State of Tennessee v. Joe Clark Mitchell
The Defendant, Joe Clark Mitchell, was convicted in 1986 of two counts of aggravated kidnapping, two counts of aggravated rape, two counts of armed robbery, two counts of aggravated assault, arson, and first degree burglary and received an effective sentence of three consecutive life sentences plus thirteen years. In 2015, the Defendant filed a motion for correction of the sentences pursuant to Tennessee Criminal Procedure Rule 36.1 contending that his life without the possibly of parole sentences were illegal because such sentences did not exist at the time of the offenses. The trial court summarily dismissed the motion upon finding that the Defendant received life imprisonment sentences, not life without the possibility of parole, and that his sentences were not illegal. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred by dismissing the motion and by imposing the costs against him. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ernest Willard Dodd v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Ernest Willard Dodd, appeals as of right from the Warren County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, wherein he challenged his convictions for initiating a process intended to result in the manufacture of methamphetamine and attempt to promote the manufacture of methamphetamine. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel based on counsel’s failure (1) to adequately advise him regarding the admissibility of his prior convictions if he chose to testify and (2) to call a “material” witness for the defense. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Warren | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Patrick Gaia
The defendant, Patrick Gaia, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court's order declaring him a motor vehicle habitual offender (“MVHO”), arguing that the trial court erred by entering a default judgment where the State failed to comply with the terms of the MVHO statute and Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure for service of process. Because the record reflects that neither the State nor the trial court complied with the necessary procedural requirements, we vacate the judgment declaring the defendant an MVHO. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Michael Davis v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Michael Davis, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court's denial of his petition for a writ of error coram nobis regarding his 2013 conviction for second degree murder and his resulting sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The coram nobis court denied relief on the grounds that the purported evidence was not newly discovered and that it was cumulative to evidence presented at the trial. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the court erred by denying relief. We affirm the judgment of the coram nobis court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Bob A. LaPradd v. Nissan North America, Inc., et al
The employee sustained a back injury in the course of his work. His employer provided medical treatment for the injury, and the employee appeared to recover. He subsequently developed more severe symptoms and the employer denied additional treatment. The employee eventually had a fusion of three vertebrae in the lower back. The trial court found that the injury was compensable and awarded permanent total disability benefits. It found that the Second Injury Fund was not liable for any portion of the award. The court declined to award the employer a set-off for benefits paid by an employer-funded disability plan. The employer has appealed, and the employee raises additional issues on appeal. 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 award of permanent total disability benefits and the decision not to not assign liability to the Second Injury Fund. We reverse the denial of the set-off to the employer. We deny relief as to the issues raised by the employee. |
Coffee | Workers Compensation Panel | |
State of Tennessee v. Kenneth Greene
Appellant was convicted of burglary other than a habitation and was sentenced to four years, suspended to probation, on January 30, 2013. A probation violation report was filed alleging that appellant had violated the terms of his probation by testing positive for marijuana, by being in possession of an adulterated urine specimen, and by failing to pay court costs. Following a probation revocation hearing, the trial court revoked appellant’s probation and ordered his sentence into execution. On appeal, appellant argues that because of his admission to his probation officer about his drug problem and his voluntarily seeking drug treatment for the same, he should have been allowed to complete his inpatient drug treatment program rather than have his probation revoked in full. Upon our review of appellant’s revocation, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Polk | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Martin W. Bracey, Jr. v. Otis N. McDonald, et al.
Plaintiff who was injured in a motor vehicle accident timely filed suit against the driver and the owner of the truck with which he collided. More than a year after the accident and seven months after suit was filed, Plaintiff amended the complaint to assert causes of action against additional parties. Upon motion, the court dismissed the claims against the additional defendants on the basis of the statute of limitations. Holding that the amended complaints do not contain factual allegations sufficient to relate the claims against the additional defendants back to the filing of the original complaint or to otherwise prevent the running of the statute of limitations, we affirm the judgment dismissing the additional defendants and remand to the trial court for further proceedings in accordance with the opinion herein. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
Ellis Hardin v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Ellis Hardin, appeals the denial of post-conviction relief from his 2014 Rutherford County Circuit Court guilty-pleaded convictions of aggravated sexual battery and attempted aggravated sexual battery, for which he received an effective sentence of 15 years. In this appeal, the petitioner contends that his guilty pleas were not knowingly and voluntarily entered and that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Freeman Ray Harrison, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Freeman Ray Harrison, Jr., appeals as of right from the Rutherford County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, wherein he challenged his convictions for two counts of aggravated sexual battery and one count of reckless endangerment. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel based on counsel’s failure to (1) discuss the bill of particulars with him; (2) discuss the possibility of filing a motion to sever the offenses; and (3) retain medical experts. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ralph T. O'Neal v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Ralph T. O’Neal, appeals as of right from the Davidson County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. He claims entitlement to habeas corpus relief, alleging that the trial court did not have the jurisdiction or authority to sentence him for Class B felony cocaine possession because he was indicted only for Class C possession, and the record was devoid of any evidence that he consented to an amendment or waived his right to indictment at the guilty plea proceedings. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Toby Lynn Young
A Warren County jury found the Defendant, Toby Lynn Young, guilty of theft over $10,000, evading arrest, and driving on a suspended license, second offense. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to a total effective sentence of twelve years’ incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the trial court’s failure to properly instruct the jury on identity pursuant to State v. Dyle, 899 S.W.2d 607 (Tenn. 1995). Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Warren | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Cory Shane Rollins v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Cory Shane Rollins, appeals from the denial of his petition for post conviction relief, wherein he challenged his jury convictions for aggravated robbery, evading arrest, and driving under the influence. On appeal, the Petitioner raises the following ineffective assistance of counsel claims: (1) whether trial counsel failed to convey a plea offer made by the State; and (2) whether trial counsel failed to adequately apprise him of his right to testify. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Darrell Ray Beene
A Davidson County jury convicted the Defendant, Darrell Ray Beene, of aggravated robbery, and the trial court sentenced him to twenty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The trial court ordered that the Defendant’s sentence be served consecutively to the Defendant’s forty-two year sentence in another case. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction and that his sentence is excessive. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities, we affirm the Defendant’s conviction and sentence. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William Franklin Robinette
The defendant, William Franklin Robinette, appeals from his Greene County Criminal Court jury convictions of solicitation to commit first degree murder, claiming that the sentence imposed by the trial court was excessive. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Eric Holmes v. Shelby County Sheriff's Office, et al.
Because the order appealed is not a final judgment, this appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Kenneth Lee Anderson v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Kenneth Lee Anderson, appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that he was denied the right to appellate counsel on direct appeal. After review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court denying the petition for post-conviction relief. |
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
George Harvey v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, George Harvey, appeals the denial of post-conviction relief from his 2013 Shelby County Criminal Court guilty-pleaded conviction of second degree murder, for which he received a sentence of 15 years. In this appeal, the petitioner contends that his guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered and that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. David Burrows
Aggrieved of his Shelby County Criminal Court jury convictions of first degree murder and especially aggravated kidnapping, the defendant, David Burrows, appeals, claiming that the trial court erred by refusing to remove a juror for cause, by admitting autopsy photographs of the victim, and by admitting evidence of the defendant's 2008 domestic assault of the victim and that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Mario Hawkins v. Michael Parris, Warden
Petitioner, Mario Hawkins, was convicted of first degree murder in 1996. On December 31, 2014, he filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, alleging that his judgment was void because he was not granted pretrial jail credits. The habeas corpus court summarily dismissed the petition based on petitioner's failure to follow the documentary requirements of the habeas corpus statutes. Following our review, we affirm the summary dismissal of the petition. |
Lake | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joseph Meadows
The Defendant, Joseph Meadows, was indicted for initiating the process of the manufacture of methamphetamine, possession of methamphetamine, and possession of drug paraphernalia. The Defendant filed a pretrial motion to suppress the evidence seized during the warrantless search of his home. The trial court denied the Defendant’s motion, and the Defendant pleaded guilty to initiating the process of the manufacture of methamphetamine, in return for the dismissal of the remaining counts and an eight-year sentence to be served on supervised probation. The Defendant reserved a certified question of law pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2) as to whether the search of his home by law enforcement was lawful. After review, we conclude that the search was lawful and thus, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Dickson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Charles Allen McKinney
A Lincoln County jury convicted the Defendant, Charles Allen McKinney, of second-degree murder, child abuse, and child neglect. The trial court merged the convictions for child abuse and child neglect and then sentenced the Defendant to serve twenty-four years for the second-degree murder conviction and a concurrent sentence of two years for the merged child abuse and child neglect conviction, for a total effective sentence of twenty-four years. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that the trial court erred when it admitted evidence of a prior finding of “severe child abuse” and that there is insufficient evidence to support the child abuse and neglect convictions. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgments in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings. |
Lincoln | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Paul E. Isaac v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Paul E. Isaac, appeals as of right from the Knox County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his guilty-pled convictions for two counts of aggravated assault, attempted aggravated robbery, and misdemeanor assault. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that trial counsel was ineffective because he was not adequately prepared for trial, and the Petitioner’s lack of confidence in trial counsel led him to plead guilty. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kenyale Pirtle
Defendant, Kenyale Pirtle, appeals from the trial court’s summary dismissal of his two motions filed pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1. One motion pertained to case numbers 5168 and 5277. Although appellant listed these case numbers in his notice of appeal, he has made no argument concerning the trial court’s summary dismissal of this motion. The other motion pertains to case numbers 4841, 4940, and 4996. Defendant argues that the trial court erred by summarily dismissing this motion. All challenged sentences have expired. In light of State v Brown, ____ S.W.3d _____, No. E2014-00673-SC-R11-CD, (Tenn., filed Dec. 2, 2015) we affirm the judgments of the trial court pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee. |
Haywood | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Bailey
Michael Bailey (“the Defendant”) was convicted by a jury of one count of aggravated robbery in case number 09-02888. At a subsequent sentencing hearing for case number 09-02888 and six other case numbers, the Defendant was sentenced as a repeat, violent offender to seven sentences of life without the possibility of parole. The trial ordered the Defendant's life without parole sentence in 09-02888 to run consecutively to one of the other life without parole sentences. On appeal, the Defendant argues that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction in case number 09-02888 and (2) the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered partial consecutive sentences. After a review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In re Estate of Nathleene C. Skinner
At issue in this appeal is whether the attorney-in-fact for Nathleene Skinner, the decedent, had the authority to incur post-mortem legal fees to defend an action by the decedent’s step-children to recover the cremated remains of their father, Roy Skinner. After Mr. Skinner died, his body was cremated, and Mrs. Skinner retained possession of his remains until her death. When Mrs. Skinner died, her body was also cremated, and her attorney-in-fact took possession of both her remains and her husband’s remains. While Mrs. Skinner’s estate was being administered in the probate court, the stepchildren of the decedent, the children of Roy Skinner, commenced a separate civil action to recover their father’s remains from the decedent’s attorney-in-fact. The estate of Mrs. Skinner was not brought into the action. The attorney-in-fact hired the plaintiff to represent him in the action to recover Mr. Skinner’s remains. After the action to recover the remains of Mr. Skinner was dismissed, the plaintiff filed a motion in the probate court to require Mrs. Skinner’s estate to pay his attorney’s fees. The executor of Mrs. Skinner’s estate opposed the motion. Following a hearing, the trial court denied the motion because there was “an insufficient showing that such fees were reasonable, necessary or for the benefit of this Estate.” The plaintiff appealed. We affirm the probate court’s determination that the services rendered by the plaintiff did not inure to the benefit of the estate of Mrs. Skinner. We have also determined that Mrs. Skinner did not grant her attorney-in-fact any post-mortem authority pertaining to her husband’s remains; therefore, her attorney-in-fact did not have the legal right to incur legal fees on her behalf to defend a civil action regarding Mr. Skinner’s remains. Accordingly, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals |