In the Matter of: S. L. A.
Mother appeals the termination of her parental rights, contending the evidence was not clear and convincing that she abandoned her child and that termination of her parental rights is in the best interest of the child. The trial court found the mother had abandoned the child by engaging in conduct that exhibited a wanton disregard for the welfare of her child, which conduct included ingesting drugs while pregnant and while breast feeding, and the manufacture of methamphetamine in the family home. We affirm. |
Fentress | Court of Appeals | |
Ann Marie Gillespie v. Andrew Mark Gillespie
The issue presented in this case is whether the Wife’s alimony award is modifiable due to her remarriage when the divorce decree does not classify the alimony award, stating only that “the [Husband] shall pay alimony to the [Wife] in the amount of five hundred dollars per month for a |
Sevier | Court of Appeals | |
Melissa A. Rhymer, Legal Custodian of Robert A. Trivett and wife, Maria Trivett, v. 21st Mortgage Corporation and Southern Showcase Housing, INC., d/b/a Homes America
In this case defendants moved to arbitrate the dispute since plaintiff signed a contract to arbitrate. Plaintiff pled incompetence to contract, but the Trial Court held that issue was subject to arbitration. We vacate and remand and instruct the Trial Court to decide the issue of incompetency. |
Hawkins | Court of Appeals | |
C.S.C., et. al. v. Knox County Board of Education, et al.
In this class action lawsuit, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants, the Knox County Board of Education and its superintendent, were guilty of statutory, regulatory, and constitutional violations in the design and implementation of theBoard’s evening alternative education program for students who are expelled or suspended from their regular schools. The trial court rejected the plaintiffs’ challenges. The plaintiffs appeal. We affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
R.D.M. v. State of Tennessee, Department of Children's Services, In the Matter of: D.J.M.M., Jr., D.O.B. 8/28/2000
Appellant, who was married to the mother at the birth of the child, claims the Trial Court erred in failing to engage in a comparative fitness test in awarding the child to a person who by DNA testing was shown to be the biological father. We affirm. |
Roane | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tulinague Thandiwe
The Appellant, Tulinague Thandiwe, proceeding pro se, 1 appeals the sentencing decision of the Shelby County Criminal Court which resulted in the imposition of an eight-year sentence of incarceration. On appeal, Thandiwe challenges the trial court’s denial of alternative sentencing. After review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Stephen D. Lamb
The Appellant, Stephen D. Lamb, was convicted by a Madison County jury of burglary, a Class D felony, and the misdemeanor offenses of possession of burglary tools and evading arrest. Lamb received an eight-year sentence for burglary and an eleven month and twenty-nine day sentence for each misdemeanor conviction. The misdemeanor sentences were ordered to run concurrently with each other but consecutively to the felony conviction. On appeal, Lamb raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether the trial court erred in failing to suppress certain items found in Lamb’s possession at the time of his arrest; (2) whether the trial court erred in admitting a police videotape; (3) whether the evidence is sufficient to support his convictions; and (4) whether Lamb’s sentence |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Oscar Sevilla v. Douglas Cox
The trial court awarded summary judgment in favor of Defendant in this negligence action. We affirm. |
Fayette | Court of Appeals | |
Adam Charles Partin v. Delores Lourraine Wallis
Adam Charles Partin (“Father”) filed a petition to modify his child support obligation claiming that a significant variance existed between his income at the time his child support obligation was originally calculated and his current income. The case was tried and the Trial Court entered an order finding and holding, inter alia, that a significant variance did exist making the child support order eligible for modification. The Trial Court then reduced Father’s child support. Delores Lourraine Wallis (“Mother”) appeals claiming that the Trial Court erred in calculating Father’s income and that a significant variance does not exist. We affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Bobby Brown v. Nissan North America, 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 section 50-6-226(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In determining the appropriate vocational disability rating, the trial court considered conflicting medical testimony, the employee's work duties, and other factors such as the employee's education, age, and skill level. The employer contends the trial court erred when it awarded a 10% vocational disability rating to the plaintiff's right leg. After a careful review of the record, we conclude that the trial court's judgment should be affirmed. |
Rutherford | Workers Compensation Panel | |
State of Tennessee v. Albert R. Neese - Concurring and Dissenting
I concur in the results and most of the reasoning in the majority opinion. I disagree, however, with the opinion’s conclusion that the trial court properly instructed the jury that the culpable mental state of recklessness would satisfy the unlawful sexual penetration element in the offense of child rape. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Albert R. Neese
The defendant, Albert R. Neese, appeals from jury convictions of two counts of aggravated sexual battery and two counts of rape of a child. The defendant also appeals the imposition of consecutive sentences which totaled twenty-eight years. The issues on appeal include challenges to the admissibility of a videotaped interview of the seven-year-old victim, the defendant’s pastor’s report to the police, and the victim’s statement to a social worker for medical diagnosis and treatment. The remaining issues are the propriety of the jury instructions as to the mens rea elements of child rape and the propriety of consecutive sentences. Having found no reversible error, we affirm the judgments of conviction and sentence as imposed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Willie Johnson v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Willie Johnson, appeals the Madison County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his conviction of burglary and theft over $500, for which he is serving eight years. He was sentenced to eight years on the burglary conviction and four years for theft, to be served concurrently. The petitioner claims he received ineffective assistance of counsel and argues that his attorney: (1) failed to provide him a list of the grand jurors who indicted him, including their racial make-up; (2) failed to consult him on every peremptory challenge; (3) failed to advise him to testify on his own behalf; (4) failed to persuade him to wear something other than his prison uniform at trial; and (5) failed to fully investigate and interview the witnesses in his case. After careful review, we conclude that no basis to grant relief exists, and we affirm the postconviction court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Nathaniel Benton, a/k/a, Nathan Gray v. Tony Parker, Warden
The Petitioner, Nathaniel Benton, a/k/a, Nathan Gray 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 his conviction and subsequent sentence for being a habitual criminal is void because the underlying convictions upon which the habitual criminal conviction is based are void. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the habeas court. |
Lake | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Myrna Jill Johnson Halle
The Defendant, Myrna Jill Johnson Halle, was convicted of reckless aggravated assault and received an effective sentence of twelve years in prison to be served at sixty percent. On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction and established that the Defendant acted in self-defense; and (2) the trial court erred when it sentenced her. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Tipton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Dale Rimmer
Capital Appellant Michael Dale Rimmer appeals as of right his sentence of death resulting from the 1997 murder of Ricci Ellsworth. In November 1998, Appellant Rimmer was convicted of theft of property, aggravated robbery and premeditated first degree murder. He was sentenced to death for the murder conviction. On direct appeal, a panel of this Court affirmed Appellant Rimmer’s convictions but, concluding that the sentencing verdict was “enigmatic and uncertain,” vacated the sentence of death and remanded for a new sentencing hearing. See State v. Michael D. Rimmer, No. W1999-00637-CCA-R3-DD, 2001 WL 567960, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, May 25, 2001). Accordingly, the case was remanded to the Criminal Court for Shelby County for re-sentencing. At the conclusion of the re-sentencing hearing in January 2004, the jury found the presence of one statutory aggravating circumstance, i.e., that the defendant was previously convicted of one or more felonies whose statutory elements involved the use of violence to the person, T.C.A. § 39-13-204(i)(2) (1997). The jury further determined that the aggravating circumstance outweighed the mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt and imposed a sentence of death. The trial court approved the sentencing verdict. Appellant Rimmer timely appeals presenting for our review the following issues: (1) whether the trial court erred in denying the motion for recusal; (2) whether the trial court erred in denying the motion for a continuance; (3) whether the trial court erred in excluding mitigation evidence; (4) whether the prosecutor engaged in misconduct; (5) whether the jury instruction on reasonable doubt was error; (6) whether the Appellant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to testify; (7) whether it was error for the jury to be informed that the Appellant had been on “death row;” (8) whether the jury verdict was complete; (9) whether cumulative error requires reversal; and (10) whether the Tennessee death penalty statutes are constitutional. After review, we find no error of law requiring reversal. Accordingly, we affirm the jury’s imposition of the sentence of death in this case. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Eugene L. Lampley, et al. v. Melvin D. Romine, et al.
In a boundary dispute, the trial court refused to find estoppel by deed since the party raising the estoppel had not relied on the erroneous deeds. We affirm. |
Dickson | Court of Appeals | |
Holiday Hospitality Franchising, Inc., f/k/a Holiday Inns Franchising v. States Resources, Inc., et al.
The issue presented in this priority dispute between a first deed of trust holder and a judgment lien creditor involves the legal effect of the inadvertent and erroneous release of the deed of trust. States Resources Corporation (SRC), Defendant/Appellant, holds two liens on the same real property: one as successor-in-interest to a judgment creditor and the other as assignee of a promissory note for a construction loan, secured by a deed of trust originally held by Trust One Bank. Plaintiff/Appellee Holiday Hospitality Franchising (Holiday) also holds a judgment lien that, in relation to SRC’s filings, was filed last in time. SRC appeals summary judgment entered in favor of Holiday and contends that as assignee of Trust One’s note and first-filed deed of trust, it occupies the most senior lien position, notwithstanding the mistaken release of the deed prior to the assignment. Because Trust One’s release was inadvertent and unintended, and because restoring the deed of trust to its original priority position would not prejudice the rights of Holiday, an intervening judgment lien creditor, we hold that, as a matter of law, the mistaken release should be cancelled in part and the deed as to Lot 30 should be restored to its position as first deed of trust. Accordingly, we reverse and remand. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Highwoods Properties, Inc., et al. v. City of Memphis, et al.
The trial court dismissed Plaintiffs’ cause of action as time-barred under Tennessee Code Annotated §§ 6-51-102(a)(1) & 103. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Michael A. Sullivan, on Behalf of Himself and Others Similarly Situated Under T.C.A. 29-21-104 v. Karen Watson, et al.
The petitioner, Michael A. Sullivan, filed an application for habeas corpus relief in the Williamson County Circuit Court to challenge his conviction in the Williamson County General Sessions Court for sixth offense driving on a revoked license. He was sentenced to 11 months, 29 days, with all but 65 days suspended on supervised probation. He contends that Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 5(c) and Tennessee Code Annotated sections 40-1-109 and 40-3-101 are unconstitutional and should not allow a defendant to waive an indictment. After careful review of the record, we conclude no grounds exist for granting habeas corpus relief and we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Richard Hale Austin v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Richard Hale Austin, was sentenced to death by a Shelby County jury on March 5, 1999. In October 2004, the petitioner’s counsel filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis on the basis of newly discovered evidence in the form of recanted testimony. Without holding an evidentiary hearing, the coram nobis court dismissed the petition, and the petitioner now brings this appeal challenging the action. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the lower court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
John E. Saulsberry v. State of Tennessee
Aggrieved of the Lauderdale County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief, the petitioner, John E. Saulsberry, appeals. The habeas corpus court denied the petition, finding that the petitioner’s negotiated plea agreement was valid because “[his] voluntary guilty plea waive[d] any irregularity as to offender classification or release eligibility,” that the petitioner’s sentences had not expired, and that the trial court had jurisdiction to sentence the petitioner. We affirm the lower court’s order of dismissal. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Felix Lopez v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Felix Lopez, pled guilty to manslaughter and received a negotiated out-of-range fifteen-year sentence, to be served at sixty percent. Subsequently, petitioner timely filed a post-conviction petition alleging he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. When the post-conviction court denied post-conviction relief, this appeal followed. After careful review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. David Marsh
Following a jury trial, Defendant, David Marsh, was convicted of two counts of forgery and sentenced to serve three years in the Department of Correction for each offense, to be served concurrently, for an effective sentence of three years. On appeal, Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions for forgery. After a thorough review, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Faris Adb Al-Ali v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Faris Adb Al-Ali, was convicted by a Rutherford County jury of rape of a child and received a twenty-two year sentence. The conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. Petitioner timely filed his pro se post-conviction petition. Following the appointment of counsel and filing of an amended petition, the post-conviction court conducted an evidentiary hearing on the petition. On December 1, 2005, the post-conviction court entered an order dismissing the petition. Petitioner appealed. We affirm the post-conviction court. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals |