Crystal Blackwell, As Next Friend To Jacob Blackwell, A Minor v. Sky High Sports Nashville Operations, LLC.
In this interlocutory appeal, the defendant trampoline park argues that the trial court erred by refusing to enforce a forum selection clause, a choice of law provision, and a waiver of liability and indemnity clause against the minor plaintiff. Additionally, the minor plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to alter or amend his complaint to allow him to claim pre-majority medical expenses. We reverse the trial court’s denial of the minor plaintiff’s motion to amend only to the extent that the minor plaintiff may be permitted to assert pre-majority medical expenses that were paid by him or that he is legally obligated to pay. We affirm the trial court in all other respects. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Heather Young
The Defendant, Heather Young, was convicted by a Morgan County Criminal Court jury of first degree premeditated murder. See T.C.A. § 39-13-202(a)(1) (2014). The Defendant received a life sentence. On appeal, she contends that the evidence is insufficient to support her conviction. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Morgan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jennifer Murray Jewell
The Defendant, Jennifer Murray Jewell, entered a “best interest” guilty plea to one count of theft of property valued at over $60,000 in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-14-103, a Class B felony. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the Defendant was sentenced to ten years of supervised probation, and the parties agreed that restitution would be set by the trial court at a subsequent hearing. After considering the proof presented at the hearing, the trial court ordered the Defendant to pay more than $800 per month as restitution. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court failed to follow correct procedure or consider her ability to pay in calculating the amount of monthly restitution she would owe. She also argues that the restitution award should be overturned because the State failed to prove the amount of the loss. Because we conclude that the State introduced inadequate proof regarding the valuation of the loss, we reverse and remand for a new hearing on the issue of restitution. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Robert Emilio Cisneros v. Lindsey Dianna Cisneros
This is an accelerated interlocutory appeal as of right from the denial of a motion for recusal. Because the petition for recusal appeal fails to comply with Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B, we dismiss the appeal. |
Lincoln | Court of Appeals | |
Rivera L. Peoples v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Rivera L. Peoples, filed in the Davidson County Criminal Court a petition for post-conviction relief from his conviction of first degree murder, alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective. The Petitioner also filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis, alleging that newly discovered evidence in the form of recanted testimony entitled him to relief. The trial court denied both petitions. On appeal, the Petitioner challenges the rulings of the trial court. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In re Yariel S., et al.
This appeal involves the termination of a mother's parental rights to her four minor children. Following a bench trial, the trial court found that clear and convincing evidence existed to support the termination of her rights to all four children on the statutory grounds of abandonment for failure to provide a suitable home, the persistence of conditions which led to removal, and substantial noncompliance with the requirements of the permanency plan. The court also found that clear and convincing evidence existed to support the termination of her rights to the youngest child on the statutory ground of severe child abuse. The court further found that termination was in the best interest of the children. The mother appeals. We reverse the trial court on its finding of abandonment for failure to provide a suitable home. On all other findings, we affirm the trial court's rulings. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Robert Keith Ward v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Robert Keith Ward, appeals pro se from the summary dismissal of his 2016 petition for post-conviction relief, which challenged his 2004 conviction of aggravated rape. Because the petition was filed well beyond the applicable statute of limitations and because the petitioner failed to prove a statutory exception to the timely filing or a due process tolling of the statute of limitations, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Sevier | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Steve Duclair v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Steve Duclair, appeals the denial of post-conviction relief from his 2011 Sullivan County Criminal Court jury convictions of the sale and delivery of .5 grams or more of cocaine and the sale and delivery of .5 grams of more of cocaine within a drugfree school zone, for which he received an effective sentence of 15 years. In this appeal, the petitioner contends only that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Chazz Alden Hughes, et al. v. R Allen Hughes
This appeal concerns a dispute over the proceeds of a decedent's federal group life insurance policy. The decedent presumably intended to designate his brother, the appellee in this matter, as the sole beneficiary. The appellants, children of the decedent, allege fraud on the part of the brother and seek to impose a constructive trust upon the funds he received. The trial court granted summary judgment for the brother based on the application of the federal preemption doctrine as well as the Tennessee and federal law of fraud and the Tennessee Rules of Evidence. The appellants appeal. We affirm. |
Carter | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tommy Lee Baldwin
The defendant, Tommy Lee Baldwin, appeals the revocation of the probationary sentence imposed for his Hamilton County Criminal Court guilty-pleaded convictions of violating his community supervision requirement and of violating the sexual offender registry act. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Elizabeth Griswold
Defendant, Elizabeth Griswold, appeals the trial court’s revocation of her community corrections sentence and the imposition of a sentence of confinement. Following our review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Valerie Israel, et al. v. Bryan York, et al.
The pro se appellants, Bryan York and Anna Eastwood, appeal from a final order entered on October 17, 2016. The Notice of Appeal was not filed until November 18, 2016, more than thirty (30) days from the date of entry of the final order. The appellees, Valerie Israel and Russ Israel, have filed a motion to dismiss this appeal arguing, among other things, that the Notice of Appeal was not timely filed. Because it appears from the attachments to the motion that the Notice of Appeal was not timely filed, we have no jurisdiction to consider this appeal and grant the motion to dismiss. |
Washington | Court of Appeals | |
Hyundai Motor America v. Tennessee Motor Vehicle Commission, et al.
This appeal arises from a proceeding initiated by two automobile dealers who challenged the location of a proposed dealership in a contested case proceeding before the Tennessee Motor Vehicle Commission (the “Commission”); the manufacturer contended that the dealers were not located in the “relevant market area,” as required by statute and moved to dismiss the proceeding for lack of standing. The administrative law judge overruled the manufacturer’s motion, and the manufacturer filed a petition in Chancery Court seeking interlocutory review. The trial court dismissed the petition, holding that the court lacked jurisdiction to review the administrative judge’s ruling on the motion. The motor vehicle manufacturer appeals the dismissal of its petition for judicial review of the denial of its motion to dismiss the contested case proceeding. Concluding that the manufacturer did not meet the threshold requirement for immediate judicial review as set forth in the Administrative Procedures Act, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In re Renaldo M. Jr., et al.
The trial court terminated the parental rights of a Mother to her three children on the grounds of abandonment by engaging in conduct evidencing a wanton disregard for the children’s welfare and persistence of conditions. Mother appeals, contending that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the termination of her rights. Concluding that the evidence of Mother’s pre-incarceration conduct does not clearly and convincingly prove a wanton disregard for the children’s welfare, we reverse the trial court’s finding in that regard. There is clear and convincing evidence supporting holding that the conditions which led to the children’s removal from Mother’s custody persisted and that termination of her rights is in the best interest of the children; accordingly, we affirm the termination of Mother’s rights on that ground. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Sonya Mae Stanley v. Colin Richard Stanley
This appeal arises from a father’s petition to relocate with his minor children. The father sought to relocate to Oklahoma in order to work on his family’s farm, which he hoped to eventually inherit. The father, as the parent spending the greater amount of time with the children, sent the children’s mother a notice of intent to move. The father then filed a petition to relocate with the minor children to Oklahoma. The trial court concluded that, because he was the petitioner, the father bore the burden of proof on whether the move was for a reasonable purpose. After both parents presented their proof, the trial court denied the request to relocate. The court found the father lacked a reasonable purpose for the proposed move. Because we conclude the burden of proof rested with the mother, we vacate and remand for further proceedings. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John Henry Pruitt
We granted this appeal to consider whether the Court of Criminal Appeals incorrectly held in State v. Hayes, No. M2012-01768-CCA-R3-CD, 2013 WL 3378320, at *7 (Tenn. Crim. App. July 1, 2013), no perm. app. filed, that retroactive application of the Exclusionary Rule Reform Act, Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-6-108, would violate constitutional protections against ex post facto laws and to re-evaluate the ex post facto analysis in Miller v. State, 584 S.W.2d 758 (Tenn. 1979), in light of Collins v. Youngblood, 497 U.S. 37 (1990). Having concluded that Miller was wrongly decided, we overrule Miller and hold that the ex post facto clause of the Tennessee Constitution has the same definition and scope as the federal ex post facto clause. To be an ex post facto violation, a law must be retroactive in its application and must fall within one of the four categories set forth in Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 386, 390 (1798) (opinion of Chase, J.). We conclude that the Exclusionary Rule Reform Act is not an ex post facto statute as applied in this case and that as a result, the Defendant‟s motion to suppress the evidence against him was not well-taken. In addition, we conclude that the Defendant's issues regarding the sufficiency of the evidence to convict him and to sentence him to life without the possibility of parole do not entitle him to relief. Accordingly, the judgments of the Court of Criminal Appeals are affirmed on the separate grounds stated herein. |
Hickman | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Nicole Flowers
Nicole Flowers (“the defendant”) was convicted of the criminal offense of stalking, see Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-17-315, based, in part, on her posting disparaging signs about the victim on the victim's private property and on the property of his employer, which was a public place. We granted this appeal to consider whether the signs placed by the defendant amounted to an exercise of her right to free speech, as protected by the United States and Tennessee Constitutions. We also consider whether the evidence presented at the bench trial was sufficient to sustain the defendant's conviction. We conclude, based on the proof in the record on appeal, that the evidence underlying the defendant's conviction for stalking is insufficient to sustain her conviction and therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Having determined that the evidence is insufficient, the issue of the defendant's right to free speech is pretermitted. |
Maury | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Allen Glen Begley
The Defendant, Allen Glen Begley, appeals as of right from the Sullivan County Criminal Court’s revocation of the balance of his two-year probationary sentence for failure to appear. The Defendant submits that he was not afforded due process because the violation affidavits, which listed the wrong case number, were “fatally defective.” Following our review, we affirm the trial court’s revocation of the Defendant’s probation. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Greer Craig et al. v. Peoples Community Bank
The plaintiffs, Greer Craig and Lana Kaye Craig, brought an action against Peoples Community Bank (the Bank). Their cause of action is essentially identical to Mr. Craig’s two prior actions, each of which previously had been dismissed with prejudice and not appealed. In the present action, the trial court applied the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel and granted the Bank summary judgment. We affirm. Furthermore, we find this appeal to be frivolous. Accordingly, we remand this case to the trial court so it can award the Bank its reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses on appeal. |
Washington | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Edythe Christie
Defendant, Edythe Christie, appeals her conviction of tampering with evidence. The trial court denied judicial diversion, sentencing Defendant to four years and six months, with all but 150 days of the sentence to be served on probation. On appeal, Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, the jury instruction on tampering with the evidence, and the denial of judicial diversion. Defendant also argues that juror bias violated her right to a fair trial and impartial jury. After a review of the issues, we determine that Defendant is not entitled to relief. Consequently, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ashanti Glass
The defendant, Ashanti Glass, was sentenced to fifteen years in confinement after a jury found her guilty of aggravated child neglect pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-15-402. On appeal, the defendant argues the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Demquarter Healthcare Investors, L.P. v. OP Chattanooga, LLC, et al.
This case involves the lease of a skilled nursing facility. The lessee assigned the lease, and the assignee then subleased the nursing facility. While the appeal raises multiple issues, we have determined that the lessor prevails and that the judgment of the trial court must be reversed and the case remanded. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Bennie Osby v. State of Tennessee
Bennie Osby (“the Petitioner”) was convicted after a jury trial of especially aggravated kidnapping, attempted second degree murder, aggravated robbery, and employing a firearm during the commission of a felony. He sought post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court denied relief. On appeal, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In re Cheyanna B.
John B. (“Father”) appeals the order of the Juvenile Court for Jefferson County (“the Juvenile Court”) terminating his parental rights to the minor child Cheyanna B. (“the Child”) after finding and holding that grounds for termination for abandonment by wanton disregard pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(1) and Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-102(1)(A)(iv) were proven by clear and convincing evidence and that it was proven by clear and convincing evidence that termination was in the Child’s best interest. We find and hold that the evidence does not preponderate against the Juvenile Court’s findings made by clear and convincing evidence, and we affirm. |
Jefferson | Court of Appeals | |
Bobby D. Murray, et al.. v. Michael Murphy, et al.
The pro se appellants, Bobby Murray and Loretta Murray, appeal from an order of the Trial Court which does not resolve all the issues and claims raised in the consolidated proceedings below. The appellees, Michael Murphy and Vicki Murphy, have filed a motion to dismiss the appeal arguing that the lack of a final order deprives this Court of jurisdiction. Because the appellants concede in their response to the motion to dismiss that “the case is not over and the Final Order is not yet made,” it appears that the motion to dismiss is well-taken and this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
|
Roane | Court of Appeals |