Charles E. Cunningham v. Tennessee Department of Commerce And Insurance, Insurance Division
This appeal involves the decision of the Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Commerce and Insurance (the “Commissioner”) to impose a civil fine and revoke the license of insurance agent Charles E. Cunningham (“Cunningham”), after concluding that Cunningham committed six (6) violations of applicable statutes in connection with his insurance practice. Cunningham filed a petition for review in the Chancery Court for Davidson County challenging the sufficiency of the evidence relied on by the Commissioner. The trial court found that the record supported the Commissioner’s decision and choice of penalty. Cunningham appealed to this Court. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Outloud! INC. v. Dialysis Clinic, Inc., Et Al.
Appellant appeals the circuit court’s dismissal of its petition for writs of certiorari and supersedeas for a de novo review of an unlawful detainer action originally filed in general sessions court. The circuit court granted Appellees’ Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02 motion, dismissing Appellant’s petition on the ground that it was not timely filed pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated Section 29-18-129 and Appellant did not have a sufficient excuse for filing the petition outside the 30 day statutory time period. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Annette Cecile Moore v. Brian Scott Moore
This is a post-divorce matter. Having reviewed the record transmitted to us on appeal, we observe that the case appealed from is not final. Given the absence of a final judgment, we dismiss the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Richard W. Shelton
Richard W. Shelton, the Defendant, was charged with one count of sale and one count of delivery of a Schedule II controlled substance. A Marshall County jury found the Defendant guilty as charged, and the trial court sentenced the Defendant to fifteen years with release eligibility after service of forty-five percent of the sentence in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant argues that there was insufficient evidence for a rational juror to have found him guilty of the offenses beyond a reasonable doubt and that his sentence is excessive and contrary to law. After a thorough review of the facts and applicable case law, we affirm. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Joseph Anthony Saitta, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Joseph Anthony Saitta, Jr., appeals the denial of post-conviction relief from his Warren County Circuit Court conviction for rape of a child. The petitioner alleges he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that the cumulative effect of trial counsel’s errors resulted in the denial of a fair trial. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Warren | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jeffrey King v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Jeffrey King, pleaded guilty to multiple drug and money laundering crimes, and the trial court sentenced him to forty years of incarceration to be served at 100%. The petitioner attempted to reserve certified questions of law pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2) about whether wiretaps used in the investigation of the crime were lawful. This Court determined that the petitioner was not entitled to relief on the basis of the certified questions and affirmed the judgments on appeal. State v. King, 437 S.W.3d 856, 889 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2013). In 2015, the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, claiming that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel and, after a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. After review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Larry McNutt v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Larry McNutt, appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of relief from his convictions for reckless endangerment and aggravated assault. On appeal, Petitioner argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Billy Joe Hodge
Defendant, Billy Joe Hodge, was indicted by the Madison County Grand Jury for one count of possession of 0.5 grams or more of methamphetamine with intent to sell; possession of 0.5 grams or more of methamphetamine with intent to deliver; possession of marijuana; and possession of drug paraphernalia. Defendant filed a pretrial motion to suppress the evidence seized during a search of his home and person. Following a hearing, the trial court denied Defendant’s motion, and Defendant entered guilty pleas to all four counts. The possession of methamphetamine with intent to sell and the possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver were “merged” by the trial court, but the merger was not done in compliance with State v. Berry, 503 S.W.3d 360 (Tenn. 2015). Defendant reserved a certified question of law pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2) as to whether the search of his home by law enforcement was lawful. After review, we conclude that exigent circumstances did not justify the warrantless search of Defendant’s home. However, we conclude that there was probable cause for the issuance of a subsequent search warrant. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jon Roozbeh Vazeen, AKA Hassan Vazin v. Michelle Smith Vazin
The trial court granted Wife a divorce; divided marital assets and liabilities; and awarded Husband five years of rehabilitative alimony. Husband appealed. Due to the deficiencies in Husband’s appellate brief, we do not reach Husband’s substantive issues and dismiss the appeal. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Jon Roozbeh Vazeen, AKA Hassan Vazin v. Michelle Smith Vazin - Concurring In Part and Dissenting In Part
I concur with the majority’s observation that “[g]iven the deficiencies in Husband[’s] brief,” we do not have the “[]ability to reach the substantive issues.” If we cannot reach the substantive issues — and I agree we cannot — I can only conclude that Husband’s appeal is “devoid of merit or . . . has no reasonable chance of success.” Am. Gen. Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Goss et al., No E2010-01710-COA-R3-CV, 2011 WL 1326234 (Tenn. Ct. App., filed Apr. 7, 2011) (Susano, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Hence, by definition, this is a frivolous appeal. I would remand this case to the trial court for the purpose of holding a hearing to determine “just damages” pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-1-122 (2000). |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kevin Watkins, III
The Defendant, Kevin Watkins, III, pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated burglary and agreed to allow the trial court to determine the length and manner of service of his sentence. The trial court subsequently ordered the Defendant to serve concurrent six-year and three-year sentences in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it applied two enhancement factors to his sentence and when it denied him alternative sentencing. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Everett Russ v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Everett Russ, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his 2012 Shelby County Criminal Court jury convictions of two counts of aggravated sexual battery. Discerning no error, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Marcus Jermaine Brooks
A Madison County Circuit Court Jury convicted the Appellant, Marcus Jermaine Brooks, of aggravated assault by strangulation, a Class C felony, and the trial court sentenced him as a Range II, multiple offender to eight years in confinement. On appeal, the Appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kevin Lynn Morris
The Defendant, Kevin Lynn Morris, was convicted by a Chester County jury of aggravated burglary, theft of property valued at $500 or less, vandalism, and evading arrest. His sole issue on appeal is that the trial court erred by denying his motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Chester | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Brooke Whitaker v. Trinity Minter, Warden
Petitioner, Brooke Whitaker, appeals the Lauderdale County Circuit Court’s dismissal of her petition for writ of habeas corpus. Because we determine that Petitioner has failed to file a timely notice of appeal or provide a reason as to why the timely filing of the notice of appeal should be waived, the appeal is dismissed. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Alonzo Christopher Downey
A Davidson County trial judge convicted the Defendant, Alonzo Christopher Downey, of domestic assault sentenced him to serve eleven months and twenty-nine days of probation. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Damon Holland v. Brian Sullivan, et al.
The issues in this appeal arise from two very unorthodox agreements and the defendants’ actions to avoid the consequences of the agreements. The agreements are unorthodox because, inter alia, each purports to be a “Bill of Sale” of an automobile when in fact each is a loan agreement for which the certificate of title is held by the lender as security. To complicate matters, the defendant who signed both agreements only owned one of the vehicles; his wife owned the other, and it is disputed whether the husband was authorized to act on her behalf. When the husband failed to pay either debt, the lender attempted unsuccessfully to possess the vehicles. Immediately thereafter, the husband and wife applied for and obtained new certificates of title and then used one of the duplicate titles to sell one of the automobiles to a third party. Thereafter, the lender commenced this action against the husband and wife for breach of contract, slander of title, and conspiracy to commit slander of title. The lender sought both compensatory and punitive damages. Following a bench trial, the court found the husband liable for breach of contract, and found the husband and wife jointly liable for slander of title and conspiracy to commit slander of title. The court then awarded compensatory damages in the amount of $32,456.89 and punitive damages in the amount of $30,000. The defendants appealed contending the trial court erred in failing to consider their affirmative defenses and in failing to hold that the Tennessee Title Pledge Act, Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 45-15-101 to -120 barred any recovery. They also contend that the evidence does not support a finding that the husband breached the contract or that they were jointly liable for slander of title and for conspiracy to commit slander of title. They further argue the trial court erred in awarding punitive damages. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Yolanda N. Shedd
The Defendant, Yolanda N. Shedd, was indicted for one count of assault, a Class A misdemeanor. See Tenn. Code Ann. |
Franklin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Gary Robert Buchanan
The Defendant, Gary Robert Buchanan, appeals the trial court’s imposition of an effective fourteen-year sentence upon resentencing following the revocation of his community corrections. After review, we affirm the sentencing decision of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Robin Kathern Burton
The Defendant, Robin Kathern Burton, was indicted by a Hawkins County grand jury of one count of possession of a controlled substance with the intent to deliver and received a sentence of four years, with six months to be served in confinement. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering her to serve a portion of her sentence in confinement. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hawkins | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Raymond Arthur Klein
The defendant, Raymond Arthur Klein, appeals his convictions and sentences for aggravated sexual battery and criminal attempt to commit rape of a child. The defendant argues there is insufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict. Additionally, the defendant argues a violation of his Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him because he was not permitted to introduce the results of a polygraph examination from a prior investigation. Finally, the defendant argues his sentence was improperly ordered to be served consecutively to a prior sexual battery conviction. Following our review, we affirm the judgments and sentence of the trial court. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kimberly Reynolds
Following the Defendant’s, Kimberly Reynolds, guilty-pleaded convictions for one count of theft of property valued at $1,000 or more and six counts of obtaining a controlled substance by fraud, the trial court imposed a sentence of three years’ incarceration for the theft charge and three years on community corrections for the fraud convictions to be served consecutively. Regarding her sentence of confinement, the Defendant appeals, arguing that she is a suitable candidate for alternative sentencing pursuant to the statutory considerations outlined in Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-103. Following our review, we affirm the trial court’s alternative sentencing decision. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John H. Brichetto, Jr.
A Morgan County Criminal Court jury convicted the Defendant-Appellant, John H. Brichetto, Jr., and his wife of theft of property valued at $60,000 or more but less than $250,000, a Class B felony, and Mr. Brichetto was subsequently sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to ten years’ incarceration. In exchange for a reduced sentence for his wife, Mr. Brichetto executed a written waiver of his post-judgment rights, including the right to seek relief from his conviction or sentence, the right to appeal, the right to file a petition for post-conviction relief, and the right to collaterally attack his conviction. The trial court, after determining that Mr. Brichetto knowingly and voluntarily agreed to the waiver, accepted the written waiver and sentenced Mr. Brichetto’s wife in accordance with the settlement agreement. Thereafter, Mr. Brichetto filed a motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 35, which the trial court denied without a hearing after reiterating that Mr. Brichetto knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to seek relief from his sentence. The court later entered a supplemental order denying the Rule 35 motion on the basis that it was untimely. On appeal, Mr. Brichetto argues (1) the trial court erred in denying his Rule 35 motion on the basis that it was untimely, and (2) the trial court erred in denying this motion based on his written waiver because the waiver is void. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Morgan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Adam D. Little, Alias
The Defendant, Adam D. Little, alias, appeals as of right from the Knox County Criminal Court’s revocation of his probation and reinstatement of the remainder of his nine-year sentence for selling less than fifteen grams of heroin within 1,000 feet of a public park. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his probation because the State failed to establish that he violated the law by a preponderance of the evidence. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jordan Franklin-Mansuo, et al. v. AMISUB (SFH), Inc. d/b/a Saint Francis Hospital, et al.
This is a health care liability case. Appellant filed suit against Appellee, a medical doctor, alleging that Appellee’s supervision of a physician assistant fell below the standard of care, which resulted in the injury and death of Appellant’s mother. Appellee moved for summary judgment on the basis that Appellant had not provided competent expert testimony regarding the applicable standard of care or a causal link between Appellee’s actions and the subsequent injury and death of the patient at issue. The trial court granted Appellee’s motion due to Appellant’s lack of expert testimony to satisfy the requirements of Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-115. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals |