State of Tennessee v. Dontavious Hendrix
A Madison County jury convicted the Defendant-Appellant, Dontavious Hendrix, of one count of second degree murder. See T.C.A. § 39-13-210(a)(1). The trial court imposed a twenty-five-year sentence of confinement at the Tennessee Department of Correction to be served at 100% release eligibility. On appeal, he argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction for second degree murder and that his sentence is excessive. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Shelly Minor v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Shelly Minor, appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. After review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court denying the petition for post-conviction relief. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Danielle Rush
The defendant, Danielle Rush, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of two counts of attempted second degree murder, three counts of aggravated assault, two counts of reckless endangerment, and vandalism over $1000. The trial court merged two of the aggravated assault convictions and sentenced the defendant to an effective term of eleven years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Lorenzo Brown
The defendant, Lorenzo Brown, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of attempted voluntary manslaughter, possession of a firearm during the attempted commission of a dangerous felony, and aggravated assault. The trial court sentenced him to four years for the attempted voluntary manslaughter conviction, three years for the firearm conviction, and five years for the aggravated assault conviction, with the four- and three-year sentences to be served consecutively and the five-year sentence concurrently, for an effective sentence of seven years, in the county workhouse. On appeal, he argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his attempted voluntary manslaughter and firearm convictions. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Melvin James Branham v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Melvin James Branham, appeals the Sevier County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his 2012 conviction for robbery and his fifteen-year sentence. The Petitioner contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Sevier | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Blue Sky Painting Company v. Burns Phillips, Commissioner, et al
Company conducting business in Tennessee filed a complaint against the Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development seeking a declaratory judgment that the subpoenas issued by the Department for business records violated the company’s right to due process of law and constituted an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and seeking injunctive relief. The trial court granted the Department’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim for relief, and the business appeals. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William Seth Bowman
The appellant, William Seth Bowman, pled guilty in the Putnam County Criminal Court to aggravated assault and received a six-year sentence with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered that the appellant serve his sentence in confinement. On appeal, the appellant contends that the trial court erred by not granting his request for alternative sentencing. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Putnam | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Brandon L. Kirk v. State of Tennessee
Following two jury trials, Petitioner, Brandon L. Kirk, was convicted of various offenses which resulted in a total effective sentence of 22 years. All convictions were affirmed on appeal. State v. Brandon L. Kirk, No. M2012-01331-CCA-R3-CD, 2013 WL 3148276 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 18, 2013). Petitioner filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief. Counsel was appointed and an amended petition was filed. Following an evidentiary hearing in which only Petitioner and trial counsel testified, the post-conviction court denied relief. Petitioner has appealed, asserting that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee. |
Robertson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jason Lamar Howard v. Cynthia Teresa Wallin Howard
In this post-divorce proceeding, Father appeals the trial court’s modification of a permanent parenting plan and child support. Father also appeals the trial court’s refusal to hold Mother in contempt. We affirm the trial court’s decision declining to hold Mother in criminal contempt. However, because the order in the record with regard to both the parenting plan and the civil contempt charge contain insufficient findings of fact or conclusions of law, we vacate and remand those issues to the trial court for reconsideration. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Earl Jerome Lee, Jr.
Defendant, Earl Jerome Lee, Jr., filed various pro se motions seeking relief from his convictions in case numbers 87-467 and 87-347 in the Madison County Circuit Court. One motion sought relief pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure (Tenn. R. Crim. P.) 36.1 based upon the fact that he received illegal concurrent sentences upon his guilty pleas in 1988. One of the sentences was for forty years of imprisonment, so the sentences have not all expired. Defendant asserted that concurrent sentencing was illegal pursuant to Tenn. R. Crim. P. 32(c)(3)(C) because he was on bond for the felony offenses in case number 87-347 when he committed the offenses in case number 87-467, and he was convicted of all the felonies. Another motion was “for exculpatory evidence” and yet another was “for review extraordinary appeal.” Defendant’s notice of appeal in the present case was filed May 13, 2015, appealing the trial court’s judgments filed May 1, 2015, which denied the three motions. For the reasons stated below, we affirm the judgments of the trial court pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Joey Godwin v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Joey Godwin, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The petitioner is currently serving two consecutive thirty-year sentences for his two convictions for sale of .5 grams or more of cocaine. On appeal, he contends that the post-conviction court erred in denying his petition because he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, he contends that trial counsel was ineffective by: (1) not allowing the petitioner to testify at his trial; (2) failing to file a motion for change of venue; and (3) advising the petitioner to reject a twelve-year plea offer from the State. Following review of the record, we conclude that the post-conviction court did not err and affirm the denial of post-conviction relief. |
Gibson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Shecky Dotson
Shecky Dotson (“the Defendant”) was indicted in Count 1 for driving while under the influence of an intoxicant (“DUI”), in Count 2 for reckless driving, and in Count 3 for DUI per se. In a separate document, the grand jury presented that the Defendant had one prior conviction for DUI. After a jury trial, the Defendant was acquitted in Count 1 and Count 2 and convicted in Count 3. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court should have suppressed the results of his blood alcohol test. Specifically, he contends that the trial court erred in finding the Defendant gave actual consent for a blood draw and erred in finding the Defendant failed to revoke his implied consent. After a thorough review of the record, we have determined that, based on a totality of the circumstances, the Defendant freely and voluntarily gave actual consent for a blood draw and that the trial court did not err in denying the Defendant's motion to suppress the results of the warrantless blood draw. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Marcus T. Johnson
The Defendant, Marcus T. Johnson, entered a guilty plea in 2011 to the sale of cocaine and received a ten-year sentence. In 2015, the Defendant filed a motion pursuant to Tennessee Criminal Procedure Rule 36.1 requesting the correction of an illegal sentence. The trial court summarily denied relief. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred by dismissing the motion. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Brown
The defendant, Michael Brown, appeals the trial court’s decision to require him to serve sixty days in confinement for his conviction for sexual contact with an inmate, a Class E felony. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In re David C.
This is an appeal by the appellant, David C., from an order terminating his parental rights to his minor child of the same name. The order terminating the appellant's parental rights was entered on April 29, 2016. The Notice of Appeal was not filed until June 1, 2016, more than thirty (30) days from the date of entry of the final order. The Attorney General, on behalf of the appellee, Tennessee Department of Children's Services, has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal based upon the untimely filing of the Notice of Appeal. Because the Notice of Appeal was not timely filed, we have no jurisdiction to consider this appeal and grant the motion to dismiss. |
Sevier | Court of Appeals | |
Betty Kirby v. Sumner Regional Medical Center
This is a health care liability action. The plaintiff suffered permanent damage after receiving medical treatment from the defendant hospital. The plaintiff filed suit exactly one year after her hospital stay. The defendant hospital moved to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiff failed to comply with the pre-suit notice and good faith requirements applicable to health care liability actions. The plaintiff later argued that the failure to comply with the necessary requirements should be excused for extraordinary cause as evidenced by the passing of her legal counsel’s son four days prior to the filing of the complaint. The trial court granted summary judgment, finding that no extraordinary cause existed. The plaintiff appeals. We reverse the judgment of the trial court. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Russell Freels v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Russell Freels, appeals the Washington County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. The Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred in dismissing his ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim as having been untimely filed. He argues for the first time on appeal that he is constitutionally entitled to effective assistance of post-conviction counsel in his first petition for relief and that due process requires tolling of the statute of limitations. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Washington | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Lindsey Brooke Lowe
The parents of the defendant, Lindsey Brooke Lowe, discovered the body of one of her newborn twins in a laundry basket in her bedroom. A second deceased newborn was also found in the basket, and the defendant gave an incriminating statement to police. A jury convicted the defendant of two counts of first degree (felony) murder, two counts of first degree (premeditated) murder, and two counts of aggravated child abuse, a Class A felony. The trial court merged the first degree murder convictions for each victim. The defendant received a life sentence for each first degree murder conviction and a twenty-five year sentence for each aggravated child abuse conviction, all to be served concurrently. On appeal she asserts that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts; that the trial court erred in not suppressing her statement; that the trial court was biased; that the trial court denied her the right to testify in her defense; that the burden of proof was shifted to the defense; that her motion for a change of venue should have been granted; that the physical evidence obtained through a search warrant should have been suppressed; that the trial court erred in excluding expert testimony regarding her ability to waive her right to remain silent; that the trial court erred in various other evidentiary decisions; and that she is entitled to relief under the theory of cumulative error. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Donald Ray Sachs
The Appellant, Donald Ray Sachs, appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion for a reduction of sentence. Because the Appellant’s motion was not timely filed, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Earl Junior Pike
The Appellant, Earl Junior Pike, is appealing the trial court’s order denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to Rule of Criminal Procedure Rule 36.1 The State has filed a motion asking this Court to affirm pursuant to Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20. Said motion is hereby granted. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joseph Anthony Szostak, III
Defendant, Joseph Anthony Szostak, III, appeals from the trial court’s revocation of probation. Defendant asserts on appeal that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his probation by not articulating a “willful” failure to pay costs, by failing to consider Defendant’s reason for not paying, and by considering prior violations not applicable to the current proceeding. Defendant also contends that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing Defendant by not considering principles of sentencing and by denying Defendant’s request for an alternative sentence. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Stephanie Keller, et al v. Estate of Edward Stephen McRedmond, et al
This case involves an internecine conflict among siblings who were shareholders in a closely-held family corporation. The dispute resulted in dissolution of the original family corporation, the formation of two new competing corporations, and a long-running lawsuit in which one group of shareholder siblings asserted claims against the other group of shareholder siblings. After a trial, the trial court awarded damages to the plaintiff shareholder siblings. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the plaintiff shareholder siblings did not have standing because their claims were derivative in nature and belonged to their new corporation. We granted permission to appeal to consider the standard for determing whether a shareholder’s claim is a direct claim or a derivative claim. In this Opinion, we set aside the approach for determining whether a shareholder claim is direct or derivative described by this Court in Hadden v. City of Gatlinburg, 746 S.W.2d 687, 689 (Tenn. 1988), and adopt in its stead the analytical framework enunciated by the Delaware Supreme Court in Tooley v. Donaldson, Lufkin, & Jenrette, Inc., 845 A.2d 1031, 1039 (Del. 2004). Under the Tooley framework, the analysis of whether a shareholder claim is direct or derivative is based solely on who suffered the alleged harm—the corporation or the suing shareholder individually—and who would receive the benefit of the recovery or other remedy. In light of this holding, we affirm in part and reverse in part the decision of the Court of Appeals, and we remand to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. |
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
Jo Elaine Tidwell v. Patsy Burkes
In this property dispute involving two sisters, the plaintiff instituted the action, seeking to set aside a recorded deed on the basis that the instrument contained a forged signature. The defendant’s counsel, who filed an answer to the complaint, was attorney of record at the time of the trial. On the date of trial, the defendant’s counsel did not appear in court because he had been recently suspended from the practice of law, a fact unknown to the defendant until she appeared for trial. When the trial court elected to proceed with the hearing, the defendant represented herself. Upon the conclusion of the trial, the trial court announced its decision in favor of the plaintiff, determining that the deed contained a forged signature and ordering that the deed be set aside. The court also ordered that the defendant pay all costs, including the expense for the plaintiff’s expert witness. The defendant subsequently retained new counsel, who filed a motion for new trial. The motion was denied. The defendant appeals. Determining that the trial court erred in failing to order a continuance of the trial, we vacate the judgment of the trial court and remand for a new trial on the merits. |
Lawrence | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Franklin Childs, Jr.
After an unsuccessful motion to dismiss the indictment against him, the Defendant, Franklin Childs, Jr., pled guilty to one count of promoting the manufacture of methamphetamine and sought to reserve a certified question of law. See Tenn. R. Crim. P. 37(b)(2). In this appeal, he attempts to challenge the trial court’s refusal to grant his pre-trial motion to dismiss, alleging that the State’s failure to preserve evidence foreclosed his right to a fundamentally fair trial and that dismissal of the indictment was the only appropriate remedy. Following our review, we conclude that we do not have jurisdiction to decide this appeal because the issue presented is not dispositive. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. |
Bradley | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In re Derrick J. et al.
This is a termination of parental rights case. Appellants appeal the trial court’s termination of their parental rights to three minor children on the grounds of: (1) abandonment by failure to provide suitable housing; (2) persistence of the conditions that led to the removal of the children from Appellants’ home; and (3) severe child abuse. As to Appellant/Mother, the trial court also found that Appellee, the Department of Children’s Services, had proven, by clear and convincing evidence, that mother failed to substantially comply with the requirements set out in the permanency plan; mother appeals the termination of her parental rights on this additional ground. Appellants also appeal the trial court’s determination that termination of their parental rights is in the best interests of the children. Discerning no error, we affirm and remand. |
Washington | Court of Appeals |