State of Tennessee v. Brandi Clutts
The Defendant-Appellant, Brandi Clutts, appeals the trial court’s revocation of her probation and reinstatement of her original four-year sentence in the Department of Correction. On appeal, Clutts argues that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering a sentence of full confinement rather than imposing split confinement. Upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Bryan R. Milam v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Bryan R. Milam, appeals the Wayne County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for first degree murder and second degree murder and resulting sentence of life plus twenty-three years. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred in denying relief because he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial, at the motion for new trial hearing, and on appeal. Specifically, the Petitioner argues that his various attorneys (1) failed to present rebuttal medical evidence concerning the “tight” nature of the victim’s wound or challenge the credibility of the medical examiner, Dr. Charles Harlan, who had lost his medical license following the Petitioner’s convictions; and (2) failed to present a firearms expert who had tested the condition of the murder weapon and determined that it was not working properly. Following our review, we affirm the denial of relief. |
Wayne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Bessie Cawthon v. Baptist Memorial Hospital-Union City, et al.
An employee sustained a work-related injury to her shoulder while working as a licensed practical nurse at her employer’s hospital. After returning to work in a modified-duty position for several months after a second shoulder surgery, the employee elected to have knee replacement surgery to remedy pre-existing arthritis that was unrelated to her work. Unfortunately, the knee replacement surgery caused the employee to develop “foot drop.” The employee subsequently exhausted her available leave time because of a prolonged recovery, and the employer terminated her employment. The employee filed the present action seeking permanent total disability benefits. The trial court initially found that the employee had a meaningful return to work and capped her award at one and one-half times her anatomical impairment. The court, however, granted the employee’s motion to alter or amend and found that she did not have a meaningful return to work and that she was permanently and totally disabled. The trial court apportioned the award between the employer and the Second Injury Fund, and both parties appealed. We conclude that the employee is not permanently and totally disabled and that she made a meaningful return to work after her shoulder surgeries. We therefore reverse the judgment of the trial court. |
Obion | Workers Compensation Panel | |
State of Tennessee v. Antonio Dockery
Appellant, Antonio Dockery, was indicted by the Shelby County Grand Jury for aggravated assault, stalking, and aggravated kidnapping. After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of the offenses as charged in the indictment. As a result of the convictions, Appellant was sentenced to a total effective sentence of thirty-four years in incarceration. After the denial of a motion for new trial, this appeal followed. On appeal, Appellant presents the following issues for our review: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions; (2) the trial court improperly instructed the jury on aggravated kidnapping; (3) the convictions for aggravated assault and stalking violate double jeopardy; and (4) the trial court erred in admitting evidence of prior bad acts in violation of Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b). After a review of the record and the authorities, we determine: (1) that the evidence is sufficient to support the convictions; (2) Appellant’s convictions for aggravated assault and stalking do not violate double jeopardy where the trial court properly instructed the jury on the evidence to consider when reviewing the stalking charge; and (3) Appellant waived any issue with respect to the admission of prior bad acts for failing to raise the issue in a motion for new trial. Further, we determine that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on aggravated kidnapping by failing to give the instruction from State v. White, 362 S.W.3d 559 (Tenn. 2012). The error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, Appellant’s aggravated kidnapping conviction must be reversed, and he must receive a new trial at which the jury is instructed in accord with White. The remaining judgments of the trial court are affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Mark Weatherly
Appellant, Mark Weatherly, was indicted by the Shelby County Grand Jury for vehicular homicide and two counts of aggravated assault. The jury acquitted Appellant of vehicular homicide and was unable to reach a verdict on the lesser included offense of reckless homicide and the other charged offense of aggravated assault. The trial court declared a mistrial with regard to these offenses. Appellant’s request for pretrial diversion was denied by the prosecutor. Appellant filed a writ of certiorari with the trial court. The trial court granted Appellant’s writ of certiorari and concluded that the assistant district attorney general had abused his discretion and ordered the prosecutor to enter into a memorandum of understanding that placed Appellant on pretrial diversion. This Court granted the State’s application for interlocutory appeal. After a thorough review of the record, we find that the trial court’s decision is supported by a preponderance of the evidence and affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Samuel Arthur Skaggs v. Marty Phillips d/b/a Phillips Concrete et al.
The employee was injured when a concrete grinder he was operating exploded, breaking his jaw and several teeth. After his jaw was surgically repaired and he underwent extensive dental treatment, the employee did not return to work for his employer. The employee filed an action in the Chancery Court for Sullivan County seeking permanent disability benefits. The trial court found that the employee sustained a permanent vocational disability of 35%. The employer appealed, claiming that the trial court erred by failing to exclude the testimony of the treating dentist and by finding that the employee sustained any permanent disability. Pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51, the appeal has been referred to a Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Albert H. Simpkins v. A. O. Smith Corporation, et al.
This appeal calls into question the sufficiency of the evidence to support an award of workers’ compensation disability benefits related to the aggravation of a pre-existing cervical injury. After settling a claim for an earlier lumbar and cervical injury, the employee filed a new claim in the Circuit Court for Williamson County seeking compensation for aggravation of that injury. The employer insisted that the employee’s condition was a continuation of the prior injury. Following a bench trial, the trial court found that, as a result of performing repetitive tasks, the employee had sustained a new cervical injury and awarded the employee permanent total disability benefits. The employer appealed, asserting (1) that the evidence preponderates against the findings regarding causation and permanency and (2) that the testimony of the employee’s examining physician should be disregarded because it does not comply with the AMA Guides. The appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51. We have determined that the evidence does not support the trial court’s conclusion that the employee sustained a new injury and, therefore, we reverse the judgment of the trial court. |
Williamson | Workers Compensation Panel | |
State of Tennessee v. Dennis Murphy
Dennis Murphy (“the Defendant”) was convicted by a jury of attempted rape. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the Defendant to five years’ incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that the trial court erred in admitting testimony regarding pictures not provided in discovery. He also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction. Finally, the Defendant contends that cumulative errors denied him a fair trial. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Monroe | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jennifer Hannah
Appellant, Jennifer Hannah, was indicted by the Davidson County Grand Jury for four counts of child neglect, one count of first degree felony murder during the perpetration or attempt to perpetrate aggravated child neglect, and two counts of delivering a controlled substance to a minor. At the conclusion of a jury trial, she was found guilty of all counts as charged. The trial court sentenced her to an effective sentence of life imprisonment. On appeal, Appellant argues: (1) the trial court erred in allowing the testimony of Michael Orman under the provisions of Rule 404(b) of the Tennessee Rules of Evidence; (2) the trial court erred in denying Appellant’s motion for continuance; (3) the trial court erred in denying her motion to suppress statements made to law enforcement officers; (4) the trial court erred in denying her request for an instruction regarding lost or destroyed evidence; (5) the trial court erred in instructing the jury on the elements of aggravated child neglect; and (6) the trial court erred in allowing the admission of an audio recording of a deceased witness. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jeffrey L. Beeler v. DeRoyal Industries, Inc., et al
An employee alleged that he sustained a gradual aggravation of a preexisting lower back condition during the eleven months he worked for his employer. The employer denied the claim, contending that the employee’s condition and symptoms were merely the natural progression of an injury that he had suffered many years earlier. The trial court found for the employer and dismissed the complaint. The employee has appealed that decision, asserting that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s decision. Pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51, the appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. We affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Knox | Workers Compensation Panel | |
In Re: Kierra B., et al
The Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) filed a petition in the Juvenile Court for Sullivan County (“the Juvenile Court”) to terminate the parental rights of Amber B. (“Mother”) to the minor children Jayden B. and Kierra B. (“the Children,” collectively, or, “Jayden” and “Kierra” individually). DCS also sought to terminate the parental rights of Miguel C. (“Father”) to Kierra. After a trial, the Juvenile Court entered its order finding and holding, inter alia, that clear and convincing evidence was proven that grounds existed to terminate Mother’s parental rights to the Children pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 36-1- 113 (g)(2) and (g)(3), and that clear and convincing evidence was proven that it was in the Children’s best interest for Mother’s parental rights to be terminated. The Juvenile Court also found and held that clear and convincing evidence was proven that grounds existed to terminate Father’s parental rights to Kierra pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113 (g)(1) and Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-102 (1)(A)(iv), and that clear and convincing evidence was proven that it was in Kierra’s best interest for Father’s parental rights to be terminated. Mother and Father appeal. Apart from certain grounds of abandonment pertaining to Father which we reverse for lack of adequate evidence, we affirm the judgment of the Juvenile Court terminating Mother’s parental rights to the Children and Father’s parental rights to Kierra. |
Sullivan | Court of Appeals | |
Aramark, Indemnity Insurance Company of North America and Sue Ann Head, Admin. v. Jeremy Nix
An employee alleged he suffered a compensable injury to his lower back. His employer disputed a compensable injury occurred. In the alternative, the employer asserted any award of permanent disability benefits should be limited to one and one-half times the medical impairment because the employee had been terminated for misconduct. The trial court found employee had sustained a compensable injury and did not have a meaningful return to work. It awarded 42% permanent partial disability (“PPD”), six times the medical impairment. The employer has appealed, asserting the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s findings. The employer also contends the award was excessive and the trial court erred by denying its motion to stay a portion of the judgment requiring payment of certain medical expenses. The appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Sandra Buckler Hall, Individually and on behalf of her minor son, Felix Hall v. Paul D. Randolph Jr., M.D., Personal Representative and next of kin of Paul D. Randolph, Sr., M.D.
The trial court denied Defendant physician’s motion to recuse following the trial judge’s disclosure of an earlier patient-physician relationship with Defendant’s expert witness. Defendant filed an interlocutory appeal as of right pursuant to Rule 10B of the Tennessee Supreme Court Rules. Finding that the circumstances require recusal, we reverse. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Jermaine Mitchell Gray v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Jermaine Mitchell Gray, was found guilty by a Madison County jury of aggravated robbery, and he was subsequently sentenced to serve 12 years as a Range I standard offender. This court affirmed the conviction, and our supreme court denied Petitioner’s application for permission to appeal. State v. Jermaine Mitchell Gray, No. W2009-01260-CCA-R3-CD, 2010 WL 4544395 (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 10, 2010) perm. app. denied (Tenn. April 13, 2011). He subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief which was denied by the trial court following an evidentiary hearing. Petitioner appeals asserting that the trial court erred by denying him post-conviction relief because his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the judgment of the trial court which denied post-conviction relief. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Continental Casualty Company, et al. v. Theraco, Inc.
Continental Casualty Company (“CNA”) and Travelers Property Casualty Company of America (“Travelers”) filed this suit against Theraco, Inc.(“Theraco”) seeking compensation for additional workers’ compensation premiums. Theraco’s insurance contracts with CNA and Travelers provided that it would pay premiums for employees and all other persons who posed a risk of workers’ compensation liability. Pursuant to the contracts, CNA and Travelers both charged Theraco premiums for physical therapists with whom Theraco had contracted. Theraco disputes that it is liable for paying premiums for the workers. After a hearing, the Department of Commerce and Insurance ruled that Theraco was not liable for the additional premiums because the physical therapists were independent contractors rather than employees. CNA and Travelers appealed the Department’s decision to the Chancery Court for Davidson County. The trial court upheld the Department’s ruling, not only concluding that the physical therapists were independent contractors, but also that they did not pose a risk of workers’ compensation liability. CNA and Travelers appealed to this Court. We affirm in part, reverse in part and remand for entry of a judgment consistent with this opinion. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Janice Hartline v. Robert Stephen Hartline
In this domestic relations action, the trial court granted Wife a divorce on fault-based grounds against Husband and awarded her alimony in futuro in the amount of $3,800.00 monthly, health insurance costs, and attorney’s fees. Husband appeals the trial court’s awards of alimony and attorney’s fees, as well as the court’s valuation of his dental practice and division of marital assets. Wife raises a threshold issue of whether the trial court erred by granting a Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02 motion after the time had elapsed to file a notice of appeal. We affirm the grant of the Rule 60.02 motion. We reverse the valuation of the husband’s dental practice. We remand to the trial court for revaluation of the dental practice without consideration of professional goodwill, adjustment of the equitable division of marital assets based on revaluation of the dental practice, and clarification of the amount of attorney’s fees awarded to Wife in the trial court. We affirm the judgment in all other respects. |
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
Jonathan Wesley Stephenson v. State of Tennessee
A Cocke County jury convicted petitioner, Jonathan Wesley Stephenson, of first degree premeditated murder and conspiracy to commit first degree murder. The jury imposed the death penalty for the murder conviction, and the trial court sentenced petitioner to twentyfive years for the conspiracy conviction. After several appeals, remands, and collateral proceedings, petitioner’s resulting sentence was the death penalty for the murder conviction and a sixty-year sentence for the conspiracy conviction. Petitioner then sought postconviction relief. Following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. Petitioner now appeals the denial of relief, alleging multiple claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Following our review of the record, we discern no error and affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Cocke | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Charles Clevenger
The defendant, Charles Clevenger, appeals from his Knox County Criminal Court jury conviction of aggravated robbery, claiming that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, that the trial court erred by ruling that the State would be permitted to utilize his prior convictions to impeach his testimony, that the testimony of a State witness violated the Confrontation Clause, and that the trial court erred by ordering the 30-year sentence imposed in this case to be served consecutively to the 30-year sentence imposed in an unrelated case. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Neal Noon
The Defendant, Christopher Neal Noon, appeals the Sevier County Circuit Court’s order revoking his probation for convictions for the sale of a Schedule II controlled substance and theft of property valued at less than $500 and ordering his effective three-year sentence into execution. The Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his probation. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sevier | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Charles Edgar Ledford
The defendant, Charles Edgar Ledford, appeals from the Monroe County Criminal Court to challenge via certified questions of law his guilty-pleaded convictions of two counts of sexual exploitation of a minor, see T.C.A. § 39-17-1003, a Class D felony; child neglect, see id. § 39-15-402(a), a Class E felony; two counts of aggravated sexual battery, see id. § 39-13-504, a Class B felony; and two counts of rape of a child, see id. § 39-13-522, a Class A felony. The defendant received an effective sentence of 56 years to be served in the Department of Correction. The certified questions relate to law enforcement officers’ discovery and seizure of child pornography materials in the defendant’s house, which had been condemned for demolition by the City of Sweetwater. Upon our review, we hold that the certified questions are not dispositive of some of the convictions, and we dismiss the appeal relative to those convictions. As to the remainder of the convictions, including those for aggravated sexual battery and rape of a child, we hold that the defendant had no expectation of privacy in the seized materials and that the motion to suppress was properly denied. Thus, we affirm the trial court’s order with respect to these latter convictions. |
Monroe | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
David Wayne Britt v. Jerry Lester, Warden
The Petitioner, David Wayne Britt, appeals the Hardeman County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court’s judgment pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Following our review, we grant the State’s motion and affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
John Shell and Connie Shell v. Sherri Cole Williams v. Rick Shell
The issues in this case involve the proper use and alleged interference with an easement created by express grant. The trial court concluded that the holders of the easement could use the easement for recreational purposes and that the servient landowner had interfered with the use of the easement by planting trees and placing boulders within the easement. We reverse and remand. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Estate of Minnie Bell Woodard v. James W. Franklin, et al.
A widow filed a complaint seeking a determination of the proper owner of a tract of real property held in her husband’s name. The widow lived on the property for over twenty years after her husband died. She believed she was the proper owner until she became interested in selling the property and learned her name was not on the deed. The trial court ruled the widow acquired the property by common law adverse possession, and one of the husband’s heirs-at-law appealed. The husband’s great nephew asserted the widow had permission to remain on the property, and, therefore, could not obtain title through adverse possession. We disagree and affirm the trial court’s judgment. The widow possessed and used the property openly and exclusively for over twenty years, thereby putting the world on notice that she claimed ownership of the property. |
Jackson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William James Watt
A Davidson County jury convicted the Defendant, William James Watt, of three counts of rape of a child and three counts of aggravated sexual battery. The trial court sentenced the Defendant, a Range I, standard offender, to twenty-five years at 100 percent for each of the rape of a child convictions and to ten years at 100 percent for each of the aggravated battery convictions. The court ordered the Defendant to serve some of the sentences consecutively, for a total effective sentence of thirty-five years, at 100 percent. On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain two of his convictions for rape of a child and one of his convictions for aggravated sexual battery; (2) the trial court erred when it denied his motion for substitution of counsel and to continue his trial; and (3) his sentence is excessive. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jerome Maurice Teats
Jerome Maurice Teats (“the Defendant”) was convicted by a jury of one count of aggravated robbery and four counts of especially aggravated kidnapping. The trial court subsequently imposed an effective sentence of fifty years’ incarceration. In this direct appeal, the Defendant raises the following issues: (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress; (2) the trial court erred in denying his motion to disqualify the district attorney general’s office; (3) his convictions for especially aggravated kidnapping must be reversed on due process and double jeopardy grounds; (4) the trial court improperly instructed the jury on criminal responsibility; (5) the evidence was not sufficient to support his convictions; (6) cumulative error; and (7) his sentence is excessive. Upon our thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals |