In this case, Laura Naomi Clifton pleaded guilty in 2024 to two counts of sexual exploitation of a minor with an agreed sentence and a plea agreement specifying she would not be placed on the sex offender registry. After serving her sentence, she was nonetheless required to register and filed a petition for post-conviction relief seeking to withdraw her plea. During a hearing, the post-conviction court allowed her time to consider her options in the parking lot but then dismissed the petition for failure to prosecute when she was briefly locked out and did not immediately return. The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the dismissal, holding that the record showed no abuse of process or bad faith by the petitioner and that dismissal for failure to prosecute should be exercised sparingly, and remanded for a hearing on the petition.
The case involved a traffic stop of Cordero Klein Blake for speeding and erratic driving, leading to his convictions for driving under the influence of marijuana, possession of a handgun while under the influence, and several traffic offenses. The defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for the DUI and handgun convictions on appeal. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the convictions, finding that the officer's observations of erratic driving, the smell of marijuana, the defendant's dazed appearance and red eyes, failed field sobriety tests, and the discovery of a gun and marijuana residue provided sufficient evidence for a rational jury to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.
This case involved a Knox County jury convicting the defendant of aggravated assault by strangulation, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, domestic assault, and especially aggravated kidnapping based on an incident in which he struck, strangled, bound, and restrained a victim inside a van before attempting to run her over while she fled. The trial court imposed a total effective sentence of forty years. On appeal, the defendant challenged the denial of his motion to suppress evidence from a warrantless search of a second van in which he lived, the exclusion of evidence from a prior domestic dispute, the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions, and his sentence. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the judgments, holding that the defendant lacked standing to contest the search because the van was unregistered to him and parked in a public lot, that other claims were either waived or meritless, and that the evidence was sufficient.
The case involved a Shelby County jury convicting Richard Higgs, Jr., of rape of a child, sexual battery by an authority figure, and incest based on acts against his minor daughters aged twelve and fourteen. The trial court imposed a total effective sentence of fifty years. On appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the judgments, holding that the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the State—including the victims' testimony, DNA evidence matching the defendant, medical injury findings, and proof of the defendant's parental relationship and supervisory role—was sufficient for a rational jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on all counts.
The case involved Bobby Joe Patrick, who was convicted by a jury of two counts of rape of a child and sentenced to an effective 67-year prison term. After his direct appeal was denied, Patrick filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object to the admission of certain Rule 404(b) prior bad act evidence. The post-conviction court held a hearing and denied relief, finding that counsel's decisions were strategic and based on adequate preparation. On appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the denial, concluding that Patrick had not shown deficient performance by counsel or resulting prejudice by clear and convincing evidence, and that no cumulative error warranted relief.
This case involved a defendant who pleaded guilty to multiple charges including evading arrest in a motor vehicle and aggravated assault, receiving an eight-year sentence with twelve months in jail followed by probation. After the defendant absconded from supervision, the trial court revoked his probation and ordered him to serve the remainder of his sentence in incarceration. On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court erred in imposing confinement. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the decision, holding that absconding constitutes a non-technical violation of probation, allowing the court discretion to revoke probation and order incarceration, and that the trial court's findings on the record were sufficient to support the ruling.