State vs. Kenneth Sisco M2000-00036-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: Steve R. Dozier
The Defendant pleaded guilty to the offense of robbery. His plea agreement provided that he would be sentenced as a Range II multiple offender, with the length of the sentence to be determined by the trial judge. Following a sentencing hearing, the judge sentenced him to ten years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial judge erred by setting his sentence at ten years. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Davidson
Court of Criminal Appeals
Shanta Fonton McKay vs. State M2000-00016-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: Cheryl A. Blackburn
After his transfer from juvenile court, appellant pled guilty to second degree murder and, pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, received a sentence of 19 years. Appellant sought post-conviction relief, which was denied by the trial court. In this appeal as a matter of right, appellant seeks relief alleging a double jeopardy violation, an involuntary guilty plea, and ineffective assistance of counsel. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.
Davidson
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. ThomasLawrence and Joseph Hatton M2000-00493-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: W. Charles Lee
The appellant, Thomas Lawrence, was convicted by a jury in the Marshall County Criminal Court of one count of possession of cocaine with intent to sell, a class C felony, and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia, a class A misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced Lawrence, as a Range II offender, to eight years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction for the possession of crack cocaine conviction and assessed a $2000 fine. The trial court further sentenced Lawrence to eleven months incarceration in the Marshall County Jail for the possession of drug paraphernalia conviction. The trial court ordered Lawrence to serve these sentences concurrently. The appellant, Joseph Hatton, was convicted by a jury in the Marshall County Criminal Court of two counts of selling crack cocaine, a class C felony, one count of possession of crack cocaine with the intent to sell, a class C felony, and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia, a class A misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced Hatton, as a Range I offender, to four years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction for each sale of crack cocaine conviction and four years incarceration for the possession of crack cocaine with the intent to sell conviction. The court assessed a total of $4250 in fines. The trial court further ordered Hatton to serve his sentences for selling crack cocaine concurrently with each other but consecutive to the sentence for possession of crack cocaine with the intent to sell.
Marshall
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Charles Ricky Deason M2000-00497-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: John H. Gasaway, III
The appellant, Charles Ricky Deason, pled guilty in the Montgomery County Circuit Court to one count of driving under the influence (hereinafter "DUI"), seventh offense; one count of leaving the scene of an accident; one count of driving on a revoked license, fourth offense; one count of DUI, second offense; and two counts of misdemeanor assault. The trial court sentenced the appellant to eleven months and twenty-nine days incarceration in the Montgomery County Jail for DUI, seventh offense. The trial court also sentenced the appellant to thirty days incarceration for leaving the scene of an accident, to be served concurrently with the sentence for DUI, seventh offense. Additionally, the trial court sentenced the appellant to an eleven month and twenty-nine day suspended sentence for driving on a revoked license, fourth offense, and ordered this sentence to be served consecutively to the DUI, seventh offense, and leaving the scene of an accident. The trial court further sentenced the appellant to eleven months and twenty-nine days incarceration, with ninety days to be served in incarceration and the remainder suspended, for the DUI, second offense, and ordered this sentence to be served consecutively to the DUI, seventh offense, and leaving the scene of an accident, and consecutively to the driving on a revoked license, fourth offense. Finally, the trial court sentenced the appellant to eleven months and twenty-nine days probation for each of the assault convictions and ordered these sentences to be served concurrently with each other, but consecutively to the other sentences. Subsequently, the appellant violated his probation by driving on a revoked license, violating the Light Law, and improper vehicle registration. The trial court revoked the appellant's probation and ordered the appellant to serve the remainder of his sentence in incarceration. The appellant presents the following issue for our review: whether the judgment of the trial court compelling the appellant to serve the full balance of his sentences in confinement was supported by the evidence. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
Trial Court Judge: William Charles Lee
Bedford
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Scarlett Rose Bender M2000-1070-CCA-R3-CD
Trial Court Judge: Allen W. Wallace
The Defendant pleaded nolo contendere to possessing with the intent to sell or deliver over one hundred pounds of marijuana, which is a Class B felony. Sentencing was left to the discretion of the trial court. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial judge sentenced the Defendant to eight years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant argues that she should have been sentenced as an especially mitigated offender and that she should have been allowed to serve her sentence on probation. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Dickson
Court of Criminal Appeals
Taylor Mehrhoff Co. W1999-00413-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Dewey C. Whitenton
Plaintiffs, Landowners, sued adjoining landowners, seeking a judgment determining the location of a disputed boundary line. The trial court found that Defendants had: (1) established record title to the disputed property; (2) established the boundary line in recorded deeds and trust deeds, and by the conduct, implied agreement, acquiescence and recognition of adjoining property owners; and (3) proven title by adverse possession of the disputed property. Plaintiffs-Landowners have appealed.
Fayette
Court of Appeals
Donnie Johnson vs. Centex W2000-00072-COA-R9-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: William B. Acree
This appeal arises from an injury by Worker who fell through a hole in the roof while working on a construction site. Worker brought suit against the Owner, the General Contractor and Builder, who through its construction of precast concrete panels had created the hole. The trial court granted Owner and General Contractor summary judgment on the basis that both were acting in the capacity of a general contractor and were thus exempt from suit under the workers' compensation statutes. Builder, even through it no longer had control of the area where Worker was injured, was denied summary judgment on the basis that OSHA regulations created a non-delegable duty to prevent injuries. We affirm the trial court's granting of summary judgment to Owner and General Contractor. We reverse the trial court's denial of summary judgment for Builder, finding that OSHA regulations do not create a duty for Builder.
Obion
Court of Appeals
Meredith Warren vs. John Warren W1999-02108-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Walter L. Evans
In this child custody case, the Appellant and the Appellee agreed to joint custody of their child with the Appellee being the primary custodial parent. After learning of the Appellee's plans to move out of state with the child, the Appellant filed a Petition for Opposition of Minor Child's Move from the State of Tennessee and/or Petition for Change of Custody. The trial court granted temporary custody to the Appellant pending a reevaluation of the matter. After a hearing, the trial court ordered joint custody of the child to the Appellant and the Appellee and decreed that the child live primarily with the Appellee out of state.
Shelby
Court of Appeals
James Rainey vs. Leslie Head W2000-00504-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: George E. Blancett
This is a case involving termination of parental rights. The Appellant executed a consent order terminating his parental rights to his child. Asserting that he executed the order under influence and duress by the Appellee and her family, the Appellant then filed a Petition to Vacate Order Terminating Parental Rights. The Juvenile Court of Shelby County dismissed the Appellant's Petition.
Shelby
Court of Appeals
Trau-Med vs. Allstate W1999-01524-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Robert L. Childers
Plaintiff medical clinic filed a complaint against an insurance company and several of its employees alleging, inter alia, that the defendants tortiously interfered with their business relationship, that the attorneys supplied by the insurance company to represent its insured were guilty of abuse of process and that the defendants conspired to destroy plaintiff's reputation in business. The trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff has appealed.
Shelby
Court of Appeals
State vs. Elizabeth Davis E1999-00373-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: Robert E. Cupp
The appellee, Elizabeth Davis, was indicted by a Unicoi County Grand Jury on November 20, 1995, for four counts of theft of property. On March 2, 1999, the State submitted a motion to the trial court to amend the indictment to correct the dates of the offenses set forth in all counts of the indictment and to reduce the value of the money alleged stolen in Count Four of the indictment. Following a hearing, the trial court denied the State's motion, whereupon the State requested the entry of an order of nolle prosequi as to all counts of the indictment. Instead, at the appellee's request, the trial court dismissed the indictment with prejudice pursuant to Tenn. R. Crim. P. 48(b). The State now brings this appeal as of right challenging both the trial court's dismissal of the indictment with prejudice and the trial court's denial of its motion to amend the indictment. Following a review of the record and the parties' briefs, we reverse the order of dismissal and remand this case for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Unicoi
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Elizabeth Davis E1999-00373-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: Robert E. Cupp
The appellee, Elizabeth Davis, was indicted by a Unicoi County Grand Jury on November 20, 1995, for four counts of theft of property. On March 2, 1999, the State submitted a motion to the trial court to amend the indictment to correct the dates of the offenses set forth in all counts of the indictment and to reduce the value of the money alleged stolen in Count Four of the indictment. Following a hearing, the trial court denied the State's motion, whereupon the State requested the entry of an order of nolle prosequi as to all counts of the indictment. Instead, at the appellee's request, the trial court dismissed the indictment with prejudice pursuant to Tenn. R. Crim. P. 48(b). The State now brings this appeal as of right challenging both the trial court's dismissal of the indictment with prejudice and the trial court's denial of its motion to amend the indictment. Following a review of the record and the parties' briefs, we reverse the order of dismissal and remand this case for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Unicoi
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Warner Powell and Charlie Stokes M1999-00661-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: Robert W. Wedemeyer
This is an appeal as of right by the State of Tennessee, which argues that the trial court erred by suppressing the evidence obtained against the Defendants pursuant to a search warrant. The State asserts that the trial court incorrectly concluded that the search warrant was invalid because the agent who provided the information in the affidavit establishing probable cause to search did not have the authority to execute the warrant or arrest the Defendants. In response, the Defendants assert that the State's notice of appeal was not timely filed, and they argue that the evidence was properly suppressed because the agent did not have the authority to obtain or execute the search warrant and because the affidavit did not establish the veracity of the confidential informant. We conclude that the State's notice of appeal was not timely filed, but we will consider the appeal in the interest of justice. We further conclude that the search warrant was valid; thus the trial court erred by suppressing the evidence obtained pursuant to the warrant. Accordingly, the trial court's order suppressing the evidence is reversed, and this case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Montgomery
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. William Lewis Houston M1999-01430-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: Jim T. Hamilton
Defendant was convicted by a Giles County jury of eight drug offenses and one count of aggravated assault. He received an effective sentence of seventy-two years. In this appeal, the defendant makes the following allegations: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; (2) the trial court committed plain error by consolidating all nine indictments for trial; (3) the process of selecting the jury venire was unconstitutional; (4) the trial court improperly limited the defendant's cross-examination of the undercover agent; (5) the trial court erred by admitting into evidence transcripts of certain tape recorded conversations and failed to properly instruct the jury concerning the transcripts; and (6) the trial court erred in its sentencing determinations. We conclude the trial court improperly sentenced the defendant and reduce the sentences to an effective term of forty-six years. The judgments of the trial court are affirmed in all other respects.
Giles
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Roderick Johnson M1999-00605-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: J. Randall Wyatt, Jr.
A Davidson County jury convicted defendant of second degree murder. In this appeal as a matter of right, defendant challenges only the sufficiency of the evidence upon which the jury based his conviction. Our review of the record reflects sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Davidson
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs.Robert Lewis Herrin M1999-00856-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: W. Charles Lee
The appellant, Robert Lewis Herrin, pled guilty in the Marshall County Circuit Court to one count of theft of property worth one thousand dollars ($1,000) or more but less than ten thousand dollars ($10,000), a class D felony. The trial court sentenced the appellant as a Range I offender to three years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction, suspending all but 120 days of the appellant's sentence and granting him supervised probation for a term of ten years. As a special condition of probation, the trial court prohibited the appellant from engaging in "any type [of] construction business or solicitation for business." In this appeal, the appellant argues that the trial court erred in imposing this special condition of probation. Following a review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court as modified.
Marshall
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Bobbie Joe Rollins M1999-02457-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: W. Charles Lee
The defendant was convicted by a Marshall County jury of reckless aggravated assault and sentenced by the trial court to ten years imprisonment as a Range III offender. In this appeal as a matter of right, the defendant claims the conflict between the trial court's erroneous written jury instruction requiring proof of venue in "Lincoln County," and the oral instruction requiring proof of venue in "Marshall County," requires reversal. After a through review of the record, we conclude that the issue has been waived. Furthermore, regardless of waiver, any error in the written jury instruction was clearly harmless. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Marshall
Court of Criminal Appeals
James C. Barbra v. Clarendon National Insurance E1999-00232-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Peoples, Sp. J.
Trial Court Judge: D. Kelly Thomas, Judge
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated _ 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The appellant, Clarendon National Insurance Company, is the workers' compensation insurance carrier for United Marine Corporation (hereafter "the employer"). The issue is whether an award of 62-1/2 percent partial disability to the body as a whole is excessive in light of the medical and vocational testimony. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Knox
Workers Compensation Panel
State vs. Lori A. Little M1999-0858-CCA-R3-CD
Trial Court Judge: Walter C. Kurtz
The Defendant, Lori A. Little, was convicted of two counts of forgery, both Class E felonies. In this appeal as of right, she argues (1) that the trial court improperly denied her the court's subpoena power prior to trial; (2) that the evidence was insufficient to support her convictions; (3) that the trial court improperly instructed the jury regarding NationsBank's obligations under the Uniform Commercial Code to reimburse customers for forgeries paid out of customers' accounts; (4) that the trial court improperly limited cross-examination of a prosecution witness regarding his bias; (5) that the jury was improperly tainted or biased by contact between a witness and a juror who were acquaintances; and (6) that the trial court intimidated the Defendant in a jury-out hearing during her direct examination at trial. We find no reversible error; thus, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Davidson
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Richard C. Silk M1999-02526-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: J. Steve Daniel
The appellant, Richard C. Silk, was convicted by a jury in the Rutherford County Circuit Court of one count of resisting arrest, a class B misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced him to six (6) months incarceration in the Rutherford County Jail, assigning a service percentage of seventy-five percent (75%). The appellant now presents the following issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence adduced at trial is sufficient to support the appellant's conviction of resisting arrest; (2) whether the trial court erred in sustaining certain objections by the State to the appellant's testimony concerning a statement made to him by an arresting officer; and (3) whether the trial court erred in sentencing the appellant. Following a thorough review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Rutherford
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Bernard Jerome Jones M2000-00018-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: Cheryl A. Blackburn
The defendant was convicted by a Davidson County jury of possession with intent to sell or deliver 0.5 grams or more of cocaine. The trial court sentenced defendant to 16 years incarceration as a Range II multiple offender. In this appeal as a matter of right, defendant makes the following allegations of error: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of guilt; (2) the trial court erred by ruling that if defendant testified, the state could impeach his credibility by introducing defendant's prior drug convictions; and (3) the trial court erred in sentencing defendant to 16 years incarceration. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
