Opinions
ROBERT A. MARTIN ET AL. v. ROBERT E. MARTIN ET AL.
Robert A. Martin (“Father”) and Donna Saas (“Daughter”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a petition in the Chancery Court for Cumberland County (“the Trial Court”), seeking the removal of Robert E. Martin (“Son”) as trustee of the Martin Irrevocable Trust (“the Trust”) and making claims of breach of fiduciary duty and conversion of assets against Son and his wife, Karen Martin (“Son’s Wife”) (collectively, with Son, “Defendants”). The Trial Court struck Defendants’ defenses and denials in their answer given their failure to provide an accounting of the Trust’s assets despite the Trial Court’s orders to do so. After a hearing on damages, the Trial Court awarded Daughter half of the asset that was supposed to have been put in the Trust, half of the funds that Son had converted from Father’s accounts, attorney’s fees, punitive damages, and lost wages. Defendants appeal. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. |
Cumberland | Court of Appeals | |
Jackie Mansfield Broyles v. Calvin C. Herrin, Jr., individually and d/b/a Hickory Creek Barbecue et al.
After slipping and falling on accumulated snow and ice at a restaurant, a man filed a premises liability lawsuit against the owner of the restaurant. The trial court granted summary judgment to the owner based on its finding that the owner owed no duty to protect the man from accumulated snow and ice because the incident occurred during an ongoing winter storm. Discerning no error, we affirm the trial court’s decision. |
Warren | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. David Anthony Avery
The Petitioner, David Anthony Avery, acting pro se, appeals from the summary dismissal of his third motion pursuant to Rule 36.1 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure seeking correction of his sentence. As grounds, the Petitioner asserts his sentence is illegal because attempted murder, a crime which he was convicted of, does not exist in Tennessee. Because the Petitioner’s motion failed to state a colorable claim for relief, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Antwon DeJuan Wiley
Following a trial, a Weakley County jury found Defendant, Antwon Dejuan Wiley, guilty of aggravated robbery and theft under $1,000, for which the trial court sentenced him to a total effective sentence of fifteen years’ incarceration. On appeal, Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction for aggravated robbery and that the trial court should have merged his conviction for theft under $1,000 with the aggravated robbery conviction based upon double jeopardy principles. Following a thorough review, we affirm Defendant’s convictions and sentences but remand for the merger of his conviction for theft under $1,000 into his aggravated robbery conviction and entry of amended judgments reflecting the merger. |
Weakley | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Derrick Darnell Moore and Demichael Tyrone Moore v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner Derrick Darnell Moore and Co-Petitioner Demichael Tyrone Moore1 were jointly tried and convicted of first degree murder, among other offenses, for which they were each sentenced to an effective term of life imprisonment. Thereafter, they filed separate petitions for post-conviction relief, alleging that they were denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial. Specifically, the Petitioners raised three shared claims, arguing that their respective trial lawyers (1) failed to call key witnesses to testify; (2) failed to seek suppression of cell phone data; and (3) failed to raise or preserve an objection to hearsay for the later appeal. In addition to these shared claims, Petitioner Derrick Moore presented two individual grounds for relief, contending that the post-conviction court erred in denying his claims that his lawyer (1) failed to effectively communicate and investigate the case; and (2) failed to fulfill promises made during opening statements. Co-Petitioner Demichael Moore raised one additional individual claim, asserting that his lawyer was ineffective in failing to object to testimony regarding his history of incarceration. Finally, both Petitioners asserted that the cumulative prejudicial effect of these alleged deficiencies entitled them to post-conviction relief. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief, and the Petitioners appealed. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgments of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tony Thomas
Defendant appeals his Shelby County Criminal Court jury conviction of aggravated rape, challenging the sufficiency of the convicting evidence and arguing that the trial court should have dismissed the indictment based on either pre-indictment delay or the failure to follow the mandates of Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 5, that post-indictment delay deprived him of the right to a speedy trial, that the trial court erred by refusing to grant a mistrial following the victim’s in-court outburst, that the trial court violated his right to counsel, and that the trial judge should have recused himself. Upon review, we discern no error, and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
IN RE KENNA R., ET AL.
This appeal concerns termination of parental rights. The Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) filed a petition in the Juvenile Court for Hawkins County (“the Juvenile Court”) seeking to terminate the parental rights of Rikiya P. (“Mother”) to her minor children Annabelle, Jasmine, and Liam (“the Children,” collectively), as well as the parental rights of Daniel R. (“Father”) to Liam.1 The Children had been removed from Mother and Father’s custody because Mother starved and beat Kenna, Father’s daughter by another mother.2 Father was aware of the abuse but failed to protect Kenna. The Juvenile Court terminated Mother’s and Father’s parental rights on the ground of severe child abuse. Mother and Father appeal. We find, as did the Juvenile Court, that the ground of severe child abuse was proven against Mother and Father by clear and convincing evidence. We find further, as did the Juvenile Court, that clear and convincing evidence supports termination of Mother’s and Father’s parental rights as being in the best interest of the Children. We affirm. |
Hawkins | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Sentrell Pittman
Defendant, Sentrell Pittman, was indicted by the Shelby County Grand Jury for one count each of rape of a child, aggravated sexual battery, and rape. A jury convicted Defendant as charged, and following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed an effective thirty-year sentence. Defendant appeals, arguing that: 1) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; 2) the trial court erred in denying Defendant’s motion to compel the victim to submit to a mental evaluation; 3) the trial court erred in denying Defendant’s motion to allow the jury to visit the scenes of the incidents; 4) the trial court erred in denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment based on the State’s violation of State v. Ferguson; and 5) the trial court erred in denying Defendant’s motion under Tennessee Rule of Evidence 412 seeking to allow cross-examination of the victim regarding her prior sexual history. Finding no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William C. Sutton
The Defendant, William C. Sutton, received and signed a written trespass notice from Walmart informing him that he was banned from entering its retail locations for life. Less than a year later, the Defendant entered one of Walmart’s retail locations and left without paying for clothing items he concealed in a plastic bag. Before trial, the Defendant made an oral motion in limine to exclude the trespass notice as inadmissible hearsay, which the trial court denied. The jury subsequently convicted the Defendant of burglary, for which he received a twelve-year sentence of imprisonment. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion in limine and that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. After review, we affirm. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
ESTATE OF MARTHA HARRISON BANE v. JOHN BANE
In this declaratory judgment action, the trial court denied the appellant’s motions, filed one year after a decision from this Court affirming the trial court’s final judgment, seeking to intervene as a party in the lawsuit and to “correct” the trial court’s previous order. The trial court also awarded sanctions to the opposing party pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 11. The appellant timely appealed these rulings. Following our thorough review, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the appellant’s motion to intervene as untimely. However, we vacate the trial court’s award of Rule 11 sanctions and remand for the limited purpose of allowing the trial court to make the appropriate findings concerning its adjudication of the Rule 11 motion, including the ability to hold a hearing, if necessary, regarding the factual analysis required by Rule 11. The appellant’s other issues are pretermitted due to his status as a non-party. We decline to award attorney’s fees incurred on appeal to the appellee, and we further decline to impose sanctions against the appellee’s counsel for representations made during oral argument. |
Cocke | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Mykeena C. et al.
Mother and Father appeal the termination of their parental rights to their two shared children. We conclude the trial court properly found that the Department of Children’s Services proved by clear and convincing evidence at least one ground for termination as to each parent and that termination of parental rights is in the children’s best interest. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s termination of parental rights. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Fredrick Devell Rice, Jr.
The Defendant, Fredrick Devell Rice Jr., entered guilty pleas to being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm, tampering with evidence, and felony drug possession with intent to sell. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of ten years and placed the Defendant on probation after service of twelve months incarceration. The Defendant subsequently tested positive for fentanyl and norfentanyl four times. At the Defendant’s probation violation hearing, the Defendant objected to an assessment report the State offered through a witness who did not prepare it as inadmissible hearsay, which was overruled by the trial court. The trial court revoked the Defendant’s probation and ordered him to serve the remainder of his sentence. In this appeal, the sole issue presented for our review is whether the trial court erred in admitting the testimony from the assessment report. After review, we affirm. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Reginald Jenkins
Reginal Jenkins, Defendant, appeals from his convictions for two counts of attempted first degree murder and two counts of employing a firearm during a dangerous felony, claiming there was insufficient evidence regarding identity and premeditation. We disagree with Defendant’s claims and affirm the judgments. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
BIOBELE GEORGEWILL V. CMH HOMES, INC.
The plaintiff seeks recusal of the trial judge pursuant to Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 10B. The trial judge denied the plaintiff’s sixth motion to recuse. The plaintiff’s Rule 10B petition fails to comply with the rule, and the grounds for recusal offered are without merit. We affirm the trial court’s decision. |
McMinn | Court of Appeals | |
Hannah Development, LLC v. Maverick General Contractors, LLC et al.
A Tennessee residential homebuilder alleged that a Floridian general contractor and its principal fraudulently disguised the painting of fencing at the principal’s personal residence as a legitimate business expense on a fraudulent invoice submitted to and paid by the Tennessee company. The company brought a tort suit in Tennessee. The trial court granted the Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. We conclude that the homebuilder’s allegations and the Defendants’ contacts with Tennessee are sufficient for specific personal jurisdiction, and that exercising personal jurisdiction would not violate the Due Process Clause. Accordingly, we reverse. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Green A/K/A v. Michael Cheairs
The Defendant, Michael Green a/k/a Michael Cheairs, appeals his Madison County Circuit Court jury conviction of violating the sex offender registry requirements, see Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-39-208, arguing that the admission of and testimony about the violation report by someone other than the officer who prepared it violated the Confrontation Clause and that the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the report was the only evidence supporting his conviction. The State argues that the Defendant waived plenary review of the issue, and that he is not entitled to relief via plain error review. Upon review, we conclude that the Defendant properly preserved the issue below and agree that the admission of the violation report via a substitute witness violated the Confrontation Clause. The error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the inadmissible statements in the report were the primary evidence of the Defendant’s guilt. Accordingly, we reverse the Defendant’s conviction and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Green A/K/A v. Michael Cheairs - Dissent
I respectfully disagree with the majority’s conclusion that Defendant properly preserved his Confrontation Clause issue and that he is entitled to relief. I would conclude that Defendant’s issue is waived, and Defendant is not entitled to plain error relief. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Clarence Hayes v. Chance Leeds, Warden
Clarence Hayes, Petitioner, appeals the dismissal of his habeas petition in which he argued his judgment was void because the person for whose actions he was held criminally responsible was never convicted of murder. After the dismissal of the Petition, Petitioner filed a motion to reconsider and a motion for clarification and reconsideration. The habeas corpus court denied both motions and Petitioner filed an untimely notice of appeal. Because the interest of justice does not warrant the timely filing of the notice of appeal, Petitioner’s appeal is dismissed. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Devonta Ivy
The Defendant, Devonta Ivy, was convicted by a Fayette County jury of aggravated robbery, unlawful possession of a weapon, theft of property, and evading arrest. The trial court entered judgments ordering the Defendant to serve an effective eleven-year sentence consecutively to a previously unserved sentence from Mississippi. On appeal, the Defendant claims that the evidence was insufficient to support each conviction and that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of a prior conviction. Following our review and pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36, we remand for entry of corrected judgments for Counts Three and Four due to clerical errors. Otherwise, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Fayette | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re Krystopher C. et al.
In this case involving termination of the father’s and mother’s parental rights to their two minor children, the trial court determined that three statutory grounds for termination had been proven as to each parent by clear and convincing evidence. The trial court further determined that clear and convincing evidence demonstrated that termination of the father’s and mother’s parental rights was in the children’s best interest. The father and mother have each appealed and have proceeded pro se upon waiving their rights to appointed counsel. Having determined that clear and convincing evidence did not support the trial court’s finding of the statutory abandonment ground of failure to support as to the mother, we reverse the trial court’s judgment with respect to this ground as to the mother. We affirm the trial court’s judgment in all other respects, including termination of the father’s and mother’s parental rights. |
Cannon | Court of Appeals | |
Celeste Lachapelle as the beneficiary of the will of James Russell Pace v. Blanchard E. Tual, et al.
Appellant sued the law firm that prepared a will on behalf of her fiancé for professional negligence after an out-of-state will contest resulted in the invalidation of the will. The trial court concluded that Appellant’s claim accrued when she was forced to respond to the will contest and not when the will was actually held to be invalid. Thus, Appellant’s action was filed after the one-year limitations period had expired, and the trial court granted summary judgment for the law firm. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Robert Jason Burdick v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Robert Jason Burdick, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court’s order denying his three post-conviction petitions, seeking relief from his convictions of one count of especially aggravated kidnapping, three counts of aggravated rape, one count of attempted aggravated rape, and one count of aggravated burglary and his effective sentence of forty-six years in confinement. On appeal, the Petitioner claims that he received the ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel, that the cumulative effect of counsel’s deficient performance warrants new trials and sentencing hearings, and that the consecutive sentencing statute is void for vagueness. Based on our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Shanessa L. Sokolosky
This case is about mootness. Ms. Sokolosky appealed a probation revocation order and the denial of her motion to dismiss a violation arrest warrant. During the pendency of that appeal, Ms. Sokolosky’s probation was fully revoked, she served her sentence, and she was released. The Court of Criminal Appeals then dismissed her appeal as moot because no active controversy existed for resolution. We respectfully disagree. Because Ms. Sokolosky’s probation violation “may have adverse consequences after the completion of [her] term of commitment, the doctrine of mootness does not apply.” State v. Rodgers, 235 S.W.3d 92, 93 (Tenn. 2007). We reverse the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals and remand the case for consideration of Ms. Sokolosky’s appeal. |
Smith | Supreme Court | |
CHARLES J. BEARD ET AL. v. WILLIAM ODOM ET AL.
This appeal arises from the purchase of a residential home. The plaintiff homebuyers asserted claims against the defendant sellers for intentional or negligent misrepresentation and violation of the Tennessee Residential Property Disclosure Act (“TRPDA”). The plaintiffs’ claims were based solely on the defendants’ TRPDA disclosure statement, which said there were no known defects in the home’s floor structure. The trial court summarily dismissed all claims on the basis that the plaintiffs knew or should have known about the alleged defects because the plaintiffs had every opportunity to discover the defects and were made aware of the defects by their own observations and inspection reports. On appeal, the plaintiffs contend that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether they reasonably relied on the defendants’ misrepresentation. But the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of proof on summary judgment to establish that they actually or reasonably relied on the disclosure statement. For this reason, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
Xingkui Guo v. State of Tennessee
Professor appeals from the Tennessee Claims Commission’s Rule 41.02(2) involuntary dismissal of his breach of contract action against Tennessee State University. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. |
Court of Appeals |