S.A.M.D. v. J.P.D.
This is a post-divorce action. The trial court denied Wife's motion to continue, found that she breached the parties' marital dissolution agreement, and credited Husband for amounts he paid for necessaries when calculating Husband's child support arrearage. Wife appeals. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tyrone Leroy Watts
The Defendant, Tyrone L. Watts, appeals his conviction for attempted terrorism. He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and the trial court’s failure to provide complete jury instructions defining what would constitute an “imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.” Following our review, we conclude that the evidence is insufficient to support the Defendant’s conviction for attempted terrorism. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for sentencing on the Defendant’s alternative conviction for disorderly conduct in count one. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Michael White v. Bruce Westbrooks, Warden
The Petitioner, Michael White, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court’s dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief from his 2005 convictions for five counts of rape and his fifty-five-year sentence. The Petitioner contends that the habeas corpus court erred by summarily denying relief. He argues that his convictions are void because his constitutional right to a jury trial was violated by the trial court’s applying erroneous sentencing enhancement factors and that principles of double jeopardy were violated by the court’s merging his convictions. We affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Stanley Bernard Gibson
The defendant, Stanley Bernard Gibson, was charged with the possession of but convicted of facilitation of possession of .5 grams or more of cocaine with intent to deliver within 1000 feet of a drug-free school zone and sentenced, as a Range II, multiple offender, to twelve years at 100%. On appeal, he argues that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict and that the court erred in ordering that he serve his sentence at 100%. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Byron Becton v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Byron Becton, appeals the denial of post-conviction relief from his 2011 Shelby County Criminal Court jury convictions of aggravated rape, claiming that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In re Destaney D. et al.
This is a termination of parental rights action involving two minor children, Destaney D. and Rebekah D. (―the Children‖). In April 2012, the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (―DCS‖) removed the Children from their mother due to her drug use. The Children were allowed to remain in the care of Amy M. and Jeremy M., a married couple with whom the Children had been residing following their mother’s arrest. On February 21, 2014, Amy M. and Jeremy M. (―the Petitioners‖) filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of the Children’s parents. The petition alleged, as a statutory ground for termination, abandonment by willful failure to support. The Petitioners subsequently filed an amended petition alleging the additional statutory ground of persistence of the conditions leading to removal. Despite being properly served with process, the Children’s mother failed to answer the petition or otherwise make an appearance in this matter. The trial court accordingly terminated her parental rights by default judgment entered on July 21, 2014. She is not a party to this appeal. Following a bench trial on the merits, the trial court granted the petition as to the father upon finding that the Petitioners had proven by clear and convincing evidence the grounds of (1) abandonment by willful failure to support and (2) persistence of the conditions leading to removal. The court also found clear and convincing evidence that termination of the father’s parental rights was in the Children’s best interest. The father has appealed. Having determined that the statutory ground of persistence of conditions is inapplicable to the present action, we reverse the trial court’s determination as to this ground. We affirm the trial court’s judgment in all other respects, including the termination of the father’s parental rights. |
Rhea | Court of Appeals | |
In re Kayden H.
This is a termination of parental rights case, focusing on Kayden H., the minor child (“the Child”) of Kristy L. (“Mother”) and Johnathan H. (“Father”). On January 28, 2014, the Child’s paternal grandparents, Linda H. and Donald H. (“Grandparents”), filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of the parents and adopt the Child. Father joined as a co-petitioner in order to consent to the termination of his parental rights. Father is not a party to this appeal. Following a bench trial, the trial court found that grounds existed to terminate the parental rights of Mother upon its finding by clear and convincing evidence that Mother had abandoned the Child by willfully failing to provide support and willfully failing to visit the Child in the four months preceding Mother’s September 2013 incarceration. The court also found by clear and convincing evidence that Mother had abandoned the Child by exhibiting wanton disregard for the Child’s welfare prior to Mother’s incarceration. The court further found by clear and convincing evidence that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in the Child’s best interest. Mother has appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. |
Blount | Court of Appeals | |
In re Jayden B.T.
This is a termination of parental rights case, focusing on Jayden B.T., the minor child (“the Child”) of Jayson T. (“Father”) and Britney B. (“Mother”). On July 2, 2013, the Child's maternal aunt and her husband, with whom the Child had been residing, filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of both parents. Following a bench trial, the trial court found that grounds existed to terminate the parental rights of both parents upon its finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that the parents had abandoned the Child by willfully failing to visit the Child, willfully failing to support the Child, and failing to provide a suitable home. The trial court also found clear and convincing evidence as to both parents of the statutory ground of persistence of the conditions that led to removal of the Child. The court further found, by clear and convincing evidence, that termination of Father's and Mother's parental rights was in the Child's best interest. Father has appealed. We conclude that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that Father abandoned the Child through failing to visit him and therefore reverse the trial court's finding as to that ground. In addition, we determine that the statutory grounds of persistence of the conditions leading to removal and abandonment through failure to provide a suitable home are not applicable to Father, and we therefore reverse the trial court's findings regarding those two grounds. We affirm the trial court's judgment in all other respects, including the termination of Father's parental rights upon the ground of abandonment through willful failure to support the Child.
|
Roane | Court of Appeals | |
In re Gavin G.
This appeal arises from the termination of Father’s parental rights. After Father had not seen the child for over a year-and-a-half, Mother and her husband petitioned to terminate Father’s parental rights. Following a trial, the chancery court found that Father had abandoned the child by willfully failing to visit him. The court also found that the termination of Father’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. Father appeals the court’s determination that he abandoned the child and that the termination of his rights was in the child’s best interest. We affirm. |
Maury | Court of Appeals | |
Administrative Management Resources, LLC v. James G. Neeley
A staff leasing company filed this petition for judicial review of the administrative decision of the Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development (“the Department”). In its decision, the Department determined that the company had illegally transferred employees from one entity to another to acquire a lower unemployment insurance premium rate. We affirm the chancery court’s decision finding substantial and material evidence to support the Department’s determination. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
James T. Patterson v. Lincoln Medical Center
Suit was instituted under the Governmental Tort Liability Act and the Health Care Liability Act against a county-owned hospital four days after the patient gave the hospital notice of a potential health care liability claim. The trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, holding that the patient did not demonstrate extraordinary cause to institute suit prior to the expiration of 60 days from giving notice of his claim under the Health Care Liability Act. Finding that the record does not establish extraordinary cause, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Lincoln | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Poncho Juan Delgado
The Defendant, Poncho Juan Delgado, appeals as of right his jury conviction for first degree premeditated murder. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-202. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the State failed to prove the element of premeditation. The State responds that ample evidence of premeditation was presented. Following our review, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to establish premeditation, and we therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Washington | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Joseph J. Holt v. Trustee of the Willoughby Cumberland Presbyterian Church Cemetary, et al.
Hal H. Lane appeals the May 20, 2014 Declaratory Judgment of the Chancery Court for Greene County (“the Trial Court”). We find and hold that Mr. Lane is not an aggreived party to this judgment and, therefore, lacks standing to appeal the judgment. We, therefore, affirm. |
Greene | Court of Appeals | |
In re: Estate of Georgia Myers Smelcer
Hal H. Lane appeals the May 20, 2014 judgment of the Chancery Court for Greene County (“the Trial Court”) finding and holding, inter alia, that Joseph J. Holt was the person who took care of Georgia Myers Smelcer (“Deceased”) until her death and, therefore, inherited real property known as the Hartshaw Addition pursuant to the Last Will and Testament of Georgia Myers Smelcer. We find and hold that the evidence does not preponderate against the Trial Court’s findings, and we affirm. |
Greene | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Phillip K. Adams
Defendant, Phillip K. Adams, was indicted by the Williamson County Grand Jury for driving under the influence of an intoxicant (DUI), driving while his blood alcohol concentration was .08 percent or more (DUI per se), and DUI, second offense. Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of DUI second offense and sentenced to 11 months and 29 days, to be suspended after serving 60 days in confinement. On appeal, Defendant contends that: 1) the trial court erred by not allowing Defendant to present the expert testimony of his co-worker Travis Adams at trial; 2) the trial court erred by not allowing Defendant to testify as an expert witness at trial; and 3) the trial court deprived Defendant of his right to due process by preventing him from presenting a defense. Having reviewed the record before us and the briefs of the parties, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kenneth Lee Boles
The defendant, Kenneth Lee Boles, was convicted by a Bedford County jury of the introduction of a controlled substance into a penal institution and the possession of a controlled substance in a penal institution, both Class C felonies. After merging the counts into a single conviction, the trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range II, multiple offender to ten years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred by not allowing him to present the testimony of his expert witness and by not instructing the jury on the defense of necessity. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Martez D. Matthews v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Martez D. Matthews, was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. His conviction was affirmed following his direct appeal. State v. Deangelo M. Moody and Martez D. Matthews, No. M2011-01930-CCA-R3-CD, 2013 WL 1932718, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. May 9, 2013), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Oct. 17, 2013). Subsequently, he filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis. The basis for the petition was the claim by a co-defendant, who pled guilty to second degree murder for the killing which resulted in the petitioner’s conviction, that the petitioner was not involved in the crime. Following an evidentiary hearing at which the co-defendant testified that the petitioner did not kill the victim, the court concluded the witness was not truthful in his testimony. Accordingly, the court denied the petition. Following our review, we affirm the order denying the petition. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Mark Thomas Whitten v. Dana Nichole Willis Whitten
Mother appeals from the trial court’s post-divorce determination that a modification of the parenting plan to designate Father as the primary residential parent of their children was in the children’s best interest. Mother contends the trial court erred in considering statements of the parties’ child made outside of court. Mother also contends the trial court erred in its application of the best interests factors set forth in Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-106. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Donnie G. Goodwin, et al v. Jim Bale Construction, LLC
This appeal arises from a construction dispute. Appellants/Homeowners brought suit against Appellee/Builder. Appellants claim that Appellee built their home on uncontrolled fill material, which caused excessive cracking in the garage and the driveway. Appellee contends that Appellants' home was built on virgin soil, rather than fill material as alleged by Appellants. Both sides proffered expert testimony to prove the cause of the cracks. The trial court found Appellee's expert credible and concluded that the home was built on virgin soil. Because the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court's finding on this issue, we affirm this finding. However, we vacate the trial court's award of discretionary costs to Appellees in the amount of $9,210.60 and remand for reconsideration in light of our opinion. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Dominick J. Leonardo v. Ashli Leonardo
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Dominick J. Leonardo v. Ashli Leonardo - Concur/Dissent
I concur in the majority Opinion's ruling with regard to the modification of the parties' parenting plan to allow Father more time with the child. I must, however, dissent from the majority's holding that the trial court did not err in modifying Mother's child support obligation, where no pleadings were filed notifying Mother that the issue would be tried, no opportunity to conduct discovery on the issue, and no opportunity to present evidence to the trial court concerning modification of child support. For this reason, I must respectfully file this partial dissent from the majority Opinion. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Karlos D. McMahon v. State of Tennessee
Karlos D. McMahon (“the Petitioner”) pleaded guilty to several counts of sale of cocaine in case numbers 17268 and 17478. Subsequent to entering his guilty pleas, the Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied the petition. Upon a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Shannon Dixon
The defendant, Shannon Dixon, was convicted by a Marion County Circuit Court jury of aggravated assault, a Class C felony, and was sentenced to five years, suspended to probation after service of twelve months of incarceration. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in: (1) denying his request for a special jury instruction that a pellet gun was not a deadly weapon per se for purposes of the aggravated assault statute, and (2) not applying as a mitigating factor at sentencing that he acted under strong provocation. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Marion | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Bradley Cox
The Defendant-Appellant, Bradley Cox, was convicted by a Henderson County jury of one count of aggravated sexual battery and two counts of rape of a child. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective sentence of 37 years' confinement, to be served at 100% as a violent offender. On appeal, the Defendant argues that (1) he is entitled to a new trial based upon the State's failure to timely disclose certain exculpatory evidence, and (2) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Henderson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Stanley Blue
A Shelby County jury convicted the Defendant, Stanley Blue, of facilitation of first degree premeditated murder, attempted second degree murder, and reckless endangerment. Following a grant of post conviction relief and a remand for resentencing, the trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective term of forty-six years as a Range III, persistent offender. The Defendant challenged the length of his sentence on appeal, and this Court reversed the Defendant's sentences for attempted second degree murder and reckless endangerment. We remanded the case for a new sentencing hearing regarding these two convictions and affirmed all other judgments of the trial court. State v. Stanley Blue, No. W2013-00437-CCA-R3-CD, 2014 WL 1464177, at *9 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, April 14, 2014). On remand, the trial court conducted a sentencing hearing and imposed a total effective sentence of forty-four years. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that the trial court erred when it imposed consecutive sentences. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the trial court's judgments. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals |