The case involved Scott A. Stiner, who was convicted by a jury in Union County Criminal Court of one count of soliciting sexual exploitation of a minor and four counts of aggravated sexual battery against children under thirteen, resulting in an effective fifty-four-year sentence. On appeal, the defendant raised multiple issues including discrepancies between the indictment and evidence presented, failure to sever offenses, insufficient evidence on one count, lack of unanimous verdict, mistrial denial, improper admission of evidence under Rule 404(b), authentication issues, expert testimony scope, and consecutive sentencing. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's judgments, finding no merit in the defendant's claims regarding trial fairness, evidentiary rulings, sentencing, and other procedural matters.
The case involves defendant Mawule Tepe, charged with stalking and aggravated stalking in Bradley County general sessions and criminal courts. Tepe filed pro se motions to recuse the presiding judges, claiming bias from their failure to rule on his other pro se filings about bail conditions, arrest legality, and related matters. The Court of Criminal Appeals summarily dismissed his petition for accelerated interlocutory appeal under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B. The court reasoned that no order denying recusal had been entered to enable review, and that a represented defendant is barred from filing pro se motions, rendering the petition a nullity.
The case involved a pro se defendant indicted for resisting arrest who sought an interlocutory appeal after the trial court granted his counsel's motion to withdraw due to a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. The Court of Criminal Appeals denied the application for interlocutory appeal, finding it procedurally insufficient because the defendant had not first obtained permission from the trial court as required by Rule 9 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, and the provided record was inadequate for review.
The case involved the conviction of Oscar Romero for the rape of a nineteen-year-old victim following a party at his home on December 26-27, 2020. Romero appealed his Class B felony conviction, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict, that the trial court wrongly excluded rebuttal evidence intended to impeach the victim, and that the court misapplied an enhancement factor based on the victim's vulnerability during sentencing. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the conviction and the ten-year sentence. The court determined that the evidence, including the victim's testimony about the assault while she was intoxicated, was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. On sentencing, even if the trial court erred in applying one enhancement factor based solely on age difference, other valid factors supported the within-range sentence under the applicable standards.
The case concerned the convictions of Evelyn D. Kennedy and Christopher L. Kennedy for first-degree felony murder and aggravated neglect of an elderly or vulnerable adult resulting in serious bodily injury. The defendants, who served as caregivers for Evelyn Kennedy's 72-year-old aunt, were found to have confined her to a basement room in unsanitary conditions without adequate nutrition, hydration, hygiene, or medical care, leading to her hospitalization in April 2019 and death in June 2019. On appeal, the defendants challenged the convictions on ex post facto grounds and the admission of graphic autopsy photographs, but the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the judgments. The court determined that the ex post facto claims were without merit and that any error in admitting one inflammatory photograph was harmless because the evidence of guilt was overwhelming.
In State of Tennessee v. William P. Eblen, the defendant sought to appeal final judgments from the Knox County General Sessions Court directly to the Court of Criminal Appeals and requested permission to proceed pro se after his appointed counsel declined to file the appeal. The court determined it lacked jurisdiction because appeals from general sessions court judgments must first be taken to the circuit or criminal court within ten days under Tennessee Code Annotated § 27-5-108(a)(1), rather than directly to the appellate court. It also noted that a defendant cannot proceed pro se while represented by counsel and that a separate appeal by counsel was already pending in criminal court. Accordingly, the court denied the motion to proceed pro se and dismissed the appeal.