Stephen Leon Kelley v. Kenneth D. Varner et al.
Stephen Leon Kelley (“Plaintiff”) filed suit seeking, among other things, to have the 1958 divorce decree of Mary Joyce Long Kelley v. Joseph Gordon Kelley, Jr. (“the Divorce Decree”) set aside so that Plaintiff could be declared one of only two heirs at law of Mary Joyce Long Kelley (“Deceased”) entitled to inherit by intestacy. The Chancery Court for Hamilton County (“the Trial Court”) dismissed Plaintiff’s suit pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, among other things. Plaintiff appeals to this Court. We find and hold that Plaintiff’s collateral attack upon the Divorce Decree cannot be sustained because the Divorce Decree is not void upon its face. We, therefore, affirm the Trial Court’s order dismissing Plaintiff’s suit. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Santos Castillo Mechado v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Santos Castillo Mechado, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his 2013 convictions for kidnapping and attempted aggravated robbery. The Petitioner contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Metropolitan Development and Housing Agency v. Howard Allen, Jr.
A former tenant of Metropolitan Development and Housing Agency (“MDHA”) appeals the decision of the circuit court dismissing the case for failure to prosecute pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 41.02(1). We have concluded that the trial court erred in dismissing the case for failure to prosecute. The order is reversed and the matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Metropolitan Development and Housing Agency v. Howard Allen, Jr. -Dissent
I agree with the majority’s conclusion that the circumstances in this case do not warrant dismissal for failure to prosecute. However, because I find other grounds for dismissal from the record, I respectfully dissent. See Cont’l Cas. Co. v. Smith, 720 S.W.2d 48, 50 (Tenn. 1986). (stating Court of Appeals may affirm a judgment on a different ground than that relied upon by the trial court when the correct result was reached). |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Eva L. Hines v. Terence J. Hines
This is a divorce case. Eva L. Hines (Wife) filed a complaint for divorce from Terence J. Hines (Husband) while he was incarcerated in Arkansas. Husband was released from prison several days before the scheduled date of trial. Before and after his release, Husband asked that the case be continued so he could secure an attorney. On the original trial date, the court granted Husband’s request and continued the case for two weeks. On the morning of the rescheduled trial date, Husband called and advised the court that he would be late; in response, he was told that trial would begin as scheduled. Husband did not appear at the courthouse in time for the trial. The trial proceeded in his absence, and the court entered a final divorce decree. Husband filed a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02 motion requesting that the court set aside the final decree, which he says substantively amounts to a default judgment. He seeks a new trial. The court denied his motion. Husband appeals. We affirm the trial court’s judgment denying his Rule 60 motion |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Fredrick Sledge v. Tennessee Department of Correction, et al
Fredrick Sledge (Petitioner), an inmate in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Correction (TDOC), challenges TDOC’s calculation of his release eligibility date. The chancery court (the trial court) granted TDOC summary judgment, finding that “the undisputed facts and law establish [Petitioner’s] sentence has been correctly calculated.” Because the criminal court’s order sentencing Petitioner awarded him 3,521 days of pretrial jail credit, while TDOC’s calculation of his release eligibility was based upon only 516 days of credit, there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding the correct calculation of his release eligibility date. We vacate the trial court’s summary judgment and remand for further proceedings. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
James Arthur Johnson v. State of Tennessee
A Davidson County jury found the Petitioner, James Arthur Johnson, guilty of two counts of first degree felony murder and one count of aggravated robbery. The trial court sentenced the Petitioner to a total effective sentence of life plus eleven years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, this Court affirmed the Petitioner’s convictions and sentence. State v. James Arthur Johnson, No. M2009-01147-CCA-R3-CD, 2010 WL 3323796, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Aug. 24, 2010), perm. app. denied (Tenn. August 24, 2010). The Petitioner filed a petition seeking post-conviction relief based upon his allegation that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. The post-conviction court denied the petition after a hearing. On appeal, after a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Antonio Lamont Scales v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Antonio Lamont Scales, was convicted in Davidson County Criminal Court for the offenses of attempted second degree murder of one victim and reckless aggravated assault of another victim. His co-defendant at trial was convicted of the same offenses. On appeal, Petitioner challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the convictions, the trial court’s failure to provide the “missing witness” instruction to the jury, and the sentences imposed by the trial court. The convictions were affirmed, but the sentences were vacated and the case was remanded for resentencing. See State v. Timothy Washington Lyons and Antonio Lamont Scales, No. M2009-02524-CCA-R3-CD, 2011 WL 300141, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Jan. 18, 2011). After resentencing, no further appeal was instituted by Petitioner. His effective sentence after remand was twenty years, down from twenty-two years originally imposed by the trial court. Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief which was dismissed after an evidentiary hearing. This appeal followed. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Randall T. Beaty
Defendant, Randall T. Beaty, was indicted for first degree felony murder and aggravated child abuse. After a jury trial, he was convicted of reckless homicide and aggravated assault, which were charged to the jury as lesser-included offenses. He received consecutive sentences of four years for reckless homicide and six years for aggravated assault, for an effective ten-year sentence to be served in the Department of Correction. On appeal, Defendant argues: (1) that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; (2) that the trial court erred by allowing Detective Bachman to testify in violation of the rule of sequestration; (3) that the trial court erred by excluding a proffer by Amber Peveler; (4) that the trial court erred in failing to merge his convictions on double jeopardy grounds; and (5) that the trial court erred by ordering consecutive sentencing. As to the alleged violation of the rule of sequestration, we hold, pursuant to State v. Jordan, 325 S.W.3d 1, 40 (Tenn. 2010), that the State had the rightunder Tennessee Rule of Evidence 615 to designate an investigating officer as exempt from sequestration and the designated investigating officer can remain in the courtroom during the testimony of other witnesses. We further conclude that, because the jury was instructed that both knowing or intentional aggravated assault and reckless aggravated assault were lesser-included offenses of aggravated child abuse, but the verdict form listed only aggravated assault without specifying the mens rea with which Defendant acted, Defendant’s conviction for aggravated assault must be reversed and the case remanded for a new trial on the offense of knowing aggravated assault. After a thorough review of the record, we determine that there was no error as to Defendant’s remaining issues and affirm the conviction for reckless homicide and the judgment in all other respects. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kenneth Leigh McPeak
The defendant, Kenneth Leigh McPeak, appeals the revocation of the probationary sentence imposed for his Rutherford County Circuit Court convictions of attempted rape. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John Daniel Simmons
John Daniel Simmons (“the Defendant”) was indicted with two counts of sexual battery by an authority figure after he was alleged to have engaged in illegal sexual touching of K.L. Following a jury trial, the Defendant was convicted as charged. On appeal, the Defendant argues that (1) the trial court erred when it permitted the State to call Daniel Burnell and Tony Pham as witnesses because the State did not give sufficient notice of its intent to call them as witnesses; (2) the trial court erred when it permitted David Estes to testify about hearsay statements made by Dewanna Williams; and (3) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. Upon review of the record and applicable law, we conclude that the trial court committed reversible error when it permitted Mr. Pham to testify after allowing the Defendant only a few minutes in the middle of trial to speak with him. Additionally, we conclude that the trial court committed reversible error when it admitted hearsay within hearsay during Mr. Estes’s testimony. We reverse the judgments of the trial court and remand the case for a new trial. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Khalfani Marion v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Khalfani Marion, was convicted of four counts of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, and one count of especially aggravated kidnapping, a Class A felony. After merger of the four counts of aggravated robbery into two counts of aggravated robbery, the trial court imposed consecutive sentences of twenty years for the especially aggravated kidnapping conviction and nine years for each aggravated robbery conviction. Following petitioner's unsuccessful direct appeal, he filed a petition for post-conviction relief. The post-conviction court held an evidentiary hearing and denied relief. Appealing therefrom, petitioner raises eight instances of ineffective assistance of counsel: (1) whether trial counsel reasonably investigated petitioner's case; (2) whether trial counsel erred in failing to file a motion to sever petitioner's case from his codefendants; (3) whether trial counsel erred by failing to have petitioner sentenced under the 1989 Sentencing Act as written prior to the 2005 amendments; (4) whether trial counsel failed to object to the trial court's decision not to instruct the jury on facilitation; (5) whether trial counsel erred by failing to introduce evidence of petitioner's mental health history; (6) whether trial counsel failed to advise petitioner of the State's plea offer and sentence exposure; (7) whether trial counsel failed to impeach the State's witnesses on their identification of petitioner; and (8) whether trial counsel erred in failing to present mitigating evidence at the sentencing hearing. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Derron Guy
Appellant, Derron Guy, pleaded guilty to two counts of carjacking, one count of aggravated robbery, two counts of employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, one count of attempted carjacking, and one count of possession of a firearm with the intent to go armed during the attempt to commit a felony. Pursuant to the terms of his guilty plea, he received an effective sentence of 22.2 years in confinement. In this motion to correct an illegal sentence, filed pursuant to Rule 36.1 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure, he argues that: (1) his effective sentence extends beyond that permitted by statute; (2) his plea improperly “coupled” different offender ranges within the same proceeding; and (3) the trial court's failure to sever the offenses rendered his sentence illegal. The trial court summarily dismissed the motion for appellant's failure to state a colorable claim. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Vaal Hall, by and through his conservator, Theresa Anne Hall, and Theresa Anne Hall, individually v. Charles L. Owens Jr., et al.
This is an appeal from a trial court’s grant of summary judgment in a negligence case. Defendant’s truck collided with Plaintiff’s car causing Plaintiff serious injuries. Plaintiff sued Defendant for injuries stemming from the accident, which he alleged was proximately caused by Defendant’s negligence. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. It was undisputed that the accident occurred after Plaintiff’s car entered an intersection and proceeded to turn left across a lane of oncoming traffic despite the fact that the traffic signal facing him was red. It was further undisputed that the traffic signal facing Defendant was green as he proceeded into the intersection from the opposite direction in his truck. Traffic cameras installed at the intersection captured video footage of the collision, which was admitted as evidence. Based on the video footage and other undisputed evidence, the trial court determined that no reasonable juror could conclude that Plaintiff was less than 50% at fault. Plaintiff appealed. We affirm. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
James Anthony Burgess v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, James Anthony Burgess, appeals the denial of his petition for writ of error coram nobis. Because Petitioner has not identified any newly discovered evidence, we affirm the decision of the coram nobis court. |
Putnam | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kendra Mahan
The Defendant, Kendra Mahan, appeals as of right from the White County Criminal Court’s revocation of her six-year probationary sentence and order of total incarceration relative to her guilty-pleaded convictions for attempted introduction of contraband into a penal institution, aggravated burglary, and theft of property valued over $500.00 but less than $1,000.00. The Defendant contends that she was not afforded due process because the trial court failed to make sufficient findings of fact. The Defendant also submits that the evidence presented at the revocation hearing was insufficient to establish that a violation of the conditions of her probation—either failure to pay court costs and restitution or a failed drug test—occurred. Following our review, we affirm the trial court’s revocation of the Defendant’s probationary sentence, but we remand for entry of an amended revocation order reflecting credit for time served and for correction of the “original sentence length.” |
White | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Rodney Patterson v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Rodney Patterson, appeals as of right from the Davidson County Criminal Court’s dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. The Petitioner contends that he received ineffective assistance from his trial counsel because (1) trial counsel failed to inform him that his conviction for vandalism of property valued at more than $500 but less than $1,000 was a felony rather than a misdemeanor; and (2) trial counsel failed to inform him that his sentence was to be served consecutively to his sentence for another offense. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Gilberto Canales, Jr.
Defendant, Gilberto Canales, Jr., was indicted for one count of aggravated rape. After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of the lesser-included offense of rape. On appeal, Defendant argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction, that the trial court erred by admitting hearsay evidence, and that the prosecutor committed prosecutorial misconduct by making misleading statements and arguing improperly admitted evidence during closing argument. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Gibson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Frederick Greene v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Frederick Greene, was convicted of first degree (premeditated) murder and received a sentence of life imprisonment. The petitioner appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, he contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. David Jerome Powell
The Defendant-Appellant, David Jerome Powell, entered an open guilty plea to theft of property valued at more than $500 but less than $1000, driving on a cancelled, suspended or revoked license, and driving on a cancelled, suspended or revoked license, third offense, with the trial court to determine the length and manner of service of his sentence. See T.C.A. §§ 39-14-103, 55-50-504. Prior to the sentencing hearing, Powell filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, alleging that he had a constitutional right to a jury trial. The trial court denied the motion, finding no “just and fair reason to allow him to withdraw the plea.” At the sentencing hearing a few days later, the trial court merged the conviction for driving on a cancelled, suspended or revoked license with the conviction for driving on a cancelled, suspended or revoked license, third offense. The court then sentenced Powell to consecutive sentences of six years with a release eligibility of sixty percent for the conviction for theft and eleven months and twenty-nine days for the conviction for driving on a revoked license, third offense, and ordered these sentences served consecutively to sentences Powell had received for three other convictions in other courts. Thereafter, Powell appealed the trial court's denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jonathan Davis v. James M. Holloway, Warden
The petitioner, Jonathan Davis, appeals the summary dismissal of his second petition for writ of habeas corpus, which petition challenged his Maury County Circuit Court jury conviction of attempted aggravated robbery. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Antonio Byrd v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Antonio Byrd, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his motion to reopen his 1999 petition for post-conviction relief. Because the petitioner failed to comply with the statutory requirements for appealing the denial of a motion to reopen a post-conviction petition, we are without jurisdiction to hear the appeal, and the appeal is dismissed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Martha Carter v. David Carter
Father filed a petition to reduce child support. Mother sought to have their almost eighteen-year-old daughter testify that she did not intend to exercise visitation with Father to the extent previously ordered by the court after she turned eighteen. The court refused to let her testify. The trial court used the number of days of parenting time previously ordered in calculating child support instead of zero. The trial court also ordered Mother to pay a portion of Father’s attorney’s fees. Mother appeals these issues. We affirm the trial court as to the testimony of the child and the calculation of child support. We reverse the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Brandon D. Forbes
Aggrieved of his Davidson County Criminal Court jury convictions of two counts of aggravated assault, the defendant, Brandon D. Forbes, appeals, challenging the admission of his prior conviction of aggravated robbery for impeachment purposes, the admission of certain testimony from a State’s witness, and the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Sandra Lee Westberry v. Steve Allen Westberry
This is an interlocutory appeal as of right, pursuant to Rule 10B of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Tennessee, from the denial of a motion to recuse filed by Steve Allen Westberry ("Former Husband") in the parties' post-dissolution modification proceedings. Having reviewed the petition for recusal appeal filed by Former Husband, and finding no error in Trial Court's ruling, we affirm. |
Bradley | Court of Appeals |