State v. Hartsfield

629 S.W.2d 907, 1980 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 363
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee
DecidedOctober 16, 1980
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 629 S.W.2d 907 (State v. Hartsfield) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Hartsfield, 629 S.W.2d 907, 1980 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 363 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1980).

Opinion

[908]*908OPINION

DWYER, Judge.

From an adverse ruling of the trial court the appellant has been granted permission to appeal under Rule 9, Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, with an accompanying stay order, Rule 9(f), by the trial court.

The record reflects that Deputy Sheriff David Howell received information around 6:10 p. m. from a reliable informant that a late model Chevrolet pickup truck, blue in color with a white top over the bed, tag number P5417 would be on Cedar Chapel Road in Hardeman County at approximately 7:30 p. m. transporting a load of whiskey.

Deputies Howell and Parson arrived at Cedar Chapel Road around 6:40 p. m. and at approximately 7:00 p. m. a truck fitting that description was stopped. The driver who is the appellant in this case, informed the officers that when the sheriff arrived the truck could be searched and upon his arrival 44.80 gallons of whiskey were discovered.

The appellant offered no proof.

The petition for permission to appeal is denied. The appellant is not irreparably injured for if he is acquitted, the question is moot, and if he is convicted it may be appealable as of right under Rule 3(b), Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. Furthermore, it would delay rather than expedite the proceedings to determine his guilt or innocence. Rule 37(b)(2) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure provides a means to expedite such matters as here. Also, the evidence gives no indication that the trial court’s ruling would be a basis for reversal.

Finally, granting the appeal would not assist in the development of a uniform body of law, consequently permission to appeal is denied and the trial court’s stay order is dissolved. Costs are to be taxed against appellant.

WALKER, P. J., and TATUM, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. DANIEL JOSEPH WILLIAMS
Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, 2025
State of Tennessee v. Nathan Bernard Lalone
Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, 2017
State v. Huskey
177 S.W.3d 868 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, 2005)
Kenneth Weems v. State of Tennessee
Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, 2000
State v. Teel
793 S.W.2d 236 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1990)
State v. Wilkes
684 S.W.2d 663 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
629 S.W.2d 907, 1980 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 363, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hartsfield-tenncrimapp-1980.