Opinions
State of Tennessee v. Joseph Egan Underwood
The defendant, Joseph Egan Underwood, appeals his Knox County Criminal Court jury convictions of first degree murder and especially aggravated kidnapping, challenging the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Kimberly Meeks v. Bryant Leo Meeks
In this child support case, Father appeals the trial court’s determination that he was voluntarily underemployed. We have reviewed the record and the relevant authorityand find that the trial court did not err in concluding that Father was underemployed for the purpose of calculating his child support obligation. We affirm. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Christopher Wayne McElhiney v. Elizabeth Allison Billips
This appeal involves a post-divorce modification of a parenting plan. Mother appeals the trial court’s decision modifying the parenting plan to designate Father the primary residential parent of the parties’ children. Finding no error in the court’s ruling, we affirm. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Karma S.C.
The trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights on the grounds of abandonment for willful failure to visit and willful failure to support. We vacate the decision of the chancery court and we remand for further findings. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Willie Lewis v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Willie Lewis, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of aggravated robbery and sentenced by the trial court as a career offender to thirty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. See State v. Willie Lewis, No. W2008-02636-CCA-R3-CD, 2010 WL1267070 (Tenn. Crim. App., March 31, 2010), perm. app. denied (Tenn., Sept. 3, 2010). Petitioner appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of his petition for post conviction relief, asserting that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to inform him of the applicable sentencing range and failing to investigate his criminal record. Petitioner contends that but for counsel’s errors, he would not have proceeded to trial but would have accepted the State’s plea offer. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Taria Funyette Scott In Re: Danny Blankenship Bonding Company
The Appellant, Danny Blankenship Bonding Company, appeals the Madison County Circuit Court’s denial of its motion to alter or amend a final judgment of forfeiture of the Defendant’s bond. On appeal, the Appellant contends that (1) it was relieved from the bond when the Defendant was surrendered into custody and rearrested, (2) it is entitled to return payment of the bond it made under protest, and (3) the trial court erred in entering a final forfeiture judgment against its agent. We affirm the trial court’s judgment of final forfeiture. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Kenneth R. Griffin v. State of Tennessee
Kenneth R. Griffin (“the Petitioner”) was convicted of first degree murder and especially aggravated robbery. The Petitioner subsequently filed for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. Following a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. The Petitioner now appeals. Upon our thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Washington | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Scott Knerr
The Defendant-Appellant, Michael Scott Knerr, was indicted by the Davidson County Grand Jury in counts 1 and 2 for attempted aggravated rape, in counts 3 and 4 for aggravated sexual battery, in count 5 for attempted especially aggravated kidnapping, and in count 6 for attempted aggravated kidnapping. A jury convicted Knerr of the lesser included offenses of attempted sexual battery in count 3, attempted aggravated sexual battery in count 4, and attempted false imprisonment in count 6 and acquitted him of the remaining counts. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court merged count 3 with count 4 and sentenced Knerr to four years with all but sixty days suspended. In addition, the court imposed a concurrent sentence of six months with all but sixty days suspended for Knerr’s conviction for attempted false imprisonment. On appeal, Knerr argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions for attempted aggravated sexual battery and attempted sexual battery. Upon review, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed in part and vacated in part, and the case is remanded to the trial court for entry of a corrected judgment. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
The SJR Limited Partnership v. Christie's Inc. et al.
In this case, we are asked to determine whether this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal from the trial court’s denial of Appellant’s Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12 motion to dismiss. The Tennessee Uniform Arbitration Act, Tennessee Code Annotated Section 29-5-319, grants Tennessee appellate courts subject matter jurisdiction to consider interlocutory appeals only in specifically enumerated circumstances involving arbitration agreements. The statutory exceptions include appeals from orders denying an application to compel arbitration, and appeals from orders granting an application to stay arbitration. Because the order appealed in this case is simply a denial of a Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12 motion to dismiss, it does not fall within the statutory exceptions. Accordingly, this Court does not have jurisdiction to consider the appeal. Dismissed and remanded. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Benjamin Keith Fowler
A Knox County Criminal Court jury convicted the defendant, Benjamin Keith Fowler, of six counts of first degree felony murder, two counts of criminally negligent homicide, two counts of especially aggravated burglary, one count of attempted aggravated robbery, and one count of employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. The trial court merged the homicide verdicts and imposed two convictions of first degree murder. The court also merged the especially aggravated burglary verdicts and imposed a single conviction of that offense. In this appeal, the defendant contends that prosecutorial misconduct and the behavior of a State witness deprived him of the right to a fair trial, that the trial court erred by admitting certain testimony, and that the trial court erred by prohibiting the admission of certain evidence. Although we discern no error with regard to the issues presented by the defendant, we observe plain error with regard to the defendant’s conviction of especially aggravated burglary Because dual convictions for first degree felony murder and especially aggravated burglary in this case are prohibited by statute, the defendant’s conviction of especially aggravated burglary is modified to a conviction of aggravated burglary and remanded to the trial court for resentencing. The judgments of the trial court are affirmed in all other respects. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Daniel Scott Bowman v. Bank of America, s/b/m To Courtrywide Home Loans, Inc., et al.
After foreclosure proceedings were instituted against Plaintiff, Plaintiff asserted numerous claims against Defendants. All claims were dismissed in the trial court. We affirm. |
Robertson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Melvin J. Branham
The Defendant, Melvin J. Branham, pled guilty to robbery and received a sentence of fifteen years as a career offender to be served at sixty percent. Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, he was ordered to report for incarceration thirty days following entry of his plea. Prior to the expiration of that thirty-day period, the State successfully sought to revoke the Defendant’s bond based upon the Defendant’s drug usage. The Defendant thereafter filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea or have his bond reinstated, arguing that he would not have pled guilty had he known his bond would have been revoked before the thirty days ran out. The trial court denied the motion, and the Defendant appeals. After review, we determine that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to withdraw the guilty plea where the Defendant failed to show a manifest injustice and that the proper avenue for review of the bond revocation was via Rule 8 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sevier | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Paul Wallace Dinwiddie, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
Paul Wallace Dinwiddie, Jr. (“the Petitioner”) sought post-conviction relief from his convictions of aggravated rape and aggravated sexual battery on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel. After an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief, and this appeal followed. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Barnes
The Defendant, Michael Barnes, challenges his jury conviction for possession of contraband in a penal institution, alleging that the following errors were made at his trial: (1) that the chain of custody regarding the contraband was not sufficiently established; (2) that the stun belt he was forced to wear during his trial violated his due process rights; and (3) that the evidence was insufficient to establish his guilt. Upon consideration of the record and the applicable authorities, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Johnson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Larry James Jenkins
The appellant, Larry Jenkins, pled guilty to multiple counts of burglary, theft, and vandalism, and the trial court imposed a total effective sentence of eighteen years. On appeal, the appellant challenges the trial court’s refusal to grant alternative sentencing. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Jefferson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Xavier Crawford
Appellant, Xavier Crawford, stands convicted of aggravated rape and aggravated robbery. The trial court sentenced him to an effective sentence of thirty-seven years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, appellant submits that the State failed to establish a sufficient chain of custody, that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions, and that the trial court erred by admitting hearsay evidence. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Carey Faught
Carey Faught (“the Defendant”) was convicted by a jury of aggravated burglary, employing a firearm during a dangerous felony, reckless endangerment, two counts of attempted aggravated robbery, and two counts of especially aggravated robbery. The trial court merged the two convictions for especially aggravated robbery and the two convictions for attempted aggravated robbery. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective sentence of forty-eight years’ incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction. He also argues that his conviction for employing a firearm during a dangerous felony violates principles of double jeopardy. Finally, the Defendant contends that his sentence is improper. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Montez Dewayne Birt
The Defendant, Montez Dewayne Birt, pled guilty to aggravated burglary and received a six-year, suspended sentence. Thereafter, a violation warrant was filed, and following a hearing, the trial court revoked the sentence and ordered the Defendant to serve the balance of his sentence in confinement based upon his failure to report to his probation officer. The Defendant appeals the revocation and order of total incarceration. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Dwight O. Satterfield v. Margaret H. Satterfield - Concurring
I concur completely in Judge Swiney’s well-reasoned majority opinion. I write separately to stress the linchpin of the majority’s rationale in rejecting Mr. Satterfield’s first issue. |
Blount | Court of Appeals | |
Richard A. Berent v. CMH Homes, Inc. et al.
The issue on this appeal is the enforceability of an arbitration agreement. The trial court, applying the principles promulgated in Taylor v. Butler, 142 S.W.3d 277 (Tenn. 1996), held that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable because it requires the plaintiff to submit to arbitration virtually all of his claims, while allowing the defendants access to a judicial forum for some of their potential claims. We agree with the trial court that the Supreme Court’s decision in Taylor is controlling and that Taylor mandates a holding that theagreement is unconscionable and unenforceable. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
In Re T.F.H. et al
A.F.C. (“Father”) appeals the order terminating his rights to his minor children, T.F.H. and P.F.H. (“the Children”). After a bench trial, the court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that multiple grounds exist to terminate Father’s parental rights. The court further found, also by clear and convincing evidence, that termination is in the best interest of the Children. Father appeals. He challenges the finding of grounds for termination, but not the best-interest determination. We affirm the judgment in all respects. |
Hamblen | Court of Appeals | |
Lataynia Jones v. Sharp Electronics Corporation
Plaintiff filed an action alleging retaliation and interference in violation of the Tennessee Disabilities Act. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of Defendant Employer on the basis that the Act does not require employers to make “reasonable accommodations,” as were required by Plaintiff at the time she was discharged. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Riannah M.F.
The trial court found that Petitioners had failed to demonstrate willful abandonment in this action to terminate the parental rights of Mother. We affirm. |
Hardin | Court of Appeals | |
Dwight O. Satterfield v. Margaret H. Satterfield
This appeal concerns post-divorce alimony issues. Dwight O. Satterfield (“Mr. Satterfield”) and Margaret H. Satterfield (“Ms. Satterfield”) divorced after 31 years of marriage. Mr. Satterfield some years later filed a motion to terminate alimony in the General Sessions Court for Blount County (“the Trial Court”) alleging that Ms. Satterfield had been cohabiting with a man. The Trial Court ruled orally that under the Marital Dissolution Agreement (“MDA”), Ms. Satterfield’s cohabitation did not precipitate termination of alimony. Before an order was entered on his first motion, Mr. Satterfield filed another motion, this time based on the statutory rebuttable presumption that arises if there is cohabitation. The Trial Court held that res judicata resolved the issue and that alimony would not be modified. Mr. Satterfield appeals. We affirm the Trial Court as to its interpretation of the MDA. However, as Mr. Satterfield’s second motion was pending when the first order was entered, the first order was not final and the Trial Court erred in holding in its second order that res judicata resolved the alimony issue. We affirm, in part, and reverse, in part, the judgment of the Trial Court and remand this matter for further proceedings. |
Blount | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Troy Lynn Fox
The Defendant, Troy Lynn Fox, was convicted of the first degree premeditated murder of his wife and sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal, the Defendant raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain his conviction; (2) whether the trial court erred by admitting certain photographs into evidence—one, a photograph of the murder victim that was taken while she was alive and, two, multiple photographs of the crime scene and of the victim’s injuries, taken both at the scene and during the autopsy; (3) whether the trial court erred by failing to conduct a jury-out hearing prior to the admission of several photographs of the victim taken at the crime scene and by describing those photographs as “gross” in front of the jury; (4) whether the trial court erred by requiring the Defendant to cross-examine the victim’s mother during the State’s case-in-chief rather than allowing the Defendant to recall her as a defense witness; (5) whether the trial court erred by prohibiting the Defendant from further development of the couple’s social, family, and marital history; (6) whether the trial court committed reversible error in its instruction to the jury on the impeachment of a witness; and (7) whether the trial court demonstrated judicial bias against the Defendant. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Wilson | Court of Criminal Appeals |