In re Dustin T., et al.
The Department of Children's Services (“DCS”) filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of the mother and father to their three children. The father was incarcerated in Georgia when the children were determined to be dependent and neglected, and the mother tested positive for illegal drugs and had illegal drugs and drug paraphernalia in her home when the children were removed. DCS developed three permanency plans over the course of eighteen months, with responsibilities set out for each parent. When it appeared that neither parent was in substantial compliance with the third plan, DCS filed a petition to terminate their rights. The trial court found the evidence clearly and convincingly supported the grounds DCS alleged for terminating the parents' rights and determined it was in the children's best interest that their parents' rights be terminated. Both the mother and father appeal the termination. We affirm the trial court's judgment. |
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Dustin T., Et Al. - DISSENT
J. STEVEN STAFFORD, P.J.,W.S., dissenting in part. I concur in the majority Opinion with regard to the trial court’s findings on the grounds of substantial noncompliance with the permanency plans, persistent conditions, and abandonment by wanton disregard. I also agree that termination of Mother’s and Father’s parental rights is in the children’s best interests. Because I cannot agree that the State has met its burden to show clear and convincing evidence of Mother’s abandonment by willful failure to support the children, however, I must file this partial dissent. |
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
William George Cox v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, William George Cox, appeals the denial of post-conviction relief from his 2008 Davidson County Criminal Court guilty-pleaded convictions of aggravated burglary and theft of property, for which he received an effective sentence of 10 years. In this appeal, the petitioner contends only that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court but remand for correction of clerical errors in the judgment forms. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Terry L. Brazzell
In this appeal, the defendant, Terry L. Brazzell, challenges the denial of his pre-sentencing motion to withdraw his guilty plea to one count of vehicular homicide and challenges his Range II, 20-year sentence imposed for that conviction. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Dickson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Debbie Tran v. Manila Bui, Et Al.
This case concerns a constitutional challenge to Tennessee Code Annotated Section 20-12-119(c). When the trial court grants a motion to dismiss pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, Section 20-12-119(c) provides for an award of reasonable attorneys' fees to the dismissed party. In this case, the trial court granted Appellees the statutory maximum of $10,000 in attorneys' fees. Appellant challenged the constitutionality of the statute on the ground that it violated the separation of powers doctrine. The trial court rejected Appellant's challenge, ruling that Tennessee Code Annotated section 20-12-119(c) is remedial in nature and does not violate Article II, section 2 of the Tennessee Constitution. Discerning no error, we affirm |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Grace Ann Blair
The Defendant, Grace Ann Blair, was charged in a two-count indictment with driving under the influence (“DUI”) and DUI per se, Class A misdemeanors. See T.C.A. § 55-10-401(1), (2). She moved to dismiss the charges after discovering that her blood sample was destroyed a little over one year after her arrest. The trial court granted the dismissal, finding that the sample contained potentially exculpatory evidence which could have shown that the Defendant’s actions were involuntarily undertaken while she was under the influence of Ambien. The State appeals. Because we have determined that the Defendant’s due process rights were not violated by the destruction of the sample, we reverse the dismissal of the charges and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Cheryl Ellen Mouton v. Michael J. Mouton
In this parental relocation case, the trial court erred in finding that the mother did not have a reasonable purpose in relocating to another state for her employment. Furthermore, mother's purpose in relocating was not vindictive. Therefore, the judgment of the trial court is reversed. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Regions Bank v. Chas A. Sandford
This appeal arises from the trial court’s entry of a default judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The plaintiff bank filed a complaint seeking a judgment against the defendant on a sworn account. After several attempts, the plaintiff was unable to obtain personal service of process on the defendant and attempted to obtain service of process by mail. The plaintiff’s process server sent the summons by certified mail to the defendant’s residential address, and the mailing was returned marked “unclaimed.” The plaintiff filed proof of service, indicating that service had been properly completed pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 4.04(11), and filed a motion for default judgment. A copy of the motion for default judgment was sent by mail to the defendant at the same residential address. The defendant filed a response “by special appearance” opposing the bank’s motion for default judgment based on insufficiency of service of process. Following a hearing, the trial court entered a default judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant appealed. On appeal, we conclude that the trial court entered a default judgment in violation of Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 4.04(10), which expressly provides, “Service by mail shall not be the basis for the entry of a judgment by default unless the record contains a return receipt showing personal acceptance by the defendant[.]” We therefore vacate the trial court’s order entering a default judgment in favor of the plaintiff and remand this matter for further proceedings. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Stanley Bernard Gibson
The primary issue presented is whether the Drug-Free School Zone Act, Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-17-432, applies when a defendant is convicted of facilitation of an offense listed in Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-17-417. The defendant was convicted of facilitation of possession with intent to deliver .5 grams or more of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school. The trial court applied the Act to increase the defendant’s felony classification and to require service of the entire minimum sentence. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence. State v. Gibson, No. M2014 00598-CCA-R3-CD, 2015 WL 3867567, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 23, 2015). We granted review to address whether the Act applies to a conviction for facilitation and whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. The State concedes the trial court erred by applying the Act to require service of the entire minimum sentence but argues the Act is a separate criminal offense and supports the higher felony classification. Based on the clear language of the Drug-Free School Zone Act, we hold the Act does not apply to a conviction for facilitation. Therefore, the trial court erred by increasing the felony classification and by requiring service of the entire minimum sentence. Further, we hold the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for facilitation. |
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
Marvin Davis v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Marvin Davis, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his rape of a child conviction, for which he is serving a twenty-five-year sentence. He contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel and that the post-conviction judge erred in denying the Petitioner’s motion to recuse. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. David T. Morrow
The appellant, David T. Morrow, appeals the summary denial of his Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1. The appellant's sentences have expired. He argues, however, that he is entitled to relief because he received concurrent sentences instead of statutorily required consecutive sentences, and the trial court erred in summarily denying his motion without a hearing. Following our review, we conclude the appellant does not state a colorable claim for relief, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Daryl Bobo v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Daryl Bobo, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The Petitioner contends that his trial counsel was ineffective (1) in failing to adequately explain to him the terms of a plea offer made by the State; (2) in failing to adequately meet with and prepare him for trial; and (3) for failing to adequately cross-examine the State’s witnesses. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Charles Graham aka Charles Stevenson v. Grady Perry, Warden
The Petitioner, Charles Graham a/k/a Charles Stevenson, appeals as of right from the Hardeman County Circuit Court's summary dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. In his petition, the Petitioner argued that his conviction for simple possession was improperly enhanced and that his conviction for tampering with evidence was invalid because the evidence was not destroyed. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that his conviction for simple possession is void because the trial court unlawfully relied on forty-year-old convictions from other states to enhance his sentence. Also, he argues that the trial court clerk's failure to include the judgment form for his simple possession charge in the record on direct appeal denied the Petitioner consideration of the merits of his direct appeal. Finally, the Petitioner argues that the cumulative effect of these two errors results in structural constitutional error, which invalidates his conviction for tampering with evidence. Following our review, we affirm the dismissal order of the habeas corpus court. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jeremy L. Saxton
Defendant, Jeremy L. Saxton, was convicted of one count of assault and one count of resisting arrest. As a result of the convictions, Defendant received judicial diversion with probation for eleven months and twenty-nine days. After the denial of a motion for new trial, Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. Upon our review we determine that Defendant was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the motion to suppress because there was no evidence to suppress. Further, we conclude that the record on appeal is incomplete, precluding our review of the sufficiency of the evidence. Consequently, the judgments of the criminal court are affirmed and the matter is remanded for correction of a clerical error. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re: Walter Peterson, Jr.
Wife challenges the trial court's decision authorizing the Department of Human Services to take her husband into protective custody pursuant to the Adult Protection Act. Because, after the trial court's decision, the adult taken into protective custody was released from DHS custody and later died, we have determined that this appeal is moot. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
William Gordon Ball v. Marjorie Happy Hayes Ball
This is an appeal from a “Final Hearing Order” in a divorce action. That order, however, did not resolve the issue of whether the husband had improperly deducted amounts he expended for moving services and rental of a storage building from his pendente lite alimony obligation due to the wife. Because the order appealed does not resolve all claims presented in the proceedings below, we dismiss this appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Calvin E. Bartlett v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Calvin E. Bartlett, received an effective ten-year sentence as the result of a January 2015 plea agreement that disposed of two felonies and six misdemeanors in two different cases in the Madison County Criminal Court. Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that his guilty pleas were made unintelligently. The post-conviction court denied relief, and Petitioner timely appealed. Because Petitioner failed to prove that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, the decision of the post-conviction court is affirmed. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Darren Brown v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Darren Brown, appeals the dismissal of his petition for writ of error coram nobis after the coram nobis court determined that the petition was untimely. We affirm the judgment of the coram nobis court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Alphonso Bowen
Defendant, Alphonso Bowen, was indicted by the Shelby County Grand Jury for one count of aggravated robbery. Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted as charged. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered Defendant to serve 12 years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. In this appeal as of right, Defendant raises the following issues for our review: 1) whether the trial court erred by allowing testimony regarding the hearsay contents of an anonymous note; 2) whether the trial court erred by allowing the State to impeach Defendant with evidence of a prior conviction; 3) whether the trial court erred by allowing testimony in violation of its ruling on a motion in limine precluding discussion of Defendant's arrest; 4) whether the trial court erred by asking questions of the State's expert witness; 5) whether it was plain error for the trial court to allow a lay witness to give an expert opinion regarding Defendant's fingerprints; 6) whether the trial court erred by excluding testimony by Defendant regarding a photograph; 7) whether the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant's conviction; and 8) whether the cumulative effect of the trial court's errors require a reversal of Defendant's conviction. Having reviewed the entire record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ytockie Fuller aka Yteikie Washington
The defendant, Ytockie Fuller aka Yteikie Washington, was convicted of first degree murder, Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-202, and possession of a firearm after a felony conviction, Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1307(b)(1)(A). On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the first degree murder conviction arguing that the State failed to prove premeditation. Additionally, the defendant contends that statements made by the victim in a recorded telephone call prior to his death were inadmissible hearsay and that the State's multiple playing of the recording served to inflame the jury. After our review, we conclude that the defendant's arguments are without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Courtney Bishop v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Courtney Bishop, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions of first degree felony murder and attempted aggravated robbery and resulting effective sentence of life plus three years. 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 | |
In re Dillon E.
This appeal concerns termination of a mother’s parental rights. The Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) filed a petition in the Juvenile Court for Montgomery County (“the Juvenile Court”) seeking to terminate the parental rights of Autumn N. (“Mother”) to her minor child, Dillon E. (“the Child”). The central issue of this parental rights case is Mother’s alleged prescription drug abuse. After a trial, the Juvenile Court found that four grounds were proven against Mother sufficient to terminate her parental rights to the Child, and that termination of her parental rights was in the Child’s best interest. Mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to this Court. DCS argues that the Juvenile Court erred in declining to find one additional ground for termination. We affirm the judgment of the Juvenile Court in its entirety. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Jeffery W. Dean v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Jeffery W. Dean, filed for post-conviction relief from his convictions of aggravated kidnapping and carjacking, alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective by failing to explain the State’s evidence against the Petitioner and counsel’s trial strategy and by failing to prepare the Petitioner to testify at trial. The post-conviction court denied the petition, and the Petitioner appeals. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Robertson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Antonio Terrell Pewitte
Defendant, Antonio Terrell Pewitte, was convicted of aggravated child neglect and received a sentence of twenty years. Defendant raises the following issues in his direct appeal: (1) whether the trial court erred by failing to require the State to make an election of offenses; (2) whether the evidence is sufficient to support his conviction; (3) whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting multiple photographs of the victim’s injuries; (4) whether the trial court erred by admitting hearsay testimony; (5) whether the trial court abused its discretion by not granting a mistrial based on prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument; and (6) whether the trial court abused its discretion during sentencing. Following a careful review of the record, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Antonio Terrell Pewitte - Concurring Opinion
I join the majority in affirming Defendant’s conviction of child neglect. However, I write separately because I conclude that the trial court erred by allowing Ms. Donnell to testify about statements made to her by the victim and the victim’s mother. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals |