State of Tennessee v. Raymond Writer - Concurring
|
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Robert Lee Fox
The Appellant, Robert Lee Fox, appeals the sentencing decision of the Hamilton County Criminal Court. Fox entered a Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(e)(1)(B) "open" plea to conspiracy to commit first degree murder and was sentenced to twenty-two years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, Fox argues that the sentence is improper because (1) it is disparate to the sentence received by his co-defendant and (2) four enhancement factors were erroneously applied. After review, we find no error and affirm the decision of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tracy Larenzo Goodwin, alias Lawanda Carter
A Hamilton County Criminal Court jury convicted the defendant, Tracy Larenzo Goodwin, of two counts of reckless aggravated assault, a Class D felony; one count of reckless endangerment, a Class E felony; and one count of criminally negligent homicide, a Class E felony. The trial court sentenced him as a Range III, persistent offender to concurrent sentences of twelve years in the Department of Correction (DOC) for the reckless aggravated assault convictions. For the reckless endangerment and criminally negligent homicide convictions, the defendant received six-year sentences to be served concurrently to each other but consecutively to the reckless aggravated assault sentences for an effective sentence of eighteen years. The defendant appeals, claiming (1) that the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions; (2) that the trial court erred by denying his motion to sever the aggravated assault offenses from the reckless endangerment and criminally negligent homicide offenses; (3) that his convictions for reckless endangerment and criminally negligent homicide violate protections against double jeopardy; and (4) that his sentences are excessive. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Walter Clyde Rainey, Jr.
The appellant, Walter Clyde Rainey, Jr., was convicted by a jury in the Wayne County Circuit Court of seven counts of sexual battery by an authority figure and seven counts of statutory rape. The trial court sentenced the appellant to a total effective sentence of four years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain his convictions; (2) whether the trial court erred by consolidating the offenses for trial; (3) whether the trial court erred in its ruling regarding the admissibility of the testimony of prosecution witness Tabitha Smith; (4) whether the prosecution's closing argument was improper; and (5) whether the trial court erred in sentencing the appellant. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Wayne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Thomas & Associates, Inc., v. The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, et al.
This appeal involves a dispute between a road contractor and the Tennessee Department of Transportation involving two construction projects in the Nashville area. Following extensive construction delays attributed to the relocation of utilities, the contractor filed claims based on negligence and breach of contract with the Tennessee Division of Claims Administration which were transferred to the Circuit Court for Davidson County. The trial court granted the Department's motion for summary judgment and dismissed all the contractor's claims. We have determined that the trial court correctly dismissed the contractor's negligence claims but that the trial court erred by denying the contractor's breach of contract claims. Accordingly, we vacate the portion of the judgment dismissing the contractor's contract claims and remand the case for further proceedings. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Royal Insurance, v. R & R Drywall and Tennessee Department of Commerce and Insurance
A workers' compensation insurance carrier assessed a retrospective premium increase of over $60,000 against a contractor after auditing the company's books and finding evidence that its subcontractors employed more workers than the contractor had declared. The contractor filed an administrative appeal of the assessment, arguing that the additional workers were not actually employees of its subcontractors, but members of de facto partnerships, and thus not covered under the contractor's policy. The administrative law judge agreed, and found that the contractor was not liable for the additional premium. The Chancery Court of Davidson County reversed the administrative law judge, finding that the insurance company was entitled to the additional premium, because it had borne the risk of liability to those workers for on-the-job injuries. We affirm the Chancery Court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Oscar Reynolds
The defendant was found guilty of robbery. His sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of theft. Theft is a lesser included offense of robbery. However, we conclude the failure to instruct the jury was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Randall A. Myers
The Appellant, Randall A. Myers, appeals the revocation of his community correction sentences by the Blount County Circuit Court. Myers pled guilty to seven counts of deceptive business practices and eight counts of theft, and he received an effective four-year sentence. As a result of these convictions, he was placed on intensive probation but, following violations of his release, he was re-sentenced to community corrections. Myers then proceeded to violate his community corrections agreement, and the trial court ordered him to serve the remainder of his sentences in the Department of Correction. On appeal, Myers asserts that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the violations occurred. After review of the record before us, we find no error. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Cortland Keshira Cates
The defendant, Cortland Keshira Cates, pled guilty to two counts of rape. The trial court sentenced him to eight years' incarceration for each count, to be served concurrently. On appeal, the defendant contends the trial court erred in denying probation. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Brigitte Pauli
A Williamson County jury convicted the defendant, Brigitte Pauli, of three counts of theft of property over $60,000, one count of theft of property over $1,000, and one count of forgery. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of ten years and ordered the defendant to pay $4,458,203 as restitution. In this appeal, the defendant contends (1) the evidence was insufficient to support her convictions; (2) the trial court erred in prohibiting the defendant from questioning a witness regarding an alleged prior bad act by another witness; (3) the trial court erred in admitting evidence of the values and costs of producing various products; (4) the state made an untimely and improper election of offenses; (5) the trial court erred in allowing the state to present the testimony of a rebuttal witness; (6) the trial court erred in instructing the jury on flight; and (7) the trial court erred in sentencing the defendant. Upon our review, we merge the three counts of theft over $60,000 into one conviction and remand for a redetermination of restitution. Otherwise, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Phillip Francis Morales
A Blount County grand jury indicted the defendant on one count of simple possession or casual exchange of Lorazepam, a schedule IV controlled substance, and on one count of possession with intent to sell or deliver an E felony amount of marijuana, a schedule VI controlled substance. After unsuccessfully seeking suppression of the items seized in the search involved in this case, the defendant waived his right to a trial by jury. At the conclusion of a bench trial, the lower court found the defendant guilty as charged. The trial court later sentenced the defendant to concurrent terms of eleven months and twenty-nine days for the simple possession offense and eighteen months for the possession with intent to sell or deliver offense. Though otherwise placed on supervised probation, the trial court ordered the defendant to serve sixteen days of these sentences on eight consecutive weekends. The defendant subsequently filed a new trial motion alleging that the trial court erred in not suppressing the aforementioned evidence and that the proof is insufficient to support the E felony conviction. The trial court denied this motion, and the defendant appeals the denial to this Court raising the same issues. After a review of the record and relevant authorities, we find that the defendant's suppression claim has merit though the sufficiency allegation does not. Because of our finding regarding the suppression matter, we must reverse and remand the defendant's convictions. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jamie H. Jones
The appellant, Jamie H. Jones, was convicted by a jury in the Davidson County Criminal Court of five counts of forgery and received a total effective sentence of eight years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant raises several issues for our review, including the sufficiency of the evidence, the correctness of the trial court's rulings, the propriety of the sentences imposed, and the denial of the appellant's motion for new trial. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Franklin Iron & Metal Recycling, Inc., v.Worley Enterprises, Inc., et al.
Defendants appeal the action of the trial court denying a Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 59.04 |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Old Republic Surety v. Morris Eshaghpour
A building contractor agreed to make certain repairs to a residence and procured a performance bond as required by the Metro Government. To obtain the bond the contractor was required to execute an indemnity agreement favorably to the bonding company. The homeowner complained of the quality of the contractor's workmanship, and the Codes Department of the Metro. Government determined that certain remedial action should be taken by the contractor in order to achieve compliance with the building code. The contractor declined to do so, insisting that the problems complained of were caused by the homeowner; whereupon, the bonding company engaged another contractor to make the repairs, and filed this action against the initial contractor for indemnification. The Circuit Court ruled in favor of the bonding company. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Alfred T. Duncan, Rosa L. Duncan, and Jerry Wayne Bell v. Yvonne Elizabeth Qualls, Jerry Barber and wife, Margie Barber, and H. Tom Kittrell, Sr.
This is a boundary line dispute. The plaintiffs filed suit against the defendants to establish common boundary lines and to recover for timber cut from their land. One of the defendants counterclaimed for damages to his land. The trial court found that the defendants' proposed boundary line was the correct boundary line, but granted the plaintiffs a perpetual easement over the defendants' land. The trial court declined to award the plaintiffs compensation for the cut timber. On appeal, one of the defendants argues that the trial court erred in denying a motion to produce findings of facts, erred in granting a perpetual easement across the defendants' land, and erred in failing to grant the defendants damages. The plaintiffs assert that the trial court erred in failing to award them damages and discretionary costs. We reverse the award of a perpetual easement since the record does not indicate that such relief was sought, and affirm the remainder of the trial court's decision. |
Perry | Court of Appeals | |
Nora Faye Young v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner appeals after being denied post-conviction relief. She originally pled guilty to three counts of facilitation of first degree murder and received a forty-five-year sentence. She alleges that her guilty plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, or intelligently entered. She further alleges that her trial counsel knew that her co-defendant made exonerating statements, and she would not have pled guilty if she had known of her co-defendant's exonerating statements. After careful review, we conclude that the evidence does not preponderate against the post-conviction court's findings. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Betsy F. Speer
The appellant, Betsy F. Speer, was convicted by a jury in the Shelby County Criminal Court of driving under the influence. The appellant subsequently acknowledged that she was guilty of driving under the influence, second offense. The trial court sentenced the appellant to the mandatory forty-five days in jail, followed by a probationary period of ten months and fourteen days. The trial court also revoked the appellant's driver's license for a period of two years and imposed a seven hundred fifty dollar ($750) fine. On appeal, the appellant contends that the State failed to comply with her Rule 16 motion for discovery. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Debra Foster
The appellant, Debra Foster, pled guilty to seven counts of attempt to obtain possession of a controlled substance by fraud, Class D felonies. She received an effective sentence of eight years as a Range II, multiple offender. The trial court denied alternative sentencing and the appellant timely appealed. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Dexter Lee Spence
The defendant, Dexter Lee Spence, entered a guilty plea to second degree murder. The trial court imposed a twenty-five-year sentence. In this appeal of right, the defendant argues that the sentence was excessive. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Sevier | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Robin A. Conner
The defendant, Robin A. Conner, pled guilty to robbery, and the Blount County trial court sentenced her to three years' incarceration as a Range I standard offender. The defendant appeals the trial court's denial of alternative sentencing. Upon review of the record and the applicable law, we reverse the judgment of the trial court. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Thurman L. Whitsey and Charlie Mae Whitsey - Amended Judgement
Came the appellants, THURMAN L. WHITSEY and CHARLIE MAE WHITSEY, by counsel, and the state, by the Attorney General, and this case was heard on the record on appeal from the Criminal Court of Davidson County; and upon consideration thereof, this court is of the opinion that our original judgment entered April 23, 2003, should be vacated; that there is reversible error in the judgments of the trial court relating only to the weapons offense under Count 5; and the case should be remanded for a re-sentencing determination relating to appellant, Charlie Mae Whitsey. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
John M. Hollis, individually and as the Surviviing Parent of Raven BLair Hollis, v. W. Charles Doerflinger, Administrator ad Litem for the Estate of Rhonda B. Hollis, et al.
This is an insurance case. The mother and the father were covered by an automobile insurance policy that excluded coverage for certain family members who were residents of the same household as the insureds. The mother was pregnant with a viable fetus. She was at fault in an automobile accident in which she and the fetus died. On behalf of the deceased fetus, the father filed a wrongful death action against the mother's estate. On a motion for partial summary judgment, the father sought a declaratory judgment to determine whether the insurance company was obligated to provide coverage for the deceased fetus. The trial court found that the insurance policy's family exclusion provision was ambiguous. Consequently, it construed the policy in favor of the father, finding that the fetus was not considered a resident of the father's household and that the insurance company was required to provide coverage for the deceased fetus. After a trial, the father was awarded damages plus prejudgment interest. The insurance company and the administrator ad litem of the mother's estate appeal. The insurance company argues that the fetus was excluded from coverage. The administrator ad litem of the mother's estate asserts that the trial court erred in awarding prejudgment interest. We reverse, finding that the fetus was a resident of the mother's household, and consequently a resident of the father's household, and that the insurance company was therefore not obligated to provide coverage for the fetus. The award of prejudgment interest is reversed as well. |
Lawrence | Court of Appeals | |
Randy J. Overstreet v. Rebecca D. Overstreet
In this divorce Husband appeals the type and amount of alimony awarded Wife at the end of a twenty-three year marriage. Because the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court's findings and the trial court acted within its discretion in applying relevant legal principles, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Hazel Ann Edde v. Gladys Dalton Edde
After a thirty-six year marriage, Wife filed for divorce on the grounds of irreconcilable differences, inappropriate marital conduct, and adultery. The trial court granted the divorce to Wife, divided the marital property, and awarded Wife alimony in futuro in the amount of $425 per month. Husband appeals. Because the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court's decision, we affirm the decision of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In the Matter of: R.L.H., A Child Under Eighteen (18) Years of Age, State of Tennessee Department of Children's Services, v. Darlene Medley Hall - Dissenting
While I concur in the majority’s opinion finding that grounds for termination of Hall’s parental rights as to R.L.H. have been established by clear and convincing evidence, I dissent as to the majority’s conclusion that termination of Hall’s parental rights is in the best interests of the minor child. I recognize that the evidence is certainly not favorable to Hall in some particulars, including the fact that her sole support is derived from social security, that she has no prospects of employment in the near future, her past failure to provide a safe and suitable home for the minor child in the face of abuse, her impaired mental condition, and the fact that Hall had no suitable residence for the child at the time of trial. However, this court must balance this evidence with the situation as it pertains to R.L.H. R.L.H. is a special needs child who has specific learning, speech, and behavioral problems. All reports indicate that R.L.H. is in need of continued counseling and therapy. Under the current arrangement, R.L.H. resides in a therapeutic foster home under the care of trained foster parents. This foster home has served as a stable and supportive environment for the minor child since approximately July 2000. |
Franklin | Court of Appeals |