Kimberly Ann Scott v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Kimberly Ann Scott, appeals the summary dismissal of her pro se petition for post-conviction relief. She argues that her petition alleges a colorable claim for relief and that therefore, the post-conviction court erred by dismissing the petition without appointment of counsel or an evidentiary hearing. The State concedes that the post-conviction court erred by summarily dismissing the petition. Upon review, we reverse the judgment of the post-conviction court and remand the case for further proceedings. |
Wilson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Treadence Lee Howard
Defendant, Treadence Lee Howard, pled guilty to possession of 0.5 grams or more of cocaine with the intent to sell and was sentenced to nine years, suspended to supervised probation after service of one year in confinement. Following a hearing on a probation violation warrant based on Defendant’s arrest for attempted first-degree murder, reckless endangerment, and being a felon in possession of a firearm, the trial court revoked Defendant’s probation and ordered him to serve the remainder of the |
Giles | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re Ni'Kaiya R.
In this termination of parental rights case, Father/Appellant appeals the termination of his parental rights to the minor child on the grounds of: (1) abandonment by failure to visit, Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 36-1-113(g)(1), 36-1-102(1)(A)(i); (2) failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody, Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(14); and (3) grounds applicable only to putative fathers, Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(9). Father/Appellant also appeals the trial court determination that termination of his parental rights is in the child’s best interest. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Rachel Green et al. v. State of Tennessee
In this action filed against the State of Tennessee (“the State”), alleging negligence by employees of the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”), the Claims Commission (“the Commission”) dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Determining that subject matter jurisdiction existed in the Commission, we vacate the Commission’s order and remand this matter to the Commission for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Court of Appeals | ||
State of Tennessee v. Sidney Eugene Watkins
The Defendant, Sidney Eugene Watkins, was convicted by a jury of alternative counts of possession of marijuana with the intent to sell or deliver and possession of a firearm during the commission of those dangerous felonies, as well as simple possession of methamphetamine, simple possession of alprazolam, and possession of drug paraphernalia. Following the jury verdict, the Defendant renewed his motion for judgment of acquittal regarding the two firearm convictions (counts 7 and 8). The trial court granted the Defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal on the firearm counts, finding the evidence insufficient to support those convictions. The State appeals. Because we conclude that a reasonable jury could have found all of the necessary elements of the crime of possession of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, we reverse the trial court’s decision to grant the Defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal and reinstate the convictions for those counts. We remand to the trial court for sentencing on those counts, as well as for correction of the judgment form in count 13 for the reasons stated in this opinion. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
Telly Lamont Booker v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Telly Lamont Booker, filed a petition for post-conviction relief challenging his convictions for possession with intent to sell or deliver .5 grams or more of cocaine in a school zone, evading arrest, and unlawful possession of a weapon, as well as the resulting twenty-eight-year sentence. The post-conviction court denied relief, and the Petitioner appeals. On appeal, the Petitioner alleges that trial counsel was ineffective in the following ways: (1) by not pursuing a defense of simple possession; (2) by failing to object to the testimony of Officers Heitz and Noe regarding habits of drug dealers because they were not experts; (3) and by cumulative error. After our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court denying the Petitioner relief. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re Cyric W.
This appeal involves a petition to terminate parental rights. The juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence that five grounds for termination were proven: (1) abandonment by failure to support; (2) abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home; (3) substantial noncompliance with a permanency plan; (4) persistent conditions; and (5) mental incompetence. The juvenile court also found that termination was in the best interests of the child. The mother appeals. We reverse the trial court in part and affirm in part. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Flora Setayesh v. State of Tennessee
This appeal involves the interpretation of a provision in an employment contract executed by a professor and Nashville State Community College. The appellant, a tenured faculty member, transitioned from a teaching position to an administrative position and back again, and asserts that Nashville State breached the terms of her employment contract when it refused to pay her 80% of her administrative salary when she returned to a faculty position. The Tennessee Claims Commission held a trial on the breach of contract issue and determined that the contract referred to a Tennessee Board of Regents policy that did not entitle the professor to 80% of her administrative salary, and therefore, the professor’s breach of contract action failed. The Commissioner recalculated the amount of money the professor was owed for her spring 2018 salary. The professor appeals, asserting that the Commissioner erred in refusing to consider parol evidence in rendering its decision. We agree with the professor that parol evidence is helpful to understanding the parties’ intent as expressed in the agreement, and we reverse the Commissioner’s decision. The case is remanded for calculation of the professor’s faculty salary at no less than 80% of her administrative salary. |
Court of Appeals | ||
State of Tennessee v. Kevin Brazelton
A Knox County Criminal Court Jury convicted the Appellant, Kevin Brazelton, of four counts of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced him to twenty-five years for each conviction and merged the convictions. On appeal, the Appellant contends that the trial court should have granted a mistrial when a court officer shocked him with a stun belt in the jury’s presence; that the trial court erred by allowing the prosecution to use a peremptory challenge against the only |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Gai D. Kuot v. State of Tennessee
Gai D. Kuot, Petitioner, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus (the “petition”) claiming that his convictions are void because the indictment was defective, the capias was unsigned, and the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction. The trial court summarily dismissed the petition. We affirm. |
Wayne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Larry Pittman v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Larry Pittman, appeals the dismissal of his petition for writ of error coram nobis, arguing entitlement to coram nobis relief on the ground that newly discovered evidence supported his claim that the warrant issued for his arrest was defective. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Leon Caudle
The Defendant, Michael Leon Caudle, was convicted of two counts each of selling less than 0.5 gram of cocaine within a drug-free school zone and delivering less than 0.5 gram of cocaine within a drug-free school zone, and one count of possessing 0.5 gram or more of cocaine within a drug-free school zone with the intent to sell, deliver, or manufacture. The trial court merged the two delivery convictions with the corresponding sale convictions and imposed an effective sentence of sixty years’ incarceration. In this delayed appeal,the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. Following our review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Byron Hartshaw and Gary Lee Emory
A Knox County jury convicted the defendants, Byron Hartshaw and Gary Lee Emory, of robbery, aggravated robbery, and aggravated burglary. The trial court imposed total effective sentences of fifteen years for Defendant Hartshaw and twelve years for Defendant Emory. In this consolidated appeal, both defendants challenge the sufficiency of the evidence, the jury instructions, and the admission of certain evidence. They also contend that the State’s closing argument amounted to prosecutorial misconduct. Defendant Emory additionally argues that the trial court provided “improper assistance” to the State, he challenges the length of his sentence, and he contends that cumulative error entitles him to a new trial. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Robert Welch et al. v. Catherine Welch et al.
Prior to his death, the decedent brought suit for personal injury and loss of consortium in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia against more than seventy defendants after being diagnosed with mesothelioma. Ultimately, the parties in that matter reached a settlement. After informing the West Virginia court of the resolution of the matter, the case was closed by the court. Shortly thereafter, and prior to full disbursement of the settlement proceeds, the decedent died from mesothelioma. Several of the decedent’s heirs then brought the present action in Tennessee, seeking to have the settlement proceeds received pursuant to the West Virginia litigation characterized as wrongful death proceeds. The trial court dismissed the heirs’ action, and this appeal followed. We affirm the trial court’s dismissal. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Brent Landon Carter v. Shannon Dale Carter
This divorce action concerns the trial court’s classification and division of the marital estate and award of alimony to the wife. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Overton | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Cleotris Ruben
The Defendant, Cleotris Ruben, entered guilty pleas pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970), to one count of theft of property valued more than $1,000 but less than $2,500, a Class E felony, and one count of theft of property valued $1,000 or less, a Class A misdemeanor. After entry of the pleas but prior to sentencing, the Defendant discovered that, contrary to what he had been told by the two attorneys representing him, he was not eligible for judicial diversion. The Defendant moved to withdraw his guilty pleas, and the trial court denied the motion. On appeal, this court concluded that counsel had a conflict of interest and reversed the decision, remanding for appointment of new counsel. The trial court appointed new counsel, held a hearing, and again denied the Defendant’s motion to withdraw his pleas, and the Defendant appeals. We conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion, and we reverse and remand the case for entry of an order permitting withdrawal of the pleas and for further proceedings. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Vern Braswell
After the trial court granted the State’s motion to dismiss the “Emergency Motion to Alter or Adjust Sentence to Conform With the Principles of Compassionate Release” filed by Vern Braswell, Defendant, this appeal was initiated. On appeal, Defendant challenges the trial court’s dismissal of his motion. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Lavan Tremayne Johnson, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Lavan Tremayne Johnson, Jr., filed for post-conviction relief, alleging that his counsel were ineffective and that his guilty pleas were not knowingly and voluntarily entered. The post-conviction court denied relief, and the Petitioner appeals. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Joshua Nathan Brown v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Joshua Nathan Brown, appeals from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, wherein he challenged his guilty-pleaded convictions for evading arrest through the use of a motor vehicle creating a risk of death or injury to others, possession of a firearm by a convicted drug felon, and possession of a Schedule IV controlled substance with the intent to sell. In this appeal as of right, the Petitioner argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to recuse the district attorney general’s office after his previous attorney in this case was hired by that office. Following our review of the record, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment denying relief. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joseph John Turchin
A Monroe County Criminal Court Jury convicted the Appellant, Joseph John Turchin, of two counts of especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor, Tenn. Code Ann. § 39- 17-1005, one count of sexual exploitation of a minor, Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1003, and one count of unlawfully photographing a minor in violation of the minor’s privacy, Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-605.1 The trial court imposed a total effective sentence of twenty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Appellant contends that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress, arguing that he was not properly served with a warrant for the search of his cellular telephones. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Monroe | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re Trinity P.
The mother of a seven-year-old child appeals the trial court’s decision to grant grandparent visitation. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court concluded that a rebuttable presumption of irreparable harm existed under Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-6-306(a)(5), generally referred to as the Grandparent Visitation Statute, because the child lived with the grandparents for more than twelve months, a cessation of the relationship would create a danger of substantial harm, and visitation was in the child’s best interests based on the length and quality of the relationship and the existing emotional ties between the child and the grandparents. The trial court, however, made no finding concerning the threshold issue in -306(a): whether the mother opposed or severely reduced the grandparents’ visitation prior to their filing the petition. Following a de novo review of the record, we have determined that the grandparents failed to establish that the mother opposed or severely reduced their visitation prior to filing the petition. As a consequence, the Grandparent Visitation Statute was not implicated. Therefore, thejudgment of the trial court is reversed, and this matter is remanded with instructions to dismiss the petition. |
Marshall | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Megan Y
The Notice of Appeal filed by the appellants, Jason Y. and Katina Y., stated that appellants were appealing the judgment entered on July 1, 2021. As the order appealed from does not constitute a final appealable judgment, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal. |
McMinn | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joseph Sarkozy
The Defendant-Appellant, Joseph Sarkozy, appeals the revocation of his probation. On appeal, the Defendant argues the trial court erred by (1) finding the Defendant violated the terms of his probation when he did not possess the requisite intent for the domestic assault charges used as the basis for the revocation and (2) ordering the Defendant to serve the remainder of his sentence in prison. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Bradley | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Urshawn Eric Miller
A Madison County jury convicted the defendant, Urshawn Eric Miller, of first-degree premeditated murder and first-degree felony murder for fatally shooting a convenience store employee during an attempted robbery of the store. The jury also convicted the defendant of the attempted second-degree murder of another store employee and of attempted especially aggravated robbery, aggravated assault, employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, evading arrest, and resisting arrest. The jury imposed the death penalty for the first-degree murder convictions. The trial court merged the felony murder conviction into the premeditated murder conviction and the aggravated assault conviction into the attempted second-degree murder conviction, and it imposed an effective thirty-year sentence for the remaining convictions to run concurrently with the death sentence. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentences but vacated the application of the felony murder aggravating circumstance as to the felony murder conviction. Upon our automatic review, we conclude: (1) the trial court properly ruled on challenges to certain jurors for cause during individual voir dire; (2) the evidence was sufficient to establish the defendant’s identity as the perpetrator and his guilt of the convicted offenses; (3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the State to introduce a video recording of the defendant’s prior aggravated robbery during the penalty phase; (4) the death penalty generally, and lethal injection specifically, do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment; and (5) the death sentence satisfies our mandatory review pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-206. Accordingly, we affirm the defendant’s convictions and sentence of death; however, we reverse the portion of the intermediate court’s judgment vacating the application of the felony murder aggravating circumstance. |
Madison | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Urshawn Eric Miller- Concurring in part and Dissenting in part
Sharon G. Lee, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part. The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects all citizens, including Urshawn Eric Miller, from being subjected to punishment that is cruel and unusual. A sentence is cruel and unusual, and thus constitutionally prohibited, when it is excessive or disproportionate as compared with sentences imposed in similar cases. Miller was sentenced to death for shooting and killing a store clerk during an attempted robbery. The loss of the store clerk’s life is tragic, and Miller deserves to be punished. But Miller and the crime he committed do not fall into the rare category of the “worst of the bad.”When compared with other first-degree murder cases, including capital cases, Miller’s case is more like cases in which a sentence of life or life without parole was imposed rather than a death sentence.Thus, Miller’s death sentence is out of line with the punishment imposed in similar cases, making his punishment cruel and unusual. Miller’s convictions for first-degree murder and other offenses should be affirmed. Under the Eighth Amendment, Miller should not be put to death but should spend the rest of his life in prison. |
Madison | Supreme Court |