State of Tennessee v. Jerry Floyd
The Defendant, Jerry Floyd, was arrested without a warrant for driving under the influence (DUI), third offense, a Class A misdemeanor, and several other traffic offenses not relevant to this review. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 55-10-401, -402(a)(3)(A). The Defendant consented to a bench trial in Sullivan County General Sessions Court and was found guilty of DUI, third offense. The Defendant then appealed to the Sullivan County Criminal Court. Following a bench trial, the Defendant was again found guilty of DUI, third offense. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to eleven months and twenty nine-days with 120 days to be served in confinement. The Defendant now appeals to this court, contending that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction. Following our review, we conclude that the affidavit of complaint filed after the Defendant’s arrest was void and that no valid arrest warrant was issued in this case. Therefore, prosecution was never commenced in this matter within the applicable statute of limitations. Accordingly, we reverse and dismiss the judgment of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In re Samuel P.
This accelerated interlocutory appeal arises from the trial court's denial of a motion for recusal filed by a father in a custody proceeding. After carefully reviewing the trial court's ruling pursuant to the de novo standard of review required under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B, we affirm the decision of the trial court denying the motion for recusal. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Anita V. Wadhwani v. Peter L White
In this post-divorce matter, the parties have been litigating for several years regarding issues of co-parenting time, child support, and contempt. In 2013, the trial court reduced the father’s child support obligation based upon its finding that a significant variance existed between the prior child support amount and the new amount calculated utilizing the father’s income. The trial court ordered that such modification would begin as of May 2012, when the State of Tennessee filed a petition seeking modification on the father’s behalf. The father attempted to file an appeal of this matter in 2013, but the appeal was dismissed due to lack of a final order. Following remand, the trial court reviewed and adjusted the child support modification based upon demonstration of the father’s income from all sources, including an inheritance he received from a relative. A final order was entered July 27, 2015. The father has appealed the trial court’s judgment. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Beacon4, LLC v. I & L Investments, LLC
This case involves a contract dispute over the construction of a “Fireworks Over America” retail store in Blountville, Tennessee (“FOA Project”). The defendant company, I & L Investments, LLC (“I & L”), sought to build the store on an 11.71-acre tract of undeveloped property that it had acquired in November 2010. A contracting and development corporation, Altera Development, Inc. (“Altera”), submitted a bid to complete the site work and building construction for the FOA Project.1 At this time, the plaintiff contractor, Beacon4, LLC (“Beacon4”), had been entering into a relationship with Altera in which Altera would market and secure construction work to be performed by Beacon4. Upon I & L’s acceptance of Altera’s bid, Beacon4 eventually became the designated contractor for both the building and site portions of the FOA project, which was divided into two contracts. On January 28, 2011, Beacon4 obtained its Tennessee general contractor’s license with a monetary limit of $1,100,000.00 plus ten percent. On February 7, 2011, I & L and Beacon4 entered into a site contract, valued at $795,486.00, and a building contract, valued at $1,097,115.00. A certificate of occupancy was granted for the FOA store on May 17, 2011. One year later, Beacon4 filed a complaint alleging that I & L had violated the Prompt Pay Act of 1991, see Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 66-34-101 to -602, and breached the parties’ site contract. Beacon4 sought, inter alia, enforcement of a mechanics’ and materialmen’s lien in the amount of $212,856.02 allegedly owed under the site contract. I & L conceded that it had withheld a retainage of $46,942.75 but otherwise asserted affirmative defenses, including, inter alia, that Beacon4 had willfully and grossly exaggerated the lien claim and had violated the Tennessee Contractor’s Licensing Act of 1994, see Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 62-6-101 to 62-6-521, by dividing the Project into two contracts in order to circumvent its monetary licensing limit. I & L also filed a counterclaim, alleging that Beacon4 had violated the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act of 1977, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 47-18-104(b)(35). Following a five-day bench trial, the trial court dismissed I & L’s counterclaim and entered a judgment in favor of Beacon4, finding that I & L had violated the Prompt Pay Act and breached the parties’ site contract. The court awarded to Beacon4 $150,390.04 plus six-percent interest per annum, reasonable attorney’s fees, and, upon a post-trial motion, out-of-pocket expenses. The court also granted a lien in favor of Beacon4 on the title to I & L’s Blountville FOA store property. I & L has appealed the trial court’s judgment, and Beacon4 has raised an issue regarding the statutory penalty provided in the Prompt Pay Act and has requested attorney’s fees on appeal. Having determined that the trial court made a typographical error in entering the final award of interest to Beacon4, we modify the award of interest from $32,715.76 to $31,715.76. We affirm the judgment in all other respects. Having also determined that an award to Beacon4 of reasonable attorney’s fees on appeal is appropriate under the PPA, we remand for the trial court to determine reasonable attorney’s fees incurred by Beacon4 during the appellate process. |
Sullivan | Court of Appeals | |
Peggy L. Smith, Individually and as Trustee of Peggy L. Smith Trust v. Hi-Speed, Inc., et al.
This is a breach of contract case related to a commercial property located in Arkansas. Plaintiffs also asserted claims for unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, equitable estoppel, and promissory estoppel. Following a hearing on Defendants‘ motion for partial summary judgment, the trial court dismissed all of the claims except for an alleged breach of contract by Defendant Hi-Speed, Inc. After a bench trial on this remaining claim, the trial court determined that the Plaintiffs were not entitled to any damages. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In re Adonnias P. et.al.
The Notice of Appeal in this termination of parental rights case was filed pro se by the appellant/mother on May 26, 2016. In it, she indicates her desire to appeal from a final judgment entered on May 5, 2015. Because the Notice of Appeal was not timely filed, we lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Tennessee Commercial Roe Fishermen's Association, et al. v. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Commission, et al.
This lawsuit was brought by two associations of commercial fishermen challenging proclamations enacted by the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Commission (“TWRC”) that affect, among other matters, the species and sizes of fish that may be harvested, the types of equipment that may be used, the permissible locations for fishing, and fishing seasons. On appeal, the fishermen argue that the proclamations are invalid because the actions of the TWRC violated the Open Meetings Act and procedural due process, because the proclamations violate substantive due process, and because one of the commissioners had an impermissible conflict of interest. We find no merit to the fishermen’s arguments and, therefore, affirm the decision of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Grenda Harmer v. Turney Center Disciplinary Board et al.
An inmate of the Tennessee Department of Correction housed at the Turney Center Industrial Complex in Only, Tennessee, filed a petition for common law writ of certiorari seeking review of his prison disciplinary conviction. The trial court dismissed the petition on the grounds that the inmate failed to pay prior court costs, violating Tennessee Code Annotated § 41-21-812, and filed an affidavit of indigency that contained falsities, violating Tennessee Code Annotated § 41-21-804. This appeal followed. We affirm the dismissal of the petition for writ of certiorari on the basis that Petitioner failed to disclose all previously filed lawsuits in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated § 41-21-805 but modify it to the extent that the petition is dismissed without prejudice. |
Hickman | Court of Appeals | |
In re C.D.
The Department of Children’s Services filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of G.D. (Mother) to her child, C.D. (the Child). The trial court found clear and convincing evidence of one ground supporting termination. The court also found, by the same quantum of proof, that termination is in the best interest of the Child. Mother appeals. We affirm. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
John P. Branham v. The Metropolitan Government of Nashville - Davidson County, Tennessee, et al.
Landowner filed an action against the Metropolitan Government of Nashville-Davidson County (“Metro”) on theories of inverse condemnation, detrimental reliance, and negligence to recover for damages to his home which occurred as a result of landslides on his property. Following trial, the court entered judgment in Metro’s favor on all claims. On appeal, landowner contends that the evidence preponderates against the court’s findings of fact as to the cause of the landslides and the finding that Metro’s expert witness was credible; that the court erred as a matter of law in holding that Metro’s actions were not purposeful or intentional for the purposes of an inverse condemnation claim; and that the court erred in not crediting his testimony in the valuation of his property. Metro asks this court to reverse the trial court’s determination that it owns the portion of land adjacent to landowner’s property in fee simple. We reverse the determination that Metro owns the land adjacent to the landowner’s property; in all other respects we affirm the judgment. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Christine Greenwood v. National Dentex Corporation, et al.
This is a saving statute case, Tennessee Code Annotated Section 28-1-105. The trial court dismissed Appellant’s third product-liability case, which was filed within one year of the dismissal of her second lawsuit, but more than one year after the entry of the initial nonsuit in Appellant’s first lawsuit. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Joseph Floyd v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Joseph Floyd, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief from his DUI and reckless driving convictions, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in dismissing the petition based on a lack of jurisdiction because his probation had expired. The State concedes that the court erroneously dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, and we agree. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the post-conviction court and remand for an evidentiary hearing on the merits of the petition. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Cory O'Brien Johnson alias Deshun Marshay Gibbs v. State of Tennessee
The pro se petitioner, Cory O’Brien Johnson, alias Deshun Marshay Gibbs, appeals the habeas corpus court’s summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the court violated his due process rights by not holding an evidentiary hearing to consider whether he was afforded appropriate pretrial jail credits. Following our review, we affirm the summary dismissal of the petition on the basis that the petitioner failed to state a colorable claim for habeas corpus relief. |
Lake | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James W. Clark, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
The pro se petitioner, James W. Clark, Jr., appeals the dismissal of his petition for writ of error coram nobis, motion to reopen his post-conviction petition, petition for writ of habeas corpus, and Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 motion for correction of an illegal sentence. We affirm the summary dismissal of the petitions and motions pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Randal L. Arthur v. Pamela Stewart, et al.
A boat repairman sued boat owners in general sessions court for a portion of the cost to repair their boat. The repairman was awarded less than he sought and appealed the case to the circuit court. The circuit court awarded the same amount to the repairman, and the repairman appealed the judgment to this Court. The record contains a statement of evidence, but it contains no transcript of the proceedings or any exhibits. We are unable to conduct a meaningful review based on the record in this case and affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ethan Alexander Self
The Defendant, Ethan Alexander Self, was found guilty by a Hawkins County Criminal Court jury of first degree premeditated murder. See T.C.A. § 39-13-202 (2014). He was sentenced to life in prison. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress, (2) the State improperly exercised a peremptory challenge to a prospective juror for a race-based reason, (3) the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction, (4) the court erred in denying the Defendant's motions for a mistrial based upon the State's failure to disclose evidence, (5) the court erred in denying his motions for a mistrial based upon the State's eliciting evidence in violation of the court's pretrial evidentiary rulings, (6) the court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial based upon the State's failure to preserve alarm clocks from the victim's bedroom, (7) the court erred in admitting evidence of the Defendant and the victim's good relationship and lack of abuse, (8) the court erred in the procedure by which the jury inspected the gun used in the victim's homicide, (9) prosecutorial misconduct occurred during the State's rebuttal argument, (10) the court erred in failing to instruct the jury on self-defense, (11) cumulative trial error necessitates a new trial, and (12) the trial court improperly sentenced the Defendant. We conclude that there is no reversible error, and we accordingly affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hawkins | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re D.R.S.
This is a termination of parental rights case. The Department of Children’s Services filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of J.R.S. (Mother) and J.R.S.1 (Father) with respect to their child, D.R.S. (the Child). The trial court found clear and convincing evidence of four grounds supporting termination of the rights of each parent. The court also found, by the same standard of evidence, that termination is in the best interest of the Child. Mother and Father appeal. We affirm as modified. |
Loudon | Court of Appeals | |
In Re E.S.L.
This is a termination of parental rights case. M.L. (Mother) and M.O. (Stepfather) filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of L.D.D. (Father) to his child, E.S.L. (the Child). The trial court found clear and convincing evidence of two grounds supporting termination. The court also found, by the same standard of evidence, that termination is in the best interest of the Child. Father appeals. We affirm. |
Washington | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ethan Alexander Self - concurring and dissenting
I dissent from the majority’s conclusion that the trial court did not err in denying the Defendant’s motion for a mistrial after Dr. Brietstein testified that, in his opinion, the shooting was not accidental. As the majority notes, this testimony was elicited by the prosecutor in violation of the court’s earlier ruling which prohibited Dr. Brietstein from testifying to any opinion that the shooting was accidental or intentional. |
Hawkins | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Anthony Robinson
Defendant, Anthony Robinson, filed a motion under Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 alleging that he was incorrectly sentenced as a Range II offender when he should have been sentenced as a Range I offender. The trial court summarily dismissed the motion. After review of the record and the briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Keith Ward
The defendant, Keith Ward, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of rape of a child, a Class A felony, and was sentenced by the trial court as a child rapist to 32.5 years at 100% in the Department of Correction. The sole issue he raises on appeal is whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain his conviction. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James Daniel Vaughn v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, James Daniel Vaughn, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief arguing he received ineffective assistance of counsel. After review, we affirm the denial of the petition. |
Henderson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Douglas Curtis
The defendant, Douglas Curtis, was convicted of four counts of rape of a child, a Class A felony. On appeal, he contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions and that a portion of the victim’s testimony violated his right to a fair trial. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Lewis | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re Lillian D.
This is a termination of parental rights case involving a two-year-old child, Lillian D. (“the Child”). On October 7, 2013, the Knox County Juvenile Court granted temporary legal custody of the Child to the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”). The Child was immediately placed in foster care, where she has remained since that date. DCS subsequently filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of the Child’s biological mother, Penelope D. (“Mother”), in the Knox County Juvenile Court on January 26, 2015.1 Following a bench trial, the trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights to the Child after determining by clear and convincing evidence that Mother was mentally incompetent to care for the Child and that the conditions that led to the removal of the Child from Mother’s custody still persisted. The trial court further found by clear and convincing evidence that terminating Mother’s parental rights was in the best interest of the Child. Mother has appealed. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Arron Wesley Frazier v. Lee Anne Frazier
This is an interlocutory appeal as of right, pursuant to Rule 10B of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Tennessee, from the denial of a motion for recusal filed by Lee Anne Frazier (Wife) in the parties' divorce proceedings. Having reviewed the petition for recusal appeal filed by Wife, as well as the answer in opposition filed by Arron Wesley Frazier (Husband), we conclude that the Trial Court should have granted the motion because the unique circumstances of this case create an appearance of bias on the part of the Trial Court Judge that required his recusal. We therefore reverse the order of the Trial Court and remand the case for reassignment to a different judge. |
Rhea | Court of Appeals |