State of Tennessee v. Curtis Harper
The Defendant, Curtis Harper, was found guilty by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of attempt to commit second degree murder, a Class B felony, employing a firearm during the commission of a felony, a Class C felony, and two counts of aggravated assault, a Class C felony. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-210(a)(1) (2010), 39-12-101(a) (2010), 39-17-1324 (Supp. 2008) (amended 2009), 39-13-102(a)(1)(A) (2006) (amended 2009, 2010, 2011). The trial court merged the aggravated assault convictions into the attempted second degree murder conviction, and sentenced the Defendant as a Range I, standard offender to twelve years’ confinement for attempted second degree murder and six years for employing a firearm during the commission of a felony. The trial court ordered the sentences to be served consecutively, for an effective eighteen-year sentence. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction for attempted second degree murder. We affirm the Defendant’s convictions, but we vacate the aggravated assault and attempted second degree murder judgments and remand the case for entry of a corrected judgment reflecting the merger of the aggravated assault convictions into the conviction for attempted second degree murder. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kendell Edward Johnson
The Defendant, Kendell Edward Johnson, appeals from his jury conviction for second degree murder, for which he received a fifteen-year sentence. In this direct appeal, the Defendant argues (1) that the trial court erred by admitting the redacted recording of a conversation between the Defendant and his father made at the police station following the Defendant’s arrest on an unrelated charge, (2) that the trial court erred by permitting the irrelevant testimony of the victim’s brother, and (3) that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable authorities, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Roger Weems Harper
Appellant, Roger Harper, was convicted by a Montgomery County jury of evading arrest. The trial court sentenced Appellant as a Range I, standard offender to three years and six months. The trial court set the sentence to run consecutivelyto a five-year diversion sentence imposed under Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-313 that Appellant was serving from another case. On appeal, Appellant argues that the trial court erred because: (1) the jury failed to specify that it found the aggravating factors required to find Appellant guilty of a Class D felony and furthermore, the trial court sentenced Appellant as if the conviction was a Class D felony; (2) Appellant’s sentence is excessive due to the presence of mitigating factors that the trial court failed to find; and (3) the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentencing. We have reviewed the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court committed no error. However, the judgment form must be corrected to reflect that Appellant was convicted of the Class D felony. Therefore, we affirm Appellant’s conviction and sentence but remand for the trial court to enter a corrected judgment. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Mauricio Morales
The defendant, Mauricio Morales, appeals his Davidson County Criminal Court jury convictions of three counts of rape of a child, one count of aggravated sexual battery, and one count of aggravated burglary, claiming that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions, that the trial court erred by admitting certain evidence, that the trial court erred in its instructions to the jury, and that the 100-year effective sentence is excessive. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Teresa Holt, et al. The Dollywood Company
Teresa Holt and Archie J. Holt (“Plaintiffs”) sued The Dollywood Company, a joint venture between Dolly Parton Productions, Inc. and Herschend Family Entertainment Corp. (“Defendant”) with regard to injuries Ms. Holt received as a result of her fall on a Dollywood tram. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. After a hearing, the Trial Court granted Defendant summary judgment finding and holding, inter alia, that Ms. Holt’s own negligence was the primary cause of her fall and that Ms. Holt was at least 50% at fault. Plaintiffs appeal to this Court. We find and hold that a reasonable jury could find that Ms. Holt was less than 50% at fault. We, therefore, reverse the Trial Court’s judgment and remand for further proceedings. |
Sevier | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Charles E. Lowe-Kelley
A defendant was sentenced following his conviction on two counts of first degree murder and nine counts of attempted first degree murder. Eighteen days later, his attorney filed a motion requesting a new trial and withdrew as counsel. The motion contained no specific grounds for relief. The trial court appointed replacement counsel. Several months later, replacement counsel amended the motion for new trial to allege specific grounds for relief. The trial court denied the amended motion for new trial. The Court of Criminal Appeals held that the original motion for new trial was a nullity because it contained no grounds for relief and that the trial court therefore did not have jurisdiction to permit the amendment of the motion for new trial. The Court of Criminal Appeals therefore considered the defendant’s specific grounds for relief as waived. We hold that the original motion for new trial met the requirements of Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 despite its failure to allege specific grounds for relief and that the trial court retained jurisdiction to permit the amendment of the motion. The cause is remanded to the Court of Criminal Appeals to consider the defendant’s appeal of the denial of his amended motion for new trial. |
Maury | Supreme Court | |
Millard Burris et al. v. Dexter Watson et al.
This case began when the original plaintiffs filed a complaint to quiet title seeking a declaration of the boundary line separating their land from the defendants’ neighboring property. The disputed line is the northern boundary of the plaintiffs and the southern boundary of the defendants. The defendants asserted in their answer that they had adversely possessed the disputed property. Shortly after this action was filed, the plaintiffs’ property was sold to a third party in a court-ordered sale. The purchaser was substituted as the sole plaintiff in place and instead of the original plaintiffs. The defendants moved that the case be dismissed on the ground that the sale to the new owner was champertous. The court denied the motion and conducted a trial on the merits after which it entered judgment in favor of the remaining plaintiff. The defendants appeal. We affirm. |
Monroe | Court of Appeals | |
Elliot H. Himmelfarb, M.D., et al. v. Tracy R. Allain
A patient discovered that a guide wire had been left in her vein during a prior medical procedure. She filed a medical malpractice action against the doctors who performed the procedure and the hospital where the procedure was performed. The patient voluntarily dismissed the medical malpractice suit pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 41 when she was informed that another party was responsible for the presence of the guide wire. The doctors named in the original suitf iled a malicious prosecution action against the patient. The patient filed a motion for summary judgment alleging that the doctors could not prove that the prior suit had been terminated in their favor. The trial court denied the motion for summary judgment, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial. We hold that a voluntary nonsuit taken pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 41 is not a favorable termination on the merits for purposes of a malicious prosecution claim. We reverse the Court of Appeals and remand to the trial court for entry of summary judgment in favor of the patient and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Williamson | Supreme Court | |
Norma Simpson, Individually and next of kin of J. W. Simpson v. Faye Fowler, et al.
This is an appeal from the trial court’s order, setting aside certain transfers by decedent to Appellant. Decedent and Appellee were married, but had been separated for over twenty years. Before his death, Decedent transferred certain property to his paramour, the Appellant herein. When Decedent died, Appellee, his surviving, but estranged spouse petitioned the court to set aside the transfers to Appellant under Tennessee Code Annotated Section 31-1-105. The trial court made certain findings from the bench, but the trial court did not incorporate these oral findings into its order as required under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 52.01, and specifically made no finding that Decedent acted fraudulently or with intent to deprive Appellee of her share of the estate as required for application of Tennessee Code Annotated Section 31-1-105. Accordingly, we vacate and remand to the trial court for further proceedings. |
Obion | Court of Appeals | |
Laura June Bowling v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Laura June Bowling, filed a timely pro se petition for post-conviction relief challenging her guilty-pleaded conviction of second degree murder for which she received a sentence of 15 years’ incarceration. Following the appointment of counsel and the exhaustion of the one-year limitations period, the petitioner entered into an agreed order with the State withdrawing her petition. The post-conviction court then dismissed the petition with prejudice. The petitioner now appeals the dismissal order, alleging that her withdrawal of the petition was unknowingly and involuntarily entered. Discerning no error in the postconviction court’s dismissal, we affirm the order of the post-conviction court. |
Scott | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re Estate of Mavis A. Combs
Decedent’s adult daughter and three adult grandchildren appeal from the trial court’s judgment that the grandchildren are not entitled to survivor pension benefits under decedent’s employee pension plan. Summary judgment was appropriate because there are no genuine issues of material fact and because there exists no legal basis on which to extend survivor pension benefits to the grandchildren. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Sonya Frances Kelly Rutledge v. Dan Kenneth Kelly
Father was found guilty of five counts of criminal contempt for his failure to pay child support and was sentenced to 50 days in jail. On appeal, Father argues the trial court failed to make the requisite finding regarding his ability to pay. We have determined that the evidence established beyond a reasonable doubt that Father did have the ability to pay the child support obligation, but that the maximum sentence is not appropriate based on the circumstances. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court with modifications to Father’s sentence. We also award Mother attorney fees for this appeal and remand the case to the trial court for a determination of the appropriate amount. |
Robertson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Marcus Terrell Johnson
Charged by the Knox County Criminal Court grand jury with the sale and delivery of cocaine, a Schedule II controlled substance, the defendant, MarcusTerrell Johnson, pleaded guilty to the sale of cocaine and agreed to a 10-year suspended sentence. The trial court entered the judgment on April 7, 2011, but on May 6, 2011, the State obtained a probation revocation warrant that alleged that the defendant had not reported for probation, that his whereabouts were unknown, and, by a later-filed amendment, that he was arrested for theft and did not report the arrest. Following a hearing, the trial court revoked the defendant’s probation and ordered him to serve his sentence in confinement. In his timely appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court erred by revoking the probation and ordering him into confinement. Because the record supports the trial court’s order, we affirm. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James Lynch, Sr. v. Cleon Portis
The trial court awarded summary judgment to Defendant on Plaintiff’s claim for property damages arising from a motor vehicle collision, finding that Plaintiff did not own the vehicle allegedly damaged. On appeal, Plaintiff asserts the trial court erred by awarding summary judgment to Defendant where ownership of the vehicle is a genuine issue of material fact. We reverse the award of summary judgment and remand for further proceedings. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Ruth Meadows, et al. v. James W. Smith
The dispute in this case is between siblings over whether an express trust was created at or before the mother, after the father's death, deeded the remainder of the parents' property to four of the children. Plaintiffs claim the four defendants created an oral express trust by agreeing to share the farm equally among all the children upon the mother's death. The Trial Court granted defendants summary judgment and plaintiffs have appealed. We vacate the Trial Court's Judgment on the grounds that there is disputed material evidence as to whether or not an express trust was created among the parties. |
Cumberland | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Estate of Sidney Wes Jenkins
Claimant, the wife of decedent, filed a claim against his estate claiming that she loaned her husband monies over time, and his estate was indebted to her for the amount of the loans. The Trial Court heard testimony on the claim, and held that claimant failed to meet her burden of proof to establish that she had loaned monies to her husband. Claimant appealed, and we affirm the Trial Judge on the ground that the evidence does not preponderate against the Trial Court's factual determinations. |
McMinn | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Lawrence V. Kline
A Scott County Criminal Court jury convicted the defendant, Lawrence V. Kline, of one count of the sale of a schedule IV controlled substance (Xanax), and the trial court sentenced the defendant to two years as a Range I, standard offender to be served on probation. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erroneously admitted into evidence the two Xanax pills. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court |
Scott | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Carl Randle
A Madison County jury convicted the Defendant, Carl Randle, of aggravated assault and attempted voluntary manslaughter. The trial court merged the convictions and ordered the Defendant to serve six years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The Defendant appeals, arguing that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction and that the trial court erred when it denied him an alternative sentence. Finding no error in the judgment of the trial court, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Travis Vaughn
The defendant, Travis Vaughn, appeals the decision of the Dyer County Circuit Court revoking his probationary sentence. The defendant pled guilty in the Dyer County Circuit Court to three counts of non-support of a minor child and received three consecutive sentences of eleven months and twenty-nine days, all suspended to probation but for thirty days. Thereafter, a violation report was filed charging the defendant with multiple violations of the terms and conditions of his probation. Following a hearing, the trial court revoked the defendant’s probation and ordered him to serve the remainder of his sentence in incarceration. On appeal, the defendant contends: (1) that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to revoke his probation as the case was not properly commenced; and (2) that the determination to revoke was error as it conflicts with public policy. Following review of the record, we find no error and affirm the revocation of probation. |
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James R. Troxell
A Campbell County Criminal Court jury convicted the defendant, James R. Troxell, of two counts of rape of a child and one count of aggravated sexual battery. The trial court imposed a total effective sentence of 56 years’ incarceration. On appeal, the defendant contests the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions and the trial court’s allowing witness testimony which, the defendant alleges, improperly bolstered the victim’s testimony. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Campbell | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Mary Ann Caudle, Next of Kin and Co-Executor of Estate of Louise K. Fite, Deceased, and on Behalf of Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of Louise K. Fite v. Columbia Operations, LLC d/b/a Life Care Centers of Columbia and Life Care Centers of America, Inc.
This is an interlocutory appeal from a trial court’s grant of a motion to compel arbitration. The mother executed a power of attorney in favor of the plaintiff daughter. Subsequently, the daughter signed documents on her mother’s behalf for admission into the defendant nursing home. The documents included an agreement to arbitrate any disputes with the nursing home. After the mother died, the daughter filed this wrongful death lawsuit against the nursing home. The nursing home filed a motion to stay the lawsuit and compel arbitration; this motion was granted. The daughter was then granted permission for this interlocutory appeal, on the issue of whether the power of attorney gave the daughter authority to sign the arbitration agreement and waive her mother’s right to a jury trial. Interpreting the language in the power of attorney document, we find that the daughter had authority to execute the nursing home admission documents, including the arbitration agreement, only if, in the opinion of her physician, the mother was “incompetent or incapable of action” for herself. Therefore, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. |
Maury | Court of Appeals | |
Haas & Wilkerson, Inc. v. Geren Rides, Inc., a/k/a Mega Midways v. Azalea City Amusements, Inc.
Intervenor in a suit to domesticate a foreign judgment and to levy on property of the judgment debtor appeals the failure of the trial court to grant its Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02 motion and set aside an order dismissing its claim. Finding that Intervenor should have been granted relief, we reverse the judgment and remand the case for further proceedings. |
Putnam | Court of Appeals | |
Chris Brown v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Chris Brown, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of post-conviction relief from his convictions for attempted first degree murder, especially aggravated robbery, aggravated robbery, attempted aggravated robbery, two counts of aggravated assault, and being a felon in possession of a handgun, for which he is serving an effective twenty-year sentence. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that his guilty pleas were not knowingly, voluntarily, and understandingly made. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Wayne Donaldson
An officer stopped the defendant for a traffic violation. When the officer ordered the defendant out of his vehicle to sign the citation, he observed what appeared to be a bag of cocaine on the floorboard of the driver’s side. Charged with possession with intent to sell or deliver twenty-six grams or more of cocaine in a school zone, the defendant moved to suppress the evidence as the product of an unlawful seizure. The trial court sustained the motion, and the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. This Court granted the State’s application for permission to appeal. Because an officer, after making a lawful stop for a traffic violation, may routinely direct the driver outside of the vehicle, the order of suppression is reversed, and the cause is remanded for trial. |
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
Christopher A. Davis v. State of Tennessee
The Davidson County Criminal Court denied the Petitioner, Christopher A. Davis, post-conviction relief from his convictions on two counts of first degree murder, two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, and two counts of especially aggravated robbery, but granted relief from his sentence of death and ordered a new capital sentencing hearing. The Petitioner appeals the denial of a new trial and the State appeals the granting of a new sentencing hearing. Having discerned no error, we affirm the order of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals |