Tavares Ford, On behalf of herself and all other similarly situated v. Toys R Us, Inc.
In this appeal, we are asked to determine whether the circuit court erred when it dismissed the appellant’s class action suit based on lack of standing and primary jurisdiction. On appeal, the appellant asserts that she had standing to bring her suit and that the circuit court should not have declined to exercise jurisdiction based on the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In the Matter of: N.T.B.
The State of Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“the State”) filed a Petition for Temporary Custody of N.T.B. (“the Child”) in July of 2002, alleging, among other things, that the Child was abused and/or dependent and neglected. The Juvenile Court held that the Child was a dependent and neglected child within the meaning of the law and awarded temporary custody of the Child to the State. Reba Johnson (“Mother”) and Michael Blevins (“Father”) appealed the Juvenile Court order to the Circuit Court (“Trial Court”), and the case was tried. After trial, the Trial Court found and held, inter alia, that the Child was a dependent and neglected child within the meaning of the law and that the Child had suffered severe abuse pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-1-102(b)(21)(A) while in the care of his parents. Mother and Father appeal. We affirm. |
Johnson | Court of Appeals | |
Beneficial Tennessee, Inc. v. The Metropolitan Government, et al.
The trial court held that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was violated by sending notice to a mortgagee of an impending tax sale of the mortgaged property by regular mail. We reverse. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jermeil Ralph Tarter
The defendant, Jermeil Tarter, was convicted of one count of sale of more than .5 grams of cocaine within one thousand feet of a school, one count of delivery of more than .5 grams of cocaine within one thousand feet of a school, and one count of possession of more than .5 grams of cocaine within one thousand feet of a school. The trial court initially merged the convictions for delivery and possession of cocaine into the conviction for the sale of cocaine and then later dismissed the convictions for delivery of cocaine and possession of cocaine. The trial court imposed a Range I sentence of twenty years in the Department of Correction. In this appeal, the defendant asserts that the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions, that the trial court erred by permitting the surveillance tape to be admitted into evidence, and that the trial court erred by permitting the prosecutor to vouch for the truthfulness of the state's witnesses. The state challenges on appeal the trial court's ruling dismissing the conviction for possession of cocaine. The convictions and sentence are affirmed. The judgment of the trial court dismissing the convictions for delivery and possession of cocaine is reversed. The judgment of conviction for sale of more than .5 grams of cocaine is modified to show that the convictions for delivery of more than .5 grams of cocaine and possession of more than .5 grams of cocaine have been merged into one judgment. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Larry Allen Whited and William Henry Rutherford - Dissenting
The majority affirms the Defendant Whited’s conviction for aggravated assault concluding that “a rational jury could easily infer that [seventeen-month-old] Tristian was in reasonable fear of imminent bodily injury . . . .” For the reasons discussed below, I respectfully dissent. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Larry Allen Whited and William Henry Rutherford
The Defendants were convicted of second degree murder and reckless endangerment. Defendant Whited was also convicted of three counts of aggravated assault. On appeal, both Defendants argue that the trial court erred by allowing the State to introduce evidence of certain activity they engaged in after the crimes were committed, and that the evidence is insufficient to support their convictions. Defendant Whited argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress the statement he gave to the police. Both Defendants also challenge the trial court’s sentencing determination. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments in all respects. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joseph Bryan Adair
Following a bench trial, the Defendant, Joseph Bryan Adair, was convicted of driving at a speed of 69 miles per hour in a 50 miles per hour speed zone, a Class C misdemeanor. The Defendant now appeals, contending that his traffic citation was invalid because it was not signed by the State Trooper who issued the ticket. Finding that there exists no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Clay | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Corvack Shaw v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Corvack Shaw, appeals the lower court’s denial of his motion requesting relief from an invalid sentence. 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 establish his entitlement to relief from an unconstitutional or invalid sentence. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ruby Pope v. Ervin Blaylock, et al.
This is a premises liability case arising from Plaintiff/Guests’ fall over a landscaping wall while walking down Defendants/Homeowners’ walkway after dark. The trial court granted summary judgment to Defendants/Homeowners. Finding that there is a dispute of material fact as to whether the lighting conditions created a dangerous condition on the Defendants/Homeowners’ property, and that McIntyre requires a comparison of the respective negligence of the parties, we reverse and remand. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Charles Humphries
The defendant, Charles Humphries, was convicted of first degree premeditated murder and aggravated assault (a Class C felony) and received Range II consecutive sentences of life imprisonment and ten years. On appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to establish |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Louis J. Federico v. Aladdin Industries, LLC.
This appeal arises from the second civil action between these parties. In both civil actions, Mr. Federico brought suit against Aladdin Industries for breach of a written employment agreement. In the first action, Federico only sought recovery of a bonus. In this second action Federico seeks to recover the value of a so-called “phantom unit” equity plan provided for in the employment agreement. Both claims were based on the same employment agreement. Aladdin filed a motion for summary judgment contending res judicata barred this second action. The trial court granted Aladdin’s motion, and we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christa G. Pike
The defendant, Christa G. Pike, appeals her conviction for attempted first degree premeditated murder, a Class A felony. The defendant contends she was acting in defense of a third party, an inmate, and that the evidence is insufficient to support her conviction. Finding no error at trial, we affirm the conviction. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James N. Harrell - Dissenting
Respectfully, I dissent from the majority’s conclusion that the prosecutor’s rejection of pretrial diversion rests upon sold legal bases. To be sure, the prosecutor carefully considered and discussed all criteria relevant to his pretrial diversion determination. Thus, my departure from the majority is not grounded upon any shortcomings in the prosecutor’s effort; rather, I conclude that despite his thorough response to the petition, he ultimately relied upon grounds that do not legally support the denial of diversion. |
Warren | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James N. Harrell
Defendant, James N. Harrell, seeks interlocutory review of the Warren County Circuit Court’s affirmance of the State’s denial of his application for pretrial diversion. Defendant is charged with vehicular homicide by recklessness, four counts of reckless aggravated assault, underage possession and consumption of alcohol, and underage driving while impaired. After unsuccessfully requesting pretrial diversion, Defendant appealed to the trial court, who determined that the district attorney general had not abused his discretion when denying Defendant’s request. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Warren | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Marshall Ward Howell
The defendant, Marshall Ward Howell, entered a plea of guilty to sale of a controlled substance. The trial court imposed a sentence of eight years to be served in a community corrections program after service of a period of incarceration. Five months after his conviction, the community corrections sentence was revoked and the defendant was ordered to serve the remainder of his term in the Department of Correction. In this appeal, the single issue presented for review is whether revocation was proper. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Troy Robert Whipple - Concurring and Dissenting
I concur with that portion of the majority opinion which affirms the judgments of conviction for the offenses of evading arrest while operating a motor vehicle, reckless driving, and driving on a revoked license. I disagree with the conclusion that the two convictions of vandalism must be reversed and dismissed. Accordingly, I dissent from that portion of the majority opinion. |
Franklin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Troy Robert Whipple
A Franklin County Jury found the Defendant, Troy Robert Whipple, guilty of one count of evading arrest while operating a motor vehicle, one count of reckless driving, one count of driving on a revoked license, and two counts of vandalism, and the trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective sentence of four years. The Defendant now appeals, contending that: (1) the evidence presented at trial is insufficient to support his convictions; (2) the trial court committed plain error when it failed to instruct the jury that an unlawful arrest is a defense to a charge of evading arrest while operating a motor vehicle; (3) the trial court improperly sentenced him; and (4) the fines imposed upon him are unreasonable. After thoroughly reviewing the record and the applicable authorities, we affirm the Defendant’s convictions and sentences for evading arrest while operating a motor vehicle, reckless driving, and driving on a revoked license. We reverse the Defendant’s convictions for vandalism, and we remand the case for proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Franklin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kenneth DeAngelo Thomas
A Davidson County jury convicted the Defendant of felony murder. The Defendant appeals as of right from his conviction and contends that the indictment against him should be dismissed with prejudice due to a violation of Article IV of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Deanna Whitman v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Deanna Whitman, pleaded guilty to four counts of selling a schedule II drug within 1,000 feet of a school, for which she received an effective 16-year sentence to be served as a Range I offender at 100 percent. The petitioner sought post-conviction relief alleging that she received ineffective assistance of counsel and therefore unknowingly pleaded guilty to the instant crimes. At the conclusion of an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied the petition finding that the petitioner had received effective representation and had entered her pleas knowingly. Aggrieved of this ruling, the petitioner now appeals, and after a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Warren | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Charles H. Weeks, et al. v. Ray Scott, et al.
The chancery court awarded Plaintiffs Weeks damages for the taking of trees by the City of Eastview. Eastview appeals, and we vacate the award of damages against Eastview for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On cross-appeal, Weeks assert the trial court erred in failing to assess damages against Defendant Ingram and in determining Weeks had impliedly dedicated a roadway known as Autumn Lane as a public roadway. We modify and affirm on these issues. |
McNairy | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jerald M. Seay
The defendant, Jerald M. Seay, was found guilty by a Shelby County jury of unlawful possession of cocaine with intent to sell and unlawful possession of cocaine with intent to deliver, Class C felonies. After merging the two counts together into a single conviction for unlawful possession of cocaine with intent to sell, the trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range II, multiple offender to ten years in the Department of Correction and fined him $2,000. On appeal, he argues: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction; and (2) the trial court erred in allowing him to be impeached with stale convictions. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Eric Berrios
Before the court is an interlocutory appeal by the State, pursuant to Rule 9 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. The defendant, Eric Berrios, moved to suppress evidence seized during a search of his automobile. The trial judge concluded that the evidence had been illegally seized and granted the motion to suppress. We affirm the judgment of the trial court and remand this case for further proceedings. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Kenneth B. White v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Kenneth B. White, appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to declare Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-114 unconstitutional pursuant to Blakely v. Washington. 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, or, in the alternative, dismiss the appeal as there is no right to appeal the denial of a motion to correct an illegal sentence. The Petitioner has not established that he is entitled to habeas corpus relief. Moreover, this Court is not vested with jurisdiction to entertain a request for an appeal of a denial of a motion to reopen a post-conviction petition. Finally, if treated as a Rule 35(b) motion for reduction of sentence, the claim is timebarred. Accordingly, we grant the State's motion and affirm the judgment of the lower court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Johnny Shields v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Johnny Shields, appeals the post-conviction court’s dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief as time-barred. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
David Manis, et ux., v. Kenneth Gibson, et ux.
In an action for damages caused by flooding, the Trial Court invoked comparative fault, awarded damages, and ordered defendants to correct conditions which caused the flooding. Both parties appealed. We affirm. |
Sevier | Court of Appeals |