State of Tennessee v. Nickelle Jackson
The Appellant, Nickelle Jackson, appeals from the trial court’s denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Rule 36.1 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure. The State has filed a motion requesting that this court affirm the trial court’s judgment pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Following our review, we grant the State’s motion and affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Rhonda Sue Griffis Grubb v. James Wesley Grubb
This appeal arises from a divorce. Rhonda Sue Griffis Grubb (“Wife”) filed for divorce against husband James Wesley Grubb (“Husband”) in the Chancery Court for Roane County (“the Trial Court”). Trial in this matter was bifurcated. The validity of the parties’ antenuptial agreement (“the Agreement”) was tried first. The Trial Court found that the provision in the Agreement purporting to cap Wife’s alimony was unenforceable but otherwise upheld the Agreement. Later, trial was conducted on the remaining issues in the case. Citing her adultery and a clause in the Agreement, the Trial Court declined to grant Wife alimony. However, the Trial Court awarded Wife a substantial portion of the marital estate. The Trial Court also ruled upon child support, parenting time, and education for the parties’ two daughters. Husband appealed to this Court raising numerous issues. Wife raised additional issues of her own. We find and hold that Husband failed to carry his burden as to the validity of the Agreement. As to the second stage of this bifurcated matter, we find that the Trial Court’s final judgment is devoid of factual findings to such a degree that we cannot effectively review the remaining issues in this case. We reverse as to the validity of the Agreement. We vacate and remand for further proceedings as necessary and for entry of a new final judgment containing detailed factual findings and conclusions of law as to the remaining issues. |
Roane | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Taboris Jones
Defendant, Taboris Jones, was convicted of possession with intent to sell more than 0.5 grams of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school, and the trial court applied the Drug Free School Zone Act (the Act) to enhance Defendant’s sentence. Defendant also pleaded guilty to simple possession of marijuana and improper display of registered license plate. The trial court imposed concurrent sentences of fifteen years for the cocaine charge, and ten days for simple possession of marijuana. The trial court also imposed a $250.00 fine for the marijuana charge and a $5.00 fee for improper display of a license plate. On appeal, Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for possession of more than 0.5 grams of cocaine with intent to sell within 1,000 feet of a school and that the Drug Free School Zone Act should not apply to his cocaine conviction. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Mack Transou v. Blair Leiback, Warden
Petitioner, Mack Transou, appeals the summary dismissal of his fifth pro se petition for habeas corpus relief. In 1999, Petitioner pleaded guilty to driving after being declared a habitual motor vehicle offender and was subsequently incarcerated. Based on a blood sample taken from Petitioner as part of the intake process, Petitioner was later convicted, in two separate cases, of two counts of rape, one count of sexual battery, and one count of aggravated burglary. In this appeal, Petitioner argues that the habeas corpus court erred in summarily dismissing his petition. Following a review of the record, we conclude that Petitioner is collaterally estopped from challenging the validity of his blood draw. None of Petitioner’s other claims state a cognizable claim for habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, we affirm the court’s denial of relief. |
Trousdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Brandon D. Washington
The defendant, Brandon D. Washington, appeals as of right from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 motion to correct an illegal sentence. The basis for the defendant’s appeal is the trial court’s alleged failure to accurately apply pretrial jail credits and other credits. Following our review, we conclude that the defendant failed to state a colorable claim and affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Gary Carr
On March 13, 1998, the petitioner, Gary Carr, entered a guilty plea to first-degree murder and received a sentence of life without parole. He did not file any post-judgment appeals. Eighteen years later, the petitioner, acting pro se, filed a motion entitled “Motion for Nunc Pro Tunc Order,” alleging, inter alia, that his conviction should be set aside and a new trial ordered because (1) the court clerk failed to enter or stamp-file his judgment of conviction in accordance with Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(e); and (2) he entered an unknowing and involuntary guilty plea based on threats that he would receive the death penalty. The Shelby County Criminal Court summarily dismissed his motion, and the petitioner now appeals. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jamie Jones
The defendant, Jamie Jones, appeals his Shelby County Criminal Court jury convictions of felony murder and aggravated child abuse, claiming that the trial court erred by denying his motion to recuse, by permitting the State to amend the indictment, by admitting certain evidence at trial, and that the cumulative effects of these errors prevented him from receiving a fair trial. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Adarius Dewayne Garth
Defendant, Adarius Dewayne Garth, was indicted by the Hamilton County Grand Jury for two counts of attempted first degree murder, domestic aggravated assault, aggravated assault, reckless endangerment, and employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. Defendant entered an “open” guilty plea to the lesser-included offense of reckless aggravated assault, and the remaining charges were dismissed on motion by the State. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Defendant to four years’ incarceration as a Range I offender. Defendant appeals the length and manner of service of his sentence. Following a careful review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State ex rel. Appaloosa Bay, LLC et al. v. Johnson County, Tennessee, et al.
Two owners of separate lots in a planned residential subdivision of twenty lots brought this action against the Johnson County Regional Planning Commission and several state entities after the subdivision’s developer went into bankruptcy and development of the subdivision was halted. When the developer had earlier posted a performance bond securing the completion of the subdivision’s infrastructure, the planning commission had approved the subdivision plat, although infrastructure, including roads and utilities, had not been completed. After developer’s bankruptcy, the State of Tennessee bought the land comprising all of the subdivision lots, except the two owned by the plaintiffs. All of the remaining land in the intended subdivision, except for several other lots purchased by individuals before the bankruptcy, is now part of the Doe Mountain Recreation Area — an entity subsequently created by the State. Plaintiffs brought this action for breach of contract between developer and the planning commission. Plaintiffs also asked the trial court to issue a writ of mandamus compelling the county to complete the proposed subdivision infrastructure. The trial court granted the defendants summary judgment. The plaintiffs appeal. We affirm. |
Johnson | Court of Appeals | |
Raymond Cass Ballard v. Gertrude Cayabas
This is an appeal arising out of a petition to change the primary residential parent and a petition for civil and criminal contempt. The notice of appeal for the criminal contempt finding was not timely filed, and the appeal is therefore dismissed as to the criminal contempt. With respect to the remaining issues, we remand this matter to the trial court for the limited purpose of conducting an evidentiary hearing regarding the timeliness of this appeal. |
Dyer | Court of Appeals | |
George Washington Matthews v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant, George Washington Matthews, appeals the trial court’s summary dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The State has filed a motion asking this Court to affirm pursuant to Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20. Said motion is hereby granted. |
Trousdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Sanders Lee Madewell v. State of Tennessee
A Davidson County jury convicted the Petitioner, Sanders Lee Madewell, of especially aggravated robbery and criminal impersonation, and the trial court sentenced him to an effective sentence of seventeen years in prison. On appeal, this Court affirmed the convictions and sentence. See State v. Sanders Lee Madewell, No. M2012-02150-CCAR3- CD, 2012 WL 3129186, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, July 31, 2012), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Nov. 26, 2012). The Petitioner filed a post-conviction petition alleging that he had received the ineffective assistance of counsel, that the State had withheld evidence favorable to him, that he was “actually innocent”, and that the trial court failed in its role as the thirteenth juror. Following a bifurcated hearing, the postconviction court denied relief. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains the aforementioned issues. After review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jessica Marcel Broadnax v. Quentin Elliott Lawrence
This case is again before this Court after being remanded to the Circuit Court for Hamilton County (“the Trial Court”) for a determination of whether it was in the best interest of the parties’ minor child (“the Child”) to relocate to New Jersey with Jessica Marcel Broadnax (“Mother”). Mother appeals the Trial Court’s May 5, 2016 order upon remand, which found, inter alia, that it was in the best interest of the Child to remain with Quentin Elliott Lawrence (“Father”) and not to move with Mother to New Jersey. We find and hold that the evidence in the record on appeal does not preponderate against the Trial Court’s findings. Finding no error on the part of the Trial Court, we affirm. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ronnie Brewer
The Defendant, Ronnie Brewer, was convicted by a Grundy County Circuit Court jury of reckless aggravated assault, a Class D felony. See T.C.A. § 39-13-102 (2003) (amended 2005, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2013). The trial court sentenced the Defendant to three years, which was suspended to probation after six months’ confinement. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction, (2) the trial court erred during jury instructions, and (3) the trial court erred during sentencing. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Grundy | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Errol Shields
A Williamson County jury convicted the Defendant, Errol Shields, of theft of property valued at more than $500 but less than $1,000, and the trial court sentenced him to two years, suspended to probation. The Defendant filed a motion for judgment of acquittal and/or a new trial and then filed a supplement to that motion. The trial court denied the motion, and the Defendant appeals. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it denied his motion because the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction and that the trial court improperly allowed the State to introduce evidence that the Defendant returned an item to the store that he had legally purchased. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tony Arthur Swann
Petitioner, Tony Arthur Swann, appeals from the denial of his Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 motion to correct a clerical error due to the alleged denial of pretrial jail credits and his Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 motion alleging that his sentence is illegal because of a probation revocation order. Following our review, we affirm the trial court’s decision. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tony Edward Bigoms
Following a jury trial, the Defendant, Tony Edward Bigoms, was convicted of premeditated first degree murder and abuse of a corpse, a Class E felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-13-202, -17-312(a). The trial court imposed a total effective sentence of imprisonment for life plus four years. On appeal, the Defendant contends (1) that jury separations occurred when the sequestered jury members were allowed to go to their individual homes, unsupervised, to pack their belongings at the start of the trial, were allowed to make phone calls to family members during the trial, and were allowed to visit with family members the day before the trial concluded; (2) that the trial court erred in admitting testimony from a Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (TBI) special agent regarding that agent’s testimony during a previous murder trial at which the Defendant was acquitted; (3) that the trial court erred in admitting evidence found as a result of a warrantless search of the Defendant’s cell phone; (4) that the State failed to prove venue by a preponderance of the evidence; and (5) that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the Defendant’s convictions. Following our review, we conclude that jury separations occurred when the jurors were allowed to go home unsupervised and to make phone calls during the trial. Furthermore, we conclude that the State failed to meet its burden to show that no prejudice to the Defendant occurred during these separations. Additionally, we conclude that the admission of the TBI agent’s testimony regarding the Defendant’s previous murder trial violated Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b)’s prohibition against evidence of other bad acts and that this error was not harmless. Finally, we conclude that the trial court erred in admitting the evidence found on the Defendant’s cell phone as that evidence was not relevant. Accordingly, we reverse the judgments of the trial court and remand the case for a new trial. With respect to the Defendant’s remaining issues, we will address those issues so as not to pretermit them. See State v. Parris, 236 S.W.3d 173, 189 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2007) (following a similar procedure). |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tony Edward Bigoms - separate opinion
All members of the panel agree that the Defendant must receive a new trial, although we disagree, in part, about the reasons why a new trial is required. Specifically, Judge Easter and I disagree with Judge Thomas’s analysis regarding whether a jury separation occurred when the jurors were allowed to speak with family members by telephone while in the presence of court officers, and we conclude that no separation occurred. Likewise, Judge Easter and I depart from Judge Thomas’s analysis of the trial court’s admission of evidence related to the Defendant’s knowledge of DNA matters due to his presence at a prior judicial proceeding at which expert DNA proof was received. Although Judge Easter and I agree with Judge Thomas that the evidence was inadmissible, we disagree with his analysis pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b) and believe, instead, that the proper framework for determining the admissibility of the evidence is provided by Rules 401, 402, and 403. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Alvina Tinisha Brown
The Defendant, Alvina Tinisha Brown, was convicted by a McMinn County Criminal Court jury of tampering with evidence, a Class C felony, misdemeanor possession of marijuana, misdemeanor possession of alprazolam, and possession of drug paraphernalia, Class A misdemeanors. See T.C.A. §§ 39-16-503 (2014) (evidence tampering), 39-17- 418 (2010) (amended 2014, 2016) (misdemeanor possession), 39-17-425 (2014) (possession of drug paraphernalia). The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range III, persistent offender to an effective fifteen years. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the trial court erred by denying her motion to suppress, (2) the evidence is insufficient to support her tampering with evidence conviction, and (3) the tampering with evidence sentence is excessive. Because the evidence is insufficient to support the Defendant’s conviction for tampering with evidence, we reverse the judgment of the trial court, vacate the conviction, and dismiss the charge. We affirm the remaining judgments of the trial court. |
McMinn | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Alex Goodwin and Joey Lee aka Joey Currie
In this consolidated appeal as of right, Defendants Alex Goodwin and Joey Lee challenge their convictions of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, see T.C.A. § 39-13-402, for which they received eleven and ten years’ imprisonment, respectively. Both Defendants challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting their convictions. Defendant Goodwin argues that the trial court erred in (1) denying his motion to suppress text messages obtained from Defendant Goodwin’s cell phone and (2) refusing to instruct the jury on facilitation as a lesser included offense of aggravated robbery. Defendant Lee argues that the trial court erred in (1) admitting into evidence a BB gun located remotely in time and place to the offense without any testimony to connect the weapon to the offense; (2) allowing an expert witness to interpret the meaning of slang terminology used by the co-defendant in the text messages; and (3) the cumulative effect of the errors committed during trial denied him a fair trial. Upon our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Douglas Martinez v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Douglas Martinez, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. Because the record is inadequate for our review, we affirm the judgment of the postconviction court. However, an error in the judgment form necessitates a remand for correction of the judgment to reflect the proper conviction. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Calvin Ellison v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Calvin Ellison, appeals from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, which petition challenged his 2013 convictions of misdemeanor reckless endangerment, aggravated assault, and employing a firearm during the commission of a felony. Because the petitioner failed to establish that he was prejudiced by counsel’s failure to challenge the consecutive alignment of his sentences and because he failed to establish that counsel performed deficiently in any other regard, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Sarah Nichole Neveau v. Adam Paul Neveau
This is an appeal from a divorce. The trial court granted the parties an absolute divorce and named the mother the primary residential parent of the parties’ minor child. The father filed this appeal challenging the designation of the mother as the primary residential parent and questioning the number of days of parenting time he received in the parenting plan. We find that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s designation of the mother as the primary residential parent; however, the evidence does preponderate against the parenting plan that greatly limits the parenting time awarded to the father. Because we have concluded that the evidence preponderates against the parenting plan, we remand this issue to the trial court to adopt a plan that affords the father additional parenting time and to modify the child support award to comport with the new parenting plan. We also conclude that the tax exemption should be awarded to the father until such time as the mother becomes employed, at which time the issue can be revisited. |
Loudon | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Courtney Means
More than twelve years ago, Defendant, Courtney Means, was convicted of three counts of aggravated robbery. As a result, he was sentenced to an effective sentence of twenty-four years in confinement. His convictions and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. State v. Courtney Means, No. W2005-00682-CCA-R3-CD, 2006 WL 709206 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 21, 2006), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Sept. 5, 2006). In January of 2016, Defendant filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1. The trial court appointed counsel, had a hearing, and then determined that Defendant’s claims were not colorable. As a result, the trial court denied relief. Defendant appealed. We affirm the denial of relief. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Zachary Carlisle v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Zachary Carlisle, was convicted of voluntary manslaughter and employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony and received an effective sentence of thirty years, all of which was affirmed on direct appeal. State v. Zachary Carlisle, No. W2012-00291-CCA-R3-CD, 2013 WL 5561480, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Oct. 7, 2013), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Mar. 17, 2014). Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial vindictiveness. The post-conviction court denied relief after a hearing. We affirm the denial of post-conviction relief. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals |