Kenneth Merritt v. Christian Fahey, et al.
Bringing a suit pro se, a Patient sued his healthcare providers under the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act. The trial court dismissed the Patient’s claims, deeming them time-barred. Instead of promptly appealing that order, the Patient serially submitted various motions over the course of approximately a year. The trial court denied the Patient’s motions. The Patient appeals. Concluding that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, we dismiss the Patient’s appeal. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Dorothy Small et al. v. Jon Law et al.
This began as an immediate appeal of an order dismissing a suit under the Tennessee Public Participation Act. After the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the appeal, the only issue that remains is the request of the defendants, now proceeding as appellants, for an award of attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses incurred on appeal. Because an award is mandatory, we grant the request and remand to the trial court to determine the amount. |
Lincoln | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Elijah G.
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child. The trial court terminated his parental rights on the grounds of abandonment by failure to visit, abandonment by failure to support, substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan, and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody. It also determined that termination was in the child’s best interest. We affirm. |
Smith | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Bobby Ray Ladd, Jr.
After pleading guilty to evading arrest and being sentenced to probation, Bobby Ray Ladd, |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jacob Cipolla v. Sylvia Coutras
This appeal stems from a petition for a parenting plan modification filed by Jacob Cipolla (“Father”). Father shares one child with Sylvia Coutras (“Mother”). The parties engaged in contentious and protracted litigation over the custody of their child. In October of 2022, a juvenile court magistrate entered an order naming Father as the child’s primary residential parent. Mother sought a rehearing before the juvenile court judge pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 37-1-107 but later withdrew that request. The juvenile court subsequently entered an order awarding Father his attorney’s fees as the prevailing party. Mother appeals that ruling to this Court. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tara D. Allen
The defendant, Tara Allen, was found guilty by a Cheatham County jury of vehicular homicide by intoxication and possession of drug paraphernalia. The trial court imposed an effective ten-year sentence. On appeal, the defendant contends the trial court erred in denying her motion to suppress evidence obtained from a warrantless blood draw. The defendant also argues the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support her conviction of possession of drug paraphernalia. Following our review, the parties’ briefs, and oral arguments, we affirm the defendant’s convictions. |
Cheatham | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. David Sylvester Cavette
A Carroll County jury convicted the Defendant, David Sylvester Cavette, of evading arrest involving the risk of death or injury. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to three years and placed him on probation after serving 180 days in custody. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that the State failed to prove either that he intentionally fled from police officers or that his flight created a risk of death or injury to others. Upon our review, we respectfully disagree and affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Carroll | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Corey Denzal Williams
A Sumner County jury convicted the defendant, Corey Denzal Williams, of first-degree murder, reckless endangerment, aggravated assault, and false imprisonment, for which he received an effective sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole plus eight years. On appeal, the defendant contends the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his convictions. The defendant also argues the trial court erred in denying his motion for severance and in admitting autopsy photographs of the victim, the testimony of Sergeant Harry Harper, and video testimony of the victim. After reviewing the record and considering the applicable law, we conclude that the trial court erred in failing to sever the offenses and that the error was not harmless as to the defendant’s convictions for aggravated assault and false imprisonment. Accordingly, we reverse the defendant’s convictions for aggravated assault and false imprisonment and remand to the trial court for a new trial. We otherwise affirm the trial court’s judgments. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ethan Rashad Holmes, as surviving child and next of kin of Ephraim Holmes v. Stacy L. Shipp
This is a personal injury case. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of one of the defendants. The plaintiff appeals. Because the order appealed is not a final judgment, and because the order was improperly certified as final pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 54.02, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jordan Dane Weatherspoon
A Hardin County jury convicted the Defendant, Jordan Dane Weatherspoon, of one count of the sale of .5 grams or more of cocaine, and he later pleaded guilty to two additional counts of the sale of .5 grams or more of cocaine. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective sentence of ten years of incarceration as a Range I offender. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it denied his request for an alternative sentence. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. |
Hardin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jay James Macken
Jay James Macken, Defendant, was convicted of aggravated assault, aggravated rape, especially aggravated kidnapping, and interference with emergency communication after a jury trial. The trial court sentenced him to an effective sentence of 20 years. After the denial of a motion for new trial, Defendant sought review of his convictions in this Court. On appeal, Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions for aggravated assault and especially aggravated kidnapping. Because the evidence supported the convictions, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Jackson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Austin Cunningham
A Maury County jury convicted the Defendant, Austin Cunningham, of possession of methamphetamine with the intent to sell and possession of a firearm during the commission of or attempt to commit a dangerous felony, among other offenses. The trial court ordered the Defendant to serve an effective twelve-year sentence. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that the evidence is legally insufficient to sustain his convictions and that the trial court erred when it denied alternative sentencing. Upon our review, we hold that the Defendant has waived his issues by failing to properly prepare his brief in accordance with Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 27. Although we remand Count 6 for entry of a modified judgment as to the sentence imposed, we respectfully affirm the trial court’s judgments in all other respects. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Robert Wayne Garner v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Robert Wayne Garner, filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis challenging his 2011 convictions for first degree felony murder, aggravated arson, and theft of property valued at $10,000 or more but less than $60,000. The coram nobis court held an initial hearing to determine whether Petitioner was entitled to a full evidentiary hearing; after the initial hearing, the coram nobis court dismissed the petition. Petitioner appeals, arguing the trial court erred in dismissing the petition without a full evidentiary hearing. After review, we affirm the judgment of the coram nobis court. |
Giles | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Phillip Rickman
A Lake County jury convicted the Defendant, James Phillip Rickman, of one count of attempted first degree premeditated murder resulting in serious bodily injury, one count of employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, and three counts of aggravated assault. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of twenty-one years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions for attempted first degree murder with serious bodily injury and one count of aggravated assault; and (2) the trial court erred when it dismissed his motion to suppress. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. |
Court of Criminal Appeals | ||
State of Tennessee v. Brandon M. Jones
Defendant Brandon M. Jones was convicted by a jury of seventeen counts of a twenty-seven-count indictment. The offenses involved the possession of methamphetamine, marijuana, drug paraphernalia, and a firearm. He was sentenced as a Range II offender to a total effective sentence of thirty-five years. On appeal, Defendant contends the trial court erred in allowing the jury to deliberate late into the evening before reaching a verdict in a bifurcated trial in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial. Following our review of the entire record, the briefs of the parties, and applicable authority, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Steven Mitchel Ambrose
The Defendant, Steven Mitchel Ambrose, appeals his jury convictions for four counts of rape of a child and his resulting effective sentence of sixty years. On appeal, he argues: (1) the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress his statements made to law enforcement; (2) the State provided an insufficient election of offenses which deprived him of a verdict by a unanimous jury; (3) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions; (4) his sentence is excessive; and (5) the multiple “procedural errors and constitutional violations” that occurred in the trial court violated his right to due process and entitle him to relief under the cumulative error doctrine. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Stephen Charles Johnson v. Elizabeth Kay Johnson
Stephen Charles Johnson (“Husband”) filed for divorce against Elizabeth Kay Johnson (“Wife”) in the Chancery |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Greywood Crossing Owners Association, Inc. v. Barbara Holleman
Greywood Crossing Owners Association, Inc. (“Greywood”) commenced this action to enforce the |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Raven Cobins v. Crystal Murray
Appellant, Raven Cobins, appealed a February 16, 2023 order of the Shelby County Circuit Court. Because the order appealed is not a final judgment, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the appeal. Tenn. R. App. P. 3(a). The appeal is dismissed. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Estate of Billy Hawk, Jr. Et Al v. Chambliss Bahner & Stophel, P.C.
The appellants sued the appellee, a law firm, alleging that the law firm committed legal malpractice when it gave the appellants legal advice with regard to the tax implications of a stock sale. The law firm filed two motions for summary judgment arguing that the legal malpractice case was barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Both motions were denied when the trial court determined that a genuine issue of material fact existed. The case proceeded to a jury trial, and the jury found that the legal malpractice case was timely filed but that the law firm had not committed legal malpractice. Upon our diligent review of the record, we affirm. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Christopher A. Duncan v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Christopher A. Duncan, appeals from the Cheatham County Circuit |
Cheatham | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Peggy Mathes et al. v. 99 Hermitage, LLC
This appeal raises a thorny question about adverse possession. Under that doctrine, a party may gain legal title or a defensive possessory right to real property by maintaining exclusive, actual, adverse, continuous, open, and notorious possession of the property for a certain length of time. At issue here is the adversity requirement. The original plaintiff in this case, Ora Eads, Jr., obtained legal title to a commercial property near downtown Nashville years ago but did not register the deed. About two decades later, the individual who sold the property to Mr. Eads defaulted on a loan, and his creditor obtained a judgment lien against the property, which was eventually sold to enforce the lien. Plaintiffs argue that Mr. Eads adversely possessed the property during the intervening years. Defendant, the subsequent purchaser of the property, disagrees and argues that Mr. Eads’s possession was not adverse. We agree with defendant. Adversity, for purposes of both common-law and statutory adverse possession, requires either a conflict of title or a controversy about the right to possess the property. Because neither existed here for the requisite time period, we reverse the Court of Appeals’ contrary decision and reinstate the chancery court’s judgment in favor of defendant. |
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
Peggy Mathes et al. v. 99 Hermitage, LLC (Dissenting)
I agree with the majority that, to acquire legal title or a defensive possessory right to real property through adverse possession, the Plaintiffs must show Mr. Eads had “exclusive, actual, adverse, continuous, open, and notorious” possession of the property for the requisite time. I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that Mr. Eads’s possession of the property was not “adverse.” 1 I would hold Mr. Eads has met the requirements to show a hostile or adverse possession for common-law and statutory adverse possession.2 |
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
In Re Cartier H., Et Al.
This is the second appeal involving termination of the mother’s parental rights to her two children. In the first appeal, this Court vacated the trial court’s finding that the mother failed to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody of the children and that termination was in the children’s best interest. We remanded the case for the trial court to make additional factual findings and conclusions of law. On remand, the trial court entered an amended order with additional findings and conclusions. The mother appeals again. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Violet R.
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child. The trial court found clear and convincing evidence that the father abandoned his child by failure to visit. The court also determined that termination was in the child’s best interest. We affirm. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals |