Kenneth Kelly et al. v. Thomas A. Stewart
This case involves allegations of malfeasance by several members of a family business against another member. The plaintiffs asserted both derivative and individual claims. We affirm the trial court’s decision regarding the merits of the case but vacate and remand the portion of the trial court’s decision regarding damages and attorney fees. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Casey Lee Anderson v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Casey Lee Anderson, pled guilty to second degree murder and received a sentence of nineteen years’ imprisonment. He later filed a petition for post-conviction relief, claiming that the State had violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), by failing to disclose a witness statement before he entered the plea. After a hearing, the post-conviction court granted relief, finding that the State had violated Brady by failing to disclose the statement. On appeal, the State argues that the post-conviction court erred in granting relief, asserting that the Petitioner failed to prove that the statement was material. Upon our de novo review, we agree with the State. As such, we respectfully reverse the post-conviction court’s judgment and remand the case to reinstate the Petitioner’s conviction. |
Bledsoe | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Bryant Ward v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Bryant Ward, pleaded guilty to second degree murder, in exchange for a twenty-year sentence. The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective and that he was on a medication that inhibited his ability to enter a knowing and voluntary guilty plea. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. After review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
DONALD CHARLES BACHMAN V. JOANNE EVE MASSAS
Plaintiff sued Defendant for divorce. Defendant appeals challenging the trial court’s failure to award alimony. Without a transcript or statement of the evidence, appellate courts presume the record supports the trial court’s findings. We affirm. |
Carter | Court of Appeals | |
Victor Valle v. State of Tennessee
A Shelby County jury convicted the Petitioner, Victor Valle, of rape of a child, and the trial court sentenced him to a term of twenty-two years imprisonment. Thereafter, he filed a petition for post-conviction relief, asserting that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. In relevant part, the Petitioner alleged that his attorneys were ineffective by (1) calling the victim’s mother and his former spouse as witnesses at trial; (2) failing to explain his right to testify and advising him not to testify; and (3) failing to advise him of his right to have the jury instructed regarding lesser-included offenses. The Petitioner also asserted that he was entitled to relief due to cumulative error. 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 | |
State of Tennessee v. Derek Morse
Defendant, Derek Morse, was convicted by a Hamilton County jury of three counts of premeditated first degree murder and one count of attempted premeditated first degree murder. Defendant was sentenced to three terms of life imprisonment without parole for the first-degree murder convictions, and he was ordered to serve a concurrent sentence of fifteen years for the attempted first degree murder conviction. In this direct appeal, Defendant contends that: 1) the evidence at trial was insufficient to sustain his convictions because the State failed to establish his identity as a shooter; 2) the trial court erred by allowing evidence of a prior bad act; 3) the State failed to establish a proper chain of custody for evidence of gunshot residue on Defendant's clothing; 4) the trial court should have granted a new trial based on newly discovered evidence; 5) the trial court should have granted a new trial based on proof that a State's witness gave false testimony that he did not receive favorable treatment from the State for his testimony against Defendant; 6) the State made improper comments during its opening statement and closing argument; and 7) the cumulative effect of these errors entitles Defendant to a new trial. Having reviewed the entire record and the briefs and arguments of the parties, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Vanessa Faddoul v. Edward James Beyer
Vanessa Faddoul sought an order of protection as a stalking victim pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-3-617 against her neighbor, Edward James Beyer, in Williamson County General Sessions Court. After holding an evidentiary hearing, the general sessions court issued a one-year order of protection prohibiting Mr. Beyer from contacting or coming about the victim, Mrs. Faddoul, or her family, and restricting Mr. Beyer’s second amendment rights. Mr. Beyer appealed to the Williamson County Circuit Court. Upon a pre-trial motion of Mr. Beyer, the circuit court modified the general sessions order by restoring Mr. Beyer’s second amendment right to possess firearms. Following three days of hearings on the petition, but before the circuit court could rule on the merits of the de novo appeal, Mr. Beyer filed a “Notice of Voluntary Nonsuit and Dismissal of Appeal” to dismiss his appeal of the general sessions court ruling against him in Case No. 2022OP-176, purportedly pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41.01(1). Because Mr. Beyer dismissed his appeal, the circuit court entered an order “affirming” the judgment of the general sessions court, save the second amendment issue, dismissing the appeal, and granting Mrs. Faddoul leave to apply for an award of attorney’s fees. Thereafter, Mrs. Faddoul requested attorney’s fees in the amount of $168,112.50 under Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-3-617(a)(1), discretionary costs in the amount of $5,248.62 under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 54.04(2), and $2,579.37 in “non-discretionary cost expenses.” The circuit court denied her request for attorney’s fees and discretionary costs in toto based on several findings. It found that she was not entitled to an award of mandatory attorney’s fees under Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-3-617 because, inter alia, stalking victims are not entitled to the same “enhanced protections” as domestic abuse victims, that it did not complete the hearing on the petition, which it found to be a prerequisite for fees, and that the amount of attorney’s fees requested was unreasonable. The circuit court also declined to award Mrs. Faddoul any discretionary costs. Both parties appeal. Contrary to Mr. Beyer’s argument that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to take any action after he purportedly “nonsuited” his appeal, we find that the circuit court retained jurisdiction and that it did not err in affirming the judgment of the general sessions court and granting Mrs. Faddoul leave to request attorney’s fees. Because Mrs. Faddoul, as a stalking victim, is entitled to the same rights afforded to domestic abuse victims, and as mandated pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-3-617(a)(1), we hold that Mrs. Faddoul is entitled to recover the reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees she incurred in the general sessions court and the circuit court proceedings. Thus, we reverse the circuit court’s decision regarding attorney’s fees and remand for the circuit court to award Mrs. Faddoul her reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees and expenses incurred in the general sessions court and the circuit court proceedings under Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-3-617(a)(1). We affirm in part and reverse in part the denial of Mrs. Faddoul’s request for discretionary costs, finding that some of the court reporters’ invoices clearly delineate the discretionary costs that she is entitled to recover pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 54.04(2). We also conclude that Mrs. Faddoul is entitled to her reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees incurred in this appeal under Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-3-617(a)(1). |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Estate of Nancy Riss
This appeal arises from a will contest. Appellant David Riss (“Respondent”) and Appellee Adam Riss (“Petitioner”) dispute the validity of a typewritten codicil and holographic document that purportedly amended the last will and testament their mother, Nancy G. Riss (“Decedent”), executed on September 25, 2018 (“the Will”). After petitioning to admit the Will to probate and set aside the purported codicils, Petitioner filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. He argued that the typewritten codicil and holographic document do not meet applicable statutory requirements and thus should be given no testamentary effect. The trial court agreed with Petitioner and granted his motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court held that the typewritten codicil failed to meet the statutory requirements of a valid testamentary instrument under Tennessee Code Annotated § 32-1-104 because the witness signatures were affixed to an attesting affidavit but not to the codicil. The court further held that the holographic document failed to meet the statutory requirements of a valid holographic testamentary instrument under Tennessee Code Annotated § 32-1-105 because it did not contain any material provisions directing the distribution of Decedent’s estate. This appeal followed. We affirm. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William Joel Lauper
The Defendant, William Joel Lauper, was convicted by a Rutherford County Jury of especially aggravated kidnapping, four counts of aggravated assault, domestic assault resulting in a bodily injury, and preventing another from making an emergency call, for which he received an effective sentence of fifty years, eleven months, and twenty-nine days of confinement. In this direct appeal, the sole issue presented for our review is whether the State established the essential element of serious bodily injury to sustain the especially aggravated kidnapping conviction. After review, we affirm. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Terence S. Roberts, et al. v. Kentucky National Insurance Co., et al.
The plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against seven defendants. Their complaint asserted various counts arising out of the defendants’ involvement with a water loss claim the plaintiffs had reported to their insurer. Four of the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. The trial court granted their motions and simply stated at the end of its order of dismissal, “This is a final and appealable order and there is no just cause for delay.” The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. This Court entered two show cause orders, directing the appellants to either obtain a final judgment or show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed. We then entered an order deferring the matter to the panel of the Court deciding this appeal. We conclude that the trial court improvidently certified its order as final and dismiss this appeal. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
Committee to Stop an Unfair Tax et al. v. Freddie O'Connell et al.
The plaintiffs brought an election contest and a declaratory judgment action against the defendants to enjoin the implementation of Metro Ordinance No. BL2024-427, which implements Metro’s transit improvement plan created pursuant to the Improving Manufacturing, Public Roads and Opportunities for a Vibrant Economy Act. The trial court found that the plan and ballot question complied with the Act in all respects. We affirm, except that we find that the surcharge in the transit improvement plan cannot be used for the acquisition of land for housing and parks. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
JEREMY JAMES DALTON v. BLOUNT COUNTY ET AL.
Because Appellant’s brief fails to comply with Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 27 and Rule 6 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals of Tennessee, he has waived review. Appeal dismissed. |
Court of Appeals | ||
Billie Joe Chapman v. State of Tennessee
In 2021, the Petitioner, Billie Joe Chapman, pleaded guilty in separate cases to multiple burglary, vandalism, and weapon charges for which he received an effective sentence of thirteen years of incarceration. The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging the ineffective assistance of counsel, and the trial court denied him relief. This court affirmed the denial. Chapman v. State, No. W2022-01333-CCA-R3-PC, 2023 WL 5572932, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 29, 2023), no perm. app. filed. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, and the trial court entered an order summarily dismissing the petition. We affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ernest Butler v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Ernest Butler, was convicted of first degree felony murder and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, for which he received an effective sentence of life imprisonment plus fifteen years. This court affirmed Petitioner’s convictions and sentences on direct appeal. Petitioner then filed a petition for post-conviction relief in which he claimed ineffective assistance of counsel, and the post-conviction court denied the petition after a hearing. On appeal, Petitioner asserts that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the State’s methods for refreshing and impeaching a testifying witness, and for failing to request a jury instruction on voluntary intoxication. He also argues cumulative error deprived him of a fair trial. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
John Lindberg v. TCIX Disciplinary Board, et al.
John Lindberg (“Lindberg”), an inmate at Turney Center Industrial Complex (“TCIX”), was convicted of introducing drugs into TCIX by the prison’s Disciplinary Board (“the Board”). After failed appeals to the TCIX Warden and Tennessee Department of Correction (“TDOC”) Commissioner, Lindberg filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the Chancery Court for Hickman County (“the Trial Court”). The Trial Court denied his petition. He appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. |
Hickman | Court of Appeals | |
CHARLES MCCLELLAN CAMPBELL, ET AL v. JOHN HANCOCK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY (U.S.A.), ET AL.
This is an interlocutory appeal as of right, pursuant to Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 10B, filed by Christina Lemek Blackwell (“Petitioner”) seeking to recuse the trial judge in this case. Having reviewed the petition for recusal appeal filed by Petitioner and finding no reversible error, we affirm. |
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
Jason Steven Molthan v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Jason Steven Molthan, appeals from the trial court’s summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence related to his misdemeanor convictions for stalking and harassment, for which he received consecutive sentences of eleven months and twenty-nine days. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion without the appointment of counsel and a hearing; that the trial court improperly imposed consecutive sentencing by finding that his history of criminal activity was extensive; and that he received ineffective assistance of appellate counsel in his direct appeal. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Janice L. Ruiz v. Butts Foods, L.P., et al.
The plaintiff filed this lawsuit against her joint employers, asserting sexual harassment/ hostile work environment, retaliation, and other related claims. The employers filed a motion to compel arbitration. The plaintiff opposed the motion and invoked the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021, 9 U.S.C. §§ 401- -402. The trial court deemed the Act applicable and denied the motion to compel arbitration. The employers appeal. We affirm. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
Todd Michael Perks v. Elizabeth Mundy (Perkins) Sloane
A husband and wife divorced a little over two years after marrying. On appeal, the wife asserts the trial court erred when it classified five real properties as the husband’s separate property. The wife also takes issue with the court’s division of attorney’s fees and requests her fees on appeal. We find the court failed to make adequate findings related to its division of attorney’s fees. Therefore, we vacate the portion of the order relating to fees and expenses and remand the matter for the court to make additional findings. We affirm the trial court in all other aspects and decline to award the wife her attorney’s fees incurred on appeal. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jonathan Ellerbasch, Alias
Defendant, Jonathan Ellerbasch, Alias, pleaded guilty in the Knox County Criminal Court |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Luke Buckley v. Kerry Buckley, et al.
A man sought to intervene as of right in a family member’s action for partition of real property. The trial court determined that the proposed intervenor did not have an interest in the subject property. So it denied his request to intervene and his other requests for relief. We affirm. |
Henderson | Court of Appeals | |
City of Memphis v. Samuel Crout
Appellant, City of Memphis, has appealed an order of the Shelby County Chancery Court that was entered on June 4, 2024. We determine that the trial court’s order does not constitute a final appealable judgment. As a result, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
James Anthony Andrews v. State of Tennessee
James Anthony Andrews, Petitioner, pleaded guilty in this case to two counts of aggravated assault. At the same hearing, Petitioner pleaded guilty to additional charges in another case. As part of his plea agreement, Petitioner agreed to concurrent eight-year sentences for the aggravated assault charges to run consecutively to a two-year sentence for the charges in the other case—for a total effective sentence of ten years—with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. The trial court accepted Petitioner’s guilty pleas, and Petitioner applied for probation, which the State opposed. The trial court denied Petitioner’s request for probation, requiring him to serve his ten-year sentence in incarceration. Petitioner subsequently petitioned for post-conviction relief, asserting that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to adequately investigate the case and that his guilty pleas were not knowingly and voluntarily made. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied Petitioner’s amended petition. After review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Anne Elise Littleton Jakobik v. Erik Carter Jakobik
In this divorce with no children, the trial court declared the parties divorced and referred the property issues and requests for attorney’s fees to a special master. The special master recommended an equal division of the marital estate and that each party pay their own attorney’s fees. The wife objected to these recommendations. After a hearing, the trial court adopted the special master’s findings and recommendations, with one small exception. On appeal, the wife challenges the division of the marital estate and the failure to award attorney’s fees. We affirm. |
Cheatham | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Layton S.
In this case involving termination of a mother’s parental rights to her minor child, the trial court found that three statutory grounds for termination had been proven by clear and convincing evidence. The trial court further found that clear and convincing evidence demonstrated that termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. The mother has appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. |
Tipton | Court of Appeals |