State of Tennessee v. Danny Young
Defendant, Danny Young, appeals the judgment of the Shelby County Criminal Court revoking his probation and ordering the execution of his original sentence. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to place on the record its reasons for revoking his probation and ordering him to serve his original sentence. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Demarqushon Marquis Hinton
A Madison County jury convicted Defendant, Demarqushon Marquis Hinton, of evading arrest in a motor vehicle with risk of death or injury, two counts of attempted second degree murder, two counts of employing a firearm during the commission of or attempt to commit a dangerous felony, theft of a firearm valued at less than $2,500, reckless driving, failure to obey a traffic control device, and failure to stop at a stop sign. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of twenty-four years to be served in confinement. On appeal, Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his attempted second degree murder and firearm convictions, and he argues that his sentence is excessive. Upon review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Clay Stuart Gregory v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Clay Stuart Gregory, was convicted of aggravated robbery, first-degree felony murder, and premeditated first-degree murder, for which he received an effective sentence of life in prison. State v. Gregory, No. M2012-00546-CCA-R3-CD, 2013 WL 6187919, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 25, 2013), perm app. denied (Tenn. May 14, 2014). The Petitioner subsequently filed a petition seeking post-conviction relief, which was denied. In this appeal, the Petitioner argues he received ineffective assistance of counsel based on the following nine grounds: (1) trial counsel’s failure to lodge a pretrial objection to a note found in the Petitioner’s truck and the failure of the post-conviction court to permit juror testimony under Rule 606(b) regarding the impact of the same; (2) trial counsel’s failure to object during the State’s closing argument; (3) trial counsel’s failure to prepare for trial; (4) trial counsel’s failure to investigate, call, or cross-examine key witnesses; (5) trial counsel’s failure to request a jury instruction pursuant to State v. Ferguson, 2 S.W.3d 912 (Tenn. 1999); (6) trial counsel’s failure to present a shooting incident reconstruction and a firearms expert; (7) trial counsel’s failure to ensure the Petitioner could hear during trial; (8) trial counsel’s failure to secure the presence of the Petitioner and Jacqueline Peek for a court ordered deposition; and (9) trial counsel providing the jury with a report that contained inflammatory information about the Petitioner. The Petitioner also argues that trial counsel violated an ethical duty of loyalty by simultaneously representing the Petitioner and two potential defense witnesses. Finally, the Petitioner contends that he is entitled to relief based on the cumulative error doctrine. Upon review, we affirm. |
Humphreys | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Shamika Fifer v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Shamika Fifer, was indicted on charges of first degree murder (Count 1), attempted first degree murder (Count 2), and employing a firearm during the commission of a felony (Count 3). At trial, a Shelby County jury convicted her of Count 2 but could not reach a verdict as to Counts 1 and 3. During a subsequent hearing, Petitioner pleaded guilty to the lesser-included offense of second degree murder in Count 1 and Count 3 was dismissed by the State. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of twenty-one years’ confinement. Petitioner then filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which the post-conviction court denied following a hearing. On appeal, Petitioner maintains that her guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered and that trial counsel was ineffective. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
KATHLEEN MARQUARDT v. THE UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE
This Tennessee Public Records Act (“TPRA”) dispute concerns emails and documents (the “Materials”) requested by Kathleen Marquardt (“Ms. Marquardt”) from the University of Tennessee at Knoxville (“UTK”). Ms. Marquardt argued that the Materials, which include emails pertaining to an article authored by a part-time UTK employee that was published in the Huffington Post, were public records because they were created as a part of the official business of the university in furtherance of its goal of becoming a top-25 university. Following an in camera review of the Materials by the trial court only and a show-cause hearing, the trial court ruled in UTK’s favor, holding that “the requested records do not meet the definition of the [TPRA] statute; that these records were made or received pursuant to law or ordinance, or in [connection] with the transaction of official business by any governmental entity.” Ms. Marquardt challenges this ruling as well as other rulings including the denial of her motion for “an attorney’s eyes only” review of the Materials and the denial of her discovery requests. We affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Curtis D. Staggs v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Curtis D. Staggs, appeals from the summary dismissal of his petition for a writ of error coram nobis as time-barred by the applicable one-year statute of limitations. He contends that the coram nobis court should have held a hearing on his petition because the newly discovered evidence he intended to present would have established that he was innocent of the conviction offenses. After review, we affirm the judgment of the coram nobis court. |
Lawrence | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re Jaylynn J.
In the first appeal of this parental termination case, we affirmed the trial court’s findings that three grounds for termination were sufficiently proven, but we vacated one ground and the trial court’s best interest determination due to insufficient findings in the termination order. On remand, the trial court entered an amended order containing additional findings. The mother appeals. We affirm the termination of parental rights. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
John Todd v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, John Todd, filed an untimely petition for post-conviction relief claiming he received the ineffective assistance of counsel and that due process required the tolling of the statute of limitations because of his alleged mental incompetence. The post-conviction court summarily dismissed the petition, concluding the Petitioner had failed to present a prima facie case of mental incompetence to warrant an evidentiary hearing on the issue of due process tolling. The Petitioner appeals, claiming the post-conviction court erred in summarily dismissing the petition without an evidentiary hearing on the tolling issue because he presented a prima facie case of his mental incompetence. Following our review, we reverse the judgment of the post-conviction court and remand for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether the Petitioner is entitled to a tolling of the statute of limitations. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Barry McRae
The Defendant, Barry McRae, appeals from the Blount County Circuit Court’s probation revocation of the effective eight-year sentence he received for his guilty-pleaded convictions for two counts of delivery of a Schedule II controlled substance. On appeal, he contends that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his probation and ordering him to serve the remainder of his sentence in confinement. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Corbin Ramon Hightie
The Defendant, Corbin Ramon Hightie, appeals from the Montgomery County Circuit Court’s probation revocation of his ten-year sentence. The Defendant contends that the trial court erred by failing to consider alternative sentencing and by denying his request to award sentence credits for time he successfully served on probation. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Saad Al Qaragholi v. Commissioner of Revenue
This appeal concerns subject matter jurisdiction. Saad Al Qaragholi (“Petitioner”) filed a petition against the Commissioner of Revenue for the State of Tennessee (“Respondent”) in the Chancery Court for Davidson County (“the Trial Court”) challenging tax assessments against him. Petitioner opted not to pay the tax before proceeding with his challenge. However, Petitioner failed to timely sign his petition under penalty of perjury as required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-1-1801(b)(2). Respondent filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the oath requirement was jurisdictional and could not be corrected after the 90 days in which to file a petition expired. The Trial Court denied Respondent’s motion to dismiss and granted Petitioner leave to amend, citing the legal principle that leave to amend is freely granted. This interlocutory appeal, pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 9, followed. We reverse. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Estate of Gregory B. Johnson
Appellants fail to identify an error of fact or law for our review, and their brief fails to comply with Rule 27 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. Appellee’s request for damages for a frivolous appeal is granted. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Parvel Gudger
The Defendant, Parvel Gudger, was convicted by a Cocke County jury of aggravated sexual battery, continuous sexual abuse of a child,[1] rape of a child, and incest, for which he received an effective sentence of fifty-two years’ incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant argues that (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his confession, (2) the trial court erred in admitting a recording of the victim’s forensic interview, (3) the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to sustain his convictions, and (4) his sentence is excessive. We ordered supplemental briefing to address whether the State’s elections of offenses were sufficient to protect the Defendant’s right to a unanimous jury verdict for the charges of rape of a child and incest. Following our review, we conclude that the State failed to elect an offense as to the rape of a child and incest charges and that this failure resulted in plain error. Accordingly, we reverse the Defendant’s convictions for rape of a child and incest and remand for a new trial on those charges. We otherwise affirm the judgments of the trial court.
|
Court of Criminal Appeals | ||
State of Tennessee v. Johnathan V. Duncan
Jonathan Duncan, Defendant, was indicted for first degree murder, felony murder, and aggravated robbery by the Wilson County Grand Jury for his involvement in the death of Ellis Sanders, the victim. After a jury trial, he was found guilty on all counts and sentenced to an effective sentence of life imprisonment. After the denial of a motion for new trial, Defendant appeals, arguing: 1) the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions; 2) Defendant’s right to a fair and impartial jury was violated because jurors slept during trial, the trial court required the jury to work “extensive and unreasonable hours,” and the trial court interfered with the jury by holding ex parte meetings; and 3) the trial court erred in allowing the State to present evidence of uncharged bad acts in violation of Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b). After a thorough review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court but remand the matter to the trial court for entry of corrected judgment forms to reflect merger of the first degree murder and felony murder convictions. |
Wilson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Harry Raymond Coleman, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
A Shelby County jury convicted the Petitioner, Harry Raymond Coleman, Jr., of second degree murder, among other offenses. The trial court sentenced him to an effective eighteen-year sentence in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed a post-conviction petition asserting that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at his trial. More specifically, the Petitioner argued that his trial counsel failed to adequately investigate and present a mental health defense centered around his post-trial diagnosis of Bipolar I disorder. He also claimed that trial counsel failed to call witnesses who would have supported his claim of self-defense. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief, and the Petitioner appealed. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Leketrice Harris v. Methodist Lebonheur Healthcare
The notice of appeal in this case was not timely filed. Therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Kamilah A.
The notice of appeal in this case was not timely filed. Therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal. |
Fayette | Court of Appeals | |
G'Andre Fields v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, G’Andre Fields, appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in denying his claim that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel because trial counsel failed to file a motion to suppress Petitioner’s DNA. Following our review of the entire record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Bobby V. Summers
The Defendant, Bobby V. Summers, appeals the trial court’s summary dismissal of his motion to correct an illegal sentence. The record and the Defendant’s brief have been filed. For the reasons stated below, the Court hereby suspends the requirement of a responsive brief by the State and affirms the trial court’s order pursuant to Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Alexander Friedmann
A Davidson County jury convicted the defendant, Alexander Friedmann, of vandalism of property over $250,000, for which he received a sentence of forty years in confinement at 35%. On appeal, the defendant contends (1) the indictment is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad; (2) the trial court erred in admitting evidence of the costs to rekey the jail and review surveillance footage; (3) the trial court erred in denying a motion to suppress the product of a judicial subpoena; (4) the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his conviction; (5) the State failed to timely provide evidence to which the defendant was entitled; (6) improper argument by the State affected the verdict; (7) the trial court imposed an excessive sentence; (8) the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion for a reduced sentence; and (9) cumulative error deprived the defendant of a fair trial. After reviewing the record and considering the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Denver Richardson
A Davidson County jury convicted the Defendant, Michael Denver Richardson, as charged of first degree premeditated murder, and he was sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal, the Defendant argues: (1) the trial court improperly admitted four of his prior convictions for impeachment purposes; (2) the trial court erred in admitting certain evidence at trial; (3) the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal; (4) the trial court erred in denying jury instructions on self-defense and defense of another; and (5) cumulative error requires reversal of his conviction. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Pervis Tyrone Payne
This case is about a court’s authority to modify a final criminal judgment. Nearly four decades ago, Pervis Payne received two death sentences for brutally murdering a single mother and her two-year-old daughter. Because of the possibility that the death sentences might be commuted to life sentences in future proceedings, the court aligned the sentences to be served consecutively. Years later—after this Court held that the execution of persons with intellectual disabilities violates the federal and state constitutions, see Van Tran v. State, 66 S.W.3d 790, 812 (Tenn. 2001)—the Tennessee legislature established a procedure whereby certain death-sentenced inmates could receive an intellectual disability determination to evaluate the constitutionality of their sentences. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-203(g) (2021). Payne made use of that pathway and was adjudicated intellectually disabled. The trial judge presiding over that adjudication vacated Payne’s death sentences and imposed two life sentences in their place. But the court did not stop there: it also revisited the earlier consecutive sentencing determination and ordered that Payne’s sentences be served concurrently instead, which would make Payne eligible for parole in 2026. We hold that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to realign Payne’s sentences. Once a criminal judgment becomes final, it may not be modified unless a statute or rule authorizes its modification. The trial court had authority to adjudicate Payne intellectually disabled under Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-203(g). It also had authority to vacate Payne’s death sentences and substitute sentences of life imprisonment under Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-2-205(e) (1982). No statute or rule, however, gave the trial court authority to realign Payne’s sentences, so we vacate that part of the trial court’s judgment. |
Shelby | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Matthew Saunders
The Defendant, Matthew Saunders, appeals from the trial court’s revocation of judicial diversion and entry of judgments of conviction in two cases. Specifically, he contends that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that he violated the terms of his diversion by failing to timely disclose multiple social media accounts when he registered as a sex offender. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Brent Paul Moon
The Defendant, Brent Paul Moon, appeals the trial court’s revocation of his effective three-year probationary sentence for felony evading arrest, simple possession of methamphetamine, and driving on a revoked license. On appeal, the Defendant argues that his right to a speedy trial was violated and, as such, the probation violation should be dismissed. Next, he contends that the trial court erred by admitting hearsay statements at the revocation hearing because no “good cause” existed for the statements’ entry and that the statements were not reliable. Lastly, he claims the trial court erred by revoking his probation and running the revocation sentence consecutively to the sentence for his new criminal convictions. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court but remand for correction of a clerical error on the Defendant’s judgment form for simple possession of methamphetamine. |
Coffee | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
MidSouth Construction, LLC v. Daniel Burstiner et al.
This appeal concerns a homeowner’s attempt to vacate an arbitration award entered after a dispute arose regarding the homeowner’s contract with a construction company to build a deck on the homeowner’s property. We have determined that the trial court properly confirmed the arbitration award and that the contractor waived any argument that the trial court erred by not awarding the company its attorney’s fees at the trial level. However, we remand the matter to the trial court for a determination of the contractor’s reasonable appellate attorney’s fees. |
Maury | Court of Appeals |