Sammie Netters v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Sammie Netters, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief from his conviction for aggravated robbery, a Class B felony. He claims that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to investigate his case adequately. We affirm the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Shonda Kay Garcia
The defendant, Shonda Kay Garcia, pled guilty to child abuse and neglect of a child six years of age or less, a Class D felony, in exchange for a two-year sentence as a Range I, standard offender, with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. Finding that the defendant lacked remorse and that a pattern of child abuse and neglect had been established, the trial court denied the defendant’s request for alternative sentencing and ordered that she serve her sentence in the Department of Correction. The defendant appeals the denial of alternative sentencing. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Obion | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Rhonda Leigh Jones Robinson v. Russell Raynor Robinson
This is a divorce case about dissipation of marital assets and custody. Throughout the marriage, the wife took care of the children while the husband provided financial support. The husband was the owner and operator of several automobile businesses. After the wife filed for divorce, the husband’s automobile businesses failed, resulting in the husband’s father purchasing the businesses. After a lengthy trial, the trial court found that the husband intentionally dissipated marital assets, including the automobile businesses. The wife was designated the children’s primary residential parent. The husband appeals. We affirm, finding that the evidence supports the trial court’s finding that the husband dissipated the businesses by failing to preserve them, and the designation of the wife as primary residential parent. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Linda June Cross v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Linda June Cross, was convicted by a jury in the Cumberland County Criminal Court of first degree murder. She was sentenced to life imprisonment in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that because her trial counsel had an actual conflict of interest in representing her, counsel was therefore ineffective. The post-conviction court denied the petition, and the petitioner now appeals. Upon our review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Cumberland | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
David Johnson Hartsell v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, David Johnson Hartsell, appeals the dismissal by the Johnson County Circuit Court of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The state has moved this court to affirm the judgment of the trial court pursuant to Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20. On review, this court affirms the order of dismissal. |
Johnson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James William Parsons, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, James William Parsons, Jr., filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that he pled guilty to an illegal sentence. The trial court denied the petition, and the petitioner now appeals. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Johnson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Steven John Chromik, III
In this interlocutory appeal arising from the Davidson County Criminal Court's order suppressing certain statements and writings made by the defendant, Steven John Chromik, III, the state claims that the trial court erred in finding the defendant's statements and writings constituted inadmissible hearsay. The defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the statements and writings because of violation of his rights under the United States and Tennessee constitutions. We affirm the trial court's judgment concerning the defendant's constitutional claims but reverse its suppression of the defendant's statements on evidentiary grounds, and we remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jimmy Jennett, Jr. a/k/a Michael Brewer v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Jimmy Jennett, Jr., appeals the trial court's dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. In this appeal, he asserts that the trial court erred by dismissing the petition because he is "restrained of his liberty" by virtue of a 1977 Tennessee conviction that was used to increase his sentence for a 1985 Mississippi conviction. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Donald Blevins
The defendant, Donald Blevins, was convicted for contributing to the delinquency of a minor. The trial court imposed a sentence of 11 months and 29 days. On appeal, the defendant asserts that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on the defenses of necessity and duress. The conviction and sentence are affirmed; the case is remanded for entry of an amended judgment to correct a clerical error. |
Warren | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Anthony Norfleet v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Anthony Norfleet, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his aggravated robbery conviction, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in finding he received effective assistance of trial counsel. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Albert Smith v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Albert Smith, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief as time-barred. He contends that Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. ___, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), announced a new rule of constitutional law that applies retroactively to his case, thereby creating an exception to the one-year statute of limitations for filing a post-conviction petition. He further contends that the post-conviction court should have held an evidentiary hearing to determine the reason for his late filing of the petition. We conclude that the petitioner has not demonstrated that a valid exception to the one-year statute of limitations exists in his case or that the post-conviction court erred by denying the petition without an evidentiary hearing. Accordingly, we affirm the post-conviction court’s summary denial of the petition. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Montez Antuan Adams v. State of Tennessee
On February 2, 1999, the petitioner, Montez Antuan Adams, filed a petition for post-conviction relief to challenge his 1997 Madison County Circuit Court convictions of first degree felony murder, especially aggravated burglary, conspiracy to commit especially aggravated burglary, and theft over $500, all of which were affirmed on appeal. See State v. Montez Antuan Adams, No. 02C01-9709-CC-00352 (Tenn. Crim. App., Jackson, Sept. 1, 1998). The post-conviction court appointed counsel, and after conducting an evidentiary hearing, it denied relief. The petitioner appealed in a timely manner. Following our review upon the record, we affirm the order denying post-conviction relief. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jason Brian Hargrove
The petitioner, Jason Brian Hargrove, pled guilty to multiple counts of theft and burglary and was ordered to serve an effective sentence of twenty (20) years. This Court affirmed his sentence on direct appeal. See State v. Jason Brian Hargrove, No. M2001-01579-CCA-R3-CD, 2002 WL 1585638 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, July 18, 2002). The petitioner filed a timely petition for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and arguing that his guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied the petition. On appeal, the petitioner challenges the denial of the petition for post-conviction relief based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. He also argues that the holding in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. ___, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), requires a reduction in his sentence. For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of the post-conviction court and decline to modify the petitioner's sentence. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Monoleto D. Green
The Defendant was convicted on a jury verdict of three counts of aggravated robbery and three counts of robbery. Following a sentencing hearing, he was sentenced on all six convictions as a Range II offender to an aggregate sentence of eighty-four years with all sentences to be served consecutively. On appeal, the Defendant argues two issues: 1) there was insufficient evidence to support one of his robbery convictions and all three aggravated robbery convictions; and 2) the trial court erred by imposing excessive sentences and by ordering all the sentences to be served consecutively. We affirm the judgments of the trial court as to the convictions but modify the Defendant's sentences to an aggregate term of seventy-eight years. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Steve Cornell Snipes
The defendant, Steve Cornell Snipes, pled guilty in the Haywood County Circuit Court to possession of over .5 grams of a Schedule II controlled substance with the intent to deliver or sell, a Class B felony, and was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to eight years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. As a condition of his guilty plea, the defendant sought to reserve as a certified question of law whether the trial court erred in finding that the affidavit supporting the search warrant set forth sufficient facts establishing the credibility of the confidential informant. Based on our review, we affirm the order of the trial court. |
Haywood | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kenneth Carter
The defendant, Kenneth Carter, was indicted along with the co-defendant, Varnard Wheeler, for theft of property over $60,000. By agreement with the state, the defendant pled guilty to a reduced charge of attempt to commit theft of property over $60,000, a Class C felony with a Range I sentence of six years. The trial court denied judicial diversion and ordered a sentence of ninety days in jail followed by supervised probation. In this appeal of right, the defendant argues that the trial court erred first by denying judicial diversion and second by denying immediate probation. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Eric Bernard Chism v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Eric Bernard Chism, appeals from the Madison County Circuit Court’s dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief, through which he had attacked his Madison County jury convictions of felony murder, especially aggravated kidnapping, aggravated rape, and aggravated sexual battery. The post-conviction court determined that the petitioner failed to establish his claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. We conclude that the record supports this adjudication and affirm the order. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Robert Bradley, Jr.
The Appellant, Clarence Keeley, d/b/a A-Bail Bond Company, appeals the order of the Lauderdale County Circuit Court denying his petition for reimbursement of the bond in the case of State of Tennessee v. Robert Bradley, Jr. On appeal, Keeley argues that the trial court erred in denying reimbursement of the $10,000 bail bond because (1) the circuit court was without jurisdiction to enter a forfeiture on the bond which secured Bradley’s appearance in the general sessions court and (2) Bradley’s guilty pleas to the charges released A-Bail Bond Company from its surety obligations. After review, we hold that the circuit court was without jurisdiction to enforce the bail bond. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and reimbursement of the bond is ordered as provided below. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Niccole A. Naifeh, et al., v. Valley Forge Life Insurance Company, et al.
This appeal arises out of the interpretation of a life insurance contract. The trial court determined that the Decedent’s life insurance policy was in effect and had not lapsed due to Decedent’s failure to pay the premium due in January 2000. It ordered Valley Forge Life Insurance Company to pay the sum of $1,000,000.00 to Cathy Naifeh plus prejudgment interest of 8% per annum beginning on June 1, 2000. The lower court dismissed Valley Forge Life Insurance Company’s counterclaim against William McGowan, Jr. and Bill McGowan & Company. Further, it dismissed the claim of Decedent’s estate and Cathy Naifeh against Bill McGowan, Jr. and Bill McGowan & Company for negligent misrepresentation and their claims against Union Planters Bank. Finally, it dismissed the claims of Decedent’s estate and Cathy Naifeh against Union Planters Bank, William McGowan, and Valley Forge Life Insurance Company for violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. Valley Forge Life Insurance Company now seeks review by this Court. For the following reasons, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Tipton | Court of Appeals | |
Charlene Bennett v. Magna Seating Systems, et al.
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 to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this appeal, the Employee, Charlene Bennett, insists that the trial court erred in dismissing her complaint, finding that she had failed to prove that her injuries arose out of and in the course of her employment. For the reasons set out below, the Panel has concluded that the evidence fails to preponderate against the findings of the trial court. Judgment of the trial court is affirmed with costs assessed against the employee. |
Carroll | Workers Compensation Panel | |
State of Tennessee v. William Henry Wilson
The Defendant, William Henry Wilson, pled guilty to one count of delivery of .5 grams or more of a schedule II controlled substance, and to one count of delivery of less than .5 grams of a schedule II controlled substance. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective sentence of ten years, and the Defendant appeals, contending that his sentence is excessive. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William Henry Wilson
The Defendant, William Henry Wilson, pled guilty to one count of delivery of .5 grams or more of a schedule II controlled substance, and to one count of delivery of less than .5 grams of a schedule II controlled substance. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective sentence of ten years, and the Defendant appeals, contending that his sentence is excessive. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re Adoption of John A. Kleshinski and Kevin na KleKleshinski, Chirleshinski and John E. Kleshinski v. Julia Elizabeth Kleshinski - Concurring
While I concur with the decisions reached by the majority in this case, I write separately to voice my concerns regarding the manner in which the majority approaches the best interest analysis mandated by section 36-1-113(c)(2) of the Tennessee Code. |
Lincoln | Court of Appeals | |
Martha Hallowell v. Vestco, Inc., d/b/a Wendy's, et al.
Appellant was asked to leave her job after she failed to comply with an order from her supervisor to comply with the dress code. Appellant was denied unemployment benefits because of work-related misconduct which was affirmed by the Board of Review. Appellant filed a Petition for Judicial Review in the chancery court. The chancery court affirmed the Board of Review and Appellant appeals. We affirm. |
Henderson | Court of Appeals | |
Cletus M. Thetford v. American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Company, et al.
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 to the Supreme Court of findings of facts and conclusions of law. The trial court awarded the employee 60% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole and found that his work activities had advanced and anatomically changed his pre-existing arthritic condition. The employer contends that: 1) the employee did not give proper notice of his injuries; 2) that his work activities did not cause an advancement of his pre-existing arthritic condition; and 3) the disability award was excessive and unsupported by the evidence. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Gibson | Workers Compensation Panel |