State of Tennessee v. Rhonda Sowell
The defendant, Rhonda Sowell, pled guilty in the Circuit Court for Madison County to driving under the influence (“DUI”) (Count 1), driving under the influence with a with a blood alcohol concentration of .08% or more (“DUI per se”) (Count 2), second offense DUI (Count 3), and violation of the light law pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-9-402 (Count 4). Prior to pleading guilty, the defendant filed two suppression motions challenging the basis for the initial stop and the evidence collected subsequent to the stop. After the trial court denied both motions, the defendant pled guilty to all charges reserving two certified questions of law concerning the constitutionality of the traffic stop and the evidence obtained as a result. Upon review of the record, we hold that the traffic stop of the defendant was constitutional, supported by both reasonable suspicion and probable cause. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's denial of the defendant's suppression motions. However, we remand the case to the trial court for entry of separate judgment forms for each conviction, including those that were merged, in light of our Supreme Court's order in State v. Marquize Berry, No. W2014-00785-SC-R11-CD, slip op. at 5 (Tenn. Nov. 16, 2015) (order granting Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application for appeal). |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Stephny Denise Young, et al. v. Richard Jordan, MD, et al.
This is a healthcare liability case. Appellees, patient and her husband, filed suit against Appellants, physician and employer. Appellants raised the affirmative defense of comparative fault based on the fact that Appellee/patient had been non-compliant with medical advice. Appellees moved for partial summary judgment on the affirmative defense of comparative fault. The trial court granted the motion, and Appellants appeal. Because expert testimony adduced during discovery creates a dispute of material fact as to the question of Appellees’ non-compliance with medical advice and the effect of such non-compliance on Appellees’ injury, the grant of summary judgment was error. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ericka Alicia Smith
Defendant, Ericka Alicia Smith, received a twelve-year sentence to be served on Community Corrections after pleading guilty to attempted aggravated child neglect. After holding a hearing, the trial court determined that Defendant violated the conditions of her alternative sentence and ordered her to serve the remainder of her sentence in confinement. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to impose another alternative sentence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John Armstrong
The petitioner, John Armstrong, appeals the denial of his Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 motion to correct an illegal sentence. He contends that his effective eighteen-year sentence for attempted first degree murder and unlawful possession of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony is illegal because the use or employment of a firearm was an essential element of his conviction for attempted first degree murder. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Unjolee Tremone Moore
A jury convicted the defendant, Unjolee Tremone Moore, of first degree felony murder; attempted especially aggravated robbery, a Class B felony; attempted second degree murder, a Class B felony; and the employment of a firearm during the commission of or attempt to commit a dangerous offense, a Class C felony. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, the trial court's refusal to dismiss based on the failure of police to collect a co-defendant's telephone, and the trial court's decision to admit the defendant's statement to police into evidence. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the defendant is not entitled to relief, and we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Lisa E. Burris v. James Morton Burris
Appellant appeals from the denial of her motion to alter or amend the trial court’s judgment finding her guilty of thirty-seven counts of criminal contempt and sentencing her to 403 days incarceration. We affirm the trial court’s denial of Appellant’s post-trial motion on the ground that the trial court erred in finding her non-payment of child support willful. We also affirm the denial of Appellant’s post-trial motion based upon evidence that Appellant obtained a loan to pay her support obligation after the contempt hearing. We vacate the trial court’s denial of Appellant’s post-trial motion, however, on the ground that trial court failed to consider whether Appellant’s sentence was excessive. We therefore remand to the trial court to make appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law to support its ruling and to consider whether Appellant’s sentence is excessive. Affirmed in part; vacated in part and remanded. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Hitachi Capital America Corp v. Community Trust & Banking Company, et al.
This is a declaratory judgment action in which the intervening plaintiff sought to establish priority lien status over the original plaintiff as well as a Rule 19 defendant. We affirm the decision of the Chancery Court. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ricky Lee Webb
The petitioner, Ricky Lee Webb, appeals from the Gibson County Circuit Court's summary dismissal of his petition for writ of certiorari in which he sought relief from his 1983 jury convictions of first degree murder and rape on the basis of alleged erroneous evidentiary rulings. Because no appeal as of right lies from the trial court's ruling in this case, the appeal is dismissed. |
Gibson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kris Theotis Young
The Defendant, Kris Theotis Young, was convicted by a Knox County Criminal Court jury of especially aggravated kidnapping, a Class A felony; aggravated robbery, a Class B felony; and aggravated burglary, a Class C felony. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-305 (2014) (especially aggravated kidnapping), 39-13-402 (2014) (aggravated robbery), 39-14-403 (2014) (aggravated burglary). In a previous appeal, the supreme court affirmed the aggravated robbery conviction but remanded the case for sentencing on the especially aggravated kidnapping and aggravated burglary convictions that the trial court had dismissed. Thereafter, the trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I, standard offender to twenty-two years' confinement for especially aggravated kidnapping and six years' confinement for aggravated burglary, to be served concurrently with each other and with the twelve-year sentence imposed previously for the aggravated robbery conviction. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred in sentencing him to twenty-two years for especially aggravated kidnapping. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Scott B. Peatross, as Administrator Ad Litem of the Estate of Dora Birk v. Graceland Nursing Center, LLC, et al.
This is a health care liability action. The plaintiff filed suit against the defendants concerning the inadequate care and treatment received by the decedent. He then amended his complaint to add the defendant hospital as a party after the defendants alleged comparative fault. The defendant hospital moved to dismiss, arguing that the failure to attach a certificate of good faith applicable to it required dismissal. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss, citing this court’s opinion in Sirbaugh v. Vanderbilt University, 469 S.W.3d 46 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2014). The plaintiff appeals. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Trevor Travis v. Cookeville Regional Medical Center, et al.
In this health care liability case, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to comply with Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121, part of Tennessee’s Health Care Liability Act. Specifically, the defendants argue that the plaintiff failed to provide a statement in the pleadings that he complied with Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121(a), failed to file, with the complaint, documentation demonstrating compliance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121(a), failed to file, with the complaint, an affidavit of the person who mailed pre-suit notice to the defendants, and failed to provide a HIPAA compliant medical authorization form. The trial court dismissed the case. We have reviewed the record and find that the plaintiff failed to substantially comply with Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121(b). We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Putnam | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Xavier Tull-Morales
The Davidson County Grand Jury returned an indictment against the Defendant-Appellant, Xavier Tull-Morales, and his two codefendants, Alberto Conde-Valentino and Rodney Earl Jones, charging them with one count of first degree felony murder and one count of especially aggravated robbery. Conde-Valentino filed a motion to sever the defendants’ cases, which Tull-Morales joined, and the trial court denied the motion. Following a jury trial, Tull-Morales, along with his codefendants, were found guilty of the charged offenses of felony murder and especially aggravated robbery, and he received concurrent sentences of life imprisonment and fifteen years, respectively. On appeal, Tull-Morales argues: (1) the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to sever his case from that of his codefendants; (2) the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that accomplice testimony and/or co-conspirator testimony must be corroborated; and (3) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Timothy W. Sparrow v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Timothy W. Sparrow, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, which petition challenged his 2011 Williamson County Circuit Court jury convictions of second degree murder, attempted first degree murder, and attempted aggravated robbery. In this appeal, he claims that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel at trial. Discerning no error, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Robert L. Lyle
The defendant, Robert L. Lyle, appeals the revocation of his community corrections sentence, claiming that the trial court erred by ordering that he serve a portion of his total effective sentence in confinement. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Cannon | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Donald Peden
This case arises from the attempted murder of Latoya Pipkins in September of 2012. For this offense, the Defendant-Appellant, Donald Peden, was indicted by the Davidson County Grand Jury for attempted first degree murder in count one, especially aggravated robbery in count two, and theft of property valued at more than five hundred dollars, but less than one thousand dollars, in count three. Prior to trial, Peden filed a motion in limine to exclude evidence recovered from a vehicle that he and the victim jointly owned. He also asked the court to exclude photographs of his hands as well as clothing that was taken by investigating officers while he was incarcerated. Following a trial, the State withdrew count three, and the jury convicted Peden of attempted first degree murder in count one and the lesser-included offense of theft of property in count two. The trial court sentenced Peden to eleven months and twenty nine days’ incarceration on count two, and after a separate sentencing hearing, sentenced Peden as a Range III career offender to sixty years’ incarceration on count one. On appeal, Peden argues that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his attempted first degree murder conviction; (2) the trial court erred in denying his motions to suppress evidence seized in violation of his Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment rights; and (3) improperly sentenced him as a Range III, career offender. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Timothy John McKnight, Jr.
Defendant, Timothy John McKnight, Jr., appeals from his conviction of aggravated robbery, arguing that the evidence is insufficient and that the trial court abused its discretion by improperly limiting cross-examination of two witnesses. After carefully reviewing the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Robert Andrew Hawkins
The Defendant, Robert Andrew Hawkins, was convicted by a Claiborne County jury of aggravated kidnapping and two counts of aggravated assault. For these offenses, he received an effective sentence of sixteen years' in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion for a mistrial and abused its discretion by imposing consecutive sentences. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Claiborne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re: Samuel D., et al.
This appeal arises from a finding of dependency and neglect. Ashley D. (“Mother”) and Matthew M. (“Father”) are the parents of Samuel D. and Uriah D. The Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) sought a finding of dependency and neglect regarding Samuel and Uriah stemming from the alleged sexual abuse by Father of their older half-siblings, Gage and Gracie, with Mother’s knowledge. The Circuit Court for Knox County, Fourth Circuit (“the Trial Court”) adjudicated Samuel and Uriah dependent and neglected. Mother and Father appeal. DCS concedes one of Father’s issues, which we reverse. Otherwise, we affirm the judgment of the Trial Court finding Samuel and Uriah dependent and neglected. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Shenekia M. Parks
The defendant, Shenekia M. Parks, was sentenced by the trial court to ten years in the Tennessee Department of Correction after pleading guilty to attempted aggravated child neglect. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court improperly enhanced her sentence for attempted aggravated child neglect, a Class B felony, from the minimum of eight years to ten years. The defendant argues the trial court failed to properly apply the applicable enhancement and mitigating factors to her sentence. The defendant also contends that the trial court erroneously denied her request for alternative sentencing. Following our review of the briefs, the record, and the applicable law, we affirm the defendant’s ten-year sentence. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re Mickia J.
This is a termination of parental rights case. Appellant/Father appeals the termination of his parental rights on the sole ground of persistence of the conditions that led to the child’s removal. Tenn. Code Ann. §36-1-113(g)(3). As a threshold requirement, in order for the persistence of conditions ground to apply in termination of parental rights proceedings, there must be a prior order adjudicating the child to be dependent and neglected. No such order is included in the appellate record. Furthermore, it is undisputed that Appellant was incarcerated at the time the child was removed from the home. Removal of the child from the parent’s home is a threshold requirement for applicability of the persistence of conditions ground. Because there is no order on dependency and neglect and because the child was not removed from Appellant’s custody or home, we conclude that the threshold requirements for applicability of the persistence of conditions ground are not met in this case. Reversed and remanded. |
Anderson | Court of Appeals | |
Jeff Lowe v. John Smith, et al.
Plaintiff seller filed suit against defendant buyers after buyers stopped paying interest on a line of credit under the terms of a contract for the sale of a convenience store. The trial court concluded that both sides breached the contract. As a result, the trial court ordered that buyers were required to pay the seller the contracted amount, less $16,000.00 resulting from buyer’s breach. Buyers appealed. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Coffee | Court of Appeals | |
Antwan M. Cartwright v. State of Tennessee
Antwan M. Cartwright (“the Petitioner”) appeals from the post-conviction court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The Petitioner contends that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel based upon trial counsel’s failure to timely deliver discovery to the Petitioner and because the Petitioner only met with trial counsel four times during counsel’s two-year representation. The Petitioner further argues that, but for trial counsel’s inadequate performance, he would not have accepted the State’s plea offer to serve a twenty-five year sentence at 100%. After a thorough review of the appellate record and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Sharper Impressions Painting Co., et al v. Dan Yoder
This interlocutory appeal involves the failure of an Ohio corporation to obtain authorization to transact business in Tennessee prior to filing suit. The Ohio corporation filed this action against a former employee, seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and misappropriation of trade secrets. The former employee moved for partial summary judgment on the ground that the Ohio corporation had not obtained a certificate of authority from the Tennessee Secretary of State, as required by law, and thus was barred from maintaining an action in Tennessee court. The trial court granted the motion but allowed the Ohio corporation thirty days to obtain the certificate. After obtaining the certificate, the Ohio corporation filed a motion to reinstate its claims against the former employee. The trial court denied the motion, ruling that the certificate of authority only allowed the Ohio corporation to maintain an action on claims that arose after the date the certificate of authority was issued. We granted the Ohio corporation’s application for an interlocutory appeal. We conclude, based on the plain language of Tennessee Code Annotated § 48-25-102, that a foreign corporation who has filed an action in a Tennessee court without a certificate of authority may obtain a certificate during the pendency of the case and then prosecute the action. Therefore, we reverse the decision of the trial court and remand for further proceedings. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Stratford Hall Home Owners' Association v. Roger G. Haley
Homeowners’ association brought suit against homeowner who refused to paint his home as requested. After a bench trial, the court determined that the board of the homeowners’ association had properly exercised its discretion and ordered homeowner to paint his house. Homeowner appeals, contending that the appearance of his home was consistent with the appearance of homes and the common areas of the subdivision. Upon our de novo review, we have determined that the board had authority under the bylaws governing the association and the subdivision’s covenants to require the homeowner to paint his home, and that the board’s action was appropriate. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Willie Andrew Cole v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Willie Andrew Cole, appeals pro se from the post-conviction court’s summary dismissal of his post-conviction petition for DNA analysis. Petitioner contends that the trial court erred by denying his request for DNA testing pursuant to the Post-Conviction DNA Analysis Act. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals |