State of Tennessee v. Demetria Nance
Following a jury trial, the Defendant, Demetria Nance, was convicted of one count of second degree murder, a Class A felony, and one count of possession of a deadly weapon, a Class E felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-13-210(c), -17-1307(d)(3). In this appeal, she raises the following issues for our review: (1) The State presented insufficient evidence to support her conviction for second degree murder; and (2) The trial court erred by not declaring a mistrial after a writing from the Defendant to the victim, which had not been given to the defense during pre-trial discovery, was mentioned in front of the jury. After our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court but remand for entry of a corrected judgment for the Defendant’s conviction of possession of a deadly weapon. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Eugene Taylor
The Defendant, Eugene Taylor, entered a plea of guilty to possession of cocaine for resale and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Under the terms of the plea agreement, the Defendant received concurrent terms of four years as a Range I, standard offender for these convictions. As part of the plea agreement, the Defendant reserved a certified question of law challenging the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress the evidence resulting from his traffic stop. After our review, we affirm the judgments of the Hamilton County Criminal Court. We remand for the entry of a corrected judgment. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Virgil Campbell
Following a jury trial, the Defendant, Virgil Campbell, was convicted of two counts of aggravated assault, a Class C felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-102(e)(1). The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I, standard offender to five years for each count and ordered that the terms run consecutively. In this direct appeal, the Defendant raises the following issues: (1) The trial court erred when it denied his motion to sever the two offenses; and (2) The trial court erred when it sentenced him to consecutive sentences. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Bledsoe | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Wendell P. Baugh, III et al., v. Herman Novak et al.
This appeal raises the issue of whether a contract for the sale of an interest in a corporation and related indemnity agreements are unenforceable because they are contrary to public policy. The sellers of the corporate interest filed suit against the purchasers in the Chancery Court for Williamson County seeking damages for the purchasers’ alleged breach of their indemnity agreement. The purchasers counterclaimed asserting, among other things, that the sellers had fraudulently induced them to purchase the interest in the corporation. Following a bench trial, the trial court awarded a $201,715.50 judgment to the sellers and dismissed the purchasers’ counterclaim. On appeal, the Court of Appeals, on its own motion, invalidated the stock purchase agreement and the related indemnity agreements on the ground that they were contrary to the public policy reflected in Tenn. Code Ann. § 48-16-208 (2002). Baugh v. Novak, No. M2008-02438-COA-R3-CV, 2009 WL 2474714 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 13, 2009). We granted the sellers’ Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application for permission to appeal and now find that the Court of Appeals erred by finding that the agreements at issue in this case were contrary to public policy. We have also determined that the evidence fully supports the trial court’s decision to dismiss the purchasers’ counterclaim for fraudulent inducement. |
Williamson | Supreme Court | |
Frederick A. Miller v. State of Tennessee
A Hamilton County Criminal Court Jury convicted the Petitioner, Frederick A. Miller, of first degree murder, attempted first degree murder, and especially aggravated robbery, for which he received an effective sentence of life plus sixty years. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed for post-conviction relief, alleging his trial and appellate counsel were ineffective by failing to object to the “show-up” identification procedure, failing to preserve and pursue the Petitioner’s speedy trial motion, and failing to properly cross-examine and impeach the State’s witnesses. Further, the Petitioner alleged that the State denied the Petitioner’s due process rights by failing to disclose the results of fingerprint analysis and gunshot residue tests. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied the petition, and the Petitioner now appeals. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Thomas J. Tucker v. State of Tennessee
A Marshall County jury found the Petitioner, Thomas J. Tucker, guilty of facilitation of aggravated robbery and facilitation of aggravated burglary, and the trial court sentenced him to an effective sentence of thirteen years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which the post-conviction court denied after a hearing. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred when it dismissed his petition because he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Willie Bob King v. State of Tennessee
This matter is before the Court on the State’s motion to affirm the judgment of the trial court by memorandum opinion pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner, Willie Bob King, filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which the post-conviction court denied, and this Court affirmed on appeal. Thereafter, the Petitioner did not file for permission to appeal to the supreme court. After the period in which to file such an application expired, the Petitioner filed a second petition for post-conviction relief, seeking a delayed appeal to the supreme court. The post-conviction court denied this petition without a hearing and refused the Petitioner’s request to reconsider its decision. The Petitioner appeals the post-conviction court’s dismissal of his second petition for post-conviction relief. Upon our review of the record in this case, we conclude that the Petitioner is not entitled to a delayed appeal and that this case meets the criteria for affirmance pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Accordingly, the State’s motion is granted and the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed. |
Warren | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Danny A. Stewart v. Gayle Ray, Commissioner, TDOC et al.
Danny A. Stewart, a prisoner serving multiple sentences, some concurrently and some consecutively, filed a petition for certiorari naming as respondents the Commissioner of the Department of Correction and heads of various other agencies allegedly responsible for determining his eligibility for parole (collectively referred to as “TDOC”). He alleges TDOC is incorrectly calculating his eligibility for parole in that it is basing its calulation on the aggregate consecutive sentences of 42 years, whereas the correct method is to calculate eligibility on each separate sentence so that he would start serving his next consecutive sentence as an “in custody” parolee of his earliest consecutive sentence. The trial court dismissed the case based on Stewart’s failure “to exhaust his administrative remedies,” i.e., by seeking a “declaratory order from TDOC before filing the present action.” Stewart appeals. We vacate the order of dismissal and remand for further proceedings. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Patti Zakour a/k/a Patti Smith v. UT Medical Group Inc.
The trial court granted Defendant’s motion to set aside the judgment arising from a jury verdict in favor of Plaintiffs in this medical malpractice/wrongful death action. It also conditionally granted Defendant’s alternative motion for a new trial. In light of Abshure v. Methodist Healthcare, we vacate the judgment and remand for further proceedings. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Ricky Johnson, aka Russell Wellington, #122766 v. Howard Carlton, Warden & State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Ricky Johnson, aka Russell Wellington, #122766, appeals the summary dismissal of his second petition for habeas corpus relief from his 1989 convictions for burglary of an automobile and grand larceny. He claimed that his convictions were void because venue in the convicting county was not proved. Because the Petitioner has not shown that he is restrained of his liberty as a direct consequence of these convictions, we affirm the order of the Johnson County Circuit Court dismissing the petition. |
Johnson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Carlton Horton, aka Carlton Leavon Horton
The Defendant, Carlton Horton, aka Carlton Leavon Horton, pleaded guilty in the Hamilton County Criminal Court to domestic aggravated assault as a Range I, standard offender. After a sentencing hearing, he received a five-year sentence. The trial court ordered him to serve eleven months and twenty-nine days; the sentence thereafter to be suspended, and the Defendant placed on probation for a period of eight years. The trial court also ordered the Defendant to pay $4,048.10 in restitution to the victim. The Defendant now appeals the restitution award, arguing that the trial court did not consider the Defendant’s financial resources or ability to pay as required by statute. We conclude that the trial court made inadequate findings concerning the Defendant’s financial resources and his future ability to pay. We therefore reverse and remand for reconsideration of the restitution award based upon the required findings. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re: Tylon L.D.
This is a termination of parental rights case pertaining to Tylon L.D. (“the Child”), the minor child of Pamela D. (“Mother”). Eighteen months after the Child was placed in her care, the Child’s prospective adoptive parent, Carman E. (“Foster Mother”), filed a complaint seeking to terminate Mother’s parental rights and asking to adopt the Child. After a trial before Chancellor Thomas R. Frierson, II (“the trial court”), the court terminated Mother’s rights upon finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that multiple grounds existed for terminating her parental rights and that termination was in the Child’s best interest. 1 Mother appeals. We affirm. |
Hawkins | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Geoffrey Alexander
The Defendant-Appellant, Geoffrey Alexander, appeals the revocation of his probation. In this appeal, Alexander argues that (1) the trial court erred by revoking his probation and (2) the trial court should have granted his request for a continuance. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Wayford Demonbreun, II v. State of Tennessee
This petition was filed as a common law writ of certiorari in the circuit court of Davidson County to challenge the validity of the petitioner’s 1998 felony convictions in the criminal court of Davidson County. The circuit court dismissed the writ finding it lacked jurisdiction to consider the petition and that the claims pertain to actions governed by the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure for which there is no relief under a common law writ of certiorari. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Janice Davis Boelter and Richard Davis v. Jackie Curtus Reagan, et al.
Decedent executed a will in 1988 which could not be found upon her death. Decedent’s stepchildren sought to establish a copy of the 1988 will as Decedent’s last will and testament, but the trial court found that they had failed to rebut the presumption that the will had been destroyed and revoked. We find that Appellants failed to prove that Decedent did not revoke her will. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s involuntary dismissal of Appellants’ claim as well as its order that Decedent’s Estate be administered as an intestate estate. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
Dana Moulton, et al. v. Delores Moulton, et al.
In this action plaintiff alleged she was injured when the roof on the deck at defendant's house fell upon her, causing injuries. Defendant denied any responsibility for plaintiff's injuries and moved for summary judgment. The Trial Court, in sustaining the summary judgment motion, held that none of the parties knew of any defect in the patio roof, and there was no evidence in the record of what actually caused the collapse of the roof. The defendant possessed no constructive notice of any defective condition causing the collapse. Plaintiffs have appealed and we affirm the judgment of the Trial Court and remand. |
Cheatham | Court of Appeals | |
Anne Lavoie and Jodee Lavoie v. Franklin County Publishing Company, Inc.
These consolidated actions are before this Court on a Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 9 interlocutory appeal from the trial court’s denial of summary judgment. We are asked to consider whether, as a matter of law, a plaintiff is barred from maintaining a suit against an employer under a sole theory of respondeat superior where the plaintiff settles her claim against the employee, executes a release of all claims as to the employee, but reserves her claim against the employer in a court order dismissing the employee with prejudice. We hold that the plaintiff’s suit is barred. The judgment of the trial court is reversed, summary judgment is granted to the employer, and the case is dismissed. |
Franklin | Court of Appeals | |
Maston G. Lyons, III, et al. v. Kimberly G. Leffew, et al.
Plaintiffs appeal from the denial of a second Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02 motion. Eight months after the case was dismissed for failure to prosecute, Plaintiffs filed the first of two Rule 60.02 motions alleging they did not receive notice of the motion to dismiss their case and that they did not receive the order dismissing the case. The trial court denied the first Rule 60.02 motion and plaintiffs did not appeal that ruling. Plaintiffs then filed a second Rule 60.02 motion, asserting the same grounds as in the first motion. The trial court denied the second Rule 60.02 motion, which is the ruling at issue in this appeal. We have determined the issues presented in the second motion are res judicata because no new issues were presented in the second motion and, therefore, affirm the trial court. |
Sequatchie | Court of Appeals | |
Lonnie E. Roberts, et al. v. Claude Russell Bridges, a/k/a Leon Russell, et ux.
This appeal involves the enforcement of a restrictive covenant. A group of neighbors filed suit seeking permanently to enjoin a musician and his wife from using their property for nonresidential purposes. The trial court ruled in favor of the neighbors after a bench trial, prohibiting the homeowners from parking a tour bus, two panel trucks, and several employee vehicles on their property and ordering the homeowners to remove a portion of a parking lot and driveway built to accommodate the vehicles. The court later awarded discretionary costs to the neighbors. We reverse the grant of injunctive relief requiring the homeowners to remove a portion of the parking lot and driveway but affirm the trial court in all other respects. |
Maury | Court of Appeals | |
Eric D. Wallace v. Stephen Dotson, Warden
The Petitioner, Eric D. Wallace, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of felony murder and attempted first degree murder. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for the felony murder conviction and to a consecutive fifteen-year sentence as a Range I, standard offender for the attempted first degree murder conviction, for an effective sentence of life plus fifteen years. He subsequently filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Hardeman County Circuit Court, which was summarily dismissed. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that he is entitled to habeas corpus relief because (1) he asserts that he is “actually innocent” of the charges, (2) his indictments are defective, and (3) the trial court improperly instructed the jury on flight. Upon review, we affirm the judgment summarily dismissing the petition for writ of habeas corpus. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kelly Walker
The defendant, Kelly Walker, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of facilitation of first degree premeditated murder, a Class A felony, and aggravated assault, a Class C felony. He was sentenced as a Range I offender to twenty-five years and six years, respectively, to be served consecutively in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his statements and challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and the sentences imposed by the trial court. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James Dubose v. Jim Worthington, Warden
The Petitioner, James DuBose, appeals the Morgan County Circuit Court’s dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief from his 1993 conviction for first degree murder by aggravated child abuse. He claims his judgment of conviction is void because the indictment was invalid and charged him with violating a statute that did not exist at the time of his offense. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Macon | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John Richard Sprouse
The defendant, John Richard Sprouse, appeals the Sevier County Circuit Court’s revocation of his probation. On appeal, he contends that the trial court erred by ordering him to serve his six-year sentence in incarceration. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sevier | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jennifer Renee Dennis
The appellant, Jennifer Renee Dennis, admitted in the Bedford County Circuit Court that she violated probation sentences she was serving for two felony theft convictions, and the trial court ordered her to serve her original twelve- and three-year sentences in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant contends that the trial court erred by ordering her to serve her sentences in confinement and that the trial court should have reinstated her probation. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Felix Tamayo
The Defendant, Felix Tamayo, pled guilty to five counts of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, with the sentence to be determined by the trial court. The trial court imposed consecutive sentences of 12 years as a Range I, standard offender for each count, for a total effective sentence of 60 years. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred in setting the length of his sentences and in ordering consecutive sentencing. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals |