BRIAN CAMERON FRELIX v. STATE OF TENNESSEE
After entering guilty pleas to aggravated robbery and facilitation of aggravated robbery, the Petitioner, Brian Cameron Frelix, sought and was denied post-conviction relief. The Petitioner appeals, asserting that he received ineffective assistance from his trial counsel when she did not file a motion to suppress a statement he had made to authorities in Williamson County. He also contends that the State violated his right to counsel because the inmate who was housed with him was a State agent who interrogated him without an attorney. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the Petitioner’s trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance and that his Sixth Amendment claim has been previously determined. Accordingly, we affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of relief. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Teresa Grimes Kidd, Et Al. v. James Q. Dickerson, Et Al.
In this health care liability action, the surviving daughter of a woman who died as a result of a stroke brought suit as executrix of her mother’s estate and as her next-of-kin against two physicians and their practice group as well as a pharmacist who filled a prescription for her and the pharmacist’s employer. Plaintiff alleged that the death occurred due to a stroke her mother suffered as a result of taking the drug Pradaxa, which had been prescribed by the defendant doctors and filled by the defendant pharmacist and the defendant pharmacy (the “pharmacy defendants”). The trial court granted summary judgment to the pharmacy defendants on all claims, holding that the proof submitted by Plaintiff was insufficient to establish the element of causation; the court granted summary judgment to the defendant doctors on Plaintiff’s claims that their negligence caused and hastened the decedent’s death, and the claim that the doctors did not have the decedent’s informed consent to administer Pradaxa; the court granted summary judgment to one doctor on all claims; and the court denied summary judgment to one doctor and the practice group on the remaining claims. Plaintiff appeals the grant of summary judgment to the pharmacy defendants and the doctors; the remaining doctor and practice group appeal the denial of their motions for summary judgment on the remaining claims. Upon ourde novo review, we affirm the grant of summary judgment to the pharmacy defendants; we affirm the grant of summary judgment to Dr. Thomas Farmer in toto; we affirm in part the grant of partial summary judgment to the doctors and their group and remand for further proceedings on whether the nurse practitioner’s actions caused Ms. Grimes’ injury and suffering during the period of October 20 until she was stabilized in the hospital, as well as whether the remaining doctor and practice group are liable for that negligence under a respondeat superior theory. |
Maury | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Lijah D. Et Al
This appeal arises from the trial court’s finding that grounds exist for terminating a mother and father’s parental rights to four children, and its finding that termination is in the children’s best interest. In this appeal, the parents contest only the best-interest determination. They contend termination was not in the children’s best interests because, inter alia, the Department of Children’s Services failed to use “reasonable efforts” to help them make a lasting adjustment to their circumstances. We affirm the trial court’s determination that the grounds of severe abuse and persistent conditions were proven and that termination of the parents’ rights is in the children’s best interest. Accordingly, we affirm the termination of both the mother and the father’s parental rights. |
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
State Of Tennessee v. Stephen R. Mayes
Stephen R. Mayes, Defendant, appeals from the trial court’s denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1. After a review of the record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re: Estate Of Wawana Lynn Brakebill
Attorney Herbert Moncier (“Claimant”) brought this action for prejudgment and/or post-judgment interest on an award of $667,681.80 in attorney’s fees charged by Claimant for legal services rendered to W. Lynn Brakebill (“Decedent”). Claimant also sought an award of attorney’s fees against Decedent’s estate for his pro se legal work done in litigating the issues pertaining to his fees charged as an attorney. The trial court denied prejudgment and post-judgment interest and held that Claimant could not recover attorney’s fees for his time expended representing himself. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Douglas Ralph Beier v. Board of Professional Responsibility of The Supreme Court of Tennessee
In this appeal from attorney disciplinary proceedings, the hearing panel of the Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility determined that the attorney’s conduct in two cases violated the Rules of Professional Conduct. In one case, the hearing panel found that the attorney signed the name of a witness on an affidavit, falsely notarized the signature, and did not disclose to the trial court or opposing counsel that he had signed the witness’s affidavit. In another case, the hearing panel found, the attorney persuaded a client in a probate matter to agree to an unreasonable contingency fee arrangement, took advantage of the client’s disability, misrepresented to the probate court that the client was the decedent’s sole heir, failed to disclose the existence of other heirs, and got the probate court to agree to close the estate without a detailed accounting in order to avoid judicial scrutiny of the unreasonable fee. The hearing panel suspended the law license of the appellant attorney for two years, with three months served as active suspension and the remainder on probation. The attorney and the Board both appealed the hearing panel’s decision to the chancery court. The chancery court affirmed the hearing panel’s findings as to rule violations and aggravating and mitigating factors, but it modified the sanction to two years active suspension. The attorney now appeals to this Court, arguing that his conduct was not dishonest, he did not take advantage of a vulnerable client, and his probate fee arrangement was not unreasonable. We affirm the hearing panel’s factual findings and its findings as to rule violations. In view of the seriousness of the violations, we affirm the chancery court’s modification of the sanction to two years active suspension. |
Hamblen | Supreme Court | |
Oscar Smith v. State of Tennessee
Following a jury trial in 1990, Oscar Smith was sentenced to receive the death penalty in each of three first degree murder convictions in the Criminal Court of Davidson County. The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences of death in State v. Smith, 868 S.W.2d 561 (Tenn. 1993). Mr. Smith is scheduled to be executed February 4, 2021. This appeal by Mr. Smith is from the trial court’s summary dismissal of “Oscar Smith’s Omnibus Request for Relief on His Jury Claims,” (hereinafter “Omnibus Request”). After oral arguments and review of the briefs and the appellate record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court in part, and dismiss the appeal in part. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
MARTY HOLLAND v. STATE OF TENNESSEE
The Petitioner-appellee, Marty Holland, pled guilty to attempted first-degree murder and especially aggravated robbery. As part of the plea, he agreed to serve a seventeen-year sentence. He also agreed to serve the sentence concurrently with a previously imposed federal sentence for an unrelated bank robbery charge and consecutive to a state sentence for an unrelated theft charge. The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which the post-conviction court denied. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the postconviction court’s denial of the petition but remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing regarding one issue: whether the Petitioner was fully informed of the circumstances of agreeing to serve concurrent state and federal sentences. This issue was not raised by the Petitioner in his post-conviction petition or on appeal, was not argued by either party during the post-conviction hearing or on appeal, and was not decided by the post-conviction court. Based on our review of the law and the record before us on appeal, we hold that the Court of Criminal Appeals was without authority under the Post-Conviction Procedure Act of 1995 to remand this case for consideration of an issue that was not raised by either party. Therefore, we reverse the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals to remand this case, and we reinstate the post-conviction court’s denial of the petition. |
Hardeman | Supreme Court | |
In Re Cortez P.
This is a termination of parental rights case. The trial court concluded that three grounds supported the termination of the father’s rights and also concluded that termination was in the child’s best interest. Although we reverse one ground for termination found by the trial court, we affirm the trial court as to the remaining grounds. Further, we conclude that the record supports the trial court’s holding that termination of the father’s parental rights is in the child’s best interest |
Hamblen | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Edward Knight
The Defendant, James Edward Knight, pled guilty to aggravated assault, a Class C felony, in exchange for a sentence of nine years with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered that the sentence be served in confinement, which the Defendant now challenges. After review, we affirm the sentencing decision of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Johntel Billings
The defendant, Johntel Billings, was indicted for one count of aggravated assault (Count 1), one count of attempted aggravated robbery (Count 2), one count of simple assault (Count 3), and one count of vandalism (Count 4). A Madison County jury convicted the defendant of aggravated assault, simple assault, and vandalism. The trial court imposed a four-year sentence with the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant argues the evidence was insufficient to support her aggravated assault conviction. The defendant also argues the trial court erred in sentencing her to four years of confinement, rather than probation. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tevin Mantez Harris
Following a bench trial, the trial court convicted the Defendant, Tevin Mantez Harris, of first degree premeditated murder and imposed the statutory sentence of life in prison. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that: (1) the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress; (2) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction; and (3) the trial court improperly permitted the State to refresh a witness’s memory. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Robertson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Antonio Reed
A Crockett County jury convicted the defendant, Antonio Reed, of possession with intent to sell or deliver .5 grams or more of methamphetamine and introduction of contraband into a penal facility. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed an effective sentence of ten years in confinement. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions and argues the trial court erred in admitting the drugs and lab report without a proper showing of the chain of custody. After reviewing the record and considering the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Crockett | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re Braden K.
This case involves a petition to terminate the parental rights of a mother filed by the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services. In the petition, the Department alleged five grounds for termination of the mother’s parental rights. The juvenile court found that all five grounds were proven by clear and convincing evidence and that it was in the best interest of the child to terminate the mother’s parental rights. As a result, the juvenile court granted the petition, and the mother appealed. We affirm the juvenile court’s ruling and remand. |
White | Court of Appeals | |
Marcus Belton, et al. v. City of Memphis, et al.
A minority business owner sued the City of Memphis and two city officials alleging that the City wrongfully terminated his service contract and contracted with two non-minority owned companies for similar services in violation of state and federal law. The trial court ruled that the business owner failed to prove that race was a motivating factor in the City’s decision. On appeal, the business owner contends that the trial court erred in excluding relevant evidence and refusing to grant a mistrial after opening statement. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgment. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Cameo Bobo v. City of Jackson, Tennessee
Appellant appeals the denial of her motion under Rule 60.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. Because Appellant's brief fails to comply with Rule 27 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, we dismiss this appeal. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Paul N. Galbreath
The Defendant, Paul N. Galbreath, was convicted after a jury trial of the knowing physical abuse or gross neglect of an impaired adult, a Class C felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 71-6-119 (2011). In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he knowingly neglected or abused the victim. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Humphreys | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Sun, Air, Water, & Land, Inc. v. Harold M. "Jack" Reynolds
The holder of a promissory note sued the maker. On a motion for summary judgment, the trial court granted the holder a judgment for the outstanding balance of the note plus interest. On appeal, the maker contends that the holder’s claim is barred by the doctrine of laches. If the claim is not barred, the maker argues that he is entitled to a set-off. We agree with the holder that the maker waived his laches argument. And the maker’s set-off claim fails for lack of mutuality. So we affirm. |
Sequatchie | Court of Appeals | |
Metropolitan Government Of Nashville And Davidson County, Et Al. v. Tennessee Department of Education, Et Al.
Davidson and Shelby counties sued the State of Tennessee to challenge the constitutionality of the Tennessee Education Savings Account Pilot Program. The trial court found that both counties had standing and that the act was unconstitutional under paragraph 2 of article XI, section 9 of the Tennessee Constitution. The State and intervening defendants appealed. We affirm |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Nelson Yojeni Ochoa-Puentes
The defendant, Nelson Yojeni Ochoa-Puentes, appeals his Dickson County Circuit Court jury conviction of attempted second degree murder, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of his immigration status. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Dickson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Terry Lin Johnson
Defendant, Terry Lin Johnson, appeals from the trial court’s full revocation of probation in November 2019. Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it required Defendant to serve his entire sentence because no substantial evidence of a probation violation was presented at the probation revocation hearing. Defendant also argues that the trial court acted too harshly when it required Defendant to serve his entire sentence. After conducting a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial. |
Putnam | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Timothy Aldridge v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Timothy Aldridge, entered a guilty plea to second-degree murder and received a sentence of forty years’ imprisonment. He now appeals from the denial of postconviction relief, arguing that trial counsel was ineffective in misleading him to believe that, by pleading guilty, he would be incarcerated at the Lois M. DeBerry Special Needs Facility (“DeBerry”). He also argues that his guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered based on trial counsel’s assurance of the same. Upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Travis Kanipe v. Pragnesh Patel MD
This appeal arises from a health care liability lawsuit. In 2013, Sandra Kanipe (“Ms. Kanipe”) died from an undiagnosed aortic dissection while in the care of Dr. Pragnesh Patel, M.D. (“Dr. Patel”). Travis Kanipe (“Mr. Kanipe”), Ms. Kanipe’s son, sued Dr. Patel in the Circuit Court for Hamblen County (“the Trial Court”). After a trial, the jury found in favor of Dr. Patel. The Trial Court granted Mr. Kanipe’s motion for a new trial on grounds that Dr. Patel had, through his testimony, shifted blame to a non-party despite having never pled comparative fault. After a second trial, the jury found in favor of Mr. Kanipe. Dr. Patel appeals, arguing among other things that he never shifted blame. From our review of the record, we conclude that Dr. Patel did, in fact, shift blame to a non-party when he testified in the first trial that the nurses never notified him of Ms. Kanipe’s ongoing chest pain. In view of our Supreme Court’s holding in George v. Alexander, 931 S.W.2d 517 (Tenn. 1996), the Trial Court did not abuse its discretion in ordering a retrial. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court. |
Hamblen | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kareem Northington
Kareem Northington, Defendant, appeals from the summary dismissal of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, filed pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Audarius Watts v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Audarius Watts, appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that the post-conviction court abused its discretion in summarily dismissing the petition. Following our review, we affirm the summary dismissal of the petition as time-barred. |
Trousdale | Court of Criminal Appeals |