State of Tennessee v. Christopher Farrow
The Petitioner, Christopher Farrow, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the trial court erred by summarily dismissing his motion. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Board of Professional Responsibility v. Connie Reguli
|
Williamson | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Victor Dyson
The Defendant-Appellant, Victor Dyson, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of two counts of aggravated assault and one count of theft of property valued at less than five hundred dollars. As a Range III, persistent offender, he was sentenced to fifteen years, eleven months and twenty-nine days in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant-Appellant argues: (1) the trial court erred in admitting evidence of prior bad acts in violation of Tennessee Rules of Evidence 403 and 404(b); (2) the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the law of self-defense; (3) the trial court erred by denying the Defendant-Appellant's motion for new trial based on insufficient evidence; (4) the trial court erred in denying the Defendant-Appellant's motion for a mistrial after the prosecutor referred to the trial court's refusal to instruct on self-defense; and (5) the trial court committed cumulative errors which, taken together, denied the Defendant-Appellant his constitutional right to a fair trial. Upon our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ceola Johnson, individually and on behalf of Willie Johnson, Jr. v. UHS of Lakeside, LLC
Plaintiff filed a health care liability action on behalf of her deceased husband. Plaintiff provided pre-suit notice more than one year after the cause of action accrued and subsequently filed a complaint. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss based on the applicable one-year statute of limitations. Plaintiff argued that her husband had been “adjudicated incompetent” within the meaning of Tennessee Code Annotated Section 28-1-106 and that the statute of limitations was accordingly tolled. The trial court dismissed Plaintiff's case with prejudice finding that the statute unambiguously required a judicial adjudication of incompetency in order to toll the statute of limitations, and Plaintiff's husband had not been judicially adjudicated incompetent within the meaning of the statute at the time the cause of action accrued. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In re Kyah H. et al.
Marshall H. (“Father”) appeals the judgment of the Juvenile Court for Knox County (“the Trial Court”) terminating his parental rights to the minor children, Kyah H., Marshall C., and Jhazaria T. (collectively “the Children”), on the grounds of abandonment by wanton disregard pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 36-1-113(g)(1) and 36-1-102(1)(A)(iv), and severe child abuse pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(4). We find and hold that the evidence does not preponderate against the Trial Court's findings made by clear and convincing evidence that grounds for termination were proven and that termination was in the best interest of the Children, and we affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Deangelo White v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Deangelo White, was convicted of two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, two counts of aggravated robbery, one count of aggravated burglary, one count of evading arrest, and one count of simple possession. He received an effective sentence of forty years. The convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. Petitioner sought post-conviction relief on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. After a review, we determine that Petitioner has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he is entitled to post-conviction relief. Accordingly, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jerome Sanders
Defendant, Jerome Sanders, was indicted for first degree murder, first degree felony murder, and especially aggravated robbery for his role in the robbery and shooting death of Martin Webster in Memphis in 2010. A jury found Defendant guilty as charged. The trial court merged the first degree murder conviction with the felony murder conviction and sentenced Defendant to life in prison for the felony murder conviction and to twenty-five years for the especially aggravated robbery conviction. The sentences were ordered to be served consecutively. In this direct appeal, Defendant raises twelve issues for review: (1) whether the trial court erred by denying a motion to dismiss the indictment based on the State's failure to preserve potentially exculpatory evidence; (2) whether the trial court erred by denying the motion to suppress Defendant's statement; (3) whether the trial court erred in denying a motion to recuse; (4) whether the trial court improperly admitted evidence of admissions made by Defendant; (5) whether the trial court improperly prevented a psychological expert from testifying at trial; (6) whether the trial court improperly admitted evidence of Defendant's prior bad acts in violation of Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b); (7) whether the trial court erred by allowing the State to admit evidence of an alleged oral statement of Defendant that was not provided to Defendant in discovery; (8) whether the trial court's actions resulted in a violation of Defendant's right to confrontation; (9) whether the State committed prosecutorial misconduct in its closing argument; (10) whether the trial court erred by refusing to grant a new trial when there was a juror asleep during trial; (11) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; and (12) whether cumulative error requires the reversal of his convictions. After a review of the evidence and authorities, we determine Defendant is not entitled to relief. Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Travis Boyd and Rodriccus Funzie
Appellants, Travis Boyd and Rodriccus Funzie, were jointly indicted and tried for first degree murder. Upon verdicts of guilty as to each appellant, the trial court imposed a mandatory sentence of life in prison. Appealing their convictions, both appellants challenge the sufficiency of the convicting evidence and the trial court's admission of recorded jail conversations. Appellant Boyd challenges the trial court's ruling allowing testimony concerning an altercation between Boyd and the victim that occurred on the Saturday night prior to the murder; the admission of evidence gathered during the course of Boyd's allegedly illegal forty-eight-hour hold; the trial court's ruling allowing identifications of Boyd by five witnesses; and the State's failure to provide complete discovery. Appellant Funzie challenges the trial court's admission of two witnesses' statements as substantive evidence. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Melinda Dolman, et al. v. Timothy Donovan MD, et al.
This is a healthcare liability action arising from the death of the decedent, Melinda Dolman. Appellants, daughters of the decedent, filed this action against Appellees, Timothy Donovan, M.D., Brixey Shelton, M.D., Memphis Vascular Center, Memphis Radiological, P.C., and Memphis LeBonheur Healthcare. Appellees moved to dismiss the action for failure to comply with the notice requirement of Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-121. Specifically, Appellees challenged whether the medical authorization provided with the pre-suit notice letter was compliant with Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-121(a)(2)(E). Following a hearing on the motion, the trial court agreed with Appellees and dismissed the action. Appellants timely appealed. We affirm and remand. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Christine (Gomez) Chambers v. Salomon Gomez, Jr.
Because the order appealed is not a final judgment, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Therefore, we dismiss this appeal. |
Fayette | Court of Appeals | |
Julie Marie Chumley v. Randall Edward Chumley
Wife and Husband were divorced, and the trial court awarded Wife alimony in futuro as well as alimony in solido. Husband appealed the trial court’s awards, and we affirm. We also award Wife the reasonable attorney’s fees she incurred defending Husband’s appeal pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-5-103(c). |
Court of Appeals | ||
Hilda Wilis, Et. Vir. v. McDonald's Restaurants of Tennessee, Inc.
This is a premises liability case in which the plaintiffs filed suit against the defendant, alleging that Hilda Willis slipped and fell on the floor after entering the defendant’s dining establishment. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that the plaintiffs could not prove the cause of the fall or that its employees had notice of the dangerous condition prior to the fall. The trial court agreed and granted the motion for summary judgment. The plaintiffs appeal. We affirm. |
Greene | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Carla R. Richter
A Maury County Circuit Court Jury convicted the Appellant, Carla R. Richter, of driving under the influence (DUI), fourth offense; driving on a revoked license; and speeding. The trial court imposed a total effective sentence of four years. On appeal, the Appellant contends that the trial court erred by denying her motion to suppress, arguing that she did not knowingly and voluntarily consent to a blood test. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Michael Webster v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Michael Webster, appeals as of right from the Davidson County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that his trial counsel was ineffective in the following ways: (1) she failed to inform him of his preliminary hearing and waived his right to appear without his permission; (2) she did not adequately communicate with him; (3) she did not consult with him to develop a “reasonable” trial strategy; (4) she did not fully investigate or present witnesses; (5) she did not request a mistrial following “possible jury panel contamination”; and (6) she failed to make appropriate objections during his cross-examination. Following our review, we conclude that the Petitioner is not entitled to relief, and the judgment of the post-conviction court is therefore affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Gary Lee Steele, et al. v. Primehealth Medical Center, PC, et al.
This is a premises liability case. A delivery person fell on a sidewalk outside the place of business where he was delivering an order. He and his wife sued the business and its owner for negligence, claiming that the condition of the sidewalk was unreasonably dangerous. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, concluding that the plaintiffs presented insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the sidewalk was unreasonably dangerous. For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Antwon Thomas
A Shelby County Criminal Court Jury convicted the appellant, Antwon Thomas, of assault by bodily injury and domestic assault, Class A misdemeanors. The trial court sentenced the appellant to eleven months, twenty-nine days for each conviction to be served as two years on probation and merged the convictions. On appeal, the appellant contends that the trial court committed plain error by failing to admit the entire recording of the victim's 911 call into evidence, that the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions, that the trial court committed plain error by making improper comments on the evidence, that the trial court committed plain error by refusing to allow him to sit at counsel's table, and that the trial court committed various sentencing errors, including rendering him infamous. Based upon the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court but remand the case to correct a clerical error in the judgment for count three rendering the appellant infamous. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Elvis Strickland
The defendant, Elvis Strickland, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of aggravated arson, a Class A felony, and was sentenced to forty years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ziberia Marico Carero
Defendant, Ziberia Marico Carero, was charged in a presentment by the Knox County Grand Jury in Count One with possession of cocaine in a school zone with intent to sell; in Count Two with possession of cocaine in a school zone with intent to deliver; in Count Three with sale of cocaine; and in Count Four with delivery of cocaine for his role in a sale of cocaine to a confidential informant. Defendant was also charged in Count Five with a criminal gang offense enhancement pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-121. After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of the charges in Counts One through Four. In a bifurcated trial, the jury found Defendant not guilty of the criminal gang offense enhancement. The trial court merged Count Two into Count One and merged Count Four into Count Three. The trial court sentenced Defendant to concurrent sentences of twenty-three years and eighteen years. On appeal, Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and his sentences. Defendant also argues that the trial court improperly refused to merge all four of the convictions into a single conviction. After a review of the record, we determine that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions. However, we conclude that the multiple convictions violate double jeopardy principles and, therefore, should have been merged into one conviction for possession of cocaine in a school zone with the intent to sell. As a result, we merge all four convictions into Count One and remand the matter for entry of separate, corrected judgment forms for Counts One through Four in light of the supreme court‟s recent order in State v. Marquize Berry, No. W2014-00785-SC-R11-CD, 2015 WL _____ (Tenn. Nov. 16, 2015) (per curiam order). |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kendall McKenzie Kin Eayrs
Following the denial of her motion to suppress, the Defendant-Appellant, Kendall McKenzie Kin Eayrs, entered a guilty plea to driving under the influence, reserving three certified questions of law challenging the legality of her stop. Because the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress after holding that the officer had probable cause or reasonable suspicion to stop Eayrs's vehicle for being illegally parked in a turn lane, we reverse the judgment of the trial court, vacate Eayrs's guilty plea, and dismiss the indictment. |
Sevier | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kendall McKenzie Kin Eayrs - concurring in results
TIMOTHY L. EASTER, J., concur. Because of the manner in which the trial court terminated the presentation of evidence at the suppression hearing, I am hemmed in and must reluctantly agree with the majority. |
Sevier | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee Ex Rel. Herbert H. Slatery, III, Attorney General and Reporter v. Seniortrust of Florida, Inc.
The Attorney General brought a judicial dissolution action against two nonprofit public benefit corporations. The main issue in this appeal is the scope of the Attorney General’s authority to determine the use of the funds remaining after the dissolution of these two nonprofit corporations and the payment of all of their debts. Finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision to reject the Attorney General’s proposed plan for the distribution of the nonprofits’ remaining funds, we affirm the trial court’s decision. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Wright Brothers Construction Company, Inc. v. State of Tennessee
Construction company bid on a state project that involved disposing of waste dirt from a construction site. Documents prepared by the Tennessee Department of Transportation (“TDOT”) identified nearby property that had a wet weather conveyance on it. The construction company made arrangements with the property owner to dump waste dirt on the neighboring property, and based on this anticipated cost, the construction company submitted a bid for the project. Before the State accepted the construction company’s bid, the wet weather conveyance was reclassified by the Tennessee Department of Environment & Conservation as a stream. This change in classification meant that the construction company was no longer able to dump waste dirt on the neighboring property. TDOT learned of the reclassification prior to accepting the construction company’s bid, and it changed the project plans after it awarded the project to the construction company. The construction company incurred unexpected costs and delays as a result of the reclassification of the wet weather conveyance, but the State refused to compensate it as the construction company asserts the contract required. The construction company filed a breach of contract complaint against the State with the Tennessee Claims Commission, which the State moved to dismiss on the basis that the Commission lacked subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim. The construction company then moved to amend its complaint to add a claim for the negligent preparation of plans. The Commission granted the State’s motion to dismiss and denied the motion to amend, and the construction company appeals. We reverse the Commission’s judgment that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the breach of contract claim, but we affirm its judgment denying the construction company’s motion to amend. |
Court of Appeals | ||
Dean Logan v. Tracie McCormick, Inc., et al
This case concerns injuries arising from two separate incidents. The employee, a truck driver, was involved in a motor vehicle accident on May 13, 2008. He alleged that he sustained injuries to his neck, mid-back, lower back, right shoulder and left knee as a result of that event. On July 12, 2012, he injured his left shoulder when he slipped while exiting his truck. His employer admitted the compensability of all of the injuries except the lower back, contending that the employee’s lower back problems pre-existed the accident. The trial court ruled that the back injury was compensable and awarded 80.5% permanent partial disability benefits for the combined injuries. The employer has appealed, asserting that the preponderance of the evidence does not prove that the back injury was compensable. 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. |
Rutherford | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Susan Weaver Jones v. Knox County Board of Education, et al.
This appeal concerns a tenured teacher's challenge to her transfer to a different job position. Susan Weaver-Jones (“Jones”) sued the Knox County Board of Education (“the Board”) and Dr. James McIntyre (“McIntyre”), Superintendent of Knox County Schools, (“Defendants,” collectively) in the Chancery Court for Knox County (“the Trial Court”). Jones alleged that her transfer from Instructional Coach to classroom teacher was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6). The Trial Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss. Jones appealed to this Court. We hold that Jones' complaint asserted a claim upon which relief could be granted, and that the Trial Court erred in granting Defendants' motion to dismiss. We reverse the judgment of the Trial Court and remand this case for further proceedings. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Federal National Mortgage Association v. Danny O. Daniels
This appeal arises from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff in an unlawful detainer action. The property at issue was sold in a foreclosure sale, and the purchaser assigned its interest in the property to Plaintiff. Plaintiff filed this unlawful detainer action seeking possession of the property from Defendant. The General Sessions Court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff, and Defendant appealed to the Circuit Court. In the Circuit Court, Defendant asserted that the property was wrongfully foreclosed because he was not in default at the time foreclosure proceedings were initiated. The Circuit Court granted summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff, and Defendant appealed. We affirm. |
Haywood | Court of Appeals |