State of Tennessee v. Kevin Brazelton
A Knox County Criminal Court Jury convicted the Appellant, Kevin Brazelton, of four counts of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced him to twenty-five years for each conviction and merged the convictions. On appeal, the Appellant contends that the trial court should have granted a mistrial when a court officer shocked him with a stun belt in the jury’s presence; that the trial court erred by allowing the prosecution to use a peremptory challenge against the only |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re Cyric W.
This appeal involves a petition to terminate parental rights. The juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence that five grounds for termination were proven: (1) abandonment by failure to support; (2) abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home; (3) substantial noncompliance with a permanency plan; (4) persistent conditions; and (5) mental incompetence. The juvenile court also found that termination was in the best interests of the child. The mother appeals. We reverse the trial court in part and affirm in part. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Robert Welch et al. v. Catherine Welch et al.
Prior to his death, the decedent brought suit for personal injury and loss of consortium in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia against more than seventy defendants after being diagnosed with mesothelioma. Ultimately, the parties in that matter reached a settlement. After informing the West Virginia court of the resolution of the matter, the case was closed by the court. Shortly thereafter, and prior to full disbursement of the settlement proceeds, the decedent died from mesothelioma. Several of the decedent’s heirs then brought the present action in Tennessee, seeking to have the settlement proceeds received pursuant to the West Virginia litigation characterized as wrongful death proceeds. The trial court dismissed the heirs’ action, and this appeal followed. We affirm the trial court’s dismissal. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Brent Landon Carter v. Shannon Dale Carter
This divorce action concerns the trial court’s classification and division of the marital estate and award of alimony to the wife. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Overton | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Byron Hartshaw and Gary Lee Emory
A Knox County jury convicted the defendants, Byron Hartshaw and Gary Lee Emory, of robbery, aggravated robbery, and aggravated burglary. The trial court imposed total effective sentences of fifteen years for Defendant Hartshaw and twelve years for Defendant Emory. In this consolidated appeal, both defendants challenge the sufficiency of the evidence, the jury instructions, and the admission of certain evidence. They also contend that the State’s closing argument amounted to prosecutorial misconduct. Defendant Emory additionally argues that the trial court provided “improper assistance” to the State, he challenges the length of his sentence, and he contends that cumulative error entitles him to a new trial. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Joshua Nathan Brown v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Joshua Nathan Brown, appeals from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, wherein he challenged his guilty-pleaded convictions for evading arrest through the use of a motor vehicle creating a risk of death or injury to others, possession of a firearm by a convicted drug felon, and possession of a Schedule IV controlled substance with the intent to sell. In this appeal as of right, the Petitioner argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to recuse the district attorney general’s office after his previous attorney in this case was hired by that office. Following our review of the record, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment denying relief. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Cleotris Ruben
The Defendant, Cleotris Ruben, entered guilty pleas pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970), to one count of theft of property valued more than $1,000 but less than $2,500, a Class E felony, and one count of theft of property valued $1,000 or less, a Class A misdemeanor. After entry of the pleas but prior to sentencing, the Defendant discovered that, contrary to what he had been told by the two attorneys representing him, he was not eligible for judicial diversion. The Defendant moved to withdraw his guilty pleas, and the trial court denied the motion. On appeal, this court concluded that counsel had a conflict of interest and reversed the decision, remanding for appointment of new counsel. The trial court appointed new counsel, held a hearing, and again denied the Defendant’s motion to withdraw his pleas, and the Defendant appeals. We conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion, and we reverse and remand the case for entry of an order permitting withdrawal of the pleas and for further proceedings. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Vern Braswell
After the trial court granted the State’s motion to dismiss the “Emergency Motion to Alter or Adjust Sentence to Conform With the Principles of Compassionate Release” filed by Vern Braswell, Defendant, this appeal was initiated. On appeal, Defendant challenges the trial court’s dismissal of his motion. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Lavan Tremayne Johnson, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Lavan Tremayne Johnson, Jr., filed for post-conviction relief, alleging that his counsel were ineffective and that his guilty pleas were not knowingly and voluntarily entered. The post-conviction court denied relief, and the Petitioner appeals. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joseph John Turchin
A Monroe County Criminal Court Jury convicted the Appellant, Joseph John Turchin, of two counts of especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor, Tenn. Code Ann. § 39- 17-1005, one count of sexual exploitation of a minor, Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1003, and one count of unlawfully photographing a minor in violation of the minor’s privacy, Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-605.1 The trial court imposed a total effective sentence of twenty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Appellant contends that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress, arguing that he was not properly served with a warrant for the search of his cellular telephones. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Monroe | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re Trinity P.
The mother of a seven-year-old child appeals the trial court’s decision to grant grandparent visitation. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court concluded that a rebuttable presumption of irreparable harm existed under Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-6-306(a)(5), generally referred to as the Grandparent Visitation Statute, because the child lived with the grandparents for more than twelve months, a cessation of the relationship would create a danger of substantial harm, and visitation was in the child’s best interests based on the length and quality of the relationship and the existing emotional ties between the child and the grandparents. The trial court, however, made no finding concerning the threshold issue in -306(a): whether the mother opposed or severely reduced the grandparents’ visitation prior to their filing the petition. Following a de novo review of the record, we have determined that the grandparents failed to establish that the mother opposed or severely reduced their visitation prior to filing the petition. As a consequence, the Grandparent Visitation Statute was not implicated. Therefore, thejudgment of the trial court is reversed, and this matter is remanded with instructions to dismiss the petition. |
Marshall | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Megan Y
The Notice of Appeal filed by the appellants, Jason Y. and Katina Y., stated that appellants were appealing the judgment entered on July 1, 2021. As the order appealed from does not constitute a final appealable judgment, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal. |
McMinn | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joseph Sarkozy
The Defendant-Appellant, Joseph Sarkozy, appeals the revocation of his probation. On appeal, the Defendant argues the trial court erred by (1) finding the Defendant violated the terms of his probation when he did not possess the requisite intent for the domestic assault charges used as the basis for the revocation and (2) ordering the Defendant to serve the remainder of his sentence in prison. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Bradley | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re K.W.
This is an appeal from a termination of parental rights case. The trial court determined that three grounds for termination existed and that termination of the father’s parental rights was in the child’s best interests. We vacate one ground for termination relied upon by the trial court due to the application of an incorrect standard in the court’s order, but we affirm the court’s reliance on the remaining grounds for termination and its best interests determination. The trial court’s termination of the father’s parental rights is accordingly affirmed. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Shahnaz Poursaied v. State of Tennessee
The claimant has appealed from the dismissal of her claims against the State of Tennessee. Because the claimant did not file her notice of appeal with the clerk of this Court within the time permitted byTennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a), we dismiss the appeal. |
Court of Appeals | ||
Katherine D. Morgan v. Kenneth F. Morgan, Jr.
In this divorce case, Kenneth F. Morgan, Jr. (“Father”) appeals the trial court’s judgment adopting a permanent parenting plan that designates Katherine D. Ward2 (“Mother”) as primary residential parent of the parties’ child and grants Father parenting time of every other weekend. Father also argues that the trial court erred in (1) allowing the expert psychologist tasked with a parental assessment to testify in the manner in which he did; (2) declining Father’s request to remove the child’s guardian ad litem (“GAL”) for alleged bias; (3) ordering Father to pay two-thirds of the GAL fees awarded by the court; and (4) awarding Mother attorney’s fees and costs. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Lester Lee Doyle
The Benton County Grand Jury indicted Defendant, Lester Lee Doyle, for second offense driving under the influence of an intoxicant or drug (“DUI”) (Count One), violation of the implied consent law (Count Two), failure to illuminate the registration plate of his vehicle at all times when the headlights are illuminated (Count Three), and failure to maintain his vehicle as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane of a roadway divided into two or more lanes for traffic (Count Four). Following trial, the jury found Defendant guilty of DUI in Count One and not guilty of the traffic offenses in Counts Three and Four. On appeal, Defendant argues that because the jury found Defendant not guilty on Counts Three and Four, there was no reasonable suspicion to stop Defendant and therefore Defendant is entitled to a new trial or a reversal of the DUI conviction. Following a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgments of conviction. |
Benton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Kevin Farrell Wells v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Kevin Farrell Wells, appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition arguing that the post-conviction court applied the incorrect burden of proof in evaluating his claims, erroneously denied him relief on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, and entered its order beyond the sixty-day statutory deadline. After hearing oral arguments and following a review of the entire record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Urshawn Eric Miller
A Madison County jury convicted the defendant, Urshawn Eric Miller, of first-degree premeditated murder and first-degree felony murder for fatally shooting a convenience store employee during an attempted robbery of the store. The jury also convicted the defendant of the attempted second-degree murder of another store employee and of attempted especially aggravated robbery, aggravated assault, employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, evading arrest, and resisting arrest. The jury imposed the death penalty for the first-degree murder convictions. The trial court merged the felony murder conviction into the premeditated murder conviction and the aggravated assault conviction into the attempted second-degree murder conviction, and it imposed an effective thirty-year sentence for the remaining convictions to run concurrently with the death sentence. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentences but vacated the application of the felony murder aggravating circumstance as to the felony murder conviction. Upon our automatic review, we conclude: (1) the trial court properly ruled on challenges to certain jurors for cause during individual voir dire; (2) the evidence was sufficient to establish the defendant’s identity as the perpetrator and his guilt of the convicted offenses; (3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the State to introduce a video recording of the defendant’s prior aggravated robbery during the penalty phase; (4) the death penalty generally, and lethal injection specifically, do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment; and (5) the death sentence satisfies our mandatory review pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-206. Accordingly, we affirm the defendant’s convictions and sentence of death; however, we reverse the portion of the intermediate court’s judgment vacating the application of the felony murder aggravating circumstance. |
Madison | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Urshawn Eric Miller- Concurring in part and Dissenting in part
Sharon G. Lee, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part. The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects all citizens, including Urshawn Eric Miller, from being subjected to punishment that is cruel and unusual. A sentence is cruel and unusual, and thus constitutionally prohibited, when it is excessive or disproportionate as compared with sentences imposed in similar cases. Miller was sentenced to death for shooting and killing a store clerk during an attempted robbery. The loss of the store clerk’s life is tragic, and Miller deserves to be punished. But Miller and the crime he committed do not fall into the rare category of the “worst of the bad.”When compared with other first-degree murder cases, including capital cases, Miller’s case is more like cases in which a sentence of life or life without parole was imposed rather than a death sentence.Thus, Miller’s death sentence is out of line with the punishment imposed in similar cases, making his punishment cruel and unusual. Miller’s convictions for first-degree murder and other offenses should be affirmed. Under the Eighth Amendment, Miller should not be put to death but should spend the rest of his life in prison. |
Madison | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Sean Mitchell aka Antwon Rainer
Defendant, Sean Mitchell A.K.A. Antwon Rainer, was indicted for rape and aggravated kidnapping, and a jury convicted Defendant as charged. The trial court sentenced Defendant, pursuant to the repeat violent offender statute, to two life sentences without the possibility of parole and ran the sentences consecutively. On appeal, Defendant argues (1) that the trial court erred by admitting hearsay evidence, (2) that the chain of custody for Defendant’s penile swabs was not properly established, (3) that the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions, and (4) that the trial court erred by imposing excessive sentences. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christapher Baumgartner
The Appellee, Christapher Baumgartner, was charged in the Bradley County Criminal Court with vehicular homicide by intoxication, a Class B felony, and driving under the influence (DUI), a Class A misdemeanor. He filed a motion to suppress his blood test results, arguing that he did not voluntarily consent to the blood draw. The trial court held an evidentiary hearing and granted the motion, and the State appeals. Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Bradley | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Perry Brent Lanham v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Perry Brent Lanham, pleaded guilty to burglary and theft of property valued $2,500 or more, and he received an effective eight-year sentence on probation supervised by community corrections. The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, contending that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that he did not plead guilty knowingly and voluntarily. Following a hearing, the post-conviction court denied the petition, and the Petitioner appeals. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Chester | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Timothy Rosebrough v. Karen Caldwell f/k/a Karen Rosebrough
In this post-divorce case, Mother appeals the trial court’s denial of her motion to modify the permanent parenting plan to designate her as the Child’s primary residential parent. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
A.B. Normal, LLC v. State of Tennessee
A property owner whose property was destroyed by a lightning-induced fire filed suit against the State on the theory of negligence. The Claims Commission dismissed the case after concluding that any negligence on the part of the State was not the proximate cause of the property owner’s injury. Finding no error, we affirm the decision of the Claims Commission. |
Court of Appeals |