Justia Tennessee Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant was convicted of reckless homicide and aggravated child abuse after killing a thirteen-month-old by deliberately striking the child's head against a wall. The court of criminal appeals determined on its own motion that Defendant's dual convictions violated the double jeopardy protections of the federal and state constitutions. Accordingly, the court merged the reckless homicide conviction into the aggravated child abuse conviction and remanded for resentencing. The Supreme Court reversed the portion of the court of criminal appeals' judgment merging the convictions and reinstated the reckless homicide conviction, (1) abandoning the four-factor set forth in State v. Denton; (2) adopting the elements test enunciated in Blockburger v. U.S. as the test for determining whether multiple convictions under different statutes constitute the same offense for purposes of the double jeopardy clause of the Tennessee Constitution; and (3) concluding that reckless homicide and aggravated child abuse are not the same offense because their elements differ, and thus, Defendant's dual convictions did not violate either the federal or the state constitutional double jeopardy prohibition. View "State v. Watkins" on Justia Law

A grand jury returned a seven-count indictment against a motorist (Defendant) that was involved in a high speed chase while attempting to avoid arrest for driving on a revoked license. Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of five of the offenses. The court of criminal appeals upheld four of Defendant's convictions but, on its own motion, vacated the remaining conviction after determining that it violated the double jeopardy protections in the federal and state constitutions. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) in accordance with State v. Watkins, released contemporaneously with this opinion, Defendant's convictions did not run afoul of constitutional double jeopardy protections; (2) Defendant's conviction under count one of the indictment must be vacated because the trial court committed plain error in its instruction regarding the lesser-included offenses of that charge; and (3) the evidence supported Defendant's remaining convictions, and the sentences imposed by the trial court were not excessive. Remanded. View "State v. Cross" on Justia Law

Petitioner, charged with first degree premeditated murder and other crimes, entered best interest guilty pleas and received an effective sentence of life without parole. After an unsuccessful petition for post-conviction relief challenging the effectiveness of his trial counsel, Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis alleging newly discovered, exculpatory ballistic evidence. The trial court denied the petition, and the court of criminal appeals affirmed. At issue on appeal was whether a petitioner who has entered guilty pleas may challenge his convictions by writ of error coram nobis pursuant to the terms of Tenn. Code Ann. 40-26-105(b). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that while Petitioner did not forfeit the procedural remedy of writ of error coram nobis based on newly discovered evidence by entering the guilty pleas, the evidence in this instance did not qualify as newly discovered. View "Wlodarz v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted an appeal in these two consolidated cases to clarify the remedy that should be applied when there is an abuse of prosecutorial discretion in the denial of an application for pretrial diversion. In each case, the prosecutor denied the defendant's petition for pretrial diversion, and the trial court ruled there was no abuse of discretion. The court of criminal appeals decided in each case that there was an abuse of discretion because the prosecutor failed to weigh all the relevant factors in reaching his decision to deny pretrial diversion to the defendant and remanded the case to the trial court to order the prosecutor to approve the defendant's pretrial diversion application. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that when a prosecutor has abused his discretion by failing to consider and weigh all the relevant pretrial diversion factors or by considering and relying upon an irrelevant factor, the appropriate remedy is to vacate the prosecutor's ruling and remand to the prosecutor to consider and weigh all of the relevant factors. Remanded. View "State v. Thomason" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted an appeal in these two consolidated cases to clarify the remedy that should be applied when there is an abuse of prosecutorial discretion in the denial of an application for pretrial diversion. In each case, the prosecutor denied the defendant's petition for pretrial diversion, and the trial court ruled there was no abuse of discretion. The court of criminal appeals decided in each case that there was an abuse of discretion because the prosecutor failed to weigh all the relevant factors in reaching his decision to deny pretrial diversion to the defendant and remanded the case to the trial court to order the prosecutor to approve the defendant's pretrial diversion application. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that when a prosecutor has abused his discretion by failing to consider and weigh all the relevant pretrial diversion factors or by considering and relying upon an irrelevant factor, the appropriate remedy is to vacate the prosecutor's ruling and remand to the prosecutor to consider and weigh all of the relevant factors. Remanded. View "State v. Richardson" on Justia Law

Petitioner filed petitions for post-conviction relief challenging his 1985 conviction and life sentence for the first degree felony murder of John Pierce, his 1989 conviction for the first degree felony murder of Novella Webb, and his 1995 death sentence for the Webb murder. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed Smith's conviction and sentence for the Pierce murder, holding that Smith's post-conviction claims were barred by the statute of limitations; (2) affirmed Smith's conviction for the Webb murder, holding that Smith did not demonstrate he suffered prejudice resulting from his counsel's ineffective assistance in failing to adequately question the potential jurors during voir dire; (3) vacated Smith's death sentence, holding that Smith's counsel provided ineffective assistance in failing to adequately investigate and present evidence supporting his motion to recuse the judge at his resentencing hearing, which resulted in a denial of Smith's due process right to a fair trial before an impartial tribunal; and (4) held that Smith was entitled to a new hearing on the question of whether he was intellectually disabled at the time of the Webb murder because the lower courts applied an incorrect legal standard in determining Smith's functional IQ. Remanded. View "Smith v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to theft, and the trial court imposed a three-year sentence in the community corrections program. Defendant violated a condition of his release shortly after September 30, 2003, and the trial court entered an order of revocation, directing Defendant to serve the duration of his sentence in prison and giving credit for time served from the date of his sentence until September 30, 2003. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court should have awarded credit for time served in the program through July 27, 2004, the date the revocation warrant was signed. The court of criminal appeals reversed, holding that the credit should have extended until the issuance of the revocation warrant. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the filing date of the revocation warrants begins the tolling of sentence credits. Remanded. View "State v. McNack" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Petitioner of premeditated first degree murder and attempted first degree murder and imposed a sentence of death. Petitioner subsequently filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of his trial counsel. Petitioner filed a motion asking the trial court to limit any cross-examination of Petitioner, asserting his constitutional right against self-incrimination. The post-conviction trial court denied the request, and Petitioner did not testify. The court of criminal appeals affirmed, holding that Petitioner's right against self-incrimination applies in the post-conviction context, but a petitioner who elects to testify is bound to answer relevant questions on cross-examination. The Supreme Court declined to decide whether and in what manner the constitutional right against self-incrimination applies in the post-conviction context and instead resolved the appeal on non-constitutional grounds. The Court vacated the trial court and court of criminal appeals, holding (1) the scope of cross-examination of a post-conviction petitioner is governed by Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 28, 8(C)(1)(d); and (2) the lower courts deprived Petitioner of the limited scope cross-examination provided in Rule 28. Remanded for a new post-conviction hearing. View "Keough v. State" on Justia Law

Petitioner Henry Felts was convicted of aggravated burglary and attempted murder. Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court vacated Petitioner's conviction, finding that trial counsel's representation was ineffective because he (1) failed to pursue the defense of attempted voluntary manslaughter and (2) advised Petitioner not to testify when he had promised the jury that Petitioner would testify. The court of criminal appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the courts below erred in finding trial counsel's performance deficient where (1) trial counsel chose a single, reasonable defense theory to the exclusion of another plausible, but inconsistent theory; and (2) trial counsel's decision not to call Petitioner as a witness was consistent with his altered trial strategy. View "Felts v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant Christopher Davis was convicted of aggravated robbery, carjacking, attempt to commit especially aggravated kidnapping, and attempt to commit first degree murder. The court of criminal appeals affirmed the convictions. On appeal, Defendant challenged (1) the legality of the stop of a vehicle in which he was a passenger that led to his arrest; and (2) the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction for attempt to commit first degree murder. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) reasonable suspicion existed to permit law enforcement officers to conduct a brief investigatory stop of the car in which Defendant was a passenger; and (2) there was sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that Defendant and his fellow perpetrator planned and intended to kill the victim, and that Defendant's conduct, considered in light of the totality of the circumstances, constituted a substantial step sufficient to support a conviction for attempted murder. View "State v. Davis" on Justia Law