State of Tennessee v. Jason Brian Hargrove
The petitioner, Jason Brian Hargrove, pled guilty to multiple counts of theft and burglary and was ordered to serve an effective sentence of twenty (20) years. This Court affirmed his sentence on direct appeal. See State v. Jason Brian Hargrove, No. M2001-01579-CCA-R3-CD, 2002 WL 1585638 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, July 18, 2002). The petitioner filed a timely petition for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and arguing that his guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied the petition. On appeal, the petitioner challenges the denial of the petition for post-conviction relief based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. He also argues that the holding in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. ___, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), requires a reduction in his sentence. For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of the post-conviction court and decline to modify the petitioner's sentence. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Niccole A. Naifeh, et al., v. Valley Forge Life Insurance Company, et al.
This appeal arises out of the interpretation of a life insurance contract. The trial court determined that the Decedent’s life insurance policy was in effect and had not lapsed due to Decedent’s failure to pay the premium due in January 2000. It ordered Valley Forge Life Insurance Company to pay the sum of $1,000,000.00 to Cathy Naifeh plus prejudgment interest of 8% per annum beginning on June 1, 2000. The lower court dismissed Valley Forge Life Insurance Company’s counterclaim against William McGowan, Jr. and Bill McGowan & Company. Further, it dismissed the claim of Decedent’s estate and Cathy Naifeh against Bill McGowan, Jr. and Bill McGowan & Company for negligent misrepresentation and their claims against Union Planters Bank. Finally, it dismissed the claims of Decedent’s estate and Cathy Naifeh against Union Planters Bank, William McGowan, and Valley Forge Life Insurance Company for violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. Valley Forge Life Insurance Company now seeks review by this Court. For the following reasons, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Tipton | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Robert Bradley, Jr.
The Appellant, Clarence Keeley, d/b/a A-Bail Bond Company, appeals the order of the Lauderdale County Circuit Court denying his petition for reimbursement of the bond in the case of State of Tennessee v. Robert Bradley, Jr. On appeal, Keeley argues that the trial court erred in denying reimbursement of the $10,000 bail bond because (1) the circuit court was without jurisdiction to enter a forfeiture on the bond which secured Bradley’s appearance in the general sessions court and (2) Bradley’s guilty pleas to the charges released A-Bail Bond Company from its surety obligations. After review, we hold that the circuit court was without jurisdiction to enforce the bail bond. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and reimbursement of the bond is ordered as provided below. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Monoleto D. Green
The Defendant was convicted on a jury verdict of three counts of aggravated robbery and three counts of robbery. Following a sentencing hearing, he was sentenced on all six convictions as a Range II offender to an aggregate sentence of eighty-four years with all sentences to be served consecutively. On appeal, the Defendant argues two issues: 1) there was insufficient evidence to support one of his robbery convictions and all three aggravated robbery convictions; and 2) the trial court erred by imposing excessive sentences and by ordering all the sentences to be served consecutively. We affirm the judgments of the trial court as to the convictions but modify the Defendant's sentences to an aggregate term of seventy-eight years. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Steve Cornell Snipes
The defendant, Steve Cornell Snipes, pled guilty in the Haywood County Circuit Court to possession of over .5 grams of a Schedule II controlled substance with the intent to deliver or sell, a Class B felony, and was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to eight years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. As a condition of his guilty plea, the defendant sought to reserve as a certified question of law whether the trial court erred in finding that the affidavit supporting the search warrant set forth sufficient facts establishing the credibility of the confidential informant. Based on our review, we affirm the order of the trial court. |
Haywood | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kenneth Carter
The defendant, Kenneth Carter, was indicted along with the co-defendant, Varnard Wheeler, for theft of property over $60,000. By agreement with the state, the defendant pled guilty to a reduced charge of attempt to commit theft of property over $60,000, a Class C felony with a Range I sentence of six years. The trial court denied judicial diversion and ordered a sentence of ninety days in jail followed by supervised probation. In this appeal of right, the defendant argues that the trial court erred first by denying judicial diversion and second by denying immediate probation. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Eric Bernard Chism v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Eric Bernard Chism, appeals from the Madison County Circuit Court’s dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief, through which he had attacked his Madison County jury convictions of felony murder, especially aggravated kidnapping, aggravated rape, and aggravated sexual battery. The post-conviction court determined that the petitioner failed to establish his claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. We conclude that the record supports this adjudication and affirm the order. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Martha Hallowell v. Vestco, Inc., d/b/a Wendy's, et al.
Appellant was asked to leave her job after she failed to comply with an order from her supervisor to comply with the dress code. Appellant was denied unemployment benefits because of work-related misconduct which was affirmed by the Board of Review. Appellant filed a Petition for Judicial Review in the chancery court. The chancery court affirmed the Board of Review and Appellant appeals. We affirm. |
Henderson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Adoption of John A. Kleshinski and Kevin na KleKleshinski, Chirleshinski and John E. Kleshinski v. Julia Elizabeth Kleshinski - Concurring
While I concur with the decisions reached by the majority in this case, I write separately to voice my concerns regarding the manner in which the majority approaches the best interest analysis mandated by section 36-1-113(c)(2) of the Tennessee Code. |
Lincoln | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William Henry Wilson
The Defendant, William Henry Wilson, pled guilty to one count of delivery of .5 grams or more of a schedule II controlled substance, and to one count of delivery of less than .5 grams of a schedule II controlled substance. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective sentence of ten years, and the Defendant appeals, contending that his sentence is excessive. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William Henry Wilson
The Defendant, William Henry Wilson, pled guilty to one count of delivery of .5 grams or more of a schedule II controlled substance, and to one count of delivery of less than .5 grams of a schedule II controlled substance. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective sentence of ten years, and the Defendant appeals, contending that his sentence is excessive. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Charlene Bennett v. Magna Seating Systems, et al.
This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with. 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. In this appeal, the Employee, Charlene Bennett, insists that the trial court erred in dismissing her complaint, finding that she had failed to prove that her injuries arose out of and in the course of her employment. For the reasons set out below, the Panel has concluded that the evidence fails to preponderate against the findings of the trial court. Judgment of the trial court is affirmed with costs assessed against the employee. |
Carroll | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Patsy Hill Oakley v. James Spencer Oakley
This is a divorce case about division of marital assets, on appeal for the second time. Initially, |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Timothy D. Prince
The appellant, Timothy D. Prince, was indicted by the Williamson County Grand Jury for one count of possession of marijuana. Prior to trial, the appellant filed a motion to suppress the evidence. The trial court denied the motion and found the appellant guilty of possession of marijuana after a bench trial. As a result, the trial court sentenced the appellant to serve eleven (11) months and twenty-nine (29) days in the county jail. After the denial of a motion for new trial and an amended motion for new trial, the appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. On appeal, the appellant challenges: (1) the trial court's denial of the motion to suppress; (2) the sufficiency of the evidence despite the possibility of missing evidence; and (3) the sentence imposed by the trial court. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Derrick Le'mon Goode
On appeal, the defendant challenges the revocation of his probation; specifically, he contends that the trial court erred in revoking his probation based on the new charge of possession of prohibited weapons (sawed-off shotguns) when the weapons were not entered into evidence and their length was only estimated but never measured. Upon our review, we conclude that the deputy's estimation of the length of the weapons is sufficient to support revocation. Moreover, it is uncontroverted that the defendant had an outstanding payments owed to the court, which constitutes an additional ground for revocation. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Chris Haire v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Chris Haire, appeals the McMinn County Circuit Court's dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm. |
McMinn | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Cletus M. Thetford v. American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Company, et al.
This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of facts and conclusions of law. The trial court awarded the employee 60% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole and found that his work activities had advanced and anatomically changed his pre-existing arthritic condition. The employer contends that: 1) the employee did not give proper notice of his injuries; 2) that his work activities did not cause an advancement of his pre-existing arthritic condition; and 3) the disability award was excessive and unsupported by the evidence. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Gibson | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Vanessa Sircy v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County
This is a breach of contract action involving employment with a government municipality. In this case, the defendant municipality offered the plaintiff a job as a dispatcher at an annual salary of approximately $30,000, and the plaintiff accepted the position. Meanwhile, the defendant underwent job reclassifications and salary restructuring. On the second day of the plaintiff's employment with the defendant, she was informed that she would be paid an annual salary of approximately $24,000. After working for approximately five and one-half months for the defendant, the plaintiff resigned, citing the uncertainty regarding whether the defendant would adjust her salary, as they had suggested. Following her resignation, the plaintiff brought this action. Following a bench trial, the trial court determined that the defendant had made promises of employment at a certain salary that induced the plaintiff to resign her position at her former employment, and the defendant had breached those promises. As a result, the trial court found that the plaintiff had suffered damages in the amount of $16,500. The defendant has appealed the judgment of the trial court. Because we conclude that the trial court erroneously calculated damages, we modify the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Rearno Vaughn v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Rearno Vaughn, was convicted of one count of first degree murder, two counts of attempted first degree murder, two counts of attempted second degree murder, and one count of reckless endangerment, and the trial court sentenced him to an effective sentence of life plus twenty-two years. This Court affirmed the convictions and sentences on appeal. The Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which the post-conviction court dismissed after a hearing. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred because he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Tennessee Division of the United Daughters of the Confederacy, v. Vanderbilt University
This appeal involves a dispute stemming from a private university’s decision to change the name of one of its dormitories. An organization that donated part of the funds used to construct the dormitory filed suit in the Chancery Court for Davidson County asserting that the university’s decision to rename the dormitory breached its seventy-year-old agreement with the university and requesting declaratory and injunctive relief and damages. Both the university and the donor filed motions for summary judgment. The trial court, granting the university’s motion, determined that the university should be permitted to modify the parties’ agreement regarding the dormitory’s name because it would be “impractical and unduly burdensome” to require the university to continue to honor the agreement. The donor organization appealed. We have determined that the summary judgment must be reversed because the university has failed to demonstrate that it is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Furthermore, based on the essentially undisputed facts, we have determined that the donor is entitled to a partial summary judgment because the university has breached the conditions placed on the donor’s gift and, therefore, that the university should be required to return the present value of the gift to the donor if it insists on renaming the dormitory. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Lee Hogan
The Defendant, Michael Lee Hogan, pled guilty to one count of selling less than .5 grams of a schedule II controlled substance, cocaine. In accordance with the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced the Defendant to twelve years in prison, as a Range II offender at thirty-five percent. The Defendant filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, which the trial court denied. The Defendant now appeals, contending that: (1) the trial court erred when it denied his motion to withdraw his guilty plea because his guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered; and (2) his sentence is illegal. Because the trial court erroneously determined that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the Defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea and, therefore, summarily denied the motion, we reverse and remand to the trial court for further proceedings. |
Dickson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Brad Everett Jones v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for felony evading arrest, possession of a Schedule VI controlled substance, and driving on a revoked license, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in finding that his guilty pleas were knowing and voluntary and that he received the effective assistance of trial counsel. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Neil M. Friedman
The appellant, Neil M. Friedman, pled guilty to misdemeanor assault and was sentenced to eleven months and twenty-nine days to be served on probation. While serving his sentence, the appellant pled guilty in the Sullivan County Criminal Court to aggravated assault and violating his probation. For the aggravated assault conviction, the trial court sentenced him to three years and granted his request for full probation. The trial court also revoked his misdemeanor probationary sentence and ordered him to serve his original sentence as ninety days in jail and the remainder on probation. Subsequently, a probation violation warrant was filed, and the trial court revoked probation and ordered the appellant to serve both sentences in confinement. On appeal, the appellant argues that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to revoke his misdemeanor probationary sentence because the sentence expired before the revocation warrant was issued. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court but remand for entry of a corrected judgment as to the aggravated assault. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James Allen Bowers v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, James Allen Bowers, appeals the post-conviction court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. In this appeal, the petitioner alleges (1) that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal; (2) that the state failed to disclose evidence favorable to his defense in violation of the requirements of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); and (3) that the post-conviction court erred by refusing to allow expert testimony on the issue of the performance of his trial and appellate counsel. The judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed. |
Bledsoe | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Holly Lynn Perryman
The defendant, Holly Lynn Perryman, was found guilty by a Marshall County jury of facilitation of aggravated robbery, a Class C felony, and was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to four years and six months, with nine months to be served in the county jail and the remainder on probation, the first year of which was to be in community corrections. She raises two issues on appeal: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain her conviction; and (2) whether her sentence is excessive. Following our review, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction but that her conviction for this offense, which is a crime of violence, makes her ineligible for community corrections. Accordingly, we vacate her sentence and remand for resentencing. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals |