In Re D.Y.H.
The father was granted custody of his minor child in juvenile court after the court found the daughter to be dependent and neglected. Three years after the order was entered, the mother filed a petition for change of custody in juvenile court, which was denied. The mother appealed the juvenile court’s order to circuit court. The circuit court dismissed the appeal concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the petition filed by the mother was not a part of the dependency and neglect proceeding. The Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court. We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and hold that the subsequent custody decision was a part of the dependency and neglect proceeding so that it is properly appealable to circuit court for a de novo hearing. |
Madison | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Savalas O. McNeal
The defendant, Savalas O. McNeal, was convicted by a Madison County jury of possession of cocaine with the intent to sell and deliver and received a ten-year sentence to the Department of Correction as a Range II, multiple offender. On appeal, the defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. We conclude that the evidence was sufficient, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William T. Utley
The Appellant, William T. Utley, was convicted by a Chester County jury of the Class D felonies of burglary and theft of property over $1000. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed concurrent four-year sentences of incarceration for each conviction. On appeal, Utley has raised three issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to support the convictions; (2) whether the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on voluntary intoxication; and (3) whether the court erred in denying alternative sentencing. Following review of the record, we find no error and affirm the judgments of conviction and resulting sentences. |
Chester | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Allen Shawn Dye v. Amanda Layne Fowler
The primary residential parent of the parties' eleven-year-old child requested permission to relocate to Georgia because her husband accepted employment that provided a significant increase in pay and better opportunities for advancement. The father opposed the relocation. The trial court, which made no findings of fact, denied the request based upon the conclusion the relocation did not have a reasonable purpose. We have determined the evidence preponderates in favor of the finding that the mother had a reasonable purpose for relocating to Georgia. Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand with instructions to grant the requested relocation to Georgia. |
Lewis | Court of Appeals | |
Kim McGill v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant, Kim McGill, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of her petition for post-conviction relief. McGill pled guilty to aggravated robbery and received a sentence of 7.2 years, as a mitigated offender, to be served in the Department of Correction. On appeal, she asserts that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to advise her of the right to request recusal of the trial judge based upon the judge’s comments to the Appellant following her request to obtain private counsel. Following review, we affirm the denial of the petition. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Rudolph Powers v. Tennessee Board of Probation and Paroles
This appeal involves a prisoner seeking parole. The petitioner was convicted in 1981 and is serving a life sentence. In 2004, he was denied parole based on the severity of his offense. He filed the instant petition for a common-law writ of certiorari, claiming violations of his constitutional right to equal protection and due process, and a violation of the ex post facto clause of the Constitution. The trial court dismissed the petition on its face, finding that it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The petitioner filed this appeal. We affirm, concluding that the petition does not state a claim for relief. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Arthur T. Copeland
The Defendant, Arthur T. Copeland, was convicted of one count of first degree murder and sentenced to death. The jury found a single aggravating circumstance, that the Defendant previously had been convicted of one or more felonies involving violence to the person, see Tenn. Code Ann.§ 39-13-204(i)(2) (1997), and further found that the aggravating circumstance outweighed the mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt, see Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-204(g)(1) (1997). The Court of Criminal Appeals held that the trial court properly excluded expert testimony on eyewitness identification but committed plain error by failing to conduct a hearing pursuant to Momon v. State, 18 S.W.3d 152, 157 (Tenn. 1999), and ordered a remand for a determination of whether the error was harmless. Further, the Court of Criminal Appeals set aside the sentence of death as disproportionate. We granted the State’s application for permission to appeal in order to resolve the dispositive issues. We first hold that the trial court erred by prohibiting the Defendant from offering expert testimony regarding eyewitness testimony and overrule State v. Coley, 32 S.W.3d 831 (Tenn. 2000). Because the exclusion of the testimony cannot be classified as harmless under these circumstances, the Defendant must be granted a new trial. Although the trial court failed to conduct a Momon hearing, consideration of that issue is not necessary because of the grant of a new trial. Finally, we conclude that the Court of Criminal Appeals erred by finding that the death sentence was disproportionate; thus the State may choose to seek the death penalty upon remand. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and the cause is remanded for a new trial. |
Blount | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Herbert Cope
The defendant, Herbert Cope, was convicted by an Overton County Criminal Court jury of sale of a Schedule II controlled substance (morphine), a Class C felony, and was sentenced by the trial court as a Range II offender to nine years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues that the trial court imposed an excessive sentence by failing to apply applicable mitigating factors and erroneously applying an inapplicable enhancement factor. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Overton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Christopher Lovin v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Christopher Lovin, was convicted of felony murder in the perpetration of aggravated child abuse and sentenced to life imprisonment. His conviction and sentence were upheld on direct appeal. Subsequently, he filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that trial counsel was ineffective. After an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court dismissed the petition, and the petitioner timely appealed. Following our review, we affirm the dismissal. |
Claiborne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Patrick McGee v. Tommy Jacobs, Jacobs, Cohen & McCormick, PLLC CPAS
Appellant asserts the circuit court erred by dismissing this action as untimely under the savings statute. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Delshaun Epps
The appellant, Delshaun Epps, was indicted for especially aggravated robbery and felony murder. After a jury trial, the appellant was convicted of especially aggravated robbery and reckless homicide. The appellant was subsequently sentenced to twenty-four years for the robbery conviction and four years on the homicide conviction. The trial court ordered the appellant to serve the sentences consecutively, for a total effective sentence of twenty-eight years. After the denial of a motion for new trial, the appellant pursued this appeal. On appeal, the appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and his sentence. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Rick Braden - Concurring
I join with my colleagues in concluding that reversal of both convictions is necessary. I write separately to note, in basic terms, my reasons for so concluding. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Rick Braden
The defendant, Rick Braden, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of two counts of aggravated robbery, and he received concurrent nine-year sentences. On appeal, he argues that (1) the trial court erred in not allowing him to introduce the guilty pleas of two named co-defendants, (2) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions, and (3) the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of facilitation. Following our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the trial court erred in failing to charge the lesser-included offense of facilitation, and therefore, reverse the judgments of the trial court and remand for a new trial. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Dickey L. Cotton v. David Mills, Warden (State of Tennessee)
This case is before us after remand by the Tennessee Supreme Court for reconsideration in light of its holdings in Summers v. State, 212 S.W.3d 251 (Tenn. 2007); Smith v. Lewis, 202 S.W.3d 124 (Tenn. 2006); and Shaun Hoover v. State, 215 S.W.3rd 776 (Tenn. Jan. 23, 2007). The petitioner, Dickey L. Cotton, appeals the circuit court’s summary dismissal of his pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus. Upon reconsideration, we affirm the court’s dismissal of the habeas corpus petition. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Mohamed Medhet Karim
In November 2004, the defendant, Mohamed Medhet Karim, was indicted by a Wayne County grand jury on one count of attempted first degree murder. On August 31, 2005, following a jury trial in Wayne County Circuit Court, the jury convicted the defendant of attempted second degree murder and imposed a fine of $10,000. Following a sentencing hearing on October 13, 2005, the trial court sentenced the defendant to twelve years of incarceration as a Range I, standard offender, the maximum sentence allowed under the statute. The defendant timely filed a motion for a new trial on November 1, 2005; this motion was denied on January 4, 2006. The defendant now appeals, claiming his sentence was excessive. In making his claim, the defendant argues that two of the enhancement factors provided in Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-114 were improperly applied to his sentence. Concluding that application of the two enhancement factors which the defendant does not challenge is sufficient to support the twelve-year sentence imposed by the trial court, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Wayne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Herman Charles Heikkenen v. Janice Lee Heikkenen
On this appeal, the sole issue is whether the trial court erred in awarding $1,500.00 per month as alimony in futuro to the wife. Finding no basis for determining the trial court abused its discretion in awarding alimony in this amount, we affirm. |
White | Court of Appeals | |
Brenda J. Woodward v. Michael v. Woodward - Dissenting
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s Opinion affirming the Trial Court’s division of the marital property. I take no issue with the Trial Court and the majority concerning what was marital property and what was separate property. However, I respectfully disagree with the majority’s Opinion as I believe that it, as did the Trial Court, largely ignores the fact that this is a short term marriage, a very short term marriage, and what is the court’s goal in such a situation. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Brenda J. Woodward v. Michael v. Woodward
In this divorce case, Husband argues that the trial court erred in its classification, valuation, and division of the marital estate, including the award to Wife of $1,000 to “equalize the marital property division.” Upon our determination that the evidence did not support an award of $1,000 to Wife to equalize the marital property division, the trial court’s judgment is vacated in that regard. In all other respects, Husband failed to show that the evidence preponderated against the trial court’s decision, and the judgment is affirmed. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Vacated in Part and Affirmed in Part; Cause Remanded |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Carroll Carson Sanders
The Defendant, Carroll Carson Sanders, pled guilty in two cases to eight counts of theft over $10,000, five counts of theft over $1000, and one count of theft over $500. The parties agreed to an effective sentence of ten years, with the trial court to determine the manner of service of the ten-year sentence, followed by five years of probation. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered the Defendant to serve his effective ten-year sentence in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it denied him an alternative sentence. Concluding there exists no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Carter | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Sharon Norris Little v. Aerospace Center Support, as a Joint Venture of Computer Science Corporation, and United Regional Medical Center v. American International Group, Inc.
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 hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The employee suffered carpal tunnel injuries to both upper extremities. The trial court found that the employee was entitled to a permanent partial disability award of 30% to each upper extremity. The trial court assigned liability for the benefits upon the last insurer for the employee’s previous employer, finding that the employee’s condition had not been aggravated or advanced by her job duties with her subsequent employer. The insurance company appealed. We affirm the trial court in all respects. |
Franklin | Workers Compensation Panel | |
State of Tennessee v. Eric Michael Goldman
The Appellant, Eric Michael Goldman, was convicted by a Marshall County jury of misdemeanor reckless endangerment and public intoxication and received sentences of eleven months and twenty-nine days and thirty days, respectively. On appeal, the Appellant raises the single issue of sufficiency of the evidence. After review, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Building Materials Corporation, D/B/A GAF Materials Corporation v. Joyce Austin and Joyce Austin v. Building Materials Corporation, D/B/A GAF Materials Corporation
This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel of the Tennessee Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. On appeal, the employee contends that the trial court erred when it dismissed the employee’s back injury claim based on her failure to comply with the notice provisions of Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-201. Although dismissing the employee’s claim, the trial court made an alternative finding that the back injury was work-related and resulted in a 20% vocational impairment to the body as a whole. The employer appeals this alternative ruling contending that the trial court erred in finding the injury work-related. We conclude that the trial court erred in dismissing the employee’s claim based on the notice provisions and affirm the trial court’s finding that the back injury is work-related and results in a 20% impairment to the body as a whole. We conclude that the alternative finding is supported by the record. Therefore, we affirm in part and reverse in part, remanding this case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Davidson | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Mary Nell McCrary v. Cracker Barrel, Old Country Store, Inc.
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 5-6-225(e) (3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this case, the trial court found the employee, Mary Nell McCrary, permanently totally disabled. The employer, Cracker Barrel, Old Country Store, Inc. (Cracker Barrel), appeals alleging the trial court based its determination on inaccurate factual findings, unreliable expert testimony and inadmissible evidence. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e) (25) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Trial Court Affirmed DONALD P. HARRIS, SR. J., in which GARY R. WADE, J., and J. S. (STEVE) DANIEL, SR. J., joined. John Thomas Feeney, Catherine L. Grant, Nashville, Tennessee, for the Appellant, Cracker Barrel, Old Country Store, Inc. Neal Agee, Lebanon, Tennessee, for the Appellee, Mary Nell McCrary. MEMORANDUM OPINION I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The parties to this action for workers' compensation benefits stipulated that Ms. McCrary suffered a compensable injury to her left shoulder on January 2, 1998. She reached maximum medical improvement on November 1, 1998, and was assigned a thirty-four percent (34%) impairment rating to the body as a whole by her treating physician, Dr. Roy Terry. Ms. McCrary was sixty years of age at the time of the trial. On January 2, 1998, while working at the Cracker Barrel Distribution Center as an order puller, she fell over a guard rail, and very painfully landed on her left shoulder. Ms. McCrary is left-handed, so the injury was to her dominant arm. After being examined at a local clinic, she was referred to Dr. Roy Terry, an orthopedic surgeon. After reviewing the results of an MRI, Dr. Terry recommended and performed surgery. Following surgery, the problems with her left arm worsened. She was given pain medication that was eventually replaced by a TENS unit which Ms. McCrary continues to use daily along with Tylenol. Dr. Terry released her on November 1, 1998, but restricted her from using her left arm and shoulder. She attempted to return to Cracker Barrel, but was told that the jobs there required use of both arms. Ms. McCrary testified that she has lost much of the use and strength in her left arm. She finds it difficult or impossible to perform common tasks such as brushing her teeth and hair, dressing herself and bathing. She does none of the housework, cooking, or yard work and has difficulty answering the telephone. Ms. McCrary spends about half her day lying down or reclining, and has not worked since being released by Dr. Terry. She had an automobile accident in March 1999, in which she injured her right shoulder and has also had surgery on that shoulder. Over the objection of Cracker Barrel, Ms. McCrary was allowed to testify that following her release by Dr. Terry, Cracker Barrel continued paying her weekly compensation for several years. According to Ms. McCrary, it was when the workers' compensation insurance carrier for Cracker Barrel indicated that after January 17, 26, she would no longer receive these payments that she filed her lawsuit for workers' compensation benefits. Ms. McCrary completed the eleventh grade at Mt. Juliet High School before getting married and discontinuing her education. She worked for four or five years at McFarland Hospital as a nurse's aide. Thereafter, for a time, she stayed home and took care of her son before going to work for her husband and his father in their business, McCrary and Son Excavating. Her duties there included cleaning the offices, doing light filing, and answering the telephone. When she and Mr. McCrary were divorced, she left that job and began working for Johnson's Retirement Center as a patient assistant and housekeeper. Ms. McCrary held that job for four to six years and then accepted employment from Cracker Barrel where she worked for about four years prior to her injury. Her job at Cracker Barrel involved filling, packing and shipping orders from the various Cracker Barrel stores and required that she use both arms, lifting and reaching. Ms. McCrary testified she could not do any of the jobs she had previously held. She has had no vocational training of any kind and is not good at reading or math. She described herself as being a slow learner in school. Ms. McCrary is able to write with her left hand and can pick up objects that are not heavy. She testified, however, that she was not able to do anything for a long period of time because of the pain in her shoulder and arm. -2- ****** Document Outline ****** * Page_1 * Page_2 * Page_3 * Page_4 * Page_5 * Page_6 * Page_7 * Page_8 * Page_9 |
Wilson | Workers Compensation Panel | |
State of Tennessee v. George Robert Waggoner
The defendant, George Robert Waggoner, was convicted by a DeKalb County jury of two counts of premeditated murder, two counts of murder committed during the perpetration of a theft of property valued at over one thousand dollars, and one count of theft of property valued at over one thousand dollars, a Class D felony, involving the deaths of his grandparents. The premeditated murder and felony murder counts merged, and the trial court imposed two consecutive life sentences for the murder convictions concurrent with a three year sentence, as a Range I, standard offender, for the theft conviction. The defendant now appeals, claiming the trial court erred in admitting prior bad acts committed by the defendant, in admitting photographs of the deceased victims taken at the crime scene, and in imposing consecutive life sentences. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
DeKalb | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Marks, Shell & Maness, et al. v. Cynthia T. Mann, et al.
A judgment lienholder appeals from a trial court’s determination that a purchase money mortgage lien on real property has priority over a previously recorded judgment lien. Based upon this court’s holding in Guffey v. Creutzinger, 948 S.W.2d 219 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998), we affirm the trial court. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals |