Adrianne Kiser v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Adrianne Kiser, appeals the post-conviction court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for two counts of attempted voluntary manslaughter and one count of employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. On appeal, he asserts that: (1) the post-conviction court applied an incorrect standard in evaluating trial counsel's performance and the resulting prejudice, and (2) if the post-conviction court applied the correct standard, then the court's interpretation of that standard renders Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-30-106(e) and Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 13 section 5(a)(2) unconstitutional as applied to him. After review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Seddrick Curry
The defendant, Seddrick Curry, pled guilty to two counts of aggravated burglary, a Class C felony; one count of theft of property valued at $10,000 or more but less than $60,000, a Class C felony; and one count of theft of property valued at $1000 or more but less than $10,000, a Class D felony. He was sentenced as a career offender to serve an effective sentence of thirty years at 60%. Subsequently, he filed a motion to withdraw his pleas of guilty, which was denied following a hearing. He appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion to withdraw the pleas. Following our review, we affirm the order of the trial court denying the motion. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
CBS Outdoor, Inc. v. Tennessee Department of Transportation
Owner of back-to-back billboards filed a petition for review challenging the decision of the Tennessee Department of Transportation (“TDOT”) to revoke his billboard permits on the ground that the billboards were not in compliance with the TDOT spacing requirements. We find substantial and material evidence to support the decision of the TDOT Commissioner and, therefore, affirm the chancellor’s decision. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Bobby McEarl v. City of Brownsville
This is a premises liability case. The plaintiff alleges he slipped and fell in a leaf-filled gutter maintained by defendant. Plaintiff filed suit against the defendant, alleging that the defendant failed to properly maintain and warn pedestrians of a dangerous condition. Because the trial court granted defendant summary judgment without making findings of fact or stating the legal basis for its decision before instructing defendant to prepare an order, we vacate the trial court’s order of summary judgment and remand. |
Haywood | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Dennis Haughton Webber
A jury convicted the defendant, Dennis Haughton Webber, of driving with a suspended license, a Class B misdemeanor; disorderly conduct, a Class C misdemeanor; failure to display his registration plates, a Class C misdemeanor; and failure to carry a registration, a Class C misdemeanor. The defendant on appeal challenges the jurisdiction of the trial court. We interpret his other issues to be challenges to the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. We conclude that the trial court had jurisdiction to impose its judgments on the defendant. However, we reverse the defendant’s conviction for disorderly conduct because the evidence was not sufficient to support it as it was charged in the indictment. We affirm the remaining judgments of the trial court. |
Perry | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Frederick L. Moore v. State of Tennessee
Frederick L. Moore (“the Petitioner”) filed his second petition for writ of error coram nobis, presenting “newly discovered evidence” in the form of expert testimony regarding cell phone towers accessed by the Petitioner's cell phone at the time of the offense. The coram nobis court denied relief without a hearing, finding that the Petitioner's claim was time-barred, that the evidence was not newly discovered, and that it was not the type of evidence which might have produced a different result at trial. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the coram nobis court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jeffrey A. Miller v. State of Tennessee
A parking lot attendant injured his neck in the course of his employment with the University of Tennessee. He claimed that he was not able to return to his previous work and filed for total and permanent disability. The Claims Commission found that he was permanently and totally disabled. The University has appealed, contending that the Commission erroneously admitted certain testimony from the employee’s vocational evaluator. It further contends that the evidence preponderates against the finding of permanent total disability. The appeal has been referred 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. After our review, we affirm the judgment. |
Davidson | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Frederick Alexander Avery v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Frederick Alexander Avery, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in finding that he received effective assistance of trial counsel. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jordan Thomas Peters - concurring
Given the clear and apparently controlling case law concerning convictions enhanced pursuant to the Drug Free School Zone Act (the Act), I must reluctantly concur. However, I write separately to set forth my ever increasing concern regarding enhancement of convictions under the Act. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Roy D. Seagraves
Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, Defendant, Roy Seagraves, pleaded guilty to driving under the influence of an intoxicant. He properly reserved a certified question of law for appeal. The question of law is dispositive of the case. Having reviewed the record in this case, we hold that the evidence does not support the trial court’s finding that the police officer had reasonable suspicion to stop Defendant’s vehicle. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and dismiss the charges with prejudice. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
The Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hospital Authority, D/B/A Erlanger Health System
We granted permission to appeal to address whether exhaustion of administrative remedies is required in this lawsuit brought by a hospital against a TennCare managed care organization (MCO). The hospital alleged in its complaint that the MCO had not paid the hospital all of the monies due for emergency services provided to the MCO’s TennCare enrollees. In its answer, the MCO asserted that it had paid the hospital in accordance with TennCare regulations; the MCO also filed a counterclaim regarding overpayments made pursuant to the TennCare regulations. The MCO filed a motion for partial summary judgment. It argued that the hospital’s allegations implicitly challenged the applicability and/or validity of the TennCare regulations, so the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act (UAPA) required the hospital to exhaust its administrative remedies by bringing those issues to TennCare prior to filing suit. Absent exhaustion of administrative remedies, the MCO argued, the trial court was without subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case. The trial court agreed; it dismissed the hospital’s lawsuit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and dismissed the MCO’s counterclaim as well. The Court of Appeals reversed; it concluded that the hospital’s lawsuit was simply a dispute regarding the interpretation of statutes and regulations, over which the trial court had jurisdiction. The MCO appeals. Looking at the substance of the parties’ dispute rather than simply the face of the hospital’s complaint, we hold that the UAPA requires exhaustion of administrative remedies in this matter to the extent that resolution of the parties’ claims would necessarily require the trial court to render a declaratory judgment concerning the validity or applicability of TennCare regulations. While the UAPA prohibits the trial court from rendering such declaratory relief absent exhaustion of administrative remedies, it does not address claims for damages. In this case, both parties have asserted damage claims that hinge on the issues to be addressed in the administrative proceedings. Under these circumstances, we reverse the dismissal of the complaint and the counterclaim and remand the case to the trial court with directions to hold the parties’ damage claims in abeyance pending resolution of administrative proceedings regarding the validity or applicability of the TennCare regulations at issue. |
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Shasta Jackson
Defendant, Shasta Jackson, appeals after being convicted by a Knox County jury of two counts of reckless endangerment, one count of second degree murder, one count of attempted second degree murder, and one count of employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. The trial court sentenced Defendant to an effective sentence of twenty-five years. In this appeal, Defendant challenges: (1) the sufficiency of the evidence; (2) the trial court's refusal to allow an expert witness testify about eyewitness identification; (3) introduction of evidence relating to Defendant's membership in the “Westside 111 Neighborhood Crips”; (4) introduction of pictures from Defendant's Facebook page; (5) the decision by the trial court to strike the testimony of a defense witness after he refused to answer a question on cross-examination; and (6) the length of her sentence. After a review of the record, we determine that Defendant is not entitled to relief. Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Shelby Lesean Harris
The Defendant, Shelby Lesean Harris, was indicted for one count of selling .5 grams or more of cocaine and one count of delivery of .5 grams or more of cocaine. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-417. Following a jury trial, the Defendant was convicted of the lesser-included offenses of facilitation of the sale of .5 grams or more of cocaine and facilitation of the delivery of .5 grams or more of cocaine. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-403. The trial court merged the Defendant’s conviction for facilitation of the delivery of .5 grams or more of cocaine into his conviction for facilitation of the sale of .5 grams or more of cocaine. The trial court then sentenced the Defendant as a Range II, multiple offender to eight years and six months. On appeal, the Defendant contends (1) that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress the in-court identification of the Defendant by two confidential informants; and (2) that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ray Neil Thompson v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Ray Neil Thompson, appeals from the denial of post-conviction relief by the Criminal Court for Davidson County. He was convicted by a jury of one count of aggravated robbery and later entered a guilty plea to two counts of aggravated robbery and one count of evading arrest. For these offenses, he received an effective sentence of fifty years at 100 percent in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Edward Thomas Kendrick III v. State of Tennessee
This case presents an appeal to this court after remand by order of the Tennessee Supreme Court. The Petitioner, Edward Thomas Kendrick III,1 was convicted by a jury of the first degree premeditated murder of his wife. Subsequently, the Petitioner filed for post-conviction relief, raising, inter alia, numerous claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief, and the Petitioner appealed. On appeal, a panel of this court granted the Petitioner post-conviction relief, concluding that he had established that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel at trial due to (1) trial counsel‘s failure to offer expert proof about the trigger mechanism in the rifle, which was known to cause accidental shootings; and (2) trial counsel‘s failure to seek to admit, as excited utterances, out-of-court statements by a crime-scene investigator made to his fellow officers after he shot himself in the foot with the Petitioner‘s rifle. Our supreme court disagreed, reversing our conclusion that the Petitioner received ineffective assistance from his trial counsel with regard to these two issues. The case has now been remanded to us for consideration of the issues that were pretermitted by this court after finding the two issues to be meritorious. Those pretermitted issues are as follows: (1) whether trial counsel erred by waiving the Petitioner‘s attorney-client privilege with his divorce attorney and, in so doing, allowed the State to insinuate adultery as a motive for the shooting; (2) whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call the Petitioner‘s cousin, Randall Leftwich, to testify about the Petitioner‘s activities on the day of the shooting and about his discovery of cabbage simmering on the Petitioner‘s stove immediately following the shooting; (3) whether trial counsel was ineffective when he ―opened the door‖ on direct examination of the Petitioner for the State to inquire about additional misdemeanor convictions on cross-examination that had not been previously admissible; (4) whether trial counsel and appellate counsel were ineffective for failing to adequately challenge Lennell Shepheard‘s testimony that the Petitioner stood over the victim‘s body and said "I told you so" six times; (5) whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call Officer William Lapoint to testify about the Petitioner‘s "very distraught" demeanor at the airport just after the shooting; (6) whether trial counsel and appellate counsel were ineffective when they did not object or raise on appeal the issue of Detective Mark Rawlston‘s volunteered testimony that the Petitioner never told him that the gun accidentally discharged when interviewed in the back of a patrol car at the airport; (7) whether trial counsel‘s failure to seek curative measures for a security officer‘s, Ms. Martha Maston, surprise testimony about the Petitioner‘s daughter‘s statement at the airport was ineffective; and (8) whether the cumulative impact of counsels‘ errors entitle him to relief. After consideration of these remaining issues, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court denying post-conviction relief. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jordan Thomas Peters
Defendant, Jordan Thomas Peters, was convicted of one count of delivery of psilocin, a Schedule I controlled substance, and one count of delivery of psilocin within 1000 feet of a school. Defendant received a total effective sentence of fifteen years to serve at 100%. On appeal, Defendant raises the following issues: (1) whether a retrial for delivery of a controlled substance violated the constitutional protection against double jeopardy after Defendant was originally acquitted of sale of a controlled substance; (2) whether the trial court erred in denying his motion to compel discovery of the case names and files of other cases in which the confidential informant had been involved; (3) whether the trial court erred by giving acquittal-first jury instructions, precluding the jury from considering the inference of casual exchange; (4) whether the trial court erred in not giving a specific instruction with regard to the defense of entrapment by luring into a school zone; (5) whether the evidence was sufficient to support his convictions; and (6) whether his sentence was grossly disproportionate to the crime committed and therefore unconstitutional. Upon our thorough review of the arguments, record, and authorities, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Charlotte D. Culpepper v. Brandon K. Culpepper
This appeal arises from an action for divorce wherein the trial court ordered the parties’ marital debt to be divided in a nearly equal fashion. The trial court awarded child support to the wife, who was designated primary residential parent and who received a greater share of co-parenting time with the children. The court also awarded child support retroactive to the date of the filing of the divorce complaint. In addition, the court allocated both federal tax exemptions for the children to the wife. The husband has appealed. We affirm the trial court’s judgment with a slight modification in the amount of the child support arrearage award. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
SNS Electrical Inspections, P.C., et al v. State of Tennessee
This is an appeal from the Tennessee Claims Commission involving a contract dispute. The Claims Commissioner concluded that the Appellants were not entitled to damages other than for services rendered because their services contract with the State was terminated for cause. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Court of Appeals | ||
Cheryl Erma Green v. YMCA of Memphis and the Mid-South
Appellant appeals the trial court‘s order enforcing a settlement agreement, arguing that the agreement was the product of coercion on the part of her attorney. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v.Curtis Scott Harper
A Knox County jury found Curtis Scott Harper (“the Defendant”) guilty of three counts of vehicular homicide by intoxication, three counts of vehicular homicide by creating a substantial risk of death and serious bodily injury, one count of reckless endangerment, one count of tampering with evidence, one count of leaving the scene of an accident, one count of driving under the influence, and, in a subsequent deliberation, one count of driving under the influence (second offense). The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective thirty years' incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant claims that: (1) the introduction of fifty crime scene and autopsy photographs, many of which were gruesome, graphic, or horrifying, deprived the Defendant of a fair trial by inflaming the passions of the jury; (2) the State presented false expert testimony concerning the speed of the Defendant's vehicle, thereby depriving the Defendant of due process; (3) the State violated Rule 16 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure and Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), by failing to provide to the Defendant a copy of the article the forensic pathologist relied upon during his testimony; (4) the prosecutor engaged in improper argument, including personal attacks on defense counsel, that violated the Defendant's right to a fair trial; (5) the trial court erred in imposing partial consecutive sentences; and (6) the cumulative effect of the error requires a new trial. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting numerous graphic and gruesome crime scene and autopsy photographs, the prejudicial effect of which far outweighed their probative value, and such error was not harmless. We, therefore, reverse the judgments of the criminal court and remand the case for a new trial. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Curtis Scott Harper - concurring
I believe that the majority opinion provided an excellent discussion of the photographs and subsequent legal analysis of their admissibility; I write separately only to amplify the gruesome and appalling nature of the photographs. “Surely, there is a line between admitting a photograph which is of some help to the jury in solving the facts of the case and one which is of no value other than to inflame the minds of the jurors. That line was crossed in this case.” People v. Burns, 241 P.2d 308, 319 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1952). The photographs in this case were, without a doubt, the most grotesque, horrifying, and unnecessary photographs that I have viewed in 17 years on this court. These photographs served no purpose other than “to arouse passion and shock at the sight of a gory event.” Clark v. Com., 833 S.W.2d 793, 794-95 (Ky. 1991). As the majority opinion correctly concludes, the State was more than able to present a compelling case for conviction without the addition of the grisly autopsy and crime scene photographs. The photographs were overwhelmingly prejudicial to the defendant, and the gruesome nature and sheer volume of the photographs comes close to indicating a lack of respect for the victims themselves. A combination of overzealous prosecuting and weak gatekeeping by the trial court can result in an unfair trial for a defendant. That is precisely what happened in this case. The trial court repeatedly expressed apprehension about the admission of the photographs. The trial court should have stood firm in its concerns and warnings and prevented the prosecutor’s overzealous prosecution of the defendant. The failure to do so requires a remand and a new trial in this case. I am authorized by Judge Norma McGee Ogle to say she also joins in this concurring opinion. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Cody Wade By His Co-Conservators, et al v. Tennessee Department of Finance And Administration, et al.
Appellant TennCare enrollee has been receiving 24/7 care from a private duty nurse in the home of his grandparents in Martin, Tennessee. TennCare determined that he could receive adequate care for less cost in a special respiratory care unit in St. Francis Hospital in Memphis. Enrollee, through his grandparents as his co-conservators, filed an administrative appeal. The administrative law judge agreed with TennCare. Appellants appealed that decision to chancery court, which reversed the administrative law judge’s decision as being arbitrary and capricious. TennCare appealed. We reverse the decision of the chancery court and affirm the administrative law judge’s opinion. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Cynthia Rhea Helton v. Gregory Herbert Helton
This post-divorce appeal concerns the trial court's denial of the husband's motion to terminate his spousal support obligation and to add his current wife as a beneficiary to his life insurance policy. We affirm the court's denial of the termination of the support obligation but reverse the court's denial of the request to amend the life insurance policy. |
Anderson | Court of Appeals | |
Richard Anthony v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Richard Anthony, filed a post-conviction petition, seeking relief from his 1990 convictions for aggravated robbery and conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery, and resulting concurrent sentences of twelve years and six years, respectively. As we understand, the petitioner claims that, although he has had no contact with trial counsel in the last twenty-five years, he was unaware that counsel was not pursuing a second-tier appeal of the convictions. As relief, he asks that his convictions be vacated or, in the alternative, that he have counsel appointed to pursue a second-tier direct appeal of his convictions. The post-conviction court determined both that his petition was untimely and without merit, even if considered as a motion to reopen a similar 1997 petition. Following our review, we affirm the order of the post-conviction court. |
Bradley | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James Smith v. Doug Cook, Warden
The petitioner, James Smith, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus, which challenged his 2000 conviction of first degree murder, claiming that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the indictment was void. Discerning no error, we affirm the order of summary dismissal. |
Bledsoe | Court of Criminal Appeals |