Douglas Eugene Horton v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Douglas Eugene Horton, appeals from the Henderson County Circuit |
Henderson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Timothy Elliot Davis
Defendant, Timothy Elliott1 Davis, was convicted by a jury of driving under the influence |
Court of Criminal Appeals | ||
State of Tennessee v. Terrance Terrell King
Defendant, Terrance Terrell King, appeals from the Knox County Criminal Court’s denial of his motion seeking resentencing for a drug-related conviction under Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-17-432(h). Defendant contends the trial court erred in denying the motion, and the State contends this court does not have jurisdiction to consider Defendant’s appeal. Defendant rejects the State’s assertion. After reviewing the applicable law and the parties’ arguments, we conclude Defendant does not have an appeal as of right available to him, and the appeal is therefore dismissed |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re: Airies S.
This appeal involves a petition to terminate parental rights. The juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence that three grounds for termination existed as to the mother: (1) abandonment by failure to support; (2) persistent conditions; and (3) failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody or financial responsibility. The juvenile court also found that the termination was in the best interest of the child. The mother appeals. We affirm. |
Court of Appeals | ||
State of Tennessee v. Tamarion Terrell Johnson
A Hamilton County jury convicted Defendant, Tamarion Terrell Johnson, of second degree |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Adam Janes
The Defendant, Adam Janes, appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion for a reduction of sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 35. Specifically, the Defendant argues that: (1) he received the ineffective assistance of trial counsel; (2) he entered into his guilty plea unknowingly and involuntarily; (3) the assistant district attorney was prejudiced against him; (4) he was entitled to concurrent sentences; (5) he was not given the opportunity of rehabilitation; (6) his sentence was not the least severe measure necessary to achieve the purposes for which the sentence was imposed; and (7) the State failed to file a notice of intent to seek enhanced punishment. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Amanda Helena Rogers
The defendant, Amanda Helena Rogers, appeals her Maury County Circuit Court jury convictions of facilitation of attempted first degree murder, facilitation of vandalism of property in an amount of $2,500 or more but less than $10,000, and two counts of reckless endangerment for which the trial court imposed an effective term of 10 years and six months to be served in confinement. On appeal, the defendant asserts that the evidence is insufficient to support her conviction of facilitation of attempted first degree murder and that the trial court erred in imposing the sentence. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Hank Cooley, Jr.
The Defendant, Hank Cooley, Jr., appeals from his best interest, guilty-pleaded |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Julie Clark v. Wanda Givens, ET AL.
A homeowner, displeased with the work performed by a handyman, brought suit, seeking |
Dickson | Court of Appeals | |
Martin Walker v. Tennessee Board of Parole
This appeal arises from a Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed by Martin Walker (“Petitioner”), an inmate in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Correction (“TDOC”). Petitioner seeks review of the decision by the Tennessee Board of Parole (“Board”) to deny him parole. He raises numerous challenges to the propriety of the Board’s action and procedures. Finding no error, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Jaxson F., Et al
The Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) filed a petition to terminate the mother’s parental rights to her two children. Following a trial, the juvenile court found that six grounds for termination had been proven and that termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests. Based on these findings, the mother’s parental rights were terminated. The mother appeals. Of the six grounds the juvenile court found had been proven, we affirm four of them but reverse two. We also affirm the determination that termination of the mother’s parental rights is in the best interests of the children. Accordingly, we affirm the termination of her parental rights. |
Court of Appeals | ||
In Re Madilyn B.
Father appeals the trial court’s finding of abandonment by wanton disregard as a ground for termination of his parental rights, as well as its finding that termination was in the best interest of the child. We affirm the trial court’s judgment in all respects. |
Robertson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Edward C.
|
Court of Appeals | ||
State of Tennessee v. Ariana Elizabeth Major
The State of Tennessee appealed the Montgomery County Circuit Court’s order granting the Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence recovered during the search of her car. On appeal, the State contends that the trial court erred because probable cause existed to search the Defendant’s car based on a police dog’s signal for the presence of narcotics. We reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for reinstatement of the charges. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ariana Elizabeth Major
I concur with the majority opinion’s conclusion based on the narrow issue raised by the parties and the existing law in Tennessee. I write separately, however, to highlight how the legalization of hemp has fractured the foundation underlying the rule that a drug detection dog sniff is not a search subject to Fourth Amendment protections. In my view, the cases before this court thus far miss the primary issue—whether a drug detection dog sniff that no longer discloses only contraband is itself a search that must be supported by probable cause. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re Cartier H. et al.
Mother appeals the termination of her parental rights on four grounds. The Tennessee |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Cory Fulghum v. Stan Notestine
The Plaintiff brought a premises liability claim after falling off his own ladder while at the Defendant’s residence. The Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing he had no duty to warn and could avoid liability under principles of comparative fault. The Plaintiff countered that the Defendant was actually his employer and that the Defendant’s decision not to provide workers’ compensation insurance prevented the Defendant from being able to raise a comparative fault defense. Furthermore, the Plaintiff argued that the Defendant did have a duty to warn. The trial court granted the Defendant summary judgment finding no duty to warn and that even if a duty existed that Plaintiff’s claim failed as a matter of law based upon comparative fault principles. The Plaintiff appealed to this Court. We affirm. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Steven Snyder, et al. v. Second Avenue Nashville Property, LLC, et al.
Neighbors sued to invalidate zoning ordinances that would allow two real estate development projects to be built at significantly taller heights than prior zoning regulations allowed. The trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim in part because it found that the passage of two zoning ordinances gave the developers vested property rights under the Tennessee Vested Property Rights Act of 2014 (VPRA). We conclude the trial court erred in its application of the VPRA, but we affirm the dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a claim. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee, City of Memphis, Tennessee v. Georgette Brooks
This is an appeal from a case arising in the Shelby County General Sessions Environmental Court. For the reasons stated herein, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to review this appeal. Moreover, we are unable to transfer this appeal because it was not timely filed for the appropriate court that has subject matter jurisdiction to hear the appeal, and it is, therefore, dismissed. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher James Funk, Sr.
A Hawkins County jury convicted the Defendant, Christopher James Funk, Sr., of driving |
Hawkins | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ivan Ashley
Following a bench trial, the Maury County Circuit Court convicted the Defendant of patronizing prostitution from a minor, a Class B felony, in count one and solicitation of a minor to commit patronizing prostitution, a Class C felony, in count two. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to eight and three years, respectively, and merged the convictions. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is sufficient to support only a conviction of patronizing prostitution from a law enforcement officer posing as a minor, a Class A misdemeanor, in count one and that the evidence is insufficient to support any conviction in count two. The State concedes that the Defendant committed a Class A misdemeanor in count one and, therefore, that both convictions must be modified to misdemeanors. We agree with the State; modify the judgment in count one to reflect a Class A misdemeanor conviction of patronizing prostitution from a law enforcement officer posing as a minor; modify the judgment in count two to reflect a Class B misdemeanor conviction of solicitation of a law enforcement officer posing as a minor to commit patronizing prostitution; and remand the case to the trial court for resentencing. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Richard Williams, III v. State of Tennessee
A Knox County jury convicted the Petitioner, Richard Williams, III, of several offenses, including attempted first degree murder. He later filed a petition for post-conviction relief, asserting that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court dismissed the petition after finding that it was untimely and that principles of due process did not toll the running of the statute of limitations. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the post-conviction court did not adequately consider the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on his ability to access the prison library and, therefore, to timely file his petition. We respectfully disagree and affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Court of Criminal Appeals | ||
State of Tennessee v. Glen Edward Miller
The Defendant, Glen Edward Miller, pleaded guilty to two counts of robbery and two counts of kidnapping, and the trial court sentenced him to a twelve-year effective sentence, to be served on probation after one year of confinement. In response to the Defendant’s second proven probation violation, the trial court ordered him to serve the balance of his sentence in confinement. On appeal from this judgment, the Defendant contends that: (1) the trial court improperly admitted hearsay evidence; (2) the evidence is insufficient to prove that he violated his probation; and (3) the trial court erred when it ordered him to serve the balance of his sentence in confinement. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Nicole L. Lindholm
The Defendant, Nicole L. Lindholm, appeals the trial court’s imposition of an effective five-year sentence in the Tennessee Department of Correction for her convictions for aggravated assault, a Class C felony, and reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon, a Class E felony, which followed the trial court’s revocation of her probationary sentence on judicial diversion. The Defendant argues on appeal that the trial court imposed an excessive sentence and erred by denying her request for probation. Based on our review, we affirm the sentence imposed by the trial court. |
Wayne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Leonard Blackstock, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
The Tennessee Claims Commission dismissed appellant’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Court of Appeals |