Jason Earl Hill v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant, Jason Earl Hill, proceeding pro se, appeals the Hamilton County Criminal Court's summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. In 1995, Hill pled guilty to aggravated burglary and received a three-year suspended sentence. In February 2005, Hill filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief collaterally attacking the 1995 conviction. While acknowledging that the petition was filed outside the statute of limitations, Hill asserts that due process requires that the statute be tolled and that his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and an unknowing and involuntary guilty plea be addressed. The post-conviction court summarily dismissed the petition as time-barred without addressing the merits of Hill's substantive claims. On appeal, Hill asserts that the court erred in: (1) dismissing the petition as untimely; (2) dismissing the petition without addressing the whole subject matter as to all causes of action involved; and (3) dismissing the petition because due process requires vacating the conviction due to his innocence. After review, we conclude that the facts of this case do not warrant tolling the post-conviction statute of limitations. Accordingly, we affirm the post-conviction court's summary dismissal of the petition. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Paul O. Dickens, Sr.
The defendant, Paul O. Dickens, Sr., was convicted by a Rutherford County jury of attempted voluntary manslaughter (a Class D felony), reckless endangerment (a Class E felony), and two counts of coercion of a witness (a Class D felony). On direct appeal to this court, the defendant contends that: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict; and (2) his convictions for attempted voluntary manslaughter and reckless endangerment violate the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. Upon review of the record, briefs of the parties, and applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Chuncy L. Hollis v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Chuncy L. Hollis, originally pled guilty to possession of cocaine greater than .5 grams with intent to sell, a Class B felony, in exchange for a sentence of eight years. Thereafter, he filed and was denied post-conviction relief. The petitioner now appeals the post-conviction court’s order, claiming that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel which resulted in an unknowing and involuntary plea. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Johnny E. Porter
The defendant, Johnny E. Porter, was convicted of possession of over .5 grams of a Schedule II controlled substance (cocaine) with intent to sell, a Class B felony, and possession of marijuana, a Class A misdemeanor. He received concurrent sentences of nine years and eleven months, twenty-nine days on the charges, respectively. On appeal, the defendant contests the sufficiency of the evidence and contends that the trial court erred in enhancing his sentence on Count One from eight years to nine years based solely upon his prior criminal record. Upon review, we affirm the conviction and sentence. |
Hardin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joseph Edward Cole
After a bench trial, the Defendant was convicted of burglary, a Class D felony, and theft of property under the value of five hundred dollars, a Class A misdemeanor. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§39-14-402, -103, -105(1). After conducting a sentencing hearing, the Defendant was sentenced as a Range III, persistent offender to serve ten years in the Department of Correction for his burglary conviction. He received a concurrent sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days in the county jail for his theft conviction. In this appeal, the Defendant argues that the evidence is insufficient as a matter of law to support his convictions and that the trial court erred by ordering him to serve a mid-range sentence for the burglary conviction. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Gibson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
UT Medical Group, Inc. v. Val Y. Vogt, M.D.
This appeal stems from a contract dispute between an employee doctor and her employer where the employer alleged that the doctor anticipatorily breached a covenant not to compete provision in the employment agreement between the parties. In this appeal, we are asked to determine whether (1) the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the doctor was proper; (2) the trial court’s denial of summary judgment to the employer was proper; (3) the trial court’s grant of the doctor’s motion to stay discovery was proper; (4) the doctor’s voluntary nonsuit of her counter claims while the employer’s motion for summary judgment was still pending was proper; (5) the chancery court erred when it returned interpled funds back to the doctor; and (6) the chancery court abused its discretion when it denied the employer’s motion to amend its complaint. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tammy Marie Wilburn
The defendant, Tammy Marie Wilburn, pled guilty to one count of attempted aggravated arson, a Class B felony. The Blount County Circuit Court sentenced her to an eight-year sentence as a Range I, standard offender to be served in the Department of Correction. The defendant appeals, contending the trial court erred in denying her alternative sentencing. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Wanda Barron v. State of Tennessee
The plaintiff sought workers’ compensation benefits for pain in her lower back and hip resulting from a work-related accident. We conclude that the Commissioner erred in finding the evidence insufficient to establish that the plaintiff’s injury was permanent and in dismissing the plaintiff’s claim. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Claims Commission and remand the case to determine the extent of vocational impairment and the reasonableness and necessity of medical expenses paid by the plaintiff. |
Supreme Court | ||
Shannon Wilson v. Tennessee Department of Correction, et al.
Following his convictions for two disciplinary infractions, the prisoner filed a pro se petition for a common law writ of certiorari in the chancery court. While he attempted to verify the petition by stating that it constituted his first application for such writ and that its contents were true and correct to the best of his knowledge, the prisoner failed to swear to the contents of the petition under oath by having the petition notarized. The Tennessee Department of Correction moved to dismiss the petition for its lack of a proper verification and for being filed beyond the applicable statute of limitations. The trial court granted the state’s motion on both grounds. The prisoner filed a pro se appeal to this Court. We affirm. |
Lake | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Shirley A. Rudd
The Defendant, Shirley A. Rudd, was convicted by an Obion County jury of sale of a controlled substance. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that: (1) the trial court erred when it did not declare a mistrial because two witnesses made improper and prejudicial statements about the Defendant’s prior bad acts; (2) there was insufficient evidence to support her conviction; and (3) the trial court erred when it denied the Defendant’s counsel the right to question a witness about her motive for testifying. Finding that there exists no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Obion | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Billy Suddarth, Jr., et al. v. Household Commercial Financial Services, Inc., et al.
Billy Suddarth, Jr. and Angela Suddarth appeal the summary dismissal of their action, which was dismissed on the grounds of res judicata, collateral estoppel, the Full Faith and Credit Clause, and the compulsory counterclaim rule of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In the former action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois wherein the Suddarths were defendants, Household Commercial Financial Services, Inc. alleged the Suddarths breached a guaranty agreement by failing to pay a deficiency owing on the underlying credit agreement they had guaranteed. Household prevailed on the merits in the former action against the Suddarths. In the present action in the Circuit Court of Davidson County the Suddarths allege fraud, fraudulent inducement and civil conspiracy against Household and two other defendants concerning the guaranty agreement that was the subject of the former action in the United State District Court. The present claims by the Suddarths arose out of the same transaction or occurrence that was the subject of Household's action in the United State District Court; therefore, it was compulsory that the Suddarths' claims be presented in the former action. The Suddarths failed to do so. Therefore, we affirm the dismissal of this action. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Marie Soledad Torrico (Morales) v. David Randal Smithson
David Randal Smithson ("Father"), a Tennessee resident, is a pilot for a major airline and his job duties require him to fly to Bolivia, South America. During one of these trips to Bolivia, Father became romantically involved with Marie Soledad Torrico (Morales) ("Mother"), a citizen and resident of Bolivia. In April of 2001, Mother gave birth in Bolivia to the parties' son, who is a citizen and resident of Bolivia and has been since his birth. After obtaining a temporary Visa authorizing her to come to the United States, Mother filed this paternity action in the Wilson County Juvenile Court. Based on DNA test results, the Juvenile Court enter an Order establishing Father as the biological father of the child. The Juvenile Court later entered an order requiring Father to pay child support based on the Tennessee Child Support Guidelines. Father appeals claiming, among other things, that the Juvenile Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enter an order requiring him to pay child support when the child was conceived in Bolivia, born in Bolivia, and when both Mother and the child are citizens and residents of Bolivia. We hold that the Juvenile Court had subject matter jurisdiction over the proceedings but erred in applying Tennessee law. The judgment of the Juvenile Court is, therefore, vacated and this case is remanded for further proceedings. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
Sandra Burton v. Kizzy McCary
This is a termination of parental rights case. Mother/Appellant appeals from the order of the Juvenile Court at Madison County terminating her parental rights. Specifically, Appellant asserts that the ground of persistence of conditions is not supported by clear and convincing evidence in the record, and that termination of her parental rights is not in the best interest of the minor child. Because we find clear and convincing evidence in the record to support the trial court's findings, we affirm. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John Marshall Mayes
The defendant pled guilty to driving while under court order not to operate a motor vehicle because he had been declared an habitual motor offender. The trial court sentenced the defendant to six years as a Career Offender. The defendant appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in not granting him probation and in sentencing him as a career offender. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Bradley Noble
The State appeals the Knox County Criminal Court's dismissal of a presentment charging the defendant, Bradley Noble, with the rape of a five-year-old child at a day care center. The presentment charged the defendant, a former employee of the center, with digitally penetrating the victim's anus on an unspecified day in March 1999. In a subsequent bill of particulars, the State narrowed the time of the offense to between 3:20 and 5:29 p.m. on March 10, 1999. During the defendant's first trial, which ended in a mistrial, defense counsel revealed in opening arguments that he intended to prove that the defendant had not been alone with the victim during the time alleged in the bill of particulars. Following the mistrial, the State filed a "Superceding Bill of Particulars," which reverted back to the general time frame of the presentment. The defendant moved to dismiss the presentment, and the trial court granted the motion. We reverse the order of the trial court, reinstate the presentment, and remand to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Joan Oates v. Chattanooga Publishing Company D/B/A Chattanooga Times Free Press
Joan Oates (“Plaintiff”) was employed by the Chattanooga Publishing Company (“Defendant”) for approximately twenty-three years. In January of 2004, Plaintiff was observed on Defendant’s security camera making obscene gestures with her middle finger toward the camera and then covering the security camera with a cup for a period of time. Defendant terminated Plaintiff’s employment. Plaintiff filed this lawsuit alleging that she was terminated because of a disability. Plaintiff also claimed that she was subjected to a hostile work environment and malicious harassment while employed by Defendant. Plaintiff also sued for intentional and/or negligent infliction of emotional distress. The Trial Court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on all of Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff appeals, and we affirm. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Jonathan Ellis v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Jonathan Ellis, appeals pro se from the Johnson County Criminal Court's dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief from his convictions for thirteen counts of aggravated rape, a Class A felony, and resulting sentences of twenty-five years on each conviction to be served concurrently as a Range I, standard offender in the Department of Correction. He claims his judgments of conviction are void because they classify his release eligibility status at thirty percent in violation of statute. We conclude that four of the sentences are illegal. Therefore, we affirm the trial court's judgment in part, reverse the judgment in part, and remand the case. |
Johnson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Terrance Yves Smothers
Following a bench trial, the Defendant, Terrance Yves Smothers, was convicted by the Montgomery County Circuit Court of aggravated robbery, misdemeanor theft, and two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping. The Defendant received an effective twenty-year sentence for these convictions. The single issue presented for our review is whether the testimony of the accomplice was sufficiently corroborated. After a review of the record, we find that the evidence is insufficient to corroborate the accomplice's testimony and, therefore, reverse and dismiss the judgments of conviction. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Leonard Masonet v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Leonard Masonet, filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging that the length of his sentence contravened the Criminal Sentencing Reform Act of 1989 and was therefore void. The trial court summarily denied the petition without an evidentiary hearing, and Petitioner now appeals. After a review of the record, we affirm the trial court's dismissal of Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus. |
Wayne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James Stroud, et al. v. Shelby County Civil Service Commission
Shelby County terminated the employment of Eric Thomas and James Stroud. Upon writ or certiorari, the Shelby County Chancery Court reversed, and Shelby County appeals. We reverse. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Victor Thompson v. David Mills, Warden, et al.
The petitioner, Victor Thompson, appeals the denial of habeas corpus relief contending that: (1) his sentence was outside the applicable range and was, therefore, illegal; and (2) that the indictment was fatally defective. Upon review, we conclude that the defendant’s sentence was within the agreed range and that the remaining issue is waived, as it is raised for the first time on appeal. Therefore, we affirm the denial of habeas relief in accordance with Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Bruce M. Vann v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Bruce M. Vann, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, contending that the trial court erred in finding that counsel rendered effective assistance at trial. Upon review, we conclude that the sole issue raised by the petitioner on appeal has been waived for failure to support it with argument or citations to the appellate record. Therefore, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief, pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Dennis D. Plemons, Sr.
A Roane County Criminal Court jury convicted the defendant, Dennis D. Plemons, Sr., of driving under the influence, a Class A misdemeanor, and the trial court sentenced him to eleven months and twenty-nine days with all but five days suspended. On appeal, the defendant contends the evidence is insufficient. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Roane | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Adam F. Wester
An Anderson County Criminal Court jury convicted the appellant, Adam F. Wester, of first degree felony murder in the perpetration of aggravated child abuse, and the trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment. The appellant appeals, claiming (1) that the trial court erred by allowing the jury to hear about prior injuries to the victim; (2) that the trial court improperly admitted into evidence photographs of the victim's body; (3) that the trial court improperly instructed the jury on the mens rea element of the crime; (4) that the trial court erred by refusing to give a special jury instruction on "accident"; (5) that the trial court erred by giving sequential jury instructions; and (6) that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Anderson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Alejandro Gonzalez
The defendant, Alejandro Gonzalez, appeals a certified question of law following his guilty plea to possession of cocaine, within 1000 feet of a school, with intent to sell or deliver, an offense for which he received an eight-year sentence to be served in a community corrections program. The question certified for appeal is whether a Metro Nashville police officer had sufficient cause to search a grocery bag the defendant was carrying, in which the officer found 26 grams of cocaine. Because we hold that the search was lawful and that the fruits thereof were admissible, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals |