State of Tennessee v. Herman Parham
The defendant, Herman Parham, was convicted of two counts of second degree murder. The trial court merged the convictions and imposed a sentence of twenty-five years. In this appeal, the defendant asserts that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction, that the trial court erred by instructing the jury on flight, and that the sentence is excessive. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Dennis Hodges
A Shelby County Criminal Court jury convicted the appellant, Dennis Hodges, of two counts of voluntary manslaughter. The trial court merged the first count into the second count and sentenced the appellant to fifteen years as a Range III, persistent offender. In this appeal, the appellant claims (1) that the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions, (2) that the State made improper closing argument, and (3) that his sentence is excessive. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Kerry Hibdon v. George J. Grabowski, et al.
Plaintiff/Appellant owner of jet ski customizing business brought defamation action against defendants alleging libel, civil conspiracy and false light invasion of privacy stemming from statements defendants made about plaintiff, which were published on an Internet news group. The trial court held that venue was proper in Warren County, Tennessee, and that the court had jurisdiction over out-of-state resident defendants. Finding that plaintiff was a public figure for purposes of libel action, that plaintiff could not prove actual malice, and that plaintiff failed to show actual damage, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. Plaintiff appeals. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. |
Warren | Court of Appeals | |
Tracey L. Williams Omohundro v. Stephen C. Arnsdorff
The issues in this case are whether the trial court erred in granting a non-custodial parent unsupervised visitation and in limiting the number of witnesses at trial. Father, the custodial parent of the minor child, contends that the trial court's grant of unsupervised visitation to mother is not in the child's best interest and ignores evidence that mother abused the child. Father also argues that the trial court erred in refusing to hear witness testimony as to mother's abuse of the child and as to mother's mendacity. We find that the evidence supports a finding that unsupervised visitation is in the child's best interest and, therefore, the trial court's award of unsupervised visitation to mother was not an abuse of discretion. We further find that the witness testimony excluded by the trial court was cumulative, and therefore the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the witnesses. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court and remand. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Patrick Hyder
A Washington County Criminal Court jury convicted the defendant, Patrick Hyder, of two counts of aggravated sexual battery, a class B felony, and the trial court sentenced him to eight years for each count to be served concurrently in the Department of Correction. The defendant appeals, contending that the trial court erred in reassembling the jury to announce its verdict and polling the jury after it had been discharged. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Washington | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
City-County Federal Credit Union v. Suzanne E. Linboe
City-County Federal Credit Union ("Plaintiff") filed suit in the General Sessions Court seeking over $12,000 it claimed was owed on a VISA credit card it had issued to Suzanne E. Linboe ("Defendant"). After Plaintiff was awarded a judgment by the General Sessions Court, Defendant appealed to the Circuit Court. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss and Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment. The Circuit Court denied Defendant's motion to dismiss and granted Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, awarding Plaintiff a judgment for $15,323.10. Defendant appeals, and we affirm. |
Monroe | Court of Appeals | |
William E. Castle v. State of Tennessee, Department of Correction, et al.
This is a personal injury lawsuit filed by William E. Castle ("Plaintiff"), an inmate at the Brushy Mountain Correctional Complex. As a trustee, Plaintiff was allowed to work as a carpenter for the defendant State of Tennessee, Department of Correction (the "State"). Rick Cox Construction Company was a contractor building an addition to the Batley Baptist Church, and Plaintiff and other inmates assisted with this construction. Plaintiff was injured when he fell from a scaffold while working at the Batley Baptist Church. Plaintiff bought this negligence claim against the State, Rick Cox Construction Company, and Batley Baptist Church. The Trial Court granted the State's motion to dismiss based on sovereign immunity. The Trial Court later granted motions for summary judgment filed by the remaining two defendants. Plaintiff appeals, and we affirm. |
Morgan | Court of Appeals | |
Texaco Refining & Marketing, Inc. v. State of Tennessee, Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Underground Storage Tanks
Texaco Refining & Marketing, Inc. applied for reimbursement of remediation expenses pursuant to the Tennessee Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Act. When Texaco's application was denied by the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Underground Storage Tanks, Texaco filed this Declaratory Judgment action seeking a ruling that it was eligible for reimbursement from the storage tank fund. The Chancery Court granted Texaco's motion for summary judgment from which the Department appeals. We reverse finding Texaco was not in substantial compliance with the Act because it failed to timely report releases of petroleum, and it had no vested right to reimbursement. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Joseph Miles v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Joseph Miles, appeals from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The single issue presented for review is whether the petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel. The judgment is affirmed. |
Robertson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Rolando Contreras v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Rolando Contreras, appeals the denial of post-conviction relief. The single issue presented for review is whether the petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel. The judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jay Homer Chambers v. State of Tennessee
The pro se petitioner, Jay Homer Chambers, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that the post-conviction court erred by dismissing his petition without appointing counsel or holding an evidentiary hearing. Following our review, we reverse the summary dismissal of the petition and remand for reconsideration of the petitioner's claim that appellate counsel was ineffective. |
Scott | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re: MEI, dob 12/23/97, Jason Allen Ingle and Kerrie Michelle Ingle v. Elizabeth Faye Ingle
The Trial Court refused to terminate the mother's parental rights to MEI. On appeal, we vacate the Judgment and remand for further proceedings. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Antowan Antonio Williams
The defendant, Antowan Antonio Williams, pleaded guilty to attempted aggravated robbery. After conducting a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered the defendant to serve a 2.7 year probationary sentence as a mitigated offender but denied the defendant's request for judicial diversion. The defendant now brings the instant appeal challenging the trial court's denial of judicial diversion. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Michael Shane Holt v. State of Tennessee
The Defendant, Michael Shane Holt, pled guilty to three counts of money laundering and was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to three concurrent terms of eight years. He subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that his guilty pleas were constitutionally infirm and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel in conjunction with his pleas. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied relief. This appeal followed. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael N. Smith
The trial court found the defendant, Michael N. Smith, guilty of possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell or deliver and possession of drug paraphernalia. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence seized as a result of an investigatory stop. Following our review, we affirm the decision of the trial court. |
Coffee | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Wayne E. Mitchell v. Ricky Bell, Warden
The Defendant, Wayne E. Mitchell, appeals from the trial court's dismissal of his petition seeking habeas corpus relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court's dismissal of the petition 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. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jeffrey Hopkins
The defendant, Jeffery Allen Hopkins, appeals his Tipton County convictions of first degree felony murder and especially aggravated robbery, arising from the December 20, 2003 shooting death of Ricky Lumpkin. The defendant received a sentence of life imprisonment with the possibility of parole for the felony murder conviction and 20 years for the especially aggravated robbery conviction. On appeal, the defendant contests the sufficiency of the evidence to support these convictions. Unpersuaded that the state’s evidence was legally insufficient, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. |
Tipton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Bingham
The defendant, John Thomas Bingham, was convicted by jury of possession of contraband (marijuana) in a penal institution, a Class C felony. The trial court sentenced the defendant to five years six months for this conviction. The trial court ordered this sentence to be served consecutively to a previously imposed sentence. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. Based upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Richard A. Childress v. State of Tennessee
The Defendant, Richard A. Childress, appeals from the trial court's dismissal of his petition seeking habeas corpus relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court's dismissal of the petition 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. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Mike Edwards
Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony. The trial court sentenced Defendant as a Range II, multiple offender to seventeen years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Defendant does not challenge the length of his sentence. In this appeal, |
Henry | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Maurice Garrett v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant, Maurice Garrett, appeals the Lauderdale County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, Garrett argues that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel. After a review of the record, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Hezzie Bonds
This is a direct appeal as of right from a jury conviction of aggravated rape and criminal exposure of another to HIV. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to consecutive terms of twenty-five years and six years, for an effective sentence of thirty-one years. On appeal, the Defendant raises only one issue: there is insufficient evidence to find him guilty of the two offenses for which he was convicted. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Gibson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Rodney Buford
The Appellant, Rodney Buford, was convicted by a Davidson County jury of especially aggravated robbery and aggravated burglary. He was sentenced to consecutive sentences of twenty-five years for especially aggravated burglary and six years for aggravated burglary for an effective thirty-one year sentence. On appeal, Buford argues: (1) that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a bill of particulars; and (2) that his sentences are excessive, and the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences. After review of the record, we affirm the judgments of conviction and resulting sentences. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Larry Hopper v. Oshkosh B'Gosh And State of Tennessee, Department of Labor, Division of Workers' Compensation, Second Injury Fund
This case is before the Court upon the entire record, including the order of referral to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel, in compliance with Tennessee Code Annotated §50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Mr. Hopper injured his back February 19, 1996 while working in the warehouse of his employer. On November 17, 1997 Mr. Hopper settled this claim for 20% vocational disability. All told, Mr. Hopper initiated four workers’ compensation claims during his employment with OshKosh resulting in 100% vocational disability. Several years later, after he lost his job with OshKosh, Mr. Hopper filed a motion to reconsider his earlier settlement of the February 19, 1996 claim against the Second Injury Fund only. The trial court granted this relief, increased Mr. Hopper’s vocational disability by 30%, and assigned liability to the Second Injury Fund. The Second Injury Fund appeals on the grounds that the employee’s motion was untimely, that the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction because the employee had suffered subsequent injuries, and that the evidence preponderated against increasing the employee’s vocational disability. After carefully reviewing the record, we reverse the trial court’s judgment. |
Clay | Court of Appeals | |
Larry Hopper v. Oshkosh B'Gosh and State of Tennessee Department of Labor, Division of Workers' Compensation, Second Injury Fund
This case is before the Court upon the entire record, including the order of referral to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel, in compliance with Tennessee Code Annotated § 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Mr. Hopper injured his back February 19, 1996 while working in the warehouse of his employer. On November 17, 1997 Mr. Hopper settled this claim for 20% vocational disability. All told, Mr. Hopper initiated four workers’ compensation claims during his employment with OshKosh resulting in 100% vocational disability. Several years later, after he lost his job with OshKosh, Mr. Hopper filed a motion to reconsider his earlier settlement of the February 19, 1996 claim against the Second Injury Fund only. The trial court granted this relief, increased Mr. Hopper’s vocational disability by 30%, and assigned liability to the Second Injury Fund. The Second Injury Fund appeals on the grounds that the employee’s motion was untimely, that the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction because the employee had suffered subsequent injuries, and that the evidence preponderated against increasing the employee’s vocational disability. After carefully reviewing the record, we reverse the trial court’s judgment. |
Clay | Workers Compensation Panel |