State of Tennessee v. Cordalle Benton
The Shelby County Grand Jury indicted Cordalle Benton (“the Defendant”) for one count of rape of a child that allegedly occurred between December 1, 2012, and July 16, 2013. Following a jury trial, the Defendant was convicted as charged and sentenced to thirty-two years’ incarceration. On appeal, he argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Antoine Perrier
The Defendant-Appellant, Antoine Perrier, was convicted in the Shelby County Criminal Court of attempted voluntary manslaughter in Count 1, employment of a firearm during the attempt to commit a dangerous felony in Count 2, aggravated assault in Counts 3 through 7, and assault in Count 8. The trial court merged Count 3 with Count 1 before sentencing Perrier to an effective sentence of thirty years. In this delayed appeal, Perrier argues: (1) the trial court erroneously instructed the jury on self-defense; (2) the trial court committed plain error in failing to instruct the jury on possession of a firearm during the attempt to commit a dangerous felony as a lesser included offense of employment of a firearm during the attempt to commit a dangerous felony; (3) the employment of a firearm count is void because it fails to name the predicate felony for the firearm offense; (4) the trial court erred in declining to instruct the jury on the defense of necessity; and (5) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction for assault. We conclude that although the self-defense instruction was erroneous, the error was harmless. Therefore, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Pamela Moses
The Defendant-Appellant, Pamela Moses, entered guilty pleas to theft of merchandise worth $500 or less, tampering with or fabricating evidence, forgery, perjury, stalking, and escape in exchange for an effective sentence of seven years. Shortly after entry of these judgments, Moses filed a motion to withdraw her guilty pleas, which was denied by the trial court following a hearing. On appeal, Moses argues that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to withdraw her plea. We affirm the trial court's denial of the motion to withdraw the guilty plea but remand for correction of clerical errors in the judgment forms. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Dyron Norm Yokley v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Dyron Norm Yokley, appeals the Hamilton County Criminal Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his second degree felony murder conviction and resulting thirty-five-year, Range II sentence. The Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred in denying his petition. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re: Braxton R.
This appeal involves the termination of a father’s parental rights to his nearly three-year-old child. In 2014, the child was adjudicated dependent and neglected due to his parents’ substance abuse, including the fact that the child was born with illegal drugs and non-prescribed medication in his system. In 2015, the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services filed a petition seeking to terminate the father’s parental rights on the statutory grounds of abandonment and severe child abuse. The juvenile court found that the grounds of abandonment and severe child abuse were proved by clear and convincing evidence and also found by clear and convincing evidence that termination of father’s rights was in the child’s best interests. The father appeals. We affirm. |
White | Court of Appeals | |
Joseph Corso v. Accident Fund Insurance Company, et al
Joseph Corso (“Employee”) was employed by D & S Remodelers, Inc., also known as Servpro (“Employer”). On September 29, 2011, he sustained a compensable injury to his left shoulder. While under treatment for that injury, Employee sustained an injury to his right shoulder. Employer denied that claim because of discrepancies about the date of injury. Employee continued to work for Employer until May 2013. However, he was reassigned from a production job to a sales position. He was subsequently terminated based on a customer complaint. The trial court found that the right shoulder injury was compensable and that Employee did not have a meaningful return to work. As a result of its finding that Employee did not have a meaningful return to work, the trial court awarded permanent partial disability benefits in excess of one and one-half times the medical impairment. Employer has appealed, contending that the trial court erred by incorrectly weighing the expert medical proof and by finding that Employee did not have a meaningful return to work. The appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Workers Compensation Panel | |
MLG Enterprises, LLC v. Richard Johnson
We granted permission to appeal in this case to determine whether the individual who signed a commercial lease agreement on behalf of the corporate tenant also agreed to be personally liable for the tenant’s obligations when he signed the agreement a second time. Over a dissenting opinion, the Court of Appeals held that the individual’s second signature did not personally bind him because he handwrote “for Mobile Master Mfg. LLC” after his name. We hold that the second signature, which followed a paragraph clearly indicating that the parties agreed that the individual would be personally responsible for the tenant’s obligations, was effective to bind the individual. Accordingly, we reverse the Court of Appeals’ judgment and remand this matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Williamson | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Randall Evans
The Defendant-Appellant, Randall Evans, was convicted by a Bradley County jury of one count of casual exchange of a controlled substance. See T.C.A. § 39-17-418. Evans received a sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days, with fifteen days’ incarceration and the remainder on supervised probation, and a $750 fine. He subsequently filed a motion to reconsider his sentence, which the trial court interpreted as a motion for a reduction of sentence pursuant Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 35, and, following a hearing, the motion was denied. The sole issue raised on appeal is whether the trial court improperly denied Evans’s motion for sentence reduction. Upon review, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Bradley | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re Efrian F.
Because the notice of appeal was not timely filed, we have no jurisdiction to consider this appeal and this matter must be dismissed. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Thomas H. Bullington
The Defendant, Thomas H. Bullington, was convicted by a Lincoln County Circuit Court jury of violation of an order of protection, a Class A misdemeanor. See T.C.A. § 39-13-113(a)(1) (2014). The Defendant received a sentence of eleven months, twenty-nine days. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction and (2) the trial court erred by ordering the maximum sentence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Lincoln | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Anthone Tyrone Love
Following his conviction for delivery of not less than one-half ounce of schedule VI drugs, the Defendant, Anthone Tyrone Love, received a two-year sentence, sixteen months of which was to be served on probation. Following a hearing, the trial court revoked the Defendant’s determinate release probation and ordered him to serve the balance of his sentence in confinement. On appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court erred in ordering him to serve the remainder of his sentence in confinement and that ninety days of split confinement and treatment for substance abuse is an appropriate sanction for the violation. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jonathan D. Drewry v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Jonathan D. Drewry, pleaded guilty to aggravated rape, aggravated assault, and aggravated kidnapping and received an effective sentence of twenty-five years in the Department of Correction. The Petitioner filed a post-conviction petition, and the post-conviction court denied relief following a hearing. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel in the trial court. We affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Bradley Keith Cathey
The defendant, Bradley Keith Cathey, appeals the Dickson County Circuit Court’s finding of criminal contempt for failing to appear at a scheduled attorney setting. The trial court found the defendant in direct contempt of court and summarily sentenced him to ten days incarceration. On appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court erred in finding him in summary contempt. Following our review, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and vacated. The cause is remanded for a hearing in accordance with Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 42(b). |
Dickson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Baby Dashea Nix
The Defendant, Baby Dashea Nix, appeals as of right from the Sumner County Criminal Court’s partial revocation of her effective twelve-year community corrections sentence.The Defendant contends that the evidence presented at the revocation hearing was insufficient to establish that a violation of the conditions of her sentence occurred and that, therefore, the trial court abused its discretion. The Defendant also submits that she was not afforded due process because counsel failed to present the testimony of the Defendant’s mother at the revocation hearing. Following our review, we affirm the trial court’s partial revocation of the Defendant’s community corrections sentence. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In re Savannah F. et al.
The trial court terminated the parental rights of Mother and Father to their three children on the grounds of persistence of conditions and severe abuse. Because there was no judicial finding of dependency, neglect, or abuse removing the children from the custody of Mother and Father more than six months prior to the termination hearing, as required by Tennessee Code Annotated Section 36-1-113(g)(3), we reverse the trial court’s determination that the ground of persistence of conditions was shown by clear and convincing evidence. Because we affirm the trial court’s determination of severe abuse and its determination that termination is in the children’s best interests, however, we affirm the termination of Mother’s and Father’s parental rights to their three children. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Rachel Kay Bond
A Lawrence County jury found the Defendant, Rachel Kay Bond, guilty of first degree premeditated murder, and she was sentenced to life imprisonment in the Department of Correction. The Defendant asserts that the evidence is insufficient and that the trial court erred when it admitted into evidence incriminating text messages allegedly sent by the Defendant. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Lawrence | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Eric G. Glasgow v. K-VA-T Food Stores, Inc.
This is an appeal from a jury verdict in a premises liability action in which the plaintiff filed suit against the defendant, alleging that he sustained injury while using the restroom in a grocery store operated by the defendant. The court denied the defendant’s request for a directed verdict and submitted the case to the jury, which awarded $350,000 in compensatory damages. Following the denial of post-trial motions, the court approved the verdict but reduced the award to conform to the amount of damages pled. The defendant appeals, claiming the reduced award is not supported by material evidence. We affirm. |
Blount | Court of Appeals | |
In re Savannah F. et al.
The trial court terminated the parental rights of Mother and Father to their three children on the grounds of persistence of conditions and severe abuse. Because there was no judicial finding of dependency, neglect, or abuse removing the children from the custody of Mother and Father more than six months prior to the termination hearing, as required by Tennessee Code Annotated Section 36-1-113(g)(3), we reverse the trial court’s determination that the ground of persistence of conditions was shown by clear and convincing evidence. Because we affirm the trial court’s determination of severe abuse and its determination that termination is in the children’s best interests, however, we affirm the termination of Mother’s and Father’s parental rights to their three children. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Brooke Lee Whitaker
The Appellant, Brooke Lee Whitaker, is appealing the trial court’s order dismissing her motion to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to Rule of Criminal Procedure Rule 36.1. The State has filed a motion asking this Court to affirm pursuant to Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20. Said motion is hereby granted. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Andrea Scott et al v. Carlton J. Ditto et al.
This action involves a dispute between the holders of conflicting claims to the ownership of a residential lot in Chattanooga. The City sold the property at a delinquent tax sale. Unbeknownst to those involved in the tax sale, the property had earlier been sold at a foreclosure sale conducted by the holder of a deed of trust on the property. After a dispute arose between Andrea Scott, who had bought the property from a successor to the purchaser at the foreclosure sale, and Carlton J. Ditto, who bought the property at the tax sale, Scott filed this action against Ditto and others to quiet title to the property. Ditto filed a counterclaim. He also filed a cross-claim against several of the defendants. The trial court granted Scott summary judgment based on its determination that she was a bona fide purchaser without notice of the tax sale to Ditto and that she had recorded her deed first. The trial court dismissed Ditto’s cross-claim. We affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the cross-claim against the lender and others, because Ditto does not have standing to challenge the foreclosure sale. With respect to the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Scott, we hold that the evidence presented by Ditto in opposition to summary judgment establishes a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Scott had notice of Ditto’s interest in the property prior to her purchase of that property. Accordingly, we vacate the trial court’s grant of summary judgment and remand for further proceedings. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Lawrence Taylor III aka "PIG"
The defendant, Lawrence Taylor III, aka “Pig,” was indicted for first degree murder, especially aggravated kidnapping, and aggravated assault. After trial, a jury found the defendant guilty of the lesser-included offense of second degree murder, especially aggravated kidnapping, and aggravated assault. The defendant argues on appeal that the guilty verdict is not supported by the evidence and the trial court improperly admitted a prior written statement of an unavailable witness into evidence. The State argues the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions, and the trial court properly allowed the witness's prior statement to be read into evidence. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Tipton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jerry Williams
A Shelby County jury convicted the Defendant, Jerry Williams, of aggravated burglary and vandalism over $10,000, and the trial court sentenced the Defendant to four years of supervised probation for each count. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it limited his cross-examination of the victim and that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions. After review, we affirm the trial court's judgments. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Thomas R. Boykin
A Gibson County jury found the Defendant, Thomas R. Boykin, guilty of two counts of aggravated child abuse. The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a multiple offender to thirty-five years imprisonment for each count to be served consecutively for a total effective sentence of seventy years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal the Defendant asserts that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions and his sentence is excessive. After review, we dismiss this appeal because the Defendant failed to timely file a notice of appeal. |
Gibson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Frederick E. Braxton v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Frederick E. Braxton, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his 2010 convictions for selling less than 0.5 gram of cocaine within 1000 feet of a school zone, evading arrest, and criminal impersonation and his effective fifteen-year sentence. The Petitioner contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Johnny Malcolm Vinson
The Defendant, Johnny Malcom Vinson, was convicted by a Davidson County Criminal Court jury of attempt to commit second degree murder, a Class B felony, two counts of aggravated assault, Class C felonies, and employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, a Class C felony. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-210 (2014), 39-12-101 (2014), 39-13-102 (2014) (amended 2015); 39-17-1324 (2014). The trial court sentenced the Defendant to concurrent sentences of twenty-four years for attempted second degree murder, fifteen years for aggravated assault, and ten years for aggravated assault. The court also sentenced the Defendant to ten years for the firearm violation and ordered consecutive service, for an effective thirty-four-year sentence. The court further ordered the effective sentence in the present case to be served consecutively to a ten-year sentence in another case, for an overall effective forty-four-year sentence. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals |