State of Tennessee v. Alonzo Thomas
The appellant, Alonzo Thomas, pled guilty to attempted aggravated sexual battery and was sentenced to four years and six months in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant challenges the trial court’s denial of probation. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Harris and Eddie Harris
A Shelby County Criminal Court jury convicted the appellants, Michael Harris and Eddie Harris, of aggravated robbery, and the trial court sentenced them to nine years in confinement. On appeal, they contend that the evidence is insufficient to support their convictions. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Benjamin Wheeler Word
The petitioner, Benjamin Wheeler Word, pleaded guilty to underage consumption. The trial court sentenced him to serve eleven months and twenty-nine days in jail but suspended the petitioner’s sentence to probation. The petitioner filed a petition for post conviction relief, which the post-conviction court denied. The petitioner appeals the denial of post-conviction relief arguing that (1) his conviction is unconstitutional; (2) the conduct with which he was charged was not an offense; (3) his conviction is void because it denied him expungement of his record; and (4) his sentence violated the jurisdictional limits of the court. After a thorough review of the parties’ briefs, the record, and the applicable law, we reverse the judgment of the post-conviction court and grant post-conviction relief. |
Putnam | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Candance Orrand Bush and Gary W. Bush
Following a jury trial, the Defendants, Candance Orrand Bush and Gary W. Bush, were convicted of first-degree murder, a Class X felony, for the 1982 killing of Lynn Orrand. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-2-202 (1982). Both Defendants were sentenced to imprisonment for life. In this appeal as of right, the Defendants raise the following issues: (1) Defendant Orrand contends that the trial court erred in failing to disqualify District Attorney General William C. Whitesell, Jr. and his office from prosecuting this case; (2) Defendant Bush contends that the trial court erred by admitting into evidence a tape recording of a phone call between Defendant Bush and Jason Riley; (3) both Defendants contend that the evidence was insufficient to sustain their convictions because it was based upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice, Kevin Patterson; and (4) Defendant Bush contends that the trial court erred by failing to select the alternate jurors “in plain view.” Following our review, we conclude that these issues have no merit and affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Timothy L. Diggs, Sr.
The defendant, Timothy L. Diggs, Sr., stands convicted of aggravated child abuse of a child under eight years old, a Class A felony, and felony murder. The trial court sentenced him as a violent offender to serve fifteen years for aggravated child abuse concurrently with a life sentence for felony murder in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court, but we remand for a corrected judgment form for the felony murder conviction to properly reflect the defendant’s life sentence. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Martha Patlan
This case is before this court upon the Tennessee Supreme Court’s remand for further consideration in light of its opinion in State v. Dorantes (Dorantes II), 331 S.W.3d 370 (Tenn. 2011). A Davidson County jury convicted the defendant, Martha Patlan, of aggravated child abuse, a Class A felony, and first degree felony murder during the perpetration of aggravated child abuse. The trial court sentenced the defendant to a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment for the murder conviction and, consecutive to the life sentence, twenty years for the aggravated child abuse conviction both to be served in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant argued that (1) the evidence was insufficient to convict her of aggravated child abuse and felony murder; (2) her felony murder conviction is unconstitutional; (3) the trial court erred when it failed to require the state to elect an incident of neglect; (4) the trial court erred when it refused to allow testimony regarding bruises on the defendant’s face; (5) the trial court erred when it allowed certain photographs into evidence; (6) the trial court erred in overruling the defendant’s objection to the use of the term Battered Child Syndrome; and (7) the trial court erred by ordering that the defendant serve her sentences consecutively. This court affirmed the defendant’s convictions and sentences. Upon review, we again conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support the defendant’s convictions and that the defendant’s sentence is proper. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Vianey Becerra Ibanez
A Sullivan County jury convicted the Defendant, Vianey Becerra Ibanez, of facilitation of possession of more than .5 grams of cocaine, maintaining a dwelling where controlled substances are used or sold, facilitation of sale of more than .5 grams of cocaine, and delivery of more than .5 grams of cocaine. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to a total effective sentence of eleven years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant contends the trial court erred when it set the length of her sentence and when it denied her alternative sentencing. Having reviewed the record and applicable law, we conclude the trial court properly sentenced the Defendant. As such, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jacqueline Morris v. Jackson Clinic Professional Association
In this workers’ compensation action, the employee sustained a compensable injury to her shoulder. Her initial treating physician assigned a 9% impairment to the body as a whole. After additional surgery, her subsequent treating physician assigned a 6% impairment to the body as a whole. An evaluating physician assigned a 17% impairment. The trial court chose the evaluating physician’s impairment, and awarded the employee 25.5% permanent partial disability (“PPD”) to the body as a whole. The employer has appealed, arguing that the evaluating physician’s rating did not comply with the AMA Guides and that the award therefore is excessive. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Kenneth E. Diggs v. Strand Analytical Laboratories, LLC
Appellant appealed the dismissal of the action by the trial court. We dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Omowali Ashanti Shabazz, aka Fred Edmond Dean v. State of Tennessee
In June 2010, the Petitioner, Omowali Ashanti Shabazz, aka Fred Edmond Dean, filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis challenging his conviction for second degree murder. The Petitioner alleged that he was prejudiced by the State’s failure to disclose a “rent receipt” earlier in the trial proceedings and by the trial court’s failure to include a jury instruction on the term “residence” or, alternatively, that counsel was ineffective by failing to request a jury instruction on the term “residence” or pursue the issue on appeal. The coram nobis court summarily dismissed the petition on the basis that any relief was time-barred and that the Petitioner had failed to state a cognizable claim for relief. Following our review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the Sullivan County Criminal Court summarily denying relief. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Courier Printing Company et al. v. Wanda Sims, ex rel Robert Steve Bly et al.
In this Workers’ Compensation case, the trial court held that the employee had sustained a gradual injury to his lower back, and that he was permanently and totally disabled as a result of that injury. The employer has appealed, contending that the trial court erred by permitting the employee to use a physician who provided an impairment rating through the Medical Impairment Registry process as a medical expert on the issue of causation and by finding that the employee sustained a compensable injury. In the alternative, the employer contends that the trial court erred by awarding permanent total disability, and also in its alternative finding that the employee had proven three of the four elements set out in Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-242, and was thereby able to recover a permanent partial disability award in excess of six times the medical impairment. We find no error and affirm the judgment. |
Rutherford | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Jeffrey Irons v. K and K Trucking, Inc. et al.
This workers’ compensation 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. The employee sustained an injury which resulted in a court-approved workers’ compensation settlement. His authorized physician later recommended medical treatment. The employer’s utilization review provider denied approval of the proposed treatment. The employer filed a motion for a medical examination pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-204(d)(1) which is required if reasonable. The trial court found the employer’s request to be unreasonable and denied the motion. The employer has appealed. We reverse the trial court’s order and remand for entry of an order granting the motion. |
Macon | Workers Compensation Panel | |
David Larkin Wall v. Amy Ballesteros Wall
This is a post-divorce petition to modify a parenting plan. In the divorce decree, the mother was designated as the primary residential parent of the parties’ daughter. Two years later, the father filed this petition to modify the decree to designate him as the primary residential parent, alleging that the mother had inadequate child care arrangements while the mother was at work, and that the mother had not been adequately caring for the child’s basic personal and educational needs. The parenting plan was temporarily modified to designate the father as the temporary primary residential parent. Nevertheless, the father was ordered to continue paying child support to the mother pending the trial, in order to maintain the status quo. After a hearing, the trial court found a material change in circumstances, but found it was not sufficient to change the designation of primary residential parent to the father on a permanent basis. The father was awarded substantially more parenting time. The father now appeals the denial of his petition to change the designation of primary residential parent and the award of child support to the Mother while he was the temporary primary residential parent. We affirm the award of child support, but reverse the denial of the petition to change the designation of the primary residential parent based on the mother’s consistently poor judgment in decisions related to the care of the child. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ronald Eugene Brewer, Jr.
Following a jury trial, the Defendant, Ronald Eugene Brewer, Jr., was convicted of first degree premeditated murder, first degree murder in the attempt to perpetrate a first degree murder, and criminal attempt to commit first degree murder. Following a sentencing hearing, the jury sentenced the Defendant to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for each count of first degree murder. The trial court merged the two counts of first degree murder and imposed a concurrent twenty-five-year sentence for the third count. In this direct appeal, the Defendant raises the following issues for our review: (1) The State presented insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction for first degree murder; (2) The indictment alleging the intent to directly kill the victim was improperly before the jury; (3) The trial court erred when it refused a change of venue; (4) The trial court erred when it allowed the 911 tape to be admitted into evidence; (5) The trial court erred when it allowed the Defendant’s signed statement, and a comment he made to a police officer while being transported, to be admitted into evidence; (6) The trial court erred when it allowed material related to gangs and gang activity to be admitted into evidence; (7) The trial court erred when it allowed purported expert testimony about gangs; (8) The trial court erred when it allowed testimony about a shell casing found in the Defendant’s vehicle; (9) The trial court erred when it allowed the State to use and present two aggravating circumstances to the jury; and (10) The evidence was insufficient to support a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. After our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Hawkins | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Charles E. Shifflett, Sr. v. State of Tennessee
In October 2009, the Petitioner, Charles E. Shifflett, Sr., filed a petition for post-conviction relief challenging his convictions for first degree murder and robbery. The Petitioner alleged nine grounds of ineffective assistance of trial counsel and three grounds of prosecutorial misconduct at trial. The post-conviction court summarily dismissed the petition, finding that some of the issues had been raised on direct appeal, and that other allegations were conclusory and failed to sufficiently allege prejudice. Following our review of the record, we reverse the judgment of the Sullivan County Criminal Court and remand for further proceedings. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. et al. v. Richard Warnock et al.
This workers’ compensation 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. The employee suffered an injury which the employer denied was in the course of employment. The employee filed a request for assistance with the Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development. The Department ordered the employer to pay temporary disability benefits and medical expenses for the employee’s injury pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-238(a)(2)(3). Subsequently the employer, its workers’ compensation carrier and the employee entered into a compromise and release agreement in Pennsylvania pursuant to which the employee was paid $130,000. The employer filed this action against the employee and the Department of Labor requesting reimbursement of payments made pursuant to the Department’s order, as permitted by section 50-6-238(b). The trial court granted the Department’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the action. We affirm the judgment. |
Hamilton | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Ryan Mathis v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Ryan Mathis, pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated burglary, one count of employment of a firearm during a dangerous felony, two counts of aggravated robbery, and three counts of aggravated kidnapping. All of his sentences were ordered to be served concurrently, for a total effective sentence of eight years in the Department of Correction. The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, claiming that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. In this appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred when it denied relief and, specifically, he asserts that Trial Counsel failed to fully advise him of the nature and elements of aggravated kidnapping. After our review, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief. |
Obion | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Mabry
A Shelby County Criminal Court jury convicted the appellant, Christopher Mabry, of aggravated assault, a Class C felony, and aggravated criminal trespass, a Class A misdemeanor. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced him to consecutive sentences of four years and eleven months, twenty-nine days, respectively. On appeal, the appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Elgie Sykes
The Defendant-Appellant, Elgie Sykes, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of first degree premeditated murder and sentenced to life with the possibility of parole. On appeal, Sykes claims: (1) the jury instruction for premeditation was improper; (2) the insufficiency of the evidence; (3) the trial court erred by excluding the testimony of a psychologist; and (4) the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury not to consume alcohol while sequestered. Upon review, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for a new trial. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Hosie Johnson et al. v. Nick Dattilo et al.
The purchasers of a lot and newly constructed residence filed this action against the builders, seeking damages and rescission of the construction and sale agreement. The plaintiffs allege the defendants breached the agreement by failing to construct the home in accordance with “good building practices,” and breached the implied warranty of workmanship. They also allege that statements made by the foreman during construction, concerning the condition of the property, amount to a violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-18-104(b)(7), as well as common law negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation.The trial court granted the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict on all claims. Finding plaintiffs failed to provide evidence of key elements in each of their claims, we affirm. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Desean Breland
The Defendant, Michael Desean Breland, pled guilty to two counts of theft of property, and the trial court sentenced him to two concurrent eight-year sentences to be served on probation. Subsequently, the trial court twice found the Defendant was in violation of the terms of his probation, and it revoked the Defendant’s probation and ordered him to serve the remainder of his sentence in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant contends the trial court erred when it placed his original sentence into effect rather than allow him to return to probation with the condition that he complete an alcohol abuse treatment program. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Young Bok Song v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Young Bok Song, appeals from the trial court’s dismissal of a petition for writ of error coram nobis. Petitioner is currently serving a 65 year sentence for seven counts of rape of a child and four counts of aggravated sexual battery. See State v. Young Bok Song, No. M2004-02885-CCA-R3-CD, 2005 WL 2978972, at *12 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Nov. 4, 2005), perm. app. denied, (Tenn. Mar. 27, 2006). The petition for writ of error coram nobis alleged that Petitioner was: (1) being illegally restrained as a result of actions by the criminal court; (2) that trial counsel was ineffective for challenging various issues at trial and on appeal; and (3) that his case should be considered by “the Presidential Speech,” public concern, and by the judgment of the International Court of Justice. After a review of the record, we determine that the trial court properly denied coram nobis relief. Consequently, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Parris Roofing and Sheet Metal Co., Inc. et al. v. Timothy Spurling
Pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51, this workers’ compensation 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. The employee and his employer filed separate workers’compensation complaints on the same day at different times,in differentcourts,and in different counties. The employer filed its cause of action in McMinn County Chancery Court on April 29, 2010, at 3:53 p.m. The employee’s action was filed in Polk County Circuit Court on the same day, but the time of filing was not noted by the court clerk. The employee moved to dismiss the employer’s action on the basis of prior suit pending. The employee’s motion was supported by an affidavitfrom his attorney’s assistant stating that the employee’s suit was filed before 3:03 p.m. on April 29, 2010 and therefore prior to the time the employer filed suit as designated by the court clerk in McMinn County. The trial court granted theemployee’s motion and dismissed the employer’s action. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
McMinn | Workers Compensation Panel | |
State of Tennessee v. Iroko Phillips
A Shelby County jury convicted the Defendant, Iroko Phillips, of one count of aggravated kidnapping and two counts of attempted aggravated rape. The trial court merged the two counts of attempted aggravated rape and imposed on the Defendant as a Range III, Persistent Offender an effective sentence of sixty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant contends the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions and that his convictions violate due process principles. Having thoroughly reviewed the record and relevant authorities, we conclude the evidence is sufficient to support the Defendant’s convictions and that his convictions do not violate his due process rights. As such, the trial court’s judgments are affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Swift Roofing, Inc. v. State of Tennessee, Commissioner of Labor and Workforce Development
This appeal arises from a petition seeking judicial review of an administrative agency order, which affirmed citations for workplace safety violations. The Chancery Court affirmed the citations. After reviewing the appellate record, we conclude that the administrative agency did not provide the required findings of fact, conclusions of law, and reasons for its decision. Consequently, judicial review is not possible based on the record before this Court. Therefore, we vacate the order of the Chancery Court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals |