State of Tennessee v. Bethany Jade Abel
A Hickman County Grand Jury indicted the Defendant, Bethany Jade Abel, for attempted first degree murder, a Class A felony. The Defendant pled guilty to aggravated assault, a Class C felony, with the length and manner of service for her sentence left to the discretion of the trial court. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to 3 years in the Tennessee Department of Correction, suspended to supervised probation following the service of 14 days in the county jail. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying her application for judicial diversion. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hickman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Locke
The defendant, Christopher Locke, pled guilty to one count of incest, a Class C felony. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a Range I sentence of three years, all suspended upon compliance with the terms of probation and sex offender supervision. On appeal he argues that the trial court erred in denying judicial diversion. After reviewing the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Gregory Tyrone Greer
The Appellant, Gregory Tyrone Greer, was convicted by a Madison County jury of reckless aggravated assault, a Class D felony. He was sentenced as a career offender to twelve years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. In his sole issue on appeal, he contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Melissa Beth Mackey v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Melissa Beth Mackey, appeals as of right the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of her petition for post-conviction relief challenging her conviction of attempted aggravated robbery for which she received a sentence of six years as a Range II, multiple offender. On appeal, she argues that trial counsel committed ineffective assistance that rendered her guilty plea involuntary. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Walter Alan Martin v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Walter Alan Martin, was convicted by a jury of rape and was, thereafter, sentenced to ten years in prison at 100%. This Court affirmed the Petitioner’s conviction and sentence on direct appeal. The Petitioner filed a timely petition for post-conviction relief and, following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel due to trial counsel’s failure (1) to adequately address the timeframe surrounding the events and (2) to fully investigate the case by inspecting the cab of the truck where the incident occurred. Following our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the Petitioner has not shown that he is entitled to relief. The judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Randy Antonio Rice
The Defendant-Appellant, Randy Antonio Rice, was convicted by a Madison County jury of first degree felony murder and facilitation of especially aggravated robbery, a Class B felony. He was sentenced as a Range I offender to consecutive sentences of life imprisonment and twelve years at thirty percent, respectively. On appeal, the Defendant-Appellant argues: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions, and (2) the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentencing. Upon review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Michael Schwamb v. Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC
In this workers’ compensation case, the employee had a compensable back injury in 2008. His doctor assigned 19% permanent anatomical impairment for the injury, based upon the Sixth Edition of the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment. He had previously settled a claim for a compensable back injury in 1996. That injury resulted in a 15% permanent impairment according to the Fourth Edition of the Guides, then in effect. Based upon those ratings, the treating physician for the 2008 injury apportioned 4% of the total 19% impairment to the more recent injury. An evaluating physician used the Sixth Edition to rate both injuries and opined that the impairment for the 2008 injury was 13% to the body as a whole. The trial court adopted the evaluating physician’s rating and based its award of permanent disability benefits on it. The employer has appealed,arguing that the trial court erred by adopting the evaluating physician’s rating. We affirm the judgment. |
Coffee | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Paul Dennis Reid, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
Paul Dennis Reid, Jr. was convicted and sentenced to death on seven counts of first degree murder. Reid’s convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal by the supreme court. The instant appeals stem from evidentiary hearings wherein the Montgomery and Davidson County trial courts concluded that Reid was competent to decide on his own behalf to forego any post-conviction relief on his convictions and sentences. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial courts.
|
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Paul Dennis Reid, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
Paul Dennis Reid, Jr. was convicted and sentenced to death on seven counts of first degree murder. Reid’s convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal by the supreme court. The instant appeals stem from evidentiary hearings wherein the Montgomery and Davidson County trial courts concluded that Reid was competent to decide on his own behalf to forego any post-conviction relief on his convictions and sentences. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial courts.
|
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Paul Dennis Reid, Jr. v State of Tennessee
Paul Dennis Reid, Jr. was convicted and sentenced to death on seven counts of first degree murder. Reid’s convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal by the supreme court. The instant appeals stem from evidentiary hearings wherein the Montgomery and Davidson County trial courts concluded that Reid was competent to decide on his own behalf to forego any post-conviction relief on his convictions and sentences. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial courts. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Stephen Davis
The defendant, Stephen Davis, a pharmacist at Rite Aid, was convicted of one count of obtaining a controlled substance by fraud (a Class D felony) after he filled several suspicious prescriptions for Hydrocodone (a Schedule III controlled substance). The trial court imposed a two-year suspended sentence. On appeal, the defendant claims that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction and that the trial court erred by denying his motion for a mistrial and by failing to place him on judicial diversion. After carefully reviewing the record and the arguments of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Federated Rural Electric Insurance Exchange, et al. v. William R. Hill, et al.
Defendant allegedly suffered an on-the-job injury to his knees over the course of several years, and Plaintiffs paid workers’ compensation benefits on his behalf. However, after Defendant was videotaped building a barn, his employment was terminated and suit was filed against him for fraud. Defendant then filed a counter-complaint alleging, among other things, retaliatory discharge. The trial court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment with regard to the retaliatory discharge claim, and we affirm and remand. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
William H. Thomas, Jr. v. Tennessee Department of Transportation, et al.
An applicant for a billboard permit appeals the dismissal of his Petition for Judicial Review of the decision of the Commissioner of Tennessee Department of Transportation to deny his application. During the pendency of this action, the applicant admitted he had sold his leasehold interest in the property on which the billboard was to be located. Upon the filing of a motion to dismiss for lack of standing, the trial court concluded that petitioner “lacks standing to maintain this lawsuit and this cause is moot as a matter of law.” We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
The Bank of Nashville v. Charles Chipman, Sr., et al.
Defendant defaulted on a $300,000 loan from plaintiff bank. He subsequently renewed the loan but not before transferring certain assets to his wife. He never repaid the loan. The bank filed suit against the husband for breach of contract and fraud and against both defendants for fraudulent conveyance, conversion, civil conspiracy to defraud, and unjust enrichment. The bank also sought a lien lis pendens, a constructive trust, and a judicial sale and foreclosure. The trial court found against the husband with respect to the bank’s claims for breach of contract and fraud (in renewing the loan), against the wife for unjust enrichment, and against both defendants for fraudulent conveyance. The court denied the bank’s request for a constructive trust and a judicial sale and foreclosure. The parties appeal the trial court’s disposition of claims for fraud, civil conspiracy to defraud, and unjust enrichment, as well as its decision not to impose a constructive trust. We find for the bank on its fraud (against the husband) and unjust enrichment (against the wife) claims. We find against the bank on its claims for civil conspiracy to defraud and the imposition of a constructive trust. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Daniel O’Sicky
The Defendant, Daniel O’Sicky, pled guilty to second degree murder, a Class A felony; especially aggravated robbery, a Class A felony; and especially aggravated burglary, a Class B felony, in exchange for concurrent sentencing, with the length of his sentences left to the discretion of the trial court. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to concurrent sentences of 25 years as a violent offender for the Class A felony offenses and 12 years as a Range I, standard offender for the Class B felony offense. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred in setting the length of his sentences. Following our review, we conclude that the Defendant’s conviction for especially aggravated burglary should be modified to reflect a conviction for aggravated burglary, a Class C felony, because his especially aggravated burglary conviction was precluded by Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-14-404(d). Because our modification of the Defendant’s conviction does not affect the Defendant’s sentence length pursuant to the plea agreement, we impose a concurrent sentence of 6 years for the Class C felony conviction. We affirm the judgments of the trial court in all other respects. |
Cocke | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Milburn L. Edwards v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Milburn L. Edwards, was convicted by a Davidson county jury of multiple counts of rape, first degree burglary, aggravated burglary, and one count each of second degree burglary, aggravated rape, assault with intent to commit rape, and robbery. State v. Edwards, 868 S.W.2d 682, 685 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993) The trial court sentenced Petitioner to an effective sentence of life plus 415 years. Id. On appeal, this Court affirmed Petitioner’s convictions and modified his sentence to an effective sentence of life plus seventy-five years and an additional effective sentence of 120 years. Id. at 705. Subsequently, Petitioner unsuccessfully filed a petition for post-conviction relief and three petitions of writ of habeas corpus relief. See Milburn L. Edwards v. Cherry Lindamood, No. M2009-01132-CCA-MR3- HC, 2010 WL 2134156 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, May 27, 2010); Milburn L. Edwards v. Cherry Lindamood, No. M2006-01092-CCA-R3-HC, 2007 WL 152233 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Jan. 17, 2007), perm. app. denied, (Tenn. Apr. 16, 2007) (affirming the habeas corpus court’s dismissal of the petition for writ of habeas corpus); Milburn L. Edwards v. State, No. M2004-01378-CCA-R3-HC, 2005 WL 544714 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Mar. 7, 2005), perm. app. denied, (Tenn. Aug. 29, 2005) (affirming the habeas corpus court’s dismissal of the petition for writ of habeas corpus); Milburn L. Edwards v. State, No. M2002-02124-CCA-R3-PC, 2003 WL 23014683 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Dec. 15, 2003) (affirming the post-conviction court’s denial of the petition for postconviction relief). The subject of this appeal is Petitioner’s fourth petition for writ of habeas corpus in which he argues that the habeas corpus court erred in summarily dismissing his petition based on the State’s argument that the issue of whether Petitioner was properly sentenced under the 1982 Sentencing Act as opposed to the 1989 Sentencing Act was previously determined. Because we have concluded that this issue was previously determined on direct appeal, we affirm the habeas corpus court’s dismissal of the petition.
|
Wayne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Robert Colin Pelfrey
A Roane County grand jury indicted the Defendant, Robert Colin Pelfrey, for aggravated burglary, a Class C felony, resisting arrest, a Class B misdemeanor, and assault, a Class B misdemeanor. The Defendant pled guilty to the aggravated burglary charge and agreed to a sentence of three years, with the manner of service left to the discretion of the trial court. The remaining counts were dismissed. The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I, standard offender to three years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying all forms of alternative sentencing. Following our review, we affirm the Defendant’s sentence for the aggravated burglary conviction. However, we remand the Defendant’s case because the judgment for the resisting arrest count improperly reflects that the Defendant was indicted for evading arrest, a Class E felony. The trial court is directed to correct that judgment in accordance with the indictment. |
Roane | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jimmy Sprague
The defendant, Jimmy Sprague, was convicted of failure to appear in court, a Class E felony. He was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to two years in the Tennessee Department of Correction consecutive to an existing federal sentence. On appeal, he argues that: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction; (2) the trial court improperly refused to allow the admission of his medical records; and (3) he was improperly sentenced. After careful review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court in all respects. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Robert Earl Cole v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Robert Earl Cole, appeals from the trial court’s order dismissing his petition for writ of habeas corpus. After review of the entire record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Johnson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. George Washington
Following a jury trial, Defendant, George Washington, was convicted of aggravated vehicular homicide. He was sentenced to serve twenty-five years in the Department of Correction. In this appeal Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction and asserts that the sentence is excessive. Following a review of the record and the briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jose Luis Vizcaino-Ramos
The Defendant-Appellant, Jose Luis Vizcaino-Ramos, was convicted by a Hardeman County jury of first degree premeditated murder and sentenced to life with the possibility of parole. On appeal, Vizcaino-Ramos presents the following issues for our review: (1) whether the trial court erred by admitting the testimony of the victim’s son; and (2) whether the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Nicholas Shawn Marshall
The defendant, Nicholas Shawn Marshall, stands convicted of rape, a Class B felony. The trial court sentenced him as a Range II, violent offender to fifteen years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in admitting hearsay and that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Donnie Lee Sullivan
The defendant, Donnie Lee Sullivan, stands convicted of voluntary manslaughter, a Class C felony. The trial court sentenced him as a Range I, standard offender to four years and nine months in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, the sentence length, and the denial of alternate sentencing. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ernest Lee Jennings
A Fayette County jury convicted the Defendant, Ernest Lee Jennings, of sexual exploitation of a minor and three counts of rape of a child, and the trial court sentenced him to an effective sentence of eighty-five years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions and that the trial court erred when it imposed consecutive sentencing. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. |
Fayette | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jerry Kittrell v. Wilson County, Tennessee, et al.
The owner of a piece of rural property in Wilson County applied for a “permissible use” permit that would allow him to display vehicles for sale on the property. The County planning staff recommended against issuance of a permit, reasoning that the proposed use was not consistent with other uses permitted in an A-1 (agricultural) zoning district. The owner appealed to the Board of Zoning Appeals, which agreed to issue the permit, but limited the use to “no more than 10 serviceable items being on the property at any given time.” The owner challenged the limitation by filing a petition for writ of certiorari in the Wilson County Chancery Court. The court determined that the BZA had acted arbitrarily and had exceeded its authority by placing a condition on the owner’s use of the property of a type not contemplated by the controlling ordinance, and it removed that condition. We affirm the removal of the condition, but we reverse the trial court’s holding that the BZA had violated the property owner’s substantive due process rights. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals |