State of Tennessee v. Joseph Richard Fredrickson
The defendant, Joseph Richard Fredrickson, was convicted of one count of the sale of marijuana, a Class E felony, one count of delivery of marijuana, a Class E felony, and one count of conspiracy to sell or deliver marijuana, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court merged felony convictions and sentenced the defendant as a Range II offender to four years; the defendant received a sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days for the misdemeanor conviction. The trial court ordered the defendant to serve his sentences concurrently for an effective sentence of four years. On appeal, the defendant argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his felony convictions, that the trial court erred in denying his motion for independent scientific testing of the marijuana, and that the trial court erred in imposing four-year sentences for his felony convictions. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Dallas K. Hurley, Jr. v. Ryan B. Pickens, M.D., et al
Dallas K. Hurley, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) sued Ryan B. Pickens, M.D. and University Urology, P.C. (“Defendants”) alleging claims for health care liability. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. While the motion to dismiss was pending, Plaintiff filed a notice of and motion for voluntary dismissal pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 41. The Circuit Court for Knox County (“the Trial Court”) granted Plaintiff a voluntary dismissal without prejudice. Defendants appeal to this Court raising issues regarding whether Plaintiff had the right to take a voluntary dismissal without prejudice when a motion to dismiss was pending and whether Plaintiff failed to comply with Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-122 requiring dismissal of Plaintiff’s suit with prejudice. We find and hold that Plaintiff had the right to take a voluntary dismissal even while a motion to dismiss was pending. Our resolution of this issue renders Defendants’ second issue moot. We, therefore, affirm the Trial Court’s order granting Plaintiff a voluntary dismissal. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Terry Arnold v. Courtyard Management Corporation
Terry Arnold (“Employee”) filed suit against Courtyard Management Corporation (“Employer”), alleging that she sustained a compensable injury to her neck on August 18, 2012. Employer provided medical and temporary partial disability benefits for a period of time. The last payment for medical treatment was issued on April 29, 2013. Employee requested additional medical treatment on May 5, 2014. Employer denied the claim based on the one-year statute of limitations. Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-203(b) , (c). Employee filed a request for assistance with the Department of Labor (“Department”) on May 7, 2014, and a request for benefit review conference (“BRC”) on May 13, 2014. The Department issued a “Benefit Review Report” on May 30, 2014. This action was filed on November 19, 2014. Employer filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that the claim was barred by the applicable statutes of limitation. The trial court denied Employer’s motion but granted Employer’s subsequent request for an interlocutory appeal. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted Employers’ application and referred the appeal to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51. We reverse the judgment. |
Shelby | Workers Compensation Panel | |
William S. Nickels, et al v. Metropolitan Government Of Nashville And Davidson County
Two dentists filed this action against the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County (“Metro”) under the Governmental Tort Liability Act to recover damages caused by the allegedly dangerous condition of the sewer and stormwater system behind their office. The trial court dismissed all of the plaintiffs’ claims. We have concluded that the trial court erred in several respects. The trial court erred in concluding that the combined line did not present a dangerous condition pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-29-204(a), and in applying Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-20-205(a)(1) to the dentists’ claims. Moreover, the trial court erred in concluding that Metro did not have a duty to repair a known dangerous condition in the combined line. We further find that the trial court erred in concluding that the dentists were not at fault in constructing the addition to their office. We agree with the trial court that some of the plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the statute of limitations and the Act of God defense. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Travis Brooks
The petitioner, Travis Brooks, appeals the dismissal of his motion to correct an illegal sentence. He argues that he is entitled to relief because the trial court failed to award him appropriate pretrial jail credits. Following our review, we conclude that the petitioner has not stated a colorable claim for relief, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kevin Ladell Grandberry
The defendant, Kevin Ladell Grandberry, was indicted for first-degree premeditated murder, murder in the perpetration of a felony, especially aggravated robbery, attempted first degree murder, employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, felon in possession of a weapon, and theft between $1000 and $10,000. Following trial, a jury found the defendant guilty of murder in the perpetration of a felony, especially aggravated robbery, aggravated assault, felon in possession of a weapon, and theft between $1000 and $10,000. The trial court sentenced the defendant to an effective sentence of life without the possibility of parole plus 27 years in confinement. On appeal, the defendant argues the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. After review, we affirm the defendant's convictions, but remand to the trial court for entry of amended judgments reflecting, per the sentencing hearing transcripts, that the sentences in Counts 2 and 3 are to be served concurrently. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Marcus Thurman Wade
A jury in the Coffee County Circuit Court found the Appellant, Marcus Thurman Wade, guilty of the first degree premeditated murders of Richard Elliott and Timothy Gill, the felony murders in the perpetration of aggravated robbery of Mr. Elliott and Mr. Gill, and the especially aggravated robbery of Mr. Elliott. The trial court merged the premeditated murder convictions and the felony murder convictions and imposed a total effective sentence of life without the possibility of parole plus thirty-five years. On appeal, the Appellant challenges (1) the sufficiency of the evidence sustaining his convictions, (2) the trial court’s decision to allow testimony regarding a prior bad act of the Appellant, (3) the trial court’s refusal to give the pattern jury instruction on circumstantial evidence that was in place at the time of the offenses, and (4) the trial court’s ruling on the Appellant’s motion to suppress his statement. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Coffee | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Dwight Douglas et al v. Charlotte Cornwell
At issue is whether an easement for ingress and egress exists. Plaintiffs commenced this action to enjoin the adjacent property owner from using Plaintiffs’ driveway for ingress and egress. Defendant filed a counterclaim asserting that she had an easement by implication; alternatively, she claimed Plaintiffs purchased the property subject to an easement because the easement was apparent upon inspection. The dispositive issue concerning the alleged easement by implication is whether the easement is essential to Defendant’s beneficial enjoyment of her property. The trial court found that Defendant failed to establish that she would incur an unreasonable expenditure to create another means of ingress and egress to her property; therefore, the easement was not a necessity. The court also found that the claimed easement was not apparent upon inspection. Accordingly, the court enjoined Defendant from using the driveway for ingress and egress. We affirm. |
Washington | Court of Appeals | |
Tom Seaton v. Mona Johnson
The appellee brought a detainer warrant against the appellant. The general sessions court granted the warrant and the appellant appealed to the circuit court, but did not post the required bond. The circuit court dismissed the case and the appellant appealed. We find that appellant’s brief does not meet the argument and citation requirements of Tenn. R. App. P. 27(a)(7) and, therefore, consider appellant’s issues waived. The circuit court’s decision is affirmed. |
Washington | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joseph A. Colwell, Sr.
Defendant, Joseph A. Colwell, Sr., appeals after being convicted by a jury of two counts of rape and two counts of incest and receiving an effective sentence of twenty years. Upon our review, we determine that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Defendant to a twenty-year sentence. Consequently, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In re Dustin L. et al.
This is a termination of parental rights case focusing on the six minor children of Tonya F. (“Mother”) and Joshua F. (“Father”). On February 9, 2015, the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of Mother and Father. DCS alleged as a basis for termination the statutory grounds of (1) failure to provide a suitable home, (2) substantial noncompliance with the permanency plans, and (3) persistence of the conditions leading to removal of the children. Following a bench trial, the trial court granted the petition upon its determination by clear and convincing evidence that DCS had proven all three statutory grounds alleged. The court further determined by clear and convincing evidence that termination of Mother’s and Father’s parental rights was in the children’s best interest. Mother and Father have appealed. Inasmuch as DCS has conceded that the elements of abandonment through failure to provide a suitable home were not proven as to either party, we reverse this statutory ground. We affirm the trial court’s judgment in all other respects, including the termination of Mother’s and Father’s parental rights to the children. |
Anderson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jermaine Carpenter
The defendant, Jermaine Carpenter, appeals the summary dismissal of his motion, filed pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1, to correct what he believes to be an illegal sentence imposed for his 2004 Sullivan County Criminal Court jury convictions. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Philemon Alexander
The Defendant, Philemon Alexander, was convicted of one count of theft of property valued at $1,000 or more but less than $10,000. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-103. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction, arguing that there was no proof of his possession of the stolen vehicle. Following our review, the judgment is affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Leonardo D. Williams
The defendant, Leonardo D. Williams, appeals the dismissal of his Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 motion for correction of an illegal sentence, arguing that he illegally received concurrent sentences when he should have received consecutive ones. We affirm the summary dismissal of the motion pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Robert Clark v. John Werther, et al.
The plaintiff, acting pro se, filed a complaint in this health care liability action without attaching a certificate of good faith. Several defendants filed motions to dismiss based on the missing certificate. The plaintiff responded to the motions and filed a notice of voluntary nonsuit. Some of the defendants objected to the voluntary dismissal, arguing the complaint should be dismissed with prejudice. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims against the non-objecting defendants without prejudice but dismissed the plaintiff’s claims against the objecting defendants with prejudice. The plaintiff appealed all of the court’s dismissal orders on numerous grounds. Upon review, we conclude that Rule 41.01 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure afforded the plaintiff the right to a voluntary dismissal without prejudice as to all defendants. Accordingly, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
David H. McCord v. HCA Health Services of Tennessee, Inc.
Surgeon brought suit against a hospital alleging multiple causes of action, two of which were dismissed upon the hospital’s motion for dismissal for failure to state a claim for relief. Pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-12-119(c), the hospital filed a motion seeking recovery of costs and attorneys’ fees related to the dismissal of the two claims; the trial court granted the motion. Plaintiff appeals. We find no error in the award and, accordingly, affirm the judgment. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael D. Hernandez - concurring and dissenting
I agree with the majority's conclusion upholding the Defendant's conviction for rape of a child and his twenty-five-year sentence. Moreover, while I agree with the majority's conclusion that Ms. Powell's notes do not qualify as a “statement” of the victim pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 26.2, I write separately to address the issue of whether Ms. Powell's notes qualify as a “statement” of Ms. Powell as the testifying witness pursuant to Rule 26.2. |
Anderson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Johnny Malcolm Vinson
The defendant, Johnny Malcolm Vinson, was convicted of aggravated assault in violation of an active order of protection pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-102(c). On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction arguing that conflicting testimony exists regarding his use of a deadly weapon and that the State failed to prove he acted with intent. After our review, we conclude that the defendant’s arguments are without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Demotto Linsey
The defendant, Christopher Demotto Linsey, was indicted for tampering with evidence, possession of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver, simple possession of marijuana, possession of heroin, and simple possession of alprazolam. After trial, a jury found the defendant guilty of felony tampering with evidence and misdemeanor simple possession of marijuana, for which he received an effective twelve-year sentence. On appeal, the defendant argues the evidence was insufficient to support the trial court’s decision to deny his request for a renunciation jury instruction with respect to the tampering with evidence charge. The State concedes the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support the defendant’s tampering with evidence conviction and asserts the jury instruction question has been pretermitted. Upon review, we agree with the State. We affirm the defendant’s conviction for simple possession of marijuana and reverse and vacate the defendant’s conviction for tampering with evidence. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Walter Morgan
The Defendant, James Walter Morgan, was found guilty by a Hamblen County Criminal Court jury of theft of property valued at $500 or less, a Class A misdemeanor. See T.C.A. § 39-14-103 (2014). The trial court sentenced the Defendant to eleven months, twenty-nine days of supervised probation. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his request for judicial diversion. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hamblen | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Joseph H. Johnston v. Tennessee State Election Commission, et al.
This appeal requires us to consider whether the plaintiff can bring a declaratory judgment action against the Tennessee State Election Commission in chancery court. We have reviewed the relevant authorities and have determined the plaintiff is not entitled to a declaratory judgment under the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act or the Declaratory Judgment Act. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael D. Hernandez
An Anderson County Circuit Court Jury convicted the appellant, Michael D. Hernandez, of one count of rape of a child, and he received a twenty-five-year sentence to be served at 100%. On appeal, the appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction; that the trial court erred by refusing to give him access to the victim's statement in an investigator's notes; that the trial court erred by failing to conduct an in camera review of the notes for exculpatory material; that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence found in his home; that the trial court erred by defining “on or about” for the jury; that the trial court erred by giving sequential jury instructions; and that cumulative error warrants a new trial. Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Anderson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Penny Arvidson Richards v. Neil Kingsland Richards
In this divorce action, Penny Arvidson Richards (Wife) argues that the trial court’s judgment granting her a divorce and incorporating the parties’ marital dissolution agreement (MDA) should be set aside. Among other things, Wife alleges that she signed the MDA under duress and/or while she lacked the requisite mental capacity to do so. The trial court ruled that Wife failed to prove her defenses to the enforcement of the MDA. Wife appeals. We affirm. |
Sullivan | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Guy B. Bernal
A Maury County jury found the Defendant, Guy B. Bernal, guilty of rape. The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I offender to twelve years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that: (1) his right against self-incrimination was violated when the trial court did not conduct a proper Momon hearing; (2) the convicting evidence is insufficient; and (3) his twelve-year sentence is excessive. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Oscar C. Wells
The defendant, Oscar C. Wells, appeals the summary dismissal of his motion, filed pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1, to correct what he believes to be an illegal sentence imposed for his 2002 Shelby County Criminal Court jury conviction of first degree murder. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals |