Jean Dedmon v. Debbie Steelman, et al.- Concur
I fully concur with the majority opinion by my learned colleague based upon existing case law, which we are bound to follow as an intermediate appellate court. I write separately to express my concerns relating to modern billing practices of medical providers and their effect upon present-day personal injury litigation . Were it not for existing case law which we are bound to follow as an intermediate appellate court, I would apply the West rationale to personal injury litigation. |
Crockett | Court of Appeals | |
Dennis L. Rose v. State of Tennessee
A Sullivan County jury found the Petitioner, Dennis L. Rose, guilty of one count of first degree premeditated murder and two counts of aggravated assault. On appeal, this Court affirmed the Petitioner's sentences and convictions. State v. Dennis Lee Rose, No. E2010-00734-CCA-R3-CD, 2012 WL 335548, (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxville, Feb. 1, 2012), perm. app. denied (Tenn. May 21, 2012). The Petitioner filed a post-conviction petition and the post-conviction court denied relief following a hearing. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that: (1) the post-conviction court erred when it denied his motion to recuse the District Attorney General's office in light of his post-conviction allegation of prosecutorial misconduct; (2) he received the ineffective assistance of counsel at trial; and (3) the post-conviction court erred in denying him relief on the basis of prosecutorial misconduct. We affirm the post-conviction court's judgment. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Carroll Renee Crews
Following a jury trial, the Defendant, Carroll Renee Crews, was convicted of selling dihydrocodeinone, a Class D felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-417. The trial court imposed a sentence of twelve years’ incarceration to be served at sixty percent. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to sustain her conviction. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Dennis Vawter v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company
A 59-year old plaintiff who lost his job as a chemical operator, after working in that position for over 37 years, applied for the position of general operator with another company. Twelve individuals were hired by the other company, all of whom were younger than the 59-year old, and most of whom were less experienced. The plaintiff filed an age discrimination complaint against the company. The case was tried by a jury, and the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, awarding him compensatory damages of $100,000. The trial court awarded the plaintiff front pay in addition to the compensatory damage award. The company appealed, and we affirm the trial court's judgment. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Natalie Rowland Steward v. Brian Stacy Rowland
This is a post-divorce case. Father appeals the trial court‘s decision not to hold Mother in contempt for failure to provide court-ordered insurance coverage for the child. Father also appeals the trial court‘s division of the child‘s uncovered medical bills and seeks reimbursement for monthly payments he made toward the child‘s insurance premiums while Mother failed to provide coverage. In addition, Father appeals the trial court‘s order requiring him to provide insurance for the child past the age of majority based on the child‘s medical disability and the judgment entered against him for Mother‘s attorney‘s fees. We conclude that Father is entitled to a credit for those insurance premiums he paid to Mother during the period of time the child was enrolled in TennCare. We reverse the trial court‘s order on attorney‘s fees. The order is otherwise affirmed. |
Crockett | Court of Appeals | |
Jean Dedmon v. Debbie Steelman, et al.
This interlocutory appeal requires review of a ruling on a motion in limine in a personal injury case. Prior to trial, the plaintiffs submitted expert testimony from a treating physician to establish the reasonableness of their claimed medical expenses. The defendants filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude evidence of what they deemed ―unreasonable‖ medical expenses. They argued that the Tennessee Supreme Court‘s decision in West v. Shelby County Healthcare Corporation, 459 S.W.3d 33 (Tenn. 2014), established a new standard in Tennessee for determining the reasonable amount of medical expenses as a matter of law. The trial court granted the defendants‘ motion in limine, thus excluding the testimony of the treating physician. For the following reasons, the trial court‘s order is reversed and this matter is remanded for further proceedings. |
Crockett | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Americus Julian Harris
The Defendant, Amerius Julian Harris, pleaded guilty to possession with the intent to sell of .5 grams or more of cocaine and possession of a Schedule VI drug with intent to sell, and the trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective sentence of twelve years, suspended to supervised probation except for 180 days. A violation of probation warrant was issued, and the trial court revoked the Defendant’s probation and ordered service of the balance of the sentence in confinement. The Defendant appeals, asserting that the trial court’s decision to fully revoke his probation sentence was “too harsh.” We affirm the trial court’s judgment and remand for entry of a corrected revocation order in case number 12-0280. |
Putnam | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Wendi Hope Tunny
The Defendant, Wendi Hope Tunny, appeals as of right from the Sevier County Circuit Court’s denial of her request for judicial diversion and order that she serve her five-year sentence in split confinement following her guilty-pleaded conviction for theft of property valued at $10,000 or more but less than $60,000, a Class C felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-103; -13-105(a)(4). On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred by failing to consider all of the applicable factors for judicial diversion and by failing to conduct a proper weighing of those factors. Following our review, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Sevier | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Michael Tyrone Gant v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Michael Tyrone Gant, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. He argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel based on trial counsel’s failure to present evidence on his behalf that would have established both his innocence and the victim’s bias. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Scott Elmer McCarter v. Debra Lynn Walker McCarter
In this second appeal involving the instant divorce action, the wife appeals the trial court's enforcement of an enhanced judgment lien on behalf of her former counsel and the court's inclusion of certain tractor tires within the farm equipment previously awarded to the husband in the final judgment for divorce. Having determined that the record contains no proof of notice to the wife of the hearing at which the trial court awarded the enhanced judgment lien, we vacate the portion of the judgment enforcing the enhanced portion of the attorney's lien. We remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, including an evidentiary hearing addressing enforcement of the enhanced portion of the attorney's lien with notice to include the wife's former counsel. We affirm the trial court's judgment in all other respects. |
Sevier | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Marcus Levy
The defendant, Marcus Levy, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of first degree premeditated murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal, the defendant argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction and that the trial court erred in allowing the State to enter the witness statements of three witnesses into evidence at trial. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In re Jayden L. et al.
Mother appeals the termination of her parental rights as to her three biological children. The trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights on the grounds of abandonment by an incarcerated parent and persistent conditions. The trial court also found that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in the children’s best interest. We have reviewed the trial court’s findings as to the grounds for termination and the best interests of the children, and we conclude that they are supported by clear and convincing evidence and therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Washington | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Glendall D. Verner
The defendant pled guilty on March 21, 2013, to one count of the theft of $1,000 or more, a Class D felony, and one count of the theft of $60,000 or more, a Class B felony. The defendant was given an effective ten-year sentence, all of which was to be served on probation. As part of his probation, the defendant was required to complete two hundred hours of community service work and was forbidden to sell securities or to work in the financial services or insurance business. On April 26, 2014, the defendant’s probation officer signed a violation of probation affidavit alleging that the defendant was terminated from his community service program for noncompliance. On May 22, 2014, a second affidavit was issued, averring that the defendant violated the special condition forbidding him from working in the financial services industry when he attempted to solicit investors for a project. The trial court held a hearing on three separate days over the course of four months, and the court ultimately concluded that the defendant had violated the terms of his probation. The trial court revoked the defendant’s probation and ordered him to serve one year of his sentence in confinement, to be followed by a new probationary period. The defendant appeals, asserting that his due process rights were violated because the terms of his probation were unconstitutionally vague, because the evidence did not establish a violation of his probation, because he was given inadequate notice of the violation, and because the trial court’s written findings were inadequate. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Denny K. Reynolds
A jury in the Maury County Circuit Court convicted the Appellant, Denny K. Reynolds, of simple possession of cocaine. The trial court sentenced the Appellant to eleven months and twenty-nine days in the Maury County Jail. On appeal, the Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence sustaining his conviction. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Bobby Lee Miles, Jr.
The Defendant, Bobby Lee Miles, Jr., pleaded guilty in 1999 to aggravated burglary and received a three-year sentence. On October 21, 2015, the Defendant filed a Rule 36.1 motion to correct an illegal sentence, alleging that the pretrial credit on the judgment form is incorrect. The trial court summarily dismissed the motion, and the Defendant appeals the dismissal, maintaining that his sentence is illegal. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the trial court properly dismissed the Defendant’s motion to correct his sentence. |
Robertson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Delwin L. Huggins et al. v. R.Ellsworth McKee et al.
Appellant appeals the trial court‘s grant of summary judgment dismissing his claims against a limited liability corporation surrounding the sale of the corporation and the distribution of the proceeds to one member. Although we reverse the trial court‘s ruling with regard to the application of Tennessee Code Annotated Section 48-237-101(d), we otherwise affirm the trial court‘s ruling granting summary judgment to the corporation on all claims asserted by Appellant. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Markhayle Jackson
The Defendant, Markhayle Jackson, entered a guilty plea in 2011 to first degree premeditated murder and was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement. 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 dismissed the motion for failure to state a colorable claim. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred by dismissing the motion. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Quantel Taylor v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Quantel Taylor, appeals from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief following remand from the Tennessee Supreme Court. See Taylor v. State, 443 S.W.3d 80 (Tenn. 2014). In his post-conviction petition, Petitioner alleged, in part, that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to interview his three co-defendants. Petitioner subpoenaed the co-defendants to testify at the post-conviction hearing. The post-conviction court granted the State's motion to quash subpoenas for the co-defendants, who were incarcerated. A panel of this court concluded that the post-conviction court erred, but held that the error was harmless under the circumstances. Quantel Taylor v. State, No. W2012-00760-CCA-R3-PC, 2013 WL 6228151 (Tenn. Crim. App., Nashville, April 29, 2013). Our supreme court reversed the decision of this court, holding that the post-conviction court committed prejudicial error by granting the State's motion to quash because the post-conviction court applied an incorrect legal standard. Taylor, 443 S.W.3d at 86. The court remanded the case for reconsideration of the motion to quash under the proper standard. On remand, the post-conviction court denied the State's motion to quash, and all three co-defendants were subpoenaed for an evidentiary hearing. Two of Petitioner's co-defendants, Allen and Bricco, refused to take the stand. The third co-defendant, Spivey, took the stand and refused to testify. The post-conviction court denied post-conviction relief. Petitioner appealed. We conclude that he has failed to establish that he is entitled to post-conviction relief. The judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed. |
Crockett | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Travis Tate
Defendant, Travis Tate, appeals from his convictions of second degree murder, attempted voluntary manslaughter, and employment of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony and from his effective sentence of forty years. Defendant raises the following issues on appeal: (1) whether there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions; (2) whether the trial court erred by admitting hearsay evidence at trial; (3) whether the trial court inaccurately advised Defendant during the Momon hearing; (4) whether the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on self-defense; (5) whether the trial court erred by instructing the jury to correct its verdict on employment of a firearm; and (6) whether the trial court abused its discretion during sentencing. We affirm the judgments of the trial court with respect to the first two convictions, but we modify the judgment with respect to the employment of a firearm conviction. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ricky Flamingo Brown, Sr. v. State of Tennessee
Inmate appeals the dismissal of his claim that funds awarded to him as a result of a claim he filed with the Tennessee Claims Commission were incorrectly applied to his overdrawn inmate trust account. Finding that the application of the funds in this manner did not violate the pertinent statutes, we affirm the judgment of the Commission. |
Court of Appeals | ||
In re Trenton W.
This appeal arises from the termination of a mother’s parental rights. When the child turned six months old, a juvenile court found Mother and Father’s child dependent and neglected and placed the child in the custody of the paternal grandparents. After having custody for nearly five years, the paternal grandparents filed a petition for termination of Mother’s and Father’s parental rights and for adoption in chancery court. The trial court terminated Father’s parental rights at a separate hearing. At the hearing on Mother’s parental rights, the trial court found clear and convincing evidence that Mother, who was incarcerated when the petition to terminate was filed, abandoned the child. The court also found it to be in the best interest of the child to terminate Mother’s parental rights. Mother appeals, and we affirm. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
In re Hailey S.
This appeal involves the termination of a father’s parental rights to his child. Following a bench trial, the trial court found that clear and convincing evidence existed to support the termination of his rights on the statutory grounds of abandonment for failure to remit child support, substantial noncompliance with the permanency plans, and the persistence of conditions which led to removal. The court further found that termination was in the best interest of the child. The father appeals. We affirm the judgment of the trial court as modified in this opinion. |
Macon | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kenderick Michael Tucker
Defendant, Kenderick Michael Tucker, appeals from the trial court’s revocation of probation. Defendant contends that the trial court denied him due process by relying upon evidence that was not alleged in the probation violation warrant. Defendant also contends that he was denied due process because the warrant provided insufficient notice and because the trial court made insufficient findings of fact. The State argues that Defendant admitted his probation violation, and therefore, the evidence supports the trial court’s order of revocation. After a careful review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joseph Tolbert III a/k/a Micah Joshua Ford
The Defendant, Joseph I. Tolbert III, was convicted by a Knox County Criminal Court jury of three counts of first degree felony murder, first degree premeditated murder, attempt to commit first degree murder, two counts of especially aggravated robbery, and two counts of especially aggravated burglary. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-202 (2014) (first degree murder), 39-13-403 (2014) (especially aggravated robbery), 39-14-404 (2014) (especially aggravated burglary), 39-12-101 (2014) (criminal attempt). The convictions for felony murder and premeditated first degree murder were merged and the Defendant received an effective sentence of life plus twenty-two years. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions, (2) his convictions for especially aggravated burglary are statutorily barred, and (3) his convictions for especially aggravated burglary violate double jeopardy principles. We affirm the judgments of the trial court relative to first degree felony murder, attempted first degree murder, and one of the especially aggravated robbery convictions. We merge the convictions for especially aggravated burglary to reflect one conviction for aggravated burglary and reduce the second conviction for especially aggravated robbery to aggravated assault and remand for resentencing relative to these counts. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In re Jenkins Bonding Company
The Appellant, Jenkins Bonding Company, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court’s judgment of final forfeiture of bail bonds. The Appellant argues that its obligation to secure the appearance of a defendant had been released; therefore, the trial court erred in issuing a judgment of final forfeiture. Upon review, we reverse the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals |