Justin Quistopher Webb v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Justin Quistopher Webb, pled guilty to attempted first degree murder and theft of property and received a sentence of twenty years. Thereafter, he filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that his plea counsel rendered ineffective assistance in failing to advise him of the significant consequences of the plea. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied the petition by finding that plea counsel was not ineffective. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the post-conviction court erred in denying his petition, asserting that he proved his allegations by clear and convincing evidence. Upon our review, we respectfully disagree and affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment. |
Robertson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Brad Wigdor v. Electric Research & Manufacturing Cooperative, Inc., et al.
Brad Wigdor brings this appeal challenging the facial constitutionality of several aspects of the Workers' Compensation Reform Act of 2013. The appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51. Because we conclude that Wigdor's constitutional arguments lack merit, we affirm. |
Workers Compensation Panel | ||
Tri-State Insurance Company of Minnesota A/S/O Campus Chalet, Inc. v. East Tennessee Sprinkler Company, Inc.
This appeal stems from a dispute over a purportedly defective sprinkler system which malfunctioned, causing significant damage to Campus Chalet, Inc. (“Campus Chalet”). East Tennessee Sprinkler Company, Inc. (“ETS”) installed the system in 1992 and remained contractually responsible for subsequent inspections, testing, and maintenance of the system. On October 5, 2023, Campus Chalet’s insurance carrier filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for Washington County (the “trial court”), against ETS, alleging that the sprinkler system malfunctioned and caused significant damage to Campus Chalet. ETS filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the complaint was time-barred by a statute of repose. The trial court granted ETS’s motion, and this appeal followed. Because we agree with the appellant that the negligence and breach of contract claims are based on ongoing failures to inspect, test, and maintain the system, we reverse. |
Court of Appeals | ||
In Re Traden R., et al.
In this parental termination case, the mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to two children. The trial court found that grounds for termination had been proven and that termination of her parental rights was in the children’s best interests. She appealed, raising several issues. We find that one ground for termination, abandonment for failure to support, was properly pled and proven by clear and convincing evidence; however, we reverse the ruling that the ground of abandonment by failure to visit had been proven. We also vacate the other grounds purportedly found by the trial court because they were not properly pled. We affirm the trial court’s determination that termination of the mother’s parental rights is in the children’s best interests. Accordingly, we affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Kenneth Dale Carter v. Jessica Jones Fay
This appeal stems from a long-standing custody dispute between the mother and father of two minor children. The trial court entered a court-ordered parenting plan in February of 2022, but the parties experienced substantial difficulty co-parenting with one another. Numerous pleadings were filed by both parties, including a petition for modification filed by the mother in May of 2022 and motions for civil and criminal contempt filed by the father against the mother. The trial court held a hearing on all of the parties’ pending motions on April 14, 2023, and May 12, 2023. The trial court ultimately determined that no material change in circumstances occurred and left its previously ordered parenting plan and subsequent orders in place. The trial court also found the mother in civil and criminal contempt on eight counts. Further, the trial court declined any further jurisdiction over the case, as the mother and the children had resided in Florida for several years by the time the final order was entered. The father appeals, raising four issues. We affirm the trial court’s decision as to custody and contempt. While the father raises evidentiary issues, we conclude that any error by the trial court was harmless. We vacate and remand the trial court’s judgment as to continuing jurisdiction over the case. |
Greene | Court of Appeals | |
Estate of Paul David Rowe Et Al. v. Wellmont Health Systems Et Al.
Paul David Rowe was not informed of a radiology report, which revealed two masses in his kidneys indicative of renal cancer, for five years. Mr. Rowe passed away after suit was filed, but his wife, Sharon K. Rowe, both individually and as the administrator ad litem of his estate, (“Plaintiffs”) maintained a health care liability action against the allegedly negligent parties, Wellmont Health System d/b/a Wellmont Bristol Regional Medical Center (“Wellmont”), Carl W. Harris, Jr., D.O. (“Dr. Harris”), and Northeast Tennessee Emergency Physicians (“NETEP”) (collectively, “Defendants”) in the Circuit Court for Sullivan County (“the Trial Court”). Defendants filed two separate motions for summary judgment, arguing that the three-year statute of repose barred Plaintiffs’ action. Plaintiffs raised the defense of fraudulent concealment. The Trial Court granted the motions for summary judgment finding that Defendants had no actual knowledge until 2015 that Mr. Rowe had or might have had cancer in 2010, and therefore, had nothing to fraudulently conceal. Plaintiffs appealed. We affirm. |
Sullivan | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Bobby Daniel Pettie
A Bedford County jury found the Defendant, Bobby Daniel Pettie, guilty of possession of a firearm with the intent to go armed during the commission of a dangerous felony, among other offenses. The court then imposed a six-year sentence for this conviction after implicitly finding that the Defendant had a qualifying prior felony conviction. Thereafter, the Defendant sought to have his sentence declared illegal pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1, arguing that the jury did not find that he had a qualifying prior felony conviction. The trial court denied the motion, finding that the Defendant waived the jury’s determination of the issue. The Defendant appealed to this court. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ajalon Elliott, et al. v. Harold Junior Monger, et al.
This appeal arises from an automobile accident. Appellants, one of the drivers and her husband, filed a complaint for negligence against appellees, the other driver and his employer. Appellees filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging that immediately preceding the collision, the appellee-driver experienced a heart attack that left him physically incapacitated and unable to control his vehicle. In granting the motion for summary judgment and dismissing the case, the trial court found that the sudden physical incapacitation doctrine provided appellees with a defense to appellants’ negligence claim. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Joseph E. Graham v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Joseph E. Graham, appeals from the Montgomery County Circuit Court’s denial of post-conviction relief from his convictions for two counts of first degree felony murder, seven counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, five counts of attempted aggravated robbery, and one count of especially aggravated burglary and his effective sentence of life imprisonment plus twenty years. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred by (1) denying relief on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim and (2) denying his motion for a continuance of the post-conviction hearing. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Dora Rathbone Brown Et Al. v. James H. Fitchorn Et Al.
Pro se appellant appeals from an order to partition real property. Due to the deficiencies in the appellant’s brief, including the lack of any specific issues for appellate review, we dismiss the appeal. We also conclude the appeal is frivolous and remand for an assessment of damages. |
Cocke | Court of Appeals | |
Mickey Verchell Shanklin v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Mickey Verchell Shanklin, appeals the post-conviction court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief in which he challenged his convictions for the sale of heroin, the delivery of heroin, the sale of fentanyl, and the delivery of fentanyl and his effective sentence of thirty years of imprisonment as a Range III, persistent offender. On appeal, Petitioner asserts that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to submit the controlled substance for independent testing. Because Petitioner filed an untimely notice of appeal, we dismiss the appeal. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Nedra R. Hastings v. Larry M. Hastings, Jr., et al.
The notice of appeal in this case was not timely filed. Therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William Wylie
A Maury County jury convicted the Defendant, William Wylie, of second degree murder, among other offenses. The trial court imposed a sentence of twenty years. On appeal, the State asks this court to dismiss the appeal because the Defendant’s notice of appeal was untimely. Upon our review, we agree that the Defendant’s notice of appeal was untimely and that the interest of justice does not require us to waive the timely filing requirement. We respectfully dismiss the appeal. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re Santana M., et al.
This is a termination of parental rights case. Father appeals the termination of his parental rights on the grounds of: (1) abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home; (2) substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan; (3) persistence of conditions; (4) failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody or financial responsibility; and (5) abandonment by an incarcerated parent. We affirm. |
Dyer | Court of Appeals | |
Hunters Point Quarry LLC v. Metropolitan Government of Hartsville and Trousdale County, Tennessee et al.
A county regional planning commission denied the petitioner’s application to place a quarry in an agricultural zone. The zoning laws included certain requirements for quarrying. None of the zones, however, permitted quarrying, and all the zones prohibited any unpermitted uses. The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari. The trial court granted summary judgment to the county respondents, concluding that the planning commission did not act illegally, capriciously, fraudulently, or without material evidence. Because the zoning laws for the agricultural zone did not permit quarrying and explicitly prohibited unpermitted uses, we affirm the grant of summary judgment. |
Trousdale | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Brentnol Calvin James
A Davidson County jury convicted the Defendant, Brentnol Calvin James, of first degree premeditated murder, and the trial court imposed a life sentence. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that the evidence of premeditation was insufficient to support his conviction, and that the trial court erred by failing to provide a jury instruction on self-defense. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Brittany Sharayah Lehmann v. Jerry Scott Wilson
This appeal concerns custody and child support determinations regarding a minor child. Because the trial court failed to identify and employ the applicable legal standard, we vacate the judgment as to the limitation of Father’s parenting time, the imposition of supervised parenting time, and the suspension of Father’s parental rights. Additionally, we vacate the award of attorney’s fees to Mother because the trial court failed to determine their reasonableness. The judgment is otherwise affirmed as to the remaining issues and the case is remanded for further proceedings. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joey Dewayne Callahan
Joey Dewayne Callahan (“Defendant”) appeals from his Marshall County Circuit Court convictions for possession with intent to sell or deliver more than 0.5 grams of methamphetamine, possession of a prohibited weapon, possession with the intent to use drug paraphernalia, resisting arrest, and reckless driving, for which he received a total effective sentence of fifteen years’ incarceration. Defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to establish his intent to sell the methamphetamine. Following a thorough review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Howard Levy v. James Franks et al.
This appeal concerns claims for nuisance, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and enforcement of a local zoning ordinance. The plaintiff, Howard Levy, alleged that his neighbor, James Franks, engaged in an intentional and malicious course of conduct that included paving over a corner of Levy’s property, building a wooden fence along Levy’s property line, and routing construction vehicles over the parties’ shared driveway. Levy also alleged that the fence violated the Zoning Ordinance of Franklin, Tennessee, and that Franks was operating a construction company on his property in violation of the same. The trial court dismissed Levy’s fence-zoning claim at the summary judgment stage because he had not produced evidence that he was “specially damaged” as required by Tennessee Code Annotated § 13-7-208(a)(2). At the close of Levy’s proof during the bench trial, the court dismissed the remaining claims pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 41.02. The court also enjoined Levy from interfering with the installation of underground power lines under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 65.04(2). This appeal followed. We conclude the trial court was without jurisdiction to enter the injunction, which was unrelated to any of the underlying claims, but we affirm the trial court’s judgment in all other respects. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jamarea Dashon Alderson
After being indicted on multiple charges in two separate cases, Jamarea Dashon Alderson, Defendant, entered an open guilty plea to the offenses of aggravated assault, two counts of simple possession of marijuana, possession of oxycodone, possession of hydrocodone, and evading arrest. The trial court denied alternative sentencing and sentenced Defendant to serve an effective sentence of five years, eleven months, and twenty-nine days, ordering partial consecutive sentencing. Defendant appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in denying alternative sentencing and ordering consecutive sentencing. Defendant also challenges the trial court’s admission of testimony about pending charges during the sentencing hearing. Because the trial court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Monoleto D. Green v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Monoleto D. Green, acting pro se, appeals from the order of the Davidson County Criminal Court summarily dismissing his second petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus. Pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Mitchell D. Horst, et al. v. Gary Gaar
The Plaintiffs filed suit against the former father-in-law of one of the Plaintiffs, complaining that, following alleged statements the former father-in-law made to a third party, the third party moved money that had been invested with the former son-in-law. The former father-in-law sought to dismiss the claims that were asserted against him, both pursuant to a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12 motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and pursuant to a petition under the Tennessee Public Participation Act. After initially dismissing the Plaintiffs’ complaint for failure to state a claim and denying a motion to alter or amend, the trial court held a separate hearing regarding dismissal under the Tennessee Public Participation Act. Ultimately, the trial court ruled that dismissal under the Tennessee Public Participation Act was appropriate and concluded that the former father-in-law was entitled to costs and attorney’s fees in connection with this litigation, both in relation to the Tennessee Public Participation Act petition and the Rule 12 dismissal. For the specific reasons stated herein, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal under Rule 12, vacate its dismissal—and award of costs and attorney’s fees—under the Tennessee Public Participation Act, and affirm the award of costs and attorney’s fees that stemmed from the trial court’s Rule 12 dismissal. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Daniel W. Et Al.
This action involves the termination of a mother’s parental rights to her minor children. Following a bench trial, the court found that clear and convincing evidence existed to establish the following statutory grounds of termination: (1) the persistence of conditions which led to removal; (2) substantial noncompliance with the permanency plans; and (3) failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody of the children. The court also found that termination was in the best interest of the children. We affirm the trial court’s termination decision. |
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Brian Z. Et Al.
Father appeals the termination of his parental rights, arguing that termination was not in his child’s best interests. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. |
Campbell | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William Swafford
The Defendant, William Swafford, was convicted by a Hamblen County jury of especially |
Hamblen | Court of Criminal Appeals |