Fredrico A. Dixon, III v. Patricia Grissom
The dispute central to this interlocutory appeal involves a failed real estate transaction and alleged breach of a real estate agent‘s fiduciary duty to her client. The plaintiff buyer entered into an agreement to purchase improved real property from the seller but failed to obtain financing to complete the purchase. In a previous action brought by the seller against the buyer, the trial court found that the buyer‘s attempted termination of the contract was ineffective and that he therefore breached the contract. On appeal, this Court affirmed that judgment in favor of the seller. The buyer subsequently brought the instant action against the defendant real estate agent, alleging breach of fiduciary duty based on the agent‘s failure to confirm delivery of the buyer‘s credit declination letter to the seller. The agent filed a motion for summary judgment, averring that the buyer had filed this action outside the time parameters of the applicable statute of limitations. Following a hearing, the trial court applied the discovery rule to find that knowledge of the agent‘s alleged failure to terminate the contract could not be imputed to the buyer before April 22, 2010, when the seller‘s counsel had raised the issue during trial in the original action. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Andrew Mann v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Andrew Mann, appeals as of right from the Knox County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The Petitioner contends that he received ineffective assistance from his trial counsel due to trial counsel’s advice that he testify in his own defense. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Richard Lee Hibbens v. Ashley Elizabeth Rue
This appeal involves an award of retroactive child support. The child‘s father is in the military and was deployed overseas during part of the relevant time period. The trial court initially set the child support obligation based on the number of days the father would have had with the child pursuant to the parties‘ mediated agreement, regardless of the fact that he did not exercise all of that time due to his deployment. After considering a post-trial motion filed by the mother, the trial court altered the award to set the child support obligation based on the number of days the father actually spent with the child, not the number of days he was provided under the mediated agreement. The father appeals, challenging substantive and procedural aspects of the court‘s decision. We affirm. |
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Malik Hardin
The defendant, Malik Hardin, pleaded guilty to possession with intent to sell less than 0.5 grams of cocaine in a drug free school zone, possession of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, simple possession of a controlled substance, and criminal trespass. He received a total effective sentence of fifteen years to be served at 100 percent. As part of his guilty plea, the Defendant sought to reserve two certified questions of law: (1) whether the defendant's arrest for the offense of criminal trespass was “objectively reasonable” under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and article I, section 7 of the Tennessee Constitution in light of the “cite and release” rule codified at Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-7-118(b)(1); and (2) whether the seizure of the Defendant's automobile was based upon reasonable suspicion that the automobile was or contained evidence or fruits of criminal activity, and whether there was “reasonable cause” to believe that impoundment was “reasonably necessary” under the circumstances. Following our review, we conclude that the defendant's custodial arrest for criminal trespass was not in contravention of Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-7-118 and that the trial court did not err in failing to suppress evidence seized subsequent to the defendant's arrest. The judgments of the trial court are, therefore, affirmed. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Randy Wayne Johnson
Defendant, Randy Wayne Johnson, challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction for especially aggravated kidnapping. He argues that the kidnapping was merely incidental to the accompanying assault, of which he was also convicted. Because Defendant's conduct in committing the kidnapping constituted a separate and independent offense, there is sufficient evidence to support his conviction, and Defendant is not entitled to relief. |
Carter | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Malik Hardin - dissenting opinion
I respectfully disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the Defendant’s custodial arrest for criminal trespass was proper. The Defendant was arrested for criminal trespass based on the exception to the cite and release statute that allows for a custodial arrest for a misdemeanor when “[t]here is a reasonable likelihood that the offense would continue or resume . . . .” See Tenn. Code Ann. 40-7-118(c)(2). Because I do not believe that exception was properly applied in this case, I have concluded that the Defendant was subjected to a custodial arrest in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated 40-7-118(b)(1). Accordingly, I would not reach the Defendant’s second issue challenging the legality of the search of his vehicle following his arrest. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In re Kalob S., et al.
This case involves the termination of the parental rights of a biological father to his seven children. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in terminating his parental rights. Because the grounds for termination are met by clear and convincing evidence, and there is also clear and convincing evidence that termination is in the best interest of the minor children at issue, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Jerry Bundren v. Thelma Bundren, et al.
Thelma Bundren and George David Bundren (“Defendants”) appeal the order of the Circuit Court for Claiborne County (“the Trial Court”) finding and holding, inter alia, that the survey prepared by Comparoni & Associates establishes the boundary lines between real properties owned by Defendants and real property owned by Jerry Bundren (“Plaintiff”). We find and hold that the evidence does not preponderate against the Trial Court's findings, and we affirm. |
Claiborne | Court of Appeals | |
Jerry Bundren v. Thelma Bundren et al.
Thelma Bundren and George David Bundren (“Defendants”) appeal the order of the Circuit Court for Claiborne County (“the Trial Court”) finding and holding, inter alia, that the survey prepared by Comparoni & Associates establishes the boundary lines between real properties owned by Defendants and real property owned by Jerry Bundren (“Plaintiff”). We find and hold that the evidence does not preponderate against the Trial Court's findings, and we affirm. |
Claiborne | Court of Appeals | |
Jerry Bundren v. Thelma Bundren, et al.
Thelma Bundren and George David Bundren (“Defendants”) appeal the order of the Circuit Court for Claiborne County (“the Trial Court”) finding and holding, inter alia, that the survey prepared by Comparoni & Associates establishes the boundary lines between real properties owned by Defendants and real property owned by Jerry Bundren (“Plaintiff”). We find and hold that the evidence does not preponderate against the Trial Court's findings, and we affirm. |
Claiborne | Court of Appeals | |
Joshua Faulkner v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Joshua Faulkner, pursuant to a plea agreement, pleaded guilty to aggravated burglary, employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, and aggravated assault, with a total effective sentence of ten years of incarceration. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed, pro se, a petition for post-conviction relief. Counsel was appointed and, after a hearing, the post-conviction court denied the petition. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that Counsel was ineffective because he coerced the Petitioner into entering a guilty plea. After a thorough review of the record and relevant law, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Adam Dansby Frazier
The defendant, Adam Dansby Frazier, appeals his Hickman County Circuit Court jury convictions of attempted second degree murder, possession of contraband in a penal institution, aggravated assault, and facilitation of felony reckless endangerment, claiming that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of attempted second degree murder and that the trial court erred by impermissibly commenting upon the evidence at trial. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Hickman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William C. Boles
The defendant, William C. Boles, appeals his Clay County Criminal Court jury convictions of two counts of the delivery of oxycodone, a Schedule II drug, in a drug-free school zone and one count of possession with the intent to sell oxycodone in a drug-free school zone, for which he received a total effective sentence of 60 years’ incarceration, claiming that the trial court erred by admitting certain evidence, that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions, and that the trial court erred by imposing partially consecutive sentences. Because we conclude that no error attends the convictions or sentences, the convictions and sentences are affirmed. Because we detect error in the judgment forms, however, the case must be remanded to the trial court for the entry of corrected judgment forms reflecting the mandatory minimum period of incarceration as required by Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-17-432. |
Clay | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In re: William B.
In this termination of parental rights case, the father appeals the trial court’s termination of his parental rights to his son on the grounds of wanton disregard for the welfare of the child prior to father’s incarceration. The father also asserts the court erred in finding that termination was in the child’s best interest. We find that clear and convincing evidence supports the decision of the trial court and affirm the judgment in all respects. |
Putnam | Court of Appeals | |
In re Bridgestone/Firestone, et al
Appellants appeal the dismissal of their products liability cases. The trial court concluded that the doctrine of collateral estoppel applied to a prior forum non conveniens dismissal. The trial court reasoned that, at the time of the prior forum non conveniens dismissal, Appellant should have foreseen that the foreign forum would be unavailable to them and that issue should have been raised in previous proceedings. Because we conclude that an alternative exception to the application of collateral estoppel may apply, we reverse. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Southern Trust Insurance Company v. Matthew Phillips
This appeal involves the interpretation of an insurance policy in order to determine whether the policy provided coverage for damage caused by arson. The insurer and the insured filed cross-motions for partial summary judgment on this issue. The trial court found the policy ambiguous and construed it in favor of coverage, holding that arson was covered under the policy. Accordingly, the trial court granted the motion for partial summary judgment filed by the insured and denied the motion for partial summary judgment filed by the insurer. The insurer appeals. We affirm. |
Anderson | Court of Appeals | |
Darien C. Houston v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Darien C. Houston, appeals as of right from the Hamilton County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. The Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred in summarily dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief for having been untimely filed. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Charles Rankin Zemp
The Defendant, Charles Rankin Zemp, pled guilty to one count of driving under the influence (DUI), fourth or subsequent offense, a Class E felony, and one count of operating a motor vehicle after being declared a motor vehicle habitual offender (MVHO), a Class E felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 55-10-401, -402(a)(4), -616. The Defendant was sentenced as a Range III, persistent offender to four years for each count. The trial court ordered the Defendant’s sentences to be served consecutively, for a total effective sentence of eight years. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering him to serve his sentences consecutively. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Daniel David Eden v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Daniel David Eden, appeals as of right from the Robertson County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief, wherein he alleged that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at his probation revocation hearing. The Petitioner contends that Young v. State, 101 S.W.3d 430 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2002), on which the post-conviction court relied in its summary dismissal, should be abrogated because it offends equal protection guarantees. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Robertson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Cody Lee Crawford
Defendant, Cody Lee Crawford, challenges the trial court’s decision ordering him to register as a sex offender after he pled guilty to two counts of statutory rape. He argues that the trial court abused its discretion. The trial court did not abuse its discretion and Defendant is not entitled to relief. Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed. |
Anderson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In re Anthony R.
The trial court terminated Father’s parental rights on the statutory ground of wanton disregard for the welfare of the child. Father appealed. We reverse because when Father engaged in the conduct at issue, in fact, Father did not know of his parentage. A father cannot exercise wanton disregard for the welfare of a child if he does not know the child exists. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William Jason Harris
A Bedford County Jury convicted Defendant, William Jason Harris, of promotion of methamphetamine manufacture, and Defendant pled guilty to failure to appear. He received consecutive sentences of twelve years for promotion of methamphetamine manufacture and six years for failure to appear to be served in confinement. On appeal, Defendant argues: (1) that the trial court erred by allowing the State to impeach his mother’s testimony with Defendant’s prior convictions; (2) that the trial court erred in allowing evidence of Defendant’s past use and manufacture of methamphetamine to rebut Defendant’s assertion that he was coerced and threatened into committing the offense of promotion of methamphetamine manufacture; (3) that the trial court improperly allowed the State to admit the “pseudoephedrine log” which contained Defendant’s past attempts to purchase pseudoephedrine; (4) the trial court did not fulfill its role as thirteenth juror, by allowing the jury’s verdict to stand; and (5) the trial court erroneously denied Defendant’s request for a sentence of community corrections. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Eric O. Turner
The defendant, Eric O. Turner, pled guilty to three counts of aggravated statutory rape, a Class D felony, and was sentenced as a persistent offender to nine years for each conviction, with one conviction to be served consecutively to the others for an effective sentence of eighteen years. After pleading guilty, the defendant was immediately released on probation. Within two weeks of the defendant’s release, a warrant was issued for a violation of the probationary terms after it was discovered that the defendant had been staying with his girlfriend who had minor children who were not biologically related to the defendant. The trial court found that the defendant had violated the terms of his probation and consequently ordered him to serve the remainder of his sentence in prison. The defendant appeals the revocation of his probation, asserting that the trial court erred in its factual findings, that the defendant received insufficient notice of the basis for the revocation, that the trial court erred in not making written findings, and that the trial court erred in not considering sentencing alternatives. Having reviewed the record, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, and we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Mary Ridenour, et al v. Covenant Health, et al.
This appeal arises from a construction negligence case. Mary Ridenour, individually, and, Jacob Ross Ridenour, a minor by Mary Ridenour (“Plaintiffs”), sued Covenant Health, Rentenbach Engineering Company, and TEG Architects, LLC, (“Defendants,” collectively) in the Circuit Court for Anderson County (“the Trial Court”). Plaintiffs alleged that the absence of shielding in a portion of the radiology facilities in the new emergency department at Methodist Hospital caused Plaintiffs to suffer damages from excessive radiation exposure. Defendants filed motions for summary judgment asserting the statute of repose, Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-202 (2000), as a complete defense. The Trial Court granted Defendants' motions for summary judgment. Plaintiffs appeal to this Court arguing, in part, that the statute of repose did not run because the absence of the required shielding in the radiology facilities meant the project was not substantially completed on the date as found by the Trial Court. We hold, inter alia, that the radiology facilities, while perhaps defective, were used for their intended purpose and were substantially complete as found by the Trial Court. The construction statute of repose expired and serves to defeat Plaintiffs' claims. We affirm the Trial Court. |
Anderson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Derek Gene Clark
The appellant, Derek Gene Clark, pled guilty in the Sevier County Circuit Court to aggravated domestic assault, a Class C felony; theft of property valued more than $1,000, a Class D felony; coercion of a witness, a Class D felony; and retaliation for past action, a Class E felony. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court was to determine the length and manner of service of the sentences except that the appellant was to serve the sentences for the aggravated domestic assault and theft convictions concurrently. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed an effective ten-year sentence in confinement. On appeal, the appellant contends that concurrent sentencing for his aggravated domestic assault and theft convictions is illegal because he was on bail for the theft when he committed the aggravated domestic assault, that the lengths and manner of service of his sentences are excessive, and that the trial court erred by ordering that the serve the sentences for coercion of a witness and retailiation for past action consecutively to the other two sentences. Based upon the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the appellant's convictions and sentences but remand the case to the trial court for entry of corrected judgments. |
Sevier | Court of Criminal Appeals |