James Q. Holder, et al vs. Westgate Resorts Ltd., a Florida Limited Partnersyip d/b/a Westgate Smoky Mountain Resort at Gatlinburg
Plaintiff sustained personal injuries resulting from a fall on defendant's premises and brought this action for damages, which resulted in a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff for damages against defendant. Defendant appealed, and asserted that the trial judge erred when he refused to allow defendant's expert to testify to his conversation with a third party. On appeal, we hold that the trial court erred in refusing to allow the proffered testimony, but the error was harmless. We affirm the Judgment of the trial court. |
Sevier | Court of Appeals | |
In the Matter of David J.B. et al.
This appeal involves the termination of parental rights with regard to a child, Nathan T., who came into protective custody of the Department of Children's Services ("DCS") on November 7, 2006. DCS initiated a proceeding to secure temporary custody of Nathan following receipt of a referral that he had been left by his mother, Megan T., ("Mother") with two elderly women in a house with no heat and where the women were using drugs; This Court has a policy of protecting the identity of children in parental termination cases by initializing their last name. could not be found.2 By order entered January 24, 2007, Nathan was adjudicated dependent and neglected and custody awarded to DCS; he was subsequently placed in a foster home, where he has remained throughout these proceedings. |
Dickson | Court of Appeals | |
Gary Cooper vs. Clinton Utilities Board
Plaintiff brought this action, charging defendant utility breached its contract with plaintiff to construct a line and deliver electricity to his property. Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and the trial judge held that there was no meeting of the minds between the parties and defendant was not obligated to construct a line to deliver electricity to plaintiff's dwelling. On appeal, we affirm. |
Anderson | Court of Appeals | |
Tennessee Protection Agency, Inc. vs Jordon D. Mathies
Party A obtained a default judgment in general sessions court against Party B. The general sessions court subsequently granted Party B's motion to set aside the default judgment. Party A appealed to circuit court. The circuit court reversed the general sessions court's decision to set aside the default judgment. Party B appeals to this court. We affirm the decision of the circuit court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Teresa Lynn Stanfield, et al. v. John Neblett, Jr., M.D., et al.
This is a medical malpractice case. The jury returned a verdict, finding that the Appellee/Doctor deviated from the standard of care, but that his deviation was not the legal cause of the injury. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying her motion for a directed verdict, erred in ruling on her objections to Appellee's experts and the impeachment of her experts, that she was prejudiced by the language used on the verdict form, and that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing Appellee to make a powerpoint presentation during opening statements and closing arguments. Finding no error, we affirm. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
Teresa Lynn Stanfield, et al. v. John Neblett, Jr., M.D., et al.
This is a medical malpractice case. The jury returned a verdict, finding that the Appellee/Doctor deviated from the standard of care, but that his deviation was not the legal cause of the injury. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying her motion for a directed verdict, erred in ruling on her objections to Appellee's experts and the impeachment of her experts, that she was prejudiced by the language used on the verdict form, and that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing Appellee to make a powerpoint presentation during opening statements and closing arguments. Finding no error, we affirm. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
Duane Michael Coleman v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Duane Michael Coleman, appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. The Petitioner filed his petition outside the statute of limitations. Accordingly, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Adam Wester v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Adam Wester, appeals the Anderson County Criminal Court's denial of postconviction relief from his conviction for felony murder in the perpetration of aggravated child abuse, for which he received life imprisonment. The defendant contends that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to suppress the petitioner's written statements to law enforcement and in failing to challenge the State's expert regarding the cause of the victim's injuries. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Anderson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tracy Thomas Hepburn
Following a jury trial, Defendant, Tracy Thomas Hepburn, was convicted of twenty-four counts of burglary, a Class D felony, three counts of attempted burglary, a Class E felony, fourteen counts of misdemeanor vandalism, six counts of vandalism, a Class E felony, two counts of vandalism, a Class D felony, ten counts of misdemeanor theft, one count of theft, a Class E felony, and two counts of theft, a Class D felony, in case nos. 02-0844, 02-0875, 02-0876, 02-0888, and 02-0291. The trial court sentenced Defendant as a Range III, persistent offender, to ten years for each Class D felony conviction, five years for each Class E felony conviction, and eleven months, twenty-nine days for each Class A misdemeanor conviction. The trial court imposed a combination of concurrent and consecutive sentencing for an effective sentence of one hundred years. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress and in imposing consecutive sentencing. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Wilson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Sedric Lamont Holt
A Davidson County Grand Jury returned an indictment against Defendant, Sedric Holt, for nine counts of aggravated robbery. Defendant subsequently pled guilty to five counts of robbery, all Class C felonies. The trial court sentenced defendant as a Range I, standard offender, to five years each in counts two, three, seven, and eight, and four years in count four. Counts two and three were ordered to be served concurrently with each other and consecutively to count four. Counts seven and eight were ordered to be served concurrently with each other and consecutively to counts two, three, and four for an effective fourteen year sentence in the Department of Correction. On appeal, defendant argues that his sentence is excessive and that he should have been granted an alternative sentence. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Grady Wayne Mealer v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Grady Wayne Mealer, appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief in which he alleged that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because he was denied the right to testify at trial. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that Petitioner has failed to show that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel and affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Paul Wallace Dinwiddie, Jr.
A Knox County jury convicted the defendant, Paul Wallace Dinwiddie, Jr., of two counts of aggravated rape and two counts of aggravated sexual battery. The defendant appeals, alleging that the trial court erred by instructing the jury on flight and by allowing a nurse practitioner to testify as an expert witness. The defendant also challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence and the length of his sentences. Upon our review, we find no error in the convictions; however, we remand to the trial court to merge the two aggravated sexual battery jury verdicts into one conviction judgment and the two aggravated rape jury verdicts into one conviction judgment. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Theresa W. Robinson
The defendant, Theresa W. Robinson, was indicted for soliciting unlawful compensation, misuse of official information, and official misconduct. She applied for pretrial diversion, and the district attorney general denied her request. After granting her petition for a writ of certiorari, the trial court ruled that the district attorney general abused his discretion in denying pretrial diversion. The State appealed. Following our review, we conclude that we are without jurisdiction because the State cannot appeal the trial court's decision to grant pretrial diversion under Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 3 and we decline review under Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 10. Accordingly, the State's appeal is dismissed. |
McNairy | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Cecil Hughes, Jr.
|
Sequatchie | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re: Cynthia M-M, Et Al.
Father of child appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to continue hearing to terminate his parental rights and subsequent termination of his rights on the grounds of abandonment and failure to establish/exercise paternity. Finding that the court erred not recessing the hearing to allow Father to be present at the termination hearing, we vacate the judgment terminating Father's parental rights and remand for further proceedings. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Cynthia M-M, Et Al. - Dissenting
I respectfully disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the trial court erred by denying Father’s request for a continuance and proceeding with the trial on the petition to terminate his parental rights. I reach my decision based on two factors: (1) the decision to grant a continuance or to proceed with the trial was within the discretion of the trial court, a decision that will be upheld so long as reasonable minds can disagree as to the propriety of the decision made; and (2) the fact that Father was arrested three weeks prior to trial and knew he would be unable to attend, yet he did not inform his attorney until the night before trial. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Wayne Lydell Holt v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Wayne L. Holt, was indicted by the Davidson County Grand Jury for one count of first degree felony murder, one count of premeditated first degree murder, and one count of especially aggravated robbery. State v. Wayne L. Holt, No. M2001-00945-CCA-R3-CD, 2002 WL 31465263, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Nov. 5, 2002), perm. app. denied, (Tenn. Feb. 24, 2003). At trial, a motion for judgment of acquittal was granted by the trial court as to the count of first degree felony murder and to the count of especially aggravated robbery. On the remaining charge of first degree murder, the jury convicted petitioner of the lesser included offense of second degree murder. He received a thirty-year sentence. A direct appeal was unsuccessful. Id. Petitioner then sought post-conviction relief on the basis that, inter alia, he received ineffective assistance of counsel. After a hearing, the postconviction court denied the petition for relief. After a thorough review on appeal, we determine petitioner has failed to prove he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tony A. Pitts
The defendant, Tony Alton Pitts, was convicted of vehicular assault, a Class D felony, as well as violations of the financial responsibility law and the vehicle registration law, both Class C misdemeanors. On appeal, he argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions and that the trial court erred in denying him full probation and a restricted license. After careful review, we affirm the judgments from the trial court. |
Wayne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Mark C. Noles v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Mark C. Noles, appeals from the post-conviction court's denial of both a petition for post-conviction relief and a petition for writ of error coram nobis. Petitioner was convicted in Rutherford County of attempted aggravated arson in 2004 and sentenced to serve seventeen years as a Range II, multiple offender. After an unsuccessful direct appeal, Petitioner sought post-conviction relief in the form of a pro se petition. See State v. Mark C. Noles, No. M2006-015340CCA0R30CD, 2007 WL 3274422, at *1-7 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Nov. 6, 2007), perm. app. denied, (Tenn. Apr. 7, 2008). Counsel was appointed and an amended petition for post-conviction relief and petition for writ of error coram nobis were filed. Among other things, Petitioner sought relief on the basis that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that he recently discovered new evidence indicating that one of the main witnesses at trial had recanted his testimony. After a hearing, the postconviction court dismissed the petition for writ of error coram nobis as time-barred and denied post-conviction relief. Petitioner appeals. On appeal, the following issues are presented for review: (1) whether Petitioner received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial when trial counsel failed to advise Petitioner of the right to allocution, failed to subpoena a witness, and failed on appeal to contest the jury instructions; (2) whether the post-conviction court improperly refused to recuse itself from the post-conviction proceedings; (3) whether the post-conviction court improperly refused to allow Petitioner to present two witnesses at the post-conviction hearing; and (4) whether the post-conviction court improperly dismissed the petition for writ of error coram nobis. After a thorough review, we conclude that the post-conviction court properly dismissed the writ of error coram nobis as untimely. Further, we determine that the post-conviction court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to recuse itself; that the post-conviction court did not deny Petitioner the right to present witnesses at the post-conviction hearing; and that Petitioner has failed to show that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Accordingly, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Nicholas Shane Brewer v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Nicholas Shane Brewer, pled guilty to attempted aggravated sexual battery, a Class C felony, in May 2006, receiving a negotiated sentence of six years, as a Range I standard offender, in the Tennessee Department of Correction. He did not seek a direct appeal or post-conviction relief. The petitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus relief on September 23, 2009. The habeas corpus court summarily denied relief. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court erred by summarily dismissing his petition, arguing that (1) the original judgment against him was void because it did not reflect the mandatory imposition of a sentence of community supervision for life, and the trial court did not have jurisdiction to amend the judgment; (2) he entered his guilty plea involuntarily and unknowingly; and (3) he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court. |
Wayne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Daniel Leon McCaig
The Defendant, Daniel Leon McCaig, appeals from the order of Dyer County Circuit Court revoking his probation. In May 2007, the Defendant pleaded guilty to attempted sexual battery and received a five-year sentence. He was placed on probation. Thereafter, on July 22, 2008, he pleaded guilty to a violation of the sex offender registry law and theft under $500. He was sentenced to an effective sentence of two years for these new convictions, said sentence to be suspended and served on probation. This new sentence was to be served consecutively to the five-year sentence, resulting in an effective seven-year sentence on probation. Subsequently, a violation warrant was issued, wherein it was alleged that the Defendant violated the conditions of his probation. The violation report was later amended. Following a hearing, the trial court revoked the Defendant's probationary sentence and ordered that his original seven-year sentence to the Department of Correction be reinstated. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the evidence does not support full revocation of his probation. After a review of the record, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by revoking the Defendant's probation. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Courtney Hunt-Guy, A/K/A Courtney Hunt
The Defendant, Courtney Hunt-Guy, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of theft of property valued at $1000 or more but less than $10,000, a Class D felony, and evading arrest and vandalism of property valued at $500 or less, both Class A misdemeanors, and was sentenced by the trial court as a Range I offender to an effective term of three years, six months in the county workhouse. On appeal, the defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions and that the trial court imposed an excessive sentence by not applying the mental health mitigating factor to his felony theft conviction. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Edward Johnson
|
Cannon | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Floyd Rodriquez Johnson
In three separate cases, the Defendant, Floyd Rodriquez Johnson, pled guilty to two counts of possession of more than .5 grams of cocaine with the intent to sell and one count of the sale of more than .5 grams of cocaine. The defendant agreed to allow the trial court to sentence him and agreed he was a Range II offender. The trial court sentenced the defendant to an effective sentence of fifteen years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The defendant appeals, contending that the trial court erred when it sentenced him to confinement. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities, we affirm the trial court's judgments. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re Tristyn K. - Concurring
I agree with the majority that the absence of any evidence of the requirements of the permanency plan[s] sounds the “death knell” for the trial court’s finding that Mother failed to comply with those requirements. If we do not know what the requirements were – and we clearly do not – we cannot intelligently determine whether those requirements were satisfied or not. I completely concur in the majority’s decision to vacate the trial court’s judgment terminating Mother’s parental rights to the extent that decision is based upon a finding that she failed to substantially comply with the requirements of the plan(s). |
Anderson | Court of Appeals |