Daisy L. Miller, Surviving Spouse of Massey Miller, Deceased v. Lehman-Roberts Company
This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6- 225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court found that the employee died as a result of a compensable occupational disease, silicosis, which was caused by exposure to silica dust in the course of his employment. The court awarded death benefits and specified medical and funeral expenses to employee’s widow. The employer has appealed that ruling, contending that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s finding on causation. In the alternative, the employer requests that the case be remanded to the trial court to determine the amount of a set-off, if any, for Social Security old-age insurance benefits in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-207(4)(A)(i)(2005). We affirm the judgment of the trial |
Shelby | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Leroine Martin v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Leroine Martin, pled guilty to two counts of second degree murder and one count of aggravated robbery. He filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel prior to and during the guilty plea proceedings. The post-conviction court denied his petition. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Matthew Jordan Buentiempo
The Appellant, Matthew Jordan Buentiempo, appeals the order of the Blount County Circuit Court revoking his probation and reinstating his original sentences of confinement. On appeal, Buentiempo alleges that the trial court erred in revoking his probation. After a review of the record, we affirm. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Marsha L. Stewart and Timothy G. Stewart v. Ricky E. Cottrell, Kathy D. Cottrell and Heather B. Cottrell
The issue on appeal is whether the general sessions court may back date the dismissal of a civil warrant, the result of which deprives the plaintiff of the benefit of the Savings Statute to commence a new civil action. When it was discovered that the plaintiffs had requested a voluntary dismissal a year and a half earlier but the case had not been dismissed, the general sessions court entered a dismissal and backdated the effective date of the dismissal to the date the voluntary dismissal had been requested. When the plaintiffs perfected an appeal of the dismissal to the circuit court within ten days of the entry of the order of dismissal, the defendants moved to dismiss the case as being barred by the statute of limitations, relying on the nunc pro tunc application of the dismissal. The circuit court dismissed the case as time barred and this appeal followed. We have determined a dismissal of a civil warrant is not effective until an order of dismissal, signed by the judge, is entered by the clerk of the court. The plaintiffs timely appealed the dismissal of their general sessions warrant within ten days of the date of entry of the order by the clerk. Therefore, this action is not time barred. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
City of Millersville v. Geary Falk
This appeal involves a dispute between the City of Millersville and a homeowner regarding the enforcement of an ordinance regulating the location of dumpsters on residential property. After the Millersville City Court fined the homeowner fifty dollars for violating the ordinance, the homeowner appealed to the Circuit Court for Sumner County. Following a bench trial, the court found that the homeowner had violated the ordinance and, in addition to fining him fifty dollars, ordered the homeowner to remove the dumpster from his property. The homeowner has appealed. We have determined that the trial court erred by ordering the homeowner to remove the dumpster from his property. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael R. King
The defendant, Michael R. King, was indicted by the Dickson County Circuit Court Grand Jury on two counts of driving under the influence of an intoxicant (DUI), second offense. See T.C.A. §§ 55-10-401, -403(a)(1) (2004). He moved to suppress the results of his blood alcohol test. Following the circuit court’s denial of the motion, a plea agreement resulted in a nolle presequi of count one (DUI), a guilty plea to count two (DUI per se, see id. § 55-10-401(a)(2)), and the reservation of a certified question of law: “Whether the trial court erred following a suppression hearing held on July 10, 2006, that the results of the Defendant’s blood alcohol test may be admitted into evidence?” Because the certified question was not properly reserved for review, we dismiss the appeal. |
Dickson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael R. King - Concurring
I concur in the results reached in the majority opinion because I, too, conclude that the certified question does not clearly identify the scope and limits of the reserved issue. However, I disagree with the majority opinion’s view of the other reasons it uses to forbid the appeal. |
Dickson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Aaron Leon Burnette, Jr.
A Hardeman County Circuit Court jury convicted the appellant, Aaron Leon Burnette, Jr., of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, vandalism of property valued one thousand dollars or more but less than ten thousand dollars, and evading arrest while operating a motor vehicle. The trial court sentenced him as a Range II, multiple offender to ten, eight, and four years, respectively, and ordered that he serve the ten- and four-year sentences consecutively for an effective sentence of fourteen years in confinement. On appeal, the appellant contends that (1) the trial court should have granted his motion to suppress because the police did not have reasonable suspicion to stop his vehicle; (2) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions; and (3) the trial court improperly enhanced his sentence and ordered consecutive sentencing. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Bobby Marable v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Bobby Marable, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, he contends that his counsel was ineffective and that his guilty plea was entered unknowingly and involuntarily. After review, we conclude that no error exists, and we affirm the judgment from the post-conviction court. |
Crockett | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Perry
The appellant, Christopher Perry, was convicted of the first degree murder of Stanley Johnson, and he received a sentence of life imprisonment. In the instant appeal, the appellant challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress, arguing that the court should have found that his Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated. Upon reviewing the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kristi Dance Oakes
The Defendant, Kristi Dance Oakes, pled guilty to one count of statutory rape. The trial court denied her request for judicial diversion or full probation and sentenced her to eighteen months, of which six months is to be served in the county jail, followed by twelve months of supervised community probation. She appeals that decision. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court, after modifying the sentence. However, we remand for the correction of a clerical error in the judgment form. |
Sevier | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jermaine Hunter v. Howard Carlton, Warden
The petitioner, Jermaine Hunter, appeals from the circuit court’s summary dismissal of his pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus. Following our review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the dismissal of the petition. |
Johnson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Elmer Harris
The Appellant, Elmer Harris, appeals his convictions in the Shelby County Criminal Court for aggravated robbery, criminal attempt to commit aggravated robbery, and aggravated assault. The charges stemmed from incidents occurring at two different Memphis convenience stores on July 4 and July 10, 2004. Prior to trial, the State moved that the two separate indictments be consolidated for trial, and the trial court granted the motion for consolidation. On appeal, Harris presents two issues for our review: (1) whether the trial court erred in consolidating the indictments for trial; and (2) whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support his convictions. We affirm Harris’ convictions; however, we conclude that double jeopardy protections require that the convictions for attempted aggravated robbery and aggravated assault be merged. Accordingly, we remand to the trial court for purposes of merger and for entry of corrected judgments of conviction. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Thomas Earl Williams v. State of Tennessee
The pro se Petitioner, Thomas Earl Williams, appeals the habeas corpus court’s order summarily dismissing his petition, arguing that the dismissal was erroneous for several reasons. Principally, he contends that he is entitled to relief because the sentencing statutes under which he was sentenced in 1974 were later found to be unconstitutional. Following our review, we conclude that his sentences are lawful and have not expired, and that his judgments are not void. Consequently, we affirm the habeas corpus court’s order of summary dismissal. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tymetric Lejuan Graham
The defendant, Tymetric Lejuan Graham, was convicted of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, and was sentenced to twelve years as a Range I, standard offender. On appeal, he argues that his indictment charged attempted aggravated robbery only and that, therefore, the trial court erred in submitting the charge of aggravated robbery to the jury. We agree and reverse the judgment of the trial court. We remand for entry of a conviction and sentence for attempted aggravated robbery. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Marcus Dwayne Welcome - Concurring
I concur in the result and most of the reasoning in the majority opinion. I write separately because I believe the trial court should have, as it originally ruled, barred use of the defendant’s aggravated robbery conviction for impeachment. The main conduct of aggravated robbery that relates to dishonesty is essentially a theft. In the present case, the state had evidence of two prior theft convictions and two other acts of theft with which to impeach the defendant. To allow use, as well, of an aggravated robbery conviction in this aggravated robbery trial would add little probative value on the issue of the defendant’s credibility compared to the substantial prejudice it would have by involving an offense similar to the offense on trial. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Marcus Dwayne Welcome
The defendant, Marcus Dwayne Welcome, appeals as of right his Knox County Criminal Court jury conviction for criminal responsibility for aggravated robbery for which he received a sentence of twenty years as a Range II, multiple offender. On appeal, he contends that double jeopardy precludes his conviction, that the verdict form incorrectly and prejudicially characterized criminal responsibility as a lesser included offense of aggravated robbery, that the trial court should have granted a mistrial based upon the witness’s reference to the defendant’s previous incarceration, that the trial court erred in ruling a prior robbery admissible for impeachment purposes, and that the trial court committed errors related to sentencing. Following our review, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Betty Jean Webb v. David Fred Lane
Plaintiff appeals from a judgment rendered in her favor contending that the award was insufficient to compensate her for her injuries. In the absence of a transcript or sufficient statement of the evidence, we affirm. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Anna C. Burden v. Harry Donald Burden
In this divorce case, Anna C. Burden (“Wife”) challenges the trial court’s award of joint custody and its adoption of the Permanent Parenting Plan submitted by Harry Donald Burden (“Husband”), which plan provides for equal parenting time with regard to the parties’ child, A.V. (“Child”). Wife contends that she should be the primary residential parent, with Husband having visitation rights. Wife also challenges the court’s division of the marital property and its denial of alimony. We reverse as to custody, affirm as to the division of property, and vacate the judgment as to alimony. This case is remanded for further proceedings on the issue of alimony. |
Campbell | Court of Appeals | |
Milan Box Corporation v. Donna Hardy, et al.
Plaintiff Milan Box filed this lawsuit against former employee Donna Hardy and her husband, Billy Hardy, alleging fraud, embezzlement, conversion, and unjust enrichment. During discovery the Hardys submitted responses to written interrogatories, but subsequently asserted their fifth amendment rights against self-incrimination during deposition and moved the court to stay litigationpending criminal proceedings. The Hardys subsequently withdrew the motion to stay; nevertheless, the trial court denied the motion to stay when the Hardys failed to execute deeds of trust to real property in favor of Milan Box as security. The trial court granted Milan Box’s motion for summary judgment, and the Hardys appeal. We affirm summary judgment against Donna Hardy but modify the award of damages, reverse the award of summary judgment against Mr. Hardy, and remand for further proceedings. |
Gibson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Shawn McCobb and Marcus Walker
The defendants, Shawn McCobb and Marcus Walker, were convicted of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, and sentenced as Range I, standard offenders to ten years in the Department of Correction. In their consolidated appeal, they argue that the evidence was insufficient to support their convictions and the trial court erred in imposing ten-year sentences. Defendant Walker additionally asserts that it was error for the trial court to impose a fine over $50 and allow his impeachment with a prior conviction. Following our review, we affirm the convictions and sentences of the trial court but modify the fines imposed to $50 each. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Timothy A. Baxter v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Timothy Baxter, pled guilty to a multitude of offenses on December 10, 2001. As a result of this negotiated plea, Petitioner received an effective sentence of twelve years. Petitioner did not file a petition for post-conviction relief until February 25, 2005, which was over two years outside the statute of limitations under T.C.A. § 40-30-102. On May 4, 2005, the post-conviction court dismissed the petition for being outside the statute of limitations. Petitioner did not file a notice of appeal within thirty days as required by Rule 4(a) of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. On July 20, 2006, over a year after the post-conviction court filed its order dismissing his petition, Petitioner filed a motion for delayed notice of appeal. Five days later, the post-conviction court denied Petitioner’s request. On August 7, 2006, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal from the postconviction court’s dismissal of his motion for delayed appeal. Following a thorough review of the record, we dismiss Petitioner’s appeal on the grounds that there is no entitlement to a delayed appeal from the post-conviction court’s denial of Petitioner’s petition for post-conviction relief. In addition, it is not in the interest of justice to waive the timely filing of a notice of appeal in Petitioner’s case. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Willie L. Hill v. Margie L. Simpson
In this action for damages for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident, the Trial Judge approved a jury verdict for the defendant. Plaintiff appealed on grounds of jury misconduct. We affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Milton Lebron Byrd
The defendant, Milton Lebron Byrd, was convicted of attempted first degree premeditated murder, a Class A felony, and aggravated assault, a Class C felony. The trial court merged the offenses and sentenced the defendant to life without the possibility of parole as a repeat violent offender. On appeal, he contends that the evidence is not sufficient to support his conviction and that the repeat violent offenders statute is unconstitutional in violation of the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment and of his due process and equal protection rights. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re: Victoria Bowling
Defendant was cited for criminal contempt by Judge. Another Judge found defendant guilty of contempt. We affirm. |
Anderson | Court of Appeals |