Opinions
State of Tennessee v. Billy Joe Baggett
Defendant, Billy Joe Baggett, appeals the Montgomery County Circuit Court’s dismissal of his motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Dusty Mink
Defendant, Dusty Mink, was indicted by the Knox County Grand Jury for aggravated assault, assault, unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon, and evading arrest. The trial court granted Defendant’s motion to sever the offenses, and the count charging unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon was tried separately.1 A jury convicted Defendant of unlawful possession of a weapon, and the trial court sentenced Defendant as a Range III persistent offender to twenty-five years in confinement. On appeal, Defendant raises seven issues: 1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction for unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon; 2) whether the trial court erred by denying Defendant’s two motions for continuance based on the unavailability of expert witnesses; 3) whether the trial court erred by excluding a defense expert absent proof of Defendant’s drug use; 4) whether the trial court should have given the jury a Ferguson instruction; 5) whether the State’s closing argument was improper; 6) whether the cumulative effect of the trial court’s errors entitles Defendant to relief; and 7) whether the trial court erred in classifying Defendant as a Range III offender. Finding no error, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Alfonvo Montell Johnson a.ka. Alfonzo Montell Johnson
Defendant, Alfonvo Montell Johnson, appeals his Bradley County Criminal Court jury convictions of facilitation of second degree murder, conspiracy to commit first degree murder, evidence tampering, abuse of a corpse, and attempted abuse of a corpse, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support certain of his convictions and that the absence of an election with regard to the charge of evidence tampering entitles him to a new trial on that offense. Because the evidence was insufficient to support Defendant’s convictions of abuse of a corpse and attempted abuse of a corpse, we reverse those convictions and dismiss the charges. We affirm the judgments of the trial court in all other respects. |
Court of Criminal Appeals | ||
Andrea Jaye Mosby v. Eric Lee Meachem
Appellant and Appellee agreed ona permanent parenting planthat provided for equal parenting timeof their minorchildafter their divorce.Appellee later sought to relocate with the childto pursue an employment opportunityin Georgia.One hundred four days after Appellee filed a relocation petition, Appellant filedan answer opposing the relocation. Thetrialcourt permitted the relocationand struck Appellant’s opposition because it was filedafter the expiration of the thirty-day period set forth inTennesseeCode Annotated section 36-6-108.The courtamended the parties’ parenting accordingly.Onappeal, Appellantargues the trial court erred in striking his response as untimely.We affirm thejudgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Keith Richardson
The Defendant, Keith Richardson, appeals his Perry County Circuit Court convictions of five counts each of statutory rape by an authority figure and incest, four counts of rape, two counts of sexual battery by an authority figure, and one count each of continuous sexual abuse of a child, aggravated rape, and aggravated assault. On appeal, the Defendant argues that (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction of aggravated rape, (2) he did not properly waive his right to a jury trial pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 23, and (3) his sentence is excessive. Upon review, we remand the Defendant’s judgments of conviction for rape in count 21and statutory rape in count 22for the entry of corrected judgments. We otherwise discern no error and affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Perry | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Strater Falls
The Defendant, Christopher Strater Falls, appeals from his convictions for first degree felony murder and theft of property valued at $10,000 or more but less than $60,000, for which he received an effective sentence of life imprisonment. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions because the State failed to establish a theft of the victim’s vehicle or that he was the perpetrator of the victim’s murder. The Defendant also argues that the trial court erred in admitting certain hearsay statements made by the victim, including large portions of a four-page letter she had authored expressing her fear of the Defendant and her desire to end their relationship, as well as pointing toward him as a suspect in the event of her death, under the “then existing state of mind” exception of Tennessee Rule of Evidence 803(3). After reviewing the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Morgan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Mena Mekhaen Boutrous v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Mena Mekhaen Boutrous, appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of his motion for due process tolling of the Post-Conviction Procedure Act’s statute of limitations. On appeal, Petitioner argues that he is entitled to due process tolling because his mental health issues rendered him incompetent during the one-year limitations period. Upon review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Desmon Paul Rhea
A Knox County jury convicted the Defendant, Desmon Paul Rhea, of two counts of first degree felony murder, one count of second degree murder, one count of employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, and two counts of aggravated burglary of a habitation. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole plus thirty-seven years. On appeal, the Defendant raises six groups of issues: (1) whether the trial court erred in denying his motions for judgment of acquittal and whether the evidence is legally sufficient to support his convictions for premeditated murder and the burglary-related offenses; (2) whether the trial court violated his constitutional right to present a defense by conditioning the presentation of an insanity defense on the admission of his previously suppressed statements; (3) whether the State’s destruction of potentially exculpatory evidence requireda new trial under State v. Ferguson, 2 S.W.3d 912 (Tenn. 1999); (4) whether the trial court committed multiple evidentiary errors, each independently warranting reversal and cumulatively depriving him of a fair trial; (5) whether prosecutorial misconduct during the State’s closing argument rendered the trial fundamentally unfair; and (6) whether the trial court’s jury instructions were erroneous. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Travis Lynn Rasmussen v. Sasha Nicole Rasmussen
This is an appeal from a final decree of divorce. The trial court found that the husband is |
McNairy | Court of Appeals | |
Southern Auto Source Finance, LLC v. Airways Towing & Recovery, LLC
This extraordinary appeal involves whether a non-attorney individual may file a notice of |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Roy Robinson v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Roy Robinson, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Joan Young v. Cottage Grove Condominium Association, Inc.
The appellant filed the instant action seeking a copy of the property management contract between her condominium association and its property management company. The trial court determined that “a contract between a condominium association and its management company would not be included in those records that a condominium association would be required to provide to a unit owner.” The court dismissed the matter with prejudice. The appellant appeals. We affirm the ruling of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
ZACHARY C. CROUCH v. UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE
This matter concerns a plaintiff’s effort to revive a discrimination lawsuit. Having determined that the plaintiff’s principal appellate brief is not compliant with the relevant rules of briefing in this Court, we conclude that his issues purportedly raised on appeal are waived. The appeal is dismissed. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
CALEB TAYLOR SPEARS v. RUSSELL LEE SCRUGGS ET AL.
This accelerated interlocutory appeal requires us to determine whether the trial court erred in denying Appellant’s motion for recusal, which was brought pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B § 2. Because Appellant’s petition fails to comply with the requirements of Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B § 2.03, the appeal is dismissed. |
Jefferson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jereme Walker Amis
The Defendant, Jereme Walker Amis, was convicted in the Benton County Circuit Court of possession of a firearm after having been convicted ofa felony crime of violence, a Class B felony, possession of a firearm after having been convicted of felony drug offense, a Class C felony, and violating the conditions of his community supervision, a Class E felony. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court merged the convictions ofpossessing a firearm and sentenced himto an effective sentence of twenty-four years in confinement. On appeal, the Defendantcontends thatthe trial court committed plain errorby refusing to accept his offer to stipulate tohis prior felony convictions,that the trial court abused its discretionby denying his request to bifurcatethe chargeofviolating the conditions of his community supervision, and that his effective sentence is excessive. Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Benton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Marla Ann Richardson v. Dianne M. Moore
A property owner brought suit against the owner of a neighboring property, seeking either an order awarding her land encompassing a driveway or an easement to use the driveway. The trial court referred the issues to a special master, who made detailed findings regarding the boundary between the properties and as to the elements necessary to establish a prescriptive easement and an easement by necessity. Following a hearing on objections to the special master’s report, the trial court accepted the special master’s findings and recommendations. The neighbor appealed, raising issues regarding the court’s weighing of the evidence in finding the boundary line and granting of a prescriptive easement and an easement by necessity. We affirm. |
Houston | Court of Appeals | |
Chicago Title Insurance Company v. Closed Nashville, LLC et al.
Mortgage companies maintain that the Tennessee Housing Development Agency(“THDA”), which services mortgages through the trade name of Volunteer Mortgage Loan Servicing(“VMLS”), is liable for monetary losses following the use of an improper bank account number. THDA and VMLS contend that they are protected by sovereign immunity and filed a motion to dismiss. The trial court denied the motion because it found THDA was engaged in commercial activities. THDA and VMLS appealed. We reverse. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Bruce Allen Watts
Defendant, Bruce Allen Watts, appeals the trial court’s decision revoking his probation and ordering him to serve the balance of his effective fourteen-year sentence in confinement. Upon our review, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and, therefore, affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Lincoln | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Scott A. Stiner
The Defendant, Scott A. Stiner, was convicted by a Union County Criminal Court jury of soliciting sexual exploitation of a minor, a Class C felony, and four counts of aggravated sexual battery of a child less than thirteen years of age, a Class B felony. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-529(soliciting sexual exploitation of a minor)1(2018)(subsequently amended), 39-13-504 (aggravated sexual battery) (2018)(subsequently amended). The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective fifty-four-year sentence. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1)he did not receive a fair trial because the allegations and acts that constitute the basis of the convictions were different than the allegations in the indictment and the bill of particulars;(2) the court erred by failing to sever the offenses during the trial; (3) the evidence is insufficient to support his aggravated sexual battery of a child less than thirteen years of age conviction in Count 6;(4) he did not receive a unanimous verdict for aggravated sexual battery in Count 3; (5) the court erred by denying his motion for a mistrial; (6) the court erred in admitting evidence in contravention of Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b); (7) the court erred in admitting a diagram that was not properly authenticated; (8)the court erred by allowing expert testimony that went beyond the scope of the witness’s expertise; and (9) the court erred by ordering consecutive sentencing on all counts. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Court of Criminal Appeals | ||
State of Tennessee v. Thomas Koontz
Defendant, Thomas Koontz, appeals the judgment of the Criminal Court for Hamblen County revoking his probation and ordering execution of his original eight‑year, |
Court of Criminal Appeals | ||
State of Tennessee v. Scott A. Stiner - Concurring
I agree with the majority in affirming the trial court’s judgments and legal conclusions, save for one issue. I write separately to express my disagreement with the majority opinion regarding the trial court’s decision to admit evidence of an uncharged sexual assault of a baby pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b). I would find that the introduction of this evidence was in error; however, I would further find that the error was harmless in these circumstances and would affirm the convictions despite the error. |
Court of Criminal Appeals | ||
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. MAWULE TEPE
The Defendant, Mawule Tepe, has filed a pro se petition seeking the recusal of |
Bradley | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Verchaunt Joshua Williams v. State of Tennessee
The pro se Petitioner, Verchaunt Joshua Williams, has filed an application for permission to appeal the trial court’s order denying his motion to reopen his prior post-conviction petition. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-117; Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 28, Sec. 10(B). For the reasons stated below, the Court hereby denies the Petitioner’s application. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Louis L. Steele
Defendant, Louis L. Steele, was convicted by a Hardeman County Jury of one count of indecent exposure in a penal facility, and the trial court imposed a Range II, three-year sentence to be served in the Department of Correction, consecutively to his Davidson County sentence. On appeal, Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. Following our review of the entire record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ulester A. Cross
Defendant, Ulester A. Cross, pled guilty to three counts of driving while his license was suspended, and one count each of simple possession of marijuanaand introducing contraband into a penal facility. He received an effective sentence of four years as a Range I offender, to be served on probationfollowing service of forty-five days. Following a hearing on a warrant for violation of his probation, the trial court revoked Defendant’s probation and ordered him to serve the balance of his original sentence incarcerated. Defendant appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in revoking probationwithout making sufficient findings. Following a review of the entire record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals |