State of Tennessee v. Natasha Moses Bates
The defendant, Natasha Moses Bates, was convicted of two counts of felony murder, two counts of aggravated child neglect, and four counts of facilitation of the initiation of the process of manufacturing methamphetamine. The murder charges resulted from the deaths of her five- and three-year-old sons whose bodies were found in her front yard. She received a life sentence for each of the felony murder convictions, a twenty-year sentence for each of the aggravated child neglect convictions, and a three-year sentence for each of the drug-related convictions. The trial court ordered that the two life sentences be served consecutively and the two twenty-year sentences to be served consecutively as well, with these two sets of sentences to be served concurrently with each other and with the drug sentences. On appeal, the defendant argues that the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions; that the court erred by not severing the drug-related offenses from the felony murder and aggravated child neglect offenses; and that the court erred by ordering certain of the sentences to be served consecutively. Following our review, we conclude that the trial court erred in not severing the drug offenses, Counts 5-8, from Counts 1-4, alleging felony murder and aggravated child neglect. Accordingly, we reverse the convictions for Counts 5-8 and remand for a new trial. We affirm the convictions and sentencing for Counts 1-4.
|
Bradley | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Alvin Michael Young v. State of Tennessee
The pro se petitioner, Alvin Michael Young, appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for aggravated kidnapping and domestic assault. On appeal, he argues that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal. After review, we affirm the denial of the petition.
|
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ed Loyde
The defendant, Ed Loyde, was convicted of one count of rape of a child, a Class A felony, and one count of aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony. He received an effective sentence of thirty-five years. On appeal, he raises the sole issue of whether the evidence was sufficient to support his convictions. After thoroughly reviewing the record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Paul Jerome Johnson, Jr.
The defendant, Paul Jerome Johnson, Jr., was convicted of felony murder in perpetration of aggravated child abuse and aggravated child abuse, a Class A felony. He received concurrent sentences of life imprisonment for the felony murder conviction and nineteen years for the aggravated child abuse conviction. On appeal, he contends that the trial court erred by (1) admitting photographs of the victim from the hospital and the autopsy because the photographs had little probative value and were not relevant to material issues at trial; (2) improperly restricting the cross-examination of a witness; and (3) failing to require the State to make an election of offenses. After reviewing the record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.
|
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jay Daniel, et al. v. Allstate Insurance Company
This is an appeal from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in an action on a homeowner’s insurance policy that contained a one-year contractual limitations period on actions arising under the policy. The home of the insured parties was damaged by a fire on December 15, 2011. The insured parties submitted a claim with the insurer pursuant to their homeowner’s insurance policy. The insurer submitted an estimate and tendered a settlement check to the insured parties on April 2, 2012. Over a year later, on October 3, 2013, the insured parties filed suit alleging they were owed an additional $75,000 for personal use and construction improvements on a new home. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the insurer, finding that the insured parties’ claims were barred by the one-year contractual limitations period. After reviewing the record, we find no error in the trial court’s decision and affirm its grant of summary judgment. |
Tipton | Court of Appeals | |
Ines Mendez Monreal v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Ines Mendez Monreal, entered a conditional guilty plea to possession of not less than ten (10) pounds nor more than seventy (70) pounds of marijuana, a Class D felony. He was placed on judicial diversion for a period of four years. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-313. Almost nine years after entering the plea, he filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which was summarily dismissed by the post-conviction court. On appeal, petitioner raises the following issues: (1) whether due process principles require that he be permitted to pursue his petition for post-conviction relief; (2) whether he was denied effective assistance of counsel; and (3) whether his plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jeremy Wendell Thorpe
We granted the application for permission to appeal of Jeremy Wendell Thorpe (“the Defendant”) in this case to determine whether the trial court properly included a jury instruction for criminal attempt as a lesser-included offense of sexual battery by an authority figure. If we answer in the affirmative, we also must determine whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the Defendant’s conviction for criminal attempt to commit sexual battery by an authority figure. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we hold that the trial court properly included a jury instruction for criminal attempt as a lesser-included offense of sexual battery by an authority figure and that the evidence is sufficient to support the Defendant’s conviction. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals. |
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
Charles Walker v. Bank of America, N. A. et al
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joseph Newton
The defendant, Joseph Newton, was convicted of two counts of rape, Class B felonies, which the trial court merged. He received an effective eight-year sentence. On this direct appeal, he raises the sole issue of ineffective assistance of counsel. He argues that trial counsel was ineffective for: (1) failing to pursue a reasonable defense and failing to provide assistance; (2) failing to fulfil a promise made in the opening statement that the defendant would testify; and (3) for statements made during closing arguments. He also contends that the cumulative effect of trial counsel’s errors operated so as to deprive him of his right to receive a fair trial. After thoroughly reviewing the record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the criminal court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kenneth McCormick
The defendant, Kenneth McCormick, was indicted for driving under the influence of an intoxicant (first offense), a Class A misdemeanor. The defendant moved to suppress the evidence against him on the basis that law enforcement lacked reasonable suspicion to effect the seizure of his parked vehicle through the activation of emergency lights. The trial court denied the motion to suppress, and the defendant was convicted after a jury trial. Because we conclude that the activation of the emergency lights was an exercise of the community caretaking function and did not constitute a seizure, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
White | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Charzelle Lamontez Swafford
After a shooting at a public housing complex, a jury convicted the defendant, Charzelle Lamontez Swafford, of one count of first degree (premeditated) murder, four counts of attempted first degree murder, each a Class A felony, and one count of employing a firearm during the attempt to commit a dangerous felony, a Class C felony. The defendant appeals, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence; the denial of a mistrial based on an emotional outburst from a witness; the trial court’s decision to admit a recorded prior inconsistent statement as substantive evidence; and the trial court’s decision to impose partial consecutive sentences at the upper end of the range. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Russell Jones, Jr.
The defendant, James Russell Jones, Jr., was convicted by a Davidson County Criminal Court jury of two counts of aggravated rape, a Class A felony; attempted aggravated rape, a Class B felony; aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony; and simple assault, a Class A misdemeanor. He was sentenced by the trial court as a Range II, multiple offender to thirty years at 100% for each of the aggravated rape convictions, as a Range III, persistent offender to twenty-five years at 45% for the attempted aggravated rape conviction and twenty-five years at 100% for the aggravated sexual battery conviction, and to eleven months, twenty-nine days for the misdemeanor assault conviction. The trial court ordered the sentences for the four felony convictions served consecutively, for an effective sentence of 110 years in the Tennessee Department of Correction, to be served consecutively to the defendant’s life sentence for a South Carolina conviction. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence in support of his convictions and argues that the trial court erred by denying his request for a mistrial, by ordering consecutive sentences, and by allowing the jury to deliberate on Counts 1 and 2 of the indictment when venue in Davidson County had not been established. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Michael Adler v. Double Eagle Properties Holdings, LLC, et al.
This case concerns the proper interpretation of a contract governing an interest in real property. The trial court concluded that the contract unambiguously granted a lease to one party, rather than an easement. Affirmed and remanded. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Clifford Swearengen v. DMC-Memphis, Inc., et al.
This is an appeal from the trial court’s grant of a motion to dismiss Appellant’s medical malpractice action against defendants named in Appellant’s amended complaint filed more than one year after the cause of action accrued. The trial court found that Appellant’s claims against the additional parties were time barred because the amended complaint adding these parties was not filed within ninety days of the original answer asserting comparative fault against non-parties. Discerning no error, we affirm and remand. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Neveah W.
This extraordinary appeal arises from the trial court’s placement of a minor child while the minor child remains in the legal custody of the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”). The minor child was removed by DCS from the home of her Foster Parents, who had cared for her almost since birth, after allegations that the Foster Parents had abused one of their other children. The minor child’s guardian ad litem filed an emergency petition seeking the return of the child to the Foster Parents’ home, or alternatively, for an award of legal custody to the Foster Parents. After a hearing wherein DCS, the Foster Parents, and the GAL presented evidence, the trial court ordered that the child be returned to the Foster Parents’ home, but declined to remove the child from DCS’s legal custody. On appeal, we hold that a trial court may not direct placement of a child in the legal custody of DCS. We reverse the ruling of the trial court and remand for further proceedings. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Marcus Ray Millard
The defendant, Marcus Ray Millard, appeals from the revocation of his probation. Discerning no error, we affirm.
|
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ryan M. Delaby
The petitioner, Ryan M. Delaby, appeals from the Bradley County Criminal Court’s order denying his petition to expunge the records of his 2006 conviction of Class E felony vandalism. Because we conclude that the petitioner failed to meet the requirements of Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-32-101(g), we affirm the trial court’s order.
|
Bradley | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re Estate of Wanda Joyce Watkins
This is an appeal from an order in a will-construction suit regarding whether certain heirs to the Estate of Wanda Joyce Watkins (“Heirs”), appellants in this appeal, are entitled to inherit under the residuary clause of the Decedent’s will. Because the order appealed from does not resolve the issue of the amount of attorney’s fees awarded to the Executrix, Kimberly B. Jenkins (“Executrix”), in connection with the filing of the petition for construction of the will, we lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal.
|
Loudon | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Miracle F.H.
This is a termination of parental rights appeal brought by the mother. The trial court found clear and convincing evidence to support termination of the mother’s parental rights on the statutory grounds of abandonment for failure to visit, abandonment for failure to remit child support, and that mother substantially failed to comply with the requirements of the permanency plans. The court also found that termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the best interest of the child. The mother appeals. We affirm the decision of the trial court.
|
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
Kenneth Deangelo Thomas v. State of Tennessee
In 2003, Kenneth Deangelo Thomas, the Petitioner, was convicted of felony murder and sentenced to life. In 2012, Paul Talley, an accomplice who testified against the Petitioner, executed a sworn statement claiming he lied about the Petitioner’s involvement in the murder. The Petitioner filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis based on the newly discovered evidence. Following a hearing in which Mr. Talley testified, the coram nobis court found Mr. Talley was not credible and dismissed the petition. Following a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the coram nobis court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kevin M. Thompson A.K.A. Kevin M. Albert
Defendant, Kevin M. Thompson a.k.a. Kevin M. Albert, appeals from the trial court’s summary dismissal of his motion filed pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1. The State concedes that the trial court erred by summarily dismissing Defendant’s motion; however, the State argues that this appeal should be dismissed because Defendant’s notice of appeal was untimely filed. Following our review of the parties’ briefs, the record, and the applicable law, we waive the timely filing of the notice of appeal. Furthermore, we reverse the trial court’s order dismissing the motion and remand for appointment of counsel if Defendant is indigent and for other proceedings pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1.
|
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Dominic Eric Frausto
The dispositive issues in this appeal are: (1) whether the defendant’s extrajudicial statement was sufficiently corroborated for purposes of the corpus delicti rule to support his conviction of aggravated sexual battery; and (2) whether deviations from the jury selection procedures prescribed in Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 24 are subject to harmless error review or require automatic reversal without a showing of prejudice. First, we hold that the corpus delicti rule does not apply because the defendant testified at trial and adopted his extrajudicial statement, although he denied one portion of it on cross-examination. Even assuming the corpus delicti rule applies, the trustworthiness of the defendant’s extrajudicial statement was sufficiently corroborated by his own testimony and by that of the prosecution witnesses. Second, we hold that deviations from prescribed jury selection procedures are non-constitutional errors subject to harmless error analysis. Such errors require reversal only if a defendant establishes either that the error “more probably than not affected the judgment or would result in prejudice to the judicial process.” Tenn. R. App. P. 36(b). We conclude that the substantial deviations from Rule 24 during the selection of a jury for the defendant’s trial resulted in prejudice to the judicial process, which entitles the defendant to a new trial. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is reversed; the defendant’s conviction is vacated; and this matter is remanded to the trial court for a new trial, consistent with this decision. |
Union | Supreme Court | |
Brooks Monypeny, et al. v. Chamroeun Kheiv
This is an appeal from a judgment entered on a jury verdict. The case arises from a motor vehicle accident. Appellant State Farm defended the case as the original plaintiffs’ uninsured motorist carrier. The original plaintiffs subsequently died, one as a direct result of injuries sustained in the accident, the other some two years after the accident. The plaintiffs’ children were substituted as plaintiffs/appellees. State Farm appeals the judgment on the jury verdict on numerous grounds, including: (1) denial of its motion for directed verdict; (2) scope of cross-examination; (3) denial of its motion for mistrial based upon inappropriate closing argument; (4) exclusion of notations on medical records; (5) various acts of alleged wrongdoing on the part of Appellees’ attorneys; (6) jury instructions; (7) admission of medical bills for original plaintiff’s long term assisted living expenses; (8) excessive verdict; (9) incorrect application of statutory cap on non-economic damages; (10) denial of credit for medical and death payments made by State Farm under the insurance policy; and (11) award of discretionary costs. Because there is material evidence to support the jury’s verdict, and because the trial court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm and remand. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kevin M. Thompson A.K.A. Kevin M. Albert - dissenting
I respectfully dissent with the conclusions of the majority that Defendant’s late filing of his notice of appeal should be waived and that Defendant has stated a colorable claim for relief, entitling him to the appointment of counsel and a hearing. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Mario D. Taylor
Appellant, Mario D. Taylor, was convicted of aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery, employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, and three counts of aggravated assault. The trial court sentenced him to an effective sentence of twelve years. On appeal, appellant argues that: (1) there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions; (2) his conviction for employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony violates his double jeopardy rights; (3) the trial court erred by refusing to allow a lay witness to testify regarding appellant’s mental and physical health; and (4) the trial court erred by refusing to allow appellant to introduce the entirety of his videotaped interrogation. Following our review of the parties’ briefs, the record, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals |