State of Tennessee v. Myron Pierre Walton
The Defendant, Myron Pierre Walton, entered guilty pleas in case numbers 232819 and 232878 to two counts of possession of cocaine with intent to sell. The Defendant was sentenced to serve concurrent sentences of eight years on supervised probation. Later, in case number 242679, the Defendant pleaded guilty to aggravated assault. The trial court revoked the Defendant’s probation in cases 232819 and 232878 and sentenced him to serve three years concurrently to the previously-imposed eight-year sentences. On August 21, 2014, the Defendant filed a motion pursuant to Tennessee Criminal Procedure Rule 36.1 requesting that the trial court correct illegal sentences. The trial court summarily denied relief, and the Defendant appealed. This court reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the case for further proceedings. On remand, the trial court summarily denied relief because of changes in the controlling law. The Defendant appeals the trial court’s denial of relief. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Paul D. Kennamer, Sr. Et Al. v. Bethany E. Chaffin et al.
This is an appeal from an order dismissing the claims made by the appellant, Paul D. Kennamer, Sr., against the appellees, Bethany E. Chaffin and Maria Kishimoto. Because the claims raised by Dorothy Kennamer in the Amended Complaint remain pending against the appellees, we lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Jerome Sidney Barrett v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Jerome Sidney Barrett, appeals from the post-conviction court’s denial of relief from his conviction for first degree premeditated murder. In this appeal, the Petitioner argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that the post-conviction court erred in denying his request for independent DNA testing. Upon review, we are compelled to reverse the judgment of the post-conviction court and remand for new hearings to determine whether the Petitioner is entitled to post-conviction relief and independent DNA testing... |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kenneth A. Jones
Defendant, Kenneth A. Jones, was convicted of one count of robbery and sentenced to fifteen years. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court erred by failing to grant a mistrial after a State’s witness made reference to other crimes of which Defendant was suspected. Upon our review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Crye-Leike Property Management, et al. v. Nedra Drayton
This is a forcible entry and detainer warrant case. The General Sessions Court for Shelby County entered a default judgment against the Appellant/tenant and granted an order for immediate possession in favor of the property manager and the landlord, Appellees. The Appellant filed a notice of appeal to the Circuit Court for Shelby County, using a pauper's oath in lieu of an appeal bond. The Circuit Court for Shelby County dismissed the appeal, finding that Appellant failed to perfect the appeal because she did not post a possession bond although she retained possession of the property. We affirm and remand. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Danny R. Mays v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Danny R. Mays, appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition, arguing the post-conviction court erred in finding he received effective assistance of counsel at trial and on direct appeal. After our review of the record, briefs, and applicable law, we affirm the denial of the petition. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Antonio Champion
The defendant, Antonio Champion, appeals 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. Because the challenged sentences are expired, the defendant is not entitled relief. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Angela Slavko v. Scott Slavko
This post-divorce appeal concerns the mother’s notice of intent to relocate to Pennsylvania with the parties’ minor children. The father responded by filing a petition in opposition to the requested relocation. The trial court granted the father’s petition. The mother appeals. We reverse the decision of the trial court. |
Marshall | Court of Appeals | |
Christy Gail Bowman v. Mounir Benouttas, et al.
At issue in this case is whether a defendant, which claims to be merely the broker of a shipment that was being delivered, may be held vicariously liable for the negligence of the delivery driver. This action arises out of a motor vehicle accident involving a tractor-trailer that was owned and operated by Mounir Benouttas. At the time of the accident, Mr. Benouttas was delivering a shipment pursuant to a contractual arrangement with MGR Freight Systems, Inc. In addition to suing Mr. Benouttas and MGR, Plaintiff sued AllStates Trucking, Inc., which had contracted with MGR to deliver the shipment to AllStates’ customer. Plaintiff claimed AllStates was vicariously liable under the doctrines of respondeat superior and joint venture. Plaintiff later amended her complaint to include the additional theory of implied partnership. The trial court summarily dismissed all claims against AllStates because Plaintiff could not establish an agency relationship, joint venture, or implied partnership. Plaintiff appeals contending summary judgment was inappropriate because material facts are at issue. Plaintiff also challenges the trial court’s decision to consider only the legal theories Plaintiff explicitly stated in her complaint, the court’s partial denial of Plaintiff’s motion to amend her complaint, denial of her motion for summary judgment, and its decision to allow AllStates to rely on untimely filings. Finding no error with the trial court’s decisions, we affirm. |
Coffee | Court of Appeals | |
Gordon Wayne Davis v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Gordon Wayne Davis, pleaded guilty to multiple felony offenses including one count of possession with intent to sell a Schedule II narcotic in a park zone, two counts of sale of a Schedule II narcotic, one count of possession of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, and one count of simple possession. In accordance with the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced the Petitioner, a Range II offender, to an effective sentence of fifteen years, to be served at 100%. The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief in which he alleged that he had received the ineffective assistance of counsel and that his guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered. After a hearing, the post-conviction court dismissed the petition. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that his counsel was ineffective and that his guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered. After review, we conclude that the post-conviction court erred when it dismissed the Petitioner's petition for post-conviction relief. We therefore reverse the post-conviction court's judgment. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Charles Ward, Jr.
The defendant, Charles Ward, Jr., appeals as of right from the Davidson County Criminal Court’s denial of his Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 motion to correct an illegal sentence. The defendant contends that the trial court erred in concluding that Rule 36.1 relief was not available because the alleged illegal sentences had expired prior to the filing of the motion. Following our review, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s Rule 36.1 motion. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
John Barlow v. State of Tennessee
A Shelby County jury convicted the Petitioner, John Barlow, of aggravated child abuse and aggravated child neglect, and the trial court sentenced the Petitioner to an effective sentence of twenty-five years. This Court affirmed the Petitioner's conviction for aggravated child abuse but reversed and dismissed his conviction for aggravated child neglect, noting that the holding did not change his sentence. State v. John Barlow, No. W2008-01128-CCA-R3-CD, 2010 WL 1687772, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, Apr. 26, 2010), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Sept. 24, 2010). The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief in which he alleged that that his trial counsel was ineffective. The post-conviction court, after a hearing, denied the petition. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred when it dismissed his petition. After review, we affirm the post-conviction court's judgment. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Bakary Kassama
The defendant, Bakary Kassama, appeals the trial court’s summary dismissal of his Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 motion to correct an illegal sentence. Because the defendant failed to state a colorable claim for Rule 36.1 relief, we affirm the summary dismissal of the motion pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joe Willis
The Defendant-Appellant, Joe Willis, was convicted by a Shelby County jury as charged of two counts of aggravated assault, one count of aggravated burglary, one count of theft of property valued at $500 or less, and one count of evading arrest, and the trial court imposed an effective ten-year sentence. In his sole issue on appeal, Willis challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Antonio Bonds v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Antonio Bonds, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s preliminary order dismissing his third petition for post-conviction relief. The petitioner claims the post-conviction court erred in dismissing his petition as time-barred. Upon review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s preliminary order dismissing the petition. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Robert Butler
In consolidated cases, the defendant, Robert Butler, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of two counts of aggravated burglary, Class C felonies; theft of property valued at $1000 or more but less than $10,000, a Class D felony; and theft of property valued at $500 or less, a Class A misdemeanor. He was sentenced to ten years for each aggravated burglary conviction, six years for the theft of property valued at $1000 or more conviction, and eleven months and twenty-nine days for the theft of property valued at $500 or less conviction. The court ordered partial consecutive sentencing and imposed an effective term of twenty years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in allowing testimony from a State's witness that contained information from his statement in another case pending against him and that the court erred in sentencing. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court but remand for entry of corrected judgments in Counts 1 and 2 of Case No. 13-06085 to check the box indicating that the defendant was found guilty in those counts. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Johnny Parker v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Johnny Parker, acting pro se, appeals the post-conviction court's denial of his petitions for post-conviction relief, which, at his request, this court consolidated for the purposes of appeal. On appeal, as we understand, he argues as to both that his post-conviction counsel was ineffective. After review, we affirm the denial of the petitions. |
Lake | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re: Zachariah G.
This appeal concerns a termination of parental rights. The Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) filed a petition in the Juvenile Court for Rutherford County (“the Juvenile Court”) seeking to terminate the parental rights of Brooke G. (“Mother”) to the minor child Zachariah G. (“the Child”). After a trial, the Juvenile Court entered an order finding the grounds of severe abuse and abandonment by wanton disregard by clear and convincing evidence and finding also that termination of Mother’s parental rights is in the Child’s best interest. Mother appeals to this Court. We affirm the judgment of the Juvenile Court. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jayme Conkin
A Sullivan County Criminal Court jury convicted the Defendant-Appellant, Jayme Conkin, of first offense driving under the influence (DUI), a Class A misdemeanor, and she received a sentence of eleven months and twenty nine days, suspended to supervised probation after forty-eight hours' incarceration in the Sullivan County jail. On appeal, Conkin contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support her conviction; (2) the trial court erred in denying her motion in limine; (3) the Tennessee DUI statute is unconstitutionally vague; and (4) the State failed to disclose exculpatory evidence, requiring a new trial. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jordan Gregory Love
The Defendant, Jordan Gregory Love, was convicted by a Davidson County Criminal Court Jury of two counts of aggravated child abuse of a child eight years of age or less, Class A felonies, and two counts of aggravated child neglect of a child eight years of age or less, Class A felonies. See T.C.A. § 39-15-402 (2010) (amended 2011, 2012, 2016). The trial court merged the aggravated child abuse convictions and merged the aggravated child neglect convictions and sentenced the Defendant to concurrent eighteen-year sentences at 100% service. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions, (2) the trial court erred by limiting his cross-examination of a State’s witness, and (3) the trial court erred by admitting the non-testifying codefendants’ statements into evidence. We conclude that although the evidence sufficiently established that the victim suffered bodily injury, the evidence is insufficient to show that the victim suffered serious bodily injury and that the victim’s injury was inflicted by a dangerous instrumentality. Furthermore, we conclude that the trial court erred by admitting the non-testifying codefendants’ statements into evidence. The Defendant’s convictions for aggravated child abuse and aggravated child neglect by inflicting serious bodily injury are reversed. Because the trial court erred by admitting evidence at the trial, the case is remanded to the trial court for a new trial on the lesser charges of child abuse and child neglect. The Defendant’s convictions for aggravated child abuse and aggravated child neglect by inflicting injury with a dangerous instrumentality are vacated, and the charges are dismissed |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jordan Gregory Love-Dissent
I agree with the majority’s conclusions regarding Mr. Pilarski’s testimony and the trial court’s committing reversible error by admitting the codefendants’ statements. To me, the fact that the State even pursued charges against everyone in the home and the victim’s father is troubling. I write separately, though, to dissent from the majority’s conclusion that the evidence is insufficient to support the Defendant’s convictions. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jerrico Lamont Hawthorne
The Defendant, Jerrico Lamont Hawthorne, was convicted by a Hamilton County Criminal Court jury of first degree premeditated murder, first degree felony murder during the perpetration of or attempt to perpetrate a robbery, attempt to commit first degree murder, a Class A felony, especially aggravated robbery, a Class A felony, and attempt to commit especially aggravated robbery, a Class B felony. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-202 (2014), 39-13-403 (2014), 39-12-101 (2014). The trial court merged the felony murder conviction with the premeditated murder conviction and sentenced the Defendant to life imprisonment. The court also sentenced the Defendant to concurrent sentences of twenty-five years for attempted first degree murder, twenty-five years for especially aggravated robbery, and twelve years for attempted especially aggravated robbery. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions, (2) the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress the pretrial identifications, (3) the trial court erred by permitting evidence of cell phone data, (4) the trial court erred by permitting evidence pursuant to the dying declaration exception to the rule against hearsay, and (5) the trial court erred by failing to provide jury instructions on the lesser included offenses of voluntary manslaughter, reckless homicide, and criminally negligent homicide. Although we affirm the Defendant's convictions for first degree premeditated and felony murder, attempted first degree murder, and especially aggravated robbery, we reverse the trial court's judgment for attempted especially aggravated robbery, vacate the conviction, and dismiss the charge because of insufficient evidence. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
John Christopher Gibbs v. Lisa Stacy Gibbs
This appeal involves a post-divorce civil contempt petition. Approximately three years after the parties’ divorce, the former wife filed a petition in the trial court seeking to hold the former husband in civil contempt for willfully breaching provisions of their property settlement agreement that was incorporated into the divorce decree that required him to pay certain debts and transfer certain real and personal property to her. The husband did not attend the contempt hearing, and the trial court found that he willfully violated the divorce decree based on the wife’s testimony. The trial court ordered that the husband be incarcerated and fined $50 per day until such time as he came into compliance with the divorce decree. On appeal, the husband argues that the trial court lacked the authority to enforce the property settlement agreement by contempt and that his failure to comply was not willful. We hold that contempt is a proper remedy for the breach of a property settlement agreement that has been incorporated into the divorce decree. Additionally, we hold that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s finding that the husband’s failure to comply with the divorce decree was willful. We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court as modified in this opinion. |
Claiborne | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joseph A. Cundiff
Defendant, Joseph A. Cundiff, was indicted by a Sumner County Grand Jury for premeditated first degree murder of his wife and unlawful possession of a handgun by a felon. After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of second degree murder. Defendant pled guilty to unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon. The trial court imposed concurrent sentences of twenty-five years for second degree murder and two years for unlawful possession of a handgun by a felon. On appeal, Defendant argues that: 1) the trial court erred by denying his motions for judgment of acquittal; 2) the evidence was not sufficient to support his second degree murder conviction; and 3) the trial court erred in sentencing him to the maximum sentence for second degree murder. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Gregory L. Hatton v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Gregory L. Hatton, pleaded guilty on July 18, 1977, to armed robbery, first degree burglary, two counts of simple kidnapping, assault with intent to commit murder, grand larceny, and rape in the Giles County Circuit Court. The offenses in this case occurred in Maury County, and Petitioner’s brief states that a motion for a change of venue had been filed in 1977. Maury and Giles County are in the same judicial district. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of life plus thirty years. Gregory Hatton v. State, No. M2000-00756-CCA-R3-PC, 2001 WL 567845 (Tenn. Crim. App. May 25, 2001). He filed a request pursuant to the Post-Conviction DNA Analysis Act of 2001 seeking testing of any physical evidence in his case. The post-conviction court summarily denied relief based upon affidavits from the relevant authorities stating that no physical evidence remained for testing. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Giles | Court of Criminal Appeals |