Timothy Evans v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Timothy Evans, appeals from the Hamilton County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The Petitioner contends that trial counsel was ineffective (1) for failing to have the Petitioner “evaluated in order to present an insanity or diminished capacity defense”; (2) for failing to call “a psychological expert” to support the Petitioner’s duress defense; (3) for failing to “adequately prepare” the Petitioner to testify on cross-examination; and (4) for “depriving [the] Petitioner of a review of his duress [defense] by the appellate courts” by failing to include portions of the trial transcript in the appellate record. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Valentino L. Dyer v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Valentino L. Dyer, appeals from the denial of his petition for postconviction relief, wherein he challenged his convictions for especially aggravated robbery and aggravated burglary. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-13-403, -14-403. In this appeal as of right, the Petitioner alleges that trial counsel was ineffective in the following ways: (1) by failing to object to the State’s deficient notice seeking enhanced punishment, thereby causing the Petitioner to be confused regarding the State’s plea offer and factoring into his decision to reject the fifteen-year offer; (2) by failing to negotiate a more favorable plea offer from the State due to his “improper understanding of the Petitioner’s criminal convictions”; (3) by failing to prepare the Petitioner to testify at trial; (4) by failing to visit the crime scene; (5) by failing to object to two photographs of the machete used during the break-in; (6) by failing to argue that the victim did not suffer serious bodily injury; (7) by failing to discuss with the Petitioner “any mitigating factors or the sentencing hearing” prior to the hearing itself; (8) by failing to subpoena or call witnesses on the Petitioner’s behalf at the sentencing hearing; and (9) “all other reasons set forth in the petition and amended petition for post-conviction relief.” Following a review of the record, all but one of the Petitioner’s issues are waived due to an inadequate brief, and the single issue properly presented for review lacks merit. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Rhea | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Cory Lynn White
The Defendant, Cory Lynn White, was convicted by a jury of making a false report or statement, and he received a three-year spilt confinement sentence for this conviction. The Defendant appeals, arguing (1) that there was a fatal variance between the indictment and the proof offered at trial and (2) that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction.1 Following our review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Anderson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jenna Sims
The Defendant, Jenna Sims, pled guilty to multiple driving and drug offenses, for which she received an agreed-upon sentence of one-year, eleven months, and twenty-nine days. The Defendant was later placed on probation. During her probation, the Defendant left a residential treatment program and failed to return to jail, so a probation violation warrant was filed and she was charged with failure to appear. She pled guilty to the failure to appear charge and received an agreed-upon sentence of one year to be served consecutively to the remainder of her probationary sentence. At the subsequent sentencing hearing, the trial court revoked her probation and ordered her to serve her one year sentence for failure to appear in confinement. On appeal, she argues that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking her probation and by denying her alternative sentencing. We disagree. Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Theresa Aileen Blount v. Howard Paul Blount, III
This case involves a post-divorce petition seeking military retirement benefits not allocated at the time of the divorce. The trial court awarded Theresa Aileen Blount (Wife) the requested benefits over the objection of her former spouse, Howard Paul Blount, III (Husband). The trial court also awarded Wife attorney’s fees in the amount of $6,000. Husband appeals. Wife raises her own issues. She seeks additional attorney’s fees; an award of travel expenses; and a remand to the trial court for the purpose of calculating Wife’s entitlement in accordance with the “retained jurisdiction method.” We affirm the trial court’s order granting benefits. We remand the case to the trial court for the purpose of (1) determining the appropriate valuation method for calculating Wife’s benefits and (2) thereafter describing each party’s respective legal interest in Husband’s military pension. |
Roane | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Estate Of James Hood Nichols
This case involves an order by the trial court directing the personal representative of the Estate of James Hood Nichols (the Estate) to sell a portion of the real property of the Estate. James Hood Nichols (the deceased) died testate. He bequeathed annuities to his daughters, Connie Jane Nichols Cinder and Nan Nichols Jones (the beneficiaries). In the will, the deceased gave a $75,000 annuity to Connie Jane Nichols Cinder and a $50,000 annuity to Nan Nichols Jones. According to the final settlement filed by Richard N. Swanson and Earl Wayne Campbell (the co-executors), the net distributable probate estate is $8,712.01. The co-executors proposed to distribute that amount to the beneficiaries in proportion to the amount left to each beneficiary. The beneficiaries filed an objection to the proposed final settlement, asking the court to order the sale of a portion of the deceased’s real property in order to fund the annuities. Finding that the bequests to the beneficiaries are higher priority than other bequests and devises in the will, the trial court ordered the personal representative to sell a portion of the deceased’s real property sufficient to fund the annuities. The trial court also awarded the beneficiaries their attorney’s fees. The co-executors appeal. We affirm. |
Jefferson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Veronica T., Et Al.
This appeal involves the termination of a mother’s parental rights to her four minor children. The trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that four statutory grounds for termination had been proven and that termination is in the best interest of the children. We reverse with respect to two of the grounds for termination but otherwise affirm the trial court’s order terminating the mother’s parental rights. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Taj' M.
This is one of several separate appeals filed with this court that arise directly or indirectly out of a dependent and neglect petition, a custody and child support proceeding, and an administrative order by the juvenile court. The administrative order required escort of the appellant by a deputy sheriff any time the appellant was in the building housing the Juvenile Court of Memphis and Shelby County “to enforce order in the court’s immediate presence and as near thereto as is necessary to prevent interruption, disturbance, or hindrance to its proceedings.” The juvenile court case from which this appeal arises, case number BB5203, was a dependent and neglect petition the appellant voluntarily dismissed by court order entered on September 24, 2015. Although the appellant remained a party to one or more separate juvenile court cases involving custody and child support of the same minor child, the order dismissing this case was a final judgment from which an appeal could be taken in 2015. Tenn. R. App. P. 4(a) requires that a notice of appeal be filed with and received by the clerk within thirty days after entry of the judgment appealed. The notice of appeal challenging the judgment entered in this case was not filed until December 17, 2016, more than one year after the 2015 final judgment was entered. Therefore, it is untimely. Because the failure to file a timely notice of appeal deprives this court of jurisdiction to hear the matter, this appeal is dismissed. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: The Estate of Wanda Jeanne Starkey
Decedent’s daughter filed a notice of will contest, challenging a will that disinherited her and her sisters. According to the contestant, decedent attempted to revoke the will by directing an unnamed person to destroy it in her presence. But the unnamed person allegedly tricked decedent and destroyed another document instead. A beneficiary under the will and the administrator of the estate filed a joint motion to dismiss the contest for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The beneficiary and the administrator argued that the statutes applicable to revocation of wills required that the will actually be destroyed for an effective revocation. The circuit court granted the motion and dismissed the will contest. Upon review, we conclude that the enactment of Tennessee Code Annotated § 32-1-202 did not abrogate the common-law rule that fraud will not defeat revocation of a will. So the contestant did state a claim for relief. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Derwood Stewart v. Armtech Insurance Service, Inc.
A farmer who participated in the federal crop insurance program appeals the trial court’s confirmation of an arbitration award given when he was retroactively determined to be ineligible to participate in the program for failure to pay the premium and, as a consequence, was required to repay the payment he had received for a loss sustained under another policy. The arbitrator held that the contract upon which the claim was paid was void and that the insurance company was entitled to recover the amount paid on the claim. The trial court affirmed the arbitrator’s award, and the policyholder appeals. Finding no basis upon which to conclude that the arbitrator exceeded its authority, we affirm the judgment. |
Warren | Court of Appeals | |
Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company v. Southern Damage Appraisals, Inc
Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company (“TN Farmers”), a/s/o Jared Smalley and Cara Gurszecki (“the Homeowners”) sued Southern Damage Appraisals, LLC a/k/a Willow Works (“SDA”) in connection with a construction project that SDA performed on the Homeowners’ house located in Robertson County, Tennessee. SDA filed a motion for summary judgment alleging that the suit was barred by the statute of repose contained in Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-202. After a hearing on the motion for summary judgment, the Circuit Court for Robertson County (“the Trial Court”) entered its order granting summary judgment to SDA after finding and holding, inter alia, that TN Farmers’ claim was for subrogation, the claim was subject to the four year statute of repose contained in Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-202, and as the claim had been filed more than four years after substantial completion of the work TN Farmers’ claim was barrred. We find and hold that the claim was one for subrogation asserting a right pursuant to an alleged contract between the Homeowners and SDA, that TN Farmers failed to show the existence of any contract between the Homeowners and SDA, and that even if a contract between the Homeowners and SDA did exist coverage for such a contract would be excluded under the insurance policy between TN Farmers and the Homeowners. We, therefore, find and hold that the Trial Court did not err in granting summary judgment to SDA. |
Robertson | Court of Appeals | |
Cathy Gwen Agee Swafford v. Danny Earl Swafford, Sr.
This is a divorce action involving the classification of the parties’ separate and marital property and equitable division of the marital assets. Because we are unable to discern whether the trial court classified the wife’s retirement accounts as marital or separate property prior to its division of the marital estate and because the trial court failed to make sufficient findings of fact regarding several items of property prior to the distribution, we hereby vacate the trial court’s distribution of marital property. We remand this matter to the trial court for entry of sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the classification, valuation, and ultimate distribution of the parties’ marital property. |
Bledsoe | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Bentley D.
Father appeals the trial court’s termination of his parental rights on the ground of wanton disregard for the child’s welfare prior to the father’s incarceration. We affirm. |
Washington | Court of Appeals | |
Luther Smith, Jr., individually and as legal guardian of Luther Smith, III v. ChildLife, Inc., et al.
Father appealed the trial court’s order denying encroachment of minor child’s funds held by the Shelby County Circuit Court Clerk. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Estate of John J. Burnette
This appeal involves a successor estate administrator’s attempt to collect his attorney’s fees from a prior administrator. John G. McDougal, the prior administrator, gave his coadministrator, John D. Burnette (Burnette), a check representing the proceeds from the sale of the decedent’s real estate. Instead of depositing the check in a Tennessee bank as instructed, Burnette took the check to Florida and deposited it in a bank account there. Afterward, Burnette refused to communicate or cooperate with McDougal. The trial court held that McDougal breached his fiduciary duty to the estate and beneficiaries, and awarded the successor administrator a judgment of $5,523.28. We hold that the undisputed facts establish no negligence or malfeasance on McDougal’s part that warrant an award of attorney’s fees. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. David Wayne Cupp, Alias
The Defendant, David Wayne Cupp, alias, appeals as of right from the Knox County Criminal Court’s denial of his request for judicial diversion. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by overvaluing “the circumstances of the offense[s] to the exclusion of the factors supporting diversion.” Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Victor Cole v. Joe Caruso
In this unjust enrichment claim, Plaintiff/Appellee Victor Cole filed a lawsuit alleging, inter alia, a claim for unjust enrichment against Defendant/Appellant Joe Caruso. A jury determined that Mr. Cole had been unjustly enriched. Upon our review, we conclude that Mr. Cole failed to provide any evidence that Mr. Caruso was unjustly enriched, thereby failing to establish a prima facie claim. Because Mr. Cole failed to provide any evidence regarding one of the elements of unjust enrichment, the trial court erred in denying Mr. Caruso’s motion for directed verdict. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ralph Alan Stanley
The Defendant, Ralph Alan Stanley, was convicted of aggravated assault after a jury trial and was sentenced to ten years of supervised probation. The Defendant appeals his conviction, asserting that he is entitled to a new trial because the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict. He also contends that the trial court erred in denying a motion to suppress, in allowing evidence of text messages and other bad acts, in allowing evidence produced in violation of the rules governing discovery, and in limiting crossexamination regarding a prior conviction. The Defendant also requests relief under a theory of cumulative error. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the Defendant is not entitled to a new trial, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re Amarria L.
This is a termination of parental rights case focusing on the minor child, Amarria L. (“the Child”), of Patricia L. (“Mother”). The Child was placed in protective custody on November 8, 2014, after Mother left the Child unsupervised at a homeless shelter. On July 7, 2016, the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of Mother. DCS alleged as a basis for termination the statutory grounds of (1) abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home, (2) abandonment by an incarcerated parent, (3) substantial noncompliance with the reasonable requirements of the permanency plan, and (4) persistence of the conditions leading to removal of the Child. Following a bench trial, the trial court granted the petition upon its determination by clear and convincing evidence that DCS had proven the statutory grounds of abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home and substantial noncompliance with the reasonable requirements of the permanency plan. The court further determined by clear and convincing evidence that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in the Child’s best interest. Mother has appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. |
Robertson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Advanced Security Services Evaluation And Training, LLC v. OHR Partners LTD., Et Al.
The dispositive issue in this case is whether Tennessee may exercise specific personal jurisdiction over the defendants. The plaintiff, a Tennessee company, filed this action against the defendants in Davidson County Chancery Court for breach of contract and unjust enrichment arising from security services it provided to facilitate the transfer of gold worth millions of dollars from Africa to Hong Kong. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss for, inter alia, lack of personal jurisdiction, contending a Tennessee court could not exercise personal jurisdiction over them because their contacts with the forum were too attenuated. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the case. The plaintiff appealed, arguing the defendants’ apparent agent had numerous and substantial contacts with the forum sufficient to establish specific personal jurisdiction in Tennessee. The defendants assert the individual with whom the plaintiff entered into a contract was an independent contractor, not an agent of the defendants, and that the defendants have not had sufficient contacts with Tennessee to subject them to the jurisdiction of a Tennessee court. The defendants also raise a separate issue, contending the trial court erred in denying their motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. We have determined that the individual with whom the plaintiff principally communicated regarding the contract and services rendered by the plaintiff was an apparent agent of the defendants. Having applied the two-step analysis enunciated in State v. NV Sumatra Tobacco Trading Co., 403 S.W.3d 726 (Tenn. 2013), we have also determined that the nature and quality of the apparent agent’s contacts, along with those of an officer of the defendant entities, were purposeful and of sufficient quantity with Tennessee to satisfy the minimum contacts requirement. Furthermore, the defendants failed to establish that it would be unreasonable or unfair for Tennessee to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over them as it pertains to issues deriving from or connected with the controversy that established jurisdiction. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s ruling that Tennessee does not have specific personal jurisdiction over the defendants. We affirm the trial court in its denial of the defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for breach of contract. Accordingly, we reverse in part, affirm in part and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jonathan Eugene Goodwin
The Defendant, Jonathan Eugene Goodwin, appeals as of right from the Carter County Criminal Court’s revocation of his community corrections sentence and order of incarceration for the remainder of his six-year sentence. The Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering execution of his sentence. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Carter | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Julie A. Morgan (Moran)
The Appellant, Julie A. Morgan (Moran), appeals from the Unicoi County Criminal Court’s denial of her “motion to set aside disposition and/or retired status of traffic citation for mistake and to reset for further consideration.” On appeal, the Appellant contends that the trial court should have treated her motion as a petition for post-conviction relief or applied Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02 “for post[-]judgment relief.” Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Unicoi | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
George Timmons v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, George Timmons, appeals from the Hamilton County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The Petitioner contends that trial counsel was ineffective (1) for failing to present a defense based on the Petitioner’s “mental instability”; and (2) for failing to properly advise the Petitioner that he would be sentenced as a repeat violent offender to life without the possibility of parole upon his conviction at trial. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joel W. Allen
The Defendant, Joel W. Allen, was convicted by a Benton County Circuit Court jury of driving under the influence, “DUI,” fifth offense, a Class E felony; simple possession of marijuana, a Class A misdemeanor; and operating a vehicle after being declared a habitual motor vehicle offender, a Class E felony. He was sentenced to an effective term of twelve years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his DUI conviction and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Benton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Gatewood
The Defendant, Christopher Gatewood, is charged in the Hamilton County Criminal Court with rape of a child. See T.C.A. § 39-13-522 (2014). The State contends in this interlocutory appeal pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 9 that the trial court erred in granting the Defendant’s motion in limine to exclude evidence of the alleged victim’s statements to a nurse practitioner on Confrontation Clause grounds. We affirm the order of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals |