Opinions
State of Tennessee v. Nathaniel Lee Mitchell
Defendant, Nathaniel Lee Mitchell, appeals from his Giles County Circuit Court conviction for reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon, for which he received a sentence of two years, suspended to two years’ supervised probation. Defendant contends that the trial court erroneously admitted evidence of a prior incident in violation of Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b) and that the evidence of his reckless mental state was insufficient. Following a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Giles | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Romeashea Springfield v. Darwin Eton, M.D. ET AL.
In this healthcare liability case, appellant/patient appeals the trial court’s grant of appellee/doctor’s Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02 motion to dismiss and its grant of appellee/doctor’s employer’s Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.03 motion for judgment on the pleadings. The trial court held that appellant failed to comply with the pre-suit notice requirements found in Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-26-121. As such, the statute of limitations barred appellant’s claims against the doctor. Having granted the doctor’s motion to dismiss, the trial court applied the common-law, operation-of-law exception to dismiss appellant’s vicarious liability claims against the doctor’s employer. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Amanda Michelle Owen
Defendant, Amanda Michelle Owen, appeals the eight-year sentence imposed for her Blount County Circuit Court guilty-pleaded conviction of theft of property valued at $60,000 or more but less than $250,000, a Class B felony, arguing that the trial court erred by imposing a sentence of full incarceration. Because the record reflects that the trial court made the appropriate findings and that those findings are supported by the facts of this case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering that Defendant serve the entirety of her sentence in confinement, and, accordingly, we affirm. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Nathaniel T. Taylor v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Nathaniel Taylor, appeals the Knox County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his post-conviction petition. He argues that the post-conviction court erred in dismissing his petition because (1) his petition was unjustly denied in light of established law and under color of law; (2) he should have been appointed counsel and granted an evidentiary hearing in order to present his case; and (3) his conviction was based on the use of evidence gained pursuant to an unconstitutional search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Upon review of the entire record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the post-conviction court’s summary dismissal. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
CARBON FIBER RECYCLING, LLC v. TIMOTHY SPAHN
A Tennessee LLC sued one of its members seeking injunctive relief, monetary damages, and his expulsion as an LLC member. The trial court issued a temporary restraining order restraining the defendant from misappropriating, using, or disclosing the LLC’s trade secrets and confidential and proprietary business information. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint and dissolve the temporary restraining order based upon an arbitration provision, a choice of law provision, and a forum selection clause contained in the LLC’s operating agreement. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion and held that it lacked jurisdiction and venue based on the forum selection clause and that the LLC failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted due to the arbitration provision. We conclude that Tennessee law governs the operating agreement and affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint based upon the arbitration provision. However, we reverse the trial court’s holding that it lacked jurisdiction and venue over the LLC’s claims for temporary injunctive relief. |
Claiborne | Court of Appeals | |
Josh Boyd et al. v. William Chad Finchum et al.
This appeal concerns two issues: (1) whether a 2024 amendment to the unlawful detainer statute made possession bonds mandatory for all tenants in appeals from the general sessions court to the circuit court, abrogating the decision in Johnson v. Hopkins, 432 S.W.3d 840 (Tenn. 2013); and (2) whether a tenant’s failure to sign an affidavit of indigency filed in lieu of a cost bond deprives the circuit court of subject matter jurisdiction. Here, the general sessions court awarded possession of the property to the landlords and entered a monetary judgment for unpaid rent against the tenants. One of the tenants then filed a timely notice of appeal with an unsigned affidavit of indigency. The general sessions court found the tenant indigent and qualified to proceed on a pauper’s oath. But the circuit court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the tenant remained in possession of the property and did not post a bond equal to one year’s rent per Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-18-130(b)(2). This appeal followed. The tenant contends that a possession bond was unnecessary under the decision in Johnson because he did not seek to retain possession of the property pending the appeal, and he argues that his failure to sign the affidavit of indigency is a correctable, technical defect. We conclude that the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the tenant did not file a properly executed affidavit of indigency in the general sessions court. For this reason, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
SCOTT HENSLEY V. LAWRENCE SLATTERY, ET AL.
This is a property action involving the plaintiffs’ years long pursuit to establish a right-of-way to landlocked property. The trial court dismissed the action for failure to prosecute. We now vacate the order of dismissal and remand for further hearing. |
Jefferson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Craig Kitt
This matter is before the Court upon motion of the Defendant, Craig Kitt, for review of the trial court’s order denying his motion to reduce the amount of his pretrial bond. See Tenn. R. App. P. 8; Tenn. Code. Ann. § 40-11-144. The State opposes. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Charles W. Shoffner v. Ephraim Muvire Urevbu
A property developer purchased a portion of a two-story building without having fully examined the property prior to acquiring it. The only existing means of accessing the second floor of his property was via a staircase owned by his neighbor. The developer did not have an express easement to use the staircase, and disagreements arose between the developer and his neighbor over the developer’s use of his neighbor’s staircase. In response, the developer filed suit. The developer claimed an easement implied by prior use, an easement by necessity, and/or a prescriptive easement. At trial, the neighbor sought, in effect, an involuntary dismissal at the close of the developer’s proof. The trial court granted that motion, reasoning that the developer failed to meet his burden of proof with respect to all three of his easement theories. The developer appeals. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Andrew DiDomenico
A Williamson County jury convicted the Defendant, James Andrew DiDomenico, of four counts of rape, and the trial court imposed an effective sentence of ten years’ incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant raises several issues. First, he contends that the trial court committed the following trial errors: (1) excluding evidence that the victim was dating a former client; (2) admitting cumulative testimony that repeated the victim’s account; (3) admitting testimony concerning letters sent by the Defendant’s divorce attorneys to the victim; and (4) refusing to instruct the jury on the defense of mistake of fact. He further argues that, even if these alleged errors are individually insufficient to warrant reversal, their cumulative effect deprived him of a fair trial. The Defendant also challenges the denial of his motion for a new trial based on purportedly newly discovered evidence, as well as the trial court’s sentencing determinations. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Caprice Lashon Peete
The Defendant, Caprice Lashon Peete, was convicted by a Tipton County Circuit Court jury of first degree premeditated murder, for which he received a sentence of life imprisonment. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and argues that the trial court erred by not excusing a juror who failed to disclose that she knew one of the State’s primary witnesses, by not allowing the Defendant to cross-examine another State’s witness about the underlying facts of the witness’s 2023 conviction for convicted felon in possession of a firearm, and by allowing the prosecutor to make inappropriate comments in closing argument without an adequate curative instruction by the trial court or the trial court’s enforcing its order that the prosecutor retract the inappropriate comment. The Defendant further argues that he is entitled to a new trial under the doctrine of cumulative error. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Tipton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Tyler King et al. Mobasher Revocable Trust et al.
Because the order appealed lacks finality based on the failure to comply with Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 58 and no good cause exists to waive the procedural deficiency, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to consider this appeal. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
IN Re Zae'Alei R.
This is a termination of parental rights appeal. The trial court found that two statutory grounds existed to terminate mother’s parental rights to the two minor children: abandonment by failure to visit or support and persistence of conditions. The trial court found that three statutory grounds existed to terminate father’s parental rights to the minor children: abandonment by failure to visit or support, persistence of conditions, and abandonment due to father’s confinement of ten or more years. The trial court then concluded that termination was in the children’s best interests. We reverse the trial court’s findings on the grounds of abandonment by failure to visit or support. We affirm the remainder of the trial court’s judgment. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. David Patrick Lauderdale
The Defendant, David Patrick Lauderdale, was convicted by a jury of domestic assault, interfering with an emergency call, robbery, resisting arrest, felony evading arrest in a motor vehicle, aggravated assault, leaving the scene of an accident, violating the financial responsibility law, and driving with a canceled, suspended, or revoked license. On appeal, the sole issue presented for our review is whether the evidence is sufficient to support the robbery conviction. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Buchanan Dobson Dunavant v. The William B. Dunavant, Jr. Revocable Living Trust, et al.
This case involves the interpretation of a marital dissolution agreement (“MDA” ) in which the father was obligated to establish an irrevocable life insurance trust for his youngest child in an amount equal to the average of the after-tax funds received by his other children from four other trusts. He did not establish the trust before his death in 2021. Before he died, his youngest child sued to force him to create the trust. Ultimately, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the father’s estate and another trust he established, holding that the MDA trust was too vague and indefinite to enforce and that the father’s failure to establish the trust constituted a non-arbitrary disinheritance of the youngest child pursuant to the MDA. This Court, in Dunavant v. The William B. Dunavant, Jr. Revocable Living Trust, No. W2023-01213, 2024 WL 4211156 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 17, 2024), affirmed the trial court. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted the Rule 11 application for the Living Trust and the Estate, vacated the judgment, and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals “for further consideration in light of Pharma Conference Education v. State, 703 S.W.3d 305 (Tenn. 2024).” We reverse the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Ronnie Bradfield v. Mark Thoman, et al.
This is an accelerated interlocutory appeal as of right pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B § 2.02. We have determined that the petition must be summarily dismissed due to significant failures to comply with Rule 10B. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Leonard Gamble v. Eric Brian Friend
A property owner granted a friend permission to live on his property while the friend was renovating the owner’s house. Five years later, the owner filed a successful detainer action against the friend in general sessions court. The friend appealed the adverse judgment to circuit court and, in that forum, filed a counterclaim asserting multiple causes of action including breach of contract and quantum meruit. After a bench trial, the trial court granted the property owner a detainer and dismissed the friend’s counterclaims. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Romeaka Evans
Romeaka Evans, Defendant, was indicted by a Shelby County Grand Jury for second degree murder. After a jury trial, she was convicted as charged and sentenced to twenty-five years in incarceration as a Range I, standard offender. The trial court denied a motion for new trial, and Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court improperly denied a mistrial, that the evidence was insufficient, and that the trial court imposed an improper sentence. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ray Gene Elliott, III
The Defendant, Ray Gene Elliott, III, was convicted by a Knox County Criminal Court |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Joseph Baker, et al. v. Amanda Lynn Smith A/K/A Amanda Mitchell
The plaintiff entered into an agreement with a company to make certain improvements to |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Remington B.
The guardian ad litem filed a petition to terminate a mother’s parental rights to her child. After the mother failed to respond, the guardian ad litem moved for entry of a default judgment against her. The mother appeared pro se at the default judgment hearing and requested a continuance to allow for court appointed counsel. The court found the mother was entitled to appointed counsel but denied the continuance. After hearing the petitioner’s proof, the court found clear and convincing evidence of multiple grounds for termination and that termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. Under the circumstances, we conclude that the court erred in denying the mother a continuance to consult with counsel. So we vacate the termination of the mother’s parental rights and remand for further proceedings. |
Lawrence | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Brian Lee Fisk
Defendant, Brian Lee Fisk, appeals his Dyer County Circuit Court jury conviction of the sale of .5 grams or more of cocaine within a Drug-Free Zone, see Tenn. Code Ann. § 39- 17-432 (2014), challenging the sufficiency of the convicting evidence and the sentencing decision of the trial court. Because the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction and because the trial court did not commit plain error by sentencing Defendant under the terms of the Drug-Free Zone Act in effect at the time of the offense, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
IN RE KYLEIGH C.
This is a termination of parental rights appeal. The trial court found clear and convincing evidence to terminate mother’s parental rights to the minor child on two statutory grounds: severe child abuse and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to parent. The trial court further concluded that termination was in the child’s best interest. We affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Hamblen | Court of Appeals | |
IN RE KENDYL M.
This is a termination of parental rights appeal. The trial court found clear and convincing evidence to terminate mother’s parental rights to the minor child on two statutory grounds: severe child abuse and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to parent. The trial court further concluded that termination was in the child’s best interest. We affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Hamblen | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John David Cunningham
A Rutherford County jury convicted the Defendant, John David Cunningham, as charged of seven counts of rape of a child and six counts of aggravated sexual battery against his minor daughter, and the trial court imposed an effective 100-year sentence. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-13-522 (Supp. 2013), -504(a)(4). On appeal, the Defendant argues: (1) the trial court erred in admitting the child’s forensic interview; (2) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions; (3) the trial court erred in admitting evidence of his alleged prior bad acts; (4) the trial court abused its discretion in imposing partially consecutive sentencing; (5) the trial court erred in ordering the Defendant to stop taking depositions in the divorce case and to turn over existing deposition transcripts to the State; and (6) the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the State to utilize an unauthenticated excerpt of a transcript lacking the court reporter’s certification. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court but remand the case for entry of corrected judgment forms in Counts 1 through 13 to reflect the Defendant’s effective 100-year sentence. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals |