State of Tennessee v. Timothy Tylus Sorrells
Following a jury trial, Defendant, Timothy Tylus Sorrells, was convicted of first degree premeditated murder and abuse of a corpse. Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole for his murder conviction and one year as a Range I offender for abuse of a corpse, to be served concurrently. On appeal, Defendant argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions. Following our review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Vincent Roger Harris v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Vincent Roger Harris, appeals the dismissal of his post-conviction petition in which Petitioner alleged that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel in connection with the entry of his pleas of guilty, and that his guilty pleas were not voluntarily or knowingly entered. After a thorough review we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Abdirizak Omar Yussuf
Appellant, Rader Bonding Company, Inc., appeals the judgment of the Davidson County Criminal Court ordering complete forfeiture of the bail bond in the case of Defendant, Addirizak Omar Yussuf. Appellant argues that the State’s refusal to seek extradition of Defendant, who had fled to Sweden, constituted an extreme case under State v. Frankgos, 114 Tenn. 76, 85 S.W. 79, 80-81 (Tenn. 1905) which relieved Appellant of its responsibility under the bond agreement. Following a review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
George R. Croft v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, George R. Croft, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The petitioner was found guilty of especially aggravated robbery and felony murder in the perpetration of a robbery. He was sentenced as a Range I, violent offender to life imprisonment for the felony murder conviction and to twenty-two years for the especially aggravated robbery conviction. On appeal, he contends that his counsel were ineffective and that he should be granted a new trial because trial counsel did not conduct voir dire pursuant to Momon v. State, 18 S.W.3d 152 (Tenn. 1999), with regard to his desire to testify at trial. After careful review, we affirm the judgment from the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee, Department of Childrens' Services v. Tina Temple, et al.
This a termination of parental rights case. The children were removed from Father’s custody due to his lack of stable housing as well as his allowing Mother to “be with” the children despite her drug use. Numerous permanency plans were entered, which required Father, among other things, to maintain stable housing and income, legitimate the children, complete parenting classes, identify a support system, and attend family and domestic violence counseling. At various times, Father had employment and housing; however, at other times, he did not. In 2008, DCS petitioned to terminate Father’s parental rights. Following a trial, Father’s parental rights were terminated on the grounds of failure to comply with the requirements of the permanency plans, persistence of conditions, as well as three additional grounds available under Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-1-113(g)(9) for the termination of a non-legal parent’s rights. Although this Court finds that Father failed to obtain and maintain stable housing and income or to legitimate the children, we reverse the termination of Father’s parental rights, finding that DCS failed to aid Father in such efforts. The judgment of the trial court is reversed, the petition for termination is dismissed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee, Department of Children's Services, v. Tina Temple, et al. - Dissenting
I must respectfully dissent from the majority opinion in this case. Specifically, I disagree |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher R. Rickman
The defendant, Christopher R. Rickman, was convicted by a McNairy County jury of theft of property greater than $1000, a Class D felony, and possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor. He was subsequently sentenced to concurrent sentences of three years, to be suspended following service of ninety days, and eleven months and twenty-nine days. On appeal, the defendant raises two issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence presented was sufficient to support the convictions; and (2) whether the trial court erred in denying a sentence of full probation. Following review of the record, we find no error and affirm the convictions and resulting sentences. |
McNairy | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Darrell Walls v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Darrell Walls, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief and argues that counsel was ineffective for failing to adequately investigate his case. The petitioner entered a best interest plea to voluntary manslaughter, a Class C felony, and aggravated assault, a Class C felony. He was sentenced as a Range II, multiple offender to eight years in confinement. After careful review, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief by the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Steve Stamson, Clerk of Juvenile Court of Shelby County, Tennessee v. David Lillard
This appeal involves the application of Tenn. Code Ann. § 8-20-101 et seq. to civil service positions in Shelby County. The Juvenile Court entered a consent judgment on a salary petition filed by the Juvenile Court Clerk pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 8-20-101 et seq. This judgment allowed the Juvenile Court Clerk to fill certain civil service positions. When the positions were not filled, the Juvenile Court Clerk filed a Petition for Contempt. Subsequently, the Juvenile Court entered judgment on the Petition for Contempt. Finding that the Juvenile Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to award relief pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 8-20-101 et seq., we vacate its judgments and dismiss the case. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Gregory Allen Cathey v. State of Tennessee - Order
|
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Robbie Edwina Elmore v. Fleetguard, et al.
In this workers’ compensation case, the employee, Robbie Edwina Elmore, sustained compensable gradual injuries to her neck, shoulders and arms. The trial court made three separate awards, which totaled 122% to the body as a whole. On appeal, the employer, Fleetguard, and the Second Injury Fund contend that the trial court erred by failing to make a single award pursuant to the concurrent injury rule, and by finding that she was not permanently and totally disabled. We conclude that the concurrent injury rule is applicable. We therefore modify the judgment to award 65% permanent partial disability, and find it unnecessary to address the remaining argument.1 |
Putnam | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Elizabeth Leanne Hudson v. Larson Douglas Hudson - Dissenting
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Elizabeth Leanne Hudson v. Larson Douglas Hudson
This case involves an appeal concerning the relocation of Elizabeth Leanne Hudson (“Mother”) and her two minor children from Nashville, Tennessee, to Hopkinsville, Kentucky. Larson Douglas Hudson (“Father”) opposed the relocation. After a three day bench trial, the trial court granted Mother’s request to relocate after finding, pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-108, that the relocation was reasonable and not vindictive. The trial court also awarded Mother attorney’s fees. For the following reasons, we affirm the holding of the trial court regarding the relocation but reverse concerning the attorney’s fees.1 |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jonathan Scott Lemay
The defendant, Jonathan Scott Lemay, entered best interest pleas to robbery and aggravated assault, Class C felonies, in Sullivan County Criminal Court. The trial court imposed two concurrent five- year sentences to be served in the custody of the Department of Correction. In this appeal as of right, the defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying him alternative sentencing and by imposing sentences beyond the statutory minimum. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Patrick Harris v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Patrick Harris, was convicted by a jury of one count of first degree murder. His conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. See State v. Patrick Harris, No. W2004-00469-CCA-R3-CD, 2005 WL 468324 (Tenn. Crim. App., Jackson, Feb. 25, 2005). He filed a timely petition for post-conviction relief. He was appointed counsel and filed an amended petition alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. The Criminal Court of Shelby County denied his petition for post-conviction relief after two evidentiary hearings. He now appeals this denial. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re: O.J.B., D.O.B. 07/24/05, A Child Under 18 Years of Age
This case involves the termination of parental rights of a mother and father. Both parents were addicted to crack cocaine, and the child tested positive for cocaine at birth. The child was taken into DCS custody and placed in a foster home at three days old. Three months later, the mother was arrested and sentenced to three years in prison as a habitual offender. When the child was 18 months old, DCS filed a petition to terminate the mother’s parental rights based on the ground of abandonment by an incarcerated parent. The father had visited the child only twice since she was placed in foster care, and DCS sought to terminate his parental rights for failure to file a petition to establish paternity. The trial court terminated both parents’ parental rights upon finding that termination was in the child’s best interest. Both parents appeal. We affirm. Tenn. R. App. P. 3; Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Juvenile Court Affirmed |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Thomas M. Gautreaux v. Internal Medicine Education - Dissenting
|
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Thomas M. Gautreaux v. Internal Medicine Education Foundation, Inc.
This case1 involves the interpretation of a portion of the Tennessee Public Records Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 10-7-503. The trial court found that despite the fact the defendant foundation qualified for the statutory exemption set forth in Tenn. Code Ann. § 10-7-503(d)(1), the entity is subject to the Tennessee Public Records Act because it is the functional equivalent of a public agency. The foundation has appealed. We affirm. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Lontrell Williams
The defendant, Lontrell Williams, appeals the revocation of his probation, arguing that the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard when finding that he had violated the terms of his probation. He, therefore, requests that this court remand for a new probation revocation hearing. The State concedes that the trial court applied an incorrect standard and joins in the defendant’s request for a new revocation hearing under the appropriate standard. We agree that the trial court erroneously based the revocation of the defendant’s probation on a probable cause, rather than a preponderance of the evidence, standard. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for a new probation revocation hearing. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Mary Beth Vancleave v. Reelfoot Bank
This is a retaliatory discharge case. The plaintiff was employed by the defendant bank. The plaintiff was asked by a customer to open an account in a manner that the plaintiff believed was illegal. The plaintiff refused to do so, and shortly afterward was terminated by the bank. The plaintiff employee filed suit against the bank, asserting claims of common law and statutory retaliatory discharge. After discovery, the bank filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the bank, finding that the plaintiff failed to state a claim under either theory because the purported violation of the various statutes and regulations cited by the plaintiff employee did not implicate an important public policy or an illegal activity affecting the public health, safety or welfare. The trial court also found the plaintiff employee, in refusing to open the requested account, had no intent to further the public good, but sought only to protect the bank. The plaintiff employee appeals. We reverse, finding that some of the statutory provisions at issue implicate important public policy and can constitute the basis for a retaliatory discharge claim, and that intent to further the public good is not a required element. |
Weakley | Court of Appeals | |
Grapevine Trucking, LLC. v. Carolina Casualty Insurance Company, et al.
Grapevine Trucking, LLC (“Grapevine”) sued Carolina Casualty Insurance Company (“Carolina Casualty”) and American Southern Insurance Company (“American Southern Insurance”) alleging breach of insurance contracts. The Trial Court granted Carolina Casualty summary judgment dismissing them from the suit. The Trial Court also granted Grapevine partial summary judgment finding that the theft of a truck and trailer covered by Grapevine’s policy with American Southern Insurance had occurred and that American Southern Insurance was liable. The issue of damages was tried, and the Trial Court entered its order finding and holding, inter alia, that the combined value of the stolen truck and trailer was $53,000 and that Grapevine was entitled to a judgment against American Southern Insurance for $53,000, plus state sales tax on Grapevine’s loss in the amount of $3,710. American Southern Insurance appeals. We affirm. |
Bledsoe | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Demario Johnson Aka Leo Scott
The defendant, Demario Johnson, a.k.a. Leo Scott, was convicted of first degree (premeditated) murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal, he argues that: the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; the trial court improperly responded to a juror’s question; and the trial court erred in admitting photographs into evidence. After careful review, we affirm the judgment from the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
William Alan Watermeier v. Sherry Dunaway Moss AND Thomas R. Moss III
This is a petition to establish parentage case. Father/Appellant appeals from the dismissal of his petition. Finding that the requirements of Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-2-304(b)(2) have not been met and that Appellant is the child’s biological and legal father, we reverse and remand. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Estate of Jeffrey Mauro Cusatis vs. Robert R. Casey, M.D.
In this appeal, plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of defendant. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Anderson | Court of Appeals | |
Rachel Sumner v. Metropolitan Nashville Board of Health
Appellants, citizens of Davidson County, sought review of the County’s mosquito control policies, which were in effect in 2005. Upon review, the Appellee, Metropolitan Board of Health of Nashville and Davidson County, denied Appellants’ claim for lack of standing. The trial court granted Appellants’ common law writ of certiorari and affirmed the Board’s findings. Upon review, we conclude that the Appellants’ have no standing, and that the issues presented are rendered moot based upon the County’s adoption of a new mosquito control policy in 2008. Affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals |