Brian Keith Good v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Brian Keith Good, appeals from the post-conviction court's denial of relief from his convictions for criminally negligent homicide, attempted aggravated robbery, and unlawful possession of a deadly weapon. On appeal, he argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel based on trial counsel's (1) failure to adequately investigate and discover a witnesses' third statement in preparation for trial and (2) failure to call Anthony Branche and Mark Tolley as defense witnesses. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Vicki Matherne, et al. v. Jerry West, et al.
This appeal concerns premises liability in a slip and fall case. Vicki Matherne and Rodney Matherne ("Plaintiffs") sued Jerry West and Carolyn West ("the Wests"), owners of a vacation cabin rented by the Mathernes, and American Patriot Getaways ("APG"), which managed the cabin, (collectively, "Defendants") after Mrs. Matherne injured herself falling off an elevated parking level at the cabin. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. The Circuit Court for Sevier County ("the Trial Court") granted Defendants‘ motion, finding that any hazardous condition was open and obvious and that Mrs. Matherne was at least 50% at fault. Plaintiffs appeal to this Court. We hold that there are genuine disputed issues of material fact regarding what Defendants could or should have done to prevent the risk of a fall from the elevated parking level and whether Mrs. Matherne was at least 50% at fault. Therefore, the Trial Court erred in granting Defendants‘ motion for summary judgment. We reverse the judgment of the Trial Court and remand this case for further proceedings. |
Court of Appeals | ||
State of Tennessee v. Vanessa Renee Pinegar
The defendant, Vanessa Renee Pinegar, was convicted of one count of facilitation of delivering 0.5 or more grams of cocaine within a school zone and two counts of attempted delivery of 0.5 or more grams of cocaine within a school zone. The trial court merged her attempted delivery convictions and imposed an effective sentence of nine years and a fine of $2000. The defendant appeals her convictions, challenging the denial of her motion to sever the trial of the defendants, certain evidentiary rulings, the jury instructions, the sufficiency of the evidence, and her sentence. Upon review, we affirm the convictions and sentences. |
Warren | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Todd Dewayne Scruggs
The defendant, Todd Dewayne Scruggs, was convicted of selling and delivering heroin and possessing drug paraphernalia, for which he received an effective sentence of twenty-six years. The defendant appeals his convictions, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and his sentence. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jerry Brandon Phifer
On June 17, 2011, a Davidson County grand jury indicted the defendant, Jerry Brandon Phifer, for twelve crimes against five different victims. The defendant pled guilty to one count of aggravated burglary (Count 11) and one count of theft of property greater than $1000 (Count 12) as charged in the original twelve-count indictment. The trial court sentenced the defendant to thirteen years for aggravated robbery and twelve years for theft of property to be served consecutively. On appeal, the defendant argues the trial court improperly enhanced his sentence for aggravated robbery from the minimum of ten years to thirteen years. The defendant also argues the trial court improperly ordered his sentences for Counts 11 and 12 to run consecutively. After our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Richard Earl Madkins, Jr. v. State of Tennessee and Grady Perry, Warden
The Petitioner, Richard Earl Madkins, Jr., filed a petition in the Hardeman County Circuit Court seeking habeas corpus relief from his especially aggravated robbery conviction and resulting twenty-five-year sentence, alleging that his sentence had expired and that he was being imprisoned for a conviction that was overturned by our supreme court. The habeas corpus court denied relief without a hearing, and the Petitioner appeals. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re: Jackson H.
This appeal involves a challenge to fees awarded to a guardian ad litem. The juvenile court ordered the child’s parents to each pay half of the fees awarded. After the juvenile court made its fee award, Mother appealed to the circuit court. The circuit court conducted a de novo hearing and found the fees awarded reasonable. On appeal to this Court, Mother raises several issues with respect to the award, including a lack of notice that fees would be assessed to the parents, improper limits on discovery, unauthorized and unnecessary actions by the guardian ad litem, and violations of Supreme Court Rules. The guardian ad litem argues Mother’s appeal to the circuit court was untimely and requests that we vacate the decision of the circuit court and remand with instructions to dismiss the appeal. We do not find the appeal to the circuit court to be untimely, but we do find the award of fees to the guardian ad litem appropriate. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Mamie Marshall v. Pinnacle Food Group
Mamie Marshall (“Employee”) developed a gradual shoulder injury as a result of her work for Pinnacle Food Group (“Employer”). She underwent three surgeries and was eventually referred to a pain management specialist. After the third procedure, she was placed in a modified duty job. Two months after her return to work, she retired. Two of her treating physicians assigned 4% impairment to the body as a whole. Employee’s evaluating physician examined Employee on three occasions and assigned impairments of 7% to the body as a whole after the second surgery and 11% to the body as a whole after her retirement. A physician chosen from the Medical Impairment Registry (“MIR”) assigned 4% impairment to the body as a whole. The trial court found that Employee overcame the presumption of correctness attached to the MIR physician’s rating and adopted the evaluating physician’s 11% impairment. The trial court also found that Employee did not have a meaningful return to work and awarded 66% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. Employer has appealed, contending the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s findings concerning impairment and meaningful return. The appeal was referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51. We modify the judgment. |
Madison | Workers Compensation Panel | |
State of Tennessee v. Julie Fuller-Cole
In 2012, the Defendant, Julie Fuller-Cole, pleaded guilty in Shelby County to theft over $10,000. The trial court sentenced her to ten years of incarceration to run consecutively to a probation sentence from a prior Fayette County conviction. The Fayette County probation sentence was later revoked. In 2015, the Defendant filed a motion pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1, seeking to correct an illegal sentence. The Defendant asserted that the Shelby County sentence was illegal because it was aligned consecutively to the Fayette County sentence and because the Fayette County sentence was not revoked until after she was sentenced in Shelby County. After a hearing, the trial court concluded that there was nothing illegal about the alignment of the sentences. On appeal, the Defendant maintains that her sentence is illegal and that the sentences should be run concurrently. After a review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. George Prince Watkins
The Defendant, George Prince Watkins, pleaded guilty to burglary in 1989 and was given a probationary sentence. The Defendant violated his probation, and while on bond for his probation violation, he committed four new offenses, to all of which he subsequently pleaded guilty. The trial court ordered concurrent sentencing for all of the convictions. The Defendant filed a motion pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1, contending that his sentence was illegal. The trial court summarily dismissed the motion, and the Defendant appealed. This Court held that the Defendant had presented a colorable claim and remanded the case to the trial court for Rule 36.1 proceedings. State v. George Prince Watkins, No. W2014-02393-CCA-R3-CD, 2015 WL 6145899, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, Oct. 15, 2015), no perm. app. filed. The Defendant moved forward with his Rule 36.1 motion, and the trial court again summarily dismissed the Defendant’s motion finding that he failed to state a colorable claim since his sentences were expired and citing State v. Brown, 479 S.W.3d 200, 211 (Tenn. 2015), which was released in December 2015. Based upon Brown, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jeffrey Donald Landis, Sr. v. Regina Marie Landis
In this post-divorce proceeding, ex-husband filed a petition for civil contempt to compel ex-wife to allow him to retrieve certain items of personal property awarded to him in the parties’ marital dissolution agreement. The trial court entered an order holding ex-wife in civil contempt for her failure to turn over certain items. We have reviewed the record and have determined that the trial court erred in finding ex-husband was entitled to a boat trailer that was not enumerated in the property list; however, we affirm the trial court’s finding of civil contempt. |
Cheatham | Court of Appeals | |
Austin Davis, et al v. Dale Lewelling, et al.
Plaintiffs appeal the trial court’s ruling: (1) dismissing their claims against a church; (2) dismissing the plaintiff-daughter’s claim against the remaining individual defendant for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; and (3) granting the remaining individual defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to the plaintiff-father’s claim of assault. With regard to the dismissal of the claims against the church, we conclude that Appellants’ notice of appeal was untimely, and we therefore dismiss their appeal concerning the claims against the church for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We dismiss the remainder of Appellants’ appeal because of profound deficiencies in Appellants’ brief to this Court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Richard Hamilton, et al v. Randy Holderman, et al.
This is an appeal from a judgment entered on a jury verdict for conversion of property. The property owners, Appellees, received a judgment of $24,999.99 in general sessions court, and Appellants filed an appeal to the circuit court. At the jury trial, jurors awarded Appellees a verdict of $40,000.00. Appellants appeal. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Fentress | Court of Appeals | |
Billy Debow v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Billy DeBow, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus, which petition challenged his 1999 conviction of first degree murder. Because the interest of justice does not require that we waive the timely filing of the notice of appeal in this case, the appeal is dismissed. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Lindsey A. Ochab
In this appeal, the State challenges the ruling of the trial court granting the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence and dismiss the two-count indictment charging the defendant with driving under the influence (“DUI”) and driving with a blood alcohol content greater than .08 percent (“DUI per se”). Because the trial court failed to consider the effect of a search warrant and because, at any rate, probable cause supported the defendant’s arrest, the trial court erred by granting the defendant’s motion to suppress. The judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Gregory Charles Dixon
The defendant, Gregory Charles Dixon, appeals his Lawrence County Circuit Court jury conviction of theft of property valued at $1,000 or more but less than $10,000, claiming that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction and that the sentence imposed was excessive. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Lawrence | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Travis Armstrong v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Travis Armstrong, appeals from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. Following convictions, Petitioner received an agreed sentence of 20 years for possession of .5 grams or more of cocaine with intent to deliver and 15 years for possession of a controlled substance in a penal institution, to run concurrently, in exchange for waiving his right to appeal from the convictions which he received in a jury trial. Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. After appointment of counsel and filing of multiple amended petitions, this petition was denied following an evidentiary hearing. After careful review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kenneth Kyle Fletcher
The defendant, Kenneth Kyle Fletcher, was convicted by a Carter County jury of facilitation of initiation of a process to manufacture methamphetamine, a Class C felony. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced him to ten years on community corrections. In a separate case, the trial court sentenced the defendant to concurrent four-year sentences for five counts of promoting the manufacture of methamphetamine and ordered that the four-year sentence be served consecutively to the ten-year sentence in the instant case, for a total effective sentence of fourteen years on community corrections. In a timely appeal to this court, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence and the trial court's order of consecutive sentencing. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Carter | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Anderson Lumber Company, Inc. v. Chris Kinney, et al.
This is an interlocutory appeal as of right, pursuant to Rule 10B of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Tennessee, from the denial of a Motion for Disqualification or Recusal filed by the Defendants, William Kinney and Margaret Kinney ("Defendants") in this case that arises out of the indebtedness of Defendants' business, Kinney Custom Interiors, to the Plaintiff, Anderson Lumber Company, Inc. ("Plaintiff"). Having reviewed the petition for recusal appeal filed by Defendants, and finding no error in Trial Court's ruling, we affirm. |
Blount | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Arterious North
A Knox County jury convicted the Defendant, Arterious North, of four counts of attempted voluntary manslaughter and four counts of employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to twenty-two years of confinement. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to sever his case from the cases of his co-defendants and that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions. After review, we reverse the trial court's judgments of conviction and dismiss the charges for the attempted voluntary manslaughter of L.P. and for employing a firearm during the commission of the attempted voluntary manslaughter of L.P. We affirm the trial court‟s judgments in all other respects. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James Austin v. Roach Sawmill & Lumber Co.
On June 27, 2013, James Austin (“Employee”) operated a piece of machinery in the course of his employment with Roach Sawmill & Lumber Company (“Employer”). The machine trapped his right hand, injuring Employee and resulting in the amputation of his right ring finger. In a post-injury drug screen, Employee tested positive for amphetamine, nordiazepam, oxazepam, temazepam and alpha-hydroxyalprazolam. Employer operated as a drug-free workplace program as described in Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-9-101 et seq. The trial court found that Employee did not rebut the presumption that the drugs were the proximate cause of his injury and dismissed the action. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-110(c)(1) (Supp. 2012). Employee appealed, asserting that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s decision. The Supreme Court referred this appeal 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. |
Hardin | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Vicki J. Redick v. Saint Thomas Midtown Hospital, et al
Vicki J. Redick (“Plaintiff”) appeals the dismissal with prejudice of her health care liability action against Saint Thomas Midtown Hospital (“the Hospital”) and Jane Doe, an employee of the Hospital. We find and hold that Plaintiff, despite application of the common knowledge exception when appropriate, would be unable to prove her claim without expert proof, and therefore, Plaintiff was required to file a certificate of good faith in compliance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-122. As Plaintiff failed to file the required certificate of good faith, we find no error in the judgment of the Circuit Court for Davidson County (“the Trial Court”) dismissing Plaintiff’s case with prejudice for failure to comply with Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-122. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Nove Kephart, Sr. v. Daniela F. Schwarzer Kephart
The father of two children opposes the relocation of the children with their mother from middle Tennessee to Harrison, Arkansas. He also contends he is entitled to a child support deviation. At trial, testimony revealed that the mother wants to relocate because her husband accepted a position in Harrison that resulted in an annual salary increase of $20,000, plus a bonus. The mother also testified that she was offered a job in Harrison that pays more than her current position. The trial court granted permission to relocate, finding that the relocation had a reasonable purpose because the mother and her husband would receive a significant increase in annual income and increased opportunities for advancement in Arkansas. The trial court also found that relocating would not result in serious harm to the children and was not intended to defeat the father’s visitation. In addition, the trial court denied the father’s request for a child support deviation. The father appealed, contending that the court’s findings about the relocation are erroneous and that he is entitled to a child support deviation. The evidence supports the trial court’s findings regarding the purpose and nature of the relocation. Additionally, the father is not entitled to a child support deviation under the plain language of the regulations. Accordingly, we affirm. |
Coffee | Court of Appeals | |
In re Alfonzo E., et al.
The mother of three sons appeals the termination of her parental rights. A juvenile court magistrate determined that one son was the victim of severe abuse and that the other two sons were dependent and neglected. The magistrate also found that the mother was the perpetrator of this abuse, dependency, and neglect. The magistrate’s order was not appealed. All three sons were placed with the same foster mother. They remained with her for around two years during which time they had some visitation with their biological mother. Subsequently, the Department of Children’s Services filed a petition to terminate the mother’s parental rights alleging severe abuse and persistence of conditions as grounds for termination. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(3)-(4). The mother opposed the petition, and the children’s maternal grandmother and uncle each filed separate petitions for custody. After two hearings, the trial court found that DCS had proven both alleged grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence and that terminating the mother’s parental rights was in the best interests of the children. The court also dismissed the petitions for custody filed by the grandmother and the uncle. The mother appealed, arguing that termination was not in the best interests of the children and that the trial court erred by failing to place the children with their grandmother as a less drastic alternative to foster care. Mother also argues that DCS failed to make a diligent search for the children’s fathers. The evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s best-interest findings, and the mother cannot appeal the dismissal of the grandmother’s petition or the termination of the fathers’ parental rights. Additionally, by the time a court considers whether to terminate parental rights, it is too late to bring a less drastic alternative before the court. Accordingly, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Michael Angelo Coleman v. Tennessee Board of Parole, et al.
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals |