State of Tennessee v. Quadarious Devonta Bufford
The Defendant, Quadarious Devonta Bufford, was convicted by a Gibson County Circuit Court jury of first degree felony murder during the perpetration of aggravated child abuse and sentenced by the trial court to life imprisonment. On appeal, he argues that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction, and the State committed reversible error by failing to make an election of offenses. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Gibson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Brandon Garrard
On April 2, 2018, the Defendant, Brandon Garrard, was found guilty of delivery of more than 0.5 grams of methamphetamine within 1,000 feet of a park and conspiring to introduce contraband into a penal facility. The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range III, career offender to concurrent terms of 60 years for the delivery charge and 12 years for the conspiracy charge. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the delivery charge based on the jury verdict form and that the trial court erred in imposing a 60-year sentence. The State concedes that the Defendant was improperly sentenced. After thorough review, we remand for resentencing and affirm the trial court’s judgments in all other aspects. |
Hardin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Corderro Avant and Davario Fields aka Davario McNeary
Defendants, Corderro Avant and Davario Fields, aka Devario McNeary, appeal from their convictions for one count of first degree murder, one count of attempted first degree murder resulting in seriously bodily injury, nine counts of attempted first degree murder, and eleven counts of employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony after shots were fired at a house in Memphis. As a result of the resulting convictions, Defendants were sentenced to effective sentences of life plus twenty-one years. In their direct appeal, Defendants challenge: (1) the trial court’s limitation of cross-examination regarding activity at the home prior to the shooting; (2) the trial court’s decision to allow the alleged child victims to sit in the courtroom; (3) the trial court’s decision to allow the State to use cell phone location data obtained without a warrant; (4) the dismissal of a juror after he told the trial court that he recognized a person identified as an unavailable witness; (5) the trial court’s comments to the jury about deliberation; and (6) the sufficiency of the evidence.1 After hearing oral arguments and a full review, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Eddie Medlock v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Eddie Medlock, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his petition pursuant to the Post-Conviction DNA Analysis Act of 2001 (the Act), Tennessee Code Annotated sections 40-30-301 to -313 (2018). The postconviction DNA court denied relief on the basis that DNA analysis of evidentiary items requested by the Petitioner had been performed previously and that the Petitioner’s request regarding various forms of scientific analysis of other items was not cognizable under the Act. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the court erred in dismissing his petition. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction DNA court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Steven Michael Odom
The Defendant, Steven Michael Odom, was convicted of aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, aggravated assault, simple possession of marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia. The Defendant received an effective sentence of twelve years. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence for his convictions for aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, and aggravated assault. Upon review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. |
Tipton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Willie Lewis v. State of Tennessee
A Shelby County jury convicted Willie Lewis, Petitioner, of second degree murder. Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief and argued that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court denied relief, and Petitioner appealed. On appeal, Petitioner asserts that the post-conviction court made insufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law for this court to review its decision. Additionally, Petitioner argues that trial counsel’s representation during the sentencing phase was deficient for failing to ensure that Petitioner participated in the preparation of the presentence report. Petitioner contends that he was prejudiced by this deficiency because trial counsel did not present any mitigating circumstances to the trial court and Petitioner received the maximum sentence within the applicable range. After a thorough review of the facts and applicable case law, we affirm the |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Anthony Bayman v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Anthony Bayman, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his 2014 conviction for second degree murder and his sentence of thirty-two years. The Petitioner contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel and that an amendment to the indictment violated principles of due process. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Willie Lee Wilson, Jr.
The defendant, Willie Lee Wilson, Jr., appeals his Haywood County Circuit Court jury convictions of aggravated robbery, theft of property valued at $1,000 or less, and evading arrest, arguing that the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to sustain his convictions. Because the evidence was insufficient to support the defendant’s conviction for theft of property valued at $1,000 or less relevant to a handgun, that conviction is vacated, and the charge is dismissed. The defendant’s other convictions are affirmed. |
Haywood | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Brandon Churchman v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Brandon Churchman, filed a post-conviction petition seeking relief from his convictions of reckless homicide, felony murder, and two counts of facilitation of attempted first degree murder and accompanying effective sentence of life plus ten years. The Petitioner alleged that his counsel was ineffective on appeal by failing to challenge the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentencing. The post-conviction court denied the petition, and the Petitioner appeals. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the postconviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Bobby D. Dewalt
Defendant, Bobby D. Dewalt, pled guilty to three counts of delivery of .5 grams or more of cocaine as a Range II, Multiple Offender in case number 10598 and was sentenced by the trial court to twelve years for each conviction, to be served concurrently. The trial court denied Defendant’s request for an alternative sentence. At the same time, Defendant’s probation was revoked in case number 9783, for which Defendant was on probation at the time of his guilty plea. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. After a review, we determine that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying an alternative sentence. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Northgate Limited Liability Company et al. v. Randall Amacher et al.
This appeal involves multiple claims asserted against multiple parties. From our review of the record, the orders appealed do not resolve all of the claims asserted in the complaint. As a result, the judgment of the trial court is not final, and this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the appeal. The appeal is hereby dismissed. |
Coffee | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Mullinicks, Jr.
The Appellant, John Thomas Mullinicks, Jr., pled no contest in the Dickson County Circuit Court to four counts of statutory rape by an authority figure and received a total effective sentence of twelve years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Appellant contends that the presentment failed to allege all of the essential elements of the charged offense of statutory rape by an authority figure, which renders his convictions void. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Dickson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Erin Alford Fuller v. Roger Darnell Fuller
This appeal concerns a redetermination of alimony on remand. Erin Alford Fuller (“Wife”) sued Roger Darnell Fuller (“Husband”) for divorce in the Chancery Court for Bradley County (“the Trial Court”). The case was tried, and Husband appealed the judgment. We determined that the Trial Court properly classified and valued Husband’s trail income from his business in the property division but erred by then including, as part of Husband’s income, the amount of trail income distributed as a marital asset. We thus vacated the Trial Court’s determinations regarding child support and alimony. On remand, the Trial Court found that Husband inflated his business expenses. The Trial Court found that Husband earned approximately $200,000 per year and ordered him to pay Wife $1,500 per month as alimony in futuro. Husband appeals. We hold that the Trial Court, in keeping with our instructions, properly excluded the trail income distributed as a marital asset in making its fresh determination of Husband’s income. We find no reversible error in the Trial Court’s finding as to Husband’s income, nor do we discern any abuse of discretion in the Trial Court’s alimony decision. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court and remand for an award to Wife of her reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred on appeal. |
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
Richard Williams v. Tony Mays, Warden
The Petitioner, Richard Williams, appeals from the Davidson County Criminal Court’s dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus from his 2004 conviction for second degree murder and his twenty-five-year sentence. The Petitioner contends that the habeas corpus court erred by dismissing his petition. We affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Christopher Conrad Fichtel v. Jill Crowell Fichtel (Zirwas)
This appeal results from Father’s petition in opposition to relocation. Trial on the petition was held over a period of more than a year. Ultimately, the trial court granted Father’s petition in opposition and modified the parties’ child support obligation to take into account their changed incomes. We vacate the trial court’s determination of Father’s income for child support purposes, but affirm the trial court’s rulings in all other respects. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Katrina Lynette Brown
After a bench trial, the Appellant, Katrina Lynette Brown, was found guilty of driving under the influence, violating the implied consent law, possessing .5 grams or more of cocaine with the intent to sell, possessing .5 grams or more of cocaine with the intent to deliver, and a brake light violation. The trial court merged the cocaine possession counts and imposed a total effective sentence of ten years, which was suspended to probation. On appeal, the Appellant contends that the evidence is not sufficient to sustain her conviction of possession of .5 grams or more of cocaine with the intent to sell. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Neeld J. Messler II v. Janette Roberts Brumlow
This is an appeal challenging a jury verdict in an unlawful detainer action, in which both parties had raised additional counterclaims against one another, including breach of contract, fraud, and a violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the appellee. However, neither the jury’s verdict nor the trial court’s judgment on the verdict, addressed all of the parties’ claims. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Larry Daniel Cantey v. Alyson Lindsay Cantey (Violette)
This appeal involves a petition to modify an agreed permanent parenting plan. The trial court denied the petition. We conclude that the trial court’s order does not contain sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law. We vacate the order of the trial court and remand for entry of an appropriate order. |
Gibson | Court of Appeals | |
Rex A. Ferguson v. Tennessee Board of Parole
This is an appeal from the judgment of the trial court denying an inmate’s petition for writ of certiorari challenging the Tennessee Board of Parole’s denial of parole. The inmate contends the Board’s decision to deny parole based solely on the seriousness of the offense was arbitrary and capricious, and the trial court abused its discretion in denying his petition. More specifically, he contends that denying parole on the basis of one factor, the seriousness of the offenses, “in the face of so many positive factors, without an explanation of how these positive factors do not outweigh the seriousness of the offense, constitutes an arbitrary and capricious decision contrary to the weight of the evidence in the record.” Having determined that “‘seriousness of the offense’ is a proper, independent basis to deny parole release,” the trial court denied the petition for writ of certiorari. Because the seriousness of the offense is a proper, independent basis for denying parole under Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-503(b)(2), and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Roger Clayton Davis
The Appellant, Roger Clayton Davis, filed a pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1, and the trial court summarily denied the motion. On appeal, the Appellant contends that the trial court erroneously imposed consecutive sentencing and that the sentences imposed by the trial court are illegal because the trial court enhanced his sentences based upon facts not determined by a jury in violation of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004). Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
McMinn | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Quentin Love
Defendant, Quentin Love, was indicted by the Knox County Grand Jury for felony murder during the attempt to perpetrate burglary, felony murder during the attempt to perpetrate theft, felony murder during the attempt to perpetrate robbery, especially aggravated burglary, especially aggravated robbery, employment of a firearm during a dangerous felony, unlawful possession of a weapon by a person having been convicted of a felony involving the use of force, and unlawful possession of a weapon after having been convicted of a felony drug offense. Defendant proceeded to a jury trial. At the close of the State’s proof, the trial court granted Defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal as to especially aggravated robbery and reduced the charge to attempted especially aggravated robbery. The jury convicted Defendant as charged. The trial court merged the felony murder convictions into a single count of felony murder during the attempt to perpetrate burglary. The trial court also merged the unlawful possession of a weapon convictions into a single count of unlawful possession of a weapon by a convicted felon. The trial court sentenced Defendant to life imprisonment for his felony murder conviction. Defendant received concurrent sentences of 20 years each for his especially aggravated burglary and attempted especially aggravated robbery convictions, to be served concurrently with his life sentence. Defendant was also sentenced to ten years for his unlawful possession of a weapon conviction and ten years for his employment of a firearm conviction, to be served consecutively to each other and consecutively to his life sentence, for a total effective sentence of life plus 20 years’ imprisonment. In this appeal as of right, Defendant contends: 1) that the trial court erred in denying his motion for mistrial; 2) that the trial court erred by instructing the jury on flight; and 3) that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions. Having reviewed the entire record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. However, we remand this case to the trial court for entry of judgments in counts 2, 3, and 8, pursuant to State v. Berry, 503 S.W. 360 (Tenn. 2015), as well as entry of an amended judgment in count 6 to accurately reflect the offense for which Defendant was convicted. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Deanna Whitman v. State of Tennessee
The defendant, Deanna Whitman, appeals the denial of her motion, filed pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36, to correct a clerical error in her judgments. Specifically, the defendant asserts that the judgments fail to adequately reflect the number of pretrial jail credits awarded by the trial court. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Warren | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Christina Klepper Neely v. Brian Richard Neely
Mother moved to hold Father in criminal contempt for his failure to pay child support in full each month. After finding a failure to pay child support as ordered, the court held father in criminal contempt. Because the order contains insufficient findings of fact, we vacate the judgment and remand for further proceedings. |
Sullivan | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Joshua S.
Daniel S. (“Father”) and Kimberly T. (“Mother”) appeal the August 27, 2018 order of the Hamblen County Juvenile Court (“Juvenile Court”) terminating their parental rights to the minor child, Joshua S. (“the Child”). Upon petition of the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”), the Juvenile Court terminated the parents’ rights on the grounds of substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody or financial responsibility for the Child. The Juvenile Court also terminated Mother’s parental rights on the ground of persistent conditions and Father’s parental rights on the ground of abandonment by wanton disregard. Upon its determination that grounds existed to terminate the parents’ rights to the Child, the Juvenile Court determined that termination of both parents’ rights was in the best interest of the Child. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Hamblen | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kevin Todd Parton
A jury convicted the Defendant, Kevin Todd Parton, of driving with a blood alcohol content of 0.08 percent or more (“DUI per se”) and driving under the influence of an intoxicant (“DUI”). The trial court merged the convictions and sentenced the Defendant to eleven months and twenty-nine days, with ten days to be served in confinement. The Defendant appeals, asserting that the trial court erred in denying a motion for a mistrial, that the trial court erred in admitting the results of the blood alcohol test, and that the arrest warrant was defective. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals |