Lee V. Coffee, Judge
Reports of Cases Reviewed by Appellate Courts – Beginning Jan. 1, 2022
Text is the appellate court’s summary of the opinion.
Scroll down for important information.
State of Tennessee v. Green, W2022-01514-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 9, 2024). The Defendant, Marcus Green, was convicted in the Shelby County Criminal Court of first degree premeditated murder, attempted first degree premeditated murder, employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. After a sentencing hearing, he received a sentence of life plus one hundred five years in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions, that the trial court erred by refusing to bifurcate the charge of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon from the remaining charges, and that his effective sentence is excessive. Based upon our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.
Turner v. State of Tennessee, No. W2022-01494-CCA-R3-ECN (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 22, 2023). Petitioner, Detrick Turner, appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in finding that he received the effective assistance of counsel. He argues that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to communicate and failing to raise additional issues on appeal. Following our review of the entire record, including the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.
State of Tennessee v. Baskin, W2022-01796-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App. Oct. 26, 2023). The Defendant, Deonta Baskin, was convicted of first degree murder and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to life without parole pursuant to the repeat violent offender statute for his first degree murder conviction to be served consecutively to thirty years’ confinement as a Range III, persistent offender for his possession of a firearm by a convicted felon conviction. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred by imposing excessive sentences based on his prior convictions. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.
State of Tennessee v. Turner, W2022-01165-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App. Oct. 5, 2023). A Shelby County jury found Defendant, Billy Ray Turner, guilty of first degree murder, conspiracy to commit first degree murder, and attempted first degree murder. The trial court sentenced him to an effective term of life in prison plus forty-one years. On appeal, Defendant contends: (1) the trial court improperly prevented Defendant from impeaching a witness when it excluded a conversation between the witness and the victim’s ex-wife; (2) the trial court improperly allowed the State to ask a witness leading questions; (3) the trial court erred by allowing a speaking objection by the State; (4) Shelby County was not the proper venue for the attempted first degree murder case; and (5) the evidence was insufficient to sustain Defendant’s convictions. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.
State of Tennessee v. Hite, W2022-00678-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App. July 19, 2023). The Defendant, Marterrius Hite, was convicted in the Shelby County Criminal Court of two counts of first degree felony murder, aggravated child abuse, and aggravated child neglect and received an effective sentence of life plus eighty years in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant claims that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions, (2) the trial court erred by allowing the State to introduce his belt into evidence without establishing a proper chain of custody, (3) the trial court committed plain error by ruling he “opened the door” to a police officer testifying that he was arrested on prior warrants, (4) the trial court committed plain error by commenting on his expert witness’s PowerPoint presentation, (5) the trial court erred by allowing the jury to deliberate late at night, and (6) his effective sentence is excessive. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.
Thomas v. State of Tennessee, No. W2022-00851-CCA-R3-ECN (Tenn. Crim. App. July 19, 2023). Petitioner, Tony Thomas, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of post-conviction relief. On appeal, Petitioner argues that the post-conviction court erred in denying relief. Finding that the issues presented for our review are without merit, waived, previously determined, or a combination thereof, we affirm the judgment of the postconviction court.
State of Tennessee v. Wiseman, W2022-00680-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App. July 6, 2023). The Defendant, Myles Wiseman, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of rape, a Class B felony; two counts of incest, a Class C felony; and two counts of statutory rape by an authority figure, a Class C felony. He was sentenced by the trial court to thirty years at 100% as a Range IV, career offender for the Class B felony rape conviction and fifteen years at 45% as a Range III, persistent offender for each of the Class C felony incest and statutory rape convictions. The trial court ordered that the sentences be served consecutively, for a total effective sentence of ninety years in the Department of Correction. The Defendant raises the following issues on appeal: (1) whether the trial court erred by allowing the State to introduce the Defendant’s recorded phone calls from the jail; (2) whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions; and (3) whether the trial court imposed an excessive sentence. Based on our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.
State of Tennessee v. Santiago, W2022-01044-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App. May. 15, 2023). Pursuant to a plea agreement, the Appellant, Luis Santiago, entered a guilty plea to attempted aggravated rape, aggravated burglary, and aggravated stalking and received a total effective sentence of seven years and two months with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court denied the Appellant’s request for probation and ordered the seven-year-two-month sentence to be served in confinement. The sole issue presented for our review is whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying alternative sentencing. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court but remand for entry of separate judgment forms reflecting dismissal of counts two, four, and five.
State of Tennessee v. Toliver, W2021-01386-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 29, 2023). Defendant, Lester Tolliver, appeals as of right from his jury conviction for aggravated rape, for which he received a sentence of twenty-five years. On appeal, Defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and that the trial court erred by (1) admitting hearsay statements, specifically the victim’s reporting the rape to a friend and the victim’s statement to a police officer; (2) admitting the victim’s testimony that she had been sexually assaulted previously; (3) admitting testimony from an expert witness regarding why a victim might lie about having had sexual activity in the days preceding a sexual assault; and (4) denying Defendant’s request for a special jury instruction. Following our review, we affirm.
Humphrey v. State of Tennessee, No. W2021-01439-CCA-R3-ECN (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 16, 2023). The Petitioner, Jahue Mumphrey, pled guilty by criminal information to possessing a controlled substance with the intent to sell and three counts of domestic assault. He was sentenced to an effective term of ten years. He later filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging that his plea was entered involuntarily and that his lawyer rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by, among other things, failing to review pretrial discovery with him. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied the petition, and the Petitioner appealed to this Court. We respectfully affirm the judgment of the postconviction court.
Brown v. State of Tennessee, No. W2022-00043-CCA-R3-ECN (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 8, 2023). The Petitioner, Devon Brown, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his pro se petition for a writ of error coram nobis, wherein he challenged his 2012 convictions for first degree murder, attempted first degree murder, aggravated assault, facilitation of employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, and reckless endangerment. Specifically, the Petitioner contended that he had recently discovered the State withheld evidence that several of the victims’ vehicles present on the scene were stolen, information that would have materially impacted the credibility of the State’s witnesses at trial and might have led to a different outcome. The coram nobis court found that the petition was time-barred, that the Petitioner was not entitled to due process tolling, and that the Petitioner had not presented newly discovered evidence entitling him to a new trial. The Petitioner appeals, and following our review, we affirm.
Bowen v. State of Tennessee, No. W2022-00229-CCA-R3-ECN (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 5, 2022). Andre Bowen, Petitioner, claims that the trial court erred by summarily dismissing his Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis. Discerning no error, we affirm the dismissal.
Rogers v. State of Tennessee, No. W2022-00019-CCA-R3-HC (Tenn. Crim. App. Oct. 12, 2022). The petitioner, Mandon Rogers, appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition, arguing the post-conviction court erred in finding he received the effective assistance of counsel. Following our review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of the petition.
Owen v. State of Tennessee, W2021-01049-CCA-R3-HC (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 27, 2022). The Defendant, Benjamin Owen, filed a petition for the return of seized property pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-11-709. The Defendant, however, has no appeal as of right under Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 3. Because we have no subject matter jurisdiction, we dismiss the Defendant’s appeal.
McClenton v. State of Tennessee, W2021-01054-CCA-R3-HC (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 9, 2022). The Petitioner, DeShawn McClenton, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. After review, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court.
State of Tennessee v. Carbin, W2021-01082-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 2, 2022). Petitioner, Christopher James Carbin, appeals the trial court’s denial of his “Motion for Order Compelling Discovery,” which he filed regarding his 1986 Shelby County convictions for attempted second degree burglary, carrying burglar’s tools, and receiving stolen property. Upon review, we conclude that we are without jurisdiction to address the merits of the instant case, and the appeal is dismissed.
Caraway v. State of Tennessee, No. W2021-00360-CCA-R3-PC (Tenn. Crim. App. May 18, 2022). In this appeal, the sole issue presented for our review by the Petitioner, Romilus Caraway, is whether the post-conviction court abused its discretion in dismissing his petition for postconviction relief based on an abuse of judicial process for failure to prosecute. We affirm.
State of Tennessee v. Johnson, No. W2019-01133-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 18, 2022). On October 12, 2018, a Shelby County jury convicted the Defendant, David Johnson, of aggravated rape committed in February 2000, based on DNA evidence linking him to the crime. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that he is entitled to have the conviction reversed and dismissed because he was not timely indicted. He also argues that the State failed to establish the chain of custody of the DNA evidence. We conclude that the Defendant was timely indicted through a “John Doe” indictment and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the chain of custody was adequately established for the DNA evidence. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
State of Tennessee v. Ledbetter, No. W2021-00140-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 4, 2022). The Defendant, Kenndrick Ledbetter, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of attempted voluntary manslaughter, attempted especially aggravated robbery, employing a firearm during the attempt to commit a dangerous felony, and convicted felon in possession of a firearm. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence in support of his attempted voluntary manslaughter conviction and argues that the trial court erroneously admitted prejudicial victim impact testimony and abused its discretion in not ordering that the Defendant’s sentence for employing a firearm during the attempt to commit a dangerous felony be served first so that the Defendant’s pretrial jail credits could be applied toward that sentence. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.
Understanding the Limitations and Use of the Information Found in This Book
Tennessee’s trial judges resolve hundreds of thousands of legal and factual issues in tens of thousands of cases every single year. No appeal is filed in the vast percentage of those cases, indicating that while the “losing” party may not like a ruling on a particular issue, that party understands there was an appropriate reason for the judge’s decision or, at a minimum, the judge was acting within his or her discretion.
Of course, a small number of decisions of trial judges do result in an appeal. Experienced trial lawyers know that the number of cases appealed out of a particular trial judge’s court does not, in and of itself, reveal much about the trial judge. For example, some judges hear more complex cases than others, and those cases are more likely to be appealed. Convictions in child sex abuse cases are frequently appealed, as are many criminal cases resulting in long sentences. There are a large number of parental rights termination cases that find their way to the appellate courts. Judges who routinely try those types of cases will, other things being equal, see more of their cases reviewed by appellate courts than judges who do not see such cases.
Second, certain litigants (and certain lawyers) are more likely to appeal a case than others. Thus, judges who have those litigants or lawyers regularly appear in their courtrooms will find more cases reviewed by the appellate courts.
For these and other reasons, the reader is cautioned not to read too much into the number of cases appealed from a court. Stated differently, there is no reason to believe that a judge who has ten cases reviewed by an appellate court in a single year is a “worse” judge than one who has one case appealed, or that a judge who has three cases appealed is a “better” judge than one who has nine cases appealed.
Next, the number of times a judge’s ruling is reversed by an appellate court is not necessarily indicative of the quality of his or her work. For example, experienced lawyers know that there are “holes in the law,” i.e., cases where there is no law directly on point and the judge is forced to predict what an appellate court would rule on the issue. The fact that a judge decided an open legal issue one way and an appellate court decided it another way does not mean that the trial judge was “wrong” or does not understand the law. It simply means that the trial judge had a different view of what the law should be than the appellate court that decided the issue. A trial judge is not blessed with a crystal ball that can with 100 percent accuracy forecast how an appellate court will rule on an undecided legal issue.
In addition, the trial court is sometimes not provided with the same in-depth legal arguments and law that is supplied to the appellate court by the parties, or which is provided by law clerks at the appellate level (many trial courts do not have law clerks). The trial judge may have reached the same conclusion as the appellate court if he or she had been supplied with additional law or argument.
Finally, the law changes constantly, and the trial judge may rule on a case based on today’s law, which may evolve between the time of that ruling and the issuance of an opinion of the appellate court. In such cases, the reversal of the case by the appellate court is a question of timing of the original court decision as compared to changes in the law, not one of error by the trial court.
So, what is the value of this book? How can the trial lawyer use it to help his or her clients given the limitations expressed above? Permit me to digress slightly.
You have seen the coffee cups or t-shirts that proclaim, “A good lawyer knows the law, but a great lawyer knows the judge.”
Some read this phrase as suggesting that the “great lawyer” is one who has an improper relationship with the judge – that he or she can use a personal relationship to improperly influence the judge. But most lawyers know better. Most lawyers understand that “knowing the judge” means knowing the judge’s background, preferences concerning the presentation of evidence (including exhibits), arguments of motions, drafting of proposed orders, and given that experience, how he or she is likely to rule on a particular issue. “Knowing the judge” also means knowing the local rules, local forms, local customs, and what things irritate the judge (and every judge is irritated by at least one thing that lawyers or litigants may do).
Many lawyers, particularly those in more rural areas of the state or who limit their practice to one area of law, understand the personality and preferences of the judges they see on a regular basis. Many of these lawyers may have a fair advantage appearing before that judge. (The advantage is “fair” because it results from experience and knowledge.) That advantage – knowing how the judge thinks and his or her preferences – is not outcome-determinative, but it still may be an advantage, similar to a sports team playing on their home field.
Why did I say it “may” be an advantage, given what I said earlier about the benefits of “knowing the judge?” Because simply knowing the judge’s thought processes and preferences is not enough. You still need to have the law and the facts on your client’s side. And you need to be prepared to be able to give the judge what he or she needs to know to make a ruling.
So, the purpose of “The Book” is to give Tennessee lawyers case-related information to help them understand the trial judge who will rule on their client’s case or preside over a jury trial. By looking at past appellate court rulings arising from cases decided by the trial judge, anyone unfamiliar with a judge can get a “feel” for the judge. The case data contained herein does not compare with daily or weekly appearances in front of the judge on issues like a given case, but it is readily available information that give you an idea of how the judge has ruled in the past on a variety of matters.
The cases included are those originally decided by the trial judge that were in appellate court opinions released on or after January 1, 2022. Note that there are a substantial number of judges who first took office in 2022 and thus it is reasonable to assume that there will be no appellate decisions for such judges until late 2023 or 2024.
