State of Tennessee v. Willie Bob King
The Defendant was convicted by jury verdict of two counts of aggravated burglary, two counts of aggravated assault, and misdemeanor resisting arrest. The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range II offender to ten years for each felony conviction and six months for the misdemeanor conviction, with the first three felony conviction sentences to be served consecutively and the remaining sentences to be served concurrently, resulting in an effective sentence of thirty years. On appeal, the Defendant raises four issues: 1) the evidence was insufficient to support his two aggravated burglary convictions and one aggravated assault conviction; 2) the trial court erred in failing to allow the defense to impeach the testimony of one of the State's witnesses by means of a prior juvenile conviction; 3) the trial court erred in imposing excessive sentences in violation of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. ___, 124 S.Ct. 2531 (2004); and 4) the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Warren | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William Vanblaricum
The defendant, William Vanblaricum, was convicted by a Franklin County Circuit Court jury of driving under the influence of an intoxicant (DUI), a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court imposed a sentence of eleven months, twenty-nine days, with probation after thirty days in jail and one hundred hours of community service. The trial court also ordered the defendant to pay a fine of $350.00. On appeal, the defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction and that his sentence is excessive. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Franklin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Rycine Ellison & Mandrell Christmon
The appellants, Rycine Ellison and Mandrell Christmon, appeal on a certified question of law after their guilty pleas. On appeal, they challenge the trial court's denial of their motions to suppress. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Algernon Cross
A jury convicted the Defendant, Algernon Cross, of one count of facilitation of possession with the intent to sell .5 grams or more of a schedule II controlled substance and one count of unlawful possession of a handgun by a convicted felon. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective sentence of fourteen years. The Defendant appeals, contending that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions; (2) the trial court erred on two of its evidentiary rulings; and (3) the trial court erred when it sentenced him. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Eric Amos v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Eric Amos, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court's denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner has failed to allege any ground that would render the judgment of conviction void. Accordingly, we grant the State’s motion and affirm the judgment of the lower court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Miqwon Leach v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Miqwon Leach, appeals the trial court’s dismissal of his petition seeking habeas corpus relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court’s denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Because the Petitioner has failed to allege aground for relief which would render the judgment void, we grant the State’s motion and affirm the judgment of the lower court |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Lewis A. Grimes v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Lewis A. Grimes, appeals the lower court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The petition was filed outside the applicable statute of limitation and is, therefore, time-barred. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Kelvin Hooks v. State of Tennessee
This matter is before the Court upon the motion of appointed counsel seeking permission to withdraw from further representation of the Appellant in the above-captioned appeal pursuant to Rule 22, Rules of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals. Counsel claims that there are no |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Michael Bell v. Tony Parker, Warden
The Petitioner, Michael Bell, appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The State’s motion is granted. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Lake | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Reginald L. Almo v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Reginald Almo, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court's denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Because the petition fails to grant a cognizable claim for habeas corpus relief, we grant the State's motion and affirm the judgment of the lower court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Gary L. West, et al. v. East Tennessee Pioneer Oil Co.
We granted review in this case to determine whether convenience store employees owe a duty of reasonable care to persons on the roadways when the employees sell gasoline to an obviously intoxicated driver and/or assist the driver in pumping the gasoline into his vehicle. We answer in the affirmative. The plaintiffs in this case were injured when their vehicle was struck by another vehicle driven by an intoxicated driver. The intoxicated driver had purchased gasoline at the defendant convenience store shortly before the accident. The plaintiffs filed suit alleging the defendant was liable for their injuries based on theories of negligence, negligence per se, and negligent entrustment in furnishing the driver with gasoline. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the negligence per se and negligent entrustment claims, but reversed the grant of summary judgment on the negligence claim. The intermediate court held that the defendant's employees were under a duty to act with due care when undertaking the affirmative acts of selling the gasoline to the visibly intoxicated driver and then helping the driver pump the gasoline into his vehicle. After a careful review of the record and relevant authority, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings. |
Knox | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Paul Dennis Reid, Jr. - Concurring and Dissenting
|
Montgomery | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Paul Dennis Reid, Jr.
The defendant, Paul Dennis Reid, Jr., was convicted of two counts of premeditated first degree murder, two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, and one count of especially aggravated robbery. In imposing a death sentence for each count of first degree murder, the jury found three aggravating circumstances, i.e., that the defendant was previously convicted of one or more felonies whose statutory elements involved the use of violence to the person, that the murders were especially heinous, atrocious or cruel in that they involved torture or serious physical abuse beyond that necessary to produce death, and that the murders were committed for the purpose of avoiding, interfering with, or preventing a lawful arrest or prosecution of the defendant or another, had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-204(i)(2), (5), (6) (2003). In addition, the jury found that the evidence of aggravating circumstances outweighed evidence of mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-204(c) (2003). The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the convictions and the death sentences. After the case was docketed in this Court, we entered an order identifying numerous issues for oral argument. We now hold as follows: 1) the trial court did not err in finding that the defendant was competent to stand trial; 2) the trial court did not err in excluding evidence during the competency hearing; 3) the trial court did not err in refusing to hold a new competency hearing on the basis that a court-appointed expert was biased; 4) the evidence was sufficient to support the defendant’s convictions; 5) the trial court did not err in denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss on the basis that the aggravating circumstances were not stated in the indictment; 6) the trial court did not err in allowing the prosecution to amend the indictment; 7) the trial court did not commit reversible error in limiting extrinsic evidence of inconsistent statements; 8) the evidence was sufficient to support the aggravating circumstances found by the jury; 9) the death sentences were not arbitrary or disproportionate as imposed in this case; 10) the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s finding that evidence of aggravating circumstances outweighed evidence of mitigating circumstances; 11)the capital sentencing statutes are not unconstitutional on the basis that they allow evidence to be admitted in violation of due process and confrontation under the United States Constitution; 12) the trial court did not err in admitting photographs of the victims at the crime scene during sentencing; 13) the trial court did not commit reversible error in failing to charge the jury on the “catch-all” statutory provision as to mitigating circumstances; and 14) the trial court did not err in denying a new trial based on prosecutorial misconduct during sentencing. We also agree with the Court of Criminal Appeals’ conclusions with respect to the remaining issues, the relevant portions of which are included in the appendix to this opinion. Accordingly, the Court of Criminal Appeals’ judgment is affirmed. |
Montgomery | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Russell L. Tipton
The defendant challenges the District Attorney General's denial of pretrial diversion pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 9. Specifically, he avers that the District Attorney General abused his discretion and failed to consider all relevant factors. Upon careful consideration, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for the District Attorney General's further consideration of all applicable factors, discussion of the evidence supporting those factors, and an explanation of the weight accorded to each. |
Franklin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Debra Ann Williams vs. George Jay Williams, IV
Debra Ann Williams ("Mother") and George Jay Williams, IV ("Father") were divorced in 1998. Mother was designated the custodial parent of the parties' two minor children. In 2003, Father filed a Petition for Modification and Contempt seeking, in part, a change in custody or visitation, and relief from the requirement that Father carry life insurance or, in the alternative, that Mother also be required to maintain life insurance. Mother filed a counter claim requesting, in part, increased child support and the right to claim the tax exemption for both children. After a trial, the Trial Court entered an order holding, inter alia, "that there has been no change in circumstances which would justify the modification of the final judgment" as requested by Father and dismissing Father's petition for modification. The Trial Court, however, increased child support in accordance with the guidelines and held that for purposes of calculating child support under the guidelines, Father was not entitled to a reduction in his annual earnings for state income taxes he may pay. Father appeals raising issues regarding custody, visitation, life insurance, child support, and attorney's fees. We reverse as to the award to Mother of the tax exemption for one child, and affirm as to all other issues. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Terry Edward Jones
Terry Edward Jones pleaded guilty to solicitation of first degree murder, for which he received an eight-year incarcerative sentence. Aggrieved of the trial court's failure to grant his request for alternative sentencing, he brings the instant appeal challenging his manner of service. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In the Matter Of Eugene Burnett Ellis v. Jerry Glenn Ellis and Sarah L. Kerley, Glen C. Shults, Guardian ad Litem
The Trial Court awarded fees to the Guardian Ad Litem who asked the Trial Court to award him fees and costs for collecting the initial award. The Trial Court refused. On appeal, we affirm. |
Cocke | Court of Appeals | |
Antonio Dewayne Bledsoe v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant, Antonio Dewayne Bledsoe, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief by the Davidson County Criminal Court. On appeal, Bledsoe contends that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel and, as a result, his nolo contendere plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered. After review, we affirm the denial of the petition. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Gloria M. Patton Stovall
The defendant appeals the trial court's revocation of her probation based upon a new law violation, to wit: introduction of contraband into a penal facility. Specifically, she contends that: (1) no proof was presented that Soma is a controlled substance or legend drug; (2) the trial court improperly took judicial notice that Soma is a controlled substance; (3) no proof was presented of unlawful intent; and (4) the revocation order does not properly state the evidence relied upon and reason for revoking probation. Upon our review, we conclude that there was substantial evidence to support the finding of a new law violation; we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Franklin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jeffery Hayes
The defendant, Jeffery Hayes, entered an open guilty plea to one count of the sale of less than .5 grams of cocaine, a Class C felony, two counts of the sale of more than .5 grams of cocaine, Class B felonies, and one count of possession with intent to sell more than .5 grams of cocaine, a Class B felony. He was sentenced to an effective sentence of ten years as a Range I standard offender. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in imposing an excessive sentence and denying alternative sentencing. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Alfonzo Silvestre Arze vs. Mary Anne Bracken Arze
Alfonzo Silvestre Arze (“Father”) and MaryAnne Bracken Arze (“Mother”) were divorced in 2000. The divorce was based upon stipulated grounds of irreconcilable differences, and the parties submitted a marital dissolution agreement (“MDA”) to the Trial Court for approval. The terms of the MDA were agreed upon through mediation. At the time of the divorce, Father was employed as a physician with gross earnings of approximately $150,000. Mother was unemployed. Due to the significant disparity in income, Father agreed to pay Mother $2,000 in child support even though he was not obligated legally to do so since he was the primary residential parent for the parties’ four children. When the oldest child turned eighteen, Father reduced his child support payments by twenty-five percent, $500. After Mother challenged Father’s unilateral reduction in child support, the Trial Court entered an order which required Father to pay child support in an amount consistent with the Child Support Guidelines (“Guidelines”). We conclude that because Father was not legally obligated under the Guidelines to pay any child support, the payment of $2,000 was purely a contractual obligation which was not governed by the Guidelines. We also conclude that Father was within his contractual rights when he reduced the child support payments by $500 when the oldest child became emancipated. |
Washington | Court of Appeals | |
Alfonzo Silvestre Arze vs. Mary Anne Bracken Arze - Dissenting
In Tennessee, a determination of child support is statutory. Jones v. Jones, 870 S.W.2d 281 (Tenn. 1994).1 Accordingly, I would approach resolution of this appeal by resort to the applicable statutes. |
Washington | Court of Appeals | |
Kenya Davis v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Kenya Davis, appeals from the trial court's order dismissing 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 that he is entitled to habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, the state's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Howard Duty, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Howard Duty, Jr., appeals from the post-conviction court's denial of post-conviction relief. On appeal, he contends that the post-conviction court erred in finding that he received the effective assistance of counsel. Following our review, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Justin L. Thurman v. Justin E. Harkins, et al.
This case involves a question of whether an insurance policy covers the injuries sustained by the plaintiff under the facts of this case. The original suit filed by plaintiff against Justin Harkins, Andrew Keon, and James Keon was settled out of court, leaving Great River Insurance Company, an unnamed defendant. After granting the plaintiff’s motion for declaratory and partial summary judgment on whether the plaintiff was a covered insured under the policy, the parties agreed to send the matter to arbitration. The arbitrator returned an award in favor of the plaintiff, and the trial court confirmed the award but reduced the amount, accounting for the insurance policy’s limit. The trial court also awarded the plaintiff pre-judgment interest but stated that the total award to the plaintiff could not exceed the limit in the insurance policy. Great River Insurance Company appealed to this Court, and the plaintiff filed a cross-appeal. For the following reasons, we affirm. |
Fayette | Court of Appeals |