State of Tennessee v. Michael Dewayne Brown
|
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Marco Butler v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Marco Butler, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of post-conviction relief from his guilty pleas to first degree murder and especially aggravated robbery, a Class A felony, and his concurrent sentences of life and twenty-five years, respectively. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because trial counsel failed to communicate his release eligibility date. He also contends that his plea was involuntarily and unknowingly entered. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
George Cecil Resh v. Building Materials Corporation D/B/A GAF Fiberglass Corporation
In this workers’ compensation case, the employee, George Cecil Resh, alleged that he sustained |
Wilson | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Michael Joseph Grant v. Foreperson For The Bradley
This appeal arises from the trial court’s order overruling a pro se petition for writ of mandamus by the appellant. In the petition, the appellant sought access to the grand jury for Bradley County to present evidence of purported wrongdoing by the investigating officer of his case. The trial court denied the petition. On a different basis, we affirm. |
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
Johnny Menifee v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Johnny Menifee, was convicted in 2004 of Class D felony evading arrest with risk of injury, misdemeanor theft, Class E felony reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon, and resisting arrest. He received an effective sentence of eighteen years as a persistent offender. After his convictions and sentences were affirmed by this court in 2006, he filed a petition for post-conviction relief. Following an evidentiary hearing, the postconviction court denied the petition; and, after our review, we affirm that denial. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Teresa Gard v. Dennis Harris, M.D.,
Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging false light invasion of privacy and defamation after her physician sent a letter she considered defamatory. After finding that plaintiff consented to the disclosure by signing a consent form, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. We affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Johnny C. Hensley vs. wharton Duke and Sharon Duke
|
Greene | Court of Appeals | |
Edward P. Landry, et al vs. South Cumberland Amoco, et al
|
Hamblen | Court of Appeals | |
City of Murfreesboro v. Thomas Leon Norton
|
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
James Morton Burris v. Lisa Estes Burris
|
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Suzanne D. Burkhart
The defendant, Suzanne D. Burkhart, appeals certified questions of law from the Sevier County Circuit Court, where she pleaded guilty to driving under the influence of an intoxicant (DUI) and violation of the implied consent law. The reserved certified question challenges on constitutional grounds a Sevierville police officer’s basis for stopping her vehicle and also his authority for doing so outside the City of Sevierville. We affirm the action of the trial court. |
Sevier | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
David M. Sharp v. Debbie F. Stevenson
I must respectfully dissent in this case. Unfortunately, I find that I disagree with both the majority opinion and the concurrence. |
Obion | Court of Appeals | |
David M. Sharp v. Debbie And Michael Stevenson
I concur in the result reached by Judge Farmer. However, because I reach the result by different reasoning, I write separately. |
Obion | Court of Appeals | |
David M. Sharp v. Debbie F. Stevenson
The trial court denied Father’s petition to modify custody of his three minor children, who are in the custody of their maternal grandparents. We vacate the trial court’s order and remand for further proceedings. |
Obion | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jose E. Bejar, in Re: Liberty Bonding Company
The petitioner, Liberty Bonding Company, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of its request to return the $5000 paid as a final forfeiture on the bond for the defendant, Jose E. Bejar. The defendant violated his bond agreement in 1996, and the petitioner paid the final forfeiture in 1997. Some ten years later, the State dismissed the pending charges against the defendant. On appeal, the petitioner challenges the trial court’s denial because: (1) there was no written final order of forfeiture entered; and (2) the language of Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-11-133(c) (2006) prohibits the State from dismissing the underlying charges. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
David Cantrell v. Joe Easterling, Warden
In 1995, a Hickman County jury convicted the Petitioner of four counts of aggravated rape and one count of false imprisonment, and the trial court sentenced him as a Range II multiple offender to a total effective sentence of eighty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The Petitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus relief, claiming the trial court did not have statutory authority to sentence him as a Range II multiple offender. The habeas court dismissed the petition without a hearing, finding that “[h]abeas corpus relief is not appropriate.” After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the habeas court. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Nicholas Allen Montieth
Following a jury trial, Defendant, Nicholas Allen Montieth, was found guilty of sexual battery by an authority figure. The trial court imposed a sentence of three years as a Range One offender. The sole issue raised on appeal is whether the trial court erred by not allowing Defendant to impeach the victim with testimony of a prior inconsistent statement. Following our review of the record, we reverse the judgment of the trial court. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Robert Lee Adams, Jr. v. State of Tennesse
Petitioner, Robert Lee Adams, was convicted by a Tipton County Jury of possession of a Schedule II controlled substance with the intent to deliver and simple possession of a Schedule VI controlled substance. As a result, he was sentenced as a Range II, multiple offender to a fourteen-year sentence. This Court affirmed Petitioner’s convictions on appeal. State v. Robert Lee Adams, Jr., No. W2007-00880-CCA-R3-CD, 2008 WL 2152497 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, May 22, 2008), perm. app. denied, (Tenn. Dec. 8, 2008). Petitioner subsequently sought post-conviction relief on various grounds, including ineffective assistance of counsel. After a hearing, the post-conviction court dismissed the petition. Petitioner filed a timely notice of appeal. We have reviewed the record and conclude that Petitioner has failed to show that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Accordingly, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed. |
Tipton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re IMP: a Child Under the Age of Eighteen Years, J.J.A., Petitioner/Appellant, v. M.P., et al.
Petitioner brought this action in Juvenile Court to establish paternity and set co-parenting time with the child. The mother answered and, as an affirmative defense, averred that the father had signed a waiver of his parental right and cited the statutes stating that a waiver of parental rights could not be revoked. The Trial Court appointed a guardian ad litem, and the sole issue tried by the Trial Court was whether the waiver should be voided on the grounds that the father had signed the waiver under duress and undue pressure. The Trial Judge found that the father failed to carry the burden of proof to establish by clear and convincing evidence that he signed the waiver of interest and notice due to fraud, duress or intentional misrepresentation. On appeal, we affirm the Judgment of the Trial Court. |
Anderson | Court of Appeals | |
Saundra J. Counce, RN, v. Asecension Health, et al.
The plaintiff, formerly an at-will employee of Baptist Hospital, filed this action asserting that she was wrongfully terminated from her employment. She asserted twelve claims, inter alia, retaliatory discharge, age and sex discrimination, sexual harassment, violation of wage and hour laws, and violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The trial court summarily dismissed all of the claims. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee, Ex Rel. Markie Jade Laxton v. Samuel Byron Biggerstaff
This is an appeal by the father requesting modification of his child support obligation due to |
Scott | Court of Appeals | |
Lamar Tennessee, LLC, et al., v. Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals, et al.
The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County adopted a redevelopment plan for an area of the city which included the site of a long-existing billboard. The Tennessee Department of Transportation subsequently ordered the removal of the billboard to accommodate a road-widening project. The sign’s owner filed an application for a permit to relocate the sign on another portion of its leasehold, but the city declined to approve the application because the redevelopment plan totally prohibits signs of that type. The sign company filed a petition for certiorari in the Chancery Court of Davidson County, asserting that Tenn. Code Ann. § 13-7-208 of the zoning statutes gave it the right to replace the sign. The court agreed, and ordered the city to re-evaluate the permit application in accordance with the statutory provisions for a pre-existing non-conforming use after a change of zoning. We reverse, finding that the grandfather provisions of Tenn. Code Ann. § 13-7-208 have no applicability to the restrictions contained in redevelopment plans under Tenn. Code Ann. § 13-20-201 et seq. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Larry Darnell Pinex v. State of Tennessee
The defendant, Larry Darnell Pinex, appeals from his Davidson County Criminal Court convictions of assault, attempted vandalism, and attempted theft. He claims that the trial court erred in not requiring the State to elect an offense to serve as the basis for the assault charge, that the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions of assault and attempted vandalism, and that the trial court erroneously sentenced him on all convictions. The attempted vandalism conviction must be reversed, and that charge must be dismissed because insufficient evidence underlies the conviction. The assault conviction is affirmed as are the sentences for assault and attempted theft. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Shuttleworth, Williams, Harper, Waring and Derrick, PLLC, v. Gary K. Smith, Smith, Sabbatini, & McLeary, PLLC
This dispute is between an attorney and his former firm. All parties to this suit appeal the trial court’s interpretation of their operating agreement about how the fees and expenses generated by the withdrawing member’s cases should be apportioned among them. The operating agreement gave the firm discretion to value the services provided by its other members, but the trial court correctly determined that the firm’s claimed value was not reasonable. We reverse the trial court’s holding with regard to the withdrawing lawyer’s interest in a member’s share of the expenses he is obligated to pay the firm. The trial court is affirmed on the issue of sanctions and as to its refusal to make an award to nonparties. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Charles M. Myer, III, et al. v. The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County
Property owners sued, alleging that the Metropolitan Government was using or taking their property without their permission and without compensation. The Metropolitan Government took an easement over the property by eminent domain and the State built the Victory Memorial Bridge over part of it. The Metropolitan Government later transferred its interest in the property to the State. Much later, the Metropolitan Government built the Gay Street Connector over part of the easement and maintained exclusive control over the part of the easement not used for the bridge. The trial court found for the government. The property owners appealed. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals |