Alicia D. Howell v. Nissan North America, Inc., et al.
The issue presented in this workers’ compensation case is whether the employee made a meaningful return to work. Upon being released by her physician to return to work, she resigned her employment after her employer told her that she would have to return to a production line job that, based on her work experience and personal knowledge of the work conditions and her physical abilities and limitations, she did not believe she could perform. The trial court awarded her additional benefits, ruling that she did not have a meaningful return to work and was eligible for reconsideration of her earlier settlement for workers’ compensation benefits pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-241 (Supp. 2010). The Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel reversed. We hold that the employee did not have a meaningful return to work following her injuries and that the evidence does not preponderate against the trialcourt’s award of increased permanent partial disability benefits. The judgment of the Appeals Panel is reversed, and the judgment of the trial court is reinstated. |
Moore | Supreme Court | |
In Re: A.M.K.
This appeal concerns the changing of a minor child’s surname. Tyler Weseman (“Father”) and Amanda King (“Mother”) are, respectively, the father and mother of the minor child A.M.K.(“the Child”). Father filed a petition to establish parentage and co-parenting time. Father sought to have the Child bear his surname. The Juvenile Court for Knox County (“the Juvenile Court”) changed the Child’s surname from King to King-Weseman. Mother appeals. We hold that the evidence does not preponderate against the Juvenile Court’s finding that changing the Child’s surname to King-Weseman is in the Child’s best interest. We further hold that the Juvenile Court did not abuse its discretion in declining to award attorney’s fees to Mother. The judgment of the Juvenile Court is affirmed. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Billie Seay, Nationwide Insurance v. Betty Walsh et al.
On or about May 28, 2005, Billie Seay was involved in an automobile accident with a vehicle driven by the defendant Thomas E. Walsh (“the Driver”), which vehicle was owned by the defendant Betty Walsh (“the Owner”). Seay’s insurance company, Nationwide Insurance Company, settled her claim and filed this subrogation action in Seay’s name for the use and benefit of Nationwide against the Driver and the Owner. The Driver and the Owner filed separate pro se answers. The Owner appeared at trial, but the Driver did not appear. The trial court entered a judgment against both defendants. Two and a half years later, the Driver filed a motion to set aside the judgment. It was denied. He then filed a series of similar unsuccessful post-judgment motions. The Driver appeals from the last order denying post judgment relief. We affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kenneth James Watkins
The Defendant, Kenneth James Watkins, was convicted by a Davidson County Criminal Court jury of premeditated first degree murder and was sentenced to life in prison. See T.C.A. § 39-13-202 (2010). On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction, (2) the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress identification, (3) the trial court erred by allowing testimony regarding his nickname, and (4) the trial court erred by allowing testimony regarding threats against a witness and witnesses’ fear of reprisal. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Craig Abston
Appellant, Craig Abston, was indicted by the Shelby County Grand Jury for one count of second degree murder and two counts of attempted second degree murder. He was convicted as charged and sentenced to twenty years for second degree murder, and twelve years and eight years for each attempted second degree murder conviction. The trial court ordered the twenty-year sentence and twelve-year sentence to run concurrently to each other but consecutively to the eight-year sentence for an effective sentence of twenty-eight years. On appeal, this Court reduced the twelve-year sentence to eight years, and remanded to the trial court for a new sentencing hearing regarding the consecutive sentences. State v. Craig Abston, No. W2007-00019-CCA-R3-CD, 2009 WL 2030432, at *4 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, July 10, 2009), perm. app. denied, (Tenn. Dec. 14, 2009). On remand, the trial court ordered the one eight-year sentence to be served concurrently with the twenty-year sentence and the other eight-year sentence to be served consecutively to the twenty-year sentence. Therefore, Appellant’s effective sentence is twenty-eight years. On appeal, Appellant argues that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the record supports the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences. Therefore, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Aragorn LaFayette Earls v. Jill Andrea Mendoza
This appeal involves a post-divorce petition to modify a parenting plan. The parties divorced in Tennessee and agreed to a parenting plan that esignated the mother as the primary residential parent of their two minor children. By the time the divorce decree was entered, both parties had moved to New York. Months later, the mother filed a petition in the Tennessee trial court seeking court approval to relocate with the minor children to Colorado. The mother also sought an increase in child support, and to recover a child support arrearage. The father objected and filed a cross-petition in the Tennessee trial court to be designated as the primary residential parent. After a hearing, the Tennessee trial court granted the mother’s petition to relocate, increased the father’s child support obligation, and assessed a child support arrearage against the father. The father appeals. We hold that, under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, the Tennessee trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the mother’s petition to relocate or the father’s petition to change the designation of primary residential parent. We also hold that, under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the mother’s request for modification of child support. The trial court, however, retained jurisdiction to enforce the existing child support order. Therefore, we vacate the trial court’s order insofar as it modified the parenting plan and child support. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Craig Abston
Appellant, Craig Abston, was indicted by the Shelby County Grand Jury for one count of second degree murder and two counts of attempted second degree murder. He was convicted as charged and sentenced to twenty years for second degree murder, and twelve years and eight years for each attempted second degree murder conviction. The trial court ordered the twenty-year sentence and twelve-year sentence to run concurrently to each other but consecutively to the eight-year sentence for an effective sentence of twenty-eight years. On appeal, this Court reduced the twelve-year sentence to eight years, and remanded to the trial court for a new sentencing hearing regarding the consecutive sentences. State v. Craig Abston, No. W2007-00019-CCA-R3-CD, 2009 WL 2030432, at *4 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, July 10, 2009), perm. app. denied, (Tenn. Dec. 14, 2009). On remand, the trial court ordered the one eight-year sentence to be served concurrently with the twenty-year sentence and the other eight-year sentence to be served consecutively to the twenty-year sentence. Therefore, Appellant’s effective sentence is twenty-eight years. On appeal, Appellant argues that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the record supports the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences. Therefore, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | ||
Jared Ajani Lima v. Marcia Gabriel Lima
This appeal involves parental relocation. Mother intended to relocate from Tennessee to Las Vegas with the parties’ two children in order to accept another position with her current employer. Father filed a petition opposing the relocation and seeking modification of the parenting plan to be named primary residential parent. The trial court found that the parties were not spending substantially equal intervals of time with the children, and that the move had a reasonable purpose. Therefore, it permitted Mother to relocate with the children pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-108. Father raises numerous issues on appeal. For the following reasons, we affirm. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Keith A. Howard
A Sumner County Criminal Court jury convicted the defendant, Keith A. Howard, of one count of forgery, see T.C.A. § 39-14-114 (2006), and one count of attempting to evade sales tax, see id. § 67-1-1440(g), and the trial court imposed consecutive sentences of six years’ incarceration as a Range III, persistent offender. On appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court erred in its instructions to the jury and admission of evidence, that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions, and that the trial court erred by sentencing the defendant as a persistent offender and by imposing consecutive sentences. Because the defendant failed to file a timely motion for new trial, all issues except the sufficiency of the evidence and sentencing are waived. Discerning no error in those remaining issues, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Bethany Jade Abel
A Hickman County Grand Jury indicted the Defendant, Bethany Jade Abel, for attempted first degree murder, a Class A felony. The Defendant pled guilty to aggravated assault, a Class C felony, with the length and manner of service for her sentence left to the discretion of the trial court. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to 3 years in the Tennessee Department of Correction, suspended to supervised probation following the service of 14 days in the county jail. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying her application for judicial diversion. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hickman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Locke
The defendant, Christopher Locke, pled guilty to one count of incest, a Class C felony. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a Range I sentence of three years, all suspended upon compliance with the terms of probation and sex offender supervision. On appeal he argues that the trial court erred in denying judicial diversion. After reviewing the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Gregory Tyrone Greer
The Appellant, Gregory Tyrone Greer, was convicted by a Madison County jury of reckless aggravated assault, a Class D felony. He was sentenced as a career offender to twelve years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. In his sole issue on appeal, he contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Melissa Beth Mackey v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Melissa Beth Mackey, appeals as of right the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of her petition for post-conviction relief challenging her conviction of attempted aggravated robbery for which she received a sentence of six years as a Range II, multiple offender. On appeal, she argues that trial counsel committed ineffective assistance that rendered her guilty plea involuntary. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Walter Alan Martin v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Walter Alan Martin, was convicted by a jury of rape and was, thereafter, sentenced to ten years in prison at 100%. This Court affirmed the Petitioner’s conviction and sentence on direct appeal. The Petitioner filed a timely petition for post-conviction relief and, following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel due to trial counsel’s failure (1) to adequately address the timeframe surrounding the events and (2) to fully investigate the case by inspecting the cab of the truck where the incident occurred. Following our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the Petitioner has not shown that he is entitled to relief. The judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Randy Antonio Rice
The Defendant-Appellant, Randy Antonio Rice, was convicted by a Madison County jury of first degree felony murder and facilitation of especially aggravated robbery, a Class B felony. He was sentenced as a Range I offender to consecutive sentences of life imprisonment and twelve years at thirty percent, respectively. On appeal, the Defendant-Appellant argues: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions, and (2) the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentencing. Upon review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Michael Schwamb v. Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC
In this workers’ compensation case, the employee had a compensable back injury in 2008. His doctor assigned 19% permanent anatomical impairment for the injury, based upon the Sixth Edition of the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment. He had previously settled a claim for a compensable back injury in 1996. That injury resulted in a 15% permanent impairment according to the Fourth Edition of the Guides, then in effect. Based upon those ratings, the treating physician for the 2008 injury apportioned 4% of the total 19% impairment to the more recent injury. An evaluating physician used the Sixth Edition to rate both injuries and opined that the impairment for the 2008 injury was 13% to the body as a whole. The trial court adopted the evaluating physician’s rating and based its award of permanent disability benefits on it. The employer has appealed,arguing that the trial court erred by adopting the evaluating physician’s rating. We affirm the judgment. |
Coffee | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Paul Dennis Reid, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
Paul Dennis Reid, Jr. was convicted and sentenced to death on seven counts of first degree murder. Reid’s convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal by the supreme court. The instant appeals stem from evidentiary hearings wherein the Montgomery and Davidson County trial courts concluded that Reid was competent to decide on his own behalf to forego any post-conviction relief on his convictions and sentences. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial courts.
|
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Paul Dennis Reid, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
Paul Dennis Reid, Jr. was convicted and sentenced to death on seven counts of first degree murder. Reid’s convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal by the supreme court. The instant appeals stem from evidentiary hearings wherein the Montgomery and Davidson County trial courts concluded that Reid was competent to decide on his own behalf to forego any post-conviction relief on his convictions and sentences. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial courts.
|
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Paul Dennis Reid, Jr. v State of Tennessee
Paul Dennis Reid, Jr. was convicted and sentenced to death on seven counts of first degree murder. Reid’s convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal by the supreme court. The instant appeals stem from evidentiary hearings wherein the Montgomery and Davidson County trial courts concluded that Reid was competent to decide on his own behalf to forego any post-conviction relief on his convictions and sentences. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial courts. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Stephen Davis
The defendant, Stephen Davis, a pharmacist at Rite Aid, was convicted of one count of obtaining a controlled substance by fraud (a Class D felony) after he filled several suspicious prescriptions for Hydrocodone (a Schedule III controlled substance). The trial court imposed a two-year suspended sentence. On appeal, the defendant claims that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction and that the trial court erred by denying his motion for a mistrial and by failing to place him on judicial diversion. After carefully reviewing the record and the arguments of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Federated Rural Electric Insurance Exchange, et al. v. William R. Hill, et al.
Defendant allegedly suffered an on-the-job injury to his knees over the course of several years, and Plaintiffs paid workers’ compensation benefits on his behalf. However, after Defendant was videotaped building a barn, his employment was terminated and suit was filed against him for fraud. Defendant then filed a counter-complaint alleging, among other things, retaliatory discharge. The trial court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment with regard to the retaliatory discharge claim, and we affirm and remand. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
William H. Thomas, Jr. v. Tennessee Department of Transportation, et al.
An applicant for a billboard permit appeals the dismissal of his Petition for Judicial Review of the decision of the Commissioner of Tennessee Department of Transportation to deny his application. During the pendency of this action, the applicant admitted he had sold his leasehold interest in the property on which the billboard was to be located. Upon the filing of a motion to dismiss for lack of standing, the trial court concluded that petitioner “lacks standing to maintain this lawsuit and this cause is moot as a matter of law.” We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
The Bank of Nashville v. Charles Chipman, Sr., et al.
Defendant defaulted on a $300,000 loan from plaintiff bank. He subsequently renewed the loan but not before transferring certain assets to his wife. He never repaid the loan. The bank filed suit against the husband for breach of contract and fraud and against both defendants for fraudulent conveyance, conversion, civil conspiracy to defraud, and unjust enrichment. The bank also sought a lien lis pendens, a constructive trust, and a judicial sale and foreclosure. The trial court found against the husband with respect to the bank’s claims for breach of contract and fraud (in renewing the loan), against the wife for unjust enrichment, and against both defendants for fraudulent conveyance. The court denied the bank’s request for a constructive trust and a judicial sale and foreclosure. The parties appeal the trial court’s disposition of claims for fraud, civil conspiracy to defraud, and unjust enrichment, as well as its decision not to impose a constructive trust. We find for the bank on its fraud (against the husband) and unjust enrichment (against the wife) claims. We find against the bank on its claims for civil conspiracy to defraud and the imposition of a constructive trust. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Daniel O’Sicky
The Defendant, Daniel O’Sicky, pled guilty to second degree murder, a Class A felony; especially aggravated robbery, a Class A felony; and especially aggravated burglary, a Class B felony, in exchange for concurrent sentencing, with the length of his sentences left to the discretion of the trial court. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to concurrent sentences of 25 years as a violent offender for the Class A felony offenses and 12 years as a Range I, standard offender for the Class B felony offense. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred in setting the length of his sentences. Following our review, we conclude that the Defendant’s conviction for especially aggravated burglary should be modified to reflect a conviction for aggravated burglary, a Class C felony, because his especially aggravated burglary conviction was precluded by Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-14-404(d). Because our modification of the Defendant’s conviction does not affect the Defendant’s sentence length pursuant to the plea agreement, we impose a concurrent sentence of 6 years for the Class C felony conviction. We affirm the judgments of the trial court in all other respects. |
Cocke | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Milburn L. Edwards v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Milburn L. Edwards, was convicted by a Davidson county jury of multiple counts of rape, first degree burglary, aggravated burglary, and one count each of second degree burglary, aggravated rape, assault with intent to commit rape, and robbery. State v. Edwards, 868 S.W.2d 682, 685 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993) The trial court sentenced Petitioner to an effective sentence of life plus 415 years. Id. On appeal, this Court affirmed Petitioner’s convictions and modified his sentence to an effective sentence of life plus seventy-five years and an additional effective sentence of 120 years. Id. at 705. Subsequently, Petitioner unsuccessfully filed a petition for post-conviction relief and three petitions of writ of habeas corpus relief. See Milburn L. Edwards v. Cherry Lindamood, No. M2009-01132-CCA-MR3- HC, 2010 WL 2134156 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, May 27, 2010); Milburn L. Edwards v. Cherry Lindamood, No. M2006-01092-CCA-R3-HC, 2007 WL 152233 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Jan. 17, 2007), perm. app. denied, (Tenn. Apr. 16, 2007) (affirming the habeas corpus court’s dismissal of the petition for writ of habeas corpus); Milburn L. Edwards v. State, No. M2004-01378-CCA-R3-HC, 2005 WL 544714 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Mar. 7, 2005), perm. app. denied, (Tenn. Aug. 29, 2005) (affirming the habeas corpus court’s dismissal of the petition for writ of habeas corpus); Milburn L. Edwards v. State, No. M2002-02124-CCA-R3-PC, 2003 WL 23014683 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Dec. 15, 2003) (affirming the post-conviction court’s denial of the petition for postconviction relief). The subject of this appeal is Petitioner’s fourth petition for writ of habeas corpus in which he argues that the habeas corpus court erred in summarily dismissing his petition based on the State’s argument that the issue of whether Petitioner was properly sentenced under the 1982 Sentencing Act as opposed to the 1989 Sentencing Act was previously determined. Because we have concluded that this issue was previously determined on direct appeal, we affirm the habeas corpus court’s dismissal of the petition.
|
Wayne | Court of Criminal Appeals |