Milburn L. Edwards v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Milburn L. Edwards, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his third petition for post-conviction relief because it was time-barred. Following our review of the entire record, the briefs, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Thomas Patterson v. Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security et al.
An administrative law judge entered an order of default against Appellant for failing to appear at a resetting of his contested case hearing on a civil asset forfeiture. On appeal, the Commissioner’s Designee for the Department of Safety and Homeland Security affirmed the administrative law judge’s entry of default, denying Appellant’s request to set aside the same order. Appellant appealed the Commissioner Designee’s decision to the Chancery Court, raising that the administrative officials lacked authority to default his case because they did not swear an oath of office commensurate with that sworn by judicial branch judges of the Tennessee state judiciary. The Chancery Court affirmed the administrative officials’ decisions. Appellant appealed to this court. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Elizabeth Clarke v. State of Tennessee
State employee Insured received radiation treatment for tongue cancer. Insurance Company denied authorization of the treatment as “investigational” and not “medically necessary” pursuant to the insurance plan and its medical policy. After two direct appeals of the denial to the insurance claim administrator, Insured appealed to the Tennessee Claims Commission. The Claims Commission found that the treatment was investigational under the plain language of both the plan and the policy and thus not a covered expense. As the denial of coverage did not amount to a breach of contract, the Claims Commission granted Insurance Company’s motion for summary judgment. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. |
Court of Appeals | ||
James Elton Gillies et al. v. Rebecca Noelle Mitchell Gillies
Father was held in criminal contempt for withholding visitation from Grandmother. The trial court found 28 counts of contempt and imposed a sentence of 280 days. The trial court also revoked the suspension of a prior 100-day sentence and ordered that sentence to be served consecutively to the 280 days. We conclude that because the visitation was withheld while an order of protection prohibiting contact between the child and Grandmother was in place, the trial court’s findings and the evidence presented are insufficient to support a finding that Father acted willfully. Accordingly, we reverse the finding of contempt and the revocation of the suspended sentence. |
Warren | Court of Appeals | |
William Joseph Robinette Et Al. v. Tina Robinette Et Al.
William Joseph Robinette and his daughters, Delores Reynolds and Jody Stewart, (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed suit in the Sullivan County Chancery Court (“the Trial Court”), seeking a declaration of their rights as the lawful owners of Fuller Enterprises, LLC against the right of ownership by Tina Robinette (“Widow”), the widow of Mr. Robinette’s son and Ms. Reynolds and Ms. Stewart’s brother, Will Robinette (“Decedent”). Plaintiffs later added Decedent’s estate and Fuller Asphalt Material, LLC, as additional defendants (collectively with Widow, “Defendants”). Widow filed abusive civil action (“ACA”) motions against Plaintiffs, which the Trial Court granted. Plaintiffs appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. |
Sullivan | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tyler Michael Benson
The Defendant, Tyler Michael Benson, appeals the Hamilton County Criminal Court’s |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Marcelle Antonio Tatum v. Leslie D. Tatum (Henderson)
This appeal arises out of a divorce action filed by the appellee/husband. Following a course of inaction by the appellant/wife, the trial court granted a final decree of divorce by default in favor of the husband. The wife filed multiple motions seeking to have the trial court alter or amend the final decree. The trial court ultimately granted in part, and denied in part, wife’s post-judgment motions. The appellant appeals the ultimate judgment of the trial court. Having determined that the appellant’s brief is not compliant with the relevant rules of briefing in this Court, we conclude that her issues purportedly raised on appeal are waived. The appeal is dismissed. Additionally, the appellee requests his attorney’s fees incurred on appeal pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-1-122. In the exercise of our discretion, we decline to find this appeal frivolous and further decline to award appellee his attorney’s fees and costs incurred on appeal. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
People First Auto Sales, LLC, et al. v. City of Memphis, Tennessee, et al.
A business sought a special use permit from the City of Memphis to operate a used car lot. At a meeting of the city council, the council voted to remand the business’s application back to the local land use control board. At the next meeting, the council reconsidered the application and denied it. The business filed a writ of certiorari challenging the denial, alleging due process violations and stating that the council failed to follow its rules of procedure. The trial court found that no due process right applied and that the council had properly followed its rules of procedure. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Richard Faulk
A Maury County jury convicted the Defendant, Richard Faulk, of aggravated vehicular homicide, and he was subsequently sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment. In this direct appeal, the Defendant argues the trial court erred in (1) allowing two Tennessee State Troopers who were certified as experts in accident reconstruction to testify as experts in occupant kinetics and (2) allowing the State to introduce a copy of the Defendant’s Tennessee Department of Safety driving record as evidence of his prior convictions when a copy of the driving record was not provided to the Defendant at the arraignment as required by Tennessee Code Annotated § 55-10-405(d). The Defendant also argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Terrell Shannon
Defendant, Terrell Shannon, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of rape of a child and aggravated assault. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of forty-six years. Defendant appeals, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for rape of a child and that his convictions violate double jeopardy protections. Upon our review, we conclude that Defendant has failed to prepare a sufficient brief in compliance with Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 27(a)(7) and Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 10(b). Accordingly, his issues are waived, and the appeal is dismissed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re Connor A.
Mother appeals the termination of her parental rights on grounds of (1) abandonment by failure to visit; (2) abandonment by failure to support; (3) abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home; (4) substantial noncompliance with the permanency plans; (5) persistence of conditions; and (6) failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody or financial responsibility of the child. Because the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services does not defend the grounds of abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home or substantial noncompliance with the permanency plans, we reverse as to those grounds. And because the trial court failed to make sufficient findings that returning the child to Mother would pose a likelihood of substantial harm, we vacate the ground of failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody or financial responsibility of the child. Otherwise, we affirm the decision of the trial court to terminate Mother’s parental rights. |
Coffee | Court of Appeals | |
Michael Aveille on behalf of E.A. v. Bobby Moore
This appeal concerns the entry of an order of protection. The alleged victim’s father filed the initiating petition based upon an allegation of stalking. We vacate the entry of the order of protection, finding no evidence to sustain the petition. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Tracy D. Boyd, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
Tracy D. Boyd, Jr., Petitioner, pleaded guilty to three counts of impersonating a licensed professional, one count of theft of property, and one count of forgery. Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that the indictments against him were defective, that he had received the ineffective assistance of counsel, that his guilty plea was entered under duress, and prosecutorial misconduct. The post-conviction court summarily dismissed each of Petitioner’s allegations. Petitioner now timely appeals. After review, we remand this case to the post-conviction court for entry of a written order that sufficiently addresses all grounds presented by Petitioner, and which states the court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding each ground as required by Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-30-111(b). |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Glenard Cortez Thorne v. Brandon Watwood, Warden
In 2008, the Petitioner, Glenard Cortez Thorne, was convicted of two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping and sentenced to a term of twenty-one years for each conviction. In 2024, the Petitioner applied for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that the trial court failed to consider a required statutory mitigating factor at sentencing. The habeas corpus court summarily dismissed the application, and the Petitioner appealed. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgments of the habeas corpus court. |
Lake | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Brandon Rashann Murray
Brandon Rashann Murray, Defendant, admitted to violating the terms of his community corrections sentence. Following a hearing, the trial court ordered Defendant to serve the balance of his eight-year sentence in confinement. Defendant claims that the trial court erred in imposing a sentence of incarceration because his violations were technical in nature. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Gary Allen Jordan, Jr.
A Madison County jury convicted Defendant, Gary Allen Jordan, Jr., of fifty-five offenses, including charges of possession of methamphetamine with intent to sell or deliver, possession of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver, possession of heroin with intent to sell or deliver, possession of fentanyl with intent to sell or deliver, possession of marijuana with intent to sell or deliver, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and possession of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of sixty-six years’ confinement. On appeal, Defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence seized during the search of his vehicle and that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions related to the possession of cocaine and marijuana and the possession of a firearm. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Frank L. Slaughter, Jr. v. Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee
A hearing panel of the Board of Professional Responsibility found that a Sullivan County attorney violated Rules 1.6, 4.4, and 8.4 of the Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct after the attorney disclosed confidential information about a client’s case to third parties in a separate case. The hearing panel imposed a public censure as punishment. The attorney appealed, and the chancery court affirmed the hearing panel’s decision. The attorney now appeals to this Court, arguing that Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9 violates his due process rights and that his actions did not amount to violations of Rules 1.6 and 4.4. After careful review, we affirm the judgment of the chancery court with regard to Rule 1.6. However, we reverse the chancery court’s judgment upholding the hearing panel’s finding that the attorney violated Rule 4.4. |
Sullivan | Supreme Court | |
Karen Formby Holmes v. George David Holmes
This appeal arises from a divorce. The former husband challenges the classification and division of the marital estate. Because the husband failed to comply with our procedural rules, we deem his issues waived and dismiss the appeal. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Stephanie Allen, individually and surviving spouse and next-of-kin of Donald A. Allen, Deceased et al. v. Benjamin Dehner, M.D. et al.
A husband and wife commenced this health care liability action by filing a complaint against a medical doctor and his practice. Along with their complaint, the couple filed a “Certificate of Good Faith” as required by Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-26-122(a), which requires certification that an expert has reviewed the available medical records “for the incident or incidents at issue” and that the expert believed there was “a good faith basis to maintain the action consistent with the requirements of § 29-26-115.” The original complaint alleged that the defendants caused severe permanent and physical injuries when they failed to properly diagnose and treat the husband’s cancer. After the husband died, the wife filed an amended complaint that alleged that the defendants’ negligence also caused the husband’s death. But the wife did not file a new certificate of good faith. For this reason, the defendants sought dismissal under Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-26-122(c). The trial court granted the motion, and this appeal followed. The issue is whether § 29-26-122(a) requires plaintiffs to file a new certificate of good faith with an amended complaint that alleges a new injury based on already-alleged negligent acts by existing defendants. In Sirbaugh v. Vanderbilt University, 469 S.W.3d 46 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2014) we held that a new certificate is required when adding new defendants to existing claims. And in Estate of Vickers v. Diversicare Leasing Corp., No. M2021-00894-COA-R3-CV, 2022 WL 2111850 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 13, 2022), we held that a new certificate is required when adding new allegations of negligence against existing defendants. Accordingly, we conclude that a new certificate is required when adding an injury based on existing claims against existing defendants. For this and other reasons, we affirm the trial court’s judgment in all respects. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Justin M. Finch v. 28th Judicial District IV-D Child Support Agency, et al.
The trial court dismissed the appellant’s petition on a Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02 motion. Because the appellant’s brief falls well short of the requirements of both the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure and the rules of this Court, we dismiss the appeal. |
Haywood | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Robert David Morse
A Cumberland County jury convicted the Defendant, Robert David Morse, of first degree premeditated murder, and the trial court sentenced him to life in prison. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction and that the trial court committed two evidentiary errors: (1) admitting multiple autopsy photographs depicting the victim's body; and (2) limiting his cross-examination of Agent Davenport about the Defendant's statement to the police. After review, we affirm the trial court's judgment. |
Court of Criminal Appeals | ||
Stephanie Allen, individually and surviving spouse and next-of-kin of Donald A. Allen, Deceased et al. v. Benjamin Dehner, M.D. et al. (concurring in part/dissenting in part)
In considering this appeal, the majority thoughtfully moves through the labyrinthian requirements of Tennessee health care liability actions. While the majority’s analysis presents a well-considered direction to go, I cannot follow their route for its full course. Holding onto statutory language that hopefully serves the role of the thread used by Theseus in navigating out of the labyrinth, 1 I believe that the proper way back through the maze follows that statutory thread along a different path. Accordingly, I concur in part and dissent in part. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Ina Grace Jacobi v. VendEngine Inc.
Ina Grace Jacobi sued VendEngine, Inc. (“VendEngine”), alleging that she was wrongfully arrested due to VendEngine’s negligent design and operation of an inmate messaging system. The trial court determined that the gravamen of Ms. Jacobi’s claim was for malicious prosecution and granted summary judgment to VendEngine after concluding she failed to prove the elements of that claim. Ms. Jacobi appealed. Discerning no error, we affirm the trial court’s decision. |
Robertson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Paul Michael Cheairs
Defendant, Paul Michael Cheairs, was convicted by a Madison County jury of two counts of possession of marijuana with intent to sell and or deliver, two counts of possession of drug paraphernalia, one count of misdemeanor unlawful possession of a firearm, and one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of seventeen years. Defendant appeals, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions and that the trial court erred in admitting a rap video made after the arrest, by allowing expert testimony from a lieutenant, and in sentencing. Upon our review of the entire record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Nehad Abdelnabi v. Fatma Adel Sekik
This appeal concerns the trial court’s grant of a petition for civil contempt for failure to comply with orders regarding the division of marital assets and awards of spousal and child support against the husband and his relatives, who held an interest in the properties at issue. We affirm the trial court’s grant of orders of civil contempt against all parties. We also conclude that this appeal is frivolous and remand for an assessment of damages. |
Knox | Court of Appeals |