State of Tennessee v. Matthew Cole Welch
Matthew Cole Welch, Defendant, was indicted for first degree murder and aggravated assault. After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of the lesser included offense of second degree murder and not guilty of aggravated assault. The trial court denied a motion for new trial and Defendant appealed, arguing that the evidence was not sufficient to support the conviction for second degree murder and that the trial court erred by refusing to charge the jury with a self-defense instruction. After a review, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction for second degree murder and that Defendant was not entitled to a self-defense instruction where the proof established that Defendant had a duty to retreat and failed to do so. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Dickson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Builders FirstSource, Inc. Et Al. v. Axis Dynamics, Inc. Et Al.
Appellant, as personal guarantor for a third party, signed a credit agreement with appellee. After obtaining a default judgment against the third party in a separate lawsuit, appellee filed suit in the general sessions court to collect the judgment from appellant as the third party’s guarantor. Appellee obtained a default judgment against appellant, and appellant appealed to the circuit court. Appellant did not respond to appellee’s request for admissions. Appellee moved for summary judgment, arguing that appellant’s failure to respond to the request for admissions deemed them admitted and the admissions provided the basis for the undisputed material facts in support of the motion. Appellant failed to respond to the motion for summary judgment, and the trial court granted it. Appellant appeals. Discerning no error, we affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment, and award appellee damages for frivolous appeal, including appellate attorney’s fees |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Joe G. Manley v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Joe G. Manley, appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition, arguing the post-conviction court erred in finding he received the effective assistance of counsel. After our review of the record, briefs, and applicable law, we affirm the denial of the petition. |
Fayette | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John Edward Roach
The Defendant, John Edward Roach, was convicted by a Hardin County jury of three drug-related offenses for which he received an effective sentence of twenty years’ imprisonment. The sole issue presented for our review is whether the evidence is sufficient to support his conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-425 (a)(1)-(2). The Defendant argues that the State failed to establish (1) that the items seized from the search of his home constituted drug paraphernalia and (2) that the Defendant intended to use any of the seized items for an illicit purpose. Upon our review, we affirm. |
Hardin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Darius Mack v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Darius Mack, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his post-conviction petition. He argues that the post-conviction court erred in dismissing his petition without first appointing counsel because his petition presented a colorable claim for relief and the issues were not previously determined. Upon review of the entire record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we conclude that the trial court erred in dismissing the petition as it stated a colorable claim and warranted the appointment of counsel. Thus, we reverse the order of summary dismissal and remand the case for further proceedings pursuant to the Post-Conviction Procedure Act. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Sandi Dawn Cunningham et al v. Bryan Truck Line, Inc. et al.
Following a mechanical failure, an employee parked his tractor-trailer on the shoulder of an interstate highway. As result of delays in the repair of the tractor-trailer, the vehicle had been on the shoulder for at least seven hours when a driver crashed into the parked tractor-trailer. Two of the driver’s passengers, the driver’s son and his son’s fiancée, died. The estates of the deceased and their shared minor child (the Plaintiffs) filed a tort suit against the driver and also against the driver of the tractor-trailer and his trucking company employer. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant tractor-trailer driver and his employer. In doing this, the trial court based its decision upon what it termed a special rule of Tennessee tort law called the Carney Rule, a reference to this court’s decision in Carney v. Goodman, 270 S.W.2d 572 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1954). In reaching this conclusion, the trial court relied upon an understanding of the Carney decision set forth in several federal court decisions. The Plaintiffs argue the trial court erred in its application of the Carney Rule. We agree and reverse the trial court’s decision, remanding for further proceedings. |
Dickson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Tennessee Bonding Company
Tennessee Bonding Company (“Tennessee Bonding”) claims that the trial court erred by temporarily suspending its bonding authority for thirty days and then restricting its bonding authority for a period of one year for violating local bail bonding rules that required a source hearing for bonds of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) or more. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Hickman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Michael Dinovo, Jr. et al. v. Kenneth Binkley et al.
|
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
In Re Aniya B. Et Al.
In this case involving termination of the parents’ parental rights to their three minor children, the trial court found that two statutory grounds for termination had been proven by clear and convincing evidence: (1) abandonment by failure to financially support the children and (2) failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume legal and physical custody of or financial responsibility for the children. The trial court further found that termination of both parents’ parental rights was in the children’s best interest. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. |
Sevier | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Robert King Vaughn, Jr.
Defendant, Robert King Vaughn, Jr., appeals his convictions for attempted first degree murder and aggravated rape, for which he received a total effective sentence of 120 years’ confinement. Defendant contends that: (1) the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his conviction for attempted first degree murder; (2) no reasonable trier of fact could find that he failed to establish the insanity defense by clear and convincing evidence; and (3) the prosecutor engaged in improper argument by misstating Tennessee law and vouching for witnesses during the State’s closing argument. Following a thorough review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Trousdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Raymond Scott Knox
In 2023, the Defendant, Raymond Scott Knox, pleaded guilty to eleven counts of methamphetamine and weapons related charges, and the trial court sentenced him to an effective sentence of sixty five years of incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that the trial court erred when it sentenced him. After review, we affirm the trial court's judgments. |
McMinn | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Timothy A. Baxter v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Timothy A. Baxter, appeals from the habeas corpus court’s summary denial |
Johnson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Darrell Scott Wallis
Defendant, Darrell Scott Wallis, was indicted by a Maury County Grand Jury on three counts of automobile burglary. Pursuant to a plea agreement, he pled guilty to one count of automobile burglary to receive a Range II sentence at thirty-five percent with the trial court to determine the length of sentence and manner of service. The trial court sentenced Defendant to serve three years and six months, suspended to probation after service of twelve months of incarceration. Defendant appeals, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering the split confinement sentence. Following our review of the record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Terrion Avantae Jones
A Madison County jury convicted the defendant, Terrion Avantae Jones, of one count of possession of marijuana with intent to sell, one count of possession of marijuana with intent to deliver, two counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, and possession of drug paraphernalia, for which he received an effective sentence of four years to be served as three years in confinement at 100% with the remainder to be served on supervised probation. On appeal, the defendant argues the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. He also contends the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his convictions. After reviewing the record and considering the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jaquarious D. Carpenter v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Jaquarious D. Carpenter, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing the post-conviction court erred in finding he received the effective assistance of counsel. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kevin Harris
Defendant, Kevin Harris, appeals his Cheatham County convictions for aggravated sexual battery and rape of a child. He contends on appeal that: (1) the trial court erred in admitting the victim’s forensic interview; (2) the evidence was insufficient to establish penetration; and (3) the prosecutor committed multiple instances of improper argument during closing by (a) commenting on Defendant’s failure to testify and (b) vouching for the victim’s credibility. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Cheatham | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William Connor Read
The defendant, William Read, appeals the order of the trial court revoking his probation and ordering him to serve the remainder of his eleven-year and six-month sentence in confinement. Upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we dismiss the appeal as untimely. |
Robertson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re Heavenly M.
In this parental termination case, the mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child, Heavenly M. The trial court found that four grounds for termination had been proven and that termination of her parental rights was in the child’s best interests. The mother appealed. We affirm the trial court’s finding that four grounds were properly pled and proven: the grounds of abandonment for failure to support, abandonment for failure to visit, persistence of conditions, and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume legal and physical custody of the child. We also affirm the finding that termination of the mother’s parental rights is in the child’s best interest. Accordingly, we affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights. |
Cumberland | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Mitchell Hopkins
A Shelby County jury convicted Defendant, Mitchell Hopkins, of attempted first degree murder, aggravated assault while acting in concert with two or more people, reckless endangerment by discharging a firearm into an occupied habitation, and the employment of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. The trial court imposed an effective twenty-one-year sentence. On appeal, Defendant contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions; (2) the trial court erred in denying his motions for a severance and for a mistrial and in admitting statements from a non-testifying codefendant; and (3) the trial court erred in admitting a video compilation. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Brendan Nathan Morgan v. State of Tennessee
A Decatur County jury convicted the Petitioner, Brendan Nathan Morgan, of aggravated sexual battery, and the trial court sentenced him to a term of ten years imprisonment. Thereafter, he filed a petition for post-conviction relief, asserting that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at his trial. In relevant part, the Petitioner alleged that his trial counsel failed to conduct an adequate investigation, failed to adequately communicate with him, and failed to review the pretrial discovery with him before trial. After holding a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief, and the Petitioner appealed. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Decatur | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Milburn L. Edwards v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Milburn L. Edwards, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his third petition for post-conviction relief because it was time-barred. Following our review of the entire record, the briefs, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Thomas Patterson v. Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security et al.
An administrative law judge entered an order of default against Appellant for failing to appear at a resetting of his contested case hearing on a civil asset forfeiture. On appeal, the Commissioner’s Designee for the Department of Safety and Homeland Security affirmed the administrative law judge’s entry of default, denying Appellant’s request to set aside the same order. Appellant appealed the Commissioner Designee’s decision to the Chancery Court, raising that the administrative officials lacked authority to default his case because they did not swear an oath of office commensurate with that sworn by judicial branch judges of the Tennessee state judiciary. The Chancery Court affirmed the administrative officials’ decisions. Appellant appealed to this court. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Elizabeth Clarke v. State of Tennessee
State employee Insured received radiation treatment for tongue cancer. Insurance Company denied authorization of the treatment as “investigational” and not “medically necessary” pursuant to the insurance plan and its medical policy. After two direct appeals of the denial to the insurance claim administrator, Insured appealed to the Tennessee Claims Commission. The Claims Commission found that the treatment was investigational under the plain language of both the plan and the policy and thus not a covered expense. As the denial of coverage did not amount to a breach of contract, the Claims Commission granted Insurance Company’s motion for summary judgment. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. |
Court of Appeals | ||
James Elton Gillies et al. v. Rebecca Noelle Mitchell Gillies
Father was held in criminal contempt for withholding visitation from Grandmother. The trial court found 28 counts of contempt and imposed a sentence of 280 days. The trial court also revoked the suspension of a prior 100-day sentence and ordered that sentence to be served consecutively to the 280 days. We conclude that because the visitation was withheld while an order of protection prohibiting contact between the child and Grandmother was in place, the trial court’s findings and the evidence presented are insufficient to support a finding that Father acted willfully. Accordingly, we reverse the finding of contempt and the revocation of the suspended sentence. |
Warren | Court of Appeals | |
William Joseph Robinette Et Al. v. Tina Robinette Et Al.
William Joseph Robinette and his daughters, Delores Reynolds and Jody Stewart, (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed suit in the Sullivan County Chancery Court (“the Trial Court”), seeking a declaration of their rights as the lawful owners of Fuller Enterprises, LLC against the right of ownership by Tina Robinette (“Widow”), the widow of Mr. Robinette’s son and Ms. Reynolds and Ms. Stewart’s brother, Will Robinette (“Decedent”). Plaintiffs later added Decedent’s estate and Fuller Asphalt Material, LLC, as additional defendants (collectively with Widow, “Defendants”). Widow filed abusive civil action (“ACA”) motions against Plaintiffs, which the Trial Court granted. Plaintiffs appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. |
Sullivan | Court of Appeals |