State of Tennessee v. Petr Pompa
The Defendant, Petr Pompa, was convicted by a Davidson County jury of two counts of sexual battery by an authority figure and two counts of statutory rape by an authority figure. On appeal, the Defendant argues that (1) the trial court erred in allowing inadmissible opinion, character, and hearsay testimony at trial; (2) the trial court erred in excluding evidence of the victim’s motive to fabricate the allegations against the Defendant; (3) the trial court erred in allowing the victim to remain in the courtroom following her testimony; (4) the trial court erred in denying the Defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal as to counts five and six; and (5) the Defendant’s sentence was unlawful. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In re Braxton L.
This is an appeal by the appellant, Jessica L., from an order terminating her parental rights to the minor child, Braxton L. The order terminating the appellant’s parental rights was entered on December 29, 2016. The Notice of Appeal was not filed until February 2, 2017, more than thirty (30) days from the date of entry of the final order. The Attorney General, on behalf of the appellee, Tennessee Department of Children’s Services, has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal based upon the untimely filing of the Notice of Appeal. Because the Notice of Appeal was not timely filed, we have no jurisdiction to consider this appeal and grant the motion to dismiss. |
Cocke | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jason Erik Redden
The Defendant, Jason Erik Redden, pleaded guilty to two counts of official misconduct,Class E felonies, in exchange for concurrent sentences of two years each. See T.C.A. §§39-16-402 (2014). Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court was to determine themanner of service and ordered him to serve his sentence in confinement. On appeal, theDefendant contends that the court erred by denying (1) judicial diversion and (2) alternative sentencing. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Rhea | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Lavar Jernigan
The Defendant, Lavar Jernigan, was convicted by a Rutherford County Circuit Court jury of six counts of especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor, Class B felonies. SeeT.C.A. § 39-17-1005 (2010) (amended 2013). The trial court sentenced the Defendant to ten years for each count and ordered partial consecutive service, for an effective sentence of thirty years at 100% service. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred by (1) admitting in evidence a notebook containing text messages exchanged between the Defendant and the victim, (2) denying his motion to dismiss the indictment, and (3) denying his motion for a bill of particulars. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Southwind Residential Properties Association, Inc. v. Kelvin Ford
The association obtained a favorable judgment for unpaid assessments against property owner of 1.6 lots as well as attorney’s fees in the trial court. Property owner appeals. We vacate the trial court’s attorney’s fee award in favor of the association and remand for consideration of the reasonableness factors as outlined in the Tennessee Rules of Professional Responsibility. We affirm the trial court’s judgment in all other respects. Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Gala Johnson-Murray, et al. v. Rodney Burns, et al.
Nieces of the decedent contest the validity of a quitclaim deed and the decedent's will on the ground they were the result of undue influence exerted upon the decedent by her stepson and his wife. The quitclaim deed conveyed the decedent's real property to herself, her stepson, and his wife as joint tenants with right of survivorship. The will bequeathed the decedent's entire estate to her stepson. Following a jury trial, the jury found that the deed and will were both valid. The nieces appeal, contending there is no material evidence to support the jury's verdict. They also contend the trial court erred by instructing the jury that the stepson, who was the decedent's attorney-in-fact, had the authority to sign the will and deed on behalf of the decedent. We have determined that the record contains material evidence to support the jury's verdict. As for the jury instructions, the trial court erred by instructing the jury that the stepson had the authority to sign the will on behalf of the decedent as her attorney-in-fact because it would not comply with mandatory requirements of the Tennessee Execution of Wills Act. With regard to whether the stepson could sign the deed on behalf of the decedent, the answer and jury instruction were incomplete to such an extent as to constitute an erroneous instruction. Nevertheless, having considered the jury instruction in its entirety, we are unable to conclude that these errors more probably than not affected the outcome of the verdict. Therefore, we affirm. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Douglas Smith-Dissenting
I must respectfully dissent from the majority in this case. This court granted the State’s request for extraordinary review pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. In this Rule 10 appeal, we permitted review of the following certified question: “Did the trial court abuse its discretion in excluding the evidence seized from the defendant after a warrantless arrest that was supported by probable cause?” In reversing the trial court, the majority relies on information from the confidential informant contained in the search warrant in support of the Defendant’s warrantless arrest. In my view, the majority has recast the certified question to whether the confidential informant’s tip provided sufficient probable cause to arrest the Defendant, which was not addressed by the trial court. |
Carroll | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee, ex rel., James Frederick Roberts v. Elizabeth Dale Crafton
The Notice of Appeal filed by James Frederick Roberts (“Father”) states that Father is appealing from the February 1, 2016 order of the Juvenile Court for Shelby County (“the Juvenile Court”). The February 1, 2016 order, however, is not a final judgment, and the case remains pending in the Juvenile Court. As such, we lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal, and it is dismissed without prejudice. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Starbrough Jones v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Starbrough Jones, filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective. The post-conviction court dismissed the petition as untimely. On appeal, the Petitioner concedes that the petition was untimely but maintains that due process requires tolling the statute of limitations because he was never “official[ly]” informed that counsel was withdrawing after this court filed its opinion on direct appeal and because counsel did not advise the Petitioner of his right to seek postconviction relief. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Xingkui Guo v. Woods & Woods, PP
A former client sued his former attorney for breach of contract, and the trial court entered judgment in favor of the client for $3,500. Because the trial court found that the attorney had “justifiable reasons” for terminating the contract, and because the contract provided that the $7,000 set fee paid by the client at the beginning of the representation was earned upon payment, we have determined that the trial court erred in entering judgment in favor of the client. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Odell Wisdom v. Randy Lee, Warden, et al.
The Petitioner, Odell Wisdom, appeals as of right from the Johnson County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. He claims entitlement to habeas corpus relief, alleging that his separate convictions for contempt and failure to appear violate double jeopardy principles. Following our review, we conclude that the Petitioner has failed to state a cognizable claim for relief and, therefore, affirm the summary dismissal of his petition. |
Johnson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Douglas Smith
After the trial court denied an interlocutory appeal pursuant to Rule 9 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, the State sought an extraordinary appeal pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. This Court granted the State's application. On appeal, the State argues that the trial court erred in excluding the evidence seized from Defendant because the arresting officer had probable cause to arrest him for a felony drug offense and search him incident to that arrest. Following our review, we reverse the judgment of the trial court. |
Carroll | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Shanerick Abraham
A Shelby County Criminal Court jury convicted the defendant, Shanerick Abraham, of aggravated robbery. On appeal, the defendant argues the evidence was insufficient to support his aggravated robbery conviction because the victim voluntarily gave the defendant money, and the alleged taking was temporally remote to the subsequent act of violence. The defendant additionally alleges ineffective assistance of counsel. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Elizabeth A. Popick v. Vanderbilt University
The plaintiff filed this health care liability action against the defendant hospital after the death of her husband, alleging that his death was the result of negligent medical treatment. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant. On appeal, the plaintiff argues that the trial court committed reversible error in: (1) excluding certain email messages as hearsay; (2) overruling her objections to defense counsel‟s cross-examination of a witness; (3) failing to instruct the jury to ignore statements made by defense counsel in closing argument; (4) refusing a request for a special jury instruction; and (5) declining to change the special verdict form. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm the decision of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
James William Taylor v. Tennessee Department of Correction, et al.
An inmate in the custody of the Department of Correction appeals the dismissal of his petition for declaratory judgment. He claims his sentence is calculated incorrectly, and he is entitled to custodial parole and safety valve hearings. Upon motion of the Respondents, the trial court granted summary judgment dismissing the petition. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tommy Tyrell Johnson
The Defendant, Tommy Tyrell Johnson, appeals the Rutherford County Circuit Court’s order revoking his probation for his theft conviction and ordering him to serve his four-year sentence in confinement. The Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his probation. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Denise Elliott v. State of Tennessee
This appeal arises from a claim against the State by the driver of a motor vehicle who seeks damages resulting from a single-car accident. Claimant contends the accident was the proximate result of the State’s negligence in the design, construction, and maintenance of the roadway where the accident occurred for which the State is liable pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(a)(1)(I). Following a trial, the Claims Commissioner found that Claimant failed to prove the State was negligent in the design, construction, or maintenance of the roadway; therefore, Claimant failed to prove a claim for negligence under Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(a)(1)(I). Finding the evidence does not preponderate against the Claims Commission’s findings, we affirm. |
Court of Appeals | ||
Robert Lindiment v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Robert Lindiment, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that the court erred in finding that he received effective assistance of counsel. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John Smith
The Defendant, John Smith, appeals his conviction of official oppression and his two year sentence in the county workhouse. He argues that his acquittal of a charge of rape and conviction of official oppression represent inconsistent verdicts and that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of official oppression. Following review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re Conservatorship of Sophia Elaine Taylor
This appeal arises from the removal of a conservator. The Tennessee Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services (“the Department”) filed a petition in the Probate Court for Davidson County (“the Probate Court”) seeking removal of Cheryl R. Russell (“Russell”) as conservator for Sophia Elaine Taylor (“Taylor”). Russell, Taylor’s mother, was alleged to have interfered repeatedly with Taylor’s medical treatment. After a hearing, the Probate Court removed Russell as Taylor’s conservator and named ComCare, Inc. (“ComCare”) as temporary conservator. Russell appeals to this Court. Finding no abuse of discretion or other reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the Probate Court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Bobby Jay Fuqua
Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, Defendant, Bobby Jay Fuqua, pleaded guilty to driving under the influence of an intoxicant (DUI), fourth offense. He properly reserved a certified question of law regarding whether the police officer had reasonable suspicion to seize the Defendant. Upon reviewing the record and the applicable law, we conclude that the evidence supports the trial court’s finding that the police officer had reasonable suspicion to seize Defendant. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Robertson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jamie Treadwell v. Gary Thomas Lamb
This appeal involves the financial aspects of a divorce, which ended a twelve-year marriage. The trial court granted both parties a divorce, divided the marital estate, and awarded Wife rehabilitative alimony for twenty-four months, provided she actively pursued a teaching degree at Middle Tennessee State University. Wife filed a motion to alter or amend the award of alimony to remove the education and vocation requirements. The trial court denied the motion. Wife filed a motion pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02 seeking relief from the trial court’s order dividing the marital estate due to Husband’s alleged fraudulent withdrawals from the parties’ marital stock account. The trial court denied the motion. On appeal, Wife takes issue with the educational and vocational requirements the trial court placed on the spousal support award and with the trial court’s division of the marital estate. She also appeals the trial court’s denial of her Rule 60.02 motion. We affirm the trial court’s judgment in all respects. |
Franklin | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Ethan R.
A mother, who was designated the primary residential parent of the parties’ son when she and the father divorced, filed a dependent and neglect petition in juvenile court in Tennessee when the child was hospitalized in Arkansas after ingesting some of the father’s methadone tablets. In the course of the juvenile court proceeding Father filed a petition opposing Mother’s relocation to Kentucky and seeking a change in custody. The juvenile court dismissed both petitions, and Father appealed. The circuit court held a trial de novo and denied Father’s petition. Mother appeals, contending that because she did not appeal the juvenile court’s dismissal of the dependent and neglect proceeding, the circuit court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to consider the matter further and, alternatively, that the case should have been transferred to Kentucky. Finding no error in the disposition of the case, we affirm the judgment in all respects. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Janice Darlene Helbert
Defendant, Janice Darlene Helbert, was issued a Uniform Citation of Complaint for the offenses of driving under the influence and following too closely. The citation included the officer's narrative of the facts underlying the offenses. The officer also prepared an affidavit of complaint, which he signed under oath before a notary public. Three days later, the affidavit of complaint was signed by a deputy clerk. Over one year later, Defendant waived her right to a preliminary hearing and agreed to have her case bound over to the grand jury. The grand jury subsequently returned a presentment against Defendant for the misdemeanor offenses above, as well as one count of felony reckless endangerment. Subsequent to the presentment, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the two misdemeanor counts as time barred, arguing that the affidavit of complaint was void because the officer did not make the oath in the presence of an authorized official capable of making a probable cause determination. The trial court granted Defendant's motion to dismiss the misdemeanor charges. The State sought and was granted an interlocutory appeal of the trial court's decision. On appeal, the State contends that the fact that the affidavit of complaint was sworn before a notary public rather than a qualified judicial officer was a “technical defect” that should not render it void. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Louis Grieco
Defendant, Louis Grieco, was arrested on August 24, 2013, without a warrant for driving under the influence (DUI). On the date of the arrest, the arresting officer summarized the facts underlying the offense in an affidavit of complaint, which he signed under oath before a notary public. Two days later, a general sessions judge found probable cause that the offense was committed based on the officer's affidavit of complaint. Over one year later, on October 6, 2014, Defendant waived his right to a preliminary hearing in General Sessions Court and agreed to have the case bound over to the Sullivan County Grand Jury. The grand jury indicted Defendant for DUI on January 21, 2015. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the indictment as time barred, arguing that the affidavit of complaint was void because the officer did not make it on oath in the presence of an authorized official capable of making a probable cause determination. The trial court granted Defendant's motion to dismiss. The State appeals. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals |