Michael L. McKillip v. Jim Morrow, Warden, Tennessee State Peniteniary, and State of Tennessee
The pro se petitioner, Michael L. McKillip, appeals as of right the Bledsoe County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner was convicted of aggravated sexual battery pursuant to his guilty plea in the Shelby County Criminal Court and received a sentence of fifteen years as a Range II offender to be served at one hundred percent. He alleges that he is entitled to habeas corpus relief because the trial court erroneously allowed him to plead outside his range and because the 1989 Criminal Sentencing Reform Act violates the United States Supreme Court’s holding in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). The trial court summarily dismissed the petition for failure to state a cognizable claim. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Bledsoe | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Timothy Frazier
The defendant, Timothy Frazier, pled guilty to one count of theft of property more than $1,000 but less than $10,000, a Class D felony. The trial court denied the defendant’s request for judicial diversion and ordered him to serve a two-year, suspended sentence on supervised probation. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court’s denial of judicial diversion should be reversed. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this case for reconsideration. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joe Allen Brown
The defendant, Joe Allen Brown, pleaded guilty to two counts of possession of under .5 grams of cocaine with the intent to sell and/or deliver and was sentenced in the Madison County Circuit Court to an effective four year term to be served in a community corrections program. On March 16, 2007 the court revoked the community corrections sentence and resentenced the defendant to serve six years in the Department of Correction. From that order, the defendant appeals. Upon review, we affirm the judgment below. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Anthony Joseph Ziobrowski v. Marcy Hays Ziobrowski - Dissenting
I must respectfully dissent from the majority’s interpretation of the 1995 final decree of divorce to award only $338.30 per month out of the monthly retirement benefit to Ms. Ziobrowski. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Anthony Joseph Ziobrowski v. Marcy Hays Ziobrowski
This appeal involves a final decree of divorce that was entered in 1995, and a proposed qualified domestic relations order (“QDRO”) entered pursuant to that decree in 2006. The former husband claims that the proposed QDRO allows his former wife to receive a greater share of his monthly retirement benefit than the trial court awarded to the wife when it divided the parties’ marital property. We reverse and remand for further proceedings. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Jeff Miller and wife, Janice Miller, each individually, and as surviving parents and next of kin of the minor, William J. Miller, deceased v. Beaty Lumber, Inc.
This is a negligence case that resulted in a directed verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff’s minor son was killed when the truck he was riding in collided with a logging truck pulling the defendant’s load of logs. All parties involved in the accident died, and there were no eyewitnesses. The plaintiffs filed suit against the defendant on behalf of their deceased son. At trial, the defendant moved for a directed verdict, which the court granted. The plaintiffs now appeal, alleging that the trial court applied the wrong standard when it granted the directed verdict. Next, the plaintiffs argue that the court should have applied the theory of joint and several liability because the case involved concurrent negligence resulting in an indivisible harm. Finally, the plaintiffs argue that the court erred by excluding evidence relating to the defendant’s liability insurance. We affirm. |
Fentress | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Hezekiah Cooper
Appellant, Hezekiah Cooper, was convicted of four counts of attempt to commit second degree murder, four counts of aggravated robbery, one count of aggravated burglary, and one count of possession of a firearm. As a result, the trial court sentenced Appellant to an effective sixty-year sentence. After the denial of a motion for new trial, Appellant presents the following issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to support the convictions; (2) whether the trial court erred “in refusing to allow Appellant to argue alternative theories” at trial; (3) whether the trial court erred in refusing to admit exculpatory evidence; (4) whether the trial court improperly instructed the jury on lesser included offenses; (5) whether Appellant’s sentences were excessive; and (6) whether the trial court erred by ordering Appellant to serve his sentences consecutively. After reviewing the issues, we determine that: (1) Appellant waived the issue regarding lesser included offenses for failing to request instructions at trial; (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to admit exculpatory evidence; (3) Appellant waived several evidentiary issues by raising them for the first time on appeal; and (4) the trial court properly sentenced Appellant. However, we determine that the evidence was only sufficient to support two convictions for attempted second degree murder with respect to the actions against Ms. Thompson and her daughter Tanisha. Therefore, we reverse and dismiss the two remaining convictions for attempted second degree murder. Further, we determine that the evidence supports only one conviction for aggravated robbery because there was only one theft from the victims’ residence of property that was owned by Mr. Norfleet. However, we modify the conviction for aggravated robbery with respect to Jeraldrika Thompson to a conviction for aggravated assault and remand to the trial court for sentencing on that count. However, we are unable to modify the two remaining convictions for aggravated robbery with respect to the actions taken against Ms. Thompson and Tanisha Thompson to aggravated assault because double jeopardy principles prohibit dual convictions for attempted second degree murder and aggravated assault. Accordingly, the convictions for aggravated robbery with respect to Ms. Thompson and Tanisha Thompson are reversed and dismissed. In all other respects, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Scott Eric McDonald
The Appellant, Scott Eric McDonald, presents for review a certified question of law pursuant to Tenn. R. Crim. P. 37(b)(2)(A). McDonald pled guilty to driving under the influence (DUI), second offense, and, as a condition of his guilty plea, reserved a certified question of law challenging the denial of his motion to suppress evidence, arguing that there was no reasonable suspicion to support the initial stop of his vehicle. On appeal, the State asserts that McDonald failed to properly reserve his certified question, and, as a result, this court is without jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Following review, we agree that the certified question of law was not properly reserved. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. |
Hamblen | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Timothy Wade Keyt v. Nanci Suzanne Keyt - Dissenting
|
Putnam | Supreme Court | |
Timothy Wade Keyt v. Nanci Suzanne Keyt
We granted the application for permission to appeal in this divorce case to address two issues presented by Husband: (1) whether the increase, if any, in value of his separately-owned stock interest in the family-owned company for which he worked qualifies a marital property; and if so, (2) whether the chancellor correctly assessed the increase in value. Because we find that Husband’s employment with the company in which he owned stock did not substantially contribute to the preservation and appreciation of the stock, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand this matter to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Putnam | Supreme Court | |
Robert Joseph Mullins v. Bobby Redmon, et al
Plaintiff/Appellant, a student of McNairy County School District, filed a complaint for negligence against the Defendant/Appellee School District for injuries arising from an accident that occurred while the student was engaged in a work-based learning program. Finding that the actions of the School District did not cause the accident, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the School District. The student appeals. We affirm and remand. |
McNairy | Court of Appeals | |
Daniel Francoeur and Heather Hall v. State of Tennessee
This appeal involves a motorcycle rider and his passenger who were injured in an accident when they hit a large pothole on a state route highway. The rider and the passenger each filed claims with the Tennessee Claims Commission asserting that the State of Tennessee had failed to maintain the highway in a safe and proper condition. A Claims Commissioner determined that the pothole did constitute a dangerous condition on a state maintained highway pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 9-8-307(a)(1)(J), but she determined that the State was not liable under that subsection because there was no proof that it had notice of existence of the pothole. The Commissioner then found that the State was negligent in maintaining the highway under Tennessee Code Annotated section 9-8-307(a)(1)(I), and therefore it was liable for the plaintiffs’ injuries. The State appeals. We reverse. |
Court of Appeals | ||
Anthony Dean v. Glen Turner, Warden, et al.
This is appeal involves a habeas corpus petition filed by a prisoner. The appellant prisoner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in chancery court. The chancery court denied the prisoner’s habeas petition. The prisoner appealed. We vacate the judgment and dismiss the petition, finding that the chancery court did not have jurisdiction. |
Hardeman | Court of Appeals | |
Verico Dewayne Jackson v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant, Verico Dewayne Jackson, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. Jackson, who was convicted of first degree murder, is currently serving a sentence of life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. On appeal, he argues that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel, specifically arguing that trial counsel was ineffective in: (1) failing to adequately communicate with Jackson and the investigator assigned to the case, resulting in a lack of preparation for trial; (2) failing to seek a severance in the case; and (3) failing to request and argue for certain lesser-included offense instructions. After review, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Robert Roysden v. Glen Turner, Warden
This is an appeal of a habeas corpus petition filed by a prisoner. The appellant prisoner filed a petition for writ of a habeas corpus in the chancery court. The chancery court denied the prisoner’s habeas petition. The prisoner appealed. We vacate the judgment and dismiss the petition, finding that the chancery court did not have jurisdiction. |
Hardeman | Court of Appeals | |
Diana S. Lowry v. Tennessee Department of Children's Services
This appeal involves the lower court’s dismissal of a case with prejudice for failure to prosecute. The Department of Children’s Services fired the petitioner, and she requested an administrative hearing. The Administrative Law Judge upheld the termination, and the petitioner appealed to the chancery court in Shelby County. Pursuant to statute, the case was transferred to Davidson County. After one year, the chancellor entered an order that the petitioner schedule the case for a final hearing. The parties set a hearing date, but in violation of local rules the petitioner failed to submit a trial brief. The petitioner’s counsel twice requested a continuance, which was denied each time. The petitioner’s counsel withdrew, and the petitioner decided to proceed pro se. The petitioner was not on time for the hearing at 9:00 a.m. on October 5, 2006. She called the court, notifying all parties that she would be twenty minutes late. The judge waited until 9:40 and called the case, but the petitioner was not present. The judge then sua sponte dismissed the case with prejudice for failure to prosecute. The petitioner submitted a hand-written letter to the court with an explanation for her tardiness. The court treated the letter as a motion to alter or amend, and denied the motion. The petitioner appeals. We reverse and remand. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Derek Davis v. Mark Luttrell, et al.
The Shelby County Sheriff’s Department terminated the employment of deputy Derek Davis based on a random drug screening. The Civil Service Merit Board affirmed the Department’s decision. Mr. Davis appealed to the Chancery Court for Shelby County, which affirmed. Mr. Davis filed a timely notice of appeal to this Court, asserting the Board’s decision is not supported by substantial material evidence. We reverse. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Robert Jenkins et al. v. Chase Brown et al.
This appeal involves a dispute regarding the liability for the structural defects in a four-year-old house in a Mt. Juliet subdivision. Shortly after purchasing the house from its original owners, the property owners discovered that the house had been constructed on improperly compacted fill and other debris. When additional structural problems manifested themselves, the property owners filed suit in the Chancery Court for Wilson County seeking compensatory and punitive damages against the contractor who built the house and his wife, the original owners, the original owners’ real estate agent and broker, their own real estate agent and broker, and their home inspector. Following an eight-day trial, the jury determined that the contractor and the original owners had engaged in intentional and reckless misrepresentation by concealing the house’s structural problems. The jury also determined that both real estate agents and the developer of the subdivision were at fault. The jury awarded the property owners $58,720.80 in compensatory damages to be apportioned among the parties at fault. The jury also awarded the property owners $20,000 in punitive damages against one of the original owners and $50,000 in punitive damages against the contractor. The trial court reduced the punitive damage award against the original property owner to $14,000, and granted a judgment notwithstanding the verdict for the two real estate agents with regard to the property owners’ Tennessee Consumer Protection Act claims. On this appeal, the property owners take issue with the dismissal of their claims against the real estate agents and their brokers based on their use of an outdated and incomplete real property disclosure form. The contractor also takes issue with the judgments awarded against him for compensatory and punitive damages. We have determined that the trial court did not err by dismissing the property owners’ claims against the real estate agents and their brokers based on the use of the incomplete and outdated disclosure form. We have also concluded that the property owners presented insufficient evidence to establish their common-law fraud claim against the contractor who built the house. Accordingly, we reverse the portion of the judgment requiring the contractor to pay compensatory and punitive damages. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
Jerry Bundy v. First Tennessee Bank National Association D/B/A First Tennessee Equity Lending
This is an age and sex discrimination case. The fifty-nine-year old male plaintiff worked for the defendant bank as a loan officer. In April 2003, he attempted to process a loan for a customer and did not disclose to the bank underwriting department documents he had received from the customer. When this was discovered, the plaintiff was placed under investigation. His employment was ultimately terminated for violating bank policy. The plaintiff filed this lawsuit, alleging age and sex discrimination. The bank filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff could not establish a prima facie case of discrimination, or that the bank’s legitimate non-discriminatory reason for terminating him was pretextual. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the bank. The plaintiff now appeals. We affirm, concluding that the plaintiff submitted insufficient evidence to establish the fourth element of his prima facie case, that he was either replaced by an employee outside the protected class, or that he was treated less favorably than a similarly situated employee outside the protected class. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Helen M. Borner, et al. v. Danny R. Autry
This is a Tenn. R. App. P. 9 interlocutory appeal from the Order of the trial court striking medical bills attached to Plaintiffs/Appellants’ complaint pursuant to T.C.A. § 24-5-113. The trial court specifically held that, because Plaintiffs/Appellants incurred total medical expenses in excess |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
Helem M. Borner, et al. v. Danny R. Autry - Concurring
I concur fully with the result reached by the majority in this case. Respectfully, I file this separate concurrence in order to state my disagreement with dicta in the majority opinion. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Reginald Anthony Laye
Appellant, Reginald Anthony Laye, pled guilty to evading arrest and criminal impersonation prior to a jury trial, during which he was convicted of possession of .5 grams or more of cocaine with the intent to sell and possession of .5 grams or more of cocaine with the intent to deliver. The trial court merged the two convictions for possession into one conviction for possession of a Schedule II drug for resale. As a result of the convictions, Appellant was sentenced to an effective sentence of ten years and six months. After the denial of a motion for new trial and the filing of a timely notice of appeal, Appellant argues in this Court that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction for possession of cocaine with the intent to sell or deliver. After a review of the record, we determine that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for possession of cocaine with the intent to sell or deliver and, therefore, affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re: A. R. and J. R.
Both parents appeal the termination of their parental rights on the ground of substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan and failure to remedy persistent conditions. The dispositive issue is whether the Department failed to make reasonable efforts to reunite the family. The reasonableness of the Department’s efforts to reunite a family is dependent upon whether the services rendered were adequate to meet the needs of the family. In this case, the Department knew both parents needed significant psychological services to afford them the reasonable opportunity to meet the goals of the permanency plans and to remedy persistent conditions. The Department knew this because the psychologist who performed the mental health assessment of each parent at the direction of the Department issued a report recommending that both parents receive specific and significant mental health counseling. The record fails to establish that the Department provided the essential psychological services, without which the other services provided by the Department could not meet the needs of either parent or the family. Accordingly, we vacate the order terminating the mother’s and father’s parental rights and remand for further proceedings. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Kevin Fowler D/B/A Med-State EMS v. Warren County
A private ambulance service provider challenged the fees established in the Warren County ambulance regulations created pursuant to state law. The trial court found the fees were constitutionally permissible. We affirm, finding that the fees were true fees, not taxes, and that the fees were reasonable. |
Warren | Court of Appeals | |
Eric T. Armstrong v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant appeals the trial court's dismissal of his petition for post conviction relief. The Appellant has presented a new claim on appeal. The Court concludes that the claim is waived due to Appellant's failure to raise it in his petition below. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals |