State of Tennessee v. Robert Oliver
The Defendant, Robert Oliver, was convicted by a Washington County jury of aggravated rape and aggravated assault, for which he received an effective sentence of twenty-eight years' incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant argues that (1) the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to support his conviction of aggravated rape, (2) the State committed prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments, and (3) the trial court erred by ordering the Defendant to pay $60,000 in fines. Following our review, we concluded that the trial court failed to make appropriate findings regarding its imposition of fines. Therefore, we reverse the trial court's sentencing determination regarding the fines and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We otherwise affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Washington | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jamar Laquinn Frazier
The Defendant, Jamar Laquinn Frazier, appeals from his conviction for second degree murder following a jury trial. In this appeal, the Defendant claims that the trial court (1) denied him counsel of his choosing by denying his request to continue the trial date; (2) erred by allowing certain testimony at trial in violation of the law of the case doctrine and by allowing improper opinion, character, and hearsay testimony; and (3) erred by imposing the maximum twenty-five-year sentence. Additionally, the Defendant argues that he is entitled to a new trial (4) due to the denial of funding for an investigator during the motion for new trial proceedings and (5) due to cumulative error. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Trezevant Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Germantown, Tennessee
This appeal arises from a landowner’s complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that proposed construction was consistent with a permitted non-conforming use on its property. The parties agreed that the property was rezoned in 1957 and that certain non-conforming uses are permitted on the property. However, the city opposed the declaratory action due to the landowner’s refusal to submit plans to the city administrative zoning body to obtain its decision on whether the proposed use was a permissible extension of that non-conforming use. The city asserted that, without the landowner having applied for a building permit, the action was not ripe for adjudication. The trial court determined that the matter was ripe and that the landowner had standing, that it was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law, and that the proposed use was protected by the terms of the grandfather statute. Because the city was never permitted to rule on the proposed non-conforming use, we find that the matter was not ripe for review. Accordingly, the decision of the trial court is reversed, and the case is dismissed. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Tarence Nelson v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Tarence Nelson, was convicted by a jury of two counts of first degree premeditated murder and sentenced by the trial court to two consecutive terms of life imprisonment. In 2023, Petitioner filed his third petition for writ of error coram nobis (“the third petition”) claiming that a Sig Sauer P229 handgun (“the Sig Sauer”) that he hid in a computer at his home following the 2009 murders was newly discovered evidence. The Sig Sauer was found after Petitioner revealed its location and the coram nobis court by order entered on July 20, 2021, appointed counsel to represent Petitioner on the fingerprint analysis petition filed in conjunction with Petitioner’s second petition for writ of error coram nobis. Because Petitioner knew the location of the Sig Sauer at the time of his trial and because Petitioner was solely at fault in failing to present the Sig Sauer as evidence “at the proper time,” error coram nobis relief is not available. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-26- 105(b). We affirm the judgment of the coram nobis court in summarily dismissing the petition. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Johnny Graham
The Defendant, Johnny Graham, was convicted of possession of cocaine with the intent to sell or deliver and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to a term of nine years and placed him on probation. Thereafter, the Defendant was arrested for the unlawful possession of cocaine and multiple firearms. Following a hearing, the trial court fully revoked the Defendant’s suspended sentences and ordered him to serve the full term in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in fully revoking his suspended sentences. Upon our review, we respectfully disagree and affirm the trial court’s judgments. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Stacey James May
The Defendant, Michael Stacey James May, was convicted by a Johnson County Criminal |
Johnson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Asben K. Chapman
A Davidson County jury convicted the Defendant, Asben K. Chapman, of one count of first degree premeditated murder, two counts of felony murder, two counts of attempted first degree murder, and two counts of employing a firearm during a dangerous felony offense. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of life plus thirty-one years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant contends: (1) the trial court improperly admitted pretrial statements; (2) the evidence was insufficient to establish premeditation for his first degree murder conviction and attempted first degree murder convictions; and (3) the trial court improperly ordered consecutive sentences. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Rita Stanley v. Robin Springer
Pro se Appellant, Robin Springer, has appealed an order of the Shelby County Circuit Court that was entered on July 3, 2024. We determine that the trial court’s order does not constitute a final appealable judgment. As a result, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Keyshawn D. Fouse v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Keyshawn D. Fouse, was convicted of attempted first degree murder, aggravated assault, and employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, for which he received an effective sentence of twenty-six years’ confinement. This court affirmed Petitioner’s convictions and sentences on direct appeal. Petitioner then filed a petition for post-conviction relief in which he claimed ineffective assistance of counsel, and the post-conviction court denied the petition after a hearing. On appeal, Petitioner asserts that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to properly advise him of the importance of his testimony at trial. After review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Billy Ray Blankenship v. TKY Acquisitions, LLC
TKY Acquisitions, LLC (“TKY”) and its predecessors in title have owned the property now in dispute (“Subject Property”) since as early as 1922. The company introduced its chain of title during these proceedings. No evidence existed that someone other than TKY and its predecessors in title claimed ownership of the Subject Property. Although never in his chain of title, Billy Ray Blankenship’s father added the description of the Subject Property in a deed to his son dated and recorded in 2010. However, both before 2010 and after 2010, TKY paid property taxes on the Subject Property. TKY offered clear and convincing proof of payment of property taxes by it and its predecessors in title regarding the Subject Property from at least 1999 through 2022. |
Campbell | Court of Appeals | |
Robert John Collins v. David Ray Conley Et Al.
David Ray Conley and Wade Parks (together, “Appellants”) appeal from the order of the Cocke County Chancery Court (“trial court”) granting summary judgment to plaintiff Robert John Collins (“Appellee”). The underlying controversy is a will contest surrounding the estate of Sandra Kay Parks (“Decedent”). Appellee, Decedent’s only heir-at-law, filed a Petition for Probate Administration asserting that no will of the Decedent had been located. Appellants subsequently sought to probate a document purported to be Decedent’s Last Will and Testament. Following cross motions for summary judgment, the trial court concluded that Decedent’s proposed will had not been executed with the formalities required by Tennessee Code Annotated section 32-1-104 and granted summary judgment in favor of Appellee. Appellants timely appealed to this Court. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Cocke | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kenneth Street
Defendant, Kenneth Street, pled guilty to two counts of possession of a controlled substance in exchange for two consecutive sentences of eleven months and twenty-nine days, both of which would be suspended and deferred. As part of the guilty plea agreement, the State dismissed several charges. Defendant subsequently sought to withdraw his guilty pleas pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 32. The trial court denied the request. Defendant appealed. Upon our review, we conclude that Defendant has failed to prepare a sufficient brief in compliance with Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 27(a)(7) and Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 10(b). Accordingly, his issues are waived, and the appeal is dismissed. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jonathan Garrett Grace et al. v. Elizabeth Ann Baker Grace
This is a post-divorce parent relocation dispute. After the mother relocated out of state with the child without notice, the father filed a petition objecting to her relocation, a petition for criminal contempt on multiple grounds, and a petition to modify the parenting plan. The mother then filed a petition to approve her relocation and a petition challenging the child support calculations in the court’s November 6, 2023 order. After conducting a best-interest analysis, the court adopted the mother’s proposed parenting plan with modifications that removed the father’s supervision requirement, required the mother to bear transportation costs, and required the mother to give the father notice of the child’s school and extracurricular activities, among other modifications. The trial court also granted the father’s first amended petition for three counts of criminal contempt, imposing a sentence of 30 days, with 10 days suspended, “based upon Mother’s full and complete compliance, during the next five (5) years, with the terms set forth within this judgment.” Father appeals, contending that the trial court abused its discretion by applying an improper legal standard in respect to the notice requirements of the parent relocation statute, Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-6-108. We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in conducting a best-interest analysis, affirm the trial court’s determination that the relocation was in the best interest of the child, and affirm the trial court’s adoption of the mother’s parenting plan with modifications. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Robert Elmore v. Travis L. Mills, CRNA, ET Al.
Lonnie Elmore (“Decedent”) died on July 5, 2020, a few weeks after being treated by Angelo J. Sorce, M.D., (“Sorce”), an employee of Tennessee Valley Orthopaedics, LLC (“TVO”), (collectively “Defendants”) and Travis Mills, CRNA, (“Mills”) an employee of Lakeway Regional Anesthesia Services, PLLC (“Lakeway”). On July 2, 2021, Robert Elmore, as Executor of the Estate of Lonnie Elmore, (“Plaintiff”) sent pre-suit notice to Defendants. Relying on the 120-day extension provided for by Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26- 121(c), Plaintiff filed his complaint alleging wrongful death on November 1, 2021, in the Circuit Court for Jefferson County (“the Trial Court”). Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02(6), claiming that the accrual of Plaintiff’s cause of action arose no later than June 21, 2020, meaning Plaintiff provided pre-suit notice past the one-year statute of limitations, rendering his complaint untimely. Defendants also argued that Plaintiff failed to comply with the pre-suit notice requirements of Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121(a). The Trial Court disagreed and denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss. This interlocutory appeal, pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 9, followed. We reverse. |
Court of Appeals | ||
Christopher L. Wiesmueller v. Corrine Nichole Oliver
A mother and father filed competing petitions to modify their parenting plan. The Father also sought to modify his child support obligation. In furtherance of these goals, he asked the court to admit evidence of events occurring before the denial of his previous petition to modify the parenting plan. He also moved for appointment of a guardian ad litem and for an order requiring his past Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 35 examinations to be destroyed. The court denied each of Father’s pretrial requests. It found that no material change in circumstance had occurred and that modification of the parenting plan was not in the children’s best interests. Because the trial court erred in its application of the child support guidelines, we vacate part of the child support award and remand for recalculation of Father’s obligation. Otherwise, we affirm. |
Dickson | Court of Appeals | |
Rebecca Prince v. A&W Construction and Property Management, LLC et al.
A property owner filed a complaint against her neighbor and the municipality seeking to enforce a local zoning ordinance. The trial court dismissed the property owner’s claims against the municipality. Among other things, the court ruled that mandamus was not available because the property owner failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. It also determined that the municipality retained immunity for the tortious acts alleged in the complaint. On appeal, the property owner argues that (1) Tennessee Code Annotated § 13-7-208(a)(2) authorized her to bring a mandamus action to abate the zoning violation without exercising administrative remedies and (2) the complaint contained sufficient allegations of negligent supervision to withstand a motion to dismiss. Upon review, we affirm the dismissal. |
Maury | Court of Appeals | |
Jeffrey Tebeau v. Millerwood Investments, LLC ET AL.
This is a premises liability case. While attending a gathering at the appellees’ apartment, the appellant fell from a second-floor balcony, sustaining multiple injuries. The appellant sued the owner of the apartment and each of the tenants/appellees for negligence. This appeal concerns the tenants/appellees only. The appellees moved for summary judgment, arguing that they did not owe the appellant a duty of care because: (1) the allegedly dangerous condition was open and obvious and the appellant’s accident was not reasonably foreseeable; (2) the appellees did not have superior control over the apartment such that they could remedy the allegedly dangerous condition; and (3) in his deposition, the appellant was unable to articulate what steps the appellees could have taken to prevent his injuries. The trial court granted summary judgment on its conclusion that: (1) the tenants had no control over the apartment to remedy the allegedly dangerous condition; and (2) the allegedly dangerous condition was open and obvious. We affirm, although on different grounds. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Paul Clifford Moore, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Paul Clifford Moore, Jr., appeals the Knox County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his “Motion for Plain Error Review in an Alternative Petition for Extraordinary Writ.” He argues that the trial court’s sequential jury instructions were improper and prevented the jury from returning a verdict of voluntary manslaughter rather than second degree murder. Upon review of the entire record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we conclude that Petitioner does not have an appeal as of right under Rule 3 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure; accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Scott Alan Haynes, Jr.
The Defendant, Scott Alan Haynes, Jr., was convicted in the Montgomery County Circuit Court of second degree murder and reckless endangerment committed with a deadly weapon and received consecutive eighteen- and two-year sentences, respectively. On appeal, the Defendant claims that the evidence is insufficient to support his second degree murder conviction and that his eighteen-year sentence for the conviction is excessive. Based upon our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Lavonta Laver Churchwell v. State of Tennessee
The pro se Petitioner, Lavonta Laver Churchwell, appeals the Davidson County Criminal |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Aaron Joseph Van Arsdale
Defendant, Aaron Joseph Van Arsdale, appeals his Maury County convictions for vehicular assault, driving under the influence (second offense), simple possession of cocaine, and failure to exercise due care. He contends that: (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the results of blood alcohol concentration testing; (2) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction for vehicular assault; and (3) the trial court erred in ordering restitution. Upon review, we affirm Defendant’s convictions, affirm the restitution order in part, vacate the restitution order in part, and remand for entry of an amended judgment consistent with this opinion. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Christopher Simonds
An Anderson County jury convicted Defendant, Michael Christopher Simonds, of attempted aggravated rape. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of eleven years’ confinement. On appeal, Defendant contends that that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction and that the State made improper comments in its closing argument. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Anderson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Heather Smith v. BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee
In this appeal, we hold that the right to petition in the Tennessee Constitution is enforceable against governmental entities, not private parties, and that it cannot be the basis for a “public policy” exception to the employment-at-will doctrine as against private employers. Here, the plaintiff at-will employee emailed members of the Tennessee General Assembly expressing grievances about the COVID-19 vaccination mandate implemented by her employer, a private organization. After the employer told the plaintiff that the email violated the employer’s policies, the employee sent a second similar email to legislators. The defendant terminated the plaintiff’s employment. The plaintiff sued the defendant private employer for retaliatory discharge, asserting her employment was terminated for exercising the right to petition in Article I, Section 23 of the Tennessee Constitution. The trial court dismissed the complaint, and the Court of Appeals reversed. On appeal, our review shows that, for hundreds of years dating back to early England, the constitutional right to petition has been considered a bulwark against government oppression, not a constraint on private parties. No state in the nation has held that the right to petition applies to limit the ability of private employers to terminate the employment of at-will employees, and the language in Article I, Section 23 does not mandate such a holding. We hold that Article I, Section 23 is enforceable only against the government, not against private actors; consequently, private employers do not violate a clear public policy by terminating employees for exercising the right to petition. Thus, at-will employees may not base claims of retaliatory discharge against private employers on the right to petition in the Tennessee Constitution. Accordingly, we reverse the Court of Appeals and affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint. |
Hamilton | Supreme Court | |
Heather Smith v. BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee (Concurring)
I join in full the majority’s opinion holding that the right to petition in the Tennessee Constitution cannot provide the basis for a retaliatory discharge claim against private employers. I write separately to suggest that, in an appropriate case, we should reconsider whether the Court is the correct entity to create public policy exceptions to the employment-at-will doctrine |
Hamilton | Supreme Court | |
Mandi Gregory, et al. v. Peachtree Settlement a/k/a Settlement Funding, LLC, et al.
In this conservatorship action, we address whether subject-matter jurisdiction over the ward’s assets remains with the court appointing the conservator. Here, the conservatorship was opened in Madison County. Appellee and the ward’s conservator agreed to transfer some of the ward’s rights to payments from a structured settlement, the ward’s sole asset, to Appellee. Appellee filed a petition for approval of the transfer in Anderson County, where none of the parties resided, and the Anderson County court approved the transfer. A second conservator was appointed for the limited purpose of challenging the Anderson County order, and the instant lawsuit was filed to set aside the Anderson County order for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The trial court initially held that Anderson County lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, but on Appellee’s motion to alter or amend, reversed itself. Appellant appeals. Because subject-matter jurisdiction over the ward and her property remained with the conservatorship court, Anderson County lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, and its order allowing the transfer of the asset was void ab initio. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s orders finding otherwise and affirm and reinstate its initial order finding no subject-jurisdiction in Anderson County. |
Hardin | Court of Appeals |