State of Tennessee v. Marcell Carter
The appellant, Marcell Carter, pled guilty to a violation of the bad check law, Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-14-121. The trial court sentenced the appellant to four years to be served on Community Corrections. Subsequently, a warrant was filed against the appellant alleging a failure to abide by several conditions of his Community Corrections sentence. After a series of hearings, the trial court removed the appellant from Community Corrections and re-sentenced him to four years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion. Because we determine that the trial court properly revoked the appellant’s Community Corrections sentence and resentenced the appellant, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Dewayne Mann
The appellant, Michael Dewayne Mann, was convicted of second offense driving under the influence (DUI) and violation of the implied consent law. As a result, the appellant was sentenced to eleven months and twenty-nine days in the county jail, to be served on unsupervised probation after incarceration of ninety days. After the denial of a motion for new trial, this appeal ensued. The appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal. Because the evidence was sufficient to sustain the appellant’s conviction for second offense driving under the influence and the appellant does not challenge his conviction for violation of the implied consent law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Faron Douglas Pierce v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant, Faron Douglas Pierce, appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. Pierce was convicted of aggravated robbery by a Blount County jury and was sentenced to twenty years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, Pierce argues that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel, specifically arguing that trial counsel was deficient in: (1) failing to seek suppression of evidence at trial; (2) failing to adequately inform Pierce of his right to testify at trial; and (3) calling a witness which prejudiced the defense. After review, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Charlotte Stephens - Concurring
I agree that principles of double jeopardy would be offended upon the defendant’s retrial for second degree murder because the record does not support the trial court’s finding of manifest necessity and because the defendant, ostensibly at least, did not consent to the order of mistrial. I write this concurring opinion because this latter issue – the defendant’s lack of consent – gave me great pause. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Charlotte Stephens
The appellant, Carolette Stephens, was indicted on one count of second degree murder. During the jury trial in May of 2005, the trial court sua sponte declared a mistrial over objection of both the State and the appellant. The case was immediately rescheduled for trial. The appellant sought a dismissal of the indictment, arguing that the retrial placed the appellant in double jeopardy. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss the indictment, but permitted the appellant to seek an interlocutory appeal. This Court granted the interlocutory appeal. On appeal, the appellant presents the following issues: (1) whether the State provoked the trial court into granting a mistrial by eliciting testimony regarding an unconstitutional search warrant that had been suppressed by the trial court; (2) whether the trial court erred in granting a mistrial based on manifest necessity; and (3) |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Wendy Hill v. Don Triplett
This is an appeal from an order of the juvenile court increasing child support. We reverse and remand for further proceedings. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Jimmy Ray Culberson v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Jimmy Ray Culberson, pled guilty to two counts of rape of a child and received concurrent fifteen-year sentences with 100% service on each count. In September 2003, petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief claiming that his plea was not knowing and voluntary and that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied the petition. In this appeal, petitioner maintains the trial court erred in denying his petition. Following our review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Terry M. Odom v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Terry M. Odom, was indicted on three counts of aggravated sexual battery. Pursuant to a plea agreement, petitioner pled guilty to one count and received an eight-year sentence at 100% while the two remaining counts were dismissed. Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief and after the appointment of counsel filed an amended petition. Following an evidentiary hearing on August 3, 2005, the trial court denied the petition. On appeal, petitioner claims the trial court erred in denying relief. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In the Matter of: B.G.J., a Child Under Eighteen (18) Years of Age, State of Tennessee Department of Children's Services, Petitioner, and Glenn and Patricia Mullins, Intervening Petitioners/Appellees, v. S.R.J. Respondent/Appellant
In this case to terminate parental rights, the Trial Court entered a Default Judgment against the father and terminated his rights as a parent without hearing any evidence. On appeal, we vacate and remand. |
Monroe | Court of Appeals | |
Donald Fitzgerald v. BTR Sealing Systems North America-Tennessee Operations
This workers’ compensation action arose out of an employee’s motion to compel medical treatment. The employee had settled a workers’ compensation claim with his employer involving a work-related injury sustained in 1997. This settlement provided that the employer was responsible for future medical treatment. The employer refused to pay for recommended shoulder joint replacement surgery, arguing that the need for the surgery was not causally related to the initial injury. The trial court found that the need for the surgery was related to the initial injury and ordered the employer to provide for that treatment. The employer appealed, arguing that the trial court improperly shifted the burden of proof to the employer and that the evidence did not support the finding that the need for surgery was causally related to the initial injury. We accepted review before the case was heard or considered by the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel. We hold that the trial court did not shift the burden of proof to the employer and that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s finding of causation. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Blount | Supreme Court | |
Mahle, Inc. v. Walter Dean Rouse
This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation |
Hamblen | Workers Compensation Panel | |
State of Tennessee v. Ronald Eugene Mullins
The appellant, Ronald Eugene Mullins, was convicted by a jury of theft of property over one thousand dollars. The trial court ordered the appellant to serve a three-year sentence as a Range I standard offender. After the denial of a motion for new trial, the appellant filed a timely notice of appeal challenging the sufficiency of the evidence. After a review of the record, we affirm. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kalvin Rush
The Appellant, Kalvin Rush, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of aggravated robbery and sentenced to eight years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, Rush raises the single issue of sufficiency of the evidence. After review of the record, we find the evidence sufficient to support the verdict and affirm the judgment of conviction. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ernest Lee Hill v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Ernest Lee Hill, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus 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. Petitioner has failed to allege any ground that would render the judgments of conviction void. Accordingly, we grant the State's motion and affirm the judgment of the lower court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Arthur Yancy, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Arthur Yancy, Jr., 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. Because the petition for postconviction relief is time-barred by the statute of limitations, we grant the State's motion and affirm the judgment of the lower court. |
Lake | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Farris Genner Morris, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
Capital Petitioner, Farris Genner Morris, Jr., appeals as of right the judgment of the Madison County Circuit Court denying his petition for post-conviction relief. In January 1997, the Petitioner was convicted after a jury trial of two counts of premeditated first-degree murder and one count of aggravated rape. The Petitioner was sentenced to death for the first degree murder of Erica Hurd. For the remaining convictions, the Petitioner received consecutive sentences of life without the possibility of parole for the murder of Charles Ragland and twenty-five years incarceration for the aggravated rape of Angela Ragland. The Petitioner’s convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal by the Tennessee Supreme Court. See State v. Morris, 24 S.W.3d 788 (Tenn. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1082 (2001). On February 6, 2001, the Petitioner filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief. The trial court appointed the Office of the Post-Conviction Defender to represent the Petitioner in the proceedings. An amended petition was filed on December 17, 2001. An evidentiary hearing was conducted in April 2004. On January 18, 2005, the trial court entered an order denying the Petitioner post-conviction relief. On appeal to this Court, the Petitioner presents a number of claims that can be characterized in the following four broad categories for this Court’s review: (1) the denial of a fair post-conviction evidentiary hearing, (2) the denial of a fair sentencing hearing, (3) the ineffective assistance of counsel, and (4) the constitutionality of the imposition of a sentence of death. Following a thorough and exhaustive review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jerry Anderson v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Jerry Anderson, appeals from the order of the trial court dismissing his petition for habeas corpus 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 State’s motion is granted. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Wayne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
John Jude v. Fred K. Riddle, et al.
In this appeal, landowner sued builder alleging that the parties had entered into a partnership and an oral contract to construct a house on property belonging to landowner. Landowner claimed that builder failed to pay him the total consideration for the sale of the land after landowner deeded the property to builder and that builder failed to equally divide the profits from the sale of the improved property once the house was sold. Builder denied the existence of a partnership and oral contract, alleged that the lot had been paid for in full, and claimed that landowner had no interest in the property or the proceeds from the sale of the improved property. The trial court found that a partnership and oral contract existed between the parties and awarded landowner the balance on the sale of the land and one-half of the profits from the sale of the improved property. We affirm the judgment of the trial court in all respects. |
Hickman | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John Liddell
Following a jury trial, Defendant, John Liddell, was convicted of two counts of theft of property valued at $500 or less, a Class A misdemeanor; one count of the aggravated assault of Robert Bolinger, a Class C felony; and one count of the aggravated assault of Cheffie Hurt, a Class C felony. The trial court sentenced Defendant to concurrent sentences of thirteen years as a Range III, persistent offender for each felony conviction, and eleven months, twenty-nine days for each misdemeanor conviction, for an effective sentence of thirteen years. Defendant does not appeal the length of his sentences or the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his theft convictions. In his appeal, Defendant argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his two convictions of aggravated assault. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ronald Clinton
Following a jury trial, Defendant, Ronald Clinton, was convicted of one count of the unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, a Class A misdemeanor; one count of evading arrest, a Class E felony; and one count of simple assault, a Class A misdemeanor. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Defendant to eleven months, twenty-nine days for each misdemeanor conviction, and six years as a Range III, career offender, for his felony conviction, and ordered the sentences to be served consecutively. Defendant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his assault conviction, or the length or manner of service of his sentences. In his appeal, Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions for the unauthorized use of a motor vehicle and felony evading arrest. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jerry Bell
Following a jury trial, the Defendant, Jerry Bell, was convicted of two counts of aggravated robbery, one count of aggravated burglary, one count of aggravated assault, and one count of possession of a deadly weapon with the intent to employ it in the commission of aggravated robbery. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions because the State failed to prove his identity beyond a reasonable doubt. We conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support his convictions but that the convictions for both aggravated robbery and possession of a deadly weapon violate double jeopardy protections. The Defendant’s conviction for possession of a deadly weapon is dismissed. The Defendant’s remaining convictions and sentences are affirmed. We remand solely for the entry of an appropriate judgment consistent with this opinion. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Mark Anthony Hatmaker v. Allied Industrial Equipment, Inc., et al.
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court awarded the plaintiff 76 percent permanent partial disability to the body as whole and 39 additional weeks of temporary total disability benefits. On appeal, the defendant contends that the award of permanent partial disability was excessive; that the award of temporary total disability was not warranted; and the trial court erred in allowing the testimony of a vocational expert. After carefully reviewing the record and applicable authorities, we find no error and affirm the judgment. |
Anderson | Workers Compensation Panel | |
State of Tennessee v. DeCarlos Rodgers
The defendant, Decarlos Rodgers, pled guilty to possession of cocaine in an amount greater than 0.5 grams with intent to sell and convicted felon in possession of a handgun. He was sentenced to twelve and two years, respectively, to be served concurrently as a Range II offender. As a condition of his guilty plea, the defendant reserved a certified question of law pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2)(A) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure regarding whether the indictments against him should have been dismissed under a theory of promissory estoppel. After review, we conclude that the questions are properly certified and that the trial court ruled correctly in denying the motion to dismiss. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Dora W. Moore v. James G. Neeley, Commissioner of The Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development, and U.S. Postal Service
This case involves a claim for unemployment compensation filed with the Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development. The claimant was initially denied unemployment benefits based on the Agency’s finding that she had been terminated for work related misconduct. First-level appeals from agency decisions are allowed within fifteen days. The claimant appealed and an inperson hearing was scheduled. She requested a re-scheduling of the hearing, and her request was accommodated. She then canceled the second scheduled hearing and requested a withdrawal of her unemployment claim. Later, she attempted to re-appeal the initial agency determination outside the |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Billy James Matthews v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant, Billy James Matthews, appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. Matthews’ convictions stem from his guilty pleas to rape and robbery, for which he was sentenced to ten years and six years respectively. In this appeal, Matthews raises the following issue for our review: whether the evidence preponderates against the post-conviction court’s findings that he received the effective assistance of counsel. The State asserts that the post-conviction petition should be dismissed because it was filed outside the one-year post-conviction statute of limitations. We agree and conclude that Matthews’ petition is barred by the statute of limitations. Dismissal of the post-conviction petition is affirmed. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals |