State of Tennessee v. Napoleon James Moore, Alias
The Defendant, Napoleon James Moore (alias), pled guilty to and was convicted of attempted possession of over .5 grams of cocaine with the intent to sell, a Class C felony. In accordance with his plea agreement, he was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to five years in the Department of Correction. The manner of service of the sentence was left to the discretion of the trial court. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred by denying probation. Following our review, we affirm the sentence of confinement ordered by the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Mario Morris
The defendant, Mario Morris, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of four counts of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, and one count of especially aggravated kidnapping, a Class A felony. After merging the four counts of aggravated robbery into two counts, the trial court sentenced him as a Range I, standard offender to ten years at 30% for each of the aggravated robbery convictions and as a violent offender to twenty years at 100% for the especially aggravated kidnapping conviction. Finding the defendant to be a dangerous offender, the trial court ordered that each of the sentences be served consecutively for a total effective sentence of forty years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentencing. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. However, because the record reveals that the defendant was improperly sentenced under the 2005 amendments to the 1989 Sentencing Act, we remand to the trial court for resentencing. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Mario Andre McElrath
The defendant, Mario Andre McElrath, was convicted by an Obion County jury of attempted sale of .5 grams or more of cocaine within 1000 feet of a school zone, a Class B felony, and sentenced to ten years in the Department of Correction and a fine of $2000. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a new trial based on the State’s violation of the rule of sequestration and in finding that the Drug-Free School Zone Act included criminal attempt as an offense that triggers increased sanctions. We conclude that these claims are without merit. However, based upon our plain error review, we conclude that the trial court improperly applied the Drug-Free School Zone Act to enhance the defendant’s sentence. Accordingly, we affirm the defendant’s conviction but remand for resentencing. |
Obion | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Anthony Jerome Nichols
The defendant, Anthony Jerome Nichols, was indicted for one count of attempted first degree murder, two counts of aggravated assault, and one count of reckless endangerment. He was convicted of attempted second degree murder, aggravated assault and assault. The trial court merged the aggravated assault and attempted second degree murder convictions and sentenced the defendant as a Range I, standard offender to twelve years, and to eleven months and twenty-nine days for the remaining assault conviction. The sentences were set to run concurrently. On appeal, the defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for attempted second degree murder and that the trial court abused its discretion by enhancing his sentence. Following our review of the parties’ briefs, the record, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
McNairy | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jeffrey Hopkins v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Jeffrey Hopkins, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress his confession. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition. |
Tipton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Paul T. Davis v. State of Tennessee - Dissenting and Concurring
I concur in the result that this court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal, but respectfully, I disagree with the holding that the habeas corpus petition was filed in an appropriate court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Paul T. Davis v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Paul Tobias Davis, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief. In his petition, the Petitioner asserted that his sentence is illegal because he was denied pretrial jail credits. The habeas corpus court summarily dismissed the petition because the petition did not state a sufficient reason for not being filed in the county nearest to the Petitioner. On appeal, the Petitioner raises two issues: (1) whether a motion filed in the habeas corpus court to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Rule 59.04 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure can operate to limit the jurisdiction of this Court; and (2) whether the fact that the convicting court possesses relevant records relating to a petitioner’s sentence and retains the authority to correct an illegal sentence at anytime is a sufficient reason under Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-21-105 to file a habeas corpus petition in the convicting court rather than the court closest in point of distance to a petitioner. Following our review, we hold that motions filed pursuant to Rule 59 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure do not effect the jurisdiction of this Court in actions for habeas corpus relief and that the Petitioner presented a sufficient reason for filing his petition in the Davidson County Criminal Court. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the habeas corpus court and remand for the appointment of counsel and further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James Polk v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, James Polk, appeals from the dismissal of a petition for post-conviction relief. Because Petitioner has presented this Court an inadequate brief and has improperly attempted to seek post-conviction relief in a case for the second time, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Gary Aldridge v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant, Gary Aldridge, appeals the trial court's dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The Appellant fails to assert a cognizable claim for which habeas corpus relief may be granted. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Wayne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Dewayne Jones
A Shelby County jury convicted the defendant, Dewayne Jones, of two counts of aggravated rape, a Class A felony. Because the two counts alleged alternative theories of the same offense, the trial court merged the two convictions and sentenced the defendant as a Range I, violent offender to twenty-two years in the Department of Correction. The defendant appeals, alleging that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, including that the State did not prove venue was in Shelby County; (2) the trial court erred in not requiring the State to elect which of the aggravated rape counts it wished to proceed upon; and (3) the trial court misapplied one enhancement factor. Following our review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Steven Allen Jones
Following a jury trial Defendant, Steven Allen Jones, was found guilty of first degree murder. The trial court sentenced Defendant to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. On appeal Defendant argues that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction of first degree murder and (2) the trial court erred by instructing the jury as to the punishment for first degree murder. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Carter | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Patricia “Kay” Provonsha, v. Students Taking a Right Stand, Inc. (STARS)
The gravamen of this action is an alleged retaliatory discharge. Plaintiff charged defendant with a common law violation, as well as a violation of the Tennessee Public Protection Act. Defendant moved for summary judgment which the Trial Court granted. On appeal, we affirm. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Rodney R. Rye v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Rodney R. Rye, filed a petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for two counts of child rape, a Class A felony, and one count of aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony, and his resulting effective twenty-two-year sentence. He contends that he entered guilty pleas that were unknowing and involuntary and that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court denied relief, and we affirm that judgment. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jacob Edward Campbell v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant, Jacob Edward Campbell, appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief by the Davidson County Criminal Court. After a jury trial in 2002, Campbell was convicted of first-degree murder and robbery, and he was ordered to serve consecutive sentences of life imprisonment and ten years. On appeal, Campbell argues that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel. After a thorough review of the record on appeal and the arguments of the parties, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Randy Lee Shatto, Sr. v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant appeals the trial court's dismissal of his petition for post conviction relief. The Appellant filed his petition outside the statute of limitations. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Arthur Buford v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Arthur Buford, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Marquette Milan
The defendant was convicted by a Shelby County jury of first degree premeditated murder, first degree felony murder, and especially aggravated robbery, a Class A felony. The trial court merged the two murder convictions and sentenced the defendant to life in prison for first degree murder and twenty years for especially aggravated robbery, with the sentences to be served concurrently. On appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court erred in excluding the testimony of two itnesses, a forensic psychologist and the defendant’s mother, who would have offered testimony regarding the defendant’s ability to form the requisite culpable mental state. The defendant also contends that the evidence produced at trial was insufficient to support the jury’s guilty verdicts. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the testimony of the two witnesses, and that the evidence produced at trial was sufficient to support the defendant’s convictions. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Heather Hill, et al. v. Andrea Giddens, M.D., et al.
Patient filed a complaint against Doctors, OB/GYN Group, and Hospital (together “Defendants”) alleging medical malpractice for failing to obtain informed consent and failing to properly care for Patient during and after her hospitalization. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the grounds that Patient failed to provide a competent medical expert as required by T.C.A. § 29-25-115 (Supp. 2006). Patient appeals. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Carlos Bush
Appellant, Carlos Bush, was convicted by a jury of one count of aggravated robbery. As a result, Appellant was sentenced to serve fifteen years in incarceration as a Range II multiple offender. After the denial of a motion for new trial and a timely notice of appeal, Appellant presents the following issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction; (2) whether the photographic lineup was unduly suggestive; (3) whether the trial court erred in allowing a witness to testify regarding Appellant’s prior incarceration; (4) whether the trial court improperly admitted hearsay testimony; (5) whether the trial court improperly refused to grant a recess to allow Appellant to prepare curative measures for alleged evidentiary errors; and (6) whether the trial court improperly enhanced Appellant’s sentence by applying an enhancement factor that was not determined by a jury in violation of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004). We determine that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, that the photographic lineup was proper and that the trial court did not improperly admit hearsay or statements about Appellant’s prior incarceration. With regard to Appellant’s sentence, we determine that review of the issue is not necessary to do substantial justice, and consequently, that no plain error was committed on the part of the trial court. Further, the application of enhancement factors (1) and (16) justified the enhancement of Appellant’s sentence from twelve years to fifteen years. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Harold Dennis Hardaway & Sonya Hardaway v. Hamilton County, Tennessee Board of Education, et al
In this action for damages allegedly due to water runoff from construction for a new school, the Trial Court granted defendants summary judgment. On appeal, we conclude there are disputed issues of material fact, and remand and vacate the summary judgment. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee, Department of Children's Services v. C.W. and J.C.W., In the Matter ofL C.W.(DOB 04/21/99) and J.W. (DOB 02/22/02)
The Trial Court terminated the parental rights of the parents of the two minor children. On appeal, we affirm. |
Campbell | Court of Appeals | |
Carl Johnson v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant, Carl Johnson, appeals the order of the Shelby County Criminal Court denying his petition for post-conviction relief. Johnson, who was convicted of especially aggravated robbery, is currently serving a sentence of twenty-five years in the Department of Correction. Following the affirmance of his conviction on direct appeal, Johnson filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging numerous instances of ineffective assistance of counsel, which was denied. On appeal, this court remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing “solely on the petitioner’s complaint of the ineffective assistance of counsel regarding lesser-included offense instructions and Owens.” Following an evidentiary hearing, during which Johnson challenged only trial counsel’s failure to request that aggravated assault be charged as a lesser-included offense of especially aggravated robbery, the post-conviction court again denied relief finding that trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to request the lesser charge. In the instant appeal, Johnson challenges the denial of relief. Following a review of the record and the law applicable at the time of trial, we find no reversible error and affirm the denial of post-conviction relief. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re: Adoption of M.P.J., DOB 1/29/02
This is a case involving the termination of a father’s parental rights. The Department of Children’s Services instituted a dependent and neglect proceeding and the court granted a protective order removing the minor child from the mother’s home. At the time, the father’s whereabouts were unknown. The child, almost seven months old, was placed in the temporary custody of her greataunt. The father subsequently began serving a 56 month sentence in federal prison. When the child was almost five years old, the great-aunt petitioned the court for the termination of both the mother and the father’s parental rights and for the adoption of the child. The mother joined in the petition. After a termination hearing, the court announced that the father had abandoned the child, that his rights were terminated, and granted the great-aunt’s petition for adoption. The court first entered an order of adoption, but had yet to enter the order terminating the father’s parental rights. The court then issued an order of termination, but failed to include any findings of fact. Next, the court issued an amended order of termination with specific findings of fact, nunc pro tunc to the termination hearing date. Father appeals, arguing (1) that the trial court failed to make findings of fact; (2) that there is not clear and convincing proof of abandonment; (3) that the Department of Children’s Services did not afford him a reasonable opportunity to reunite with the child; and (4) that substantial harm to the child must be proven before a court may constitutionally terminate a parent’s rights. We affirm. |
Gibson | Court of Appeals | |
Moore Family Properties, LLC, et al. v. Pull-A-Part of Tennessee, LLC, et al.
This appeal involves a review of actions taken at a meeting of the Memphis City Council. When the council members voted on a resolution, for unknown reasons, the electronic voting machine did not record an entry for one of the council members. This resulted in six votes being cast in favor of the measure and six votes against it. The omitted council member orally expressed his intention to vote in favor of the resolution before the Chairman announced the result of the vote. The Chairman then called for the electronic voting machine to be cleared so that all members could re-enter their votes. After the second vote, the Chairman declared that the resolution passed by a vote of seven to six. The appellants filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the chancery court, alleging that the first vote was final and that the City Council acted illegally by taking a second vote. Upon review of the record of the proceedings, the trial court granted summary judgment to the City of Memphis and the Memphis City Council. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
William Edward Hargrove v. Merriellen Hargrove A/K/A Merriellen Warstler
This is a post-divorce case involving disputes over obligations in the Marital Dissolution Agreement and modification of the visitation schedule contained in the permanent parenting plan. Husband filed for divorce from Wife, and on August 25, 1998, the chancery court entered a final decree of divorce that incorporated the Marital Dissolution Agreement. The permanent parenting plan was filed on February 12, 2004. Concerning Husband and Wife’s minor son, born January 7, 1990, the residential schedule in the permanent parenting plan provided that Husband would be the primary residential parent and Wife would be responsible for the child every other weekend and during certain holidays. As to property division, the Marital Dissolution Agreement required Husband to transfer one-half of his pension plan to Wife. Concerning the marital home, Wife agreed to execute a quitclaim deed to Husband conveying her interest to Husband simultaneously with Husband paying her $15,000. After a contempt hearing, the court modified the parenting schedule; found that Wife was entitled to one-half of Husband’s pension, but not one-half of Husband’s annuity; and found that Husband had satisfied the $15,000 obligation. Wife appeals pro se, arguing that the modification of the residential schedule found in the parenting plan is void because the court did not follow Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-405(a). Wife also argues that the parties’ intent was that she was to receive half the annuity along with half the pension. Finally, Wife contends that Husband did not meet his burden of proof to establish the defense of accord and satisfaction. We affirm. |
Benton | Court of Appeals |