State of Tennessee v. Brandon Watson
The Appellant, Brandon Scott Watson, appeals from the sentencing decision of the Davidson County Criminal Court. In January of 2003, Watson pled guilty to two counts of burglary of an automobile, class E felonies. Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, Watson received concurrent two-year sentences and, following a sentencing hearing, he was placed in the Community Corrections program. On April 15, 2003, a warrant was issued, alleging that Watson had violated conditions of his behavioral contract. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court revoked his community corrections sentences and modified the previously imposed concurrent sentences to reflect that they be served consecutively. In this appeal, Watson contends that: (1) the trial court erred in revoking his community corrections sentence based on "unreliable hearsay" evidence, specifically, the testimony of his community corrections case officer's referencing a report prepared by a Davidson County Drug Court investigator, who was not present to testify at the revocation hearing, and (2) the trial court erred in ordering his sentences to run consecutively. After a review of the record, we find no reversible error and affirm the sentencing decision of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Steven Griffin v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Steven Griffin, appeals the trial court’s denial of his request for forensic DNA analysis, pursuant to the Post-Conviction DNA Analysis Act of 2001. Our review discloses that the trial court ruled correctly, and we affirm the denial of the petitioner’s request. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Steven Griffin v. State of Tennessee - Dissenting
I respectfully disagree with the conclusion reached in the majority opinion. The Post- Conviction DNA Analysis Act has no provision that even hints of waiver relative to a request to test evidence for the first time. The applicable requirement for consideration is T.C.A. § 40-30-304(3) which states: “The evidence was never previously subjected to DNA analysis or was not subjected to the analysis that is now requested which could resolve an issue not resolved by previous analysis.” The focus is on the fact that no test occurred, not on whether a previous opportunity existed or was pursued to have the test done. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Shirley Hale v. Erwin Ostrow, Rose Ostrow, Max Ostrow
This is a premises liability and nuisance case that arose when Plaintiff fell on a public sidewalk. Plaintiff’s fall occurred on a patch of broken concrete located on the portion of sidewalk abutting Neighbor’s property, which is located immediately to the north of the lot owned by Defendants. Plaintiff filed suit alleging that her fall was caused, in part, by overgrown bushes on Defendants’ property that obstructed passage on the sidewalk. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that, because the fall took place on broken concrete in front of Neighbor’s property, Plaintiff cannot establish duty or causation. The trial court granted Defendants’ motion, and, for the following reasons, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Shirley Hale v. Erwin Ostrow, Rose Ostrow, Max Ostrow - Dissenting
I must respectfully dissent from the majority Opinion in this case. I disagree first with the majority’s characterization of the evidence. The majority states that Ms. Hale “admitted” that the cause of her fall was a crumbled section of sidewalk in front of the Ostrow property. Ms. Hale certainly contended that the crumbled sidewalk contributed to her fall,but at no point did she concede that it was the only cause. She clearly alleged that she was forced to attempt to walk in the street because the overgrown bushes from the Ostrow property blocked the sidewalk: |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Juan Luis Ravell
The defendant entered guilty pleas in Giles County to aggravated rape, especially aggravated burglary, and assault. After imposition of the sentences, but before the judgments became final, the defendant filed a pro se motion to withdraw the guilty pleas. The trial court denied the motion. The defendant also filed a motion alleging error coram nobis, which was denied by the trial court. Both denials were consolidated for this appeal. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Giles | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James G. Huppe, Jr.
The defendant, James G. Huppe, Jr., was convicted of burglary and theft over $1000, Class D felonies, and was sentenced to concurrent terms of three years, suspended except for fifty-three days, with the balance to be served on probation. Additionally, he was ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $4278 and was fined a total of $10,000. On appeal, he argues that he was denied his right to a speedy trial, the court erred in restricting his cross-examination of the victim, and the evidence is insufficient to sustain the convictions. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Warren | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Kathryn C. Black v. Stevan L. Black
This is an independent action for fraud and coercion based on a marital dissolution agreement. On September 13, 2000, the parties executed a marital dissolution agreement, and they were divorced by final decree entered in circuit court ninety days later on December 12, 2000. In February 2003, the wife brought this independent action in the chancery court below for damages for fraud, deceit, and coercion. She alleged that the husband had coerced her into signing the marital dissolution agreement by the use of threats, had prevented her from obtaining the benefit of counsel, and had misrepresented the value of his marital assets. The husband filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that the wife had failed to state a claim upon which relief could granted. The trial court dismissed the wife’s lawsuit, determining that the complaint was essentially an action to set aside the divorce decree, and that the wife did not set out sufficient facts to support that claim. From that decision, the wife now appeals. We affirm, finding that the allegations in the complaint cannot be the basis for an independent action essentially to set aside the divorce decree. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Aldred N. Mason
The defendant, Alfred N. Mason, pled guilty to possession of over twenty-six grams of cocaine with the intent to sell, a Class B felony, and was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to ten years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in denying alternative sentencing. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Pete Honsa v. Tombigbee Transport Corp. et al. AND Eddie Gene Brown v. Tombigbee Transport Corp. AND William B. Stevenson v. Transway, Inc., et al.
The issue raised in these three workers’ compensation cases, consolidated for appeal, is whether the defendant is the employer of the plaintiffs and thus responsible for providing workers’ compensation insurance coverage for them. In each case, the trial court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. We hold that under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-106(1)(A), the defendant is not, as a matter of law, the plaintiffs’ employer so as to subject the defendant to liability under the Workers’ Compensation Law. Therefore, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Hardin | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Agee Gabriel
Agee Gabriel appeals from the Giles County Circuit Court's revocation of his probationary sentence. Alleging myriad procedural and substantive errors, he asks this court to reverse the revocation order. However, we are unpersuaded of error and therefore affirm the lower court. |
Giles | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Donnie Moore
The Appellant, Donnie Moore, appeals from the ruling of the Carroll County Circuit Court, which found that Moore violated the conditions of probation imposed by the Carroll County General Sessions Court. Following a hearing, the general sessions court partially revoked Moore’s probation and ordered him to serve ninety days in jail. Moore appealed to the Carroll County Circuit Court. The circuit court agreed that Moore had violated the terms of his probation and remanded the case to the general sessions court for enforcement of the sentence. On appeal, Moore argues that the circuit court erred by failing to conduct a de novo review of the sentence imposed by the general sessions court and that his sentence was the result of vindictive prosecution. Because the circuit court failed to review Moore’s sentence following revocation of his probation, we remand the case to the circuit court for that limited purpose. |
Carroll | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Marcus Epps v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Marcus Epps,1 pled guilty to second-degree murder, three counts of aggravated assault, two counts of attempted especially aggravated robbery, reckless endangerment, and unlawful possession of more than 0.5 grams of a controlled substance with intent to sell. The trial court sentenced the Petitioner to fifteen years in prison at 100 percent for the second-degree murder conviction and ordered that the other sentences, which were of shorter duration, run concurrently to the fifteen-year sentence. The Petitioner filed a petition seeking post-conviction relief, alleging that his attorney was ineffective for: (1) failing to explain the lesser-included charge of facilitation of felony murder; (2) denying to the Petitioner the right to testify at his motion hearing; and (3) depriving the Petitioner of his right to a speedy trial. Following a hearing, the post-conviction court dismissed the petition. Finding no error, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Bellsouth Telecommunications, Inc., v. City of Memphis, Tennessee
Telecommunications corporation appeals trial court’s grant of summary judgment to city, alleging that trial court incorrectly determined that city ordinance imposing a charge of five percent |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Amanda Jo Goode
The defendant, Amanda Jo Goode, appeals from the Knox County Criminal Court's revoking her probation that was ordered for her sentences for solicitation to commit felony murder; two counts of facilitation of especially aggravated kidnapping; and two counts of facilitation of aggravated robbery. The defendant contends that although the trial court was justified in determining that she violated the terms of her probation, it erred by ordering her to serve her sentences in confinement and consecutively to a federal sentence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Thomas Perkey v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Thomas Jeffrey Perkey, 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 at trial. The judgment is affirmed. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Randy Hurley v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner appeals the trial court's dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. We agree with the habeas court that the petitioner has failed to state a facially valid claim for habeas corpus relief. We affirm the habeas court's dismissal of the petitioner's application for the writ of habeas corpus. |
Johnson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Robert Marler
A jury found the defendant guilty of two counts of reckless homicide, Class D felonies, and one count of especially aggravated robbery, a Class A felony. He contends on appeal that (1) the evidence was insufficient to corroborate the unindicted accomplice's testimony, (2) the trial court erred in refusing to grant a continuance in order to locate a material witness, and (3) he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The evidence is sufficient for any rational trier of fact to have found the essential elements of the offenses beyond a reasonable doubt. Upon consideration of the factors enumerated in State v. Howell, 672 S.W.2d 442, 445-46 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1984), we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the continuance. The defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel has been waived. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Andrew Neal Davis
Defendant, Andrew Neal Davis, was indicted on one count of first degree premeditated murder, one count of first degree felony murder, and one count of aggravated child abuse of a child under the age of eighteen. Defendant’s first jury trial ended in a mistrial. On the first day of the second trial, the trial court granted the State’s motion, over Defendant’s objection, to amend count three of the indictment, aggravated child abuse, to substitute the words “under six years of age” for “under eighteen years of age.” At the conclusion of his second jury trial, Defendant was convicted of one count of first degree felony murder and one count of aggravated child abuse of a child under the age of six. Prior to the jury’s verdict, the State entered a nolle prosequi as to count one of the indictment, first degree premeditated murder. The trial court sentenced Defendant to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole for the felony murder conviction. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Defendant to twenty-two years imprisonment for the aggravated child abuse conviction as a Range I offender and ordered the sentence for aggravated child abuse to run concurrently with Defendant’s life sentence. Defendant does not appeal his sentence for aggravated child abuse. Defendant appeals his convictions alleging (1) that the evidence is insufficient to support Defendant’s convictions for first degree felony murder and aggravated child abuse beyond a reasonable doubt; (2) that the trial court erred in allowing the State to introduce autopsy photographs of the victim; (3) that the trial court erred in permitting the State’s expert witness, Dr. Ellen Clayton, to offer opinions outside her area of expertise; (4) that the trial court erred in allowing Dr. Bruce Levy to testify as a rebuttal witness; (5) that the State’s improper cross-examination of Dr. Charles Harlan at Defendant’s first trial which led to Dr. Harlan’s refusal to testify at Defendant’s second trial resulted in a denial of Defendant’s due process rights; and (6) that the trial court erred in allowing count two of the indictment, aggravated child abuse, to be amended on the day of trial to reflect that the victim was under the age of six. After a thorough review of the record and the arguments and briefs of counsel, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Andrew Neal Davis - Concurring
I concur in the results reached by the lead opinion but write separately to amplify some of my concerns. The prosecution has placed the conviction for aggravated child abuse of a child under the age of six in peril through mistakes, inadvertence, or neglect. There exists no evidence of intentional misconduct on the part of the District Attorney General’s office. I hasten to add that this District Attorney General’s office is not an abuser of the power or processes used to prosecute crimes in its jurisdiction. Although I have voted to affirm this conviction, I feel I must add a word of warning to others who may wish to rely upon my decision. At first glance, the practice of amending an indictment without the defendant’s consent at such a late date is looked upon with disfavor. The practice suggests that someone was inattentive to the process and comes dangerously close to violating principles of fundamental fairness. It is akin to changing the rules in the middle of the game, a gamewhich is played by professionals in which inches determine the winner and loser. This competent defense counsel did not appear shaken or surprised by the State’s amendment. Indeed, I have determined trial counsel’s trial strategy was not changed in the least. That is the main reason I have chosen to affirm this conviction. However, I am mindful of the time trial counsel takes in explaining to a client what has just transpired in court. Imagine explaining to a client that after being put to trial once on what was a Class B felony, the client is now facing a Class A felony with a potential for greater punishment. This could have taken away valuable time which counsel could have used to ready for the trial which was about to begin moments later. The impact could have been great upon a trial counsel that was not as prepared or strong as the one in this case. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Andrew Neal Davis - Concurring/Dissenting
I join with the majority in affirming the Defendant’s convictions for first degree felony |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Howard and Suzanne Levy v. James and Rhonda Franks, Lindsey Butler and Tennessee Valley Homes, Inc.
This case involves a dispute between neighbors. The plaintiffs owned a one-acre parcel of property in a rural setting almost completely surrounded by a sixteen-acre parcel of property owned by the defendants. The defendant larger landowners began building structures and storing equipment in an escalating commercial use of their property. The plaintiff small landowners complained to county officials that the defendants' use of their property constituted a zoning violation. The ensuing dispute between the two landowners was marked by the defendants engaging in threatening and intimidating behavior and the plaintiffs repeatedly complaining to authorities and incessantly documenting and videotaping the defendants' activities. Finally, the plaintiffs sued the defendants for, among other things, malicious harassment, outrageous conduct, civil conspiracy, and malicious prosecution. The trial court found in favor of the plaintiffs on the malicious prosecution claim but declined to award punitive damages. The trial court dismissed the remaining claims. The plaintiffs appeal. We affirm the dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims of malicious harassment and civil conspiracy. We reverse the dismissal of the plaintiffs' claim for outrageous conduct, finding that the defendants' behavior rose to the level of outrageous conduct, and remand for an award of damages on this claim. Finally, we reverse the denial of an award of punitive damages on the plaintiffs' malicious prosecution claim. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Latisha Lee Morgan
The Defendant, Latisha Lee Morgan, pled guilty to assault, a Class A misdemeanor. Pursuant to the plea agreement, sentencing was left to the trial judge. After a hearing, the trial judge imposed a sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days, with sixty days to be served in confinement, and the balance of the sentence to be served on supervised probation. The sole issue in this direct appeal is whether the trial court should have granted the Defendant full probation. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Harril Jay Wisdom
The defendant pled guilty to violation of a motor vehicle habitual offender ("MVHO") order, a Class E felony, in exchange for a one-year sentence in the Department of Correction. With the permission of the trial court and the State, he sought to reserve as a certified question of law whether the expiration prior to his offense of the three-year time period specified in the order declaring him a MVHO precluded his prosecution for the offense. Because we conclude that the defendant failed to meet the requirements for properly reserving a certified question of law pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2), we dismiss the appeal. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. J.D. Jones
Following a jury trial, Defendant, J. D. Jones, was convicted of attempted second degree murder, a Class B felony, and the unlawful possession of a weapon, a Class C misdemeanor. At the conclusion of Defendant's sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Defendant to ten years for the attempted second degree murder conviction and thirty days for the misdemeanor conviction. The trial court ordered Defendant's sentences to run concurrently. On appeal, Defendant argues (1) that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; (2) that the prosecution engaged in improper conduct during Defendant's cross-examination; (3) that the trial court erred in failing to order a gunshot residue test of the samples taken from Defendant's hands; (4) that the trial court erred in not considering Defendant's health as a mitigating factor in determining Defendant's sentence; and (5) that the trial court erred in its instruction to the jury on the mens rea element of the offense of attempted second degree murder. After a thorough review of the record in this case, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Claiborne | Court of Criminal Appeals |