State of Tennessee v. Arthur Pirtle
In May 2005, the defendant, Arthur Pirtle, was indicted by a Marshall County grand jury on one count of possession of more than .5 gram of a Schedule II Controlled Substance (cocaine), a Class B felony, and one count of Simple Possession, a Class A misdemeanor. In June 2006, a jury trial was held in Marshall County Circuit Court. At the conclusion of the trial, the defendant was convicted of possession of a Schedule II controlled substance but acquitted on the simple possession charge. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the defendant to twenty-seven years in prison as a Range III, persistent offender. On appeal, the defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore affirm the ruling of the trial court. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Mack Tremaine Jones
Following a jury trial, Defendant, Mack Jones, was convicted of one count of first degree murder and nine counts of attempted first degree murder. Defendant was sentenced to life in prison for the first degree murder conviction and twenty-two years for each of the nine counts of attempted first degree murder, with all sentences to be served concurrently. Defendant filed a motion for new trial which the trial court subsequently denied. In this appeal, Defendant argues that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support Defendant’s convictions for first degree murder and attempted first degree murder, and (2) the trial court erred in admitting evidence of ammunition discovered from Defendant’s residence; admitting testimony that the photo line up contained a “juvenile photo” of Defendant; and excluding testimony that Defendant received a social security disability stipend and had difficulty counting money. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Marquerite L. Tibbs
Defendant, Marquerite L. Tibbs, was charged with two counts of vehicular homicide, one count of possession of marijuana, and one count of driving on a revoked license. Each count of vehicular homicide involved the same victim, but alleged different theories of guilt. On February 16, 2005, Defendant pled guilty to one count of vehicular homicide and one count of possession of marijuana. In exchange for her plea, Defendant received eight years for the vehicular homicide conviction and eleven months, twenty nine days for the possession conviction, with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. An order of nolle prosequi was entered as to the remaining counts of vehicular homicide and driving on a revoked license. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Defendant to serve eight years in the Department of Correction for the vehicular homicide conviction and eleven months, twenty-nine days for the possession conviction, to be served concurrently. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying alternative sentencing. After a thorough review of the record, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for resentencing. |
Giles | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Robert Franklin Delzell, III
The defendant, Robert Franklin Delzell, III, appeals from the judgment of the Stewart County Circuit Court, revoking his community corrections sentence and imposing confinement. Following our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Stewart | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Crystal Lashea Caldwell v. Joshua Randall Hill
Father and Mother entered into an agreed permanent parenting plan following their separation in 2004. In 2005, Father requested a modification of the plan to increase his co-parenting time with the parties’ daughter. The petition to modify was filed shortly after the trial court increased his child support from $30 per week to more than $100 per week, and also less than a week after his marriage to his longtime girlfriend. The trial court found that Father’s marriage and the fact that he had quit smoking marijuana were both material changes of circumstance, and that Father should receive equal parenting time with the child. Mother appeals. After careful review, we find that there has been no material change of circumstance justifying reconsideration of the parties’ parenting arrangement. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s modification of the parenting plan and remand. |
Cocke | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jasper L. Vick
The defendant, Jasper L. Vick, appeals his sentencing classification as a Range II offender, arguing that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the criminal conduct leading to his South Carolina conviction for aggravated assault of a high and aggravated nature would have constituted a Class C felony in Tennessee. Following our review, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for the defendant to be sentenced as a Range I offender. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Eldridge Hill
The defendant, Eldridge Hill, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of especially aggravated robbery, a Class A felony, and sentenced by the trial court as a violent offender to sixteen years at 100% in the Department of Correction. The sole issue he raises on appeal is whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain his conviction. Specifically, he argues that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his robbery victim suffered a serious bodily injury. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Tyrone A. Walker v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Tyrone A. Walker, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that his guilty pleas were unknowing and involuntary and that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request an independent psychological examination. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition. |
Fayette | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Chester Floyd Cole v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Chester Floyd Cole, appeals the denial of his motion to reopen his post-conviction petition, arguing that newly discovered evidence of his rape victim’s medical examination would have altered the outcome of his trial. Following our review, we dismiss the appeal. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James E. Goodale, et al. v. Charles Langenberg, et al.
Plaintiff purchasers sued Defendant sellers, real estate agent, and real estate company alleging intentional fraud and seeking rescission of a contract to purchase real property and punitive damages. The matter was tried by a jury, which awarded Plaintiffs rescission of the contract and assessed punitive damages against Defendant real estate agent. The trial court further awarded Plaintiffs discretionary costs and attorney’s fees, which it assessed against Defendant sellers and real estate agent jointly and severally. The jury also determined real estate agent was an independent contractor and that Defendant real estate company was, therefore, not vicariously liable for punitive damages. Plaintiffs and Defendant sellers subsequently entered into a confidential, sealed settlement under which Plaintiffs received a substantial partial refund of the purchase price and retained ownership of the real property. Defendant real estate agent appeals the award of punitive damages and the award of attorney’s fees. Appellant additionally asserts the post-trial settlement between Plaintiffs and Defendant sellers resulted in an election of damages as a remedy or, alternately, in accord and satisfaction of the judgment. Plaintiffs cross-appeal, asserting the jury verdict finding that Defendant real estate agent was an independent contractor is not supported by the evidence. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Morris Allen Ray v. Jean Ann Ray
Husband appeals the dismissal of his Complaints for Divorce. In a confusing series of pleadings created by Husband, his two separate Complaints for Divorce were dismissed. One was dismissed for failing to pay the filing fee and the other for procedural deficiencies. We affirm the dismissal of the matter in which Husband failed to pay the requisite filing fee. We, however, reverse the dismissal of the first Complaint for Divorce, which was dismissed for alleged procedural deficiencies, and remand for further proceedings. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Anthony Allen
The defendant, Anthony Allen, was convicted in 2002 of seven counts of aggravated robbery, eight counts of aggravated rape, and one count of facilitation of aggravated rape which the trial court merged with one of the rape convictions, and received an effective sentence of 124 years. In State v. Anthony Allen, No. W2004-01085-CCA-R3-CD, 2005 WL 1606350, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. July 8, 2005), perm. to appeal denied (Tenn. Dec. 19, 2005), this court reversed one of the convictions for aggravated rape, remanding it for a new trial, and affirmed all of the remaining convictions but remanded the matter for a new sentencing hearing to determine whether consecutive sentencing was appropriate. Following the reconsideration by the trial court and the defendant’s being sentenced to an effective sentence of 104 years, the defendant appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in finding that he was a dangerous offender and that his criminal activity was extensive. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
George T. Haynie, Jr. v. Ricky Bell, Warden, and the State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, George T. Haynie, Jr., appeals the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The Petitioner, serving a sentence of nine years for two convictions for passing worthless checks, alleges that his judgments of conviction are void because (1) the affidavit in support of the arrest warrant failed to disclose that the Petitioner had made partial payment towards the debt, (2) the indictment failed to make any reference to written notice, (3) accepting partial payment from the Petitioner constituted an election to pursue the matter civilly, and (4) the State engaged in prosecutorial misconduct. After a review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Anthony Tyrone Robertson
The Defendant, Anthony Tyrone Robertson, appeals from the order of the Montgomery County Circuit Court revoking his probation. In July of 2000, the Defendant pled guilty to sexual battery and received a six-year sentence as a Range III, persistent offender. The sentence was suspended following service of one year in the county jail, and the Defendant was placed on probation. On July 16, 2004, a warrant was issued, wherein it was alleged that the Defendant violated the conditions of his probation. The warrant was twice amended to include additional violations. After a hearing, the trial court concluded that the Defendant violated the conditions of his probationary sentence and ordered that his original six-year sentence to the Department of Correction be reinstated. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his probation and ordering that the remainder of his sentence be served in confinement. After a review of the record, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
John Ruff v. Raleigh Assembly of God Church, Inc.
On remand pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 27-3-128, the trial court awarded summary judgment to Defendant with respect to Plaintiff’s claim for assault. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Smith Brothers, Inc. v. Union City Insurance Agency, Inc., et al.
The trial court awarded summary judgment in favor of Defendants in this negligence action. We affirm. |
Obion | Court of Appeals | |
Jeremy Wayne Pittard v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Jeremy Wayne Pittard, was indicted on one count of rape of a child, a Class A felony. Petitioner entered a best interest plea to the offense of attempted rape of a child, a Class B felony, and agreed to a sentence of twelve years as a Range I standard offender. Petitioner argues on appeal that the trial court erred in denying him post-conviction relief. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Joey Salcido v. State of Tennessee
Wayne County- The Petitioner, Joey Salcido, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The habeas court denied relief, and the Petitioner filed a timely notice of appeal. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the habeas corpus court erred because: (1) the trial court lacked jurisdiction to convict him because of a defective indictment; and (2) the delay in the disposition of his post-conviction petition has deprived him of due process of law. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the habeas court. |
Wayne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Calvin Lewis Hill v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Calvin Lewis Hill, was convicted of car jacking, theft of property valued over $1000.00, and forgery, and his convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. He petitioned for post-conviction relief claiming that he had received the ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. The post-conviction court dismissed the post-conviction petition, and we affirm that judgment. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Betty Chumbley
The defendant, Betty R. Chumbley, pled guilty to two counts of theft between $10,000 and $60,000, a Class C felony; three counts of official misconduct, a Class E felony; and one count of destruction of and tampering with governmental records, a Class A misdemeanor. The theft counts were merged and the official misconduct counts were merged. She received an effective five-year sentence on probation. On appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying her judicial diversion. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William Thomas Heckart
The defendant, William Thomas Heckart, pled guilty in the Sullivan County Criminal Court to reckless endangerment, a Class E felony; two counts of aggravated assault, a Class C felony; misdemeanor violation of the sex offender registry, a Class A misdemeanor; and felony violation of the sex offender registry, a Class E felony, and was sentenced as a Range I offender to an effective six-year sentence in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in denying his request for probation or other alternative sentencing. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court but remand for entry of a corrected judgment form in count two of case number S50,856 to reflect that the conviction offense was a Class C felony. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Rashad Jamal Chandler v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Rashad Jamal Chandler, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his conviction for first degree premeditated murder and resulting life sentence. He contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial attorney (1) failed to interview witnesses who would have helped his case and (2) should have argued a different theory of defense. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of the petition for post-conviction relief. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Carri Chandler Lane v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant, Carri Chandler Lane, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of her motion to modify court-ordered restitution. The State responds that the denial of a request to modify restitution is not appealable under Tenn. R. App. P. 3(b), and, even if appealable, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. While we agree that Rule 3(b) does not provide for an appeal as of right from a trial court’s denial of a motion to modify restitution, we, nonetheless, conclude that the Appellant’s issues are entitled to a review as the appeal may be treated as a writ of certiorari. See T.C.A. § 27-8-101 (2006). After review of the Appellant’s motion on the merits, we conclude that material changes in circumstances have occurred since the order and, further, that it would be unjust to require adherence to the restitution order currently in effect. Accordingly, the trial court’s order denying modification is reversed, and this case is remanded for a hearing to determine, following consideration of the Appellant’s present financial resources and her future ability to pay or perform, the proper amount and method of payment of restitution to be made. See T.C.A. § 40-35-304(d) (2006). |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Carri Chandler Lane v. State of Tennessee - Dissenting
I am, respectfully, unable to join in the majority’s reversal of the trial court’s denial of the Appellant’s motion to modify court-ordered restitution. The majority notes, and I completely agree, that there is no proper avenue of appeal to this Court via Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(b). However, in my view, this case is not a proper application of the Court’s power to grant a writ of certiorari. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Latarsha R. Wheeler
The defendant, Latarsha R. Wheeler, was convicted of theft of property valued at $1,000 or more, but less than $10,000, a Class D felony, for money stolen from her employer, Back Yard Burgers. See T.C.A. § 39-14-105(3). The defendant was sentenced as a Range I offender to three years with forty days of periodic confinement in the workhouse coupled with probation. In this appeal, we consider her claims of error due to insufficient corroboration of accomplice testimony, lack of a jury charge on facilitation, denial of judicial diversion, and error in imposing the amount of restitution. We hold that the trial court did not err and affirm its judgment. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals |