State of Tennessee v. Duantez Cornell Jenkins
Defendant, Duantez Cornell Jenkins, was indicted for possession, within a school zone, and with intent to sell or deliver twenty-six (26) grams or more of a substance containing cocaine. In the same indictment, Robert Lee Archibald, Jr. (Archibald), was indicted for the same offense, in addition to two other charges. All charges were the result of evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant. Defendant filed a motion to suppress all the evidence seized which forms the basis of the charges against him. The trial court entered an order granting the motion and dismissed the charges against defendant. The State appeals. Based upon the record and briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Henry Johnson v. Tony Parker, Warden
The pro se petitioner, Henry Johnson, appeals from the summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus relief. He was convicted of first degree murder and aggravated burglary and was sentenced to life imprisonment on August 19, 2009. On appeal, he argues that: the indictment against him was defective; the habeas corpus court erred in dismissing his petition without a hearing or appointment of counsel; and he was subject to double jeopardy as a result of the indictment. After careful review, we affirm the summary dismissal of the petition. |
Lake | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Matthew R. Hakoda v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Matthew R. Hakoda, appeals the post-conviction court's dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief in which he alleged the ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Debra M. Barkes, et al. v. River Park Hospital, Inc.
River Park Hospital has filed a Tenn. R. App. P. 39 petition for rehearing requesting this Court to reconsider its opinion filed on October 20, 2010. We have carefully reviewed the entire record and appellate briefs, from all of which we conclude that our opinion addressed and considered all issues raised by River Park in its appeal. Accordingly, the petition for rehearing is respectfully denied and the costs of this petition are taxed to River Park Hospital, Inc., d/b/a River Park Hospital, for which execution may issue if necessary. |
Warren | Supreme Court | |
New South Federal Savings Bank vs. Brenda Pugh
This is an appeal of two unlawful detainer actions consolidated below. New South Federal Savings Bank ("New South") filed separate detainer warrants against Brenda Pugh seeking possession of two non-adjacent properties conveyed to New South at a foreclosure sale instituted after Pugh defaulted on a loan secured by a deed of trust on the 1 properties. The general sessions court dismissed the actions. On appeal, the trial court rejected Pugh's challenge to the foreclosure. The court held in favor of New South and ordered that it be restored to possession of the properties. Pugh appeals. We affirm. |
Blount | Court of Appeals | |
Shemain Sherille Riley, et al. v. Edith Swift
The General Sessions Court awarded the plaintiffs an $8,500 judgment for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident. The pro se defendant attempted to appeal the judgment to the Circuit Court, but failed to have the case docketed within 45 days after filing the notice of appeal, as is required by Davidson County Local Rule 20(b). The plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground of untimeliness and to enforce the order of the General Sessions Court. The defendant did not respond to the motion, nor did she appear for the motion hearing. The Circuit Court granted the plaintiffs' motion and made the judgment of the General Sessions Court the judgment of the Circuit Court. The defendant then retained counsel, who filed a Rule 59.04 motion to alter or amend the judgment eight months after it was rendered. The Circuit Court denied the motion. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Fieldstone Farms Homeowners Association, et al. v. Cavender Enterprises, LLC
The trial court found that a parcel designated as a recreational facility in a planned unit development was a "lot" under the terms of the governing declarations such that it could not be subdivided or subjected to a revised use. Under the original declaration, the recreational parcel was expressly excluded within the definition of lot but the later supplemented declaration omits the exclusion. Finding that according to its terms the Supplementary Declaration could not conflict with the original declaration, we find the parcel was not included within the definition of lot. Consequently, it is not subject to the restrictions placed on lots. As there is no prohibition to subdivision or conversion to residential use in the documents governing the parcel, then the parcel may be subdivided and converted to residential use. Accordingly, the trial court is reversed. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Brandon D. Thomas
|
Warren | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Chris Lawrence vs. Leigh Ann Lawrence
Leigh Ann Lawrence ("Mother") secretly tape recorded her 2 1/2-year-old daughter's telephone conversation with the child's father, Chris Lawrence ("Father"), during the course of a divorce and custody dispute. After the divorce was concluded, Father filed a complaint against Mother seeking damages for, among other things, wiretapping in violation of Tenn. Code Ann. _39-13-601 (2006). Father filed a motion for partial summary judgment which the trial court denied upon finding that "[n]o set of facts would create liability under _39-13-601 et seq. for [Mother's] interception of [Father's] communication with his daughter." The court then entered partial summary judgment in favor of Mother and certified the judgment as final. Father appeals. We affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Dawn Brown, et al. vs. Tennessee Title Loans, Inc.
We granted this interlocutory appeal to answer a single question of first impression: whether the Tennessee Title Pledge Act, Tenn. Code Ann. __ 45-15-101 to -120 (2000), permits a private right of action on behalf of pledgors against title pledge lenders who allegedly charged excessive interest and prohibited fees. The trial court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' Title Pledge Act allegations for failure to state a claim, and the Court of Appeals reversed. We hold that the Title Pledge Act does not expressly create an individual private right of action, and plaintiffs have not carried their burden of establishing that the legislature intended to imply such a right. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and reinstate the judgment of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. James Walter Grooms
The defendant, James Walter Grooms, appeals his Hamblen County Criminal Court jury conviction of telephone harassment, a Class A misdemeanor, for which he received a sentence of 11 months and 29 days' incarceration suspended after the service of 10 days in jail. He argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction and that the trial court imposed an excessive sentence. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hamblen | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Emmett Lejuan Harvell and Bardell Nelson Joseph, A/K/A Shawn Anglin, A/K/A Billontae Smontez Adams
The defendants, Emmett Lejuan Harvell and Bardell Nelson Joseph, were both convicted of the facilitation of tampering with evidence, a Class D felony, and simple possession of a Schedule VI controlled substance, a Class E felony. In addition, Defendant Joseph was convicted of possession of a handgun by a convicted felon, a Class E felony. On appeal, both defendants argue that the evidence was insufficient to support their convictions, and Defendant Joseph argues that he was sentenced improperly. After careful review, we affirm the judgments from the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
William Collier v. Cherry Lindamood, Warden
The petitioner, William Collier, appeals from the summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus wherein he challenged his November 2008 convictions of possession of heroin with intent to sell or deliver within 1000 feet of a school. In this appeal, the petitioner claims entitlement to habeas corpus relief via a sentence illegality. Discerning no error, we affirm the habeas corpus court's summary dismissal of the petition. |
Wayne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Andrew Douglas Rush
The Defendant, Andrew Douglas Rush, was convicted of rape of a child, a Class A felony, and statutory rape, a Class E felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. __ 39-13-506(d)(2), -522(b)(1). In this direct appeal, he contends that: (1) the State presented insufficient evidence to convict him of either count; and (2) the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury that attempted child rape was a lesser-included offense of rape of a child. After our review, we affirm the Defendant's convictions. We remand solely for the entry of a corrected judgment form, reflecting that a conviction of rape of a child requires that the Defendant serve 100% of the sentence imposed. |
Coffee | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James R. Smith v. State of Tennessee
Following a jury trial, the Petitioner, James R. Smith, was convicted of one count of rape, a Class B felony, one count of sexual battery, a Class E felony, and one count of attempted false imprisonment, a Class B misdemeanor. See Tenn. Code Ann. __ 39-12-107(a), -13- 302(b), -13-503(b), -13-505(c). This Court affirmed his convictions on direct appeal. See State v. James R. Smith, No. M2005-00615-CCA-R3-CD, 2006 WL 264468 (Tenn. Crim. App., Nashville, Jan. 31, 2006), perm. to appeal denied, (Tenn. May 1, 2006). The Petitioner filed a timely petition for post-conviction relief. Following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. In this appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred in denying him relief because his rights to due process and a fair and impartial jury were violated when five jurors ate lunch at the same table as the court clerk and two potential State witnesses. He also asserts that his trial counsel was ineffective because he (1) did not file any pretrial motions besides a request for discovery; (2) should have asked the trial court to declare a mistrial when he learned about the lunch incident; (3) failed to ask the jurors what they talked about at lunch; and (4) failed to raise the lunch incident in his direct appeal. After our review, we affirm the post-conviction court's denial of relief. |
Putnam | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John Ayres Hewitt
Appellant John Ayres Hewitt was convicted of driving under the influence (DUI), third offense and several other offenses stemming from a traffic stop and ensuing blood alcohol test. He was given an effective sentence of 11 months and 29 days, which was to be suspended after 150 days in custody. On appeal, Appellant contends that the arresting officer lacked probable cause to initiate the traffic stop. Appellant cites the videotape from the officer's dashboard camera as evidence that he did not engage in any suspicious driving and as a basis for discrediting the officer's testimony. Based upon our review, we see no error in the trial court's denial of Appellant's motion to suppress. However, we have determined that there are errors in the sentences noted on the judgments in counts ten and eleven. We therefore must remand the case to the |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Terry B. Johnson v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Terry B. Johnson, appeals as of right from the Rutherford County Circuit Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief challenging his conviction for sale of less than .5 grams of cocaine and resulting 15-year sentence. The Petitioner contends (1) he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel at trial; (2) he was denied a "full and fair hearing" on his petition due to the ineffective assistance of his post-conviction counsel; and (3) he was denied a "full and fair hearing" on his petition because the judge presiding over his post-conviction proceedings also presided over the original trial proceedings. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michelle Lee Raines
The defendant, Michelle Lee Raines, pleaded guilty to two counts of facilitation of rape of a child, a Class B felony. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court imposed an effective sentence of ten years with the manner of service left to the discretion of the trial court. Following a hearing, the trial court denied alternative sentencing and ordered the sentences served in confinement. On appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying alternative sentencing. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Joann Davis v. Harwell Enterprises
This appeal involves the application of the statute of limitations in Tenn. Code Ann. _ 50-6-203(g (2)(B) (2008) to a suit for workers' compensation benefits. An employee who sustained a compensable injury and who received authorized medical treatment filed a civil action in the Chancery Court for Giles County more than one year after the last payment of medical benefits. Her employer filed a "special motion to dismiss" on the ground that the suit was time-barred. The trial court, relying on the discovery rule, denied the motion on the ground that the limitations period did not begin to run until the employee's attorney received a letter from her treating physician stating [*2] that her injury was work-related. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted the employer permission to appeal under Tenn. R. App. P. 9 and referred the appeal to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel in accordance with Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 51 for hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. We have determined that the statute of limitations bars the employee's complaint and, therefore, reverse the judgment of the trial court. |
Giles | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Monya Jill Rayanne Roberts vs. James Kevin Roberts
On appeal, James Kevin Roberts ("Husband") challenges the trial court's refusal to grant a continuance to allow his fifth attorney time to prepare for trial, the trial court's refusal to exclude an expert witness called by Monya Jill Rayanne Roberts ("Wife"), the division of the marital estate, the amount of child support and the award of discretionary costs to Wife. Wife challenges the trial court's denial of her request for "supplemental" attorney's fees. We affirm. |
Sevier | Court of Appeals | |
Tom Agnew vs. Meritan, et al
In this matter, the plaintiff appeals the decision of the Board of Review of the Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development that he is disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation benefits pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. _ 50-7-301, as a result of his failure to establish that he had covered wages not provided by an unemployment workrelief program financed by a federal agency under Tenn. Code Ann. _ 50-7-207(c)(5)(G). The trial court upheld the decision of the Board of Review. We affirm. |
Sullivan | Court of Appeals | |
Richard L. Holllow, Trustee, et al vs. Michael L. Ingram, et al
The parties, owners of a tract of land, ultimately agreed to the sale of the property by a Special Master appointed by the Court. The sale was held and the Master ultimately reported the purchase and asked that the sale be confirmed. Before the Court acted on the Master's Report, the plaintiff moved for a dismissal pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. Rule 41, which the Trial Court granted and dismissed the case. On appeal, we hold that the Trial Court was required to act on the Master's Report before entertaining any motion to dismiss the case, and reinstate the action and remand for further proceedings. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Estate of Billy Joe Walls
This appeal arises out of a challenge to the trial court's subject matter jurisdiction. Upon the death of the testator, Billy Joe Walls, wills executed by him were submitted for probate in different states. Patricia Pemberton was appointed personal representative under a 2009 will admitted to probate in the trial court. Barbara Brown is the appointed personal representative under a 2007 will admitted to probate in the Circuit Court of Morgan County, Alabama. Brown initiated these proceedings by filing a complaint in the trial court 1 to contest the will submitted by Pemberton. Subsequently, Brown sought summary judgment, asserting that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Alternatively, Brown moved to transfer the case to Alabama under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The trial court dismissed Pemberton's petition on both grounds. She appeals. We affirm. |
Anderson | Court of Appeals | |
Jane Doe and John Doe v. Walgreens Company, et al.
This is an appeal from the grant of Appellees/Defendants' Tenn. R Civ. P 12.02 motion to dismiss. Appellant Jane Doe, who is HIV positive, was employed by Appellee Walgreens. In an effort to keep her medical condition private, Ms. Doe had her prescriptions filled at a Walgreens location other than the one at which she worked; therefore, Ms. Doe was also a customer of Walgreens. A co-worker of Ms. Doe's accessed Ms. Doe's prescription history in the Walgreens' database, and then disseminated her medical information to other coworkers and to Ms. Doe's fianc_. Ms. Doe and her fianc_ filed suit. The trial court dismissed the lawsuit, finding that the Does' exclusive remedy was under the workers' compensation act. Finding that the injuries sustained by Ms. Doe do not arise out of her employment with Walgreens, and that she has sufficiently pled causes of action outside workers' compensation law, we reverse the order of dismissal and remand. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Ray Bell Construction Co. vs. State of Tennessee, Department of Transportation
Tennessee Claims Commission - This case concerns an alleged breach of contract involving the incentive clause of a Tennessee Department of Transportation ("TDOT") road construction contract. Before the Claims Commission, TDOT argued that the contract language was clear in prohibiting an extension, alteration, or amendment of the incentive clause. The Claims Commission agreed with the position of Ray Bell Construction Company ("RBCC") that it was entitled to a modification of the incentive provision. To so find, the Commission held that "a definite latent ambiguity exists for which parol evidence not only is admissible, but frankly, absolutely necessary in both understanding and deciding the issues in this case." TDOT has appealed. We affirm the decision of the Claims Commission. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals |