Opinions
Kim Brown v. Mapco Express, Inc.
This appeal involves claims arising from a verbal exchange at a gas station. The plaintiff customer gave cash to a clerk employed at the defendant gas station to pay for gas. After a verbal exchange between the clerk and the customer, the customer left the gas station. The customer promptly filed this lawsuit, alleging a variety of tort claims, including defamation, false light in the public eye, and infliction of emotional distress. The complaint sought damages in excess of a billion – with a “b”– dollars. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant gas station. The customer appeals. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Jerry Garrison et al. v. Rita Bickford et al.
Following an accident which claimed the life of their teenage son, the deceased’s parents filed claims for wrongful death and negligent infliction of emotional distress against the driver and owner of the car that struck their son. The parents also sought to recover from their own insurance company under the uninsured motorist provisions of their policy. The driverof the car settled, paying the deceased’s parents $25,000 for their wrongful death claim and $25,000 for their negligent infliction of emotional distress claim. The parents’ insurer paid them an additional $75,000 for the wrongful death claim but refused to pay any damages for their emotional injuries. The insurer contended that (1) emotional distress did not constitute “bodily injury” as defined in the policy, and (2) the “Each Person” limit in the policy had been met, here by exhausting any available coverage. The parents maintained that recovery for emotional harm was not precluded under the policy definition of “bodily injury” and that the “Each Person” limit had not been met. The trial court agreed with the parents and ruled in favor of coverage. The Court of Appeals reversed. We granted the parents’ application for permission to appeal to decide whether “bodily injury” as defined in the policy includes mental injuries standing alone. It does not. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. |
Bledsoe | Supreme Court | |
Precision Castings of Tennessee, Inc. v. H and H Manufacturing Company, Inc.
The defendant, a Pennsylvania corporation, challenges the trial court’s decision to exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Based upon the defendant’s initiation of a contractualrelationship with a Tennessee manufacturerand itsentry into a contractproviding that Tennessee law would control, we affirm the trial court’s decision to exercise jurisdiction in this dispute arising out of the contract. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Candice M. Van Bibber (Formerly Lannin-Glinstra) v. Marc A. Glinstra
The father has appealed from an order entered on September 20, 2011, granting the mother’s motion to dismiss the father’s Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60 motion but reserving several other matters for a final hearing. Because the order appealed does not resolve all the claims between the parties, we dismiss the appeal for lack of a final judgment. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
Ann Langford et al. v. Jeane Clark
In this conversionaction,the trialcourtentered judgmentagainstthe defendantupon findings that she abused a confidential relationship, exerted undue influence, and improperly converted funds of her sister while she had dementia. The defendant appeals contending the action is time barred; she also contends the trial court abused its discretion by admitting into evidence the deposition of her sister’s physician because she did not receive notice of the deposition. We have determined that the statute of limitations was tolled from the accrual of the claim of conversion until the death of the defendant’s sister due to the sister being of unsound mind and that the action was timely filed after her death. We also find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the deposition into evidence because the trial court afforded the defendant the opportunity to depose the physician but she failed to do so. Accordingly, we affirm. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Farmer and Anthony Clark - Concur
I concur with the Court’s conclusions that all gunshot wounds do not necessarily cause bodily injury that involves a “substantial risk of death” for the purpose of Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-106(a)(34)(A) (2010). I also agree that the State failed to present sufficient evidence that the particular gunshot wound Mr. Westbrooks received involved a substantial risk of death. Accordingly, I join the Court’s decision to vacate Messrs. Farmer’s and Turner’s convictions for especially aggravated robbery and to remand for resentencing for aggravated robbery. I have chosen to write separately to highlight the important role that expert medical testimony must play in many cases in which the State must establish that the injury to the victim carried with it a substantial risk of death. |
Shelby | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Jonathan Radford
The Defendant, Jonathan Radford, pled guilty to two counts of facilitation of aggravated robbery. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced the Defendant, as a Range I offender, to two concurrent five-year sentences and ordered him to serve eleven months and twenty-nine days in confinement, with the remainder to be served on supervised probation. The Defendant’s probation officer filed a probation violation report, the second such report filed against the Defendant. After a hearing, the trial court revoked the Defendant’s probation for a second time and ordered that he serve the balance of his sentences in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it revoked his probation. After reviewing the record, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
William A. Stafford v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, William A. Stafford, pled guilty to facilitation of aggravated kidnapping and was sentenced to nineteen years in incarceration. Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus relief that was dismissed by the habeas corpus court. After a thorough review of the record and briefs on appeal, we conclude that Petitioner has not shown that his sentence was void or that his confinement was illegal. Therefore, we affirm the habeas corpus court’s dismissal of his petition. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Marvin Christopher Long, Desmond Shelton Spann and Dontillus Williams
Defendants, Marvin Christopher Long, Desmond Shelton Spann, and Dontillus Williams, were indicted by the Davidson County Grand Jury for possession with intent to deliver 300 grams or more of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school and for conspiracy of the same offense, both Class A felonies. Following a jury trial, all three defendants were convicted as charged. Defendant Long was sentenced by the trial court as a career offender to 60 years’ incarceration for each conviction with his sentences to be served concurrently; Defendant Spann was sentenced as a multiple offender to 25 years’ incarceration for each conviction with his sentences to be served concurrently; and Defendant Williams was sentenced as a persistent offender to 40 years’ incarceration with his sentences to be served concurrently. Defendants appeal and assert the following: 1) Defendant Long challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence and the trial court’s classification of him as a career offender; 2) Defendant Spann challenges the trial court’s jury verdict form regarding the schedule of the controlled substance, challenges the trial court’s instructions as to lesser-included offenses, and argues the trial court erred when it failed to instruct the jury regarding the weight of the controlled substance; and 3) Defendant Williams challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence. After a careful review of the record before us, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jerell Reed
Following the Lauderdale County Circuit Court’s denial of his motion to dismiss, the Defendant-Appellant, Jerell Reed, entered guilty pleas to tampering with evidence, a Class C felony, and simple possession of marijuana, a Class A misdemeanor, and purported to reserve a certified question of law regarding whether his attempt to dispose of less than onehalf ounce of marijuana constituted the felony offense of tampering with evidence. Because Reed failed to properly reserve the certified question, we dismiss the appeal. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Demariceo Chalmers
Defendant-Appellant, Demariceo Chalmers, appeals as of right his convictions for attempt to commit aggravated robbery and first degree murder committed during the perpetration of an attempted aggravated robbery. He received a sentence of five years for the attempt to commit aggravated robbery to be served concurrently with a sentence of life imprisonment for the felony murder. In this appeal, the sole issue presented for our review is whether the evidence is sufficient to support his conviction of felony murder. Specifically, Chalmers contends that the State failed to prove felony murder because he abandoned his intent to commit the underlying felony prior to shooting and killing the victim. After reviewing the record and the applicable authorities, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In the Matter of: Jaylen J. (d.o.b. 10/1/08) and Justin A. (12/1/05)
This appeal arises from a dependency and neglect petition originally filed by the Department of Children’s Services in the Juvenile Court for Shelby County in May 2010. We dismiss the matter for lack of jurisdiction. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Walter Word v. Metro Air Services, Inc., et al.
In this interlocutory appeal, we must decide whether a trial court has subject matter jurisdiction over a workers’ compensation case when the time stamp on the complaint is earlier than the “time noted” on the Benefit Review Conference Report, pursuant to Benefit Review Process Rule 0800-2-5-.09(2). Because a workers’ compensation action may not be filed under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-225(a)(2)(A) (2008) until exhaustion of the benefit review conference process, we hold that when subject matter jurisdiction over a workers’ compensation case depends upon the issuance of a Benefit Review Conference Report, the “time noted on the Report” is controlling. Moreover, we hold that the time stamp on the complaint,if unambiguous,maynotbe impeached with extrinsic evidence. Therefore, we reverse the trial court’s denial of the employer’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and dismiss this action. |
Wilson | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Donald Jones
The Defendant-Appellant, Donald Jones, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of first degree felony murder and especially aggravated burglary and was sentenced to consecutive sentences of life imprisonment and thirty years, respectively. On appeal, Jones argues: (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions, and (2) the trial court erred in instructing the jury on flight. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Timothy Dewayne Williams v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Timothy Dewayne Williams, appeals as of right from the Tipton County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The Petitioner contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel from the attorneys representing him at trial because they failed to call an eyewitness to the crime. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Tipton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In the Matter of: Caydence B. and Kimberly B.
This is a termination of parental rights case. The trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights upon its finding, by clear and convincing evidence, of abandonment, persistence of conditions, and that termination is in the best interests of the children. We conclude that the trial court erred in finding persistence of conditions. However, we affirm the trial court’s finding of abandonment and that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in the best interests of the children. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Derrann William Estill v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Derrann William Estill,appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his conviction of especially aggravated kidnapping and resulting seventeen-year sentence. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal, that he is entitled to relief based upon cumulative error, and that the post-conviction court failed to address adequately his claims of due process violations. Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
David G. Rogers, ex rel., Karen Wright v. Autozone Stores, Inc.
This is a premises liability case in which Karen Wright alleged that she slipped in a puddle of water and fell on the floor while exiting an Autozone store. She filed suit against Autozone Stores, Inc., claiming negligence. Autozone Stores, Inc. filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that Karen Wright could not prove that it caused the condition which led to her fall or that it had actual or constructive notice of the condition prior to her fall. Autozone Stores, Inc. also alleged that Karen Wright could not recover because she was 50 percent or more at fault for her injuries. Following a hearing, the trial court granted the motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case. Karen Wright appeals. We affirm the decision of the trial court. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Randall Roskam
A Davidson County Criminal Court Jury convicted the appellant, James Randall Roskam, of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, and the trial court sentenced him as a Range II, multiple offender to twenty years in confinement. On appeal, the appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction and that the State impermissibly elicited testimony from its witnesses about his prior bad acts in violation of Rule 404(b), Tennessee Rules of Evidence. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Melissa L. Grayson
A Davidson County Grand Jury indicted appellant, Melissa Grayson, for aggravated assault, two counts of aggravated robbery, and two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping. Following jury verdicts of guilty on all five counts, the trial court sentenced appellant to an effective seventeen-year sentence. Appellant claims the following errors at trial: 1) the trial court erred in declaring a witness unavailable and allowing the State to introduce his preliminary hearing testimony; 2) the trial court erred in permitting the State to elicit improper character evidence from a witness; and 3) the evidence was insufficient to sustain the convictions. The State contends that appellant has waived the first two issues because her motion for new trial was untimely. We have concluded that the State is correct with respect to its waiver argument and further, that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdicts. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | ||
State of Tennessee ex rel. Ronda M. Letner v. Raymond T. Carriger
Raymond T. Carriger (“Carriger”) filed a petition to terminate his child support obligation in the Chancery Court for Meigs County (“the Trial Court”). The State of Tennessee ex rel. Ronda M. Letner (“the State”) opposed Carriger’s petition. Carriger argued that he suffered from a disability and, as a result, was unable ever to pay off the arrearages he had accumulated. The Trial Court granted Carriger’s petition and absolved him of his child support arrearages. The State appeals, arguing that such a retroactive modification of child support is prohibited under Tennessee law. We reverse the judgment of the Trial Court. |
Meigs | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Cody Rickey Cofer
A Cumberland County jury convicted the Defendant, Cody Cofer, of two counts of felony murder and one count of attempted especially aggravated robbery. The trial court imposed consecutive life sentences for the felony murder convictions, ordering those sentences to run concurrently with the twelve-year sentence it imposed for the attempted especially aggravated robbery conviction. On appeal, the Defendant argues that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions; (2) the trial court erred when it allowed the jury to determine whether a witness was an accomplice; (3) the trial court erred by refusing to give a missing witness instruction to the jury; (4) the State’s closing argument was improper; and (5) the trial court erred when it imposed consecutive life sentences. Following our review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. |
Cumberland | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Johnny Marvin Highsmith, II
On January 31, 2011, Appellant, Johnny Marvin Highsmith, II, entered guilty pleas to one count each of theft of property over $1,000, identity theft, and theft of property over $500 with an effective sentence of eight years. He was placed on community corrections with all but 165 days of his sentence suspended. The trial court issued a violation of community corrections warrant on May 2, 2011, and amended that warrant on June 3, 2011. The trial court held a hearing and revoked Appellant’s community corrections sentence and ordered that he serve his original sentence in incarceration. On appeal, Appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering him to serve his sentence in incarceration. After a thorough review of the record, we determine that the trial court did not abuse it discretion. Therefore, we affirm the decision of the trial court. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. O'Dell Taylor Wisdom
Appellant, Odell Wisdom, pled guilty in Sullivan County to the charge of felony failure to appear in exchange for a five-year sentence as a Range III, persistent offender. The trial court held a sentencing hearing specifically for the purpose of addressing Appellant’s request for probation or alternative sentencing. The trial court denied Appellant’s request and ordered Appellant to serve the sentence in confinement. Appellant appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in denying an alternative sentence. However, after a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the trial court properly denied probation or alternative sentencing. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Robert Keith Ward v. State of Tennessee
Following his jury conviction of aggravated rape, the petitioner filed an untimely petition for post-conviction relief alleging that his conviction resulted from the ineffective assistance of counsel and that due process considerations should toll the statute of limitations. The post-conviction court ruled that the petitioner failed to establish a basis for due process tolling and summarily dismissed the petition. Discerning no error, we affirm the order of the post-conviction court. |
Sevier | Court of Criminal Appeals |