James M. Bowley, et al v. Richard Lane, et al
James M. Bowley and Barbara A. Bowley (“Plaintiffs”) sued Richard Lane, Alvin Butler, and Danny Nicholson (“Defendants”) alleging defective construction of a log home built by Defendants for Plaintiffs. After trial, the Trial Court entered judgment upon the jury’s verdict finding and holding, inter alia, that Defendants had breached the implied warranty of habitability, and that Plaintiffs had sustained $50,000 in damages as a result of this breach. Defendants appeal to this Court raising an issue regarding whether the Trial Court erred in approving the verdict and denying their motion for new trial or for remittitur. Plaintiffs also raise an issue alleging that the evidence does not support the verdict. We find and hold that material evidence supports the jury’s verdict, and further find no error in the Trial Court’s denial of Defendants’ motion for new trial or for remittitur, and the Trial Court’s denial of Plaintiffs’ motion for new trial or for additur. We affirm. |
Monroe | Court of Appeals | |
Lasonya Morrow v. Ray Anthony McClain
A man and woman lived together for six years and worked jointly on a number of business ventures during that period, but never married. After their relationship ended, the woman filed a complaint for a division of property, under the theory that the parties had entered into an implied partnership. The trial court heard conflicting testimony as to the respective contributions of each party to the acquisition, improvement and preservation of the properties at issue. The court declined to find that a partnership had existed between the parties, but ruled that the woman had an interest in all the real property acquired during the relationship. The court awarded her one parcel which the parties owned as cotenants in common and an additional $50,000 based on the value of her interest in the other properties. The man argues on appeal that the trial court overestimated the woman’s contributions during the relevant period and underestimated his own contributions. We affirm the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Stacy Christina Knellinger v. Mark Steven Knellinger and Becki Knellinger
In this post-divorce action, Father filed two petitions asserting several counts of criminal contempt against Mother based on alleged violations of the Parenting Plan. Father also petitioned the court to modify the Parenting Plan to name him the primary residential parent and grant him sole decision-making authority over the children’s educations, non-emergency healthcare, and extracurricular activities. Mother then filed a petition seeking to permanently enjoin Father’s new wife (“Step-mother”) from participating in certain activities with the children, such as signing their school report cards, volunteering at the school, and sending home notes in their lunch boxes. After a three-day hearing, the trial court found Mother guilty on three counts of criminal contempt, and assessed a $150 fine (fifty dollars per count), which the court required her to pay toward counseling with Father. The trial court denied Father’s Petition to Modify the Parenting Plan, finding there was no material change of circumstances affecting the children’s interest, a finding which Father does not appeal. The trial court also denied Mother’s petition for a permanent injunction against Step-mother, finding it was unnecessary. Both parties were required to pay their own attorney’s fees. We affirm the trial court’s decision to deny Mother’s request for a permanent restraining order against Step-mother. However, we have determined the trial court erred in finding Mother guilty of criminal contempt, and we reverse all three convictions. Finally, we find Mother is entitled to her reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees incurred in the trial court in defense of Father’s Petition to Modify the Parenting Plan, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-5-103(c), and remand for a determination and award thereof. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Carlos Smith
The defendant, Carlos Smith, appeals his Shelby County Criminal Court jury convictions of two counts of attempted second degree murder, two counts of aggravated assault, and one count each of aggravated robbery, especially aggravated burglary, employing a firearm during a dangerous offense, and being a convicted felon in possession of a handgun, claiming that the trial court erred by denying his motion to sever offenses and that the State violated the tenets of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Lamar Parrish Carter
This is an interlocutory appeal, pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 9, from the trial court’s grant of a mistrial based upon a “manifest necessity.” The Defendant, Lamar Parrish Carter, appeals the trial court’s ruling, arguing that his attorney’s cross-examination of a co-defendant about her range of punishment, which was also the range of punishment for the Defendant, was not improper and did not warrant a mistrial. After a thorough review of the record and the relevant law, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Lamar Parrish Carter - Concurring
In this case, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the indictment pursuant to the constitutional protections afforded him to be protected from double jeopardy. Defendant asserts in this interlocutory appeal that the trial court erred by denying the motion. I concur in the results reached by the majority, but write separately to express my opinion that the only justifiable reason for the trial court to deny the motion was the Defendant’s failure to explicitly object to the declaration of a mistrial. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Josh L. Bowman
A Knox County Criminal Court Jury convicted the appellant, Josh L. Bowman, of three counts of first degree felony murder, one count of especially aggravated kidnapping, one count of especially aggravated robbery, two counts of aggravated burglary, and one count of employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. After the jury announced its verdicts, the appellant pled guilty to one count of employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony when, at the time of the offense, the appellant had a prior felony conviction. The trial court merged the murder convictions, merged the burglary convictions, merged the employing a firearm convictions, and sentenced the appellant to an effective sentence of life plus sixty years in confinement. On appeal, the appellant contends that the trial court erred by failing to suppress his statement to police, by allowing the State to show a transcript of his statement simultaneously with his video-recorded statement, and by failing to instruct the jury as provided by State v. White, 362 S.W.3d 559 (Tenn. 2012). Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the trial court’s failing to instruct the jury properly pursuant to White constitutes reversible error. Therefore, the appellant’s conviction for especially aggravated kidnapping must be reversed and the case remanded to the trial court for a new trial as to that offense. |
Hickman, Houston | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Amber R. Galemore
In two separate cases, the Defendant, Amber R. Galemore, pled guilty to possession with intent to sell or deliver cocaine and to theft of property. She was sentenced to an effective sentence of eight years on probation. As part of the Defendant’s plea agreement, she reserved a certified question of law pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2). The question is articulated in the record as, “Whether the search warrant issued by a General Sessions Judge for Montgomery County, Tennessee, which was based on statements of an unknown person outside the defendant’s residence and computer keystroke software results[,] provided a sufficient nexus to make a probable cause determination.” After reviewing the record and applicable law, we conclude that the trial court did not err when it denied the Defendant’s motion to suppress. Accordingly, we affirm the Defendant’s convictions. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Josh L. Bowman - dissenting opinion
I concur in that portion of the majority opinion which holds the trial court did not err by denying the appellant’s motion to suppress his statement. I disagree with the remaining parts of the opinion and therefore would affirm all the judgments of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Stanley Abernathy James
The Defendant, Stanley Abernathy James, was convicted by a Knox County Criminal Court jury of second degree murder, a Class A felony, for which he is serving a twenty-five-year sentence. In this appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Raleigh Court Condominiums, Homeowners' Association, Inc. v. E. Doyle Johnson Construction Co., et al
Homeowners’ association filed suit against general contractor because of drainage issues alleging fraud, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, and breach of the implied warranty of “good and workmanlike” construction. The trial court found in favor of homeowners’ association. The general contractor appeals. We affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Amanda Marie Sykes v. Joshua Neal Sykes
In this divorce proceeding, Mother and Father entered into a Marital Dissolution Agreement and Permanent Parenting Plan, which were incorporated into the final decree of divorce; the parties shared equal parenting time with their two children and neither party was obligated to pay child support. Mother subsequently filed a petition to set support, as well as a motion for relief from the final decree, both of which sought to have the court set support in accordance with the child support guidelines. The court denied the petition and the motion on the grounds that the parties had agreed in the parenting plan that child support would not be paid and that a significant variance did not exist. Finding that relief to Mother is appropriate under the circumstances, we reverse the judgment and remand the case for further proceedings. |
Maury | Court of Appeals | |
Amanda Marie Sykes v. Joshua Neal Sykes - Concur/Dissent
This appeal involves a judgment by the trial court that dismissed two motions filed by Mother. The first was the Motion to Alter or Amend the trial court’s decision denying the Petition to Set Support. That petition was denied on the basis that no significant variance existed. The second was Mother’s motion for relief pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02. That motion was directed to the original decree of divorce and, more specifically, to the original child support established in the parenting plan. |
Maury | Court of Appeals | |
Aubrey Owens & The Estate of Louis Gernt v. Aleeta Tipton Evans, Timothy L. Goad et al.
This is an appeal from a judgment entered against one of four defendants. Because the judgment appealed does not resolve all the claims between all the parties, we dismiss the appeal for lack of a final judgment. |
Fentress | Court of Appeals | |
Rhonda Sue Watkins v. Kenneth Danny Watkins
The trial court granted Father’s petition to modify child custody and child support, and denied Mother’s petition to increase alimony. Mother appeals. We vacate the trial court’s judgment with respect to Mother’s petition to modify alimony, and remand for findings of fact and further proceedings, if necessary. The remainder of the judgment is affirmed. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
In the Matter of Lakita E. P. and Michael A. P.
A father’s parental rights to his two children were terminated on the grounds of abandonment by engaging in conduct exhibiting a wanton disregard for the welfare of the children, non-compliance with the permanency plan, and severe child abuse against children who resided with Father. He appeals, contending that the Department of Children’s Services failed to expend reasonable efforts to reunite him with the children and that termination of his rights was not in the children’s best interest. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Clay | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Patsy Freeman, Personal Representative & Administratrix of the Estate of John R. Freeman v. CSX Transportation, Inc. et al.
After a lengthy trial, the trial court determined that the decedent was more than 50% at fault for the collision that resulted in his death. The evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s findings and we therefore affirm. |
Bedford | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Albert Lamont Bennett, Jr.
A Davidson County Criminal Court Jury convicted the appellant, Albert Lamont Bennett, Jr., of attempted aggravated assault and attempted aggravated burglary. The trial court sentenced the appellant as a Range III, persistent offender to ten years for each offense, to be served consecutively, for a total effective sentence of twenty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence sustaining his convictions and the sentences imposed by the trial court. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Brian Wesley Lacey v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Brian Wesley Lacey, appeals from the trial court’s dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. Petitioner asserts he received ineffective assistance of counsel at the trial and on appeal. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court dismissing the petition for post-conviction relief. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Antonio Angel Onate v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Antonio Angel Onate, appeals from the Davidson County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief after a 2011 guilty plea to facilitation to sell cocaine weighing less than .5 grams. Petitioner argues that the trial court erred by concluding that the petition was untimely and that the one-year statute of limitations was not tolled. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Sandeep Gadhok v. Zameer Merchant
The trial court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Darryl Jerome Moore v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Darryl Jerome Moore, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his guilty pleas to conspiracy to deliver 300 grams or more of cocaine, possession with intent to deliver 300 grams or more of cocaine, conspiracy to deliver 300 pounds or more of marijuana, money laundering, possession with intent to deliver ten pounds or more of marijuana, and unlawful possession of a weapon after having been convicted previously of a felony drug offense, and his resulting effective sentence of ninety-three years in confinement. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that he received the ineffective assistance of trial counsel and that he pled guilty unknowingly and involuntarily. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of the petition. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Wilma Ann Vance v. Donah Howard Arnold
The trial court dismissed Husband’s post-judgment motion based on its conclusion that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. We reverse. |
Campbell | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Samuel Glass
In this appeal as of right, the State contends that the trial court erred by setting aside the jury verdicts of attempted second degree murder and entering judgments of acquittal for those counts based upon the doctrine of transferred intent. Also in this appeal, the defendant challenges his convictions of first degree premeditated murder, felony murder, and attempted first degree murder on grounds that the evidence was insufficient to support those convictions. Because the trial court erred by setting aside the jury verdicts of attempted second degree murder, the judgments effecting those verdicts and the 12-year sentences are reinstated. The judgments of the trial court are affirmed in all other respects. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
William Paul Eblen v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, William Paul Eblen, appeals from the Knox County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for writ of error coram nobis. The Petitioner contends that the coram nobis court erred in concluding that testimony from two witnesses alleging that the victim later recanted her allegations against the Petitioner was not credible. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the coram nobis court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals |