The case involved Desean Allen Blackman appealing his convictions in Madison County Circuit Court for two counts of aggravated sexual battery, for which he received concurrent nine-year sentences. The defendant argued on appeal that the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions and that the trial court erred by permitting a law enforcement officer to testify about the defendant invoking his right not to speak. The Court of Criminal Appeals concluded that the evidence was sufficient and that, although the trial court erred in admitting the testimony, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the State did not emphasize the silence, the jury was properly instructed, and other evidence including the victim's testimony and the defendant's inconsistent statements was strong. The court therefore affirmed the judgments.
The case involved Deborah Morton, who was convicted by a jury in Loudon County Criminal Court of first-degree premeditated murder of her husband and sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal, Morton challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, certain evidentiary rulings regarding lay and expert testimony, the denial of a jury instruction on failure to preserve evidence, and alleged prosecutorial misconduct, claiming these errors cumulatively deprived her of a fair trial. The Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed the record and affirmed the conviction, concluding that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict and that the trial court did not commit any errors in its rulings or instructions.
The case involved Edward Earl Killgo, who pled guilty to statutory rape in Knox County Criminal Court and received a six-year sentence as a Range III persistent offender, with the trial court to decide the manner of service, including judicial diversion and placement on the sex offender registry. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court denied diversion, ordered supervised probation after credit for time served, and required registry placement. On appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals reversed these rulings, holding that the trial court erred by inferring the use of force solely from the victim's impact statement, which was not inconsistent with the stipulated plea facts showing no force, and by failing to properly weigh other diversion factors or provide separate reasoning for the registry order.
The case involved Otto Karl Appelt, who was convicted after a jury trial of vandalism of property valued more than $1,000 but less than $2,500 for damaging commercial dryers at a laundromat. Representing himself at trial, Appelt received a sentence of two years as a Range I offender, consisting of four months in confinement followed by supervised probation, along with a $2,000 restitution order. On appeal, he raised claims regarding the validity of his counsel waiver, the sufficiency of the evidence, the length and manner of his sentence, and the restitution amount and procedure. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence in full but reversed the restitution order, remanding for further proceedings because the trial court had not considered the defendant's ability to pay or specified the timing and manner of payments as required by statute.
The case involved Javier C. Perez, who was convicted in Washington County Criminal Court of possessing 0.5 grams or more of methamphetamine with intent to sell, a Class B felony, after police found 23 grams of the drug in his coat during a response to his 911 call about an attempted break-in. Perez appealed on five grounds, including challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence, a jury instruction allowing inference of intent to sell from the quantity of drugs, denial of a mistrial motion, alleged improper vouching in closing arguments, and denial of a new trial based on newly discovered evidence about local crime reports. The Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed each claim and determined that the evidence supported the conviction, the jury instruction was proper, no error occurred in the trial proceedings, and the new evidence would not have changed the outcome. The court therefore affirmed the trial court's judgment and eight-year sentence.
The case involved Joseph Sanford McNair, Jr.'s petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for possession of cocaine with intent to deliver or sell and possession of marijuana, along with an effective twelve-year sentence. The petitioner alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel for not pursuing claims about the racial makeup of the jury pool, a constructive amendment to the indictment, and Fourth Amendment issues in a suppression motion, and he also raised standalone claims of a Sixth Amendment fair cross-section violation and a double jeopardy violation. The post-conviction court denied relief, and the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed that decision. The court reasoned that trial counsel had adequately litigated the suppression and other issues without deficiency, that the petitioner failed to show prejudice or merit in the claims, and that no errors occurred to support relief under any theory.