Thomas Goodman Rutherford v. Melodey Joice Lawson Rutherford
Mother, who spent greater time with the parties’ minor child, notified Father via certified letter of her intent to relocate out of state. Thirty-three days later, Father filed a petition in opposition to the move. The trial court allowed Father to oppose relocation, despite his failure to formally oppose the move within thirty days, noting that Mother had learned of Father’s opposition within the thirty-day period and that she had not relocated until “well after” Father filed his petition. In this statutory construction case, we conclude that Tennessee’s parental relocation statute, Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-108, mandates that a parent wishing to oppose relocation file a petition in opposition within thirty days of receipt of notice of the proposed relocation. If no written petition in opposition is timely filed, the parent proposing to relocate with the child shall be permitted to do so, notwithstanding the absence of harm or prejudice to the relocating parent due to the untimely petition. Because Father failed to file a written petition in opposition to Mother’s proposed relocation within thirty days of receipt of her certified letter, we find the trial court erred in conducting any further analysis pursuant to section 36-6-108. The decision of the trial court is reversed, and Mother is permitted to relocate to Omaha, Nebraska, with the minor child. Father’s request for appellate attorney fees is denied, and all remaining issues are deemed pretermitted. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Thomas Goodman Rutherford v. Melodey Joice Lawson Rutherford - Dissent
Based on the application of Rule 6.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure to the facts of this case, I must respectfully dissent from the majority. While the majority concludes that Father’s petition is barred by his failure to timely file his petition in opposition to the relocation, I would instead remand to the trial court for specific findings of fact and conclusions of law on the issue of whether Father’s delay in filing his petition was the result of excusable neglect. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Thomas Goodman Rutherford v. Melodey Joice Lawson Rutherford - Separate Concurrence
I have carefully considered Judge Stafford’s energetic dissent in this case, and find that I cannot agree. I submit this separate concurrence to explain my position. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Erykah C.
This case involves an appeal by a mother of the termination of her parental rights to her daughter. We conclude that the grounds for termination have been established by clear and convincing evidence. Further, there is clear and convincing evidence in the record that termination of the mother’s parental rights is in the child’s best interest. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: James C.E.
This is a termination of parental rights case in which the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services sought to terminate the parental rights of Robert E. and Susan E. to James C. E. The trial court terminated Robert E.’s parental rights, finding that he had abandoned James C. E. and that termination of his parental rights was in the best interest of James C. E. Robert E. appeals. We affirm the decision of the trial court. |
Hawkins | Court of Appeals | |
Jeff Finch v. Tina Raymer, et al.
This appeal involves a dispute over property allegedly owned by a partnership. The plaintiff and defendant lived together for about six years but never married. It is undisputed that they formed a partnership during that time for the purpose of buying and selling real estate. The parties bought, renovated, and sold numerous properties, and after they separated, they equally split the remaining profits from the property sales. However, they could not agree as to who owned the house where the parties were currently living and various items of personal property acquired during their relationship. Following a bench trial, the trial court found that all of the disputed property was partnership property and that each party held a one-half undivided interest in the property. Accordingly, the court declared that the parties owned the disputed real property as tenants in common, and it awarded the plaintiff a judgment for one-half of the value of certain personal property. The court also awarded attorney’s fees to the plaintiff. The court further concluded that the defendant had fraudulently conveyed partnership property to her father, a co-defendant, and the court set aside the sale and held that the defendant was responsible for repaying to her father the amount he paid for the fraudulently conveyed property. The defendants appeal. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand the cause for further proceedings. |
Henry | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Sampson Joseph McCoy
The appellant, Sampson Joseph McCoy, pled guilty in the Davidson County Criminal Court to aggravated assault and received an eight-year sentence. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court was to determine the manner of service of the sentence. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered that the appellant serve his entire sentence in confinement. On appeal, the appellant contends that the trial court erred by denying his request for alternative sentencing. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Hayes
The appellant, James Hayes, pled guilty in the White County Criminal Court to driving under the influence (DUI) and reserved a certified question of law concerning whether the police had reasonable suspicion to stop his vehicle. Upon review, we conclude that the appellant failed to properly certify his question of law. Therefore, we are compelled to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. |
White | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James Paul Kinard v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, James Paul Kinard, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for three counts of rape of a child and one count of aggravated sexual battery and resulting effective sentence of seventy-five years in confinement to be served at 100%. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that he received the ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Marie Delaluz Urbano-Uriostegui
A Davidson County grand jury indicted appellant, Marie Delaluz Urbano-Uriostegui, for one count of aggravated child abuse and one count of aggravated child neglect, both Class A felonies. A jury found appellant guilty of aggravated child abuse and not guilty of aggravated child neglect. The trial court sentenced appellant to serve sixteen years at 100% in the Tennessee Department of Correction. In this appeal, appellant raises the following issues: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to prove that appellant caused the victim’s injuries; (2) whether the prosecutor’s comments during closing arguments constituted reversible error; (3) whether the trial court erred by improperly admitting an expert in child maltreatment; (4) whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to obtain a medical expert to testify on appellant’s behalf; and (5) whether newly discovered evidence justifies a new trial. Discerning no error in the proceedings, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Antonious Jamal Brown
The Defendant, Antonious Jamal Brown, challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his jury conviction for first degree murder. Specifically, he contends that there was insufficient evidence presented to prove that he shot the victim and that he did so with premeditation. After reviewing the record and the applicable authorities, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Gibson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Earl Vantrease, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
In 2003, a Putnam County jury convicted the Petitioner, Earl Vantrease, Jr., of aggravated robbery, and the trial court sentenced him to serve sixteen years, at 35%. In 2006, the Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, contending that his judgment was void. The habeas corpus court summarily dismissed the petition, and this Court originally affirmed. Earl Vantrease, Jr. v. Wayne Brandon, Warden, No. M2006-02414-CCA-R3-HC, 2007 WL 2917783, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Oct. 9, 2007), petition rehearing granted, Dec. 14, 2007. The Petitioner filed a motion for a rehearing, provided additional documentation, and this Court reversed itself and remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing on the merits of the Petitioner’s habeas corpus petition. Id. at *6. After an evidentiary hearing, the habeas corpus court again dismissed the Petitioner’s petition for habeas corpus relief. The Petitioner did not appeal, but, instead, he filed a second petition for habeas corpus relief. The habeas corpus court summarily dismissed the Petitioner’s second petition for habeas corpus relief. On appeal, the Petitioner contends the habeas corpus court erred when it dismissed his second petition. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities, we affirm the habeas corpus court’s dismissal of the Petitioner’s application for writ of habeas corpus. |
Hickman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Clifton A. Lake et al. v. The Memphis Landsmen, LLC et al.
On March 18, 1998, a concrete truck collided with a shuttle bus used to transport passengers between the Memphis International Airport and a nearby rental car facility. A passenger, who suffered a severe brain injury as a result of the collision, and his wife brought suit against the owner of the bus, the manufacturer of the bus, the manufacturer of the bus windows, and the franchisor of the rental car business. They based their claims in negligence and products liability, contending that the bus was unsafe because it was not equipped with passenger seatbelts, because it had side windows made of tempered glass rather than laminated glass, and because it provided perimeter seating instead of forward-facing rows. The trial court granted summary judgment to the window manufacturer and partial summary judgments as to the products liability claims against the bus owner and franchisor, but otherwise denied the defendants’ motions for summary judgment, which asserted that the plaintiffs’ claims were preempted by federal motor vehicle safety standards. Following trial, the jury found that the plaintiffs had sustained damages in the amount of $8,543,630, but assessed 100% of the fault to the corporate owner of the concrete truck, which had reached a settlement with the plaintiffs prior to trial. On appeal, the plaintiffs contended that they were entitled to a new trial, citing twelve grounds for review. As a threshold issue, however, the defendants continued to argue federal preemption of the claims. The Court of Appeals held that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 205 and 208, 49 C.F.R. §§ 571.205, .208 (1995), preempted the claims based on the lack of passenger seatbelts and the material used in the window glass, and further ruled that the trial court had erred by failing to grant a directed verdict on the perimeter-seating claim because the evidence was insufficient to establish causation. We granted the plaintiffs permission to appeal and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of the intervening decision by the United States Supreme Court in Williamson v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc., 131 S. Ct. 1131 (2011). On remand, the Court of Appeals reaffirmed its prior judgment, concluding that the ruling in Williamson did not affect its previous analysis. The plaintiffs were again granted permission to appeal. Because the seatbelt and window-glass claims are not preempted by federal law and the evidence sufficiently demonstrates causation in fact as to the perimeter seating claim, the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded to the Court of Appeals for consideration of the plaintiffs’ claims of error during the course of the trial. |
Shelby | Supreme Court | |
Charles T. Hartley v. Arvil Chapman, Warden
The petitioner, Charles T. Hartley, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Wayne County Circuit Court, alleging that his sentence for attempted aggravated sexual battery was illegal because the judgment of conviction reflected that, as a child predator and a violent offender, he must serve one hundred percent of the sentence in confinement. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court. |
Wayne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John Davis
The Defendant-Appellant, John Davis, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of a single count of aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony, and received a twelve-year sentence to be served at one hundred percent. On appeal, he argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction and that his sentence was excessive. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Marks
The defendant, Michael Marks, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of rape of a child, a Class A felony, and was sentenced by the trial court to twenty-five years at 100% as a child rapist. He raises the following issues on appeal: (1) whether the trial court erred by not requiring the State to make an election of offenses at the close of its casein-chief; (2) whether the trial court erred by not requiring the State to make an election before the case was submitted to the jury; (3) whether the trial court erred by issuing a supplemental instruction on the election of offenses after the jury had already begun its deliberations; and (4) whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Dane Sayles, Alias Bradley Harper
Dane Sayles, alias Bradley Harper (“the Defendant”), was convicted by a jury of possession with the intent to sell or deliver three hundred grams or more of cocaine. The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range II, multiple offender to forty years to be served consecutively to previous sentences the Defendant received in Pennsylvania. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the stop and search of his vehicle, as well as the seizure of cell phone text messages. The Defendant also asserts that the trial court erred in “permitting the State to continue adding witnesses in the middle of trial whose names were not provided in discovery.” Finally, the Defendant challenges the length of his sentence. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Will J. Milton v. Saeed Etezadi, M.D.
This case presents the issue of whether proper service of process was accomplished regarding the defendant, Saeed Etezadi, M.D. Plaintiff, Will J. Milton, filed a medical malpractice action against Dr. Etezadi on April 14, 2003. The complaint and summons were served upon Dr. Etezadi’s office manager, with a notation appearing on the summons that service was accepted as “agent.” Dr. Etezadi filed an answer which, inter alia, raised the affirmative defense of insufficiency of service of process. Mr. Milton voluntarily dismissed that action and subsequently re-filed within one year of the non-suit. In connection with the second action, the complaint and summons were allegedly served upon Dr. Etezadi at his office. Dr. Etezadi filed an Answer, again raising the affirmative defense of insufficiency of service of process. Dr. Etezadi also asserted that all applicable statutes of limitation and repose had expired. He later filed a motion to dismiss. Following the hearing, the trial court dismissed the claims against Dr. Etezadi, finding that there was no service of process in either action. Mr. Milton appeals. We affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Crystal Miranda Kirby v. State of Tennessee
A Campbell County jury found petitioner, Crystal Miranda Kirby, guilty of first degree premeditated murder, second degree murder, and especially aggravated robbery. The trial court sentenced her to an effective life sentence. On direct appeal, this court ordered the merger of the two murder convictions but denied relief in all other respects. Petitioner then filed the instant petition for post-conviction relief, which was denied after an evidentiary hearing. Petitioner appeals the denial of post-conviction relief, claiming that the State violated her due process rights under Brady v. Maryland by withholding two video-taped statements that were allegedly exculpatory in nature. After thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Campbell | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Cayetano Ramirez
A Davidson County Criminal Court Jury convicted the appellant, Cayetano Ramirez, of attempted rape of a child. The trial court imposed a sentence of ten years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant challenges (1) the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress his statement to police, (2) an alleged Brady violation, (3) the admission of a prior act in violation of Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b), and (4) the sufficiency of the evidence sustaining his conviction. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Delavan Benjamin Mohammed
Defendant, Delevan Beniamin Mohammed, pled guilty to possession of more than three hundred grams of cocaine with intent to sell in a drug free school zone, with an agreed sentence of 25 years as a Range II offender, with the trial court to determine manner of service of the sentence. The trial court ordered Defendant’s sentence to be served in the Department of Correction. On appeal, Defendant contends the trial court erred by denying him an alternative sentence. We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Defendant. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Raynell Hopson
The Defendant pled guilty to aggravated assault, and the trial court sentenced him to four years, suspended after three months and nineteen days in confinement. In January 2012, the Defendant’s probation officer filed an affidavit alleging that the Defendant had violated the terms of his probation. After a hearing on the allegation, the trial court revoked the Defendant’s probation and ordered him to serve the balance of his sentence in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it ordered him to serve the balance of his sentence in confinement. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authority, we conclude that the trial court did not err. The trial court’s judgment is, therefore, affirmed. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kelvin Winn
The defendant, Kelvin Winn, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of first degree felony murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal, he argues that: (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the identification of him from a photographic array; (2) the trial court erred in allowing a jailhouse informant to testify without limitations; (3) the trial court erred in allowing the State to lead witnesses over his objection; (4) the trial court erred in allowing the introduction of duplicative photographs; and (5) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael McVay
A Shelby County jury convicted Defendant, Michael McVay, with rape of a child, aggravated sexual battery, rape, and sexual battery by an authority figure. The trial court sentenced Defendant to serve 25 years for rape of a child, 20 years for aggravated sexual battery, 20 years for rape, and 10 years for sexual battery by an authority figure. The trial court ordered all sentences to run consecutively, with a 100% release eligibility for the first three counts - child rape, aggravated sexual battery, and rape, and a 35% release eligibility for count four, sexual battery by an authority figure, for an effective sentence of 75 years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, Defendant presents the following issues: (1) the trial court erred by excluding evidence of the victim’s sexual behavior; (2) the trial court erred by excluding evidence of the victim’s prior complaint of sexual assault; and (3) the trial court erred by imposing an excessive sentence. Additionally, the State contends the trial court improperly sentenced Defendant on two of his four convictions. After thorough review, we affirm Defendant’s convictions. However, the trial court’s sentencing order is vacated in part and this case is remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Bruce L. Robinson v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Bruce L. Robinson, appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief as time-barred, arguing that the United States Supreme Court’s recent holding in Missouri v. Frye , __ U.S. __, 132 S. Ct. 1399 (2012), established a new constitutional right that did not exist at the time of his guilty pleas, thereby requiring retroactive application. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court summarily dismissing the petition as time-barred. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals |