Knoxville Criminal Law Blog

Judicial notice allows a court to accept the truth of a fact without that fact having to be specifically proven by evidence presented in court. This usually pertains to facts so well known that they cannot reasonably be doubted. An often used example is that judicial notice may be taken of what day of the week corresponds to a particular given date. The court may consult a calendar. But the calendar need not be introduced into the evidentiary record as proof. Existing laws and regulations are other subjects of which courts take judicial notice.

In the recent case of State v. Pantaleon, M2012-00575-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn.Criim.App. 4-25-2013), the Defendant on direct appeal asked the Court of Criminal Appeals to take judicial notice of the fact that the state fair occurred in late summer in 2003. The Court declined to do so.

When a criminal defendant is convicted of multiple offenses, the trial court must determine whether each of those offenses constitute separate individual crimes. When they do, the trial court, at sentencing, must determine how to align the sentences for those individual convictions. Some circumstances require that sentences be served consecutively to each other. When not required, many circumstances may still exist under which a trial court has the discretion to impose sentences either consecutively or concurrently. In the recent case of State v. Hogg, M2012-00303-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn.Crim.App. 4-16-2013), the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals upheld a trial court's determination of numerous separate individual offenses and consecutive sentences leading to a total effective sentence of 174 years (132 of them to be served at 100%), arising out of a single sex encounter with a minor.

Alternative sentencing, which involves suspension of a jail or prison sentence and some form of community supervision as an alternative to incarceration, is available in Tennessee for most criminal sentences of ten years or less. When not imposed as part of a plea agreement approved by the trial court, the trial court must makes findings and determine whether to impose an alternative sentence or to impose a sentence of confinement. There are statutory and case law guidelines and criteria which trial courts consider in determining whether to impose an alternative sentence or confinement. For criminal convictions which are eligible for alternative sentencing, the sentencing court has the discretion to decide how the sentence is served. These decisions are subject to appeal, in which case the appellate court reviews to determine whether the lower court abused its discretion in imposing the challenged sentence. In the recent case of State v. Crowder, M2012-02396-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn.Crim.App. 4-3-2013), the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial court decision to deny alternative sentencing and impose confinement for a defendant convicted of vehicular assault.

A petition for a writ of error coram nobis is a post-trial petition seeking relief from a criminal conviction based upon newly discovered evidence relating to matters litigated at trial. It is an extraordinary procedural remedy available only where there is newly discovered evidence which was not available in prior proceedings, and which may have resulted in a different outcome if it had been previously available. It is not available to review previously determined issues or previously known issues. It is not available to simply raise different legal arguments about previously known evidence. There must be actually newly discovered evidence. It must relate to matters litigated at trial. And it must have the potential to have resulted in a more favorable outcome, if it had been available previously. In the recent case of Irick v. State, E2012-01326-CCA-R3-PD (Tenn.Crim.App. 3-18-2013), the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of coram nobis relief when a petitioner sought relief based upon discovery of alleged judicial misconduct.