State of Tennessee v. Donald Ragland
The Defendant, Donald Ragland, appeals the trial court’s summary dismissal of his motion to correct a clerical error pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36. The Defendant has failed to present an appropriate argument under Rule 36; therefore, we affirm the summary dismissal pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re David P. Et Al.
This is an appeal from an order terminating the parental rights of the appellant to his minor children. The only Notice of Appeal filed by the appellant within the time provided in Rule 4(a) of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure for the filing of a notice of appeal, did not comply with Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-1-124(d), which states: “Any notice of appeal filed in a termination of parental rights action shall be signed by the appellant.” Because this Notice of Appeal was insufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court, this appeal is dismissed. |
Claiborne | Court of Appeals | |
Sebastian Pegues v. State of Tennessee
A Shelby County jury convicted the Petitioner, Sebastian Pegues, of two counts of first degree felony murder, one count of aggravated child abuse, and one count of aggravated child neglect, and the trial court sentenced him to life plus twenty years of incarceration. This court affirmed the Petitioner’s convictions and sentence on appeal. State v. Sebastian Pegues, No. W2014-00854-CCA-R3-CD, 2015 WL 3404736, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, May 27, 2015), no Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application filed. The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel ineffectively cross-examined the medical examiner. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. We affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Calvin Banks
A Shelby County jury convicted the Defendant, Calvin Banks, of first degree premeditated murder and the trial court imposed a sentence of life. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that the evidence supporting his conviction is insufficient because the State failed to establish premeditation. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Sonja Broyles Williams v. Stewart Ashley Williams
This is an appeal from a divorce case dissolving a long-term marriage with two minor children. Following a four and one-half day trial, the court awarded Wife a divorce, designated Husband as the primary residential parent of the parties’ children, distributed the marital property, awarded Wife rehabilitative alimony, and denied Wife’s request for attorney’s fees. Wife appeals the designation of Husband as primary residential parent, the value and division of certain items within the marital estate, the court’s decision to award her rehabilitative alimony rather than alimony in futuro, and the denial of her request for attorney’s fees. We vacate the trial court’s order regarding retroactive child support and remand the issue for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We affirm the remainder of the judgment of the trial court. We deny Wife’s request for attorney’s fees incurred on appeal. |
Hardin | Court of Appeals | |
Mardoche Olivier v. City of Clarksville, et al.
This action arises out of an alleged violation of the plaintiff’s civil rights by the City of Clarksville (“the City”) and a group of police officers employed by the City (“the Officers”) (collectively, “Defendants”). The plaintiff was arrested on June 1, 2015, for driving on a revoked or suspended license, see Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-50-504 (2012), and making a 911 telephone call in a nonemergency situation, see Tenn. Code Ann. § 7-86-316 (2015). The plaintiff filed a complaint on August 11, 2016, alleging that as a result of his arrest, the Officers caused him to suffer damages from false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, malicious harassment, outrageous conduct, intentional infliction of emotional distress, conversion, and inverse condemnation. The plaintiff also alleged violations of his civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on October 5, 2016, asserting, inter alia, that the plaintiff’s claims were statutorily barred due to the immunity granted to Defendants by the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act (“GTLA”). See Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-20-205 (2012). The trial court entered a final order regarding Defendants’ motion to dismiss on November 17, 2016, granting the motion and dismissing all claims. The plaintiff has appealed. Discerning no error, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kristie Louis McLerran
The Defendant, Kristie Louise McLerran, entered a plea of nolo contendere to attempted aggravated child neglect, a Class B felony, as a Range I, standard offender and to serve an eight-year term with manner of service to be determined by the trial court. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a term of incarceration, finding that confinement was necessary to avoid depreciating the seriousness of the offense. The Defendant appeals the trial court’s denial of alternative sentencing. We conclude that the trial court did not err in sentencing the Defendant to a term of imprisonment. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Clay | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Latisia Upshaw v. Sunrise Community Of Tennessee, Inc.
This appeal concerns a claim of retaliatory discharge. After a trial before a jury, judgment was entered against the defendant employer. The plaintiff was awarded $225,000 in compensatory damages and $200,000 in punitive damages. The employer appeals. We affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Jason Ray v. Madison County, Tennessee
We accepted certification of questions of law from the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, which require us to determine: (1) whether, for split confinement sentences, Tennessee law authorizes a sentencing court to fix a percentage of the sentence that a defendant must serve in actual confinement before becoming eligible to participate in a work program in the local jail or workhouse; and (2) whether Tennessee law imposes a duty on a sheriff to challenge an inmate’s improper or potentially improper sentence. We conclude (1) that for split confinement sentences Tennessee trial judges are authorized to fix a percentage the defendant must serve in actual confinement before becoming eligible to earn work credits; and (2) that sheriffs in Tennessee have no duty to challenge an inmate’s sentence as improper or potentially improper. |
Supreme Court | ||
Carl Bond v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Carl Bond, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of one count of aggravated robbery. Over a year after this Court affirmed his conviction, the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief. The trial court subsequently denied the petition on its merits. Following our review of the record and pertinent authorities, we conclude the petition was untimely, and this Court is without jurisdiction to consider this appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Tut Mayal Tut v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Tut Mayal Tut, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his guilty-pleaded convictions for two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, two counts of especially aggravated robbery, and four counts of aggravated rape. Petitioner alleges that he received ineffective assistance of counsel during both the juvenile court transfer hearing and the criminal court plea proceedings. Upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Demarcus Lashawn Blackman
The Defendant, Demarcus Lashawn Blackman, was convicted by a Marshall County Circuit Court jury of aggravated criminal trespass and evading arrest, Class A misdemeanors. See T.C.A. §§ 39-14-406 (2014) (aggravated criminal trespass), 39-16-603 (2014) (amended 2016) (evading arrest). The trial court sentenced him to consecutive terms of eleven months, twenty-nine days for each conviction and ordered the sentence to be served consecutively to an unrelated twelve-year sentence. On appeal, he contends that his sentence is excessive. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Harris
Defendant, Michael Harris, appeals from an order of the trial court denying his petition to suspend the remainder of his sentence. Following our review of the record, we conclude that the trial court did not err by denying the petition. We affirm the order of the trial court in accordance with Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Montreal Lyons
Defendant, Montreal Lyons, appeals from the trial court’s dismissal of his motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1. Defendant contends that his sentence is illegal because the trial court imposed the sentence for offenses that occurred in 2002 under the 2005 amendments to the sentencing act without an ex post facto waiver signed by Defendant. The State responds that the trial court properly dismissed Defendant’s motion because he failed to state a colorable claim for relief. We agree with the State. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Mario Bowles
Defendant, Mario Bowles, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of two counts of aggravated rape and one count of aggravated kidnapping. The trial court sentenced Defendant to twenty-three years at one-hundred percent for each count of aggravated rape, which the trial court merged, and twenty-three years at one-hundred percent for aggravated kidnapping. The sentences were ordered to be served concurrently with one another and consecutively with an unrelated case. On appeal, Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions for aggravated rape and that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of attempted aggravated rape. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Marcus Deangelo Lee
The Defendant, Marcus Deangelo Lee, pleaded guilty in 1997 to escape from felony incarceration, and the trial court sentenced him to one year and ordered that his sentence run consecutively to a three-year sentence the Defendant received for drug-related and firearm convictions in 1995. Since that time, the Defendant has been arrested and convicted on other charges unrelated to this case. Almost seventeen years later, the Defendant filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 with regard to jail credits for his 1997 felony escape conviction. The trial court summarily dismissed the motion, and the Defendant appeals. On appeal, he contends that the trial court erred when it summarily dismissed his motion because the trial court improperly amended his judgment to reflect 103 days of jail credit, which he argues resulted in his sentences running concurrently rather than consecutively as mandated by statute. We affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Marquis Devann Churchwell
Defendant, Marquis Devann Churchwell, pled guilty to one count of robbery and two counts of assault with the sentence to be determined by the trial court. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a total effective sentence of eight years, eleven months and twenty-nine days. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing a sentence of confinement. Upon our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. However, we remand the case for entry of judgment forms for each count of the indictment in case number 2015-D-2352. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Atlanta Pearl Hardy
Defendant, Atlanta Pearl Hardy, was convicted of second degree murder in 2004 and now appeals the trial court's denial of her motion to correct an illegal sentence under Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1. Upon review of the record, this Court affirms the trial court's denial of relief under Rule 36.1. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Sue Ann Templeton v. Jackson-Madison County General Hospital District
This is an appeal from the grant of summary judgment in a Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act (“GTLA”) premises liability case. Appellant was exiting Jackson-Madison County General Hospital/Appellee when she was hit by an automatic door, fell, and sustained a broken femur. Appellee moved for summary judgment on the ground that it was immune from suit under the GTLA. Appellant argued that Appellee failed to make a reasonable inspection of the automatic door, so as to discover the alleged dangerous or defective condition. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Appellee, finding that the condition was not dangerous or defective, the condition was latent, and Appellee had no actual or constructive notice of the condition. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Estate of Charles Edward Fant, III
This is a will contest. The affidavit attached to the purported will was signed, in the presence of the testator, by two witnesses. At the hearing on the will contest, both witnesses and the notary public testified as to the validity of signatures on the purported will. The trial court held that the will and accompanying affidavit were not in strict compliance with the statute and denied admission of the will to probate. On appeal, the proponent of the purported will argues that the will satisfied the recent statutory requirements of Tennessee Code Annotated Section 32-1-104(b) such that the signatures of both witnesses were integrated into the will. Concluding that the witnesses’ signatures were integrated into the will pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated Section 32-1-104(b), and that the other statutory requirements were met, we reverse the trial court’s ruling. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Jerry Phillips v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Jerry Phillips, appeals the denial of his request for post-conviction relief from his four convictions for aggravated sexual battery. The Petitioner contends that trial counsel’s failure to object to the trial court’s jury selection procedures in this case, which deviated from Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 24, as recognized in State v. Frausto, 463 S.W.3d 469 (Tenn. 2015), amounted to ineffective assistance and that appellate counsel was likewise ineffective for failing to argue for plain error review of this issue on appeal. He further submits that the jury selection process violated his rights to due process of law, to a fair and impartial jury, and to intelligently exercise his peremptory challenges. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable authorities, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Campbell | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Charzelle Lamontez Swafford v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Charzelle Lamontez Swafford, was convicted of first degree murder, four counts of attempted first degree murder, and employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous offense. His convictions and effective sentence of life plus fifty-six years were affirmed on direct appeal. See State v. Charzelle Lamontez Swafford, No. M2014-00421-CCA-R3-CD, 2015 WL 1543251, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 2, 2015), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Aug. 12, 2015). Petitioner subsequently sought post-conviction relief on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court denied relief after a hearing. On appeal, we determine that Petitioner failed to show that he was prejudiced by counsel’s actions. Accordingly, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Lucas Potter
The defendant, Lucas Potter, pled guilty to attempted aggravated robbery, attempted robbery, and theft of property under $500. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-13-401, -402, 39-14- 103. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court denied the defendant’s request for judicial diversion and imposed an effective five-year sentence of split confinement with community corrections after 270 days of service. On appeal, the defendant argues the trial court failed to properly consider his request for judicial diversion and erred in allowing the State to present rebuttal proof at the sentencing hearing. Following our review of the briefs, the record, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Cleveland Frazier v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Cleveland Frazier, appeals the Knox County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his 2015 guilty pleas to possession of less than 0.5 gram of cocaine in a school zone and possession of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony and his effective eleven-year sentence. The Petitioner contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the judgment of the postconviction court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jonathan C. Buckner
The Defendant, Jonathan C. Buckner, was convicted by a Houston County Circuit Court jury of theft of property valued at $1,000 or more but less than $10,000, a Class D felony. See T.C.A. § 39-14-103 (2014). The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range III, persistent offender to twelve years’ confinement and ordered that his sentence be served consecutively to a sentence in an unrelated case. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred (1) by failing to provide witnesses and prospective jurors proper instructions before jury selection, (2) by admitting inadmissible hearsay evidence, (3) by denying his two motions for a mistrial, (4) by overruling defense objections during the prosecutor’s opening statement and closing argument, and (5) during sentencing. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Houston | Court of Criminal Appeals |