Freda Boyce and Marvell Boyce v. LPP Mortgage LTD
This case involves the application of the doctrine of res judicata. The parties previously engaged in litigation in the General Sessions Court regarding possession of a foreclosed property. The homeowners attempted to assert that the mortgage company did not have proper title to the property prior to initiating foreclosure proceedings. The parties and the trial court all apparently concluded that the General Sessions Court lacked jurisdiction to inquire into the merits of the title based on Tennessee Code Annotated Section 29-18-119. Accordingly, the General Sessions Court entered judgment in favor of the mortgage company. The homeowners subsequently filed an action in the Chancery Court, alleging that the mortgage company committed fraud in foreclosing the property because it had not acquired proper title to the property. The Appellee, having hired a new attorney, asserted that the issue should have been alleged as a defense to the General Sessions Court action, and was, therefore, barred by the doctrine of res judicata. The Chancery Court agreed and dismissed the homeowners’ action on the basis of res judicata. We affirm and remand. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Jarron Deonte King v. State of Tennessee
Jarron Deonté King (“the Petitioner”) pleaded guilty to one count of second degree murder, two counts of attempted first degree murder, three counts of attempted especially aggravated robbery, and one count of aggravated assault. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced the Petitioner to an effective sentence of twenty-seven years’ incarceration. The Petitioner subsequently filed for post-conviction relief, which the post-conviction court denied following an evidentiary hearing. The Petitioner now appeals, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel in conjunction with his plea submission hearing and that his plea was constitutionally invalid. Upon our thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Randall Cagle
The defendant, Randall Cagle, pled guilty to four counts of sexual exploitation of a minor, a Class D felony, and was sentenced as a Range II, multiple offender to an effective sentence of eight years, suspended to supervised probation. As a condition of his guilty plea, the defendant attempted to reserve a certified question of law pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2)(A) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure regarding the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized during the search of his residence. After review, we conclude that the certified question is overly broad and, as a result, this court is without jurisdiction to consider the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. |
Hickman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tyler James Reed
Appellant, Tyler James Reed, stands convicted of felony murder committed in the perpetration of a burglary, aggravated burglary, and employment of a firearm with intent to go armed during the commission of a dangerous felony. The trial court sentenced him to life in prison for the murder conviction, six years for the aggravated burglary conviction, and six years for the firearm conviction, with all sentences to be served consecutively in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, appellant argues that (1) the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress all of the statements he made on October 30, 2009, and the physical evidence obtained as a result of those statements; (2) the evidence was insufficient to support the murder and aggravated burglary convictions; (3) the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury regarding self-defense and voluntary intoxication; and (4) he is entitled to a new trial due to prosecutorial misconduct. Following our careful review of the record, the arguments of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Brandon Ostein v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Brandon Ostein, pleaded guilty to possession of over 300 grams of cocaine with intent to sell in a drug-free school zone. In accordance with petitioner’s plea agreement, the trial court imposed the minimum sentence of fifteen years to be served at one hundred percent in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Petitioner filed the current petition for post-conviction relief, in which he alleged that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that his guilty plea was not entered knowingly, voluntarily, or intelligently. Following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. On appeal, petitioner argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when trial counsel: (1) failed to communicate with petitioner prior to his entering the guilty plea and (2) failed to properly advise him regarding his sentencing range. He further argues that these errors, compounded with the trial court’s failure to inform him of the applicable range of punishment, rendered his guilty plea involuntary. Following our review of the parties’ arguments, the record, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re: Jacob H. C.
Father of child born out of wedlock appeals the parenting time and child support provisions of the parenting plan and the denial of his request that the child’s surname be changed from the Mother’s to the Father’s. We affirm the trial court’s denial of Father’s request that the child’s surname be changed, vacate the parenting time and child support provisions of the parenting plan, and remand the case for the court to make findings relative to those provisions of the plan. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Atira S. M.
Mother and step-father filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of the child’s father on the ground of abandonment for failure to support and failure to visit the child pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-1-102(1)(A) and § 36-1-113. The trial court found the petitioners proved both grounds for termination and that termination was in the child’s best interest. Father appealed. We affirm. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
John Scott Terry v. Tina Lynn Terry
This is a divorce case in which Wife asserts the trial court erred in failing to award her alimony. Having concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to award spousal support, we affirm. |
Marion | Court of Appeals | |
Le-Jo Enterprises, Inc. v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. et al.
Plaintiff, a supplier of customized lamps that were used exclusively in Cracker Barrel restaurants, filed this action for breach of express contract and breach of contract implied in fact and at law against Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. (“Cracker Barrel”), and its subsidiary CBOCS Distribution, Inc. (“CBOCS”). The plaintiff alleged in the complaint that both defendants were bound by the Supply Agreement entered into between the plaintiff and CBOCS, and that both defendants breached the contract by failing to purchase 120 days of floor-stock inventory after cancellation of the Supply Agreement or discontinued use of the “Approved Products” identified in the agreement. Defendants filed a Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted on the basis that the Supply Agreement expired on July 31, 2011, and that, thereafter, the parties conducted at-will transactions not governed by the Supply Agreement. The trial court granted the motion dismissing all claims against both defendants finding,inter alia: 1) there was no contract between the plaintiff and Cracker Barrel; 2) the Supply Agreement between the plaintiff and CBOCS terminated by its own terms on July 31, 2011, and there was no written extension; 3) there was no contract implied in fact; and 4) there was no contract implied at law. We affirm the dismissal of all claims against Cracker Barrel because Cracker Barrel was never a party to the contract and the complaint failed to state a claim against Cracker Barrel upon which relief could be granted. As for the claims against CBOCS, we have determined that the factual allegations in the complaint are sufficient to state claims against CBOCS for breach of express contract, contract implied in fact and contract implied at law. Therefore, we reverse the dismissal of the claims against CBOCS and remand the claims against CBOCS for further proceedings. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Corey Brian Austin
The defendant, Corey Brian Austin, appeals the trial court’s revocation of his probation and reinstatement of his eight-year sentence in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in revoking his probation. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hardin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Telly Savalas Johnson v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Telly Savalas Johnson, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of five counts of criminal attempt to commit first degree murder. Petitioner was sentenced by the trial court to an effective sentence of 75 years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On direct appeal, this court affirmed Petitioner’s convictions and sentences. The facts underlying Petitioner’s convictions can be found in this court’s opinion in State v. Telly Savalas Johnson, No. W2009-00764-CCA-R3-CD, 2010 WL 3245284 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Jackson, filed Aug. 17, 2010), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Jan. 12, 2011). In summary, the proof showed that Petitioner shot a .380 caliber pistol multiple times into a van which contained two adults and three minor children. One of the children was struck in the leg by a bullet. Petitioner filed a timely petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that he was denied the right to the effective assistance of counsel. Following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. After a thorough review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Terrance Demond Moses
The defendant, Terrance Demond Moses, was convicted by a jury of first degree (premeditated) murder and of the Class E felony of possession of a handgun after having been convicted of a felony. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for the first degree murder conviction and to a concurrent four years’ incarceration for the handgun possession. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence; asserts that the gun was admitted into evidence in error; and contends that the trial court erred in permitting the State to exercise a peremptory challenge against a prospective juror. Having reviewed the record, we discern no error and affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Claude Phillips v. State of Tennesse
Petitioner was convicted of one count of aggravated robbery and one count of aggravated assault. The trial court sentenced petitioner to twenty years as a Range II, multiple offender for his aggravated robbery conviction and to fifteen years as a Range III, persistent offender for his aggravated assault conviction, to be served consecutively. He unsuccessfully appealed his convictions and sentences. See State v. Claude Phillips, No. W2008-02810-CCA-R3-CD, 2010 WL 2695328, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. July 7, 2010). Petitioner then filed the current petition for post-conviction relief in which he alleged that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. Following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. On appeal, petitioner argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when trial counsel failed to properly investigate petitioner’s mental health condition and failed to present mitigating evidence at his sentencing hearing. Following our review of the parties’ arguments, the record, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Petition of Joby Lee Teal for Extraordinary Relief
Petitioner, Joby Lee Teal, filed a “Petition . . . for Extraodinary Relief” in the Criminal Court of Shelby County, asserting that four convictions in 1988 are invalid. The trial court dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, Petitioner asserts he is entitled to relief because the four convictions, entered as a result of a negotiated plea agreement, are void because they were illegally ordered to be served concurrently with each other. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the judgment of the trial court pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jose Luis Vizcaino-Ramos v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Jose Luis Vizcaino-Ramos, was convicted by a Hardeman County jury of first degree premeditated murder and sentenced to life in prison. His direct appeal was unsuccessful. See State v. Jose Luis Vizcaino-Ramos, No. W2010-01325-CCA-R3-CD, 2011 WL 3330294, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 3, 2011), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Nov. 16, 2011). Petitioner subsequently pursued post-conviction relief, which was denied by the post-conviction court. On appeal, petitioner contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial when trial counsel failed to properly investigate his case and failed to request a mental evaluation for appellant. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Willard Harrison Iman, Jr. v. Megan Blanchfield Iman
This case involves post-divorce modification of a parenting schedule. Mother sought modification of the schedule after moving to Florida to be nearer to Father and the minor child. The trial court considered the case and modified the schedule to allow Mother more time with the child. Father appeals, arguing that the trial court no longer had jurisdiction to hear the dispute, that the trial court should have declined jurisdiction on the basis of forum non conveniens, that Mother failed to prove a material change in circumstances, and that the modification was not in the child’s best interests. We affirm the trial court’s rulings with regard to jurisdiction, application of the forum non conveniens doctrine, and a material change in circumstances. However, because the trial court failed to make a finding that modification was in the child’s best interests, we vacate the remainder of the order and remand to the trial court for the entry of an order containing appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whether modification is in the child’s best interests. Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Randall Mills v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner-Appellant, Randy Mills, appeals the partial denial of his “Motion to Reopen Post[-]Conviction Petition and Other Relief.” On appeal, he argues: (1) the trial court erred in denying him a new trial on all of the charges in this case for which he was convicted; (2) the general sessions counsel’s and trial counsel’s 2003 post-conviction testimony regarding his admission of guilt as to some of the charges is inadmissible as substantive evidence of his guilt on retrial; and (3) the trial court erred in failing to adjudicate the merits of his state and federal constitutional law claims. Although not raised by the Petitioner, the State argues that the trial court’s agreed order, which was entered after the filing of the Petitioner’s notice of appeal, is null and void because the court no longer had jurisdiction of the case. Upon review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment granting a new trial in count 2, the conviction for rape of a child–penile penetration, in light of the newly discovered DNA evidence; however, we reverse the judgment denying a new trial on the remaining charges for which he was convicted, and we remand the case to the trial court for entry of an order also granting the Petitioner a new trial on counts 1, 4, 5, and 6. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ruby Hailey, As Administrator of the Estate of Beatrice Jackson v. Wesley of the South, Inc., d/b/a Wesley at Dyersburg
Plaintiff’s Complaint was dismissed for failure to comply with the requirements of the Medical Malpractice Act. The trial court denied Plaintiff’s second Motion to Alter or Amend, and Plaintiff appealed to this Court. We dismissed the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to Plaintiff’s failure to timely file an appropriate notice of appeal. Plaintiff then filed a third Motion to Alter or Amend in the trial court, which the trial court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff filed a second appeal to this Court. We dismiss the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. |
Dyer | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tina Woods Butler
The Defendant-Appellant, Tina Woods Butler, entered pleas of nolo contendere to six counts of theft of property valued at $1,000 or more but less than $10,000, Class D felonies, and ten counts theft of property valued over $500 but less than $1,000, Class E felonies. See T.C.A. §§39-14-103, -105(a). After denying her request for judicial diversion, the trial court sentenced Butler as Range I, standard offender to two-year sentences for each of the Class D felonies and to one-year sentences for each of the Class E felonies. The sentences were ordered to be served concurrently for a total effective sentence of two years on community corrections. On appeal, Butler argues that the trial court erred in denying her judicial diversion. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Carlos Jones v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Carlos Jones, was convicted of voluntary manslaughter and especially aggravated robbery, and the trial court imposed an effective forty-year sentence in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Following an unsuccessful direct appeal, petitioner sought post-conviction relief in the Shelby County Criminal Court, alleging multiple instances of ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court denied relief, and petitioner now appeals the judgment of the post-conviction court, claiming that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to adequately communicate with him prior to trial. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joshua Smith
The Defendant-Appellant, Joshua Smith, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of aggravated robbery. He was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to a term of ten years imprisonment at the Department of Correction to be served at thirty percent. On appeal, the Defendant argues: (1) the trial court improperly denied the Defendant’s motion to suppress; (2) the evidence is insufficient to sustain the Defendant’s conviction; and (3) the trial court erred in imposing an excessive sentence. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Marvin McCall
The Defendant, Marvin McCall, entered a plea of nolo contendere to theft in case no. CR5297. The trial court sentenced him to four years to be served in Community Corrections. In case no. CR5699, the Defendant pleaded nolo contendere to aggravated burglary and aggravated assault. The trial court sentenced him to four years in Community Corrections to be served consecutively to case no. CR5297. After two subsequent arrests and the issuance of a probation violation warrant, the trial court revoked probation and ordered incarceration for the remainder of the Defendant’s sentence. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that the trial court erred: (1) when it failed to dismiss the violation of probation warrant, and (2) when it revoked an expired probation sentence. After a thorough review of the record and relevant authorities, we reverse and dismiss the trial court’s judgment revoking the Defendant’s expired probation sentence in case no. CR5297, and we affirm the trial court’s judgment in case no. CR5699. |
Dickson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Lawrence D. Sellick et al v. Gene S. Miller, et al.
This is the second appeal of this property dispute involving the Parties. The Sellicks initially brought suit to determine whether the Millers had obtained an easement to use Farm Road for the benefit of Parcel 5.07. The Sellicks also complained that concrete slabs encroached upon the agreed-upon Farm Road easement for the benefit of Parcel 5.02. This court held that the Millers did not have an easement to use Farm Road for the benefit of Parcel 5.07. Upon remand, the Parties reached a settlement agreement in which the Millers agreed to a removal of the portion of their driveways on Parcel 5.02 that encroached upon Farm Road. Shortly thereafter, the Millers filed a petition for contempt, alleging that the Sellicks had violated the agreement. The Sellicks responded in kind by filing their own petition for contempt. Following a hearing, the trial court entered a mutual restraining order, found Mr. Miller in contempt for failing to remove a gate as agreed, ordered Mr. Sellick to undertake repairs to the driveways owned by the Millers, and disposed of the remaining issues between the Parties. The Sellicks appeal. We affirm the decision of the trial court. |
Cumberland | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Michaela V. et al
This is a termination of parental rights case focusing on Michaela V.; Michael V., Jr.; and Tyler V., the minor children (“Children”) of Michael V., Sr. (“Father”). The Children were taken into protective custody by the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) on August 22, 2008. On January 5, 2011, DCS filed a petition to terminate Father’s parental rights. Following a bench trial held on October 12, 2011, the trial court granted the petition upon its finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that Father had abandoned the Children by willfully failing to provide financial support during the four months preceding the filing of the petition. The court further found, by clear and convincing evidence, that termination of Father’s parental rights was in the Children’s best interest. Father has appealed. We affirm. |
Sullivan | Court of Appeals | |
Ashley Hayes v. Barrie Cunningham
Singer brought action for breach of contract against musical tribute show Producer. Producer did not attend trial and his counsel moved to withdraw immediately prior to trial. The court heard Singer’s evidence and entered judgment in Singer’s favor. Producer retained new counsel and moved for a new trial on the basis of excusable neglect. The trial court denied the motion for a new trial and Producer appealed. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals |