State of Tennessee v. Marion Laughrun
The appellant, Marion Shawn Laughrun, pled guilty to two counts of theft in the Washington County Criminal Court and received a total effective sentence of two years and one day in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The trial court granted the appellant probation on both of his sentences. While on probation, the appellant pled guilty to attempted robbery and received a sentence of four years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. As a result of the new conviction, the trial court revoked the appellant's probation on the theft convictions and ordered the original sentences to be served in confinement. Additionally, the court refused to grant the appellant an alternative sentence on the attempted robbery conviction. The appellant appeals both the probation revocation and the denial of alternative sentencing. Upon review of the record and parties' briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Washington | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ronald Stephen Satterfield v. Renata E. Bluhm, M.D., and Occupatient Medical Services, P.C.
Plaintiff's claims for defendants aiding and abetting the State in terminating him and for libel and slander, tortious interference with his employment contract, outrageous conduct, and negligence were dismissed in the Trial Court by summary judgment. Plaintiff has appealed. We affirm the Trial Court's Judgment. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Fred Maines
The appellant, Fred L. Maines, was indicted by the Sullivan County Grand Jury for driving under the influence, fourth offense, a Class E felony. The appellant subsequently pled guilty to driving under the influence, first offense, a Class A misdemeanor, with the sentence to be determined by the trial court. Following a hearing, the trial court sentenced the appellant to eleven months and twenty-nine days confinement in the county jail, to be served at seventy-five percent. The trial court also imposed a three hundred fifty dollar ($350) fine and suspended the appellant's driver's license for one year. On appeal, the appellant contends that the trial court erred by ordering the appellant to serve seventy-five percent of his sentence in confinement. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Annie Ruth Gilkerson v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Annie Ruth Gilkerson, appeals from the post-conviction court's dismissal of her petition for post-conviction relief. Because the petition is barred by the statute of limitations, the judgment is affirmed. |
Greene | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ricky Allen Davis
The appellant, Ricky Allen Davis, was convicted by a Franklin County Jury of one count of assault, a Class A misdemeanor; two counts of vandalism under $500, Class A misdemeanors; and one count of disorderly conduct, a Class C misdemeanor. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the appellant on each of the Class A misdemeanors to eleven months and twenty-nine days confinement and on the Class C misdemeanor to thirty days confinement to be served in the county jail at seventy-five percent. On appeal, the appellant contends that the trial court erred by allowing the victim's mother to testify at the sentencing hearing regarding the victim's nightmares resulting from the assault. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Franklin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Allison L. Brewington
The Appellant, Allison L. Brewington, appeals the decision of the Davidson County Criminal Court revoking his probation and ordering reinstatement of his original sentence. Brewington pled guilty to the aggravated assault of his girlfriend on October 28, 2002, and received a four-year suspended sentence. On December 5, 2002, a warrant was issued, alleging that Brewington violated his probation by harassing the victim on two occasions and failing to report his arrests for these offenses to his probation officer. On appeal, Williams raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether the trial court erred in revoking his probation because the State failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was guilty of harassment, (2) whether the trial court erred by requiring him to serve his entire sentence in confinement, and (3) whether the trial court improperly considered allegations not contained within the violation warrant. After review, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by revoking Brewington’s probation and ordering reinstatement of his original four-year sentence. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Monoleto Green v. State of Tennessee
Monoleto D. Green appeals from the Rutherford County Circuit Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. He claims that he did not receive the effective assistance of counsel in the conviction proceedings and, as a result, his guilty plea was involuntary. Because he has failed to demonstrate error in the lower court's ruling, we affirm. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Corey Radley
A jury convicted the Defendant, Corey Lamont Radley, of second degree murder. The trial court subsequently sentenced him as a Range I offender to twenty-five years of incarceration. In this direct appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence; contests the admission of certain evidence; and complains that his sentence is excessive. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Daniel Lee Stevenson v. Tracy Dawn Stevenson
This appeal arises from the trial court’s award of primary residential custody of the parties’ minor |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
JJ & TK Corp., et al. v. Board of Commissioners of the City of Fairview, Tennessee, et al.
In this case the defendant, the Board of Commissioners of the City of Fairview, declined to grant a certificate of compliance to the plaintiffs, who sought to operate a retail liquor store at the entrance of Bowie Nature Park in Fairview, Tennessee. The plaintiffs contend they met all the legal requirements in effect at the time of their application; and that the defendant based its decision on a pending ordinance which required a minimum distance of 1000 feet between liquor stores and public parks. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendant. We reverse the decision of the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Thomas Farr v. State of Tennessee
The Defendant, Thomas Farr, pled guilty to one count of second degree murder and two counts of solicitation to commit first degree murder. In accordance with the plea agreement, the Defendant was sentenced to thirty years on the murder charge and to eight years on each of the solicitation charges, which terms were concurrent to each other but consecutive to the thirty year term, for an effective sentence of thirty-eight years. The Defendant subsequently filed for post-conviction relief on the grounds that his lawyer was ineffective and that his plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered. After a 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. Mary Lucinda Washington
The defendant was convicted of reckless homicide for the stabbing death of her adult daughter. The trial court sentenced the defendant to a maximum sentence of four years for a Class D felony as a Range I offender. The defendant appeals this sentence claiming it is excessive and that the trial court erred in permitting the judge who presided over the defendant’s preliminary hearing to testify at the sentencing hearing. We find these issues do not merit a reversal of this case and affirm the trial court’s decision to impose the maximum sentence. |
Gibson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Guy Varnadoe v. Shelton McGhee, Jr., et al.
Following a remand by this Court, the trial court entered judgment in favor of the Plaintiff in the amount of $10,464.80 plus post-judgment interest from the time of filing of the trial court’s original judgment. Defendants appeal. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Guy Varnadoe v. Shelton McGhee, Jr., et al. - partial Concurrence/Dissent
I concur in the majority opinion’s affirmance of the trial court’s money judgment against defendants in the amount of $10,464.80. However, I respectfully dissent from that part of the majority opinion that awards post-judgment interest on the money judgment from the date of entry of the trial court’s judgment in the first trial of this case that was reversed and remanded by this Court. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Nelson Keith Foster v. State of Tennessee
Plaintiff's civil rights action against an Assistant District Attorney for prosecutorial misconduct was dismissed by the Chancellor. On appeal, we affirm. |
Sullivan | Court of Appeals | |
Donna Jean Sexton v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Donna Jean Sexton, appeals from the judgment of the Carter County Circuit Court denying her post-conviction relief from her convictions for first degree murder and aggravated robbery. The petitioner contends that (1) the post-conviction court erred by concluding that her amended, comprehensive petition was invalid because it was not properly verified under oath; (2) she received the ineffective assistance of counsel because her attorneys misinformed her as to the length of her sentence for first degree murder; and (3) her nolo contendere pleas were not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made because the trial court never informed her that she was waiving constitutional rights and there was an insufficient factual basis for the petitioner's pleas. Although we conclude that the amended petition was not properly verified, we conclude the trial court correctly proceeded on all issues raised by the petitioner. We also hold that the trial court's findings and conclusions relative to the petitioner's claims are affirmed. |
Carter | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jerry Mitchell v. State of Tennessee
Jerry Mitchell appeals from the Davidson County Criminal Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, in which he claimed that his guilty plea to the offense of attempted first degree murder was involuntary because his attorney erroneously advised him that he would serve only three years of his fifteen year sentence. The lower court found that the petitioner failed to prove his claim by clear and convincing evidence and denied relief. Because the petitioner has not carried his appellate burden of demonstrating error in the lower court's ruling, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. David K. Wachtel, III
The appellant, David K. Wachtel, III, was convicted in the Sumner County Criminal Court of three counts of domestic assault. The trial court imposed a sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days incarceration in the Sumner County Jail for each conviction, with one sentence consecutive to the other two, and placed the appellant on probation. On appeal, the appellant raises issues concerning the trial court's rulings, the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions, and sentencing. Upon our review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Julie Jiles, et al. v. State of Tennessee
Julie Jiles ("Plaintiff") and her husband, Bryan Jiles, sued the State of Tennessee ("State") for medical malpractice regarding medical care Plaintiff received at the Sevier County Health Department. The case was tried before the Claims Commission and an Order of Judgment was entered in March of 2003, holding, inter alia, that the standard of care was not breached and dismissing Plaintiff's case. In dicta, the Judgment also suggested that another health care provider was the proximate cause of Plaintiff's damages. Plaintiff appeals. We affirm. |
Sevier | Court of Appeals | |
City of Chattanooga v. Cinema , Inc., et al.
David Franklin ("Franklin") operates an adult bookstore in Chattanooga known as Cinema 1, Inc. ("Cinema 1"). Numerous undercover visits by Chattanooga Police Department officers discovered a significant amount of sexual activity happening at Cinema 1. This sexual activity violated the Chattanooga city ordinance regulating adult oriented establishments. Based on police reports detailing what the undercover officers observed at Cinema 1, the Mayor of Chattanooga revoked Franklin's adult oriented establishment license, a decision later affirmed by the Chattanooga City Council and then the Trial Court. The primary issues on appeal concern whether the Chattanooga ordinance regulating adult oriented establishments provides the necessary procedural safeguards required by the First Amendment to be considered facially constitutional under the federal Constitution. We conclude the licensing scheme provides the necessary First Amendment procedural safeguards. We further conclude that there was sufficient evidence presented to revoke Franklin's license. The judgment of the Trial Court, therefore, is affirmed. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Anthony Lamont Singleton
The defendant, Anthony Lamont Singleton, pled nolo contendere to aggravated assault, a Class C felony; possession of marijuana, fourth offense, a Class E felony; evading arrest and possession of drug paraphernalia, Class A misdemeanors; and resisting arrest, a Class B misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced him as a Range I, standard offender to an effective five-year sentence. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered that he serve his sentences in confinement. The defendant appeals, claiming that the trial court should have sentenced him to community corrections. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Terry S. Porter
A Shelby County jury convicted the defendant of arson, a Class C felony, and two counts of reckless homicide, Class D felonies. The trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range II multiple offender to ten years confinement for the arson conviction and seven years for each reckless homicide conviction with all sentences to run consecutively, for an effective sentence of twenty-four years. The defendant challenges his sentence on appeal, arguing the trial court’s consideration of enhancement factors was improper and his sentences should run concurrently. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Kenneth W. Mitchell, et al., v. Homer E. Chance, et al.
This appeal involves a dispute between neighbors regarding the use of a county road in rural Humphreys County. After one of the landowners began to use the road to cross the neighboring landowners' property, the neighboring landowners erected barricades in the road and later filed a trespass action in the Chancery Court for Humphreys County. The landowners who desired to use the road counterclaimed to establish their right of way along the road. Following a bench trial, the trial court sided with the landowners desiring to use the road. On this appeal, the landowners who desire to prevent the use of the road take issue with the trial court's refusal to consider parol evidence regarding the meaning of the references to the road in the deeds. We affirm the trial court's decision that the references to the road in the deeds are not ambiguous, as well as its decision to admit extrinsic evidence to determine the location of the road. We have also determined that the evidence fully supports the trial court's decision regarding the location and dimensions of the road. |
Humphreys | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Clifton Brown
Defendant, Clifton Brown, was indicted on one count of first degree felony murder of John Maupin, one count of premeditated first degree murder of John Maupin, one count of aggravated burglary of Ricky Howard's home, and one count of especially aggravated kidnapping of John Maupin. Prior to the case going to the jury, the State asked for and received a nolle prosequi as to the charge of premeditated first degree murder. Following a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of especially aggravated kidnapping and aggravated burglary. The jury found Defendant not guilty of first degree felony murder, and found Defendant guilty of the lesser included offense of reckless homicide. Defendant waived a sentencing hearing and agreed to be sentenced as a Range I, standard offender, to twenty years for the especially aggravated kidnapping conviction, three years for the aggravated burglary conviction and two years for the reckless homicide conviction, with all sentences to run concurrently. Defendant appealed the sufficiency of the convicting evidence for all three convictions. In his brief, however, Defendant limits his argument on appeal to the sufficiency of the evidence pertaining to his conviction for especially aggravated kidnapping, and Defendant does not present any argument to support his contention that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions for reckless homicide and aggravated burglary. Defendant has thus waived a review of the issues pertaining to his aggravated burglary and reckless homicide convictions. Tenn. R. Crim. P. 10(b). After a thorough review of the record, we affirm all three judgments of the trial court. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joseph Rushing
Defendant, Joseph Rushing, was indicted for one count of rape of a child and one count of aggravated sexual battery. Following a jury trial, the jury found Defendant guilty of count one, rape of a child. The State entered a nolle prosequi as to count two, aggravated sexual battery. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Defendant to twenty-three years imprisonment. On appeal, Defendant argues that (1) the trial court erred in allowing Defendant's statements to the police to be introduced at trial; (2) the sentence imposed on Defendant was excessive; (3) the evidence was insufficient to support Defendant's conviction for rape of a child; and (4) Defendant's conviction and sentence violated principles of fundamental fairness. After a careful review of the record in this matter, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Humphreys | Court of Criminal Appeals |