Articles

All Content


4,049 Posts found
Previous • Page 269 of 405 • Next
Posted by: Karen Belcher on Sep 14, 2020

THAPAR, Circuit Judge. We have seen this case before. Dane Schrank visited the dark web and downloaded “nearly 1,000 images of babies and toddlers being forcibly, violently, and sadistically penetrated.” United States v. Schrank, 768 F. App’x 512, 515 (6th Cir. 2019). After a government investigation identified Schrank, he confessed and pled guilty to possession of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B).

We now do just that. Because Schrank’s sentence remains substantively unreasonable, we vacate it and remand for resentencing. And given the district judge’s conduct, we order that the case be reassigned on remand.

Posted by: Karen Belcher on Sep 14, 2020

In October of 2015, Defendant, Edward Walsh, was indicted by the Clay County Grand Jury for first degree murder, abuse of a corpse, tampering with evidence, and theft of property. The theft of property charge was severed, and the tampering with evidence charge was nolled before trial. After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of first degree murder and abuse of a corpse. The trial court sentenced Defendant to life imprisonment for the murder conviction and a concurrent two-year sentence for the abuse of a corpse conviction. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court erred in not severing the offenses of first degree murder and abuse of a corpse, that the trial court erred in admitting hearsay, that the trial court was not impartial, that the State’s closing argument was based on inferences from facts not in evidence, and that evidence was insufficient to prove first degree murder. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Posted by: Karen Belcher on Sep 14, 2020

The Defendant, Kimberly Reed, pled guilty to forgery, a Class E felony; identity theft, a Class D felony; theft of property valued at $2,500 or more but less than $10,000, a Class D felony; theft of property valued at $1,000 or more but less than $2,500, a Class E felony; theft of property valued at less than $1,000, a Class A misdemeanor; attempted misdemeanor theft, a Class B misdemeanor; fraudulent use of a credit card, a Class A misdemeanor; criminal impersonation, a Class B misdemeanor; and criminal trespass, a Class C misdemeanor. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-12-101, -14-103, -14-114, -14-118, - 14-150, -14-405, -16-301. The trial court imposed a total effective sentence of ten years in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by denying alternative sentencing. Following our review, we affirm.

Posted by: Karen Belcher on Sep 14, 2020

The Defendant, Scott A. Brown, pled guilty to one count of statutory rape, a Class E felony, and one count of possession of more than .5 grams of methamphetamine with intent to sell, a Class B felony, in exchange for an effective sentence of eight years in the Department of Correction. Following a hearing to determine whether the Defendant should be placed on the sex offender registry, the trial court ordered that the Defendant be placed on the registry, which decision the Defendant now appeals. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Posted by: Karen Belcher on Sep 14, 2020

The Petitioner, David Von Brown, appeals from the Madison County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for possession of 0.5 gram or more of cocaine with intent to sell, possession of 0.5 gram or more of cocaine with intent to deliver, two counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, two counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony by a person having a prior felony conviction, and being a felon in possession of a firearm, and the effective seventeen-year sentence.1 On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred in denying relief on his ineffective assistance of counsel claims. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Posted by: Karen Belcher on Sep 14, 2020

The employee, a truck driver, suffered an injury to his low back at work. Upon evaluation for his back injury, it was discovered that he had multiple myeloma, which required extensive treatment. The employer provided workers’ compensation benefits for the employee’s low back strain but concluded the employee’s continuing need for treatment was causally related to his cancer instead of his work-related injury. The employee filed a petition seeking to compel the employer to provide additional medical and disability benefits for his low back condition. After a trial, the court concluded the employee had not established an entitlement to temporary disability benefits, permanent disability benefits, or additional medical benefits beyond those made reasonable and medically necessary by the work-related low back strain. The employee has appealed. Having carefully reviewed the record, we affirm the trial court’s order and certify it as final.

Posted by: Karen Belcher on Sep 14, 2020

Week of September 8, 2020 - September 11, 2020

Posted by: Karen Belcher on Sep 10, 2020

SUTTON, Circuit Judge. A jury convicted Maurice Burks for murdering Malcolm Wright. Burks moved for an acquittal and a new trial, pointing to inconsistencies in witness testimony and a lack of physical evidence. The district court denied Burks’s motion for an acquittal but ordered a new trial on the murder charges. The government appeals, and we reverse.

Burks moved for an acquittal and new trial. The district court denied Burks an acquittal but granted him a new trial on four counts, deeming the verdict for those counts “against the manifest weight of the evidence.” R. 1460 at 49. The government appealed. Some months later, the government realized it had not disclosed two investigation reports related to Burks’s case. Burks moved for a new trial on two counts not subject to the new trial order, claiming the government had violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). The district court denied the motion, and it is not the subject of this appeal.

Posted by: Karen Belcher on Sep 4, 2020

The Defendant, Steven King, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1. On appeal, he contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion because his sentence of life plus twenty-five years was illegal pursuant to Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), which held that a mandatory sentence of life without parole for a juvenile defendant violates the Eighth Amendment. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Posted by: Karen Belcher on Sep 4, 2020

The Petitioner, Patrick Bumpus, appeals the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty pleas and his petition for post-conviction relief. He asserts various allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel, challenges the knowing and voluntary nature of his pleas, and alleges that the State “breached the contract of [his] involuntary plea[s.]” After review, we affirm the judgments of the post-conviction court.


Previous • Page 269 of 405 • Next