State of Tennessee v. Robert Lee Vandergriff, Jr.
The defendant, Robert Lee Vandergriff, Jr., was convicted of driving while intoxicated, a Class A misdemeanor, by a Union County jury. He was sentenced to a term of eleven months and twenty-nine days, all of which was suspended but for eight days service in the county jail. On appeal, the defendant’s single contention of error is that the trial court erred by failing to grant his motion to suppress. Specifically, he asserts this decision was error because he was seized without reasonable suspicion. Following review of the record, we affirm the denial of the motion to suppress. |
Union | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Brenda W. Sneyd v. Washington County, Tennessee
Plaintiff, Clerk and Master of Chancery Court, brought this action for an increase in compensation based on Tenn. Code. Ann. §8-24-102(j), which authorizes the County to increase the compensation for a clerk if the clerk is the clerk of two courts. Defendant County gave the Circuit Court Clerk a 10% increase in compensation pursuant to the statute, but denied the Clerk and Master a 10% increase in her compensation under the statute. The Trial Court held that the County did not abuse its discretion in denying the Clerk and Master the statutory increase in compensation. On appeal, we affirm. |
Washington | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Alvin Young
A Sullivan County jury convicted the Defendant, Michael Alvin Young, of aggravated kidnapping and domestic assault. The trial court merged the two convictions and sentenced the Defendant to eight years and six months in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant contended that the evidence was insufficient to support his aggravated kidnapping conviction and that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, this Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment. See State v. Michael AlvinYoung, No. E2010-00849-CCA-R3-CD, 2011 WL 5517281 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxville, Nov. 9, 2011). The Defendant filed a Rule 11 application, pursuant to the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, to the Tennessee Supreme Court. Our Supreme Court granted the application and remanded the case to this Court for reconsideration in light of State v. Jason Lee White, 362 S.W.3d 559 (Tenn. 2012). After considering the facts and circumstances of this case as compared to those in White, we again affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Luke Nasgovitz v. Gail Ann Nasgovitz
The father of an eight year old girl filed a petition for divorce from the child’s mother. After the petition was filed, the court entered a standard restraining order, which among other things prohibited either party from relocating with a minor child outside the state without the permission of the other party or an order of the court. The wife asked the court to name her as the child’s primary residential parent and to allow her to relocate with the child to St. Louis,because that city offered her better employment prospects than did MiddleTennessee. The father opposed the mother’s request to relocate, and he asked the court to divide parenting time equally. After a three day trial, the court ruled that the mother’s proposed relocation was unreasonable and pretextual and that it was in the child’s best interest that the mother be named the primary residential parent, with the mother and child remaining in Tennessee. The mother argues on appeal that the trial court should have allowed her to relocate with the child because the criteria set out in the relocation statute, Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-108, did not preclude her from doing so. We affirm the trial court’s denial of the petition to relocate with the child. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Jena P.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to one child. The trial court found two groundsfortermination,abandonmentby wantondisregard and persistence of conditions leading to the child’s removal from the mother’s home.The trial court also found termination was in the child’s best interest. The record contains evidence that clearly and convincingly established the ground of persistent conditions and that termination is in the child’s best interest; therefore, we affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Justin Alexander DeWeese
Upon a plea of guilty, Defendant, Justin Alexander Deweese, was convicted of child abuse of a child eight years of age or less, in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-15401(a), a Class D felony. He submitted to the trial court to determine the length and manner of service of his sentence. After a hearing, the trial court ordered a three-year sentence of confinement. Defendant has appealed, asserting that he should receive a totally suspended sentence to be served on probation. He does not challenge the length of the sentence. Having fully reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the trial court by memorandum opinion. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jason Charles Austin
Appellant, Jason Charles Austin, was indicted by a Washington County grand jury for one count of first-degree murder. After a jury trial, he was convicted of the lesser-included offense of second-degree murder and subsequently sentenced to twenty-three years. On appeal, Appellant argues that: (1) the trial court erred by allowing Appellant’s case to be severed from the case of his co-defendant; (2) the State violated Appellant’s rights under the Tennessee and United States Constitutions; (3) the trial court erred in concluding that Christina Boone was a hostile witness and allowing the State to examine her with regard to her previous statement made to the police; (4) the trial court erred in denying Appellant’s motion to dismiss the indictment based upon the loss of key evidence; (5) the State violated the Rule of Exclusion; (6) the trial court erred by refusing Appellant’s request to call a surrebuttal witness; (7) the trial court erred in instructing the jury that guilt may be inferred from evidence of flight and from concealment of evidence; (8) the trial court erred by imposing a twenty-three-year sentence; and (9) Appellant was denied a fair trial because of cumulative error. Following our review of the record, we find no reversible error and affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Washington | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Stephen Lee Scott v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner-Appellant, Stephen Lee Scott, appeals the denial of post-conviction relief, contending that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel in connection with his guilty plea because counsel misinformed him regarding the elements of felony murder. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Joe Eddie Maclin v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner-Appellant, Joe Eddie Maclin, appeals the denial of post-conviction relief, contending that he did not enter his guilty plea knowingly and voluntarily due to the ineffective assistance of counsel. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the postconviction court. |
Tipton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Isaac McDonald Jr.
The defendant, Isaac McDonald, Jr., was convicted by a jury of attempted aggravated rape, a Class B felony, and sentenced to serve twelve years in prison. On appeal, the defendant contends that the evidence at trial was insufficient to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Eric Hurd
Following a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of two counts of aggravated sexual battery and was sentenced to twelve years’ imprisonment for each count, to be run concurrently, with a fine of $25,000 for the first count and a fine of $15,000 for the second count. On appeal, the defendant’s sole issue is the contention that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support the verdict. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient and affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Mikel Shane Hutto v. Cherry Lindamood, Warden
The Petitioner, Mikel Shane Hutto, appeals the Hardeman County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus, alleging that he failed to receive statutorily mandated pretrial jail credits for his sentences, thereby rendering the confinement illegal. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Michael Lindsey v. Joe Easterling, Warden
Michael Lindsey (“the Petitioner”), pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, alleging that the sentence on his second degree murder conviction is illegal, and therefore, his judgment of conviction was void. The habeas corpus court denied relief without a hearing. The Petitioner then filed this appeal. Upon our thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Deney Brockman
Deney Brockman (“the Defendant”) was convicted by a jury of burglary of a building other than a habitation. After a hearing, the trial court sentenced the Defendant as a career offender to twelve years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. In this appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction. Upon our thorough review of the record and applicable law, we hold that the evidence is sufficient to support the Defendant’s conviction. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Tony Holmes v. State of Tennessee
A Shelby County jury convicted petitioner, Tony Holmes, of one count of first degree premeditated murder and one count of attempted first degree premeditated murder. The jury sentenced him to life in prison for first degree murder, and the trial court sentenced him as a repeat violent offender to life in prison without the possibility of parole for attempted first degree premeditated murder, to be served consecutively. Following an unsuccessful direct appeal to this court, he filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to argue that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress an eyewitness’s identification of him. He also contended in his petition that trial counsel was ineffective for improperly making personal attacks against the prosecutor during closing arguments, for failing to impeach witnesses with their prior criminal convictions, and for failing to impeach a witness with her prior inconsistent statement to police. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jennifer Ferrari-Bullock v. Justin Randall
This appeal involves an order of protection obtained by Wife against Husband in 2009 and the extension of that order of protection in 2010. We find no basis for Rule 60 relief with respect to the original order of protection. As to the child support provisions in the amended order of protection, we vacate and remand for a determination consistent with the child support guidelines. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
VFS Leasing v. Bric Constructors, LLC et al.
Secured party brought action against debtors and guarantors, seeking recovery of deficiency which remained after sale of collateral. The trial court granted summary judgment to secured party. Because genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment, we reverse. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Brian Jermaine Dodson
The defendant, Brian Jermaine Dodson, was convicted by a Maury County Circuit Court jury of first degree premeditated murder, attempted first degree murder, and aggravated assault and sentenced to an effective term of life imprisonment. On appeal, he argues that: (1) the trial court erred in allowing the State to amend counts two and three of the indictment over his objection; (2) the trial court erred in allowing a State witness, Adrian Walker, to testify concerning gang activity and in failing to grant his motion in limine regarding Walker’s testimony; (3) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions; (4) the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on alibi; (5) the trial court erred in allowing the defendant’s prior convictions to be introduced during trial; (6) newly discovered evidence could have affected the outcome of the trial; and (7) the State committed prosecutorial misconduct by using perjured testimony and an improper closing argument, the cumulative effect of which deprived him of a fair trial. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kimberly Johnson
The Defendant-Appellant, Kimberly Johnson, was charged by presentment with three counts of the sale of a Schedule II controlled substance and three counts of the delivery of a Schedule II controlled substance. Johnson subsequently entered guilty pleas to the charges in the Sullivan County Circuit Court. Pursuant to the terms of her plea agreement, Johnson was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender, she was required to pay a $6,000 fine, and her delivery convictions were merged with her sale convictions for an effective sentence of four years, with the manner of service of the sentence to be determined by the trial court. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court denied all forms of alternative sentencing and imposed a sentence of confinement in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, Johnson argues that the trial court erred in denying an alternative sentence. Upon review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Everett Ferrell
After a bench trial, the Cannon County Circuit Court convicted the appellant, James Everett Ferrell, of violating the seatbelt law, second offense, and fined him twenty dollars. On appeal, the appellant contends that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the court tried his case without a warrant and because the citing officer did not file an affidavit of complaint. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Cannon | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Martin Dean Gibbs
A Davidson County Criminal Court Jury convicted the appellant, Martin Dean Gibbs, of four counts of rape of a child, a Class A felony, and eight counts of aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced him to concurrent sentences of twenty-five years for each rape of a child conviction and ten years for each aggravated sexual battery conviction for a total effective sentence of twenty-five years in confinement. On appeal, the appellant contends that (1) the trial court erred by allowing a social worker to testify about the victim’s allegations pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Evidence 803(4), the medical diagnosis and treatment exception to the hearsay rule; (2) the trial court erred by allowing the victim’s mother to testify about the victim’s allegations as prior consistent statements; (3) the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions in counts 7 and 11; and (4) his convictions in counts 1 and 9, 2 and 10, and 3 and 11 violate protections against double jeopardy. The State concedes that the evidence is insufficient as to count 11. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we agree that the evidence is insufficient to support the appellant’s rape of a child conviction in count 11. Therefore, that conviction is reversed, and the charge is dismissed. The appellant’s remaining convictions are affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Martin Dean Gibbs-Concurring
I concur in the results reached in the majority opinion. Indeed, I join in the majority opinion on all but one issue. I write separately to address the issue of the appropriate standard of review bythis Court on hearsayevidentiaryissues. The majorityapplies an abuse of discretion standard of review to the hearsay issue in this case. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Reginald C. Malone, Sr. v. State of Tennessee
Reginald C. Malone, Sr. (“the Petitioner”) filed for post-conviction relief, challenging his conviction for the sale of 0.5 grams or more of cocaine, which resulted in a sentence of eight years in confinement. As his bases for relief, he alleged several grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel, a Brady violation, illegal evidence, and malicious prosecution. After an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief, and this appeal followed. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to challenge the discrepancy in the reports of the weight of the cocaine through either a motion to suppress the cocaine or cross-examination as to its chain of custody. Additionally, the Petitioner argues that trial counsel failed to file a timely motion for new trial. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we remand the case for the trial court to grant the Petitioner leave to file a motion for new trial. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Richard Frank D'Antonio v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Richard Frank D’Antonio, appeals the denial of post-conviction relief from his first degree murder conviction and resulting life sentence. He contends that the trial court erred in determining that he received effective assistance of trial counsel. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Christopher Allen Scoggins v. Jenkins Masonry, Inc.
In this workers’ compensation case, the employee acquired contact dermatitis, which caused a chronic skin condition of his hands and feet, due to his exposure to potassium dichromate in the workplace. The trial court found that he was permanently and totally disabled as a result of the condition. The employer has appealed, contending that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s finding. We affirm the judgment. |
Hamilton | Workers Compensation Panel |