Tim Grace v. Jeanna Grace d/b/a Grace Trucking
The plaintiff in a breach of contract action filed a motion to enforce a settlement agreement allegedly agreed to by the defendant. The defendant argued that there was no acceptance of the plaintiff's settlement offer; rather, the defendant contended that she responded to the plaintiff's offer with a counter-offer, which she revoked prior to its acceptance. The trial court found that the parties had entered into an enforceable settlement agreement but denied the plaintiff‟s request for attorney's fees. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Decatur | Court of Appeals | |
In re Estate of David Larry Letsinger
After her husband passed away in 2013, Rose Letsinger filed a petition in the trial court seeking letters of administration for his estate. First Choice Community Credit Union filed a claim against the estate for an unpaid credit card balance. Letsinger1 excepted to the claim and filed a motion to dismiss the claim, asserting that the Credit Union had failed to comply with Tenn. Code Ann. § 30-2-307 (Supp. 2012) by failing to attach an itemized statement of its claim. The trial court agreed. It held that the Credit Union had failed to include an itemized statement. Accordingly, it dismissed the claim. The Credit Union filed a motion to alter or amend, arguing that it had filed with its claim what appears to be the deceased's last monthly statement. It contended that its filing satisfied the itemized statement requirement. The trial court denied the motion. The Credit Union appealed. Later, it filed a motion to dismiss its appeal. We granted the motion. Following this, Letsinger filed a motion seeking to compel the Credit Union to disburse to the estate the funds in the deceased's account with the Credit Union. The trial court granted the motion. The Credit Union appeals. We affirm. |
Loudon | Court of Appeals | |
In re M.E.T.
The Department of Children's Services filed a petition in July 2015 to terminate the parental rights of M.G.H. (Father) with respect to his child, M.E.T. (the child). The trial court found clear and convincing evidence of grounds supporting termination for Father due to abandonment by an incarcerated parent and persistence of conditions. The court also found, by the same standard of proof, that termination is in the best interest of the child. Father appeals. We affirm the trial court's holding as modified. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Bruce Mendenhall v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Bruce Mendenhall, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions of three counts of solicitation to commit first degree premeditated murder and resulting effective thirty-year sentence. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that he received the ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
David Chardwick Wooten v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, David Chardwick Wooten, appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief in which he alleged ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. More specifically he contends that trial counsel failed to present favorable evidence and witnesses on his behalf at trial. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Richard Michelhaugh, et al v. Consolidated Nuclear Security, LLC
This appeal arises from a dispute over vacation benefits. Richard Michelhaugh and John Williams (“Plaintiffs”), employees of Y-12 in Oak Ridge, filed suit in the Circuit Court for Anderson County (“the Trial Court”) against the contractor, Consolidated Nuclear Security, LLC (“CNS”), running their work site. Plaintiffs alleged that CNS deprived them of earned vacation time by changing the vacation policy mid work-year. CNS filed a Rule 12 motion to dismiss, which the Trial Court granted. Plaintiffs appeal to this Court. We find and hold that Plaintiffs alleged in their complaint that they were deprived of earned vacation time, that Plaintiffs’ allegations were sufficient to withstand CNS’s motion to dismiss, and that, therefore, the Trial Court erred in granting CNS’s motion to dismiss. We reverse the judgment of the Trial Court and remand this case for further proceedings. |
Anderson | Court of Appeals | |
Christopher Dylan Thompson v. Best Buy Stores, L.P.
Plaintiff Christopher Dylan Thompson ingested several doses of a liquid form of a drug, which he says was estazolam, before reporting to work for his employer, defendant Best Buy Stores, L.P. At work, he appeared tired and slow, and a manager told him to clock out and end his shift early. On his way home, plaintiff was involved in a car accident. He brought this negligent entrustment action, alleging that defendant breached a duty by not stopping him from leaving his place of employment in his own vehicle. The trial court granted defendant summary judgment, holding defendant “had no duty to prevent [plaintiff] from leaving the premises driving his own vehicle,” and relying on Lett v. Collis Foods, Inc., 60 S.W.3d 95 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001), a factually similar case decided by this Court. We affirm. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Security Equipment Supply, Inc. v. Richard H. Roberts, Commissioner Of Revenue, State of Tennessee
At issue is whether a taxpayer’s sales are properly classified as “retail sales” or “wholesale sales” under the Business Tax Act, Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 67-4-701 to -730, and Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 1320-04-05-.47. Following an audit, the Tennessee Department of Revenue determined that the taxpayer misclassified its sales as “wholesale sales,” when they should have been classified as “retail sales,” and assessed the taxpayer with $74,088.10 in tax liability. After paying the assessment, the taxpayer filed suit seeking a refund. The chancery court held that the sales in question were “retail sales” within the context of the statute and denied the request for a refund. We conclude that the business activities were properly classified as retail sales; therefore, we affirm the judgment of the chancery court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Mark Henderson v. City Of Mount Pleasant, Tennessee et al.
Petitioner, the interim city manager for the City of Mount Pleasant, Tennessee, filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment that the votes of two commissioners to terminate his employment were void due to a conflict of interest. He contends their votes were void because ethics complaints filed by Petitioner against the two commissioners were pending at the time of the vote. The trial court dismissed the petition for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6), upon the finding that the petition failed to allege facts which would show that the commissioners had a personal financial interest in the outcome of the vote on Petitioner’s employment. Petitioner appealed; we affirm. |
Maury | Court of Appeals | |
Benjamin K. Fowler v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Benjamin K. Fowler, appeals from the Knox County Criminal Court’s summary denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred in summarily denying his petition for being untimely filed because, he alleges that, he delivered a petition to the appropriate prison officials for mailing to the court clerk within the statute of limitations, but the prison officials failed to mail the petition. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jessica Marie Myers vs. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Jessica Marie Myers, appeals from the Greene County Criminal Court’s denial of her petition for post-conviction relief from her convictions for first degree murder and reckless endangerment, for which she is serving an effective life sentence. The Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred in denying relief on her ineffective assistance of counsel claims. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Greene | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Deshun Hampton, Matthew Tyler and Devonta Hampton aka Devonta Taylor
This case represents the consolidated appeals of Defendants Deshun Hampton, Matthew Tyler, and Devonta Hampton. The three Defendants, having entered open guilty pleas to various felonies, challenge only the trial court‘s sentencing decisions, including its decision to impose partially consecutive sentences. The trial court sentenced Mr. Tyler to an aggregate sentence of sixty-six years, Mr. Deshun Hampton to an aggregate sentence of fifty-five years, and Mr. Devonta Hampton to an aggregate sentence of thirty-two years. Mr. Deshun Hampton and Mr. Tyler, who were between fifteen and sixteen years old at the time of the crimes, assert that their sentences amount to de facto life sentences and are therefore in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. They also challenge the application of certain enhancement and mitigating factors. All three Defendants challenge the trial court‘s sentencing decisions, asserting that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing partially consecutive sentences. We conclude that the sentences at issue, while lengthy, allow for a meaningful opportunity for release and do not run afoul of the Eighth Amendment, and we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Prentis Lee
The Defendant, Prentis Lee, appeals his convictions for two counts of rape and his resulting ten-year sentence. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his statement to police officers; (2) the failure to preserve a record of the preliminary hearing mandated dismissal of the charges or a new preliminary hearing; (3) the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions; (4) the trial court erred in limiting defense counsel's cross-examination of various witnesses; (5) the trial court erred in admitting victim impact evidence; (6) the trial court erred in allowing the State to present rebuttal witnesses who remained in the courtroom during the trial; (7) the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on assault as a lesser-included offense of rape; (8) his sentence is excessive; and (9) the cumulative effect of the errors requires a new trial. Based upon our review of the record, the parties' briefs, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In re Mac L.
This appeal arises from the juvenile court's termination of a biological father's parental rights. The juvenile court found clear and convincing evidence of three grounds for termination and that termination of the father's parental rights was in the best interest of the child. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the grounds for terminating parental rights set forth in Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-1-113(g)(9) and relied upon by the juvenile court were inapplicable to the father in this case. Nevertheless, because there was clear and convincing evidence of two grounds for termination of the father's parental rights and that termination was in the best interest of the child, we affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Daniel Muhammad v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Daniel Muhammad, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief in which he challenged his conviction of facilitation of aggravated arson and his sentence of twelve years in prison. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that he was denied his right to the effective assistance of counsel. We affirm the post-conviction court‘s denial of relief. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Charlie A. Clark v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Charles Anderson Clark, appeals from the post-conviction court’s denial of his post-conviction petition for relief. Petitioner alleges that the post-conviction court erred by not considering all of the proof presented in regard to the racial makeup of the jury. Petitioner further contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel due to his trial counsel’s failure to locate certain individuals to serve as witnesses. After review, we conclude that Petitioner has failed to establish that he is entitled to post-conviction relief, and affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Henderson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Charvasea Rodshun Lancaster
Defendant, Charvasea Rodshun Lancaster, appeals his sentences in 11 separate convictions under two case numbers. Defendant entered open guilty pleas in case number 14-191 to one count of burglary and five counts of theft of property in various amounts. In case number 14-193, Defendant entered open guilty pleas to two counts of theft, two counts of vehicle burglary, and one count of aggravated burglary. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a total effective sentence of ten years in case 14-191 and an effective sentence of 12 years in case 14-193 and ordered the sentences be served consecutively, for a total effective sentence of 22 years. Defendant contends that the trial court erred by imposing partial consecutive sentencing. Having reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Luis Guillen v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Luis Guillen, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions of one count of aggravated rape and three counts of aggravated kidnapping and resulting effective thirty-five-year sentence. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. Based upon the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Tony K. Gribble v. Alcoa Inc.
In this workers’ compensation case, the trial court found that the employee failed to carry his burden of proving that his knee injury arose out of his employment. On appeal, the employee asserts that the trial court erred in finding that his knee injury did not arise out of his employment. The appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51. We affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Blount | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Carlos Martinez v. Steve Lawhon, et al
An undocumented employee sustained a compensable work-related injury and reported the injury to the employer. Two doctors examined the employee, one assigning a 16% medical impairment rating and the other assigning a 24% medical impairment rating. Because of the employee’s undocumented status, the employer did not return the employee to work after the injury. The employee sought workers’ compensation benefits and challenged the constitutionality of the statutory provision potentially limiting his award to one and one-half times the medical impairment rating in such circumstances. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241(e) (2008 & Supp. 2013). The Attorney General filed an answer defending the constitutionality of the challenged section. The trial court held the challenged statute unconstitutional on the basis of federal preemption and awarded permanent partial disability benefits of 84% to the left arm, or three and one-half times the 24% medical impairment rating. The Attorney General and the employer appealed. The appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Michael Deon Mills v. State of Tennessee
Michael Deon Mills (“the Petitioner”) was convicted of two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, one count of especially aggravated robbery, and one count of aggravated burglary by a Knox County jury. The trial court sentenced the Petitioner to an effective sentence of twenty-five years with release eligibility after service of 100% of the sentence in the Department of Correction. On appeal, this court affirmed the Petitioner's convictions. The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which the post-conviction court denied. The Petitioner argues on appeal that trial counsel's performance was deficient and that he was prejudiced by the ineffective assistance of trial counsel. On appeal, we affirm the post-conviction court's denial of relief to the Petitioner. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Michael Ferrell
The Defendant, Christopher Michael Ferrell, was convicted by a jury of second degree murder, a Class A felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-210. The trial court imposed a sentence of twenty years’ incarceration to be served at one hundred percent. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends (1) that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction, specifically arguing that he should have been acquitted for acting in self-defense or convicted instead of voluntary manslaughter; (2) that the trial court erred in denying his request for a special jury instruction regarding the State’s failure to preserve evidence; (3) that the trial court committed several errors when instructing the jury on self-defense; (4) that the trial court abused its discretion in setting the length of his sentence; and (5) that he is entitled to a new trial based upon cumulative error. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Brian Garrett Wallace v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Brian Garrett Wallace, entered an open guilty plea to five counts of attempted especially aggravated exploitation of a minor and one count of attempted sexual battery. The trial court imposed an effective eighteen-year sentence to be served at 35 percent as a Range II offender which included consecutive sentencing. On appeal, this Court upheld the sentence. State v. Brian Garrett Wallace, No. M2013-01172-CCA-R3-CD, 2014 WL 1883704 (Tenn. Crim. App. May 12, 2014). Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance and that Petitioner’s guilty plea was unknowingly and involuntarily entered. Following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. Following a careful review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Robertson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Michael Allen Sprouse v. Tiffany Dotson
This appeal requires us to interpret a version of a juvenile court statute effective prior to July 1, 2016. A juvenile court magistrate held a hearing on competing petitions to modify a parenting plan filed by a child’s parents. The magistrate announced her ruling from the bench at the conclusion of the hearing but did not enter a written order until several days later. Mother, dissatisfied with the magistrate’s ruling, filed a request for a rehearing before a juvenile court judge. Mother filed her request within five days of the entry of the magistrate’s order but ten days after the hearing before the magistrate. The juvenile court concluded that mother’s request for rehearing was untimely and confirmed the magistrate’s findings and recommendations as an order of the juvenile court. Because we conclude that the time for requesting a rehearing ran from the entry of the magistrate’s written order, mother’s request for rehearing was timely. Therefore, we reverse. |
Robertson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ellis Johnson
The defendant, Ellis Johnson, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of aggravated burglary, a Class C felony, and was sentenced to thirteen years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues that: (1) the trial court erred in allowing the victim to testify about her injuries; (2) the trial court erred in ruling that the State could introduce five of his prior convictions for impeachment purposes; (3) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction; and (4) he is entitled to relief due to the cumulative effect of the errors. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals |