Robert Glen Coe v. State of Tennessee - Order
Appellant, Robert Glen Coe, appeals from the dismissal of his third post-conviction relief petition. He has been convicted of first degree murder, aggravated rape, and aggravated kidnaping. He was sentenced to death for first degree murder and received two sentences of life imprisonment for the other charges. Coe contends the trial court erred in dismissing his petition and presents to this Court the following issues for review: (1) whether the state withheld exculpatory evidence and presented misleading testimony; (2) whether the use of the felony-murder aggravating circumstance rendered the death penalty unconstitutional; (3) whether the jury instruction defining “reasonable doubt” was unconstitutional; (4) whether the jury instruction on first degree murder omitted an essential element of the offense; (5) whether he was denied the fundamental right to a unanimous jury verdict; (6) whether the jury instruction on expert testimony was unconstitutional; (7) whether the jury was unconstitutionally instructed on the effect of a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity; (8) whether the jury instructions precluded full consideration of the defense of insanity; (9) whether the failure to instruct the jury about eligibility for parole was unconstitutional; (10) whether the jury instructions erroneously omitted information about the effect of a non-unanimous verdict; (11) whether he was denied effective review of the death sentence; (12) whether he was denied effective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal, including the denial of entitlement to investigative funds; (13) whether electrocution constitutes cruel and unusual punishment; (14) whether he was unconstitutionally precluded from consulting with counsel during trial; (15) whether the death sentence unconstitutionally infringes upon his fundamental right to life; and (16) whether he was arrested without probable cause. We affirm the dismissal of the petition. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Timothy Wade Hall, Sr.
The defendant was convicted by a jury of attempt to commit second-degree murder and aggravated assault. After a hearing, he was sentenced to twelve years on the attempt offense and eight years on the assault offense, to run concurrently. In this appeal as of right, the defendant argues that his two convictions must be merged; that the trial court erred in denying his motion for mistrial; and that his sentence is excessive. Finding merit in the first of these issues, we reverse and dismiss the defendant’s conviction for aggravated assault. We otherwise affirm the judgment below. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Bobby Baker
The appellant, Bobby Baker, was convicted of aggravated rape, a Class A felony, and aggravated burglary, a Class C felony, by a jury of his peers. The trial court, finding that the appellant was a multiple offender in the aggravated rape case, imposed a Range II sentence consisting of confinement for thirty-five (35) years in the Department of Correction. The trial court further found that the appellant was a persistent offender in the aggravated burglary case and imposed a Range III sentence consisting of confinement for twelve (12) years in the Department of Correction. The sentences are to be served consecutively. The effective sentence imposed was confinement for forty-seven (47) years in the Department of Correction. The appellant presents eleven issues for review. After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, and the authorities which govern the issues raised by the appellant, it is the opinion of this Court that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. |
Tipton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Billy Joe Harris
The appellant, Billy Joe Harris, appeals as of right from a judgment of the trial court summarily dismissing his motion for a new trial. The appellant claimed he was entitled to a new trial due to newly discovered evidence. The trial court found the motion was not timely filed pursuant to the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure. The appellant was tried and convicted on April 27, 1989. His motion for a new trial was denied. This Court affirmed his conviction and sentence, and the Supreme Court also affirmed the sentence. He subsequently instituted four suits for post-conviction relief. All four suits were denied at every stage of the proceedings. The present motion was filed June 26, 1995 as a separate action. After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, and the law governing the issue presented for review, it is the opinion of this Court the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. |
Obion | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Perry A. Cribbs
The defendant, Perry A. Cribbs, was convicted of premeditated first degree murder, first degree murder during the perpetration of an aggravated burglary, first degree murder during the perpetration of aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, and attempted first degree murder. The death penalty verdicts were based upon two of the aggravating circumstances prescribed by statute: (1) the defendant was previously convicted of one or more felonies, other than the present charge, whose statutory elements involve the use of violence to the person; and (2) the murder was committed while the defendant was engaged in committing a burglary. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jerome Sydney Barrett v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. There was no evidentiary hearing. While the petitioner submits an extensive brief outlining a number of issues, we have summarized his claims as follows: (1) whether the trial court erred when it determined that sentence reform legislation adopted in 1979 and 1989 did not apply to petitioner's sentence; (2) whether the subsequent sentence reform acts deny petitioner equal protection under the law and due process of the law; (3) whether the petitioner's sentence is cruel and unusual punishment; (4) whether the trial court erred by not appointing counsel to represent the petitioner during this habeas corpus proceeding; (5) whether the trial court erred by not allowing the petitioner an evidentiary hearing on this petition; and (6) whether the trial court erred by determining that it did not have jurisdiction to alter the petitioner's sentence in a habeas corpus proceeding. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Lake | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Charles P. Grigsby
The appellant, Charles P. Grigsby, entered an Alford plea to one count of aggravated burglary in the Shelby County Criminal Court and received, pursuant to a plea agreement, a sentence of eight years as a range II offender. The manner of service of the appellant’s sentence was submitted to the trial court for its determination. Following the sentencing hearing, the trial court denied the appellant’s request for an alternative sentence and ordered that his sentence be served in the Department of Correction. The appellant appeals this sentencing decision, specifically contending that the trial court erred by failing to impose a sentence under the Community Corrections Act. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Stanley Adams v. State of Tennessee
The appellant, Stanley Adams, was indicted for first degree murder and especially aggravated robbery. The state sought the death penalty. Pursuant to a negotiated plea, however, the appellant pled guilty to second degree murder and aggravated robbery. He was sentenced to 45 years for second degree murder and 15 years for aggravated robbery. The sentences were ordered to be served concurrently. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Solomon Akins - Order
This is an appeal as of right pursuant to Tenn. R. App. P. 3. On January 26, 1995, Appellant was convicted by a jury of five counts of selling less than .5 grams of cocaine. As a Range II offender, Appellant received a sentence of eight years and six months for each count. All five of these sentences were concurrent to each other, but consecutive to two previous convictions he was serving on probation. In this appeal Appellant alleges the evidence is insufficient to support the verdicts, and that his sentence is excessive. Having reviewed the record in this matter we are of the opinion that the convictions and sentence are fully supported by the law and evidence and that this matter should be affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. |
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Adrian Wilkerson v. Howard Carlton, Warden
The petitioner, Adrian Wilkerson, appeals from the denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The state has filed a motion requesting that this court affirm the trial court's denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The petitioner has failed to establish a cognizable claim for habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, the state's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Johnson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Polk
The appellant, James Polk, appeals from a conviction for aggravated robbery entered in the Circuit Court of Maury County. The appellant contends that the trial court should have ordered a new trial pursuant to Rule 33(f) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Richard Wayne Otey
The appellant, Richard Wayne Otey, appeals as of right from a judgment entered in the Circuit Court of Williamson County, finding him guilty of aggravated assault in violation of Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-102(a). Following a sentencing hearing, the trial judge sentenced the appellant to ten years in the Department of Correction as a Range II, multiple offender, to be served consecutively to a sentence for which the appellant was on parole at the time of the offense at issue in this case. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Charles Edward Meeks
The defendant, Charles Edward Meeks, was indicted for first-degree murder. The jury found him guilty as charged and he was sentenced to life imprisonment. He has appealed as of right, raising for review the trial court's instructions to the jury and the State's conduct during closing argument. We find the defendant's issues are without merit and affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Grundy | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Frank Bennie Jackson, Jr.
A Hamilton County grand jury indicted the defendant, Frank Bennie Jackson, Jr., for possession of cocaine for resale, driving without a license, and failure to stop at a traffic signal. The defendant filed a motion to suppress alleging that the search of his vehicle incident to a custodial arrest was illegal because he should have received a citation in lieu of arrest for driving without a license and running a red light, both class C misdemeanors. At the hearing on the motion to suppress, the trial court agreed and suppressed all evidence seized as a result of the search incident to arrest. It is from this order that the state now appeals. Following our review, we reverse the judgment of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Danny Lee Ross, Jr.
On February 10, 1994, the appellant was convicted by a jury of his peers of three counts of vehicular homicide by intoxication.1 Following a sentencing hearing, the appellant was sentenced to six years incarceration for each count with each sentence to be served consecutively. Much aggrieved by his convictions and resultant sentences, the appellant appeals from the judgment of the trial court pursuant to Rule 3, Tenn. R. App. P. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Brandon Thomas
The defendant, Brandon D. Thomas, was convicted of one count of resisting arrest, a Class B misdemeanor; and three drug offenses including possession with intent to sell a Schedule II controlled substance (cocaine), a Class B felony; possession with intent to sell a Schedule III controlled substance (dihydrocodeinone), a Class D felony; and simple possession of marijuana, a Class A misdemeanor. He was sentenced to ten years in the Tennessee Department of Correction for the cocaine offense, eleven months and twenty-nine days on each of the other drug offenses and six months for the conviction for resisting arrest, with all the sentences to run concurrently for a total effective sentence of ten years as a Range I, standard offender. On appeal, he argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his cocaine conviction and that he was sentenced improperly. After careful review, we find that the defendant was sentenced improperly but not for the issues on which he appeals. The sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days for the Class D felony conviction is illegal because the minimum sentence for a Class D felony is two years. We remand to the trial court for entry of a corrected judgment reflecting the minimum sentence and affirm the trial court as to the other raised issues. |
Warren | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Maurice Lashaun Nash
The Appellant, Maurice Lashaun Nash, appeals the sentencing decision of the Tipton County Circuit Court. Under the terms of a plea agreement, Nash entered guilty pleas to six felonies and one misdemeanor and received an effective ten-year sentence. The agreement provided that the ten-year sentence would run consecutively to an effective ten-year sentence which Nash was serving at the time of sentencing. The terms of the plea agreement also provided that the manner of service of the ten-year sentence would be determined by the trial court. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court denied Nash’s request for alternative sentencing, which Nash now asserts was error. After review, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed. |
Tipton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Robert Lee Boyd, Jr.
The defendant was indicted on November 7, 1994, for the first-degree murder of Lisa C. Stewart. A jury convicted him of second-degree murder and fined him fifty thousand dollars ($50,000). After a hearing, the defendant was sentenced to twenty-five years in the Department of Correction. In this appeal as of right, the defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to justify a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. After a review of the entire record, we find that this issue is without merit, and therefore, his conviction is affirmed. |
Henry | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Darren Campbell
The appellant, Darren Campbell, was convicted by a jury of first degree murder. This Court reduced his conviction to second degree murder and remanded to the trial court for sentencing.1 The appellant was sentenced as a Range I offender to 23 years incarceration. His sole issue on appeal is whether his sentence was excessive. We affirm the trial court's judgment. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jackie H. Martin
The appellant, Jackie H. Martin, appeals the order entered by the Criminal Court of Shelby County denying his petition for discharge from involuntary commitment.1 On appeal, the appellant presents two issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence preponderates against the trial court's finding that the appellant is not eligible for mandatory outpatient treatment as an alternative to commitment; and (2) whether the trial judge should have recused himself from this case. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Carolyn L. Curry
The defendant was charged in the indictment with theft of property valued between ten thousand dollars ($10,000) and sixty thousand dollars ($60,000). On September 21, 1995, she filed an application for pretrial diversion. The district attorney general denied the application on September 28, 1995. The defendant then filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, seeking review of the district attorney general’s decision to deny her application. After a hearing, the trial court found that the State had abused its discretion and ordered the defendant placed on pretrial diversion. In this appeal pursuant to T.R.A.P. 9, the State contends the trial court erred in finding that the State had abused its discretion in denying pretrial diversion. We reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Carroll | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Carolyn L. Curry - Concurring
I concur with the majority opinion and also with Judge Welles’ concurring |
Carroll | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Carolyn L. Curry - Concurring
I concur with Judge Peay’s opinion in this case. I write separately to point out that, in my opinion, a finding by the trial judge that the district attorney general did not consider all relevant factors in denying pretrial diversion does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that pretrial diversion will be granted. Even though the district attorney general may have abused his discretion by failing to consider all relevant factors, the denial may be justified after all relevant factors are considered. If such is the case, in a manner somewhat analogous to a “harmless error” analysis, the denial of pretrial diversion should be upheld. |
Carroll | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Thomas H. Aldridge
The appellant, Thomas H. Aldridge, was convicted of driving while under the influence, a Class A misdemeanor, leaving the scene of an accident, a Class A misdemeanor, and driving after having been declared a habitual vehicle offender, a Class E felony, following his pleas of guilty to these offenses. The trial court imposed the following sentences pursuant to the plea bargain agreement: a.) Driving while intoxicated, a fine of $500 and confinement for thirty (30) days in the Shelby County Correctional Center, twenty-eight days of the sentence was suspended; b.) Leaving the scene of an accident, a fine of $500; and c.) Driving after having been declared a habitual vehicle offender, a Range I, standard offender sentence consisting of a $500 fine and confinement for one (1) year in the Shelby County Correctional Center. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ronnie Michael Cauthern
The original trial of this case took place in Montgomery County. Judge John H. Peay presided over the trial of the appellant and his co-defendant, Brett Patterson, which resulted in two convictions for felony murder, one conviction for first degree burglary, and one conviction for aggravated rape for each defendant. The jury sentenced the appellant to death. The appellant’s co-defendant received a life sentence. On direct appeal to the Supreme Court, the appellant’s convictions were affirmed, but the death penalty was set aside and the case was remanded for a new sentencing hearing. State v. Cauthern, 778 S.W.2d 39 (Tenn. 1989). On remand, Judge Peay granted the appellant’s motion to transfer the case out of Montgomery |
Gibson | Court of Criminal Appeals |
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OPINIONS
Appellate court opinions will be posted only after they have been made accessible under federal ADA guidelines. If an opinion is not yet available, it is still undergoing the accessibility process. We appreciate your patience and are committed to ensuring that all users can access these documents.