Brandon Hurst v. Jeffri Hurst (Now Wutz)
In this post-divorce action, Husband appeals the trial court’s classification of certain property. Because the trial court’s order contains conflicting findings, we vacate and remand. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Delisa Roose v. Bath Fitter Tennessee, Inc.
The defendant, Bath Fitter Tennessee, Inc. (“Bath Fitter”), appeals the denial of its motion to submit its contract dispute with the homeowner to arbitration pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). The parties executed a written contract for the installation of a new shower for the homeowner, the parts for which were manufactured in Canada. Both parties signed the contract on the front page of the two-page agreement where the signature lines were provided; however, neither party signed or initialed the arbitration provision that appeared on the back of the contract. Although not explicitly stated in its order, it appears that the trial court denied arbitration based upon the Tennessee Uniform Arbitration Act (“TUAA”), which, at the time of contracting, required that arbitration clauses in residential construction contracts be separately signed or initialed. It is undisputed that the materials installed by Bath Fitter were manufactured in Canada; thus, the transaction involves interstate commerce. For that reason, the FAA applies. Because the FAA does not require signatures or initials to indicate approval of arbitration clauses and preempts conflicting state laws that invalidate otherwise valid arbitration agreements, we reverse and remand with instructions to submit the contract dispute to arbitration pursuant to the FAA and stay proceedings until arbitration is complete. |
Franklin | Court of Appeals | |
Angela Wentworth v. Robert Turner et al.
After discovering that her neighbors had built a home on rural property that she owned, the property owner brought an ejectment action to remove them. The neighbors asserted an affirmative defense based upon Tennessee Code Annotated section 28-2-103, which protects against ejectment if the defendant can show adverse possession for seven years. Following a trial, the trial court found that the neighbors had proven adverse possession and set a boundary line of the possessed area, drawing upon an exhibit produced by a surveyor. The property owner asserts that the boundary determined by the trial court was too expansive and unsupported by clear and convincing evidence. The neighbors assert that the trial court drew the boundary line in a manner too restrictive, failing to encapsulate the entirety of the area they actually possessed. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Fentress | Court of Appeals | |
Darrel Hochhalter v. Christopher Brun, Warden
The Petitioner, Darrel Hochhalter, who is serving a twenty-two-year sentence for convictions of six counts of sexual battery by an authority figure and one count of rape, appeals from the Hickman County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for the writ of habeas corpus. He contends on appeal that the habeas corpus court erred in summarily dismissing his petition. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court. |
Hickman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Vana Mustafa v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Vana Mustafa, appeals from the post-conviction court’s summary dismissal of his amended petition for post-conviction relief. He contends that, although his claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel was litigated in his motion for new trial and on direct appeal, he is nonetheless entitled to post-conviction relief based on new grounds of trial counsel’s alleged ineffectiveness. In addition, he argues that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to include these new grounds on direct appeal. After review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ashley Bianca Ruth Kroese
Defendant, Ashley Bianca Ruth Kroese, appeals the denial of her motion to correct clerical errors in her judgments. On appeal, she claims the trial court erred by summarily denying her motion and failing to enter corrected judgments to include jail credit for the time she was on home confinement pending trial. Because the record is inadequate for meaningful review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re Dawson S., et al.
This appeal concerns the termination of a father’s parental rights. Richmond S. and Lisa S. (“Petitioners”) filed a petition in the Chancery Court for Fentress County (“the Trial Court”) seeking to terminate the parental rights of Cory S. (“Father”) to his minor children Dawson S. and Bentley S. (“the Children,” collectively).1 The Children were removed from Father’s custody following an incident in which Bentley was severely injured. After a hearing, the Trial Court entered an order terminating Father’s parental rights on five grounds, including severe child abuse. Father appeals, arguing among other things that he did not intentionally or knowingly harm Bentley. We vacate the Trial Court’s waiver of a home study of Bentley in Petitioners’ home because Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-116 requires that such a study be conducted when the child, like Bentley, is unrelated to the prospective adoptive parents.2 Otherwise, we find that each of the grounds for termination found by the Trial Court were proven by clear and convincing evidence. We find further, also by clear and convincing evidence, that termination of Father’s parental rights is in the Children’s best interest. We remand to the Trial Court for a home study to be conducted in compliance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-116. |
Fentress | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Natasha Lynn Bryant Fults
Defendant, Natasha Lynn Bryant Fults, was indicted by a Warren County Grand Jury on two counts of tampering with evidence. See T.C.A. § 39-16-503. Pursuant to a plea agreement, she pled guilty to both counts with the trial court to determine the length and manner of service. The trial court sentenced Defendant as a Range I offender to serve five years incarcerated. Defendant appeals, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by not sentencing her to split confinement or alternative sentencing. Following our review of the record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Warren | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Anthony T. Braden
Defendant, Anthony T. Braden, was convicted by a Humphreys County jury of two counts of aggravated sexual battery. The trial court imposed an effective ten-year sentence. Defendant appeals, arguing that the trial court committed plain error in finding that the victim had properly authenticated the video-recorded forensic interview under Tennessee Code Annotated section 24-7-123(b)(1). Upon our review of the entire record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Humphreys | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Kent E. Barton, Jr. v. Candayce J. Keller
Petitions involving child custody and support were filed in juvenile court. After a juvenile court magistrate ruled on the custody issues, Father filed a request for rehearing before the juvenile court judge under Tennessee Code Annotated section 37-1-107(d)(1)(E). The juvenile court judge affirmed the decision of the magistrate without explanation or addition. Because neither the juvenile court magistrate nor the juvenile court judge adjudicated the pending child support matter, we dismiss this appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
DeAndre Edmondson v. John Phillips
This is an appeal by a pro se appellant. Due to the deficiencies in his brief, we conclude that he has waived consideration of any issues on appeal and hereby dismiss the appeal. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Shavone D. Page
Pro se Petitioner, Shavone D. Page, appeals the summary denial of his Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 motion to correct an illegal sentence. After review, we agree with the trial court that Petitioner has not raised a colorable claim under Rule 36.1, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jayson Keith Johnson
A Benton County jury convicted the Defendant, Jayson Keith Johnson, of reckless homicide and introduction of contraband into a penal institution. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court found that the Defendant was a Range III, persistent offender. It also found that consecutive sentences were appropriate and sentenced the Defendant to an effective term of twenty years. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court improperly imposed consecutive sentences. He also asserts that the State did not provide adequate pretrial notice that he would be subject to Range III sentencing. Upon our review, we hold that the trial court acted within its discretion in imposing consecutive sentences. However, we respectfully remand the case for the trial court to resentence the Defendant as a Range II, multiple offender. |
Benton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Daniel Joe Otten II
Defendant, Daniel Joe Otten II, appeals from the trial court’s revocation of his community corrections sentence and order to serve the remainder of his five-year sentence in confinement. Defendant argues that he was denied the right to confront witnesses at the violation hearing and that the trial court improperly based its finding on hearsay evidence without a showing of reliability; that the evidence was insufficient to support the trial court’s finding that Defendant violated the conditions of his release and the trial court applied an incorrect standard by failing to distinguish between failure to report and absconsion; and that the trial court erred by ordering full revocation. After review, we conclude that the trial court erred by admitting hearsay testimony without a finding of good cause or reliability. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
VELENA MARIA RAMIREZ STIERLE v. LAZ RAMIREZ VALLVEY
In this post-divorce action, the parents filed cross-petitions to modify the agreed permanent parenting plan concerning their minor child. Following a hearing, the trial court entered an order determining that a material change in circumstance had occurred and that modification of the parenting plan was in the child’s best interest. The trial court changed the designation of primary residential parent from mother to father and adopted a new permanent parenting plan, which granted 237 days with the child to the father and 128 days to the mother annually. The mother has appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. We deny the father’s request for an award of attorney’s fees on appeal. |
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Allen Gooch, Jr.
Pro se Petitioner, James Allen Gooch, Jr., appeals the trial court’s summary denial of his third motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1, arguing that his sentence is illegal because the State failed to procure a valid arrest warrant. Upon our review, we conclude that the Petitioner has waived this claim for failure to raise it in his trial court motion and that, regardless, this court has already considered and rejected the Petitioner’s argument in a previous appeal. See State v. Gooch, No. M2017-01885-CCA-R3-CD, 2018 WL 3414293 (Tenn. Crim. App. July 13, 2018), no perm. app. filed. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Johntavius Griggs
In this interlocutory appeal pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 9, we review the trial court’s order denying the motion of Defendant, Johntavius Griggs, for release from custody after he was found to be incompetent to stand trial for first degree murder due to his intellectual disability. The trial court found that the conclusion of psychiatrists designated by the Department of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (“DIDD”)1 that Defendant was ineligible for involuntary commitment was based on their misinterpretation of the statutory provisions governing the involuntary commitment of defendants found to be incompetent to stand trial due to intellectual disability. The trial court ordered additional evaluations by DIDD-designated physicians or psychologists to determine Defendant’s eligibility for involuntary commitment. Upon review, we conclude that the DIDD-designated psychiatrists misinterpreted the applicable statutory provisions in determining that Defendant did not meet the statutory requirements for involuntary commitment. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment denying Defendant’s motion for release from custody, and we remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Sean Austin Miller
The Defendant, Sean Austin Miller, was convicted of aggravated sexual battery and received a sentence of ten years in confinement. The sole issue presented for our review is whether the Defendant touched the victim for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification. We affirm. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Leigh Katherine Littleton
The Johnson County Grand Jury charged the Defendant, Leigh Katherine Littleton, and |
Johnson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Glenn Larry Brown v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Glenn Larry Brown, Jr., appeals from the Knox County Criminal Court’s |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Robert Oliver
The Defendant, Robert Oliver, was convicted by a Washington County jury of aggravated rape and aggravated assault, for which he received an effective sentence of twenty-eight years' incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant argues that (1) the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to support his conviction of aggravated rape, (2) the State committed prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments, and (3) the trial court erred by ordering the Defendant to pay $60,000 in fines. Following our review, we concluded that the trial court failed to make appropriate findings regarding its imposition of fines. Therefore, we reverse the trial court's sentencing determination regarding the fines and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We otherwise affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Washington | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jamar Laquinn Frazier
The Defendant, Jamar Laquinn Frazier, appeals from his conviction for second degree murder following a jury trial. In this appeal, the Defendant claims that the trial court (1) denied him counsel of his choosing by denying his request to continue the trial date; (2) erred by allowing certain testimony at trial in violation of the law of the case doctrine and by allowing improper opinion, character, and hearsay testimony; and (3) erred by imposing the maximum twenty-five-year sentence. Additionally, the Defendant argues that he is entitled to a new trial (4) due to the denial of funding for an investigator during the motion for new trial proceedings and (5) due to cumulative error. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Trezevant Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Germantown, Tennessee
This appeal arises from a landowner’s complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that proposed construction was consistent with a permitted non-conforming use on its property. The parties agreed that the property was rezoned in 1957 and that certain non-conforming uses are permitted on the property. However, the city opposed the declaratory action due to the landowner’s refusal to submit plans to the city administrative zoning body to obtain its decision on whether the proposed use was a permissible extension of that non-conforming use. The city asserted that, without the landowner having applied for a building permit, the action was not ripe for adjudication. The trial court determined that the matter was ripe and that the landowner had standing, that it was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law, and that the proposed use was protected by the terms of the grandfather statute. Because the city was never permitted to rule on the proposed non-conforming use, we find that the matter was not ripe for review. Accordingly, the decision of the trial court is reversed, and the case is dismissed. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Tarence Nelson v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Tarence Nelson, was convicted by a jury of two counts of first degree premeditated murder and sentenced by the trial court to two consecutive terms of life imprisonment. In 2023, Petitioner filed his third petition for writ of error coram nobis (“the third petition”) claiming that a Sig Sauer P229 handgun (“the Sig Sauer”) that he hid in a computer at his home following the 2009 murders was newly discovered evidence. The Sig Sauer was found after Petitioner revealed its location and the coram nobis court by order entered on July 20, 2021, appointed counsel to represent Petitioner on the fingerprint analysis petition filed in conjunction with Petitioner’s second petition for writ of error coram nobis. Because Petitioner knew the location of the Sig Sauer at the time of his trial and because Petitioner was solely at fault in failing to present the Sig Sauer as evidence “at the proper time,” error coram nobis relief is not available. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-26- 105(b). We affirm the judgment of the coram nobis court in summarily dismissing the petition. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Johnny Graham
The Defendant, Johnny Graham, was convicted of possession of cocaine with the intent to sell or deliver and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to a term of nine years and placed him on probation. Thereafter, the Defendant was arrested for the unlawful possession of cocaine and multiple firearms. Following a hearing, the trial court fully revoked the Defendant’s suspended sentences and ordered him to serve the full term in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in fully revoking his suspended sentences. Upon our review, we respectfully disagree and affirm the trial court’s judgments. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals |