In Re Selena L. et al.
This is a termination of parental rights case regarding the parental rights of the mother, Brandy L. (“Mother”) to her minor children, Selena L. and Isabella H., ages five and two respectively when the termination action was filed (collectively, “the Children”). Mother voluntarily placed Selena L. in the custody of a relative in 2009, shortly after the child’s birth. On April 13, 2012, the Hamilton County Juvenile Court (“juvenile court”) placed the Children into the custody of the maternal great-grandmother, Vickie R. (“Petitioner”), upon Petitioner’s filing an action for custody. On August 25, 2014, Petitioner filed petitions in the Bradley County Circuit Court (“trial court”) seeking to terminate the parental rights of Mother and to adopt the Children. Following a bench trial, the court terminated Mother’s parental rights to the Children after determining by clear and convincing evidence that Mother had abandoned the Children by: (1) willfully failing to visit them, (2) willfully failing to financially support them, and (3) exhibiting a wanton disregard toward their welfare. The trial court further found by clear and convincing evidence that terminating Mother’s parental rights was in the best interest of the Children. Mother has appealed. We reverse the trial court’s finding that Mother abandoned the Children by willfully failing to support them during the determinative four-month period. We affirm the trial court’s judgment in all other respects, including the termination of Mother’s parental rights to the Children. |
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Daymien T.
The trial court terminated Father’s parental rights on grounds of substantial noncompliance with a permanency plan and persistent conditions. The trial court also found that termination was in the child’s best interest. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Hawkins | Court of Appeals | |
Deandre Blake v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Deandre Blake, appeals the post-conviction court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief in which he challenged his convictions for two counts of felony first degree murder and resulting life sentence. On appeal, the petitioner contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. Upon reviewing the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Brian Lee Webb
The Defendant, Brian Lee Webb, was convicted by a Benton County jury of rape of a child (Count 1) and aggravated sexual battery (Count 2). He was sentenced to a concurrent term of forty years' confinement for the child rape conviction and twelve years' confinement for the aggravated sexual battery conviction, for an effective sentence of forty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction (TDOC). On appeal, the Defendant argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions and that the trial court erred in not considering certain mitigating evidence in sentencing. Because neither the record nor the judgment reflects service of the aggravated sexual battery conviction at 100% as mandated by statute, we are compelled to remand Count 2 for entry of corrected judgment. In all other respects, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Benton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Matthew Jordan, Sr. v. City of Memphis
At its scheduled meeting, the City of Memphis Pension Board denied by voice vote a Memphis police officer's request for benefits. At some point in time, which is unclear from the record, the Board approved minutes from its meeting, which reflected the denial of the police officer's request. The police officer filed a petition for writ of certiorari, seeking judicial review of the Board's decision. The police officer supported his petition with an oath but failed to include a recitation indicating that the petition was his first application for the writ. The City of Memphis moved to dismiss the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of the missing recitation. The trial court granted the motion. On appeal, the police officer argues that the missing recitation did not deprive the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction. In addition to the missing recitation, the City argues that the trial court also lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the petition was not filed within sixty days from the Board‟s decision on the request for benefits. We vacate the judgment of dismissal and remand for further proceedings. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Unitta Sue Newman v. Guardian Healthcare Providers, Inc., et al
On August 4, 2013, Kevin Beazley, a resident at Middle Tennessee Mental Health Institute (MTMHI), attacked Billy Joe Newman, another patient and resident, causing injuries that resulted in Newman’s death. His widow, Unitta Sue Newman (plaintiff), brought this action against several corporations (defendants) that provided nursing and medical staff to MTMHI. The trial court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, on the grounds that it was governed by the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act (THCLA), and plaintiff did not comply with either the pre-suit notice requirement of Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121 (Supp. 2015), or the certificate of good faith requirement of § 29-26-122 (2012). Plaintiff argues that the allegations of her complaint fall under the “common knowledge” exception to the general rule requiring expert testimony to establish medical negligence, and, thus, she was not required to file a certificate of good faith. She asserts that the trial court should have dismissed her complaint without prejudice. Because plaintiff’s negligence claims involve matters of professsional medical knowledge, judgment, and treatment not within the common knowledge of ordinary lay persons, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Monica Dawn Hammers
A Hamilton County jury found the Defendant, Monica Dawn Hammers, guilty of attempted aggravated child abuse. Pursuant to an agreement between the parties, the trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I offender to serve a nine year sentence through supervised probation. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that: (1) the evidence presented at trial is insufficient to support her conviction; (2) the trial court erred in allowing the State to present evidence of the Defendant's prior bad acts; and (3) the trial court failed to instruct the jury on lesser-included offenses. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the trial court's judgment. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Brian O'Neal Elliott v. State of Tennessee
In 2012, the Petitioner, Brian O’Neal Elliott, pleaded guilty to second degree murder and was sentenced to twenty-five years of incarceration to be served at 100%. In 2013, the Petitioner filed a pro sepetition for post-conviction relief. The post-conviction court appointed counsel, who filed an amended petition for post-conviction relief alleging that the Petitioner had received the ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court held a hearing on the petition and denied relief. We affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Bradley Darrin Williams
A Williamson County grand jury indicted the Defendant, Bradley Darrin Williams, for one count of driving under the influence (“DUI”) and one count of DUI per se. The Defendant filed a pretrial motion to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of his traffic stop. The trial court denied the Defendant’s motion, and the Defendant pleaded guilty to the two counts of DUI. The trial court merged the convictions and sentenced the Defendant to eleven months and twenty-nine days, to be served on probation after the service of seven days in confinement. The Defendant reserved a certified question of law pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2) as to whether the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress because the officer did not have reasonable suspicion justifying the stop. After review, we conclude that the traffic stop was lawful and thus, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Theodore Elaster, Jr. et al. v. Hamilton County Department of Education et al.
This appeal arises from an alleged assault of a student by a school employee. April Elaster (“Mother”) filed a lawsuit against the Hamilton County Department of Education, Dean of Students Edward Rowe (“Rowe”), and part-time school administrator Carol Thomas (“Thomas”) (collectively, “Defendants”) in the Circuit Court for Hamilton County (“the Trial Court”) on behalf of her minor son, Theodore Elaster, Jr. (“the Child”). Mother alleged that Rowe assaulted the Child, and her various counts arose from that alleged assault. After a trial, the Trial Court entered judgment in favor of Defendants, finding that any collision between Rowe and the Child was unintentional. Mother appeals to this Court. We find that the evidence does not preponderate against the Trial Court’s finding that the alleged assault did not happen, and this finding serves to defeat all of Mother’s claims. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
In re S.D.D.
This case involves an effort to terminate parental rights. The Department of Children’s Services filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of E.D. (Mother) with respect to her child, S.D.D. (the Child). The trial court found clear and convincing evidence of four grounds supporting termination. The court also found, by the same quantum of proof, that termination is in the best interest of the Child. Mother appeals. We affirm. |
Haywood | Court of Appeals | |
Jose Segura v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Josue Segura, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that the trial court erred in finding that he received effective assistance of counsel. Following a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re Jacqueline G. et al.
The mother and stepfather of two children filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of the children’s father. Father was incarcerated when the petition was filed and had not visited or supported the children during the four months preceding his incarceration. Father was released in February 2015 after serving more than three years in prison on a theft of property charge and admitted at trial that the oldest child “might remember” him but that the youngest child would not. Nevertheless, Father testified that he had been sober for more than four years, had started his own business, had paid child support since his release, and wanted to restore his relationship with his children. While the petition was pending, Mother, who also had a history of drug and alcohol abuse, was arrested for driving under the influence. After a two-day trial, the court found that two grounds for termination had been proved; however, the court found that Mother and Stepfather had failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that termination of Father’s parental rights was in the best interest of the children. The trial court’s best-interest findings were based in part on findings that Father had “turned his life around” and was addressing his addiction while Mother, who admitted to having a “very serious, addiction to alcohol,” was not realistically dealing with her addiction. Mother and Stepfather appeal contending the trial court erred by considering Mother’s DUI and addiction when it was Father who was the subject of the petition. They also contend the evidence demonstrated that it was in the best interest of the children to terminate Father’s parental rights. We find no error with the trial court’s consideration of Mother’s addiction in its best-interest analysis because Tenn. Code Ann. § 36 1 113(i) expressly authorizes consideration of factors other than the enumerated factors when determining the best interest of a child. Furthermore, the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s finding that Mother and Stepfather failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that it is in the children’s best interest to terminate Father’s parental rights. Therefore, we affirm. |
Maury | Court of Appeals | |
John Michael Thayer v. Jennifer Lynn Thayer
This appeal arises from post-divorce efforts to modify child support. The father agreed, in the original parenting plan, to pay the tuition for a program for children with autism in lieu of child support. Subsequently, the parties agreed to enroll their child in a private school for children with learning challenges, and the father voluntarily paid the tuition. Several years later, the mother filed a petition for modification of child support after the father refused to continue paying the tuition. After a hearing, the trial court found a significant variance between the child support obligation in the agreed parenting plan and the presumed amount of child support under the Tennessee Child Support Guidelines. The court calculated a new child support amount after finding that the father was voluntarily underemployed and allocating additional income to him based on his earning potential. The court also ordered an upward deviation for extraordinary educational expenses and awarded the mother a portion of her attorney’s fees. Upon review of the record, the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s factual findings, and we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision. Therefore, we affirm and remand this case for a determination of the amount of the mother’s reasonable attorney’s fees on appeal. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: A.E.T.
DCS filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of T.E.W. (Father) to his child, A.E.T. (the Child), on two grounds. Following a bench trial, the court entered a termination order, finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that Father had been sentenced by a federal court to a term of imprisonment of more than ten years, at a time when the Child was not yet eight years of age. The court also found that termination was in the Child’s best interest. DCS had sought to terminate Father’s parental rights based on abandonment by wanton disregard, but the trial court initially declined to do so. After the trial, DCS realized that the parties had made a mutual mistake, the result of which was to render invalid the sole ground for termination found by the trial court. At the request of DCS, the trial court re-opened the proof. In light of additional evidence, the court entered a new order that terminated Father’s parental rights, this time finding DCS had established the ground of wanton disregard by clear and convincing evidence. The court adopted its earlier holding regarding the Child’s best interest. Father appeals. We affirm the judgment of the trial court as modified. |
Coffee | Court of Appeals | |
Denver Napier et al v. Gail Howard et al.
Gail Howard purchased at auction a subdivision lot in Grainger County. The deed to Howard’s lot, as well as the deeds to the other lots in the subdivision, contains a restrictive covenant prohibiting “single wide mobile homes.” Howard converted her lot into a campground with sixteen camper trailer sites for rent. Denver Napier, Sheryl Napier, and Jeffrey Bryant (collectively the plaintiffs), each of whom had purchased a lot in the subdivision, filed a complaint against Howard seeking an injunction enjoining her from using her property as a campground. They based their complaint on the restrictive covenant against “single wide mobile homes.” The trial court held that the restrictive covenant prohibited, in the court’s words, “camping trailers and/or single wide mobile homes” in the subdivision. Accordingly, the trial court permanently enjoined Howard and all other owners of lots from having, again in the court’s words, “camping trailers/single wide mobile homes” on their property. Howard appeals. We affirm. |
Grainger | Court of Appeals | |
Christopher Denton v. Edna Taylor et al.
This case arises out of a head-on automobile accident that resulted in the death of Howard Taylor, the driver of one of the cars, and serious injuries to Christopher Denton (plaintiff), the other driver. Plaintiff brought this negligence action against the decedent’s widow, Edna Taylor, and his estate. There were no witnesses to the accident, and plaintiff has no memory of what happened. Some fifteen months after the complaint was filed, the sole remaining defendant, Edna Taylor, moved for summary judgment, arguing that plaintiff’s evidence was insufficient to establish causation. In support of the motion, defendant filed the affidavit of the officer who investigated the accident, in which he stated that he “wasn’t able to locate any roadway evidence that indicated the point of impact.” After a hearing on defendant’s motion, plaintiff filed a motion asking the trial court to grant him more time to obtain and file an accident reconstruction “report.” The court denied the motion and granted summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff provided no evidence establishing that the decedent’s negligence caused the accident. We affirm. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Carla Landrum et al v. Methodist Medical Center et al.
This is a premises liability action in which the plaintiffs, a husband and wife, filed suit against the defendant hospital for personal injuries and other damages resulting from wife’s slip and fall. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, holding that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate defendant’s actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition by failing to proffer material evidence establishing the cause, source, or duration of the dangerous condition. The plaintiffs appeal. We affirm the decision of the trial court. |
Anderson | Court of Appeals | |
Jack Helmboldt et al v. Michael R. Jugan et al.
This appeal concerns certain declarations of covenants and restrictions (i.e., a buffer easement) on a piece of property. The purchasers of the property filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that the foreclosure by the bank on its superior mortgage extinguished by operation of law any covenants and restrictions recorded after the bank’s deed of trust was recorded. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the purchasers. The holders of the buffer easement containing the covenants and restrictions appeal. We affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Freddie Ali Bell
In conjunction with the entry of a nolo contendere plea to driving under the influence (“DUI”), Defendant, Freddie Ali Bell, reserved a certified question for appeal pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2)(A) in which he asked this Court to determine whether the record supports the finding of probable cause or reasonable suspicion to legally permit a seizure of Defendant and his vehicle. After a review, we determine that the evidence supports a finding of probable cause for the stop. Consequently, the trial court’s denial of the motion to suppress is affirmed. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kevin Wells
A Sullivan County Criminal Court Jury convicted the appellant, Kevin Wells, of possession of a Schedule II controlled substance with intent to sell or deliver, a Class C felony; two counts of possession of a Schedule III controlled substance with intent to sell or deliver, a Class D felony; and driving on a revoked license, a Class B misdemeanor, and he received an effective thirteen-year sentence as a Range III, persistent offender. On appeal, the appellant contends that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence, by allowing the State to introduce text messages from a codefendant's cellular telephone into evidence, and by admitting his statement into evidence. Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Edward Bruce Coleman v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Edward Bruce Coleman, appeals the denial of post-conviction relief from his 2010 Davidson County Criminal Court jury conviction of aggravated assault, for which he received a sentence of 12 years. In this appeal, the petitioner contends that the order denying post-conviction relief was inadequate and that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In re Estate of Alys Harris Lipscomb
Appellants appeal from an order that was not final pursuant to Rule 58 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ardell Allen
Based on a tip from a confidential informant, police stopped the Defendant and ultimately discovered cocaine in his pocket. He was charged with possession of more than 0.5 grams of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a daycare, a Class B felony. The Defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence, which the trial court granted. The State appeals, arguing that the confidential informant's credibility and basis of knowledge were sufficiently established, giving officers reasonable suspicion to seize the Defendant. Following our review, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Danny Ray Lacy v. State of Tennessee
In 1996, a Madison County jury convicted the Petitioner, Danny Ray Lacy, of first degree felony murder during the perpetration of aggravated child abuse, and the trial court sentenced him to life in prison without the possibility of parole. The Petitioner appealed, and this Court affirmed the Petitioner's conviction and sentence. State v. Lacy, 983 S.W.2d 686 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997). The Petitioner filed an unsuccessful petition for habeas corpus relief. Danny Ray Lacy v. Cherry Lindamon, Warden, No. M2009-00072-CCA-R3-CO, 2009 WL 3029619, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Sept. 22, 2009), no Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application filed. The Petitioner then filed this petition for writ of error coram nobis, alleging that the Jackson Police Department possessed exculpatory evidence. The coram nobis court dismissed the petition, and, after review, we affirm that judgment. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals |