State of Tennessee v. Ronnie Bradfield
The petitioner, Ronnie Bradfield, appeals from the summary dismissal of his pro se pleading, in which pleading the petitioner asked for relief via the writ of error coram nobis, the writ of habeas corpus, and Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1. Because the record supports the dismissal, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Alando Deshaun Brown
On April 1, 2016, the Obion County Grand Jury indicted the Defendant, Alando Deshaun Brown, on two counts of rape. A jury convicted the Defendant of both counts at trial. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court merged Count 2 into Count 1 and sentenced the Defendant to eight years in the Department of Correction, with release eligibility after service of 100% of the sentence for Count 1. The Defendant filed a timely motion for a new trial, which the trial court denied. The Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal, claiming insufficient evidence to support the verdict. Based on the evidence in the record, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. |
Obion | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Scott L. Bishop v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Scott L. Bishop, was convicted of four counts of aggravated sexual battery and sentenced to serve eleven years in prison. The Petitioner filed a postconviction petition asserting that his trial counsel did not provide effective assistance, and the post-conviction court denied the petition after a hearing. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that trial counsel was deficient in failing to present character witnesses, failing to object to leading questions asked by the prosecutor, and preventing him from viewing the victim’s recorded forensic interview. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the Petitioner is not entitled to relief, and we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Nikolaus Johnson v. State of Tennessee
In this interlocutory appeal, the petitioner, Nikolaus Johnson, appeals the ruling of the post-conviction court ordering that he provide discovery materials to the State. The rules governing post-conviction proceedings impose upon the State an automatic and mandatory obligation to provide discovery materials to the petitioner as part of the postconviction proceeding even in the absence of a request for such materials. Although Rule 28 of the Rules of the Tennessee Supreme Court does not include a similar provision requiring automatic and mandatory reciprocal discovery from the petitioner to the State, the Post-Conviction Procedure Act provides that Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 governs discovery in a post-conviction proceeding. Nothing in Rule 28 specifically exempts a post-conviction petitioner from complying with the discovery requirements of Rule 16. Accordingly, we reverse that part of the post-conviction court’s ruling that held that the filing of a pro se petition for post-conviction relief, without more, triggers in the post-conviction petitioner a duty to provide reciprocal discovery to the State. Instead, we hold that a post-conviction petitioner’s duty to provide reciprocal discovery to the State arises when the State has fully complied with its own mandatory discovery obligation and has requested reciprocal discovery under the terms of Rule 16. Because the State has not yet satisfied its duty to disclose in this post-conviction proceeding, the post-conviction court erred by ordering the petitioner to provide reciprocal discovery to the State. Regarding the post-conviction court’s order that the petitioner disclose prior to the evidentiary hearing the underlying facts and data for those expert witnesses the petitioner intended to present at the evidentiary hearing, we conclude that Tennessee Rule of Evidence 705 authorizes the court’s order and, therefore, affirm. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Millard Ellis Spurgeon
The defendant, Millard Ellis Spurgeon, appeals his Sevier County Circuit Court jury convictions of burglary, theft of property valued at $1,000 or more, vandalism of property valued at $1,000 or more, and possession of burglary tools, challenging the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress certain evidence and the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Sevier | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jerry Reginald Burkes
The defendant, Jerry Reginald Burkes, appeals his convictions of money laundering, theft, and sales tax evasion and the accompanying 18-year effective sentence that included five years of confinement. The defendant argues that (1) the trial court erred by permitting the State to introduce certain evidence in violation of Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b); (2) the trial court erred by concluding that certain of the defendant’s convictions would be admissible for purposes of Tennessee Rule of Evidence 609; (3) the trial court violated his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination; (4) the State failed to discover and disclose exculpatory evidence; (5) the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction of money laundering; (6) the trial court erred by imposing a Range II sentence; and (7) the sentence imposed by the trial court is illegal. Because the fiveyear term of confinement imposed by the trial court is not authorized, we vacate the sentencing decision of the trial court and remand the case for resentencing. Additionally, because the amount of restitution ordered by the trial court cannot be satisfied under the terms ordered by the trial court, we vacate the restitution order and remand the case for the trial court to impose restitution in a manner that complies with Code section 40-35- 304. We affirm the judgments of the trial court in all other respects. |
Greene | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re: Samuel R., et al.
This appeal involves the termination of a father’s parental rights to his two children. The father suffers from paranoid schizophrenia. The trial court terminated his parental rights on the grounds of mental incompetence and abandonment by willful failure to visit and/or support. We reverse the trial court’s findings regarding abandonment but otherwise affirm the termination of parental rights. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Anne Marie Kent v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Anne Marie Kent, was convicted by a Lewis County jury of two counts of aggravated child neglect or endangerment and two counts of child abuse and received an effective sentence of twenty-two years. The Petitioner filed a post-conviction petition alleging that she received ineffective assistance of counsel, which was subsequently denied by the post-conviction court. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that trial counsel was ineffective by (1) failing to file a motion to change venue; (2) advising the Petitioner not to testify at trial; (3) failing to call a witness; and (4) failing to properly crossexamine a witness. Upon thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Lewis | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Family Trust Services, LLC, Et Al. v REO Holdings, LLC, Et Al.
This appeal of a conviction for criminal contempt arises out of a civil suit brought by business owners against the owners and employees of a competing business for fraud in the use of the tax-sale and redemption process for real property. The trial court issued a temporary injunction, prohibiting defendants from, inter alia, recording deeds in real estate transactions without an authentic notary seal on the documents and requiring defendants to notify the court and opposing counsel of any documents they intended to record in the Register’s Office. Appellant, the owner of the business which was the subject of the injunction, subsequently formed a trust in which Appellant retained the right to direct the distribution of income and principal and to amend, revoke, or terminate the trust. The trustee of the trust was conveyed real property in trust and recorded the deed without the notice required by the injunction. The property was subsequently sold, and, at Appellant’s instruction, a portion of the proceeds of sale used to pay Appellant’s legal fees for a related proceeding; the trial court held that, in so doing, the Appellant willfully and for a bad purpose violated the injunction, and held him in contempt. On appeal, Appellant argues that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction. We have reviewed the record and conclude that there is evidence to support the contempt conviction beyond a reasonable doubt and accordingly affirm the judgment. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Tennessee Community Organizations, Et Al. v. Tennessee Department of Intellectual And Developmental Disabilities
Appellants, home and community based service providers and their professional trade organization, appeal the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellee Tennessee Department of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. The case, which was filed as a declaratory judgment action, involves financial sanctions levied against Appellant providers by Appellee for billing for day services in excess of the 243-day limit imposed by a federal waiver. Appellants assert, inter alia, that the imposition of these fines exceeded Appellee’s statutory and/or contractual authority. Discerning no error, we affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment against Appellants on all counts of their petition. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
James Edgar Yarbrough v. Cheryl Ann Pinegar Yarbrough
A wife filed a motion pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02(3) to set aside a final decree of divorce granted on the ground of irreconcilable differences. The trial court denied the motion, finding that she failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the judgment was void. We affirm the trial court’s decision. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Mayla C. Anders v. Jonah Paul Anders
This is an appeal from the entry of an order dismissing an order of protection, which had already expired by its own terms. Because the order of protection has expired, we affirm the decision of the trial court and dismiss the appeal as moot. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
U.S. Bank National Association v. Letitia Robertson, et al.
This is an unlawful detainer case. U.S. Bank initiated an action against Letitia and Roderick Robertson in the general sessions court seeking possession of a residential property it had purchased at a foreclosure sale after the Robertsons defaulted on their home loan. The general sessions court issued U.S. Bank a writ of possession, and the Robertsons appealed to the circuit court. The circuit court granted U.S. Bank’s motion for summary judgment and writ of possession. The Robertsons appealed to this Court, arguing that the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the unlawful detainer claim. Because we have concluded that the circuit court had subject matter jurisdiction, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Martin Ellison Hughes
The Defendant, Martin Ellison Hughes, was found guilty by a Hawkins County Criminal Court jury of two counts of aggravated assault, a Class C felony. See T.C.A. § 39-13-102 (2014). The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range III, persistent offender to concurrent terms of fifteen and ten years, for an effective fifteen-year sentence at 45% service. On appeal, the Defendant contends that his sentence is excessive. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Hawkins | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee F/B/O City of Columbia v. 2013 Delinquent Taxpayers
This case involves Appellant’s attempt to redeem property that was purchased by Appellee at a tax sale. Appellant executed a power of attorney in favor of his son, which vested his son with authority to file the motion to redeem the subject property. Appellee objected to the motion on the ground that son, who is not a licensed attorney, engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by filing the motion to redeem; thus, Appellee argued that the motion was void. In response to the motion, Appellant filed an amended motion to redeem with the assistance of an attorney. The amended motion, however, was filed after the one year redemption period had expired. The trial court denied the amended motion to redeem, finding that the original motion to redeem was void and that the amended motion to redeem did not relate back to the date son filed the original motion. Thus, the trial court held that the amended motion was untimely. We hold that Appellant’s son was authorized, under the power of attorney, to file the original motion to redeem and that the filing of the form motion provided by the clerk’s office was not an unauthorized practice of law. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand. |
Maury | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Justus Onyiego
A Shelby County Criminal Court Jury convicted the Appellant, Justus Onyiego, of two counts of aggravated rape, a Class A felony. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court merged the convictions and sentenced him to seventeen years in confinement. On appeal, the Appellant contends that the trial court denied his right to due process by failing to dismiss the indictment due to the State’s ten-year preindictment delay, that the trial court erred by failing to strike the testimony of two police officers, that the trial court erred by refusing to admit evidence of the victim’s prior sexual behavior under Tennessee Rule of Evidence 412, and that a prosecutor’s failure to correct false statements during closing arguments violated Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959), and constituted prosecutorial misconduct. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we find no reversible error and affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Gabriel Dotson
The defendant, Gabriel Dotson, was convicted of rape of a child, aggravated sexual battery, rape, and incest for which he received an effective sentence of thirty-five years. On appeal he challenges his convictions on the grounds there was insufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdicts, the State made improper statements throughout trial which prejudiced the defendant, the trial court erred in instructing the jury, the trial court erred in enhancing his sentence, and the cumulative effect of the errors at trial prejudiced the verdict. Upon our thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Terry Lamont Bowden
The Defendant, Terry Lamont Bowden, appeals his jury conviction for possession of marijuana with the intent to sell or deliver. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress the evidence obtained during the search of his vehicle, arguing that the drug-sniffing dog’s “body language changes,” as testified to by the officer handler, were insufficient to establish probable cause. He also argues that his absence at the initial suppression hearing violated Rule 43 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure and his constitutional right to be present at trial. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable authorities, we conclude that the State failed to establish that the search of Defendant’s vehicle was supported by probable cause and that the case should, therefore, be reversed. Accordingly, the Defendant’s conviction is vacated, and the possession charge is dismissed. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jerry Edward Lanier v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Jerry Edward Lanier, appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition arguing he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition. |
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Demetrius Anderson v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Demetrius Anderson, appeals from the denial of post-conviction relief, alleging he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re J.T.,Et Al.
In this termination of parental rights case, the Department of Children’s Services filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of B.B. (mother) and J.T. (father) with respect to J.T., Jr. and H.T. (the children). The trial court determined that clear and convincing evidence supported two grounds for termination: (1) substantial noncompliance with a permanency plan; and (2) persistence of conditions. By the same quantum of proof, the court determined that termination is in the best interest of the children. We vacate the trial court’s judgment with respect to the ground of persistence of conditions. As modified, we affirm the trial court’s judgment terminating the parental rights of the parents because termination is supported by clear and convincing evidence of substantial noncompliance with a permanency plan and is in the best interest of the children. |
Dickson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Charles Lee Warner
The Defendant, Charles Lee Warner, appeals his jury conviction for first degree murder, for which he was sentenced to life imprisonment. In this direct appeal, the Defendant alleges the following errors: (1) that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, challenging the evidence establishing his identity and premeditation, and alleging that his jailhouse confession was not sufficiently corroborated; (2) that the trial court erred by declaring Robert Strange to be an unavailable witness and admitting his preliminary hearing testimony; and (3) relying on the rules of evidentiary relevance, that the trial court erred (a) by permitting a law enforcement officer to testify “regarding the [D]efendant’s propensity to carry weapons in the past”; (b) by allowing a former employer to testify about murderous threats made by the Defendant to the victim over a year prior to the victim’s death; and (c) by prohibiting defense counsel from eliciting testimony “regarding the potentially violent propensities of others known to the witness in the homeless community.” Following our review of the record and the applicable authorities, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re Emily J. Et Al.
Mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to two children on the grounds of abandonment by failure to support and persistence of conditions. Upon our review, we conclude that the record contains clear and convincing evidence that the conditions which led to the children’s removal from Mother’s home persisted and that termination of her rights is in the children’s best interest; however, the evidence of abandonment by failure to support is not clear and convincing. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment in part and affirm the termination of her rights. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
DL Rummage v. Kimberly Rummage
This is a divorce case in which the trial court designated the mother as the primary residential parent, awarded her child support and a portion of her attorney’s fees as alimony, and awarded her retroactive child support. The father appealed, arguing the trial court erred in numerous ways. We decline to address the father’s arguments, however, and affirm the trial court’s judgment because the father’s brief does not comply with the requirements of Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 27(a) or Court of Appeals Rule 6. We grant the mother’s request for frivolous appeal damages pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-1-122. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Deon Lamont Cartmell v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Deon Lamont Cartmell, was convicted of second degree murder for the killing of his wife and sentenced to eighteen years. On direct appeal, his conviction and sentence were affirmed. State v. Deon Lamont Cartmell, No. M2012-01925-CCA-R3-CD, 2014 WL 3056164, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. July 7, 2014), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Nov. 20, 2014). He then filed a timely petition for post-conviction relief, followed by three amended petitions, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, and cumulative error. Following a bifurcated hearing, the post-conviction court found that the Petitioner’s claims were without merit, and we agree. Accordingly, we affirm the order of the post-conviction court denying relief. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals |