William Justin Brewster v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant, William Justin Brewster, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief by the Knox County Criminal Court. Brewster argues that the post-conviction court erred in denying him relief on his asserted claims of ineffective assistance of counsel both during trial and on appeal. Upon thorough review, we conclude that the post-conviction court correctly denied the petition and affirm. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Flautt & Mann, a Partnership v. The Council of The City Of Memphis, et al.
This appeal involves protracted litigation concerning the zoning of a parcel of land located in Memphis, Tennessee. After a bridge, which provided the only access to the property, collapsed, the landowners planned to install and maintain billboards on the subject parcel by helicopter. The landowners initially applied to the Memphis City Council to have the subject parcel re-zoned from agricultural uses to commercial uses. The Memphis City Council rejected the landowners’ application. The landowners filed a petition for review by common law and statutory writ of certiorari and an action for declaratory judgment in the circuit court. The circuit court entered an order reversing the decision of the Memphis City Council and remanding the case to the Council for a new hearing. Upon remand, the Memphis City Council once again rejected the landowners’ application. The landowners filed a petition for contempt in the circuit court alleging the Council violated the court's order on remand. The trial court found that the Council violated its order, but that the Council was not in willful contempt of the court’s order because it relied on the erroneous advice of its lawyer in interpreting the order. The trial court remanded the case to the Memphis City Council for a new hearing. The City filed an appeal in this Court. After noting that reliance on the advice of counsel is not a defense to contempt, we reversed the trial court’s decision and remanded the case to the trial court to determine if the contempt was willful. On remand, the trial court found that the City was in willful contempt of the trial court’s order and assessed daily damages of $1,500, accruing from June 13, 2003 order, until the Council complied with the court’s order. The City filed a second appeal in this Court. We vacate the trial court’s damages order and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Cameron Winselle
A Shelby County jury found the Defendant, Cameron Winselle, guilty of two counts of first degree murder, and the trial court sentenced him to two consecutive life sentences. On appeal, the Defendant claims the evidence does not sufficiently support his convictions. Finding no error, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Dale Rimmer
The Defendant, Michael Rimmer, was convicted of one count of premeditated murder, one count of aggravated robbery, and one count of theft of property. In the penalty phase of the trial, the jury imposed a sentence of death for the first degree murder. On appeal as of right, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the convictions, reversed the sentence of death, and remanded to the trial court for a second sentencing hearing. State v. Rimmer (Rimmer I), No. W1999-00637-CCA-R3-DD, 2001WL 567960 (Tenn. Crim. App. May 25, 2001). At the conclusion of that proceeding, a different jury imposed the death penalty based upon one statutory aggravating circumstance, i.e. that the defendant had a previous conviction for a felony with statutory elements involving violence to the person. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-204(i)(2) (1997). As required for the imposition of a sentence of death, the jury also concluded that the aggravating circumstance outweighed the mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. This sentence was affirmed by the Court of Criminal Appeals. State v. Rimmer (Rimmer II), No. W2004-02240-CCA-R3-DD, 2006 WL 3731206 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec.15, 2006). Our review is mandatory. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206(c)(1) (2006). Upon careful review of the entire record, we hold as follows: (1) although the trial court erred during the sentencing hearing by excluding evidence solely on the grounds of hearsay, the evidence was either introduced through other means or lacking in relevance or reliability, so the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; (2) for a waiver of his right to testify to have been valid, a defendant need not state on the record that he was informed by counsel of our ruling in State v. Cazes, 875 .W.2d 253, 266 (Tenn. 1994); (3) the jury instruction defining reasonable doubt does not offend due process; (4) references by defense counsel and a defense witness that the defendant previously had been on “death row” did not, under these circumstances, entitle the defendant to a new sentencing hearing; and (5) the sentence of death satisfies the proportionality guidelines. As to the remaining issues, we agree with the conclusions reached by the Court of Criminal Appeals. The relevant portions of the opinion are appended. The judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is, therefore, affirmed. |
Shelby | Supreme Court | |
City of Knoxville v. Knox County, Tennessee - Concurring
The question in this appeal is which statutory local option sales tax distribution system is to be applied. We have essentially concluded that the appropriate statute is the one in effect when the distribution is to be made. I concur totally with the majority opinion and write separately simply toemphasize the context in which this decision is made and the consistency of the logic of the opinion with the practicalities of that context. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
City of Knoxville v. Knox County, Tennessee
The issue on appeal in this annexation dispute between the annexing city and the county is which tax allocation statute controls the allocation of Local Option Revenue derived from the annexed territory: the one in effect when the city passed the annexation ordinance on final reading, or the one in effect when the annexation ordinance became operative following a protracted quo warranto action. The city, which annexed valuable retail and commercial property, contends the tax scheme in effect in 1995 when the ordinance passed final reading applies. The county contends Tenn. Code Ann. § 6-51-115(b)(2) (1998), which was enacted after the ordinance was passed by the city, applies because it was in effect when the ordinance became operative. The Chancellor ruled in favor of the city, finding the statute in effect when the city passed the annexation ordinance applies. We reverse finding Tenn. Code Ann. § 6-51-115(b)(2) (1998), which was in effect when the ordinance became operative, controls the allocation of tax revenue from the annexed territory. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Lynn Adams v. Ace Trucking Company
This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated § 50-6-225(e)(3) for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The employee, Lynn Adams, injured his lower back in the course of his employment in October 2002. The employer, Ace Trucking Company, accepted the injury as compensable. Mr. Adams received temporary total disability benefits and medical treatment. He was released to full duty in February 2003. However, he was unable to return to work for reasons unrelated to his employment. In April 2004, he sought, and received, additional medical treatment for his back injury. He was referred to a neurosurgeon, who concluded that his symptoms were not caused by his work injury. Mr. Adams had an independent medical examination in August 2005. The evaluating physician concluded that Mr. Adams had sustained a permanent impairment of 8% to the body as a whole as a result of the October 2002 injury. The trial court found that Mr. Adams had suffered a permanent injury, and awarded 20% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. Ace Trucking appealed, contending that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s finding. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Gary Carter v. Milan Seating Systems
This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-225(e)(3) for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court found that the employee had sustained a permanent disability as a result of his work injury and awarded benefits for 80% permanent partial disability. The employer has appealed, contending that the trial court erred in finding that the employee’s permanent disability was work-related and, in the alternative, that the award was excessive. The employee contends that the trial court should have found him to be permanently and totally disabled. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Gibson | Workers Compensation Panel | |
State of Tennessee v. Faith Whitley
Faith Whitley, the defendant, was indicted for possession with intent to deliver over one-half ounce of marijuana, a Class E felony. After a motion to suppress was heard and denied, the defendant entered a guilty plea with an agreed sentence of one year on probation and a fine of $2000. The judgment purported to reserve certified questions of law pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2). After review, we conclude that the defendant has failed to comply with the strict requirements of Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2). The appeal is dismissed. |
McNairy | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Freddie T. Inman, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Freddie T. Inman, Jr., sought post-conviction relief from his conviction of theft of property having a value of more than $1,000 but less than $10,000. The McNairy County Circuit Court denied relief after an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, the petitioner argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because trial counsel failed to subpoena and call three witnesses at trial. We affirm the denial of post-conviction relief. |
McNairy | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Willard D. Gore, et al. v. Tony Stout, et al.
This appeal involves a dispute between two landowners over use of a route across the defendants’ land that the plaintiffs use for access to their nearby land. Plaintiffs filed suit contending they had a right to use the disputed route. The trial court determined that the route had been dedicated and accepted as a public road, that the plaintiffs were entitled to a prescriptive easement over the defendants’ land, and that the plaintiffs had a right to use the road by adverse possession. We have determined that the contested section of the route is not a public road, that adverse possession does not apply, and that the plaintiffs are entitled to a prescriptive easement over the defendants’ land. |
Putnam | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: B. C. W. John Gregory Wilson v. Naomi Jones, et al.
This is an appeal from the dismissal of a petition to modify custody of a minor child. The trial court determined that the petitioner, the natural father of the child, should not be afforded the superior rights of a parent. We disagree and reverse. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ronnie Henry
The defendant, Ronnie Henry, was convicted of four counts of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, and four counts of robbery, a Class C felony. The defendant received an effective sentence of seventy years. On appeal, the defendant presents three issues: (1) the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the convictions; (2) error in the limitation of the testimony of a defense witness; and (3) error in sentencing. After review, we affirm the convictions but remand the case for resentencing in compliance with the standards contained in this opinion. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Antonio Kendrick v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Antonio Kendrick, appeals the lower court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court dismiss the above-captioned appeal or, in the alternative, affirm the trial court pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner has failed to comply with the procedural requirements for seeking habeas corpus relief and has failed to allege any ground that would render the judgment of conviction void. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Federal Express vs. The American Bicycle Group, LLC - Concurring
I concur in the majority opinion. I write separately to express my personal belief that the General Assembly should consider whether the result in this case – litigation in a county totally unrelated to the subject matter of the litigation and essentially unrelated to the defendant – indicates that the public policy, as expressed in the applicable statutory provisions, should be changed to avoid such a result. It occurs to me that the better policy is to exclude from the list of permissible venues |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Corey Finley
The Tennessee Supreme Court has remanded this case for further consideration of the defendant’s sentencing in light of State v. Gomez, 239 S.W.3d 733 (Tenn., Oct. 9, 2007). Although the defendant’s original 23-year sentence1 involved the use of enhancement factors that violated the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, we hold that the sentence of 23 years is not plain error. Accordingly, the 23-year sentence is affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Joe Gambrell, et al. v. Sonny Nivens, et al.
This case involves the enforcement of restrictive covenants in equity. After subdividing their property, imposing restrictions on the three lots they sold, and retaining the remaining land, vendors brought suit against remote grantees to enforce the restrictive covenants and to enjoin them from operating a wedding chapel, for commercial use, on the land. The central issue on appeal is whether the restrictions bind the remote grantees when the covenants were listed on an undated and unsigned attachment to a deed that neither identified encumbrances nor incorporated the attached restrictions. Following a trial on the matter, the trial court permanently enjoined the commercial activity because the remote grantees took title with actual notice of the restrictions. Finding ample support for the imposition of an equitable servitude, we concur in the trial court’s judgment. Affirmed and remanded. |
Fayette | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Thomas Harville, Jr. - Concurring/Dissenting
In this case, the majority holds that the defendant failed to contest the question of Officer Cousins’s unavailability and, thus, under Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 36(a), is not entitled to relief on this issue. I respectfully disagree. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Thomas Harville, Jr.
In October 2004, a Sullivan County grand jury indicted the defendant, Thomas Harville, Jr., on one count of violating his status as a habitual motor vehicle offender, a Class E felony. Following a June 2005 jury trial in Sullivan County Criminal Court, the defendant was convicted on the sole count of the indictment and sentenced to two years as a Range I, standard offender, with the defendant to serve eighty days in jail and the balance of his sentence on community corrections. The defendant appeals, alleging that the trial court: (1) improperly admitted the preliminary hearing testimony of a police officer when the state failed to show that the witness was unavailable at trial; (2) improperly determined that the state could impeach the defendant with a prior felony conviction for evading arrest; and (3) improperly sentenced the defendant. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the defendant has waived the first issue on appeal and that the trial court committed no error as to the other two issues. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tab Virgil - Concurring
I join with the majority, but write separately for the following reasons. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tab Virgil
This matter is before the court upon the Defendant’s appeal from an order of the trial court denying the Defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. The Defendant now appeals, contending that: (1) the trial court erred when it denied his motion to withdraw his guilty pleas because his guilty pleas were not knowingly, voluntarily and understandingly entered; and (2) his intended sentences could not be achieved by operation of law. Because we conclude that the defendant’s guilty pleas were not knowingly, voluntarily and understandingly entered, we reverse the order of the trial court and remand to the trial court for further proceedings. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Corey Montez Rickman
The defendant, Corey Montez Rickman, pled guilty in 2002 to four counts of aggravated robbery and received an effective sentence of thirty-two years, with three years to be served in the Sumner County Jail and twenty-nine years on community corrections. In 2006 he acknowledged violating the terms of his community corrections sentence after testing positive for cocaine, and the trial court ordered that the remainder of his sentence be served in the Department of Correction, which the defendant appealed. We conclude that the defendant’s convictions for aggravated robbery disqualified him for community corrections and, accordingly, dismiss the appeal. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
MBNA America Bank N.A. v. Charles Hendricks
Bank filed suit to enforce an arbitration award for a debt owed by a former credit card holder. The trial court granted summary judgment against the debtor, who appeals based on alleged procedural improprieties. We affirm. |
Cheatham | Court of Appeals | |
Clear Channel Outdoors, et al. v. Tennessee Department of Transportation
This appeal is from a final order in a proceeding for judicial review of an administrative decision pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-322. The Tennessee Department of Transportation (“TDOT”) filed this action claiming that a billboard which was rebuilt by the defendants after it was blown down in a storm did not meet the requirements of the regulation governing reconstruction of stormdamaged billboards. Following a hearing, the Administrative Law Judge determined that the rebuilt billboard violated the applicable regulation and ordered its removal. The decision was affirmed by the TDOT Commissioner (“the Commissioner”), and later by the Chancery Court for Davidson County (“the Trial Court”). On appeal, we find that the Trial Court did not have the necessary administrative record before it as required when it reviewed this case. Because the Trial Court’s review is limited to the administrative record, Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-322(g), and the complete administrative record was not available to the Trial Court, we vacate the Trial Court’s judgment and remand for a new review to be conducted after the full administrative record is filed with the Trial Court. We vacate and remand. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Virginia Elrod v. Continental Apartments, et al
The unsuccessful plaintiff appeals the summary dismissal of her slip and fall claim against an apartment complex and its owner. During the second day of a winter storm, the plaintiff traveled along icy roads to make a security deposit at the apartment complex. Although she had carefully exited her vehicle and walked to the office to make the deposit, she chose to “trot” back along the same path to her car. While trotting to her car, she slipped on the icy parking lot, breaking her ankle. The trial court summarily dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint. Viewing teh facts in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, we find that reasonable minds could not differ that the plaintiff's fault was greater than that of the defendants. We, therefore, affirm. |
Coffee | Court of Appeals |