that the cumulative error claim was either waived or inapplicable since no individual errors were found.

criminal lawprocedure

In State of Tennessee v. Christopher Lee Faulkner, the defendant was indicted on nine drug- and weapon-related counts after officers executed a search warrant at his home based on an affidavit citing tips from an anonymous informant and two confidential informants about marijuana, methamphetamine, and guns. The defendant moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the affidavit failed to establish probable cause due to insufficient details on the informants' credibility and staleness of the information, but the trial court denied the motion, finding the tips minimally sufficient when corroborated. The defendant then sought permission for an interlocutory appeal under Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 9, which the trial court granted but the Court of Criminal Appeals denied. The appellate court reasoned that the case did not meet Rule 9 criteria, as there was no showing of irreparable injury beyond that faced by any defendant, direct appeal or a conditional guilty plea under Rule 37 would suffice if the issue was dispositive, and there was no demonstrated need to reduce litigation costs or establish uniform law on the suppression question.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Shun M. Ramey appealing the summary dismissal of his pro se petition for post-conviction relief in a Tennessee criminal court. Ramey had pleaded guilty in 2012 to second-degree murder stemming from a 2010 killing and robbery, and he filed his petition thirteen years later alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and mental health issues that affected his plea. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the dismissal, holding that the petition was filed well after the one-year statute of limitations under Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-30-102(a) and that Ramey had not alleged any circumstances, such as mental incompetence preventing timely filing, that would warrant due process tolling.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a post-conviction petition filed by Marterious O’Neal after his convictions for two counts of felony murder, eight counts of attempted aggravated robbery, and one count of aggravated assault, resulting in a life sentence. O’Neal alleged ineffective assistance by trial counsel for not filing a Tennessee Rule of Evidence 608 motion to impeach a witness and by appellate counsel for failing to include a motion-to-suppress transcript on direct appeal and for not properly withdrawing under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 14 to allow a timely Rule 11 application. The post-conviction court granted a delayed Rule 11 appeal but denied relief on the other claims. On appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the grant of a delayed appeal because appellate counsel had in fact filed a timely Rule 11 application that was denied by the Tennessee Supreme Court; it also held that the Rule 608 claim had not been previously determined but that O’Neal failed to show deficient performance or prejudice on that or the transcript issue, and therefore affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief in all other respects.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved charges against Justin Darnay Graves for the sale and delivery of heroin and methamphetamine, with the actual transaction occurring in Gibson County even though the defendant was based in Madison County. The majority opinion reversed the sale convictions but affirmed the delivery convictions, finding that venue was proper in Madison County. In this partial concurrence and dissent, the judge agrees with reversing the sales but disagrees with affirming the deliveries, reasoning that venue requires proof by a preponderance of the evidence that at least one element of the offense occurred in the county, and the statutory element of delivery (defined as an actual, constructive, or attempted transfer) took place only in Gibson County. The dissent emphasizes that the distinct offenses under Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-417(a) and principles of statutory construction prevent construing mere transport with intent as an attempted transfer or delivery in Madison County, and that the defendant could instead have been charged with possession with intent to deliver.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Keylone Jones, who was indicted for first-degree premeditated murder in the shooting death of Michael Hawkins, Jr., but convicted by a jury of second-degree murder and sentenced to twenty years in prison. Prior to trial, the defendant moved to suppress his police statement as involuntary due to alleged coercion and the absence of his mother during questioning, and he also challenged an in-court identification stemming from a suppressed photographic lineup; the trial court denied suppression of the statement but granted it for the lineup. On appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the statement was voluntary because the defendant (nearly eighteen years old) had been read his rights, signed a waiver, and did not invoke his mother's presence or request counsel, with no evidence of coercion. The court further held that the in-court identification issue was waived for failure to raise it in the motion for new trial. The matter was remanded solely for entry of a corrected judgment order reflecting the proper indicted offense.

criminal lawprocedure