State of Tennessee v. Anmichael Leonard
The Defendant, Anmichael Leonard, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of theft of property valued at $1000 or more but less than $10,000, a Class D felony, identity theft, a Class D felony, and fraudulent use of a credit card, a Class A misdemeanor. See T.C.A. §§ 39-14-103 (2014) (theft of property); 39-14-150 (2012) (identity theft); 39-14-118 (2014) (unauthorized use of a credit or debit card). The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective twenty-four years. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient support his convictions. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Billy Ramer
The defendant, Billy Ramer, pled guilty to one count of sexual battery for crimes committed against his granddaughter. The trial court denied judicial diversion, and the defendant appeals. We conclude that the defendant’s appeal was not timely filed and that the interest of justice, having been served by the denial of diversion, does not demand that we waive the time for filing a notice of appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. We remand the case for correction of the judgment form. |
McNairy | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Preston Rashad Royal
Defendant, Preston Rashad Royal, pled guilty to thirteen counts of burglary of an automobile and received an effective sentence of six years to be served on supervised probation after one year of confinement in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Correction (“TDOC”). Defendant argues that his sentence is illegal because it directly contravenes Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-122(a). The State concedes error. We conclude that Defendant’s sentence is illegal, vacate the judgments of the trial court, and remand the case for a new sentencing hearing. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jeffery L. Vaughn v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Jeffery L. Vaughn, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. Petitioner asserts that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when trial counsel failed to convey a favorable plea offer, failed to file a motion to suppress text messages, and failed to adequately prepare Petitioner to testify. Upon our review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Damien C. Darden v. Tennessee Department of Correction
This appeal involves an inmate's petition for writ of certiorari, in which he challenged a decision of the prison disciplinary board finding him guilty of drug possession. After reviewing the record of the disciplinary hearing, the trial court dismissed the inmate's petition. We affirm. |
Lake | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: F.N.M.
This is a termination of parental rights case. F.N.M. (the child) was born out of wedlock while her biological father, W.C.G. (father), was incarcerated. Shortly after the child’s birth, A.M.M. (mother) gave the child’s physical custody to individuals, who would later choose to be the prospective adoptive parents. Soon thereafter, mother surrendered her parental rights to the child. The prospective adoptive parents filed a petition for adoption and termination of father’s parental rights. Father opposed the adoption and filed a petition to establish paternity. After a hearing, the trial court found father to be the child’s biological parent; but it also found that there is clear and convincing evidence supporting termination of his parental rights. Furthermore, the court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that termination is in the child’s best interest. Father appeals. We modify the trial court’s judgment. As modified, the judgment terminating father’s rights is affirmed. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: F.N.M.- Dissenting
I agree with the majority that the prospective adoptive parents, S.L.D. and B.W.D., failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that W.C.G. (“Father”) acted with wanton disregard for the child’s welfare within the meaning of Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-1-102(1)(A)(iv) (2015). I also agree with the majority’s interpretation of Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-1-113(g)(9)(A) (2015). However, in my view, our Supreme Court has interpreted Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-1-113(g)(9)(A) differently, and therefore, I am constrained by that interpretation to respectfully dissent. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Victoria Monquette Orr
The defendant, Victoria Monquette Orr, appeals her conviction for theft of property over $1,000 but less than $10,000, a Class D felony. On appeal, the defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to sustain her conviction and that the trial court erred in admitting the prior consistent statement of a witness. Following our review of the briefs of the parties, the record, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Victoria Monquette Orr - Dissent
|
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
American Heritage Apartments, Inc. v. The Hamilton County Water and Wastewater Treatment Authority, Hamilton County, Tennessee
We granted permission to appeal to determine whether a customer who seeks to challenge monthly rates charged by its sewer service provider must exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit. The plaintiff apartment complex filed this action individually and as a class representative, arguing that the monthly charge assessed by the defendant water and wastewater treatment authority is unlawful. In response, the defendant asserted that a customer who seeks to dispute the rates charged must first follow the administrative procedures provided in the Utility District Law of 1937, Tennessee Code Annotated sections 7-82-101 to –804 (2015). On this basis, the water and wastewater treatment authority sought dismissal of the lawsuit for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The trial court dismissed the lawsuit for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and the Court of Appeals reversed. We hold that the administrative procedures in Part 4 of the Utility District Law of 1937 do not apply to a rate challenge filed by an individual customer against a water and wastewater treatment authority, so we agree with the Court of Appeals that the trial court erred in dismissing the lawsuit for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. We affirm the remainder of the Court of Appeals’ decision, except that we vacate the trial court’s alternative ruling on class certification and remand that issue to the trial court for reconsideration. |
Hamilton | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Bailey
The defendant, Christopher Bailey, was convicted of one count of rape of a child, a Class A felony. On appeal, he argues that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction; that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of uncharged sexual conduct; that the trial court erred by preventing him from impeaching a witness with evidence of the witness's prior convictions; and that the trial court erred by excluding evidence of the victim's prior sexual abuse. Following our thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Kelcey Z. Williams v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Kelcey Z. Williams, appeals from the post-conviction court's denial of relief from his conviction for second degree murder. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that his guilty plea was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Gibson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Felix Luis Torres, et al. v. Bridgestone/Firestone North American Tire, LLC., et al.
Mexican car crash victims filed this lawsuit in Tennessee against the manufacturer of the subject vehicle and the manufacturer of its tires. The original lawsuit was dismissed by this Court in 2003 under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. A separate lawsuit was filed in Mexico but ultimately dismissed. The plaintiffs then filed this action in Tennessee. As the case progressed, the parties disputed whether Tennessee law or Mexican law applies to the substantive issues in this case. The trial court ruled that Mexican law applies. The plaintiffs were granted an interlocutory appeal to this Court pursuant to Rule 9 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. On appeal, the plaintiffs argue that Tennessee law should apply to the substantive issues in this case because it has the most significant relationship to the litigation. The defendants argue that the choice-of-law issue was resolved in our 2003 opinion and should not be reconsidered due to the doctrine of collateral estoppel. Alternatively, they argue that Mexico has the most significant relationship to the litigation, and therefore, its law should apply. For the following reasons, we conclude that this Court’s determination in our 2003 decision regarding the applicable choice-of-law is entitled to preclusive effect. Accordingly, as we concluded in 2003, Mexican law will govern the substantive issues in this case. The trial court’s order is affirmed as modified and remanded for further proceedings. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Susan Jo Walls
The Defendant, Susan Jo Walls, was convicted by a jury of being criminally responsible for the first-degree premeditated murder of her husband and of conspiring with others to commit said murder. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of life imprisonment for these convictions. In this direct appeal, the Defendant argues that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support her convictions; (2) the trial court erred in allowing late-night jury deliberations; (3) the trial court erred by denying her motion to suppress an involuntary statement made to law enforcement; (4) the trial court failed to properly sanction the State for its untimely disclosure of certain phone records; (5) the trial court abused its discretion by denying her motion for a mistrial or to strike a witness’s testimony based on an alleged Jencks Act violation; and (6)the trial court erred by modifying the jury instructions in response to a jury question that was presented after deliberations had commenced.[1] Because we conclude that the trial court erred by allowing jury deliberations to continue into the late-night hours, we reverse the judgments of the trial court and remand this case for a new trial.
|
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William Pillars
The defendant, William Pillars, appeals his Franklin County Circuit Court jury convictions of rape of a child and aggravated sexual battery, claiming that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions, that the trial court erred by improperly admitting and excluding certain evidence, that the trial court erred by admitting into evidence the defendant’s prior convictions, and that the sentence imposed was excessive. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Franklin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Mark Tracy Looney
A Rutherford County jury convicted the Defendant, Mark Tracy Looney, of four counts of rape of a child, one count of felony child abuse, and one count of misdemeanor child abuse. The trial court ordered the Defendant to serve an effective sentence of fifty years in prison. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that the trial court erred when it: (1) denied his motions for mistrial; (2) denied his motion to suppress his pretrial statements; (3) refused to grant a new trial based upon the State’s failure to provide a recorded statement by the victim; (4) admitted inadmissible testimony from an expert witness; (5) allowed a witness to refresh her memory by viewing a video recording; (6) determined that the evidence against him is sufficient to sustain his convictions; (7) failed to grant a mistrial in light of a juror’s failure to disclose exposure to pretrial publicity; and (8) ordered consecutive sentencing. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Quinton Bonner
Defendant, Quinton Bonner, appeals the trial court's denial of a motion to withdraw his guilty plea. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. However, we remand the matter for entry of judgment forms in Counts 2, 3, and 4. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ronnie Henry v. State of Tennessee
A Shelby County jury convicted the Petitioner, Ronnie Henry, of four counts of aggravated robbery and four counts of robbery, and the trial court sentenced him to seventy years in prison. The Petitioner appealed his conviction and sentence, and this Court affirmed his convictions and remanded the case on a sentencing issue. See State v. Ronnie Henry, No. W2006-00344-CCA-R3-CD, 2008 WL 450459, at *5 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, Feb. 19, 2008), perm. app. denied (Tenn. 2008). The Petitioner was resentenced on remand and his sentence was affirmed on appeal. State v. Ronnie Henry, No. W2009-00089-CCA-R3-CD, 2009 WL 3103823, at *5 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, Sept. 28, 2009), no Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application filed. In 2010, the Petitioner filed a pro se petition 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 trial court held a hearing on the petition and denied relief. We affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Devonte Bonds, et al.
Defendants Devonte Bonds, Thomas Bishop, Jason Sullivan, and Brianna Robinson were tried jointly and convicted of attempted second degree murder, aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. The jury found that the underlying offenses committed by Defendants Bonds, Bishop, and Sullivan constituted criminal gang offenses, and they received enhanced punishment under Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-121. All of the defendants raise multiple procedural and evidentiary issues with regard to the guilt phase of the trial on the underlying offenses. Defendants Bonds, Bishop, and Sullivan also raise several issues regarding their criminal gang enhancements. Defendants Bishop and Sullivan each raise an issue with regard to their sentencing. After an exhaustive review of the record, we ascertain no error in the guilt phase of the trial on the underlying offenses. Accordingly, the trial court‘s judgment as to Defendant Robinson is affirmed. However, because the subsection of the criminal gang enhancement statute employed by the State violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and is facially unconstitutional, we reverse the judgments of the trial court as to Defendants Bonds, Bishop, and Sullivan, vacate the criminal gang enhancements, and remand for modification of the judgments and a new sentencing hearing on the underlying offenses of attempted second degree murder, aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Pervis Tyrone Payne v. State of Tennessee
We granted permission to appeal in this case to determine whether a capital defendant, via a petition for writ of error coram nobis, may obtain a hearing to determine whether he is ineligible to be executed because he is intellectually disabled. The Petitioner, Pervis Tyrone Payne, was convicted in 1988 of two first degree murders, and the jury imposed the death sentence for each murder. In 2001, this Court held that the federal and state constitutions prohibit the execution of individuals who are intellectually disabled. Van Tran v. State, 66 S.W.3d 790, 812 (Tenn. 2001). The Petitioner asserts that he meets the statutory definition of intellectually disabled, but he has not yet been afforded an evidentiary hearing on his claim. In this proceeding, he has sought to establish his right to such a hearing via a claim of error coram nobis. The trial court denied relief without a hearing, and the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed with one judge dissenting. We hold that the Petitioner is not entitled to relief under a claim of error coram nobis. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals. |
Shelby | Supreme Court | |
Joe Ross v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Joe Ross, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The State has filed a motion requesting that this court affirm the trial court's judgment pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Following our review, we grant the State's motion and affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In re Dayton R., et al.
Appellants petitioned for grandparent visitation pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated Section 36-6-306. After a trial, Appellants were awarded visitation consisting of one weekday per month, the entire day of December 26, and four hours on each of the two children's birthdays. Appellants appeal from the trial court's order, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by not awarding them more visitation. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Henderson | Court of Appeals | |
The Metropolitan Government of Nashville And Davidson County v. Owners of Property With Delinquent Demolition Liens Filed With The Register of Deed's Office In Davidson County, Tennessee, et al
This appeal arises from a dispute over the meaning of the term “owner” as it relates to Tenn. Code Ann. § 13-21-103, part of the Slum Clearance and Redevelopment Act (“the Act”). The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County (“Metro”) sued various defendants in the Chancery Court for Davidson County (“the Trial Court”) to recover costs associated with the demolition of certain property in Nashville. Regions Bank (“Regions”), the mortgagee of record and a defendant in the case, argues that while it is an owner under other sections of Tenn. Code Ann. § 13-21-103, it is not an owner under the statute as relates to demolition costs and thus is not liable for Metro’s demolition costs. The Trial Court granted Regions’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, thereby dismissing Metro’s lawsuit. Metro appeals to this Court. We hold that under Tenn. Code Ann. § 13-21-101, “owner” is defined explicitly to include mortgagees of record, that the language is unambiguous, and that the Trial Court erred in dismissing Metro’s lawsuit. We reverse the judgment of the Trial Court and remand this case to the Trial Court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
The Metropolitan Government of Nashville And Davidson County v. Owners of Property With Delinquent Demolition Liens Filed With The Register of Deed's Office In Davidson County, Tennessee, et al - Dissenting
Because I conclude that Tennessee Code Annotated § 13-21-103(6) (2011) does not permit assessments of costs or actions for costs against a mortgagee, I respectfully dissent from the reversal. Relying on the definition of the word “owner” found in the Slum Clearance and Redevelopment Act (the “Act”), see Tenn. Code Ann. § 13-21-101(4) (2011), the majority concludes that a mortgagee may be assessed the cost of removal or demolition of a structure unfit for human occupation or use. As required when called on to construe a statute, the majority begins by looking to the words of the Act. See Waldschmidt v. Reassure Am. Life Ins. Co., 271 S.W.3d 173, 176 (Tenn. 2008). In my view, however, the majority then fails “to construe the[] words in the context in which they appear in the statute and in light of the statute’s general purpose.” Lee Med., Inc. v. Beecher, 312 S.W.3d 515, 526 (Tenn. 2010). |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Elvis Bogle Ex Rel. Minnie Lucille Bogle v. Nighthawk Radiology Services, LLC et al.
Plaintiff appeals from a defense verdict in a medical malpractice action. Plaintiff alleged that the one of the defendants, a general radiologist, deviated from the standard of care by failing to diagnose and report that a pacemaker lead had perforated the decedent’s heart. The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the trial court erred by denying Plaintiff’s motion to strike the testimony of the defendants’ expert witness who testified that the defendant radiologist complied with the standard of care. Plaintiff insists that the expert did not know the applicable standard of care; therefore, his testimony should have been stricken. The defendants insist the expert witness was qualified to provide standard of care opinions for a general radiologist and that the trial court correctly instructed the jury to weigh his testimony along with that of other expert witnesses who testified. Finding no error with the trial court denying Plaintiff’s motion to strike, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals |