Robert W. Wedemeyer

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.

criminal lawprocedure

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.

criminal lawguns

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.

criminal lawprocedure

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.

criminal law

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.

criminal lawprocedure

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.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, Tony Von Carruthers, convicted in 1994 of three counts of first-degree murder and related charges including kidnapping and robbery, sought post-conviction fingerprint analysis under Tennessee's 2021 Post-Conviction Fingerprint Analysis Act to compare latent prints from two victims' home against those of Ronnie Irving, a man implicated by a co-defendant. The post-conviction court summarily dismissed the petition, concluding that the petitioner failed to satisfy the statutory requirements for either mandatory or discretionary testing. On appeal, the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the dismissal, holding that even favorable fingerprint results would not have produced a different outcome at trial given the extensive independent evidence of the petitioner's guilt, including his pre-crime planning statements and post-arrest confessions. The court further declined to consider unrelated claims, such as witness credibility issues, under the fingerprint-specific statute.

criminal lawprocedure

In 2023, a Knox County jury convicted Demetruice Bennett of assault, two counts of unlawful firearm possession by a felon, and evading arrest, resulting in a 20-year sentence. Bennett appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by admitting a video of him possessing a firearm on a different date, that his counsel was ineffective for not objecting to the video, and that the evidence was insufficient to support the firearm convictions. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the judgments, holding that the jury's credibility findings supported the convictions and that no reversible error occurred in the admission of evidence or counsel's performance.

criminal lawgunsprocedure

The case involved Crystal Lee Martin, who entered an Alford plea to DUI in March 2025 and received a time-served sentence, after prior probation violations stemming from a 2019 guilty plea to attempted aggravated child neglect. Martin filed multiple post-conviction motions and a petition for relief challenging her convictions and related proceedings, but the post-conviction court found the petition was not properly verified under oath as required and gave her fifteen days to file an amended version. When Martin refused to amend and insisted her filing was sufficient, the court summarily dismissed the petition along with her other motions. On appeal, the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the dismissal, holding that the verification requirement is mandatory and that Martin's failure to comply justified summary dismissal without further proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerns a petition for post-conviction DNA analysis filed by Coy J. Cotham, Jr., who had been convicted by a Davidson County jury of first-degree premeditated murder and especially aggravated robbery and sentenced to life without parole plus a consecutive twenty-five-year term. The petitioner sought DNA testing of a blue towel recovered from his vehicle, arguing it could be exculpatory. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the post-conviction court's summary denial of the petition. The court reasoned that the towel played only a minimal role in the prosecution, while substantial other evidence—including cell phone records, co-defendant testimony, and motive evidence—supported the convictions, so there was no reasonable probability that exculpatory DNA results would have prevented prosecution or conviction.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the conviction of Jacque Bouvier Bennett for aggravated rape of a child, aggravated sexual battery, and assault by offensive touching, stemming from allegations of sexual contact with a two-year-old victim while at the home of the victim's father. The trial court imposed an effective fifty-year sentence. On appeal, Bennett raised issues regarding the victim's competence to testify, the presence of the victim's mother during testimony, admission of the forensic interview, the absence of an in-court identification by the victim, and the cumulative effect of alleged errors. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the convictions, concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary and procedural rulings and that the evidence, including statements identifying the defendant as "Jacque" living at the father's house, was sufficient for the jury to determine identity.

criminal law

The case involved a defendant convicted by a Hamblen County jury of theft of property valued between $1,000 and $2,500 after he stole and sold a trailer. On appeal, the defendant challenged the trial court's admission of certain prior convictions for impeachment under Tennessee Rule of Evidence 609 and its imposition of the $1,750 fine set by the jury without additional findings. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction and the admission of the prior convictions, finding they were properly evaluated for probative value versus prejudice and similarity to the charged offense. However, it vacated the fine because the trial court failed to apply the sentencing factors from the 1989 Sentencing Act, such as the defendant's history and rehabilitation potential, and instead merely adopted the jury's amount. The case was remanded for a new sentencing hearing limited to the fine.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the defendant being convicted by a Sullivan County jury of first degree premeditated murder and conspiracy to commit first degree premeditated murder after shooting the victim, his wife's ex-husband, in a Walmart parking lot amid an ongoing child custody dispute. The trial court imposed a life sentence for the murder and a consecutive twenty-five-year sentence for the conspiracy. On appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the convictions and the life sentence, concluding that the evidence was sufficient and that the trial court did not err in its jury instructions. The court vacated the conspiracy sentence and the partial consecutive sentencing, however, because the trial court failed to make the required findings to classify the defendant as a dangerous offender, and it remanded the case for a new sentencing hearing.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, a Madison County jury convicted William Dangelo Penny of felony evading arrest, misdemeanor evading arrest, leaving the scene of an accident, and driving with a suspended license after he fled officers following a traffic collision, leading to a high-speed pursuit; he was sentenced to nine years in prison. Penny appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions and that the trial court erred by denying his motion for a continuance on the day of trial. The State responded that the appeal was untimely. The Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed the appeal because the notice was filed more than thirty days after the trial court's denial of the motion for new trial, with no justification provided for the delay and no basis to waive the timeliness requirement in the interest of justice.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerns Sean William Lee's 2025 petition for post-conviction relief challenging his 2019 guilty plea to attempting to violate the Sex Offender Registry Act, for which he received a 270-day sentence. Lee contended that a federal preliminary injunction against SORA enforcement applied retroactively to void his conviction and that the State and his trial counsel failed to provide proper notice of registration requirements. The post-conviction court summarily dismissed the petition as untimely. On appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the dismissal, holding that Lee failed to provide a complete record of his original conviction and plea hearing, which prevented him from demonstrating any ex post facto violation given that relevant SORA restrictions predated his underlying offense.

criminal lawprocedure

In 2011, Joshua Bowman was convicted by a Knox County jury of multiple offenses arising from a 2009 home invasion robbery and killing. After an earlier appeal led to remand of one count, Bowman filed a 2022 petition for writ of error coram nobis based on his own mental health and educational records, which he claimed constituted newly discovered evidence supporting a diminished capacity defense. The coram nobis court dismissed the petition as untimely under the one-year statute of limitations, finding no basis for equitable tolling because Bowman had been aware of his educational limitations before trial and had discussed them with counsel. On appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, holding that the records were not newly discovered, were not later-arising, and did not clearly and convincingly establish actual innocence as required for tolling.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Demonte Isom, who was convicted by a Shelby County jury of first-degree premeditated murder for shooting and killing Eugene Keefer outside a birthday party in Memphis. Isom appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction, reasoning that surveillance footage, identifications by witnesses, and other evidence demonstrated that Isom intentionally approached and shot the victim multiple times before fleeing, and that the jury properly assessed the credibility of the testimony.

criminal law

In this case, Teresa Shinpaugh pleaded guilty in 2023 to criminally negligent homicide and aggravated neglect of an elderly adult after an elderly victim in her care died of starvation and dehydration while neglected in a basement. The trial court imposed concurrent sentences of two and eight years, with one year to be served in confinement and the rest on probation, based on the shocking circumstances of the victim's death despite a care agreement. On appeal, Shinpaugh challenged the one year of confinement as an improper sentence alternative. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgments, holding that the trial court properly considered the required sentencing factors, including the egregious facts of the case, and did not abuse its discretion in ordering split confinement.

criminal law

The case involved Kavaughn Jones, who pleaded guilty in 2022 to two counts of attempted rape and one count of attempted aggravated sexual battery, receiving an eight-year sentence. In January 2025, he filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate the case, call witnesses, or seek a psychiatric evaluation. The post-conviction court summarily dismissed the petition as time-barred under the one-year statute of limitations, which expired in March 2023, and found that no statutory exceptions or due process grounds for tolling applied. On appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the dismissal, holding that the petition was untimely filed and that the post-conviction court lacked jurisdiction to consider the claims.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involves Jacquiz McBee, who was convicted by a Knox County jury of first-degree murder in the shooting death of his ex-girlfriend Jessica Davis and sentenced to life in prison. After his conviction was affirmed on direct appeal, McBee filed a petition under the Post-Conviction DNA Analysis Act seeking DNA and fingerprint testing of evidence including a handgun, magazine, shell casings, and a laser sight. The post-conviction court summarily dismissed the petition, and McBee appealed. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, holding that the petitioner failed to show a reasonable probability that exculpatory results from the testing would have prevented his prosecution or conviction, given his own account of the events and the limited probative value of potential matches to other individuals.

criminal lawprocedure