State of Tennessee v. Robert Banks
The defendant, Robert Banks, was convicted in the General Sessions Court of Shelby County of the misdemeanor offense of patronizing prostitution, fined $1000, and sentenced to twenty days in the county correctional center, to be served on weekends. He then appealed to the Shelby County Criminal Court, where, following a bench trial, he was convicted of patronizing prostitution within a mile and a half of a school, a Class A misdemeanor, ordered to pay a $100 fine, and sentenced to eleven months, twenty-nine days, with forty-five days to be served consecutively in the county workhouse and the remainder on supervised probation. On appeal to this court, the defendant raises two issues: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain his conviction; and (2) whether the trial court erred in denying his motion for a jury trial based on his claim of ineffective assistance of general sessions counsel. We conclude the evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction and the trial court did not err in denying the defendant’s untimely request for a jury trial, made after his notice of appeal had already been entered. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court, but modify the fine imposed from $100 to $1000, in accordance with the provisions of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-514(b)(3) (2003), and remand for entry of a corrected judgment to reflect the defendant’s conviction offense which was omitted from the judgment form. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Bennie Nelson Thomas, Jr.
The defendant, Bennie Nelson Thomas, Jr., was convicted of sale of a Schedule II controlled substance, crack cocaine, a Class C felony, and sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to six years in the Department of Correction. He was also fined $2000. He raises two issues on appeal: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain his conviction; and (2) whether the trial court erred in refusing to declare a mistrial after the improper reference at trial to a prior drug sale by an undercover informant. Based on our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court but remand for entry of a corrected judgment to reflect the defendant’s fine of $2000. |
Gibson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees Local 1733, and Willie Joe Alexander
This is a claim against a union for negligence. The plaintiff was a correctional officer at a county correctional facility and a member of the defendant union. The employee was terminated from his job after he was arrested for possession of a controlled substance. The employee sought the union’s assistance in appealing his termination through the county grievance process. After his grievance was preliminarily denied, the union had fifteen days in which to appeal the denial by requesting arbitration of the employee’s case. The employee urged the union to file a request for arbitration, and the defendant union officer agreed to do so. However, the defendant union officer failed to submit the request for arbitration by the deadline, and consequently the request was denied as untimely. The employee then sued the union and the union officer, alleging that the union officer’s conduct was negligent and that it constituted a breach of contract. After a bench trial, the trial court rejected the employee’s breach of contract claim. It concluded that the defendants’ failure to request arbitration in a timely manner was negligent, but that the negligence did not cause the employee’s damages. The employee now appeals. We affirm the dismissal of the breach of contract claim, but reverse the dismissal of the negligence claim, finding that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s conclusion that the employee failed to prove causation of his damages. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Shawn Rafael Bough
The defendant, Shawn Rafael Bough, was convicted of felony murder and especially aggravated robbery. The Court of Criminal Appeals held that the motion for new trial, which was not filed until the date of the sentencing hearing on the especially aggravated robbery conviction, fifty-two days after judgment was entered on the felony murder conviction, was untimely as to the felony murder conviction. The Court of Criminal Appeals also held that two amended motions for new trial were untimely. On these two issues, we reverse the Court of Criminal Appeals, finding that the original motion for new trial, as well as the two amended motions for new trial, were timely filed as to both convictions. The Court of Criminal Appeals found that the evidence was sufficient to support both convictions. The remaining issues addressed by the Court only related to the especially aggravated robbery conviction because the Court had held that the motion for new trial was untimely. On those issues, the Court held that (1) while the State’s reference to a “missing witness” during closing argument was improper, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; (2) the witnesses Deanna Jones, Edie Jones and Dante Smith were not accomplices whose testimony needed corroboration, and therefore the trial court did not err in failing to give a jury instruction on accomplice testimony; and (3) the defendant waived any objection to the testimony of Isaiah Dixon regarding the defendant’s out-of-court confession by his failure to raise the issue at trial. We affirm the Court of Criminal Appeals on these issues. However, because the Court of Criminal Appeals did not address these last three issues with respect to the felony murder conviction or any of the issues raised in the amended motions for new trial as to either conviction, we remand the case to the Court of Criminal Appeals for consideration of those issues. Tenn. R. App. P. 11 Permission to Appeal; Judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part, and Remanded to the Court of Criminal Appeals |
Knox | Supreme Court | |
Mira Ann (Waller) Mosley v. Charles Raymond Mosley
The parties were married in 1980 with no children born of the marriage. The parties separated a number of times during their marriage. During a period of separation, in April of 1995, the parties signed a contract entitled Marital Dissolution Agreement, which, among other things, settled their rights in property acquired during their marriage. They reconciled in 1997 and lived together for some six months until their final separation, which was followed by Wife’s Complaint for Divorce filed June 11, 2001. The trial court held that the Agreement had been freely executed by both parties and meticulously followed until the time of the divorce Complaint. The parties were divorced by joint stipulation pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-4-129, and following final hearing, the trial court held the 1995 Agreement to be fair and equitable and divided property accordingly. Wife appeals, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Linc Sebastian Baird
The Appellant, Linc Sebastian Baird, appeals the sentencing decision of the Knox County Criminal Court. Baird pled guilty to the crimes of robbery and attempt to obtain a controlled substance by fraud and was sentenced to consecutive sentences of five years for robbery and three years for the criminal attempt. On appeal, Baird asserts that the trial court erred by: (1) imposing excessive sentences and (2) denying him an alternative sentence. After review of the record, we find no error and affirm the sentences. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Kevin L. Marshall v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Kevin L. Marshall, appeals the dismissal of his motion to correct an illegal sentence. Because this is not the appropriate context for this appeal and because we conclude that the record supports the trial court's determination that the petitioner failed to set forth a factual or legal basis on which to justify relief, we affirm the dismissal of the post-conviction petition. |
Coffee | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Lucy Thompson
The defendant, Lucy Thompson, contends that the trial court erred in overruling her motion for judicial diversion. Specifically, she contends that the court accorded controlling weight to the deterrence value and the circumstances of the case, while it ignored other factors that it was required to consider. Because we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, the judgment is affirmed. |
Cannon | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Robert L. Evans, Jr.
The defendant, Robert L. Evans, Jr., was indicted for aggravated robbery, first degree premeditated murder, and first degree felony murder. A jury convicted the defendant on all counts. The two murder convictions were merged, and the jury imposed life without parole. The trial judge sentenced the defendant to life without parole plus twelve years for aggravated robbery. The twelve-year sentence was ordered served consecutively to the murder sentence and a previous sentence of death in Illinois. The defendant now appeals his convictions and the consecutive sentencing. We affirm both the convictions and sentencing. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Rebecca Paige Mulkey (Hurd) v. Bradley Warren Mulkey
Rebecca Paige Mulkey (“Mother”) and Bradley Warren Mulkey (“Father”) were divorced in 1996. The parties agreed that Mother would be the primary residential parent of their two minor daughters with Father having reasonable visitation rights. Several years later and after Mother had remarried, Father filed a Petition for Change of Custody claiming the older child had been physically abused by her step-father. The Trial Court temporarily transferred custody of the children to Father and indicated this arrangement would be reviewed periodically. After the older child recanted her allegations of physical abuse, the Trial Court ordered that she be examined by a psychiatrist. An examination was undertaken and the psychiatrist concluded there was no evidence of abuse “of any kind.” The Trial Court later entered a judgment and held that its previous temporary decision to designate Father as the primary residential parent was to be the final determination. Mother appeals claiming the Trial Court erred when it transferred custody of the children to Father because Father failed to prove there had been a material change in circumstance. We agree and reverse the judgment of the Trial Court. |
Hawkins | Court of Appeals | |
Rebecca Paige Mulkey (Hurd) v. Bradley Warren Mulkey - Concurring
The majority Opinion notes that the Trial Court talked to the minor children in camera in the presence of the parties’ attorneys, but no court reporter was present, and a record of that proceeding is not before us. We directed in Rutherford v. Rutherford, 971 S.W.2d 955 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997), p. 956: The Trial Judge has discretion to interview children apart from the courtroom setting if he considers it is in the best interest of the child. However, if he elects to follow this procedure, he must examine the child “in the presence of attorneys for each side and in the presence of the court reporter.” Newburger v. Newburger, 10 Tenn. App. 555, 566 (1930), and in order to have a complete record on appeal, a transcript of such evidence must be filed. This procedure was not followed in this case and the failure to follow this procedure is grounds, standing alone, to vacate and/or reverse the Judgment of the Trial Court, as we noted in Rutherford. |
Hawkins | Court of Appeals | |
Donald Mays v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Donald Mays, appeals the trial court's denial of post-conviction relief. Although the petitioner bases his claim on three grounds, the primary issue is whether the petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal. The judgment is affirmed. Because the post-conviction court failed to address the issue of whether counsel were ineffective by failing to challenge the trial court's failure to charge the jury on certain lesser included offenses, the cause is remanded for further proceedings. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Darrell Braddock v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Darrell Braddock, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court's denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Because the petition for post-conviction relief is time-barred by the statute of limitations, we grant the State's motion and affirm the judgment of the lower court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Vaccaro Construction Co., Inc. v. Louis L. Schafer and C. Marie Schafer
This is a construction case. The defendant homeowners had an oral contract with the plaintiff contractor to perform renovations on their home. After problems with the renovations arose, including flooding of the home after a rainstorm, the homeowners terminated the contractor. The contractor filed a claim seeking enforcement of a lien on the improved property or payment for the work done on theories of breach of contract, quantum meruit, and unjust enrichment. The homeowners counter-claimed that the contractor owed them for the cost of repairing the contractor’s defective work. After a bench trial, the trial court found that the contractor’s work fell well below the applicable standard and awarded the homeowners damages for the repair of the contractor’s defective work. We affirm. |
Sequatchie, Sevier | Court of Appeals | |
Bill Fox et al. v. State of Tennessee
In this premises liability action,Debby Fox (“the plaintiff”)1 and her husband, Bill Fox, filed a claim against the State of Tennessee (“the State”) for damages sustained by the Foxes when the plaintiff was injured as a result of a fall from a stage during a play rehearsal on the campus of the University of Tennessee at Knoxville (“UT”). The claims commission found in favor of the State, holding (1) that the plaintiff failed to prove her claim of negligence and (2) that she was guilty of 100% of the fault in the accident. The plaintiff and her husband appeal, arguing, inter alia, that the evidence preponderates against the claims commission’s determinations. We affirm. |
Court of Appeals | ||
Roy Hugh Rushing, II v. Jill Marianne Rushing
This is a post-divorce child custody case. The parties were divorced by a final decree which incorporated the parties’ marital dissolution agreement (“MDA”). The MDA provided, among other things, that the parties would have joint custody of their two minor children, and that the mother would be the primary residential parent. The MDA also stated that the father would provide life insurance on the children’s lives, and that the maternal grandmother would arbitrate the parties’ disputes. Approximately two years later, the mother filed a motion for contempt, claiming that the father had failed to provide the required life insurance on the children’s lives. In response, the father filed a motion to increase his residential time with the children and also sought court approval to provide term-life insurance as opposed to whole-life insurance on the children’s lives. In addition, the father asked the court to strike the MDA provision stating that the maternal grandmother would be the final arbiter of the parties’ child rearing disputes. The trial court denied the mother’s motion for contempt and granted the father’s motion for modification of the MDA. The mother now appeals. We affirm. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Estate of James A. Champion, Deceased
This appeal challenges the chancery court’s subject matter jurisdiction to hear a will contest. The petitioner daughter filed a petition to probate the last will and testament of her father. Other siblings filed an objection to probate, alleging that their father did not have the requisite testamentary capacity to execute the will. After a hearing, the chancery court rejected the siblings’ claims and admitted the will to probate. Later, the siblings filed another petition contesting the will, again challenging testamentary capacity and, in addition, alleging undue influence. The chancery court certified the will contest to the circuit court. The circuit court granted summary judgment to the petitioner, finding that the issues raised by the siblings had been addressed in the former proceedings and were res judicata. The siblings then filed a Rule 60 motion in chancery court to set aside the order probating the will. The motion was denied. The siblings now appeal, arguing that the chancery court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear the will contest. We affirm, finding that the chancery court had concurrent jurisdiction with the circuit court to adjudicate a will contest. |
Gibson | Court of Appeals | |
Seiller & Handmaker, L.L.P. and Glen Cohen v. Kelly Finnell
This is an action to enroll a foreign judgment. A Tennessee resident was represented by a Kentucky lawyer in a Kentucky lawsuit. When the Kentucky lawyer pursued collection of his fees, the Tennessee client filed a bar complaint against him in Kentucky. The bar complaint was dismissed, and the Kentucky lawyer filed a malicious prosecution lawsuit in Kentucky against the client, and obtained a judgment. In this action, the Kentucky lawyer seeks to enroll the Kentucky judgment against the Tennessee client. The client asserts that the judgment should not be enrolled in Tennessee because it falls under the public policy exception to the full faith and credit clause of United States Constitution. The client bases this argument on Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, section 27.1, which prohibits any lawsuit based on a bar complaint, asserting that the enrollment of a foreign judgment based on this cause of action would violate Tennessee public policy. The trial court held that the Kentucky judgment was entitled to full faith and credit and domesticated the judgment. We affirm the decision of the trial court, finding that the enrollment of the foreign judgment does not violate Tennessee public policy. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee, ex rel., Donna Cottingham v. William B. Cottingham
This appeal concerns an order of the Williamson County Chancery Court finding William B. Cottingham in criminal contempt of court for failure to pay court-ordered child support and alimony. Mr. Cottingham appeals the order of the chancery court sentencing him to 170 days in jail for failure to comply with court orders concerning child support and alimony. We affirm. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Jeremy Wayne Humphrey v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Jeremy Wayne Humphrey, appeals the trial court's dismissal of his petition for post conviction relief or in the alternative for habeas corpus relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court's denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner filed his petition outside the statute of limitations for post-conviction purposes. Further, the petitioner does not state any cognizable habeas corpus claims. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Charles Mullins v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant, Charles Mullins, proceeding pro se, appeals the Maury County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his motion to correct an illegal sentence. On appeal, Mullins argues that his effective thirty-two-year sentence for two counts of aggravated sexual battery is illegal because (1) the judgment forms provide for an improper release eligibility date and (2) the trial court failed to award pretrial jail credits on the judgment forms. Finding merit to the Appellant’s contentions, we remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tracy Lynn Franks
The appellant, Tracy Lynn Franks, pled guilty to aggravated assault, felony reckless endangerment, and felony evading arrest. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the appellant was sentenced to six years in the Tennessee Department of Correction for the aggravated assault conviction and four years each for the reckless endangerment and evading arrest convictions, with the sentences to be served concurrently. Additionally, the trial court imposed a $500.00 fine for the evading arrest conviction. On appeal, the appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying him probation. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Hardin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jean Ann Trudeau, et al. v. Department of Labor and Workforce Development for the State of Tennessee, et al.
This is an age discrimination case. In October 2001, a thirty-seven year old woman interviewed for a job position at the defendant’s Career Center. She was recommended for hire for the job. Subsequently, the defendant Career Center began accepting applications for a second job position, similar to the first. The forty-five year old aunt of the first applicant submitted an application for the second job position. The second job position was never filled. The forty-five year old job applicant filed a lawsuit, alleging that she was not hired due to age discrimination. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Career Center. We affirm, finding that the forty-five year old applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination. |
Henry | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Timothy Davis
The defendant, Timothy Wade Davis, was convicted by a jury of four counts of rape of a child and one count of aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor. Sentences of twenty-two years were imposed for each child rape conviction and ten years for aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor. Three of the child rape convictions and the especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor were ordered to run consecutively for an effective sentence of seventy-six years at 100%. The defendant appeals his convictions and sentencing and alleges that the trial court erred in the following respects: (1) in failing to suppress the search warrant and the defendant’s statements; (2) by denying the defendant the right to represent himself; (3) by refusing to instruct the jury on insanity; (4) in finding the defendant competent to stand trial; and (5) in regard to sentencing. After review of the issues presented and the record as a whole, we conclude that no reversible error was present and affirm the convictions and sentencing. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Timothy Davis - Concurring
I concur in the results and most of the analysis in the majority opinion. However, I believe the differences reflected in the search warrant affidavits in the record would justify suppression of the items seized pursuant to Rule 41(c), Tenn. R. Crim. P. Such a result, though, is not needed, because the record does not reflect that the copies of the affidavits in the record are thoserequired by Rule 41(c) to be identical. On the other hand, even if suppression were required, I believe many of the defendant’s statements against interest could be admissible. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals |