State of Tennessee v. Prentiss Holloway
A Shelby County Criminal Court jury convicted the appellant, Prentiss Holloway, of aggravated robbery and attempted aggravated robbery, and the trial court sentenced him to consecutive sentences of eleven and five years, respectively, in the Department of Correction. In this appeal, the appellant claims that the trial court improperly enhanced his sentences in light of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), and improperly ordered consecutive sentencing. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Lawuan Stanford v. The Commissioner of the Department of Labor and Workforce Development and Altama Footwear
This appeal arises out of a claim filed by the appellant for unemployment benefits after her termination from her employment. The Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development denied the appellant’s claim for unemployment benefits. The appellant filed an appeal to the Appeals Tribunal of the Department, and, after a hearing, the Appeals Tribunal denied the appellant’s claim for unemployment benefits. Subsequently, the appellant filed an appeal to the Board of Review, which also denied her claim for unemployment benefits and affirmed the Appeals Tribunal. After the Board denied the appellant’s petition to rehear, the appellant sought review by the chancery court. After reviewing the record, the chancery court denied the appellant’s claim for unemployment benefits and affirmed the Board of Review. The appellant now seeks review by this Court. We affirm. |
Henderson | Court of Appeals | |
William Lee Drumbarger v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner appeals the trial court's denial of his untitled petition, treated by the trial court as a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Upon our review, we affirm the denial of habeas relief and further conclude that the petitioner's claim was not cognizable as a petition for writ of certiorari. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the habeas court, pursuant to Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Toney Jason Hale
The defendant, Toney Jason Hale, pled guilty in the Bedford County Circuit Court to three counts of burglary of an automobile, a Class E felony, and escape from a penal institution, a Class E felony. He committed these offenses while serving an effective ten-year sentence on probation for crimes committed in Marshall County. The defendant was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to one year, six months for each conviction, pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, with the issue of consecutive sentencing to be decided by the trial court. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered two of the three sentences for the burglary convictions to be served concurrently with each other but consecutively to the sentence for the third conviction. The trial court further ordered these sentences to run consecutively to his sentence for the escape offense and consecutively to his previous ten-year sentence, for an effective sentence of fourteen years, six months in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court erred by ordering consecutive sentences. We affirm the trial court. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Alfred William Smith
The defendant, Alfred William Smith, appeals from his 2004 McMinn County jury conviction of first degree premeditated murder, for which the trial court imposed a life sentence. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence and the admission of state-sponsored testimony. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. |
McMinn | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
ARC Lifemed, et al. v. AMC-Tennessee, Inc.
This is an action for breach of contract by a limited liability company against its managing member. The other members of the LLC joined as plaintiffs seeking recovery for breach of fiduciary duty and negligent misrepresentation. The managing member counterclaimed against the LLC for breach of contract and, in the alternative, sought recovery in quantum meruit for unjust enrichment. The trial court held the managing member to be liable to all plaintiffs on all issues and dismissed the counterclaim. The action of the trial court is reversed as to breach of fiduciary duty and negligent misrepresentation. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed as to breach of contract and as to dismissal of the counterclaim. The findings of the trial court as to damages payable to the LLC is affirmed as is the distribution of the assets of the LLC. Prejudgment interest is disallowed, and costs are assessed to the managing member. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: M.W.M, W.W.M., S.M.M, & A.M.M. - Concurring
The evidence in this case, both as to termination of parental rights and to the best interest of the children, indicates that termination of parental rights would survive even the ultimate standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt.” |
Lawrence | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: M.W.M, W.W.M., S.M.M, & A.M.M.
This appeal involves an imprisoned mother’s efforts to retain her parental rights with regard to four of her eight children. The Tennessee Department of Children’s Services filed a petition in the Chancery Court for Lawrence County seeking to terminate the mother’s parental rights with regard to four of her children residing in Tennessee. Following a bench trial, the court terminated the mother’s parental rights to the three older children based on abandonment under Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 36-1-113(g)(1) and 36-1-102(1)(A)(iv) (Supp. 2004) and terminated her rights to the youngest child based on Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(6). On this appeal, the mother asserts that the evidence does not support the trial court’s conclusions that she abandoned the three older children and that the interests of all four childrenwould be best served by terminating her parental rights. We have determined that the record contains clear and convincing evidence that the mother abandoned the three older children and that terminating the mother’s parental rights is in the best interests of all four of the children involved in this case. |
Lawrence | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Albert Fitzgerald Turner
The Defendant, Albert Fitzgerald Turner, pled guilty to statutory rape and was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to two years in the Department of Correction, suspended after sixty days of service. The Defendant now appeals as of right, contending that the trial court erred in refusing to grant him “judicial diversion.” Because the trial court failed to state adequately upon the record the basis for its refusal to grant judicial diversion, we vacate the sentence of the Defendant and remand this matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Haywood | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Shawn Kelly v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Shawn Kelly, appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief by the Dyer County Circuit Court. He seeks relief from two convictions for the sale of one-half gram or more of cocaine, a Class B felony, and his concurrent sentences of twelve and fifteen years. The petitioner was convicted by a jury of one drug offense and pled guilty to the other drug offense. He contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel in both cases, that he was denied his constitutional right to an impartial jury, that his guilty plea was not voluntary, and that the trial court erred in not allowing him to inspect the grand jury minutes relating to his indictments. We affirm the trial court’s denial of post-conviction relief. |
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James W. Clark v. Jim Rose
Petitioner/Appellant is an inmate in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Correction. This is the second appeal before this Court arising from the Appellant’s filing of the underlying pro se petition for common law writ of certiorari, seeking review of the procedures used by the Tennessee Department of Correction in reaching its decision to keep Appellant confined in administrative segregation. This Court initially remanded the case to the trial court for a determination of whether the inmate’s status was punitive or non-punitive in nature. Upon remand, the trial court determined that his status was non-punitive. Inmate appeals. Finding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its determination that inmate’s status was nonpunitive and that, as such, the common law writ of certiorari was not the proper means of challenging his status, we affirm. |
Lauderdale | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William Donald Smith
The defendant, William Donald Smith, pleaded guilty to three counts charging aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony, and five counts charging child rape, a Class A felony. The plea agreement provided for the trial court to determine the sentences, except that the agreement provided that the aggregate sentence would not exceed 50 years and no more than one child rape sentence would be ordered served consecutively with any other sentence. The trial court sentenced the defendant to the following Department of Correction terms: for aggravated sexual battery, concurrent sentences of eight, 10, and 12 years, respectively; and for child rape, two sentences of 20 years each and three sentences of 25 years each. The trial court ran the two 20-year sentences concurrently to each other and to the aggregate 12-year sentence for aggravated sexual battery. It imposed the three 25-year sentences to run concurrently with each other but consecutively to the other five sentences, for a net aggregate sentence of 45 years. On appeal, the defendant challenges the trial court's sentencing determinations. After review, we affirm the judgments as modified. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Charles Henry Jenkins
The defendant, Charles Henry Jenkins, was convicted by a Sumner County jury of one count of possession of more than .5 grams of cocaine with the intent to sell or deliver, a Class B felony, and one count of evading arrest, a Class A misdemeanor. He was sentenced by the trial court as a Range I, standard offender to ten years for the cocaine conviction and eleven months, twenty-nine days for the evading arrest conviction, with the sentences ordered to run concurrently. The defendant raises the following issues in this appeal: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain his cocaine conviction; (2) whether the trial court erred in excluding from his trial exculpatory tape-recorded statements made by the confidential informant involved in the case; and (3) whether the United States Supreme Court's decision in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), precluded the trial court from applying an enhancement factor to increase his cocaine sentence beyond the minimum in the range. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Keith Dotson
The defendant, Keith Dotson, was convicted of aggravated burglary. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-403. The trial court ordered a Range III sentence of fifteen years in the Department of Correction. In this appeal of right, the defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient and that his sentence is excessive under Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. ___, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Arzolia Charles Goines v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Arzolia Charles Goines, appeals from the trial court's order dismissing his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The state has filed a motion requesting that this court affirm the trial court's denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The petitioner failed to comply with the statutory requirements for pursuing habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, the state's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Andre L. Mayfield v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Andre L. Mayfield, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus arguing that: (1) he was improperly considered as a multiple rapist; (2) the trial court lacked the authority to sentence the petitioner as a multiple rapist without an indictment charging him as such; (3) the trial court lacked authority to modify the petitioner's original sentence; (4) the trial court failed to expressly state how the sentence in count five (5) would run; (5) the trial court improperly filled out the judgment form for count four (4); and (6) the judgment forms indicating that the petitioner was sentenced as a multiple offender with a release eligibility of thirty-five percent (35%) are improper. The trial court denied the petition. The petitioner appeals. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Johnson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Thomas David Collins, alias
The appellant, Thomas David Collins, was convicted by a jury of voluntary manslaughter. As a result, the trial court sentenced the appellant to five (5) years as a Range I, standard offender. After the denial of a motion for new trial, the appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. On appeal, the appellant claims that: (1) the jury did not properly reject the appellant's claim of self-defense; (2) the evidence was not sufficient to sustain the verdict; (3) the trial court improperly applied several enhancement factors; and (4) the trial court improperly denied the appellant alternative sentencing. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Clinton Burns, III
Clinton Burns, III, (DOB: 06/07/86), a juvenile, was adjudged delinquent by the Knox County Juvenile Court, having been found to have committed the adult offense of aggravated robbery. He appealed to the trial court, which, after a bench trial, affirmed the judgment of the juvenile court. The defendant appeals, contending that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the testimony of the victim because of the unduly suggestive nature of the procedure used to identify him. He further argues that the trial court erred in refusing to afford him a jury trial. We hold that the trial court properly denied the defendant’s motion to suppress, but that it erred in denying the defendant a jury trial. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order denying the motion to suppress, but reverse the judgment of the trial court affirming the judgment of the juvenile court. Case remanded for a new trial. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Donald Ray Eady, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner was convicted of second degree murder in July of 1998. He appealed his conviction to this Court, and we affirmed his conviction. State v. Donald R. Eady, Jr., E2000-01152-CCA-R3-CD, 2001 WL 1543472 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxville, Dec. 4, 2001), perm. app. denied, (Tenn. May 6, 2002). The petitioner then filed a petition for post-conviction relief. The post-conviction court denied his petition. He appeals to this Court solely on the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Bradley | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Billy R. Shelley
The Appellant, Billy R. Shelley, was convicted by a Sullivan County jury of theft of property over $1,000, a class D felony, and sentenced as a Range II multiple offender to eight years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, Shelley raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict; (2) whether the trial court erred in ruling that his prior convictions, which expired more than ten years prior to this prosecution, were admissible for impeachment purposes; and (3) whether his sentence was proper. After a review of the record, the judgment of the Sullivan County Criminal Court is affirmed. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Gary Clark v. Standard Iron, Inc. and Lumberman's Casualty Insurance Company v. Sue Ann Head, Administrator of the Second Injury Fund for the State of Tennessee
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with the provisions of Tennessee CodeAnnotated section 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Second Injury Fund has appealed the action of the trial court, which determined that the Employer, Standard Iron, Inc., was responsible for payment of 25% of the award to the Worker, Gary Clark, and that the Second Injury Fund was responsible for payment of 75%. Upon our consideration of all of the evidence, we find that the trial court properly determined all issues, but we find that the award should be modified. |
Coffee | Workers Compensation Panel | |
David R. McPeak v. Specialty Surgical Instrumentation, Inc., et al.
This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with the provisions of 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. The Appellant, David R. McPeak, has appealed the action of the trial court, which dismissed his cause of |
Wilson | Workers Compensation Panel | |
State of Tennessee v. Bobby Joe Lester - Dissenting
The majority concludes that the proof is sufficient to support the Appellant’s conviction for especially aggravated kidnapping. I respectfully dissent. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Bobby Joe Lester
The Appellant, Bobby Joe Lester, was convicted of attempted first degree murder, especially aggravated kidnapping, and coercion of a witness. As a result of these convictions, Lester received an effective eighty-five year sentence. On appeal, Lester argues that: (1) the evidence was not sufficient to support the verdicts; (2) the trial court erred in failing to dismiss a juror; and (3) consecutive sentencing was improper. After a review of the record, we conclude that the proof is sufficient to support Lester’s convictions on all counts. Moreover, we conclude issues (2) and (3) are without merit. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William Yates Cramer
The defendant, William Yates Cramer, was convicted by a Lake County Circuit Court jury of driving under the influence of an intoxicant (DUI), second offense, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court imposed a sentence of eleven months, twenty-nine days, with probation after ninety days in jail and ordered the defendant to pay a fine of $600.00. On appeal, the defendant contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction, (2) the trial court erred by allowing the state to use his prior conviction for aggravated assault to impeach his testimony, and (3) his sentence of confinement violates Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Lake | Court of Criminal Appeals |