Court of Criminal Appeals Opinions

Format: 06/24/2017
Format: 06/24/2017
State vs. Freddie Russell
02C01-9710-CR-00403
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge:
Shelby County Court of Criminal Appeals 03/10/98
State vs. Earnest Hawkins
02C01-9709-CC-00374
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge:
Lake County Court of Criminal Appeals 03/10/98
State vs. Patricia Lishman
02C01-9704-CC-00136
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge: Jon Kerry Blackwood
McNairy County Court of Criminal Appeals 03/10/98
State vs. Willie Taylor
02C01-9702-CR-00080
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge: James C. Beasley, Jr.
Shelby County Court of Criminal Appeals 03/10/98
Tommy Blevins vs. State
01C01-9711-CR-00508
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge:
Putnam County Court of Criminal Appeals 03/10/98
Offender. This Court Affirmed The Appellant'S Sentences, State v. James T. Fite, No. 89-
01C01-9708-CR-00377
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge:
Davidson County Court of Criminal Appeals 03/10/98
Woodrow Wilson vs. State
01C01-9707-CR-00431
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge:
Davidson County Court of Criminal Appeals 03/10/98
State vs. Tracy Pitts
01C01-9611-CR-00487
Authoring Judge:
Trial Court Judge: Thomas H. Shriver
Davidson County Court of Criminal Appeals 03/10/98
State of Tennessee vs. Gary Raines, Debra Raines and Jerry Raines
01C01-9703-CC-00108
Authoring Judge: Judge John H. Peay
Trial Court Judge: Judge Robert E. Burch

Following the denial of their motion to suppress evidence, the Defendants, Gary Raines and Debra Raines ple d guilty in the Circuit Court of Cheatham County to possession of marijuana for resale and possession of drug paraphernalia, and Defendant Jerry Raines pled guilty to simple possession of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia. In their pleas, Defendants reserved the right to appeal the trial court’s d enial of their motion to suppress as a certified question of law pursuant to Rule 3(b) of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure and Rules 11(e) and 37(b)(2)(I) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure. Specifically, the certified question is: “Whether or not the initial entry upon the premises and the subsequent consent search was legal.” We affirm the judgment of the trial court, as modified to correct an apparent clerical error.

Cheatham County Court of Criminal Appeals 03/05/98
State of Tennessee vs. William F. Hegger
01C01-9607-CR-00283
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry L. Smith
Trial Court Judge: Judge Thomas H. Ware

On May 17, 1994, a Davidson County jury found Appellant, William F. Hegger, guilty of driving under the influence of an intoxicant, first offense. The trial court sentenced Appellant as a Range I standard offender to eleven months and twenty-nine d ays incarceration (all but ten days suspended), imposed a two-hundred and fifty dollar fine, ordered Appellant to attend alcohol treatment school, and suspended Appellant’s driver’s license for a period of one year. Appellant was further ordered to perform two hundred hours of public service work. On February 22, 1996, following a hearing upon Appellant’s motion, the trial court modified Appellant’s sentence, waiving the fine and public service work. The trial court found that Appellant had completed his jail time and the one year suspension of his license. Appellant filed a timely notice of app eal, raising several issues, namely:

1) whether the trial court erred in allowing evidence regarding the horizontal gaze nystagmus HGN) test;

2) whether the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of Lt. Louise Kelton;
3) whether the evidence was sufficien t to suppo rt the jury verdict;
4) whether the defense counsel provided effective assistance of counsel.

After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial co urt.

Davidson County Court of Criminal Appeals 03/04/98
Daryl Turner vs. State of Tennessee
01C01-9608-CR-00374
Authoring Judge: Judge William M. Barker
Trial Court Judge: Judge Jane Wheatcraft

The appellant, Daryl Turner, appeals the Sumner County Criminal Court’s dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. In 1993, appellant was convicted of selling a Schedule II controlled substance, to wit: cocaine, and was sentenced to twelve (12) years as a Range III persistent offender. His conviction and sentence were affirmed by this Court on direct appeal. See State v. Darrel Tucker1, No. 01-C-01-9310-CR00347 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville, Oct. 6, 1994), per. app. denied (Tenn. 1995). The appellant, thereafter, filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, malicious prosecution, and invalid “reasonable doubt” jury instructions.2 Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court dismissed appellant’s petition upon finding no ground to warrant post-conviction relief. We affirm the judgment of the trial court pursuant to Rule 20 of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals.

Sumner County Court of Criminal Appeals 03/04/98
Daryl Turner vs. State of Tennessee
01C01-9608-CR-00374
Authoring Judge: Judge William M. Barker
Trial Court Judge: Judge Jane Wheatcraft

The appellant, Daryl Turner, appeals the Sumner County Criminal Court’s dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. In 1993, appellant was convicted of selling a Schedule II controlled substance, to wit: cocaine, and was sentenced to twelve (12) years as a Range III persistent offender. His conviction and sentence were affirmed by this Court on direct appeal. See State v. Darrel Tucker1, No. 01-C-01-9310-CR00347 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville, Oct. 6, 1994), per. app. denied (Tenn. 1995). The appellant, thereafter, filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, malicious prosecution, and invalid “reasonable doubt” jury instructions.2 Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court dismissed appellant’s petition upon finding no ground to warrant post-conviction relief. We affirm the  judgment of the trial court pursuant to Rule 20 of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals.

Sumner County Court of Criminal Appeals 03/04/98
Randy Hicks v. State of Tennessee
03C01-9608-CR-00296
Authoring Judge: Judge Curwood Witt
Trial Court Judge: Judge Mayo L. Mashburn

Randy Hicks appeals the McMinn County Criminal Court's summary dismissal of his "Motion for New Trial Based on Newly Discovered Evidence Rule 22, FRCrP." The lower court considered this "motion" under the law applicable to motions for new trial, petitions for writ of error coram nobis, and petitions for post-conviction relief, found it without merit, and summarily dismissed Hicks's claim without conducting a hearing. Hicks's underlying conviction is for criminal facilitation of first degree murder, for which he is serving a 25 year sentence. State v. Hicks, 835 S.W.2d 32 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1992). In his pro se appellate brief, Hicks never directly attacks the lower court's denial of his "motion," but he does raise several issues relating to the admission of evidence, denial of a severance and the sufficiency of the convicting evidence at his trial. He also filed with his pro se appellate brief a document entitled Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis, in which he alleges that the district attorney knowingly and willfully submitted false evidence in his trial.1 Having painstakingly reviewed the record and Hicks's brief, we affirm the trial court's summary dismissal of the claim. Likewise, we find the petition filed in this court proper for dismissal.

McMinn County Court of Criminal Appeals 03/03/98