In Re: Matthew T.
The parents of a son born in May 2013 appeal the termination of their parental rights. In December 2013, the son was removed from his parents’ custody after law enforcement discovered that he was living in a home with two methamphetamine labs. After a hearing, the juvenile court entered an order finding that the son was dependent and neglected and that the parents had committed severe abuse as defined in Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-1-102(b)(21). Parents did not appeal this order. Three permanency plans were created, all of which required the parents to maintain contact with the Department of Children’s Services, notify the Department of changes in their address or phone number, submit to and test negative on unannounced drug screens, and pay child support. In August 2014, the Department filed a petition for termination of parental rights. The trial court conducted a hearing, which the parents did not attend even though they knew of the date. An employee of the Department was the only witness to testify. She testified that the parents had not updated their contact information, maintained contact with the Department, or engaged in much visitation with their son. In addition, the father did not complete a drug treatment plan, admitted to using illegal drugs, and tested positive for drugs. After the hearing, the court found that the following grounds for termination had been established by clear and convincing evidence: abandonment, substantial noncompliance with a permanency plan, persistence of conditions, and severe abuse. The court also found that termination of parental rights was in the son’s best interest. Parents appealed. In accordance with In re Carrington H., --- S.W.3d ---, No. M2014-00453-SC-R11-PT, 2016 WL 819593, at *12-13 (Tenn. Jan. 29, 2016), we have reviewed the trial court’s findings related to all of the grounds for termination and the best interest of the child and conclude that termination is appropriate based on abandonment, substantial noncompliance, severe abuse, and persistence of conditions. We also hold that termination is in the son’s best interest. Accordingly, we affirm. |
Smith | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Anthony T. Brandon
Defendant, Anthony T. Brandon, stands convicted of possession with intent to sell .5 grams or more of cocaine, possession with intent to sell .5 grams or more of cocaine base, and possession or casual exchange of marijuana. The trial court imposed an effective twenty-four-year sentence. On appeal, Defendant argues: (1) that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions for possession with intent to sell .5 grams or more of cocaine and for possession with intent to sell.5 grams or more of cocaine base; (2) that his sentences were excessive; and (3) that the trial court should have merged Counts 1 through 4 into one conviction. Based on the parties’ briefs, the record, and the applicable law, we merge Defendant’s convictions for possession with intent to sell .5 grams or more of cocaine and possession with intent to sell .5 grams or more of cocaine base, but we affirm the judgments of the trial court in all other respects. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Guy Lee Powell
After a bench trial, the Defendant, Guy Lee Powell, was convicted of manufacturing a controlled substance, possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell or deliver, felony possession of drug paraphernalia, and possession of a still. The trial court imposed concurrent sentences for an effective sentence of two years' incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized from his premises during a search. After review, we affirm the trial court's judgments. |
Hancock | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Elizabeth Mesmer Cocke v. Thomas Lawrence Hunt Cocke
This is an appeal of an order granting a reduction in child support. Mother appeals the trial court’s finding that she is voluntarily underemployed and alleges that the trial court improperly modified the parties’ parenting plan sua sponte. We conclude that the trial court did not modify the parenting plan in this case and affirm the order of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Mitchell L. Bowers v. Tennessee Department of Corrections, et al
Plaintiff contends the trial court erred by dismissing this action for failure to prosecute. The trial court dismissed the action because the case had been pending for more than one year but no summons had been issued. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
William W. York v. Tennessee Board Of Parole
This appeal arises from the denial of parole. The Tennessee Board of Probation and Parole found that the inmate’s release from custody would depreciate the seriousness of the crime of which he was convicted. The inmate filed a petition for common law writ of certiorari, alleging violations of the Ex Post Facto Clause of the state and federal constitutions. The trial court dismissed the petition. On appeal, the inmate alleges the same state and federal constitutional violations. He also argues that the trial court erred in not letting him conduct discovery and in relying on an affidavit filed in support the Board’s decision. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Brady P. Smithson
The appellant, State of Tennessee, appeals the Williamson County Circuit Court’s granting the motion of the appellee, Brady P. Smithson, to dismiss an indictment for two counts of vehicular assault, a Class D felony. On appeal, the State contends that the trial court misapplied the factors in State v. Ferguson, 2 S.W.3d 912 (Tenn. 1999). Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the ruling of the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Kenneth R. Vaught v. Green Bankshares, Inc., et al.
This appeal arises from an effort by a former bank employee to collect certain deferred compensation payments. Kenneth R. Vaught ("Vaught") filed a complaint against his former employer, Green Bankshares, Inc., and its wholly owned subsidiary, Greenbank ("Greenbank"), in the Chancery Court for Knox County ("the Trial Court"). Both sides agree Vaught is entitled to certain deferred compensation. The issue is the amount. According to Greenbank, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC") and Troubled Asset Relief Program ("TARP") regulations prevent payment of the total amount requested by Vaught as it would constitute a prohibited "golden parachute." After a trial, the Trial Court found in favor of Vaught, awarding him the full amount. Greenbank appeals. On appeal, FDIC, amicus curiae, argues that the additional deferred compensation payment to Vaught constitutes a prohibited golden parachute. We hold that the Trial Court‘s judgment places Greenbank in the untenable position of having to either disobey the Trial Court‘s judgment or flout federal regulations and FDIC. We vacate the judgment of the Trial Court, remand this case to the Trial Court, and order a 60 day stay, during which time Vaught may pursue, should he elect to do so, other avenues of relief, including via the Administrative Procedure Act ("the APA") to challenge FDIC‘s determination. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Lindsay Meghan Crutchfield v. State of Tennessee
A hearing-impaired student attending a state university was required to live in a dormitory on campus. The university installed a bed shaker and strobe light in the student’s room that would be triggered by the presence of smoke or by a doorbell installed outside the room. The student’s room also had a speaker above the door that was wired into the building’s fire alarm system that sounded an alarm if the dormitory’s fire alarm was activated. On a morning in September 2011, the speaker in the student’s room that was located above the door was activated in response to a false alarm in the dormitory. Believing the sound caused her to suffer further hearing loss, the student sued the State, arguing the State was negligent by subjecting her to the loud alarm. The case was tried by the Tennessee Claims Commission, which found the State liable for the student’s further hearing impairment. The State appealed, and we reverse, holding the student failed to prove proximate cause. |
Court of Appeals | ||
Jana Hill v. Michael Gannon, et al.
This is a wrongful termination case. Appellant appeals the trial court’s grant of summary judgment on her claims of intentional interference with at-will employment and civil conspiracy on the part of Appellees. Because Appellant has not averred facts sufficient to make out a claim for intentional interference with at-will employment, we affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment on that claim. In the absence of an underlying tort, we also affirm the trial court’s dismissal of Appellant’s claim for civil conspiracy. Affirmed and remanded. |
Putnam | Court of Appeals | |
Cynthia Elliott v. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company
Cynthia Elliott (“Employee”) alleged that she sustained a compensable aggravation of her preexisting knee arthritis because of a fall that occurred in the course of her employment at Goodyear (“Employer”). Employer provided medical care for several months through its workers' compensation carrier but then denied the claim for right knee total replacement surgery as well as her claim for disability benefits, based on the opinion of the treating physician that the fall did not aggravate or advance the preexisting condition. Employee then had knee replacement surgery through her group healthcare insurance. The trial court received deposition testimony from three orthopaedic surgeons and medical records from several other doctors. It ruled that the fall at work had aggravated Employee's arthritis and awarded benefits. Employer has appealed, contending that the evidence preponderates against the trial court's finding of compensability. 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. |
Weakley | Workers Compensation Panel | |
State of Tennessee v. Rakeem Rashan Jones and Giovoanne Tremane Johnson
In a joint trial, Defendants Giovoanne Treymane Johnson and Rakeem Rashan Jones were convicted of first degree felony murder, second degree murder, and especially aggravated robbery. As to each, the trial court merged the second degree murder conviction into the felony murder conviction and imposed a sentence of life imprisonment. As to the convictions for especially aggravated robbery, each defendant was sentenced to twenty-five years, with the sentences to be served consecutively to the sentence for the felony murder conviction. On appeal, Defendant Jones argues that (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to sever the defendants for trial; (2) the evidence is insufficient to sustain the convictions; (3) the trial court erred both in the length and manner of service of the sentences; and (4) the court erred in denying his motion for mistrial. Defendant Johnson argues on appeal that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the convictions and that the trial court erred in ordering that the sentences be served consecutively. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Michael Marks v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Michael Marks, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in finding that he received effective assistance of trial counsel. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Delshun Jones
The defendant, Delshun Jones, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of first degree premeditated murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal, he argues: (1) that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction; (2) the State committed prosecutorial misconduct during voir dire and rebuttal closing argument; (3) the trial court erred in allowing testimony and evidence of cell phone records into evidence; and (4) the trial court erred in allowing an inmate to testify despite the inmate and the defendant's having a defacto attorney-client relationship. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Marc Baechtle
A Shelby County jury convicted the Defendant, Marc Baechtle, of rape of a child, aggravated sexual battery, and rape. The trial court dismissed the convictions for aggravated sexual battery and rape based upon the statute of limitations and sentenced the Defendant to twenty-five years for the rape of a child conviction. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it: (1) denied his motion to suppress his statement to police; (2) denied his motion to dismiss based upon a violation of the prompt notification requirement of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers; and (3) denied his motion for a bill of particulars. The Defendant also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jacob Brown v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Jacob Brown, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, which petition challenged his 2012 convictions of two counts of first degree murder and the accompanying sentences of life without parole. In this appeal, the petitioner contends that the trial court‘s denial of funds for an expert prior to the transfer hearing ran afoul of his due process rights, that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel, and that the consecutive sentences of life without parole, imposed when the petitioner was a juvenile, violate the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. The petitioner‘s claims of a violation of his due process rights and deprivation of his right to the effective assistance of counsel were previously determined and cannot avail him of post-conviction relief. We conclude that the imposition of a sentence of life without parole in this case did not violate the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment but that consecutive alignment of the petitioner‘s sentences does not comport with the recent rulings of the United States Supreme Court. Therefore, we remand the case for the entry of corrected judgment forms reflecting concurrent alignment of the sentences. |
Tipton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Richard Jeronimus v. Zoila Maria Jeronimus
Divorce proceeding in which Husband contends that the trial court erred in dividing the marital assets and debts, in setting parenting time, and determining that Wife is the economically disadvantaged spouse. Wife contends that the court erred in not ordering Husband to formulate and sign the letter of instruction transferring assets from his IRA account; in not awarding a higher amount in transitional alimony; in failing to designate a party to be responsible for processing the qualified domestic relation orders for two retirement accounts; and in granting the divorce based on Husband’s Amended Complaint for divorce. Wife asks this court to impose restrictions on Husband’s ability to initiate future litigation. Finding no error, we affirm the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Deborah C. Russell v. HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc., et al
A homeowner alleges that a mortgage company promised her favorable terms to induce her to refinance her mortgage but the actual loan did not contain the terms discussed. She further alleges that company representatives led her to believe, after she received copies of some of the loan documents, that the discrepancy in the loan terms was a “mistake” that would be corrected. The homeowner filed this case against several entities, including the mortgage company. In the order at issue in this appeal, the trial court granted the defendants summary judgment on all of the homeowner’s causes of action and on their counterclaim. We have concluded that the trial court properly granted summary judgment on the claim for violation of the Truth in Lending Act. With regard to the homeowner’s claims for intentional and negligent misrepresentation, we find that there remain genuine issues of material fact and that the trial court therefore erred in granting summary judgment. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Covenant Health v. Tennessee Health Services And Development Agency, et al.
This appeal arises out of the Tennessee Health Services and Development Agency’s decision to grant a certificate of need to a company to acquire and operate a linear accelerator; the decision was opposed by another company that operated a linear accelerator. After a contested case hearing, an administrative law judge issued an initial order holding that the certificate of need should not have been granted. On the applicant’s appeal, the agency reviewed the initial order and reversed it. The company which contested the application filed a petition for review in chancery court, where the Chancellor reversed the agency’s decision, finding that it was not based on substantial and material evidence. On appeal to this court, we conclude that substantial and material evidence existed to support the agency’s decision to issue the certificate of need. We therefore reverse the order of the chancery court and remand the case for entry of an order affirming the agency’s decision. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Tennessee Department of Correction v. David Pressley
Employee of the Tennessee Department of Correction filed an administrative appeal challenging the termination of his employment. The board of appeals reduced the termination to a fourteen-day suspension. On appeal to the trial court, the chancery court ruled that the burden of proof was improperly allocated to the Tennessee Department of Correction in the hearing before the board of appeals. We reverse the decision of the chancery court and conclude that the board of appeals properly allocated the burden to the Tennessee Department of Correction. We further conclude that no substantial and material evidence in the record exists to support the board of appeals’ finding that the employee committed negligence in the performance of his duties. We also reverse the board of appeals’ decision denying the employee’s request for attorney’s fees in the prosecution of his appeal to the board of appeals and remand to the board of appeals for a determination of those fees. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Dustin Scott Roberts v. William R. Ray
This is a legal malpractice action in which the plaintiff alleged that the defendant attorney failed to conform to the applicable standard of care in drafting a prenuptial agreement. The trial court granted the defendant attorney's motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff appeals. We reverse and remand for further proceedings. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jessie R. Bailey
The Defendant, Jessie R. Bailey, entered a guilty plea to possession of 0.5 gram or more of cocaine with the intent to sell. The Defendant was sentenced to serve eight years. In a separate case, the Defendant pleaded guilty to facilitation of second degree murder and was sentenced to serve eight years concurrently to the sentence in the cocaine possession case. Approximately sixteen years after the judgments were filed, the Defendant filed motions pursuant to Tennessee Criminal Procedure Rule 36.1 requesting that the trial court correct illegal sentences. The trial court summarily denied the motions. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Brian Christopher Dunn
Brian Christopher Dunn (“the Defendant”) was convicted of initiation of the process to manufacture methamphetamine and driving with a suspended, cancelled, or revoked license—6th offense. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for initiation of the process to manufacture methamphetamine. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Michael Kent Walker v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Michael Kent Walker, appeals the Putnam County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his 2012 convictions for selling Schedule I and Schedule II controlled substances in a drug-free zone, for which he received an effective sentence of twelve years. The Petitioner contends that his guilty plea was unknowing and involuntary based upon erroneous advice from trial counsel regarding the amount of jail credit to which he was entitled. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Putnam | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Brown
A Shelby County jury found the Defendant, Christopher Brown, guilty of one count of first degree premeditated murder and three counts of aggravated assault. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that the trial court erroneously admitted evidence of prior bad acts under Rule 404(b) of the Tennessee Rules of Evidence and that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his convictions. Following a thorough review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals |