In The Matter of Ian B. et al.
This is Father’s second appeal of the termination of his parental rights to the two children he had with his former wife (“Mother”). Father and Mother separated in 2008 when she moved from Alaska to Tennessee with the children, and they were granted a divorce in 2009. Father has not seen nor spoken with the children since 2008, and has not provided any financial support since November 2009. The petition to terminate Father’s parental rights was filed by Mother and her husband in 2012. In Father’s first appeal, we remanded the case in order to obtain a sufficient record for this court to review on appeal. In re Ian B., No. M2015-01079-COA-R3-PT, 2016 WL 2865875 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 11, 2016). On remand, the trial court found that the petitioners had proven grounds of abandonment for failure to visit and support and that termination of Father’s parental rights was in the best interest of the children. This appeal followed. Having determined that the record in this second appeal is sufficient for this court to conduct a proper review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Anthony L. Moore
The defendant, Anthony L. Moore, moved the trial court, pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36, to correct a clerical error with regard to the reflection of pretrial jail credits on the judgment for his 2000 Madison County Criminal Court jury conviction of aggravated burglary. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jimmy Williams
A Shelby County jury convicted the Defendant, Jimmy Williams, of aggravated assault. The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a career offender to fifteen years in prison. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction and that the trial court erred in sentencing him as a career offender. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Sheridan Nichols (formerly Crockett) v. Richard David Crockett, Jr.
This appeal results from a post-divorce criminal contempt conviction the plaintiff mother received for failing to adhere to a parenting plan that prohibits both parents from making disparaging remarks about the other parent. The trial court held that the plaintiff received sufficient notice under Rule 42(b) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure and that she was guilty of criminal contempt beyond a reasonable doubt for two separate instances of disparaging remarks made about the father in the presence of their children. We affirm in part and reverse in part. |
Washington | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. David Brian Howard
The Defendant, David Brian Howard, was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault, a Class C felony, and received a three-year sentence, to be served on probation. The Defendant appeals, asserting that the evidence is insufficient to uphold the verdict due to perjured testimony; that the trial court improperly refused to function as thirteenth juror to overturn his conviction; that the trial court erred in not excusing a juror who made a statement during the trial regarding defense counsel’s questions to a witness; and that the trial court improperly admitted evidence during sentencing regarding an offense of which the Defendant was acquitted. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm judgment of the trial court. |
Giles | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Kwaku Aryel Okraku v. State of Tennessee
Kwaku Aryel Okraku, the Petitioner, was convicted of two counts of aggravated child neglect and one count of reckless homicide. He received an effective sentence of sixty years. Trial counsel did not file a timely motion for new trial or notice of appeal, and after filing a petition for post-conviction relief, the Petitioner was granted a delayed direct appeal. On direct appeal, this court merged the aggravated child neglect convictions but otherwise affirmed the Petitioner’s convictions. The Petitioner then renewed his petition for post-conviction relief and alleged that trial counsel’s performance was deficient because he “neglected to use the strongest piece of impeachment evidence available to him—evidence that could have discredited the State’s theory that the cocaine ingested by the victim belonged to [the Petitioner].” After a thorough review of the facts and applicable case law, we affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of relief. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Anthony D. Washington v. Randy Lee, Warden
Pro se petitioner, Anthony D. Washington, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus by the Johnson County Criminal Court. In this appeal, the Petitioner makes several claims, all of which are rooted in the duplicitous nature of his indictment. The State asserts that the Petitioner failed to show that his judgment was void. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court. |
Johnson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
ISI Holdings Of TN, LLC, et al. v. Mount Pleasant Regional Planning Commission, et al.
This is an appeal from a successful petition for a writ of certiorari involving land use. The trial court ruled in favor of the petitioners after finding that the location approved for the proposed power station violated an applicable zoning ordinance. After the trial court’s decision, the City of Mount Pleasant amended its ordinance to clarify that the zoning ordinance did not apply to public utilities. The City of Mount Pleasant Planning Commission thereafter approved the construction of the power station under the amended ordinance. The petitioners filed no writ of certiorari of the approval under the amended ordinance and therefore ask that this appeal be dismissed as moot. Because this case no longer serves to offer any meaningful relief to the parties and no exceptions to the mootness doctrine are present, we dismiss this appeal as moot. |
Maury | Court of Appeals | |
David C. Jayne v. Bass Annie Cosmetic Boat Repair
David C. Jayne (“Jayne”) appeals the trial court’s entry of a judgment against him for breach of contract for failure to pay Bass Annie Cosmetic Boat Repair (“Bass Annie”) for repairs made to his boat. Jayne entered into a contract with Bass Annie for the repair of his damaged boat. Before the agreed-upon repairs were completed, Jayne went to Bass Annie to check on the boat. After inspecting the boat, Jayne instructed Bass Annie to stop the repairs and return the boat to him. An argument ensued, and Jayne alleges he was assaulted by a Bass Annie employee. Both parties filed claims in the general sessions court which were subsequently appealed to circuit court. Following a de novo trial in the circuit court, the trial court dismissed Jayne’s claims and awarded Bass Annie damages for breach of contract for the work completed on the boat. Jayne appeals. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Charles E. Cunningham v. Tennessee Department of Commerce And Insurance, Insurance Division
This appeal involves the decision of the Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Commerce and Insurance (the “Commissioner”) to impose a civil fine and revoke the license of insurance agent Charles E. Cunningham (“Cunningham”), after concluding that Cunningham committed six (6) violations of applicable statutes in connection with his insurance practice. Cunningham filed a petition for review in the Chancery Court for Davidson County challenging the sufficiency of the evidence relied on by the Commissioner. The trial court found that the record supported the Commissioner’s decision and choice of penalty. Cunningham appealed to this Court. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Outloud! INC. v. Dialysis Clinic, Inc., Et Al.
Appellant appeals the circuit court’s dismissal of its petition for writs of certiorari and supersedeas for a de novo review of an unlawful detainer action originally filed in general sessions court. The circuit court granted Appellees’ Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02 motion, dismissing Appellant’s petition on the ground that it was not timely filed pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated Section 29-18-129 and Appellant did not have a sufficient excuse for filing the petition outside the 30 day statutory time period. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Annette Cecile Moore v. Brian Scott Moore
This is a post-divorce matter. Having reviewed the record transmitted to us on appeal, we observe that the case appealed from is not final. Given the absence of a final judgment, we dismiss the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Richard W. Shelton
Richard W. Shelton, the Defendant, was charged with one count of sale and one count of delivery of a Schedule II controlled substance. A Marshall County jury found the Defendant guilty as charged, and the trial court sentenced the Defendant to fifteen years with release eligibility after service of forty-five percent of the sentence in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant argues that there was insufficient evidence for a rational juror to have found him guilty of the offenses beyond a reasonable doubt and that his sentence is excessive and contrary to law. After a thorough review of the facts and applicable case law, we affirm. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Joseph Anthony Saitta, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Joseph Anthony Saitta, Jr., appeals the denial of post-conviction relief from his Warren County Circuit Court conviction for rape of a child. The petitioner alleges he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that the cumulative effect of trial counsel’s errors resulted in the denial of a fair trial. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Warren | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jeffrey King v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Jeffrey King, pleaded guilty to multiple drug and money laundering crimes, and the trial court sentenced him to forty years of incarceration to be served at 100%. The petitioner attempted to reserve certified questions of law pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2) about whether wiretaps used in the investigation of the crime were lawful. This Court determined that the petitioner was not entitled to relief on the basis of the certified questions and affirmed the judgments on appeal. State v. King, 437 S.W.3d 856, 889 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2013). In 2015, the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, claiming that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel and, after a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. After review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Larry McNutt v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Larry McNutt, appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of relief from his convictions for reckless endangerment and aggravated assault. On appeal, Petitioner argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Billy Joe Hodge
Defendant, Billy Joe Hodge, was indicted by the Madison County Grand Jury for one count of possession of 0.5 grams or more of methamphetamine with intent to sell; possession of 0.5 grams or more of methamphetamine with intent to deliver; possession of marijuana; and possession of drug paraphernalia. Defendant filed a pretrial motion to suppress the evidence seized during a search of his home and person. Following a hearing, the trial court denied Defendant’s motion, and Defendant entered guilty pleas to all four counts. The possession of methamphetamine with intent to sell and the possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver were “merged” by the trial court, but the merger was not done in compliance with State v. Berry, 503 S.W.3d 360 (Tenn. 2015). Defendant reserved a certified question of law pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2) as to whether the search of his home by law enforcement was lawful. After review, we conclude that exigent circumstances did not justify the warrantless search of Defendant’s home. However, we conclude that there was probable cause for the issuance of a subsequent search warrant. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jon Roozbeh Vazeen, AKA Hassan Vazin v. Michelle Smith Vazin
The trial court granted Wife a divorce; divided marital assets and liabilities; and awarded Husband five years of rehabilitative alimony. Husband appealed. Due to the deficiencies in Husband’s appellate brief, we do not reach Husband’s substantive issues and dismiss the appeal. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Jon Roozbeh Vazeen, AKA Hassan Vazin v. Michelle Smith Vazin - Concurring In Part and Dissenting In Part
I concur with the majority’s observation that “[g]iven the deficiencies in Husband[’s] brief,” we do not have the “[]ability to reach the substantive issues.” If we cannot reach the substantive issues — and I agree we cannot — I can only conclude that Husband’s appeal is “devoid of merit or . . . has no reasonable chance of success.” Am. Gen. Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Goss et al., No E2010-01710-COA-R3-CV, 2011 WL 1326234 (Tenn. Ct. App., filed Apr. 7, 2011) (Susano, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Hence, by definition, this is a frivolous appeal. I would remand this case to the trial court for the purpose of holding a hearing to determine “just damages” pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-1-122 (2000). |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kevin Watkins, III
The Defendant, Kevin Watkins, III, pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated burglary and agreed to allow the trial court to determine the length and manner of service of his sentence. The trial court subsequently ordered the Defendant to serve concurrent six-year and three-year sentences in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it applied two enhancement factors to his sentence and when it denied him alternative sentencing. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Everett Russ v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Everett Russ, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his 2012 Shelby County Criminal Court jury convictions of two counts of aggravated sexual battery. Discerning no error, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Marcus Jermaine Brooks
A Madison County Circuit Court Jury convicted the Appellant, Marcus Jermaine Brooks, of aggravated assault by strangulation, a Class C felony, and the trial court sentenced him as a Range II, multiple offender to eight years in confinement. On appeal, the Appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kevin Lynn Morris
The Defendant, Kevin Lynn Morris, was convicted by a Chester County jury of aggravated burglary, theft of property valued at $500 or less, vandalism, and evading arrest. His sole issue on appeal is that the trial court erred by denying his motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Chester | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Brooke Whitaker v. Trinity Minter, Warden
Petitioner, Brooke Whitaker, appeals the Lauderdale County Circuit Court’s dismissal of her petition for writ of habeas corpus. Because we determine that Petitioner has failed to file a timely notice of appeal or provide a reason as to why the timely filing of the notice of appeal should be waived, the appeal is dismissed. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Alonzo Christopher Downey
A Davidson County trial judge convicted the Defendant, Alonzo Christopher Downey, of domestic assault sentenced him to serve eleven months and twenty-nine days of probation. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals |