State of Tennessee v. Eric T. Gilbert
The defendant, Eric T. Gilbert, appeals the Robertson County Circuit Court’s order revoking his probation and ordering him to serve the balance of his five-year sentence in confinement. Discerning no error, we affirm |
Robertson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Steve Carl King v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Steve Carl King, appeals the Giles County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his conviction of attempted first degree premeditated murder and resulting twenty-two-year sentence. On appeal, the Petitioner raises numerous claims regarding his receiving the ineffective assistance of counsel. Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Giles | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Centimark Corporation v. Maszera Company, LLC.
This suit arises as a result of a contract to install a roof on a commercial building. The building’s owner argued that the roof has leaked since its installation and that the roofer would not or could not satisfactorily repair it. The roofer asserted that the roof had experienced some leaks but that all had been repaired. The roofer alleged that it had performed according to the contract and sued for total payment. The owner of the building alleged, inter alia, that the roofer breached the contract by failing to provide adequate materials and proper workmanship and filed a counter-complaint. The trial court issued its ruling in favor of the building owner on the counter-complaint and awarded $220,374.96 in damages. The court dismissed the roofer’s suit. The court also dismissed the building owner’s other claims against the roofer for deceptive business practices and for filing an improper lien. Both sides appeal. We affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joseph Caronna
The Defendant-Appellant, Joseph Caronna, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of first degree murder of his wife and sentenced to life imprisonment in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues that his right to a speedy trial was violated and that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. He also argues that the trial court erred in admitting certain evidence, including prior acts of financial fraud; bad acts relating to the victim’s mother; an extramarital affair; and the victim’s statements concerning the closing on a new house. After a thorough review, we discern no reversible error and affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Travis F. Chapman v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Travis F. Chapman, pled guilty to attempted second degree murder and was sentenced to twelve years in incarceration as a Range I, Standard Offender. Petitioner timely filed a petition for post-conviction relief in which he alleged that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that his guilty plea was unknowing and involuntary. The postconviction court denied relief, finding that Petitioner failed to prove his claims by clear and convincing evidence. After a review of the record and applicable authorities, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James E. Hurd v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, James E. Hurd, appeals as of right from the Madison County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain certain discovery materials, failing to adequately communicate with him, and failing to interview and call several character witnesses at trial. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Terry Norris
In this procedurally complex case, a Shelby County jury convicted the Defendant, Terry Norris, of second degree murder in 1999, and the trial court sentenced him to twenty-one years of incarceration. After several proceedings and filings, discussed in detail below, the U.S. Sixth Circuit granted the Defendant habeas corpus relief unless the State allowed the Defendant to reopen his original direct appeal and raise an issue regarding whether his confession should have been suppressed pursuant to County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (1991). The State allowed the Defendant to reopen his appeal. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress his confession to police because he gave his confession after being held for more than forty-eight hours without a probable cause hearing. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable authorities, we conclude that we must address the issue before us for plain error. After conducting our plain error review, we conclude that the Defendant is not entitled to relief. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jaleel Jovan Stovall
The Defendant, Jaleel Jovan Stovall, was convicted by a jury of rape of a child, and the trial court imposed a twenty-five-year sentence at 100% for this conviction. In this direct appeal, the Defendant argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction beyond a reasonable doubt because he was mistaken as to the victim’s age. Deeming the evidence sufficient, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re: Cidney L.
Mother appeals the trial court’s termination of her parental rights. She argues that the trial court erred in holding that clear and convincing evidence established that she engaged in conduct exhibiting a wanton disregard for the welfare of the child prior to her incarceration and that termination was in the child’s best interest. We have determined that there is clear and convincing evidence in the record to support both of the trial court’s findings. We affirm. |
Crockett | Court of Appeals | |
Commercial Painting Company, Inc. v. The Weitz Company, LLC et al.
In this construction contract dispute, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant general contractor as to all of the plaintiff subcontractor’s tort claims. The parties proceeded to trial on the remaining issues and judgment was awarded in favor of the subcontractor. Both parties raise numerous issues on appeal. Because we conclude that the trial court applied an improper standard in granting summary judgment, we vacate the order of summary judgment in favor of the general contractor. In addition, because the subcontractor’s tort claims may alter the remaining issues in this case, we decline to consider the remaining issues raised by the parties. Vacated and remanded. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Kendal A.
The trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights on the grounds of abandonment by an incarcerated parent and severe child abuse, and found that termination of Mother’s rights was in the child’s best interest. We affirm. |
Obion | Court of Appeals | |
Jerry Ray Davidson v. State of Tennessee
This post-conviction appeal addresses the extent of defense counsel’s duty to present mitigation evidence during the penalty phase of a capital murder trial. Defense counsel in a capital case possessed evidence that their client suffered from severe lifelong cognitive impairments and personality disorders and that he was predisposed to sexual violence. However, during the defendant’s trial, defense counsel presented the jury with no psychological mitigation evidence and only cursory social history mitigation evidence. A Dickson County jury convicted the defendant of premeditated first degree murder and imposed the death penalty. The juryalso convicted the defendant of aggravated kidnapping, for which the defendant received a twenty-year sentence. Following unsuccessful direct appeals, State v. Davidson, 121 S.W.3d 600 (Tenn. 2003), the defendant filed a petition for post-conviction relief in the Circuit Court for Dickson County. Following a hearing, the post-conviction court denied the petition, and the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the post-conviction court’s decision. Davidson v. State, No. M2010-02663-CCA-R3-PD, 2013 WL 485222 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 7, 2013). We find that, under the circumstances of this case, defense counsels’ failure to develop and present psychological mitigation evidence deprived their client of his right to effective assistance of counsel. While we uphold the client’s convictions, we vacate his death sentence and remand for a new capital sentencing hearing. |
Dickson | Supreme Court | |
Jerry Ray Davidson v. State of Tennessee - Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part
Initially, no words adequately describe the horrible nature of this murder. Nevertheless, I concur with the majority that a new sentencing hearing is warranted based upon the ineffective assistance of counsel at the penalty stage of the trial. Moreover, I believe that the deficiency in counsel's performance was such that an entirely new trial should be granted. In that regard, I dissent. |
Supreme Court | ||
Barbara M. Hicks Vick v. Brandon P. Hicks
This appeal arises from the trial court’s dismissal of Appellant Brandon Hicks’ (“Husband”) petition to terminate his alimony obligation. After his ex-wife, Appellee Barbara Hicks Vick (“Wife”), remarried, Husband petitioned the trial court for relief under Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-5-121(g)(2)(C). Wife moved to dismiss Husband’s petition, arguing that the parties’ marital dissolution agreement (“MDA”) contained a non-modification clause with respect to Husband’s alimony obligation. The trial court granted Wife’s motion, and Husband filed a timely appeal to this Court. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: J.C.B.
This appeal arises from a decision by the Juvenile Court for White County terminating Mother’s parental rights to her son. Child was placed into emergency custody by the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS” or “the Department”), pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-1-113, when he was two months old after law enforcement officials found a methamphetamine lab in the living room of Mother’s apartment while Child and Father were present. The juvenile court issued a protective custody order and appointed a guardian ad litem for Child. Between that time and the termination hearing, three permanency plans were created. Mother was incarcerated multiple times and failed to complete any of the requirements of her permanency plans. DCS tried to schedule visitation for Mother, provide her information about rehabilitation programs, keep in contact with her, and administer drug screens,but it had difficulty due to Mother’s repeated incarcerations and failure to keep in contact with DCS. DCS filed a petition to terminate Mother’s parental rights. The court terminated Mother’s parental rights; held that the requirements of the permanency plans were all reasonable; and held that DCS made reasonable efforts to assist Mother in complying with the requirements of the plans. We affirm the decision of the juvenile court. |
White | Court of Appeals | |
Ronald T. Daugherty v. Lavada J. Doyle, et al
A shareholder in a closely-held family business brought this action pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 48-26-102(b) to inspect the company’s accounting records. The trial court determined that the shareholder’s request was made in good faith and for a proper purpose. On appeal, the defendants assert that the trial court erred in finding that the shareholder’s request was made in good faith and in awarding him his attorney fees and the expenses he incurred in hiring a forensic accountant. We reverse the trial court’s decision to award the shareholder the expenses he incurred for the forensic accountant, but remand for a determination of an award based on the accountant’s fees concerning testimony about whether the records requested by Mr. Daugherty were accounting records. In all other respects, we affirm the decision of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Michael L. Schwartz, et al. v. Diagnostix Network Alliance, et al.
This case involves an agreement between a distributor of medical tests and a healthcare consultant. The agreement provided that the consultant would earn a commission on sales of the medical test that he solicited on behalf of the distributor. After several months, the distributor terminated the agreement. The consultant filed a lawsuit against the distributor. The consultant alleged that the distributor breached its duty of good faith under the contract by terminating the agreement in order to avoid paying commissions and by failing to provide an adequate sales force to assist the consultant in making sales. The consultant alleged that the distributor breached a separate verbal contract for the development of marketing materials. The consultant also alleged that the distributor fraudulently misrepresented its intent to compensate the consultant for his efforts in soliciting orders for the medical test. The trial court dismissed the consultant’s fraud claim and granted summary judgment to the distributor on each of the remaining claims. We affirm the judgment of the trial court with respect to the consultant’s breach of good faith and fraud and misrepresentation claims. However, we find that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the consultant’s claim that the distributor breached a separate verbal contract. We also vacate and remand the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees for reconsideration after issues related to the verbal contract are resolved. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Richard Cleveland Martin v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Richard Cleveland Martin, was convicted of first degree premeditated murder and first degree felony murder committed during the perpetration of or attempt to perpetrate a kidnapping. Following merger, the trial court sentenced him to life in prison. After an unsuccessful direct appeal, petitioner filed this petition for post-conviction relief alleging the following claims of ineffective assistance of counsel: (1) failure to ensure that petitioner understood the trial process; (2) failure to request a mental health examination; (3) failure to view the crime scene or interview and develop potential witnesses; and (4) failure to analyze or review a supplemental DNA Report. Upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re Michael A.C., Jr.
This is a parental rights termination appeal brought by the incarcerated biological father. The trial court found clear and convincing evidence to support the ground for termination and clear and convincing evidence that termination was in the child’s best interest. The father appeals. We affirm. |
Cumberland | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Austin A. et al.
This case concerns the termination of the mother’s parental rights. We have determined that the record contains clear and convincing evidence to support terminating the mother’s parental rights on the ground relied upon by the trial court. The record further supports the conclusion that terminating the mother’s parental rights is in the children’s best interest. Accordingly, we affirm the findings of the trial court. |
Washington | Court of Appeals | |
Brenda Y. Hannah v. Sherwood Forest Rentals, LLC, et al.
This appeal results from the grant of summary judgment to the defendants in a premises liability action. The plaintiff fell while descending a set of wooden stairs leading to a rental cabin. The plaintiff filed the instant action against the owners of the cabin and the rental company, which manages and maintains the cabin. In granting summary judgment to the defendants, the trial court determined that there were no genuine issues of material fact by which a reasonable jury could find that either defendant had actual or constructive notice of any allegedly defective condition existing that caused or contributed to the plaintiff’s fall. The plaintiff has appealed. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Sevier | Court of Appeals | |
McCurry Expeditions, LLC, et al. v. Richard H. Roberts
The case concerns the imposition of sales and use tax on a luxury motor home stored in Tennessee byan out-of-state corporation.The trial court granted summary judgment to the tax-payer corporation, finding that the imposition of sales tax was not authorized by statute and was not consistent with the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. We reverse and remand. |
Giles | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Charles Godspower
The appellant, Charles Godspower, pled guilty in the Rutherford County Circuit Court to second degree murder and attempted first degree murder, Class A felonies, and received concurrent 30-year sentences to be served at 100% and 35%, respectively. On appeal, he contends that the trial court erred by denying his motion to reduce his sentences. Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Nathaniel Carson v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Nathaniel Carson, 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 for failing to call a second alibi witness and failing to request a bill of particulars. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Gary Dwayne Johnson v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Gary Dwayne Johnson, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. He stands convicted of multiple charges based upon his actions following his escape from custody at a hospital where he was being treated. He was sentenced, as a career offender, to an effective term of one hundred and forty-one years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he contends that the post-conviction court erred in its denial because he was denied his right to the effective assistance of counsel. Specifically, he contends that trial counsel was ineffective by: (1) failing to adequately investigate the case and potential exonerating evidence; (2) failing to pursue a motion for severance; (3) failing to include all issues in the motion for new trial; and (4) failing to file mitigating factors and provide adequate representation at the sentencing hearing. Following review of the record, we conclude that the post-conviction court properly denied relief. As such, the judgment of the court is affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals |