Bobby Davis v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Bobby Davis, appeals from the post-conviction court’s order dismissing his petition or post-conviction relief after finding that the petition was filed outside the statute of limitations. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-102(a). On appeal, the petitioner argues that his right to due process required the statute of limitations be tolled. Following our review, we affirm the dismissal of the petition. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Marvin L. Locke
The defendant, Marvin L. Locke, appeals from his Bradley County Criminal Court convictions of selling methamphetamine, a schedule II controlled substance, in a school zone; possession of methamphetamine in a school zone with intent to sell; unlawful possession of a firearm; and possession of drug paraphernalia. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of eight years. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence that the sale and possession of methamphetamine (the subjects, respectively, of the first two counts of the indictment) occurred within 1,000 feet of a school. Following our review of the case, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Bradley | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ciondre T. Moore, alias, Ciondre T. Porter v. State of Tennessee
The Defendant, Ciondre T. Moore, alias, Ciondre T. Porter, was convicted in three separate cases of multiple offenses and sentenced to twelve years of intensive probation. Subsequently, two violation of probation warrants were issued, and the Defendant pled guilty to violating his probation. He then filed a pro se motion alleging that the trial court had made a clerical error by not giving him sentencing credit for the time that he had served on probation. The trial court denied the motion after a hearing. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Willie Calvin Taylor v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Willie Calvin Taylor, appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief by the Dyer County Circuit Court. The circuit court dismissed the petition, finding that the petitioner had filed his petition outside the one year statute of limitations period. After review, we affirm the dismissal of the petition. |
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Marques Lanier Bonds, aka "Mark"
The defendant, Marques Lanier Bonds, AKA “Mark,” was convicted by a Lauderdale County jury of attempted second-degree murder, reckless aggravated assault, aggravated assault, reckless endangerment, and reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon. He was sentenced to an effective term of twelve years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, he challenges: (1) the trial court’s denial of his motion in limine regarding testimony of his prior incarceration; (2) the sufficiency of the convicting evidence; (3) the trial court’s acceptance of the jury’s verdict; and (4) the sentence imposed by the trial court. Following our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we modify the judgments of the trial court to reflect the merger of the defendant’s aggravated assault conviction into his attempted second-degree murder conviction and his reckless endangerment conviction into his reckless aggravated assault conviction and affirm the trial court’s judgments in all other respects. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Thomas R. Cook, III
The appellant, Thomas R. Cook, III, was convicted by a jury of assault, resisting arrest and carrying a dangerous weapon. As a result, the appellant was sentenced to an effective sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days on probation after the service of thirty days in jail. After the denial of a motion for new trial, the appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. On appeal, the appellant argues that he was denied the right to testify because of an erroneous evidentiary ruling made by the trial court and that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. After a review of the evidence, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict and that the trial court erred in determining that the piece of evidence was admissible. However, because we are unable to determine from the record whether the error was reversible, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James A. Vaughn v. State of Tennessee AND Rearno Vaughn v. State of Tennessee
We granted permission to appeal these post-conviction cases and then consolidated them to determine a question common to both: were the petitioners denied effective assistance of counsel when trial counsel failed to object to an erroneous jury instruction regarding the release eligibility for a person convicted of first degree murder when there had been a recent change in the law. Both petitioners also raise additional arguments regarding whether their trial counsel were ineffective in other respects. The Court of Criminal Appeals upheld the decision of the post-conviction court, holding that the petitioners were not denied their right to effective assistance of counsel. We reverse the Court of Criminal Appeals in part, holding that the petitioners were denied their right to effective assistance of counsel based on counsel’s failure to object to erroneous jury instructions regarding release eligibility. We affirm the Court of Criminal Appeals on all other issues, holding that neither trial counsel was ineffective in any other aspect of their representation. Therefore, we reverse both petitioners’ convictions for first degree murder and remand for new trials on that charge alone. We affirm all remaining convictions. |
Sumner | Supreme Court | |
Ronnie Lyn Christ v. Kery N. Homonai
This appeal involves a dispute over a non-marital child's surname. Father/Appellant filed a petition in the Juvenile Court of Shelby County, seeking to legitimate his son and to give him his surname. Following a bench trial, the juvenile court legitimated the child, and directed that the
1Because juvenile courts are courts of record, T.C.A. § 37-1-159(a) (2005), appeals in proceedings such as this one proceed directly to this court. T.C.A. § 37-1-159(g). |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Benny Ray Mitchell
The Defendant, Benny Ray Mitchell, was convicted of theft of property valued over $10,000 and for operation of a chop shop. The trial court sentenced the Defendant, a persistent offender, to twelve years for the theft conviction and ten years for the operation of a chop shop, and it ordered that the sentences run consecutively. On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions; and (2) the jury was unable to render an unbiased verdict because one juror had a medical condition that he willfully failed to disclose. Finding that there exists no reversible error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court |
Cocke | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
William L. Smith v. Virginia Lewis, Warden, et al.
We granted permission to appeal to determine the extent to which a judgment order containing a sentence for rape of a child which suggests the possibility of early release is void and subject to correction by writ of habeas corpus. On the facts of this case, we grant habeas corpus relief to the extent of vacating the illegal sentence but not to the extent of vacating the underlying conviction. We therefore affirm in part and reverse in part the Court of Criminal Appeals. This matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Bledsoe | Supreme Court | |
Christy Neal Elizabeth Barrentine v. Timothy Tyrone Barrentine
This appeal stems from a divorce. In this appeal, the husband asserts that the circuit court erred when it (1) awarded his wife transitional alimony in the amount of $4,000 per month for the first four years and $1,000 per month for the next five years, (2) assigned 100% of the parties’ marital debts to him, and (3) allocated $650 for his wife’s work related child care expenses when calculating the parties’ child support obligations. Husband argues that the amount of transitional alimony was excessive as he did not have the ability to pay that amount and that the amount exceeded his wife’s needs. He also argues that the circuit court should have equitably distributed the parties’ marital debts and that the circuit court should not have allocated work related child care expenses in excess of his wife’s monthly gross income. Additionally, the wife has requested that this Court award her attorney’s fees on appeal. We affirm as modified the decisions of the circuit court. We decline to award the wife her attorney’s fees on appeal. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Metropolitan Nashville Education Association, et al. v. Metropolitan Board of Public Education - Concurring and Dissenting
I agree with most of the majority’s analysis in this case, and in particular I agree with the majority’s holding that the question of the applicability of the arbitration agreement is a “gateway” issue, properly before this Court. However, I must respectfully dissent from the majority’s holding that the dispute as to Mr. Fuller’s coaching position was subject to arbitration. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Metropolitan Nashville Education Association, et al. v. Nashville Board of Education
The trial court awarded summary judgment to Defendant Board of Education, vacating a portion of an arbitration award that required reinstatement of Plaintiff to his high school coaching assignment. We reverse. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Raymond Edward Peebles
The Rutherford County Grand Jury indicted the defendant for sale of cocaine, less than 0.5 grams. Following a jury trial, the jury found the defendant guilty. The trial court sentenced the defendant to six years to be served at thirty-five percent as a Range II multiple offender. The defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and that the trial court incorrectly allowed in testimony from two witnesses who were not qualified as experts. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Bobby Crowder v. Morningstar Manufacturing, Inc, et al.
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. In this appeal, the employer's insurer insists the evidence preponderates against the trial court's finding that the employee's injury was not proximately caused by intoxication from the use of an illegal drug, marijuana. The panel has concluded the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. |
Hardin | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Theresa Godbee v. Robert M. Dimick, M.D.
Patient filed a medical malpractice claim against an orthopedic surgeon for his alleged negligence in her diagnosis and spinal surgery. After a three week trial, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of the physician. The patient appealed, claiming that she was entitled to a new trial because the trial court erred with regard to several evidentiary rulings, its communications with the jurors, its jury instructions and verdict form, and its decision to permit the jury to examine medical articles used in cross-examination. We have determined that the judgment must be reversed and the case remanded for a new trial. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Antonio Saulsberry
A Shelby County jury convicted the defendant of first degree premeditated murder, especially aggravated robbery and conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery. This Court reversed the defendant’s conviction for first degree premeditated murder on direct appeal and remanded for a retrial on the defendant’s two charges of felony murder. Prior to his retrial, the defendant filed a motion stating that his prosecution for the felony murder charges is a violation of the principles of double jeopardy. The trial court denied the defendant’s motion. The defendant now brings an interlocutory appeal to determine whether the principles of double jeopardy bar a trial on the two felony murder charges. We find that a retrial on the felony murder charges would not constitute double jeopardy and affirm the decision of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Steve Mairose, et al. v. Federal Express Corporation
This is the second time this case has been on appeal. This case stems from an alleged breach of an employment contract between an employer and its employees. In this appeal, we are asked to determine (1) whether the chancery court erred when it dismissed eight of the ten plaintiffs from the appeal as they had not perfected an appeal to the trial court’s judgment notwithstanding the verdict that was reversed on appeal; (2) whether the chancery court erred when it found that the employer had not breached its contract when it incorporated an integrated master seniority list that did not “endtail” pilots from another corporation that merged into the employer; (3) whether, assuming that a breach occurred, the employees waived their breach of contract claims by failing to object to the alleged breach in a timely fashion; and (4) whether the chancery court erred when it awarded discretionary costs for court reporter expense for hearings. On appeal, the employees contend that the chancery court erred when it dismissed eight of the ten employees as they had not properly perfected an appeal because the eight employees should be able to benefit from the appellate decision regarding the remaining two employees. The employees also assert that the employer breached their employment contract when it incorporated an integrated seniority list altering their seniority rights and that they had not waived any claim for breach of contract because of their conduct. Finally, the employees contend that the chancery court erred when it awarded discretionary costs for court reporter expenses for hearings as rule 54.04(2) of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure allow for the recovery of court reporter expenses for depositions or trials only. The employer contends that it did not breach the employment contract and that, assuming breach, the employees waived any breach of contract claim because they failed to challenge the arbitration award that established the integrated master seniority list in a timely fashion and that they failed to object to the breach of contract in a timely fashion after the breach. We affirm the decision of the chancery court finding that the employer had not breached its employee contract with its employees and affirm the decision of the chancery court dismissing eight of the ten employees from the new trial as they had not properly perfected an appeal to the chancery court’s original judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Further, we affirm the chancery court’s award of discretionary costs. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Debra Owens v. Shelby County Government
This is a lawsuit for on-the-job injury benefits. The plaintiff was employed as a jailer for the defendant county government. She injured her back in a slip-and-fall accident which occurred during the scope of her employment. The county paid her on-the-job injury benefits while she was being treated for her injuries. After about two months, her treating physician released her from his care, stated that she had no permanent anatomical disability, and determined that she was capable of unrestricted work. The county stopped paying her on-the-job injury benefits and she returned to full-dutywork. Later, complaining of continued back pain, the plaintiff saw another physician. This physician opined that the plaintiff had a 6% permanent disability to her body as a whole as a direct result of the slip-and-fall accident. The plaintiff filed this lawsuit for further benefits under the county’s OJI policy. After a trial, the trial court found that the plaintiff did not have a permanent vocational disability and held in favor of the county. The plaintiff now appeals. We affirm, concluding that there is no reason to reject the trial court’s determinations of credibility and that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s decision. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William H. Grisham, II
The defendant, Willam H. Grisham, II, was indicted on two counts of first degree premeditated murder, two counts of felony murder, and one count of especially aggravated robbery. The jury returned not guilty verdicts on each count of felony murder. The defendant was convicted of two counts of first degree premeditated murder and one count of especially aggravated robbery. The trial court imposed consecutive life sentences for each of the murder convictions and a consecutive sentence of ten years for the robbery. In this appeal of right, the defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support any of the three convictions. The judgments of the trial court are affirmed. |
Jackson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Donald Haynes
The petitioner, James Donald Haynes, appeals from the post-conviction court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, he argues that the post-conviction court erred in finding that he received the effective assistance of counsel and that his guilty plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered. Following our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Henry | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Rodrigues D. Pruitt
The defendant was convicted of possession of .5 grams or more of cocaine with the intent to sell or deliver, a Class B felony, and sentenced as a career offender to thirty years in the Department of Correction, to be served consecutively to his current sentence. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred: (1) in denying his motion to suppress the evidence; (2) by allowing a law enforcement officer to testify as an expert witness and disallowing defense counsel to fully cross-examine the witness; (3) by not instructing the jury on the lesser-included offense of facilitation; (4) by not instructing the jury that evidence of mere association with others involved in criminal activity is insufficient to establish guilt; (5) in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal because the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction; and (6) in sentencing him as a career offender. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James C. Osborne - Concurring
I join with the majority in affirming the defendant’s conviction but write separately for the reasons expressed below. |
Wilson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James C. Osborne
The defendant, James C. Osborne, was convicted by a jury of rape, a Class B felony. The defendant was sentenced as a Range I offender to twelve years at 100%. He now appeals his conviction and sentence. After thorough review, we conclude that no reversible error is present. The judgment of conviction is hereby affirmed. |
Wilson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Annesia W. Jarrett v. Eric D. Cross
The current round in this on-going child support dispute arises from Mother’s petition for contempt for failure to pay child support filed in April 2004, and Father’s cross-petition to modify child custody. The eldest of the parties’ four children had reached the age of majority when the 2004 petitions were filed, and the parties agreed that Father would assume custody of their son, Darius. Father does not dispute that he does not spend any time with the parties remaining two minor children. Mother requested visitation time with Darius after the change of custody. Thus, the proceedings required a resetting of child support. The issues raised by Mother for our review are |
Madison | Court of Appeals |