Jason Morris v. City of Memphis Civil Service Commission
This is an appeal from the decision of the Civil Service Commission of the City of Memphis, upholding the decision to terminate Appellant, Jason Morris’ employment with the Memphis Police Department. We find that the Civil Service Commission failed to make the required findings of fact and conclusions therefrom. Accordingly, it is impossible for this Court to review the case based on the record before it. Therefore, we vacate the order of the Chancery Court and remand for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Andra Guy
The Defendant-Appellant, Andra Guy, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony. The trial court sentenced Guy as a mitigated offender to 7.2 years in the county workhouse with a release eligibility of twenty percent. On appeal, Guy argues: (1) the evidence was insufficient to convict him, and (2) the trial court erred in failing to grant a motion for judgment of acquittal or a motion for new trial based on allegedly exculpatory polygraph evidence. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ronald Lester Brooks
The Defendant-Appellant, Ronald Lester Brooks, pleaded guilty in the Madison County Circuit Court to aggravated burglary, a Class C felony; possession of less than point five (.5) grams of cocaine with the intent to sell, a Class C felony; felony evading arrest, a Class E felony; and a third offense of driving on a revoked license, a Class A misdemeanor. The sole issue presented for our review is whether the trial court erred in ordering Brooks to serve his felony sentences consecutively. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tycorrian Chandler
Following a jury trial, Defendant, Tycorrian Chandler, was found guilty of first degree premeditated murder and sentenced to life with the possibility of parole. On appeal, Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Cody Matthew Headrick - Dissenting/Concurring
While I agree with the procedural analysis in the majority opinion, I respectfully disagree with the result. The facts of this case reveal a young Defendant who, while driving in excess of eighty miles per hour, lost control of his vehicle and struck another car, which was stopped at an intersection. The two passengers in the Defendant’s car and all three occupants of the stopped car were injured. A passenger in the stopped car died at the scene, and one of the passengers in the Defendant’s car was admitted to the Intensive Care Unit for several days. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Cody Matthew Headrick
The State appeals from the Hamilton County Criminal Court’s decision to order the prosecution to grant pretrial diversion to the defendant, Cody Matthew Headrick, who was indicted for vehicular homicide. First, the State maintains that an appeal as of right pursuant to Rule 3 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure lies from the trial court’s overruling the denial of diversion by the assistant district attorney general. In the alternative, the State requests that this court treat its improperly-filed Rule 3 appeal as an extraordinary appeal under Rule 10 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Tenn. R. App. P. 3(c), 10(a). Second, the State argues that the trial court erred in reversing the assistant district attorney general’s denial of pretrial diversion. Upon our review, we hold that the State’s appeal does not present a proper Rule 3 appeal and that, although the case does meet the threshold of Rule 10 review, the order should be affirmed. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Charlotte Branson v. Joyce Fitzgerald, D/B/A Realty Executives of Kingston
Charlotte Branson (“Plaintiff”) sued Joyce Fitzgerald, d/b/a Realty Executives of Kingston with |
Roane | Court of Appeals | |
In RE: M.M.M. (d/o/b 10/13/2007), A Child Under Eighteen (18) Years of Age
The juvenile court terminated the parental rights of the appellant, L.M. (“Mother”), on April 7, 2009. The court found multiple grounds for termination and concluded that termination was in the best interests of the child. Mother appeals. We affirm in part and reverse in part. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
Robin Lee Stanfill, et al v. John T. Mountain, et al. - Concurring/Dissenting
I concur in most of the majority’s well-reasoned analysis. I write separately, however, to state my disagreement that Mr. and Mrs. Mountain and Mr. Brooks shifted the burden of production to the Stanfills with respect to the allegation of fraudulent concealment of mold. |
Maury | Supreme Court | |
Robin Lee Stanfill, et al v. John T. Mountain, et al
The buyers of real property brought this action against the sellers and the real estate agent after discovering numerous allegedly dangerous and defective conditions in the house and on the property. The issue in this case is the propriety of the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendants. After review, we conclude that there are no genuine issues of material fact and the defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the plaintiffs’ claims regarding the alleged mold infestation of the house, and that Mrs. Mountain is entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ claim regarding the underground fuel storage tanks. As to the remainder of the plaintiffs’ claims, we conclude that summary judgment was improper because the plaintiffs met their burden in establishing the existence of several genuine issues of material fact. We affirm in part and reverse in part the trial court’s judgment and remand for further proceedings |
Maury | Supreme Court | |
Thomas Cothran v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Thomas Cothran, was convicted by a jury of four counts of aggravated vehicular homicide, three counts of vehicular assault, and one count of driving under the influence. The petitioner now appeals the denial of post-conviction relief, claiming the post-conviction court erred in finding that he received effective assistance of counsel. Upon our review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Hickman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ronald Yates v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Ronald Yates, appeals the post-conviction court’s dismissal of his petition for postconviction relief, arguing that dismissal was improper because the court did not make specific findings or conduct an evidentiary hearing. He additionally argues that if the court’s intent was to dismiss on grounds that the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel had been previously determined, such action was in error because he had different trial and appellate counsel. After review, we conclude that the post-conviction court erred in dismissing the petition without conducting an evidentiary hearing as to the petitioner’s claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. Therefore, we reverse the dismissal and remand for proceedings consistent with the Post-Conviction Procedure Act. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Michael Joseph Grant v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Michael Joseph Grant, appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief from his aggravated burglary and theft convictions for which he received an effective four-year suspended sentence and from the revocation of his probation. He entered pleas of guilty to aggravated burglary and theft and was sentenced to four years, which was suspended. His petition for post-conviction relief asserted that his pleas of guilty were involuntary and unknowing, that his confession was coerced, that the State failed to provide immunity to him, that law enforcement personnel conspired to violate his right to due process, and that the trial court erred n revoking his probation. The post-conviction court dismissed the petition, and the Petitioner filed an untimely appeal. On appeal, the Petitioner contends, and the State agrees, that the post-conviction court erred in dismissing the petition without a hearing. Following our review, we agree and remand for the appointment of counsel and an evidentiary hearing. |
Bradley | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Annette Hamby aka Annette Tran-McNabb
The Defendant, Annette Hamby, appeals as of right from her Bradley County jury conviction for first degree premeditated murder. She contends that the evidence, which included proof of her intoxication, was insufficient for the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that she premeditated the crime. We affirm the judgment of the trial court |
Bradley | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. April Jennifer Warren
The Defendant, April Jennifer Warren, was convicted upon her guilty plea in the Blount County Circuit Court of voluntary manslaughter, a Class C felony. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the Defendant received a Range II, ten-year sentence with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered the Defendant to serve the sentence in confinement. The Defendant appeals, contending that the trial court erred in denying alternative sentencing. Based upon conduct by the trial judge, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for resentencing. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jesse Daniel Wright
Following a jury trial, Defendant, Jesse Daniel Wright, was convicted of driving under the influence, a Class A misdemeanor, possession of a Schedule III narcotic, a Class A misdemeanor, and running a stop sign, a Class C misdemeanor. Following a sentencing hearing, Defendant was sentenced to concurrent sentences of eleven months, twenty-nine days for each Class A misdemeanor conviction, and thirty days for his Class C misdemeanor conviction, for an effective sentence of eleven months, twenty-nine days, all of which was suspended after serving ten days in confinement. On appeal, Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of driving under the influence of an intoxicant. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Robert Philip Rayburn, Sr. v. Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee
This opinion addresses an appeal from a judgment affirming the disbarment of an attorney by a hearing panel designated by the Board of Professional Responsibility. The first issue presented is whether the panel was divested of jurisdiction when the Board approved a proposed offer of a conditional guilty plea that the attorney later accepted with modifications. A second issue is whether the attorney was entitled to a voluntary nonsuit in the trial court after filing a petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of the adverse decision by the panel. Initially, the panel retained jurisdiction to enter the order of disbarment. Further, because the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure apply to our rules of disciplinary enforcement, an attorney who files a petition for writ of certiorari is entitled to a voluntary nonsuit; however, principles of sovereign immunity preclude the application of the one-year savings statute, Tennessee Code Annotated section 28-1-105(a). A petition for certiorari must, therefore, be filed within sixty days of the panel judgment in order to preserve an appeal. In summary, the voluntary nonsuit is granted; however, the appeal is dismissed because a second petition for writ of certiorari was not timely filed. We, therefore, reverse the judgment of the trial court as to the denial of a voluntary nonsuit; we affirm the judgment of disbarment by the panel. |
Hamilton | Supreme Court | |
Edd Stepp v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Edd Stepp, pled guilty to nine counts of aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony, and was sentenced as a violent offender to twelve years for each count, with four of the sentences to be served consecutively, for an effective sentence of forty-eight years. On appeal, this court modified his sentences to eight years for each count, with two of the sentences to be served consecutively, for an effective sentence of sixteen years. The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief which, following an evidentiary hearing, was dismissed by the post-conviction court. On appeal, the Petitioner argues, and the State concedes, that the post-conviction court erred in finding that the guilty pleas of the Petitioner were knowing and voluntary and in dismissing the petition. Following our review, we agree, reverse the order of the post-conviction court, and remand for the granting of post-conviction relief. |
Cocke | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Martino Kelley
The defendant, Martino Kelley, was convicted of the first degree (premeditated) murder of his wife and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. On appeal, he argues that: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction; (2) the State’s attorney committed reversible error in referencing the jury’s responsibility to the community; and (3) the trial court abused its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to continue the trial. After careful review, we affirm the judgment from the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Philander Butler v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Philander Butler, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court's dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The State has moved to have this court summarily affirm the dismissal pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals. We grant the motion and affirm the order of dismissal pursuant to Rule 20. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennesse v. Sonny Dean Farrow
The Defendant, Sonny Dean Farrow, pled guilty in the Jefferson County Circuit Court to aggravated burglary and theft, receiving a sentence of six years on supervised probation. Following the filing of several probation violation warrants and finding that the Defendant violated the terms of his probationary sentence, the trial court revoked his probation and ordered the Defendant to serve the balance of his sentence in custody. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering the Defendant to serve his sentence. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Jefferson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Genaro Edgar Espinosa Dorantes - Concurring and Dissenting
I concur with most of the decisions and reasoning in the majority opinion, including the reversal of the aggravated child abuse conviction for insufficient evidence. I respectfully dissent, however, from the opinion’s affirming the felony murder conviction. I would reverse and vacate the felony murder conviction, as well. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Genaro Edgar Espinosa Dorantes
Defendant-Appellant, Genaro Edgar Espinosa Dorantes (“Dorantes”) was convicted by a Davidson County jury of first degree felony murder during the perpetration of aggravated child abuse and aggravated child abuse by infliction of injury. For the felony murder conviction, Dorantes received a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment. The trial court later sentenced him as Range I, standard offender to a consecutive term of twenty-two years’ incarceration for the aggravated child abuse conviction. Dorantes argues: (1) the record is insufficient to support both his conviction for first degree felony murder based on aggravated child abuse and his conviction for aggravated child abuse; (2) the trial court erred in admitting certain photographs of the victim’s body; (3) the trial court erred when it refused to provide a special jury instruction that ensured that the verdicts were based on acts of abuse rather than a continuing course of neglect; (4) the trial court erred in denying his motion to require the State to make an election of offenses; and (5) his sentence of twenty-two years for the aggravated child abuse conviction was excessive. After a careful review of the record and the issues presented, we conclude the evidence is insufficient to support the aggravated child abuse conviction; therefore, we reverse and vacate the conviction for the aggravated child abuse and modify Dorantes’ sentence to life imprisonment. The judgment of the trial court for the felony murder conviction is affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Estate of Mary E. Dillard, Deceased v. Tennessee Bureau of Tenncare
Bureau of TennCare filed a petition pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 30-1-301 seeking the appointment of an administrator of the estate of a deceased TennCare recipient in order to recover the amount of medical assistance and services provided decedent. Trial court declined to appoint an administrator, finding that the statute of limitations at Tenn. Code Ann. § 30-2-310(b) barred the claim of TennCare. We reverse the trial court decision in light of In Re: Estate of Martha M. Tanner and remand the case for further proceedings. |
Lawrence | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Merl Wayne Medley
In Cause C07-176, the Defendant-Appellant, Merl Wayne Medley, was convicted by an Obion County jury of two counts of attempted first degree murder, Class A felonies, and two counts of aggravated assault, Class C felonies. In the same cause, Medley was also found guilty through a bench trial of one count of retaliation for past action, a Class E felony, and one count of violation of an order of protection, a Class A misdemeanor. In Cause C07-177, Medley was convicted by a jury of one count of aggravated assault, a Class C felony, and one count of simple assault, a Class A misdemeanor. In Cause CC-07-CR-233, Medley was convicted by a jury of one count of solicitation to commit first degree murder, a Class B felony. In Cause C07-176, one of the convictions for attempted first degree murder and both of the convictions for aggravated assault were merged into the remaining conviction for attempted first degree murder, for which Medley received a twenty-five-year sentence at 30%. He also received a sentence of two years at 30% for the retaliation for past action conviction and a sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days for the violation of an order of protection conviction, which were to be served concurrently with the attempted first degree murder conviction. In Cause C07-177, the assault conviction was merged into the aggravated assault conviction, for which Medley received a six-year sentence at 30%. In Cause CC-07-CR-233, Medley received a twelve-year sentence at 30% for the solicitation to commit first degree murder conviction. The trial court ordered that the twenty-five-year sentence for the attempted first degree murder conviction, the twelve-year sentence for the solicitation to commit first degree murder conviction, and the six-year sentence for the aggravated assault conviction be served consecutively for an effective sentence of forty-three years. In this appeal, Medley challenges the trial court’s (1) refusal to suppress his statement, (2) joinder of the offense of solicitation to commit first degree murder to the offenses of attempted first degree murder and aggravated assault; and (3) imposition of consecutive sentences. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Obion | Court of Criminal Appeals |