State of Tennessee v. Lyle T. Van Ulzen and Billy J. Coffelt
The Defendants, Lyle T. Van Ulzen and Billy J. Coffelt, were each convicted of one count of felony escape, two counts of aggravated assault, and three counts of especially aggravated kidnapping and were each sentenced to an effective sentence of ninety years in prison. Coffelt now appeals, contending that: (1) the trial court erred in sentencing the Defendant when it found that no mitigating factors applied; and (2) the trial court erred when it ordered that his sentences run consecutively. Van Ulzen also appeals, contending that the sentence imposed was not justly deserved in relation to the seriousness of the offense and is greater than that deserved under the circumstances. Finding no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
David Anthony Norman v. Melissa Dawn Norman
In this third appeal from a Williamson County divorce, the wife challenges the trial court's valuation and distribution of the marital estate and award of alimony upon remand. Both parties seek an award of attorney's fees. The husband seeks damages for frivolous appeal. We affirm the trial court's valuation and distribution and award of alimony and deny the husband's frivolous appeal damages request. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jason D. Norris
The Appellant, Jason D. Norris, appeals the sentencing decision of the Davidson County Criminal Court. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Norris pled guilty to five counts of aggravated robbery, stemming from two separate indictments, with the manner and service of the sentences to be determined by the trial court. Following a sentencing hearing, Norris was sentenced to eight years for each conviction, with two of the sentences to be served consecutively, for an effective sentence of sixteen years. On appeal, he argues that his sentences are excessive and that the trial court erred by ordering total confinement as opposed to sentences of community corrections. Additionally, Norris argues that the imposition of consecutive sentences violates Blakely v. Washington. After review, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Tina Cox, et al. v. Shell Oil Company, et al.
In a class-action case, in which a settlement had been agreed to, certain members of the class were allowed to opt out of the class action based on the representations of their purported attorneys that their clients had been notified of the settlement and the proposed opt out and that they approved of same. Subsequently, litigation was commenced by the former members of the class in another jurisdiction, and the original defendants were compelled to defend the case incurring expenses, including attorney fees. The original defendants, and one of the attorneys for the class, filed motions against the purported attorneys for the opted out class members for them to show cause why they should not be held in contempt of court for making false representations to the court that resulted in the court allowing the opt out. The respondent attorneys moved to dismiss the motions filed on the basis that, if there was contempt, it was criminal only and on the basis of judicial estoppel. The trial court ruled in favor of respondent attorneys holding that any contempt was criminal and not civil and on the basis of judicial estoppel. The motions of the original defendants and a plaintiffs' attorney were dismissed. The defendants and plaintiffs' attorney have appealed. We affirm. |
Obion | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jackie J. Porter
Defendant, Jackie J. Porter, pled guilty to one count of possession of 0.5 grams or more of cocaine with intent to sell, manufacture or distribute, a Class B felony, and one count of simple possession of marijuana, a Class A misdemeanor. The length and manner of service of his sentences were left to the decision of the trial court. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Defendant as a Range I, standard offender, to eight years, six months for his Class B felony conviction, and eleven months, twenty-nine days for his Class A misdemeanor conviction. The trial court ordered Defendant to serve his sentences concurrently, for an effective sentence of eight years, six months. The trial court denied Defendant’s request that he be placed on community corrections. Defendant does not challenge the validity of his guilty pleas or his sentence for his misdemeanor conviction. In his appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court erred in determining the length of his felony sentence and in denying Defendant’s request for alternative sentencing. Upon review of the record, we conclude that the trial court erred in failing to state on the record its reasons for denying a sentence of community corrections. Accordingly, we affirm Defendant’s convictions and the length of the sentence, but reverse the judgment as to the manner of service of the sentence, and remand for a new sentencing hearing regarding the manner of service of the sentence. |
Hardin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Patti Zakour v. UT Medical Group, Inc., et al.
The jury returned a verdict for the defendant doctors and medical clinic in this medical malpractice action. The plaintiff argues on appeal that the trial court committed reversible error at several stages of the trial, including jury selection, witness’ testimony and jury instructions. Further, the plaintiff argues that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict. We affirm the trial court. |
Tipton | Court of Appeals | |
Ursula Daniels v. George Basch, et al.
Purchaser of a residence filed a suit against sellers and real estate agent for rescission of the contract and damages, claiming that Defendants engaged in misrepresentation by suppressing or concealing the existence of a TVA easement along the backside of the property. The Davidson County Chancery Court granted Defendants summary judgment and Plaintiff appealed. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in all respects. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
James Lester Qualls v. Randy Camp, in his official capacity as Commissioner of Personnel and Executive Secretary of the Civil Service Commission, et al.
Petitioner, James Lester Qualls, appealed the decision of the Civil Service Commission, which had overturned the Administrative Law Judge’s decision and reinstated the Department of Corrections’ disciplinary actions against Mr. Qualls. Upon determining that the Civil Service Commission had failed to make written findings for review, the chancery court vacated the order and remanded the matter to the Civil Service Commission for findings. Mr. Qualls filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment to include an award of attorney’s fees. The chancery court granted the motion and awarded attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988. The Civil Service Commission and Department of Corrections filed a motion to alter or amend in chancery court and now appeal to this Court, asserting this action does not fit within 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and, alternatively, the attorney’s fees award is unreasonable. We dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Federal Express Credit Union v. Barry Lanier
In this appeal, we are called upon to evaluate the propriety of the trial court’s decision to award a creditor a deficiency judgment against the debtor following the sale of the collateral after the debtor defaulted on the loan. The debtor filed an appeal to this Court arguing that the creditor failed to provide him with reasonable notice of the sale of the collateral and that the creditor did not conduct the sale in a commercially reasonable manner. We hold that the creditor did not provide the debtor with reasonable notice. Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the trial court and remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Devon Crawford v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant, Devon Crawford, appeals the judgment of the Shelby County Criminal Court denying post-conviction relief. On appeal, Crawford argues that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel. After review, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Charles Brown, et al. v. Crown Equipment Corporation
We granted appeal in this products liability action to determine whether the trial court erred in excluding as unreliable the testimony of the plaintiffs’ two expert witnesses, a mechanical engineer and a biomechanical engineer, and thereafter granting a directed verdict in favor of the defendant. We hold that the trial court erred in applying the nonexclusive list of reliability factors set out in McDaniel v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 955 S.W.2d 257 (Tenn. 1997). These factors are not mandated in every case in which expert evidence is offered and should not be applied unless the factor or factors provide a reasonable measure of the expert’s methodology. We further conclude that the trial court erred in granting a directed verdict in favor of the defendant. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court’s judgment. We remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion. |
Shelby | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Richard Frank D'Antonio
The defendant appeals his conviction for premeditated first degree murder and presents nine issues for review: (1) Sufficiency of the evidence; (2) Failure to dismiss the indictment due to prosecutorial delay; (3) Failure to suppress the defendant's statements; (4) Failure to suppress a crime scene photograph; (5) Admission of hearsay under the state of mind exception; (6) Admission of hearsay under the co-conspirator exception; (7) Admission of conduct and activities by Chuck Dixon with Cashbox magazine; (8) Admission of a tape recording and transcript of the defendant's conversations; and (9) Error in instructing the jury on aiding and abetting. After careful review, we find no reversible error and affirm the defendant's conviction. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Dane Lee Duckett
Cumberland County Criminal Court jury convicted the appellant, Dane Lee Duckett, of attempting to manufacture methamphetamine, simple possession of marijuana, possession of drug paraphernalia, and driving on a suspended license, and the trial court sentenced him to an effective sentence of six years in confinement. On appeal, the appellant claims that the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions and that his sentence is excessive. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Cumberland | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Eli J. Landry, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Eli J. Landry, Jr., pled guilty in the Davidson County Criminal Court to two counts of aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony, and the trial court sentenced him as a Range II, multiple offender to concurrent sentences of thirteen years. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that he received the ineffective assistance of trial counsel and that his guilty pleas were not knowingly and intelligently entered. The post-conviction court denied the petition, and the petitioner appeals. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Donald Luke Seiber, alias - Concurring
Respectfully, I find I cannot fully concur in the opinion because, based upon the absence of a contemporaneous objection, it treats as waived the issue of the trial court’s “reading the aggravated kidnapping as a lesser-included offense out of order during the charge to the jury.” The instructional problem alleged is one of instructional error, not instructional omission. In the case of the former, no contemporaneous objection is required, unlike when an instruction is omitted. See, e.g., State v. Johnny Wade Meeks, No. 03C01-9811-CR-00411, slip op. at 8-9 (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, Dec. 3, 1999). |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Donald Luke Seiber
The appellant, Donald Luke Seiber, was convicted of aggravated kidnapping, aggravated assault, and two counts of sexual battery, and he received a total effective sentence of sixteen years. On appeal, the appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, the trial court’s evidentiary rulings, the trial court’s jury instructions, and sentencing. Upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the appellant’s convictions but remand for a new sentencing hearing. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Terry Boyd Collins
The defendant, Terry Boyd Collins, stands convicted by a Sullivan County jury of arson and presenting a fraudulent insurance claim, for which he received an effective nine-year sentence. Aggrieved of his sentence and convictions, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions and claims that prosecutorial comments during closing arguments constitute reversible error, that the trial court's sentencing determination conflicted with the mandates of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), and that the trial court erred when denying all forms of alternative sentencing. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the lower court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jesse Teasley v. Jack Morgan, Warden
The petitioner, Jesse Teasley, appeals from the trial court's order denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The State has filed a motion requesting that this court affirm the trial court's denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The petitioner has failed to establish a cognizable claim for habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Morgan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Rick A. Hughes and Lisa J. Hughes v. Richard C. Poulton and Annette L. Poulton
This is a property dispute between next-door neighbors over a gate across a driveway easement. The two neighbors shared a common driveway from the public road in front of both properties. After a clash between the two neighbors' dogs, one neighbor erected a fence on the boundary line with a gate across the other neighbor's portion of the driveway. This lawsuit followed. The trial court enjoined the defendant neighbor from placing the fence and gate over a portion of an easement that was the only existing driveway to the plaintiff's residence on the adjoining property. The trial court found that the gate was not necessary for the defendants' use and enjoyment of their property, and held that the defendants' erection of the gate constituted an unreasonable interference with the plaintiffs' right to use the easement. The defendants appealed. We affirm, finding that, although the gate may not have been an unreasonable interference with the plaintiffs' right to use the easement, the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court's finding that it was not necessary for the defendants' use and enjoyment of the property. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
John Jay Hooker v. Phil Bredesen, et al. - Concurring
I fully concur with all aspects of the Court’s well reasoned majority opinion. Nevertheless, I wish to address the scurrilous, unfounded and unprofessional personal attacks made by Appellee against the person holding the position of and the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Tennessee. Unfounded and unwarranted accusations such as those cast by Appellee accomplish little but to reflect adversely on the one casting. This jurist enjoys a heated exchange of differing opinions and an aggressive analysis of legal theories and principles. Moreover, I find such exchanges often productive, enabling the tribunal to get to the intellectually honest assessment of the case; however, scurrilous and unfounded personal attacks serve no legitimate purpose and have no place in the dispute resolution arena. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
John Jay Hooker v. Phil Bredesen, et al.
Defendants appeal the refusal of the Chancellor to impose Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 11 sanctions against Plaintiff. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
John Jay Hooker v. Phil Bredesen, et al. - Dissenting
The trial court specifically found that the complaint herein was “duplicative of matters already settled and litigated by rulings of superior courts.” Nonetheless, the court decided sanctions were not appropriate due to the ambiguity created by the Special Master’s determination the case could proceed under the order limiting the cases filed by the plaintiff. The majority opinion agrees that the lawsuit’s clearance under the screening order and the Attorney General’s failure to challenge the result of that screening justify the refusal to impose sanctions. Thus, the test applied by the trial court and the majority of this court is whether the complaint complied with the screening order. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Sherry Kay Hepler v. Donald Merle Hepler
This is a petition to modify custody. When the parties divorced in 2000, the mother received primary custody of the parties' three children. After the mother sought an increase in the father's child support obligation, the father filed this petition to obtain primary custody of the children, alleging a material change in circumstances. The father later amended his petition to include allegations of physical abuse by the mother. The trial court declined to modify custody, finding the evidence insufficient to justify modification. We vacate the ruling of the trial court and remand for written findings on the abuse allegations, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated Section 36-6-106(a)(8). |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Charles Goode v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Charles Goode, appeals the trial court’s dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. In this appeal, Petitioner argues that his counsel’s representation at trial was deficient because he failed to adequately investigate Petitioner’s case and failed to effectively cross-examine the victim. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Gregory Eidson v. Lee Moore, Jr.
After the trial court denied an inmate’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the inmate filed a suit against the trial judge seeking injunctive relief and damages pursuant to section 29-21-108 of the Tennessee Code. The trial court dismissed the inmate’s complaint for numerous reasons, including the judicial immunity of the trial judge. We affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint. |
Lake | Court of Appeals |