State of Tennessee v. Terrell Smith
The defendant, Terrell Smith, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of attempted voluntary manslaughter, a Class D felony; possession of a firearm on school property, a Class E felony; and employment of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, a Class C felony. He was sentenced to an effective term of eight years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues that: (1) the trial court erred in allowing the victim to display scars from his gunshot wounds to the jury; (2) the State committed prosecutorial misconduct by introducing evidence of the defendant's prior conviction for unlawful possession of a weapon via cross-examination of his mother and the court should have, thus, declared a mistrial; and (3) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction for attempted voluntary manslaughter. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Rodney Glover v. Tennessee Department of Correction, et al.
This appeal involves the dismissal of a petition for a writ of certiorari filed by a prison inmate. The prisoner raises several issues regarding violations of the Tennessee Department of Correction's (TDOC) uniform disciplinary procedures. The prisoner was found guilty of refusing to participate in his assigned educational class. After exhausting his administrative appeals, he filed an application for a writ of certiorari in the trial court. The trial court granted the writ of certiorari, and upon review of the record, granted the TDOC's motion to dismiss. The prisoner now appeals. Finding no error, we affirm. |
Hardeman | Court of Appeals | |
Steven Tucker v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Steven Tucker, was convicted of theft of property valued at $1,000 or more but less than $10,000, a Class D felony, and was sentenced to twelve years as a career offender. State v. Steven Van Tucker, No. W2010-01943-CCA-R3-CD, 2012 WL 1478774, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 25, 2012). This court affirmed his convictions on direct appeal. Id. Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief, and he now appeals the post-conviction court's denial of relief. Petitioner argues that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated when law enforcement entered a home, which did not belong to petitioner, with only an arrest warrant for the petitioner and that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the search. Following our thorough review of the record, the parties' briefs, and the applicable law, we dismiss petitioner's appeal as untimely. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Timothy Curtis Greeman
The defendant, Timothy Curtis Greenman, appeals his Tipton County Circuit Court jury convictions of aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, and facilitation of burglary of a motor vehicle, claiming that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions and that the trial court erred by admitting certain evidence at trial. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Tipton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Mitch Goree, et al. v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
This appeal involves two employees‘ claims of racial discrimination and retaliation pursuant to the Tennessee Human Rights Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-21-101, et seq. After a five-day jury trial, the jury found in favor of both employees on their claims of racial discrimination and retaliation for engaging in protected activity. The jury awarded one employee $2,600,000 and the other employee $2,042,000 in back pay, benefits, and compensatory damages. The trial judge granted the employer‘s motion for remittitur of the jury verdict and suggested remittitur of the awards to $1,225,933.33 and $676,000, respectively. The plaintiffs accepted the remittitur under protest. The employer appeals, claiming that the trial court should have granted its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict because the plaintiffs failed to establish essential elements of their claims. Alternatively, the employer argues that a new trial is necessary due to erroneous jury instructions. The employees argue that the trial court erred in reducing the jury verdict. For the following reasons, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Juan Villa
The Defendant, Juan Villa, was found guilty by a Bradley County Criminal Court jury of aggravated child abuse, a Class A felony. See T.C.A. § 39-15-402 (2014). The trial court sentenced the Defendant to twenty-three years' confinement at 100% service as a violent offender. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction, (2) the trial court erred by denying his motion for a mistrial, and (3) his sentence is excessive. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Bradley | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jonathan Mackey v. Elizabeth Anne Mayfield
Father, the primary residential parent with substantially more parenting time, sought to relocate to Wisconsin with the parties’ minor son. After learning that Father was about to relocate, Mother filed a petition in opposition to the relocation alleging that she had not received notice of Father’s intent to relocate as required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-108(a) and contending that relocation was not for a reasonable purpose and not in the child’s best interest. After a hearing on the issue of notice, the trial court found that Mother received certified mail from Father more than 30 days prior to commencing this action, but it did not contain notice of Father’s intent to relocate; thus, the court allowed Mother’s challenge to the relocation to proceed. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-6-108(g). Following a two-day trial on Mother’s petition, the court found that the testimony of Father and his wife was not credible, that Father did not have a reasonable purpose to relocate, and that relocation was not in the child’s best interest. The court also entered an order prohibiting Father from relocating with the child and designating Mother as the primary residential parent. Father appealed, contending that the trial court erred when it found that Mother had not received notice of his intent to relocate, and that the relocation did not have a reasonable purpose and was not in the child’s best interest. Because the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s findings, we affirm the judgment of the trial court in all respects. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Melissa A. Phillips v. Burns Phillips et al.
This is an unemployment compensation case. The employee filed a claim for benefits following her termination from her employer. The Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development granted the claim. The Appeals Tribunal reversed the decision, finding that the employee was ineligible for benefits pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-7-303(a)(1)(A). The Board of Review upheld the reversal. The employee filed a petition for judicial review, and the trial court reversed the decision. The employer and the Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development appeal. We affirm the trial court. |
Cumberland | Court of Appeals | |
Timothy Eugene Kelly v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Timothy Eugene Kelly, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. Based upon our review, we affirm the denial of the petition. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Cortney R. Logan
The Defendant-Appellant, Cortney R. Logan, and his co-defendant, Joseph Leon Jackson, Jr., were indicted by the Davidson County Grand Jury for attempted first degree premeditated murder in count 1 and employment of a firearm during the flight or escape from the attempt to commit a dangerous felony in count 3. Although Logan was not charged in count 2 of the indictment, Jackson was charged in count 2 with employing a firearm during the attempt to commit a dangerous felony. Following a jury trial, Logan was convicted as charged, and the trial court imposed mandatory consecutive sentences of twenty-five years for the attempted first degree murder conviction and six years for the employment of a firearm during the flight or escape conviction. On appeal, Logan argues: (1) the trial court erred in allowing the State to present proof of his role in Jackson’s escape from custody in Mississippi to show Logan’s motive and intent to commit the offenses in Tennessee under a theory of criminal responsibility; (2) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions; and (3) his effective sentence of thirty-one years is excessive. Upon review, we affirm Logan’s convictions but remand the case for entry of a corrected judgment showing a conviction for employment of a firearm during the flight or escape from the attempt to commit a dangerous felony in count 3 and either redacting the word “Violent” and leaving the 100% release eligibility designation or using the “Special Conditions” section of the judgment form to specify that Logan received a sentence of six years at one hundred percent release eligibility for his conviction under Code section 39-17-1324(b)(4). In all other respects, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Adam Ellithorpe, et al. v. Janet Weismark
We granted review in this health care liability action to decide whether the trial court erred by failing to apply this Court’s analysis in Estate of French v. Stratford House, 333 S.W.3d 546 (Tenn. 2011), in determining whether it was necessary for plaintiffs to provide pre-suit notice and a certificate of good faith under the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act (“THCLA”), Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-101 et seq. We hold that the Tennessee Civil Justice Act of 2011, which amended the THCLA, statutorily abrogated our decision in Estate of French by providing that “[a]ny such civil action or claim is subject to [the THCLA] regardless of any other claims, causes of action, or theories of liability alleged in the complaint.” Because it is undisputed that the plaintiffs in this case failed to provide pre-suit notice or file a certificate of good faith, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the judgment of the trial court dismissing the plaintiffs’ complaint with prejudice is reinstated. |
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
Michael Watson v. Karla Myers
In this post-divorce dispute, Father argues that the trial court erred in failing to make him the primary residential parent because of Mother’s alleged failure to facilitate a close relationship between Father and the child. The trial court found a material change in circumstances, but concluded that a change in the primary residential parent was not in the best interest of the child. We affirm because the evidence does not preponderate against the decision of the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
In re Nolan G., et al.
Two children came into the custody of the Department of Children’s Services in July 2012 after members of their extended family made allegations that their parents were abusing them. The children were adjudicated dependent and neglected, and subsequently, the Department instituted proceedings to terminate the parental rights of both parents. After a hearing, the court held that the parents had willfully abandoned their children by failure to support, substantial non-compliance, and persistence of conditions. Mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the Juvenile Court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In re Jaylah W., et al.
In this termination of parental rights case, Mother appeals the trial court’s findings of the following grounds for termination: abandonment for failure to provide a suitable home; abandonment by an incarcerated parent; abandonment by willful failure to visit; abandonment by willful failure to support; substantial noncompliance with the permanency plans; and the persistence of conditions. Mother also appeals the trial court’s conclusion that termination was in the children’s best interest. We reverse as to the trial court’s findings of abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home and abandonment by an incarcerated parent. We vacate the trial court’s findings of abandonment by willful failure to support and substantial noncompliance with the permanency plans due to the trial court’s failure to make specific findings of fact. We affirm the trial court’s findings of abandonment by willful failure to visit and persistence of conditions. We also affirm the trial court’s finding that termination is in the best interest of the children. Accordingly, we affirm the termination of Mother’s parental rights. |
Chester | Court of Appeals | |
The Bank of New York Mellon v. Littleton Price
Because the order appealed is not a final judgment, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Therefore, we dismiss this appeal. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Sandra Zoe Jeanette Naylor v. William Lee Naylor
Because the order appealed is not a final judgment, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Therefore, we dismiss this appeal. |
Hardin | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Gary Mitchell Hestand
The Defendant-Appellant, Gary Mitchell Hestand, was convicted by a Clay County jury of assault upon a law enforcement officer, a Class A misdemeanor, and resisting arrest, a Class B misdemeanor. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days, suspended to supervised probation. On appeal, the Defendant argues that: (1) the trial court erred by refusing to grant a new trial based on destroyed evidence; (2) the trial court erred by not allowing the Defendant to deploy a taser for demonstrative purposes; (3) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions; (4) the trial court erred by not setting reasonable time limits for the length of the trial days; and (5) the trial court abused its discretion in not dismissing a biased juror for cause. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial courrt. |
Clay | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Adrian Marcel Newbill
The defendant, Adrian Marcel Newbill, was convicted by a Marshall County Circuit Court jury of the possession of 26 grams or more of cocaine, a Schedule II controlled substance, with the intent to sell/deliver, a Class B felony, and was sentenced by the trial court as a Range I, standard offender to twelve years in the Department of Correction. The defendant raises two issues on appeal: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain his conviction, and (2) whether the trial court imposed an excessive sentence. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Willie Nolan
The Defendant, Willie Nolan, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of attempted reckless endangerment, aggravated assault, reckless aggravated assault, felony reckless endangerment, and vandalism. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-12-101, -13-102, -14-408. After merging the attempted reckless endangerment conviction into the aggravated assault conviction, the trial court imposed a total effective sentence of twenty-seven years. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends that (1) the trial court erred by allowing the prosecution to enter as substantive evidence the unsigned statement of a witness in violation of Tennessee Rule of Evidence 803(26); and (2) there was insufficient evidence to support the convictions for aggravated assault, reckless aggravated assault, and felony reckless endangerment. After careful review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Brenda Woods
The Defendant, Brenda Woods, was convicted by a McNairy County Circuit Court jury of three counts of procuring an illegal vote. See T.C.A. §2-19-117 (2014). The trial court sentenced the Defendant to two years to be served on community corrections. On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to support her convictions; (2) her convictions violate double jeopardy; (3) the trial court erroneously admitted irrelevant evidence; and (4) the prosecutor made improper statements during closing argument. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
McNairy | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Donna Marie Chartrand
The Defendant, Donna Marie Chartrand, was charged in the Circuit Court for Gibson County with conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine, promotion of the manufacture of methamphetamine, felony possession of drug paraphernalia, and misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia. See T.C.A. §§ 39-17-417(a)(1) (Supp. 2012) (amended 2014) (manufacture of methamphetamine); 39-12-103 (2014) (conspiracy); 39-17-433(a)(1) (2014) (promotion of methamphetamine manufacture); 39-17-425(b)(1) (Supp. 2012) (felony possession of drug paraphernalia); 39-17-425 (Supp. 2012) (misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia). In this interlocutory appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying her motion to suppress the evidence seized during the search of her home, arguing that the search warrant was not supported by probable cause. We reverse the order of the trial court and remand the case for further proceedings in which the evidence obtained pursuant to the invalid warrant is suppressed. |
Gibson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Alison Briars
The Defendant, Alison Briars, pleaded guilty in the Shelby County Criminal Court to cruelty to animals, a Class A misdemeanor, with the length and manner of service of the sentence to be determined by the trial court. See T.C.A. § 39-14-202 (2014). The court sentenced the Defendant to eleven months and twenty-nine days, with sixty days’ confinement and the remainder to be served on supervised probation. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court (1) erred in denying judicial diversion and (2) abused its discretion by not sentencing her to full probation. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In re Chase R.
This is a Title IV-D child support case. Father/Appellant appeals the trial court's modification of his child support obligation on grounds that: (1) the Juvenile Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to modify the Circuit Court's child support order; and (2) the trial court erred in applying the Child Support Rules and Regulations in calculating Appellant's monthly child support obligation. Appellant also appeals the trial court's award of attorney's fees in this case. Discerning no error, we affirm and remand. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Morgan Moore v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Morgan Moore, entered guilty pleas to first degree murder and criminal responsibility for first degree murder for his involvement in the murders of his parents. He received concurrent sentences of life in prison. He thereafter filed a timely petition for post-conviction relief alleging that trial counsel failed to properly inform him of the nature and consequences of his guilty pleas, specifically, the length of a life sentence, and that as a result, his guilty pleas were not entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. Following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief, and this appeal follows. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jacob Dale Gormsen
The defendant, Jacob Dale Gormsen, pled guilty to one count of driving under the influence, a Class A misdemeanor, in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-10-401 (2010). He reserved a certified question challenging the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress. The defendant asserts that his encounter with law enforcement was not consensual and that law enforcement had no probable cause or reasonable suspicion to initiate an investigatory stop after discovering him unconscious in a running vehicle on the road. We conclude that the interaction between the defendant and the officer began as a consensual police-citizen encounter and that the officer possessed reasonable suspicion at the point that the interaction became an investigatory stop. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of the motion to suppress. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals |