State of Tennessee v. Robert Butler
In consolidated cases, the defendant, Robert Butler, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of two counts of aggravated burglary, Class C felonies; theft of property valued at $1000 or more but less than $10,000, a Class D felony; and theft of property valued at $500 or less, a Class A misdemeanor. He was sentenced to ten years for each aggravated burglary conviction, six years for the theft of property valued at $1000 or more conviction, and eleven months and twenty-nine days for the theft of property valued at $500 or less conviction. The court ordered partial consecutive sentencing and imposed an effective term of twenty years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in allowing testimony from a State's witness that contained information from his statement in another case pending against him and that the court erred in sentencing. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court but remand for entry of corrected judgments in Counts 1 and 2 of Case No. 13-06085 to check the box indicating that the defendant was found guilty in those counts. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Johnny Parker v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Johnny Parker, acting pro se, appeals the post-conviction court's denial of his petitions for post-conviction relief, which, at his request, this court consolidated for the purposes of appeal. On appeal, as we understand, he argues as to both that his post-conviction counsel was ineffective. After review, we affirm the denial of the petitions. |
Lake | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Bakary Kassama
The defendant, Bakary Kassama, appeals the trial court’s summary dismissal of his Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 motion to correct an illegal sentence. Because the defendant failed to state a colorable claim for Rule 36.1 relief, we affirm the summary dismissal of the motion pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joe Willis
The Defendant-Appellant, Joe Willis, was convicted by a Shelby County jury as charged of two counts of aggravated assault, one count of aggravated burglary, one count of theft of property valued at $500 or less, and one count of evading arrest, and the trial court imposed an effective ten-year sentence. In his sole issue on appeal, Willis challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Antonio Bonds v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Antonio Bonds, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s preliminary order dismissing his third petition for post-conviction relief. The petitioner claims the post-conviction court erred in dismissing his petition as time-barred. Upon review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s preliminary order dismissing the petition. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Danny R. Mays v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Danny R. Mays, appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition, arguing the post-conviction court erred in finding he received effective assistance of counsel at trial and on direct appeal. After our review of the record, briefs, and applicable law, we affirm the denial of the petition. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Antonio Champion
The defendant, Antonio Champion, appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Rule 36.1 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure. Because the challenged sentences are expired, the defendant is not entitled relief. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Angela Slavko v. Scott Slavko
This post-divorce appeal concerns the mother’s notice of intent to relocate to Pennsylvania with the parties’ minor children. The father responded by filing a petition in opposition to the requested relocation. The trial court granted the father’s petition. The mother appeals. We reverse the decision of the trial court. |
Marshall | Court of Appeals | |
Christy Gail Bowman v. Mounir Benouttas, et al.
At issue in this case is whether a defendant, which claims to be merely the broker of a shipment that was being delivered, may be held vicariously liable for the negligence of the delivery driver. This action arises out of a motor vehicle accident involving a tractor-trailer that was owned and operated by Mounir Benouttas. At the time of the accident, Mr. Benouttas was delivering a shipment pursuant to a contractual arrangement with MGR Freight Systems, Inc. In addition to suing Mr. Benouttas and MGR, Plaintiff sued AllStates Trucking, Inc., which had contracted with MGR to deliver the shipment to AllStates’ customer. Plaintiff claimed AllStates was vicariously liable under the doctrines of respondeat superior and joint venture. Plaintiff later amended her complaint to include the additional theory of implied partnership. The trial court summarily dismissed all claims against AllStates because Plaintiff could not establish an agency relationship, joint venture, or implied partnership. Plaintiff appeals contending summary judgment was inappropriate because material facts are at issue. Plaintiff also challenges the trial court’s decision to consider only the legal theories Plaintiff explicitly stated in her complaint, the court’s partial denial of Plaintiff’s motion to amend her complaint, denial of her motion for summary judgment, and its decision to allow AllStates to rely on untimely filings. Finding no error with the trial court’s decisions, we affirm. |
Coffee | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Zachariah G.
This appeal concerns a termination of parental rights. The Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) filed a petition in the Juvenile Court for Rutherford County (“the Juvenile Court”) seeking to terminate the parental rights of Brooke G. (“Mother”) to the minor child Zachariah G. (“the Child”). After a trial, the Juvenile Court entered an order finding the grounds of severe abuse and abandonment by wanton disregard by clear and convincing evidence and finding also that termination of Mother’s parental rights is in the Child’s best interest. Mother appeals to this Court. We affirm the judgment of the Juvenile Court. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
John Christopher Gibbs v. Lisa Stacy Gibbs
This appeal involves a post-divorce civil contempt petition. Approximately three years after the parties’ divorce, the former wife filed a petition in the trial court seeking to hold the former husband in civil contempt for willfully breaching provisions of their property settlement agreement that was incorporated into the divorce decree that required him to pay certain debts and transfer certain real and personal property to her. The husband did not attend the contempt hearing, and the trial court found that he willfully violated the divorce decree based on the wife’s testimony. The trial court ordered that the husband be incarcerated and fined $50 per day until such time as he came into compliance with the divorce decree. On appeal, the husband argues that the trial court lacked the authority to enforce the property settlement agreement by contempt and that his failure to comply was not willful. We hold that contempt is a proper remedy for the breach of a property settlement agreement that has been incorporated into the divorce decree. Additionally, we hold that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s finding that the husband’s failure to comply with the divorce decree was willful. We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court as modified in this opinion. |
Claiborne | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jordan Gregory Love
The Defendant, Jordan Gregory Love, was convicted by a Davidson County Criminal Court Jury of two counts of aggravated child abuse of a child eight years of age or less, Class A felonies, and two counts of aggravated child neglect of a child eight years of age or less, Class A felonies. See T.C.A. § 39-15-402 (2010) (amended 2011, 2012, 2016). The trial court merged the aggravated child abuse convictions and merged the aggravated child neglect convictions and sentenced the Defendant to concurrent eighteen-year sentences at 100% service. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions, (2) the trial court erred by limiting his cross-examination of a State’s witness, and (3) the trial court erred by admitting the non-testifying codefendants’ statements into evidence. We conclude that although the evidence sufficiently established that the victim suffered bodily injury, the evidence is insufficient to show that the victim suffered serious bodily injury and that the victim’s injury was inflicted by a dangerous instrumentality. Furthermore, we conclude that the trial court erred by admitting the non-testifying codefendants’ statements into evidence. The Defendant’s convictions for aggravated child abuse and aggravated child neglect by inflicting serious bodily injury are reversed. Because the trial court erred by admitting evidence at the trial, the case is remanded to the trial court for a new trial on the lesser charges of child abuse and child neglect. The Defendant’s convictions for aggravated child abuse and aggravated child neglect by inflicting injury with a dangerous instrumentality are vacated, and the charges are dismissed |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jordan Gregory Love-Dissent
I agree with the majority’s conclusions regarding Mr. Pilarski’s testimony and the trial court’s committing reversible error by admitting the codefendants’ statements. To me, the fact that the State even pursued charges against everyone in the home and the victim’s father is troubling. I write separately, though, to dissent from the majority’s conclusion that the evidence is insufficient to support the Defendant’s convictions. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jerrico Lamont Hawthorne
The Defendant, Jerrico Lamont Hawthorne, was convicted by a Hamilton County Criminal Court jury of first degree premeditated murder, first degree felony murder during the perpetration of or attempt to perpetrate a robbery, attempt to commit first degree murder, a Class A felony, especially aggravated robbery, a Class A felony, and attempt to commit especially aggravated robbery, a Class B felony. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-202 (2014), 39-13-403 (2014), 39-12-101 (2014). The trial court merged the felony murder conviction with the premeditated murder conviction and sentenced the Defendant to life imprisonment. The court also sentenced the Defendant to concurrent sentences of twenty-five years for attempted first degree murder, twenty-five years for especially aggravated robbery, and twelve years for attempted especially aggravated robbery. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions, (2) the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress the pretrial identifications, (3) the trial court erred by permitting evidence of cell phone data, (4) the trial court erred by permitting evidence pursuant to the dying declaration exception to the rule against hearsay, and (5) the trial court erred by failing to provide jury instructions on the lesser included offenses of voluntary manslaughter, reckless homicide, and criminally negligent homicide. Although we affirm the Defendant's convictions for first degree premeditated and felony murder, attempted first degree murder, and especially aggravated robbery, we reverse the trial court's judgment for attempted especially aggravated robbery, vacate the conviction, and dismiss the charge because of insufficient evidence. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jayme Conkin
A Sullivan County Criminal Court jury convicted the Defendant-Appellant, Jayme Conkin, of first offense driving under the influence (DUI), a Class A misdemeanor, and she received a sentence of eleven months and twenty nine days, suspended to supervised probation after forty-eight hours' incarceration in the Sullivan County jail. On appeal, Conkin contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support her conviction; (2) the trial court erred in denying her motion in limine; (3) the Tennessee DUI statute is unconstitutionally vague; and (4) the State failed to disclose exculpatory evidence, requiring a new trial. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Dyron Norm Yokley v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Dyron Norm Yokley, appeals the Hamilton County Criminal Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his second degree felony murder conviction and resulting thirty-five-year, Range II sentence. The Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred in denying his petition. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joseph A. Cundiff
Defendant, Joseph A. Cundiff, was indicted by a Sumner County Grand Jury for premeditated first degree murder of his wife and unlawful possession of a handgun by a felon. After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of second degree murder. Defendant pled guilty to unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon. The trial court imposed concurrent sentences of twenty-five years for second degree murder and two years for unlawful possession of a handgun by a felon. On appeal, Defendant argues that: 1) the trial court erred by denying his motions for judgment of acquittal; 2) the evidence was not sufficient to support his second degree murder conviction; and 3) the trial court erred in sentencing him to the maximum sentence for second degree murder. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Gregory L. Hatton v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Gregory L. Hatton, pleaded guilty on July 18, 1977, to armed robbery, first degree burglary, two counts of simple kidnapping, assault with intent to commit murder, grand larceny, and rape in the Giles County Circuit Court. The offenses in this case occurred in Maury County, and Petitioner’s brief states that a motion for a change of venue had been filed in 1977. Maury and Giles County are in the same judicial district. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of life plus thirty years. Gregory Hatton v. State, No. M2000-00756-CCA-R3-PC, 2001 WL 567845 (Tenn. Crim. App. May 25, 2001). He filed a request pursuant to the Post-Conviction DNA Analysis Act of 2001 seeking testing of any physical evidence in his case. The post-conviction court summarily denied relief based upon affidavits from the relevant authorities stating that no physical evidence remained for testing. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Giles | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Cordalle Benton
The Shelby County Grand Jury indicted Cordalle Benton (“the Defendant”) for one count of rape of a child that allegedly occurred between December 1, 2012, and July 16, 2013. Following a jury trial, the Defendant was convicted as charged and sentenced to thirty-two years’ incarceration. On appeal, he argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Antoine Perrier
The Defendant-Appellant, Antoine Perrier, was convicted in the Shelby County Criminal Court of attempted voluntary manslaughter in Count 1, employment of a firearm during the attempt to commit a dangerous felony in Count 2, aggravated assault in Counts 3 through 7, and assault in Count 8. The trial court merged Count 3 with Count 1 before sentencing Perrier to an effective sentence of thirty years. In this delayed appeal, Perrier argues: (1) the trial court erroneously instructed the jury on self-defense; (2) the trial court committed plain error in failing to instruct the jury on possession of a firearm during the attempt to commit a dangerous felony as a lesser included offense of employment of a firearm during the attempt to commit a dangerous felony; (3) the employment of a firearm count is void because it fails to name the predicate felony for the firearm offense; (4) the trial court erred in declining to instruct the jury on the defense of necessity; and (5) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction for assault. We conclude that although the self-defense instruction was erroneous, the error was harmless. Therefore, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Pamela Moses
The Defendant-Appellant, Pamela Moses, entered guilty pleas to theft of merchandise worth $500 or less, tampering with or fabricating evidence, forgery, perjury, stalking, and escape in exchange for an effective sentence of seven years. Shortly after entry of these judgments, Moses filed a motion to withdraw her guilty pleas, which was denied by the trial court following a hearing. On appeal, Moses argues that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to withdraw her plea. We affirm the trial court's denial of the motion to withdraw the guilty plea but remand for correction of clerical errors in the judgment forms. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
MLG Enterprises, LLC v. Richard Johnson
We granted permission to appeal in this case to determine whether the individual who signed a commercial lease agreement on behalf of the corporate tenant also agreed to be personally liable for the tenant’s obligations when he signed the agreement a second time. Over a dissenting opinion, the Court of Appeals held that the individual’s second signature did not personally bind him because he handwrote “for Mobile Master Mfg. LLC” after his name. We hold that the second signature, which followed a paragraph clearly indicating that the parties agreed that the individual would be personally responsible for the tenant’s obligations, was effective to bind the individual. Accordingly, we reverse the Court of Appeals’ judgment and remand this matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Williamson | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Randall Evans
The Defendant-Appellant, Randall Evans, was convicted by a Bradley County jury of one count of casual exchange of a controlled substance. See T.C.A. § 39-17-418. Evans received a sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days, with fifteen days’ incarceration and the remainder on supervised probation, and a $750 fine. He subsequently filed a motion to reconsider his sentence, which the trial court interpreted as a motion for a reduction of sentence pursuant Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 35, and, following a hearing, the motion was denied. The sole issue raised on appeal is whether the trial court improperly denied Evans’s motion for sentence reduction. Upon review, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Bradley | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Joseph Corso v. Accident Fund Insurance Company, et al
Joseph Corso (“Employee”) was employed by D & S Remodelers, Inc., also known as Servpro (“Employer”). On September 29, 2011, he sustained a compensable injury to his left shoulder. While under treatment for that injury, Employee sustained an injury to his right shoulder. Employer denied that claim because of discrepancies about the date of injury. Employee continued to work for Employer until May 2013. However, he was reassigned from a production job to a sales position. He was subsequently terminated based on a customer complaint. The trial court found that the right shoulder injury was compensable and that Employee did not have a meaningful return to work. As a result of its finding that Employee did not have a meaningful return to work, the trial court awarded permanent partial disability benefits in excess of one and one-half times the medical impairment. Employer has appealed, contending that the trial court erred by incorrectly weighing the expert medical proof and by finding that Employee did not have a meaningful return to work. 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 | |
In Re: Braxton R.
This appeal involves the termination of a father’s parental rights to his nearly three-year-old child. In 2014, the child was adjudicated dependent and neglected due to his parents’ substance abuse, including the fact that the child was born with illegal drugs and non-prescribed medication in his system. In 2015, the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services filed a petition seeking to terminate the father’s parental rights on the statutory grounds of abandonment and severe child abuse. The juvenile court found that the grounds of abandonment and severe child abuse were proved by clear and convincing evidence and also found by clear and convincing evidence that termination of father’s rights was in the child’s best interests. The father appeals. We affirm. |
White | Court of Appeals |