Homer T. Rivers v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Homer T. Rivers, appeals from the Hardeman County Circuit Court’s dismissal of his post-conviction petition. He claims that the trial court erred in dismissing his petition for failure to state a colorable claim and seeks appointment of counsel and an evidentiary hearing. The state agrees that the trial court should not have dismissed the petition. We agree and reverse the dismissal and remand the case for further proceedings. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Frank Brzezowski
The defendant, Frank Brzezowski, was convicted of two counts of aggravated assault and three counts of aggravated rape and was sentenced to an effective term of twenty-two years to be served at 100%. On appeal, he argues that: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; (2) the trial court erred in denying his motion for new trial; and (3) the trial court erred in its sentencing determination. Upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the defendant’s convictions, but remand for a new sentencing hearing. |
Benton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
John E. Lynch v. Tony Parker, Warden
The Petitioner, John E. Lynch, appeals the lower court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner has failed to assert a ground that would entitle him to habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's dismissal. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Marcus Deangelo Lee A/K/A Marcus Jones v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Marcus Deangelo Lee aka Marcus Jones, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for coram nobis relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court's denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. We conclude that the State’s motion is meritorious. Accordingly, we grant the State's motion and affirm the judgment of the lower court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Roseanne K. Ward and Jerry W. Ward
This appeal arises from the Benton County Circuit Court’s continued denial of pretrial diversion notwithstanding approval by the District Attorney General and previous reversal by this Court. This is the second interlocutory appeal in this matter. Upon due consideration of the record and the parties’ briefs, we reverse the circuit court’s judgment and remand for entry of an order approving the pretrial diversion agreement between the prosecutor and the defendants. |
Benton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Virginia Dell Person v. James R. Wilson, et al., and Coffee County, Tennessee, et al.
This appeal arises from a two-car accident at the intersection of two county roads in Coffee County. The sixteen year-old driver of one of the two vehicles and his parents and sister, who were passengers in his vehicle, filed suit against the County for injuries they sustained in the accident, contending the County was at fault for failing to properly maintain the stop sign and vegetation at the intersection. The trial court attributed 50% of the fault to the County and 50% of the fault to the sixteen year-old driver. Because he was 50% at fault, the sixteen year-old driver was not awarded damages against the County; however, his parents and sister were awarded judgments against the County for 50% of their damages. On appeal, the County contends the parents are barred from recovering against it due to their negligence and negligent entrustment. The County also contends his sister was negligent for riding in the vehicle. We affirm. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Ronald Ian Quimby v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Ronald Ian Quimby, was found guilty of incest (Class C felony) by a Giles County jury on November 12, 2003. On November 12, 2004, he agreed to a five-year sentence in the Department of Correction as a Range I, standard offender. On that day, the petitioner also pled guilty to five additional charges of incest, each carrying a five-year sentence, to be served consecutively for a total effective sentence of thirty years. On appeal, the petitioner contends that trial counsel was ineffective and argues that: (1) he did not knowingly, voluntarily, or intelligently waive his right to appeal his conviction; (2) counsel was not adequately prepared for trial; and (3) counsel failed to advise him regarding sentencing. After careful review, we conclude that counsel rendered effective assistance, and we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Giles | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Nanci I. Holden v. Paul D. Holden
This is a post-divorce case. Paul D. Holden (“Husband”) filed a petition against his former spouse, Nanci I. Holden (“Wife”), seeking to modify the parties’ residential parenting plan pertaining to their minor children. Around the same time, the Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) received an anonymous referral regarding the children’s “safety and possible sexual abuse” at Wife’s residence. The trial court subsequently appointed a guardian ad litem for the children. The court found, as was recommended by the guardian ad litem, that Husband was entitled to more parenting time with the children. The court also found that there was no foundation for the complaint made to DCS regarding the children. The court ordered Husband to pay the fees of the guardian ad litem. Husband appeals that order. We affirm. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Trisha Plemmons
Blount County- The Defendant, Trisha Plemmons, appeals the revocation of her community corrections sentence. Finding no error on the part of the trial court, we affirm. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Leah Joy Ward
The defendant, Leah Joy Ward, was found guilty by a jury of first degree premeditated murder. She was sentenced to life imprisonment. The only issue presented on appeal is whether the evidence supports the element of premeditation. After review, we conclude the evidence was sufficient and affirm the conviction. |
Shelby | 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 | |
Charles Smith, Executor of the Estate of Ethel Rogers Smith v. Jerry Smith
The issue in this case is whether the trial court erred in denying the plaintiff’s Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02 motion for relief from judgment. Following a bench trial and judgment in favor of the defendant, a third party provided additional materials pursuant to an agreed discovery order, which were not previously disclosed to the parties before trial. The plaintiff filed a motion pursuant to Rule 60.02, requesting that the judgment be set aside based on this newly discovered evidence. The plaintiff also argued that the doctrines of equitable estoppel and judicial estoppel should be applied to grant relief from the judgment. The trial court denied the motion, and the plaintiff appealed. After careful review, we find that the trial court incorrectly applied the law in deciding on the plaintiff’s Rule 60.02 motion. Therefore, we vacate and remand. |
Hamblen | Court of Appeals | |
Donna Funk v Target National Bank/Target Visa
In this suit on a credit card debt, the Trial Court granted plaintiff summary judgment on the amount claimed. On appeal, we affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Matthew Flory and Christi Flory v. John Arnold Fitzgerald
Plaintiffs purchased property from defendant by Warranty Deed which stated the property contained 15 acres. Plaintiffs subsequently learned in litigation with a neighbor over the boundary line, that the parcel only contained 10.66 acres. Plaintiffs then filed this action against defendant to recover damages and the Trial Court held that plaintiffs were entitled to damages under the warranties in the Deed in the amount of $6,660.00 for the shortage of acreage plus costs and the judgment they incurred in the boundary line dispute with their neighbor. On appeal, we affirm the Judgment of the Trial Court. |
Rhea | Court of Appeals | |
Diana B. Hannahan v. Terry Q. Hannahan
The trial court held Husband in contempt because he failed to comply with the terms of a postdivorce agreed order which modified the terms of the divorce decree regarding the disposition of the marital residence. On appeal, Husband argues that the agreed order was void because the trial court was without jurisdiction to modify the divorce decree after it became final. We hold that the agreed order, which was a modification of the divorce decree by the parties, was valid and enforceable. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in enforcing the terms of the agreed order by holding Husband in contempt of court for noncompliance with the order. |
Cumberland | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Alton Tappan
A Shelby County jury convicted the defendant, Alton Tappan, of aggravated burglary and theft of property valued at $1,000 or more but less than $10,000. The trial court imposed an effective incarcerative sentence of 14 years. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence and complains that his sentence is excessive because the State failed to prove an offender range above Range I. Our review assures us that the evidence is sufficient and that the defendant was properly sentenced. We therefore affirm the convictions and sentence. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Steven Lamont Anderson v. Glen Turner, Warden, State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Steven L. Anderson, appeals from the summary dismissal of his pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, he contends: the trial court did not follow the proper procedures for processing his petition for writ of habeas corpus; the court improperly dismissed his petition; and his right against double jeopardy was violated. After careful review, we conclude that no error exists and affirm the dismissal of the petition. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Guillermo Matias Juan v. Virginia Lewis, Warden and State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Guillermo Matias Juan, pled guilty in the Hamilton County Criminal Court to second degree murder and received a sentence of sixty years incarceration in the Tennessee Departmentof Correction. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus relief, alleging that his sentence was void because he did not have the requisite criminal history to qualify as a persistent offender. The habeas corpus court denied the petition, and the petitioner appeals. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court. |
Bledsoe | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
C.S.C., et al. v. Knox County Board of Education, et al.
In this class action lawsuit filed against the Knox County Board of Education and its superintendent, the trial court awarded the Plaintiffs a portion of their attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988. The Defendants argue on appeal that the trial court erred in finding the Plaintiffs to be “prevailing parties” in the litigation and that the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees was unwarranted and erroneous. We hold that although the Plaintiffs were not successful on all of their claims, they achieved enough success in their lawsuit to be “prevailing parties.” We find no abuse of the trial court’s discretion in awarding Plaintiffs $45,000 in attorney’s fees, and consequently affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Richard Schneider et al. v. The City of Jackson
We granted this appeal primarily to determine whether Tennessee common law includes a law enforcement investigative privilege (“law enforcement privilege”) which operates to exempt from disclosure governmental records that would otherwise be accessible via the Tennessee Public Records Act (“Public Records Act”). See Tenn. Code Ann. § 10-7-503 (Supp. 2006).1 We hold that Tennessee common law does not include the law enforcement privilege and that it should not be adopted herein. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals, which adopted the law enforcement privilege and applied it as an exception to the Public Records Act. However, we remand this case to the trial court to determine whether any of the police department records at issue are part of a pending, open, or ongoing criminal investigation and thus exempt from disclosure. We also reverse the Court of Appeals’ judgment and reinstate the judgment of the trial court permitting Petitioners to recover their attorneys’ fees pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 10-7-505(g) (1999). On remand, the trial court shall calculate and award Petitioners the attorneys’ fees they have incurred on appeal. Finally, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and reinstate the permanent injunction issued by the trial court requiring the City of Jackson (“City”) to respond in writing to future Public Records Act requests of The Jackson Sun or its agents. |
Madison | Supreme Court | |
William Harrison Nix, III v. Richard Terry Sutton
The appellant contends that the circuit court erred in dismissing his appeal from general sessions court when he failed to appear on the date of the hearing. He claimed that he had gone to the wrong courthouse on the hearing date. We affirm. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
John Wayne Webb v. Brandon O.Canada, et al - Concurring
The majority holds that the Judgment denominated “Final Judgment” reducing the previous Judgment from $723,426.27 to $598,426.27 was a “juristic act” of acceptance of the remittitur under protest. I do not agree. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
John Wayne Webb v. Brandon O.Canada, et al
John Wayne Webb was injured in a car wreck and filed suit against two other drivers. A jury found defendant Brandon O. Canada to be solely at fault and awarded Mr. Webb $723,426.27 in compensatory damages against Mr. Canada. An order was entered awarding Mr. Webb judgment against Mr. Canada in the amount of $723,426.27 and dismissing the case as to the other driver, Douglas D. Townsend. Mr. Canada filed a motion seeking a new trial or in the alternative, a remittitur. Following a hearing, the trial court suggested a remittitur in the amount of $125,000. Final judgment was entered on July 24, 2006, referencing the remittitur and reducing the amount of the judgment to $598,426.27. On appeal, Mr. Canada argues that he is entitled to a new trial because Mr. Webb never accepted the remittitur, the verdict was excessive, and the remittitur was inadequate. After review, we find no error and affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Ulysses Richardson v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Ulysses Richardson , appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court's denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The petition for post-conviction relief fails as it is a second such petition and as it is barred by the statute of limitations. The petition similarly fails if considered as a petition for habeas corpus relief, a motion to reopen a petition for post-conviction relief or a petition for writ of error coram nobis. Accordingly, we grant the State's motion and affirm the judgment of the lower court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Thomas M. Powell v. Glen Turner, Warden
The Petitioner, Thomas M. Powell, appeals the lower court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner has failed to assert a ground that would entitle him to habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's dismissal. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals |