Norma Mcgee Ogle

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.

criminal lawprocedure

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.

criminal law

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.

criminal law

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.

criminal lawprocedure

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.

criminal law

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.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

In 2019, Inman D. Turner was indicted in Rutherford County for two counts of criminal sexual conduct and four counts of aggravated rape based on alleged offenses against his daughter between 1978 and 1982. Turner moved to dismiss the indictment on due process grounds due to the approximately forty-year prosecutorial delay, and after an evidentiary hearing the trial court granted the motion. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, applying the Gray test because of the extreme length of the delay and finding that the defendant made a prima facie showing of prejudice from destroyed records, deceased witnesses, and faded memories, while the State lacked reasonable justification for the delay. The court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the charges.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Jennifer Sadie Thompson's pro se motion under Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 to correct what she claimed were illegal sentences in multiple cases, primarily arguing that the Tennessee Department of Correction had failed to apply pretrial jail credits, behavior credits, program credits, and street time to her sentences for convictions including felony failure to appear and identity theft. The trial court denied the motion, finding that the requested relief was administrative in nature and not appropriate for a Rule 36.1 proceeding. On appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the denial, holding that the failure to award pretrial jail credits does not render a sentence illegal under Rule 36.1 and that disputes over sentence reduction credits or release eligibility calculations must be pursued through the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act rather than a Rule 36.1 motion. The court also rejected the claim that recent statutory changes reclassifying failure to appear offenses required resentencing.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involves George John Byrd appealing the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief after being convicted of three counts of aggravated rape and one count of aggravated assault, resulting in a 25-year sentence. Byrd claimed his trial counsel was ineffective in several ways, including opening the door to harmful evidence, inadequate trial preparation, failing to interview and call witnesses, and not preparing him to testify. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the post-conviction court's denial, reasoning that the petitioner's arguments were too general, lacked specific citations, and failed to present necessary evidence or witnesses at the hearing to support the claims of ineffective assistance.

criminal law

In State of Tennessee v. Glenn Roby, Jr., and Kevyn Deshawn Allen, a Davidson County jury convicted the two defendants of first-degree premeditated murder after they allegedly killed the victim to prevent apprehension for a robbery and shooting committed hours earlier. The defendants appealed multiple trial court rulings, including the admission of evidence about the prior robbery, a witness's recorded interview as a prior inconsistent statement, denial of a coram nobis petition and severance motion, and the introduction of crime scene and autopsy photographs. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the convictions and life sentences, concluding after reviewing the record, briefs, and arguments that no reversible errors occurred and that the photographs were relevant to show wounds and other details without unfair prejudice.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned Eric Tyre Patton's convictions in Rutherford County Circuit Court for conspiracy to sell 150 grams or more of heroin and 300 grams or more of cocaine, with at least one overt act in a drug-free school zone, and possession of 300 grams or more of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver within a drug-free school zone. Patton appealed on multiple grounds, including insufficient evidence, errors in denying suppression of GPS and wiretap evidence, failure to identify confidential informants, admission of prior bad act testimony, improper jury instructions on credibility, and a Brady violation for withholding exculpatory information. The Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed the trial record, arguments, and claims, found no reversible error on any issue, and affirmed the judgments of the trial court.

criminal law

The case involved David Ian Lemons, who was convicted in Madison County Circuit Court of eleven drug and weapons offenses ranging from Class A misdemeanor to Class B felony, including multiple counts of marijuana possession with intent to sell or deliver, firearm possession during drug crimes, unlawful firearm possession by a felon, and drug paraphernalia. Following a sentencing hearing, he received an effective twenty-three-year sentence as a Range II multiple offender. On appeal, Lemons contended that the sentence was excessive due to improper application of an enhancement factor and consecutive sentencing. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgments, concluding that any partial misapplication of an enhancement factor did not render the sentence excessive and that, on de novo review, the defendant's extensive criminal history alone justified consecutive sentencing under Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-115(b)(2).

criminal law

In this case, Corey Dendy filed a petition for post-conviction relief after pleading guilty to aggravated robbery in exchange for a ten-year sentence, with other charges dismissed. He argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to contact a potential witness before the plea and that the plea was not knowing or voluntary due to pressure and lack of information. The post-conviction court denied relief, and the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, holding that Dendy knew at the time of the plea that counsel had not contacted the witness, that his statements in open court confirmed the plea was voluntary and free from coercion, and that entering a plea to avoid a longer potential sentence does not render it involuntary.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned Randy Oscar Blakeney, who had pleaded guilty in 1999 to first degree murder and especially aggravated robbery and received a life sentence plus forty years. He later filed a petition under the Post-Conviction DNA Analysis Act of 2001 seeking testing of evidence from the crime scene. The post-conviction court summarily denied the petition, and the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. The appellate court held that the extensive factual basis presented at the guilty-plea hearing, including the petitioner's bloody handprint and shoeprints at the scene, his cuts on his hands, and his statements to a witness, demonstrated that DNA testing would not have excluded him as the perpetrator or altered the outcome. The court also noted that the petitioner's limited disagreement with one detail of the factual basis did not undermine the overall stipulated facts supporting the convictions.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, Sean Matthew Houser pled guilty to driving under the influence in Grainger County Circuit Court but reserved two certified questions of law challenging the admissibility of evidence from a warrantless blood alcohol test taken after his arrest. The trial court had denied his motion to suppress the test results, which were obtained following field sobriety tests and his consent to a blood draw. On appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed the case without addressing the merits, holding that the certified questions were overly broad and failed to comply with the specificity requirements of Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2)(A). The court reasoned that the questions did not clearly identify the scope of the legal issues, such as the basis for challenging consent or the trial court's specific holdings, making meaningful review impossible under precedent like State v. Preston.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, pro se appellant Daniel H. Jones appealed the Sullivan County Criminal Court's summary dismissal of his motions to recuse the trial judge and for relief from final judgment under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02, which sought to challenge aspects of his 2008 criminal convictions and sentences for drug and assault offenses. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial court's orders. The core reasoning was that prior adverse rulings alone do not justify recusal and that the Rules of Civil Procedure do not apply to criminal judgments, which are instead governed by criminal procedure rules and statutes, making Rule 60.02 unavailable as a post-conviction remedy.

criminal lawprocedure

In State of Tennessee v. Derrick Himes, a Rutherford County jury convicted the defendant of three counts of rape of a child and three counts of aggravated sexual battery based on incidents involving the minor daughter of his girlfriend that occurred between 2007 and 2008. The trial court sentenced him to twenty-five years for each rape conviction and eight years for each aggravated sexual battery conviction, with the sentences structured to run consecutively for a total of thirty-three years. On appeal, the defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, the admission of certain testimony by the prosecution, and the imposition of consecutive sentencing. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentence, holding that the evidence supported the jury's verdicts, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the testimony, and that the consecutive sentencing was justified under Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-115(b)(5) due to the defendant's position of trust and the harm to the victim.

criminal law

The case involved Tarrance Jershun Perry's appeal of his conviction for rape by force or coercion, a Class B felony, after a jury trial in Madison County Circuit Court where he was sentenced to fifteen years at 100% release eligibility. The appellant argued that a constructive amendment or fatal variance occurred because the indictment alleged rape by force or coercion but the proof showed lack of consent, and that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the judgment, holding that the victim's testimony established the use of force through her statements that she told the appellant to stop, pushed him, and that the penetration was painful and against her will. The court further reasoned that while any threat occurred after the act, the proof of physical force was sufficient on its own.

criminal law

The case involved Brett A. Patterson's petition for a writ of error coram nobis in the Montgomery County Circuit Court, seeking to challenge his 1988 convictions for two counts of first-degree murder, burglary, and aggravated rape based on alleged newly discovered evidence. This evidence included laboratory notes indicating a vial of the victim's blood had broken and spilled onto other items during transport, and a tow-in receipt suggesting the State obtained certain evidence before obtaining a search warrant; the petitioner also sought to toll the statute of limitations. After an evidentiary hearing, the coram nobis court denied the petition, and the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed that denial. The court reasoned that the new information did not qualify as material evidence that might have altered the trial outcome, as the spilled blood involved only the victim's samples and not the petitioner's, there was no showing of a Brady violation, and the trial evidence against the petitioner was overwhelming.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Benjamin Lee Pearson, Jr., who pled guilty to two counts of aggravated sexual battery and received concurrent sixteen-year sentences. He later filed a post-conviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary. After an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. On appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, concluding that the record showed the plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent, and that the petitioner failed to prove deficient performance by counsel or resulting prejudice.

criminal lawprocedure