James Crowley et al. v. Wendy Thomas
The issue on appeal is whether a defendant, who appealed from an adverse judgment rendered against her in the general sessions court, may dismiss the appeal at any time in the circuit court and thereby dismiss the plaintiff’s additional claims asserted in an amended complaint in the circuit court. Following the defendant’s appeal to the circuit court, the plaintiff/appellee filed an amended complaint adding his wife as an additional plaintiff, asserting additional claims and seeking additional damages. On the eve of trial, the defendant filed a Notice of Dismissal of Appeal and Motion to Affirm General Sessions Judgment. The plaintiffs objected to the dismissal of their amended complaint, insisting that they had the right to proceed with their new and additional claims. The circuit court held that the party appealing from a general sessions judgment is entitled to dismiss the appeal at any time, without the consent of the adverse party, and the affirmance of the general sessions judgment. We affirm the decision of the circuit court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Susan L. Bowman, Individually and as Surviving Spouse of Anthony J. Bowman, Deceased and as Next Friend of Joel Bowman, a Minor v. City of Memphis
The trial court dismissed Plaintiff’s claim under the Governmental Tort Liability Act for |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Agatha Rannah Hodge
Appellant Agatha Rannah Hodge was charged with fifty counts of theft and one count of burglary. She pled guilty to one count of theft of property valued between $1,000 and $10,000 and one count of burglary. The remaining charges were dismissed. She was sentenced to four years for the theft conviction and three years for the burglary conviction, with the sentences to run consecutively. The trial court ordered the Appellant to serve seven months in confinement, with the remainder to be served on probation. She subsequently pled guilty to violating the rules of her probation, and the trial court ordered her to serve her sentences in confinement. She appeals, arguing the revocation was excessive. We affirm. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Stephanie Mayfield
The defendant, Stephanie Mayfield, appeals the Madison County Circuit Court’s revocation of her community corrections sentence and subsequent resentencing. The defendant, in two separate cases, pled guilty to ten counts of Class D felony identity theft and received an effective four-year sentence to be served in the Community Corrections Program. A violation warrant was later issued, alleging that the defendant had violated the terms and conditions of her agreement. Following a revocation hearing, the trial court ordered revocation of the defendant’s community corrections sentence. After a sentencing hearing, the court again imposed sentences of four years for each conviction but ordered that the two sentences be served consecutively for an effective sentence of eight years. On appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court erred in ordering revocation based upon the testimony of the current case officer. The defendant further challenges the imposed sentence due to the reliance on prior criminal charges and the imposition of consecutive sentencing. Following review of the record, we find no error and affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Pamela Michelle Hubanks
The Defendant-Appellant, Pamela Michelle Hubanks, was convicted by the Madison County Circuit Court of one count of theft of property valued at $500 or less, a Class A misdemeanor, and sentenced to eleven months and twenty-nine days, with 180 days of confinement to be served day-for-day in the county jail and the balance to be served on supervised probation. On appeal, Hubanks argues: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction; (2) the trial court erred in ordering her to serve 180 days in confinement, erred in ordering her to serve her 180 days of confinement day-for-day, and erred in denying full probation. Upon review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment but remand for entry of a corrected judgment to remove the day-for-day provision from the 180 days of confinement and to insert a service percentage of 75 percent. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Octavia Cartwright v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Octavia Cartwright, appeals the denial of her petition for post-conviction relief. She is currently serving a ninety-one-year sentence for her convictions for attempted first degree murder, two counts of especially aggravated robbery, especially aggravated burglary, four counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, and one count of evading arrest in a motor vehicle with risk of death or injury. On appeal, she contends that she received ineffective assistance of counsel. After careful review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of relief. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennesse v. Richard H. Green
The appellant, Richard H. Green, pled guilty to driving on a revoked license, second offense, a Class A misdemeanor. He was sentenced to 11 months and 29 days, with 120 days to serve in jail and the remainder of his sentence to be served on probation. On appeal, the appellant contends that the trial court erred when it ordered him to serve part of his sentence in confinement. After a through review of the evidence and the applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Warren | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Michael Sneed v. Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee
In this direct appeal of a lawyer disciplinary proceeding involving eight separate complaints, we must determine whether the trial court correctly affirmed the hearing panel’s finding that attorney Michael Sneed violated numerous ethical rules and should be disbarred from the practice of law. Sneed contends that his disciplinary proceedings were procedurally unlawful because the hearing panel did not (1) conduct a prehearing conference as required by Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, section 13.6, (2) authorize the filing of two supplemental petitions for discipline, or (3) allow him to call as witnesses disciplinary counsel or the Board of Professional Responsibility’s executive secretary. He also asserts that the evidence does not support the hearing panel’s findings of professional misconduct and that he was denied a meaningful review in the trial court because the trial court failed to properly schedule and review his appeal from the hearing panel. Finally, Sneed challenges the finding of the hearing panel and the trial court that he should be disbarred from the practice of law. After careful review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court disbarring Mr. Sneed. |
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Stephen Gregory Spencer, Alias Gregory Spencer
The Defendant, Stephen Gregory Spencer, pled guilty to two counts of possession of marijuana, Class E felonies, one count of possession of a handgun with the intent to go armed, a Class A misdemeanor, one count of theft of property valued at over one thousand dollars, a Class D felony, and one count of theft of property valued at over ten thousand dollars, a Class C felony. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of eight years as a Range I, standard offender to be served in community corrections. A community corrections violation warrant issued alleging that the Defendant failed to report and continued to use illegal drugs. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court revoked the community corrections sentences and ordered the sentences to be served in incarceration. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred in ordering the service of his sentences in incarceration. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Lavon Denise Ransom
Appellant, Lavon Denise Ransom, pled guilty in Bedford County to two counts of possession of cocaine for resale, two counts of possession of cocaine for delivery, and one count of selling cocaine. Several of the convictions were merged by the trial court, and Appellant received an effective ten-year sentence. She appeals the denial of alternative sentencing. After a review of the record, we determine that the trial court properly denied alternative sentencing where Appellant had an extensive criminal history, had failed to comply with conditions of sentences involving release into the community and confinement was needed to protect society by restraining a defendant who has a long history of criminal conduct, and to avoid depreciating the seriousness of the offenses. Therefore, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Leornard Porter, Jr. et al. v. City of Clarksville et al.
This action arises from the issuance of stop work orders that prevented the plaintiffs from |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Angela Ann Collins
Appellant, Angela Ann Collins, was indicted by the Dickson County Grand Jury for driving under the influence (“DUI”) and violation of the implied consent law. She was convicted by a jury. Appellant appeals her conviction and the sentence imposed by the trial court. Because we determine that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Appellant, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Dickson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Laura June Mays
The Defendant-Appellant, Laura Mays, was convicted by a Hardeman County jury of theft of property between $10,000 and $60,000, a Class C felony. She received a three-year sentence, but was subsequently placed on probation. Her probation was revoked by the trial court because of her failure to make restitution payments. In her first appeal, this court reversed the trial court’s revocation of her probation and directed the trial court to set a reasonable amount for restitution payments. On remand, the trial court again revoked Mays’ probation. Mays now appeals the revocation of her probation, claiming the trial court did not follow this court’s mandate from her first appeal. Upon review, we again reverse the judgment of the trial court, and remand this matter for a determination of Mays’ ability to pay restitution. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Gerraldo White
The Defendant, Gerraldo White, was charged with one count of first degree premeditated murder and one count of felony murder. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-202(a)(1), (2). He was also charged with one count of especially aggravated robbery, a Class A felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-403(b). Following a jury trial, he was convicted of one count of felony murder, one count of especially aggravated robbery, and one count of second degree murder, a Class A felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-210(c). The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I, standard offender to fifteen years for second degree murder and fifteen years for especially aggravated robbery. It also sentenced him to life in prison for felony murder. The trial court ordered that the Defendant serve his sentences concurrently with one another, for a total effective sentence of life in the Department of Correction. In this direct appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress a statement he made to police; and (2) the State presented evidence insufficient to convict him of felony murder, second degree murder or especially aggravated robbery. After our review, we affirm the Defendant’s conviction for first degree felony murder. We direct that the second degree murder conviction be merged into the first degree murder conviction. We modify the conviction for especially aggravated robbery to a conviction for aggravated robbery, and we remand for sentencing on the aggravated robbery conviction. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Judith Ann Lesko v. Tennessee School Board, et al.
This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation |
Moore | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Carlos Hardy v. State of Tennessee
A Davidson County jury convicted Petitioner, Carlos Hardy, of second degree murder, and the trial court sentenced him to twenty-five years as a Range I, violent offender. State v. Carlos Hardy, No M2004-02249-CCA-R3-CD, 2006 WL 359677, at *6 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Feb. 10, 2006), perm. app. denied, (Tenn. Jul. 3, 2006). Petitioner was unsuccessful in his appeal to this Court. Id. at *15. He filed a petition for post-conviction relief raising a number of issues including an allegation that he was afforded the ineffective assistance of counsel. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied the petition. On appeal, Petitioner argues that the post-conviction court erred in denying his petition with regard to the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel. We have reviewed the record on appeal and conclude that the post-conviction court did not err in denying the petition. Therefore, we affirm the decision of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Alisia Arias v. Duro Standard Products Company, et al.
The employee sought workers’ compensation benefits, contending that she had developed occupational asthma as a result of exposure to dust in the workplace. The employee offered into evidence the written report of a physician who performed an independent medical evaluation of the employee at the request of the employee’s attorney. The employer objected to the introduction of the report, contending that Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-235 is the exclusive method of introducing medical proof in workers’ compensation cases and that this statute permits the employer to depose the expert whose report is offered into evidence. Overruling the objection, the trial court admitted the report into evidence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Evidence 803(6) and awarded workers’ compensation benefits to the employee based on the physician’s report. The employer appealed. We conclude that the trial court erred by admitting the evaluating physician’s report into evidence and that the remaining admissible evidence is insufficient to establish either causation or permanency. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court awarding workers’ compensation benefits is vacated, and the complaint is dismissed. |
Madison | Supreme Court | |
Andrew Carter v. Quality Outdoor Products, Inc., et al.
The employee filed suit seeking workers’ compensation benefits and provided notice to the employer of his intent to rely at trial on a physician’s report generated pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-235. The employer objected to the introduction of the medical report and notified the employee of its intent to depose the physician pursuant to the same section. The employer moved to exclude the medical report when it was unable to depose the physician. The trial court denied the employer’s motion to exclude the physician’s report but granted the employer permission to seek an interlocutory appeal. We hold that the physician’s unavailability to provide the deposition requested by the employer pursuant to section 50-6-235 renders the physician’s written report inadmissible. We further hold that the physician’s report is not admissible pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Evidence 804 as an exception to the hearsay rule. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s ruling and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Madison | Supreme Court | |
Courtney Renee Goins vs. Jerry Wayne Gay
Upon petition of the Mother, the trial court entered an order modifying a Texas child support order and changing the support in accordance with the Tennessee Child Support Guidelines. The Father appealed, contending that the trial court improperly assumed jurisdiction and without authority, modified the Texas court child support order. We reverse in part as to the modification of the Texas court order, affirm in part as to the name change request, and remand. |
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
Linda Kay Gaines, et ux. v. Leslie McCarter Tenney, et al.
In a negligence action arising from an automobile accident, the original trial resulted in a jury |
Sevier | Court of Appeals | |
Carol McKee-Livingston v. Mark Livingston
In an attempt to collect money due from her ex-husband on a judgment for back child support and spousal support, ex-wife had a writ of garnishment served upon a corporation making quarterly payments to the ex-husband under a settlement agreement. The issue on appeal is whether the January 30, 2008 garnishment notice attached payments due the ex-husband in May 2008. Because the corporation had a debt to the ex-husband at the time of the garnishment notice, although the debt was not payable until a later time, we have determined that the garnishment notice attached the May 2008 payment. Since the corporation made the May 2008 payment directly to the ex-husband, the corporation is liable to the ex-wife. We, therefore, reverse the decision of the circuit court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kenneth Ray Kilpatrick
The defendant, Kenneth Ray Kilpatrick, appeals from his Wayne County Circuit Court jury conviction of simple possession of a Schedule IV controlled substance, a Class A misdemeanor. He claims on appeal that the evidence convicting him was legally insufficient. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Wayne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Randy Ralph
The Defendant, Randy Ralph, appeals from his conviction by a jury in the Circuit Court for Warren County for driving an unregistered vehicle, a Class C misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to serve thirty days in jail and imposed a fine of $50. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to convict him, that he should have been convicted under a different Code section, that he was improperly tried in the circuit court for a small offense, and that he should not have been sentenced to jail. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Warren | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Maurice Williams
The defendant, Maurice Williams, was convicted of carjacking and aggravated robbery, both Class B felonies, and sentenced to consecutive terms of twenty-eight years and twenty-five years, respectively. On appeal, he argues that the trial court should have granted a new trial because of a variance between the allegations of the indictment and the trial proof; the proof was insufficient to sustain his convictions; and the trial court erred in application of an enhancement factor and ordering consecutive sentencing. Following review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Wanda Banker v. George, David, Charles, Terry, and Clifford Foster, Nancy Shannon, Patrick Kirk, Carolyn Foster, as Gaurdian of Black Foster, Brandon Foster, Ashley Foster and Lyndall L. Daniel
This boundary dispute appeal involves an indispensable and necessary party. The plaintiff and the defendants own adjoining tracts of land in a rural area. After questions about their common boundary arose, the defendants hired a surveyor. The defendants’ surveyor |
Henderson | Court of Appeals |