Tyrin Ross Price v. Sandra Ellen Price
This appeal involves the child support obligation of a man who is not the biological father of the children at issue. The wife gave birth to two children during the parties’ marriage. The husband filed for divorce, and subsequent DNA tests confirmed that the husband was not the father of either child. The trial court held that the husband had no legal obligation to pay child support. The wife now appeals, arguing that the husband should be required to pay child support because he is the children’s “legal father.” Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Bobby Lee Robinson et al.
Police utilized a confidential informant to arrange a drug buy from a co-defendant. At the scheduled time and location, the co-defendant arrived in his truck with the defendant and another passenger. A police takedown resulted in the arrest of the three men. A consensual search of the truck yielded approximately 153 grams of cocaine and 8.6 grams of marijuana in close proximity to where the defendant had been seated. A subsequent consensual search of the co-defendant’s residence, located several miles away, yielded an additional 293.5 grams of cocaine and various items of drug paraphernalia. The State consolidated the weight of the cocaine and charged the defendant with possession with intent to sell 300 grams or more of cocaine, a Class A felony; possession of marijuana; and possession of drug paraphernalia. The jury convicted the defendant of possession with intent to sell 300 grams or more of cocaine and possession of drug paraphernalia. We hold that although the evidence was sufficient to support a finding that the defendant constructively possessed the cocaine in the co-defendant’s truck, the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that he constructively possessed either the cocaine or the drug paraphernalia in the co-defendant’s residence. Accordingly, we reduce the conviction for possession with intent to sell 300 grams or more of cocaine to possession with intent to sell 26 to 299 grams of cocaine, a Class B felony, and we vacate the conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia. The case is remanded to the trial court for re-sentencing on the reduced offense. |
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
James C. Williams, Individually and on behalf of the heirs at law of Gayle Ann Williams, Deceased v. SMZ Specialists, P.C., et al.
This appeal involves a constitutional challenge to T.C.A. 29-26-121, which requires notice to defendants prior to the commencement of a health care liability lawsuit. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit asserting health care liability against the defendant health care providers within the applicable statute of limitations, but without providing the defendants with prior notice as required under Section 29-26-121. In ruling on the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the trial court held that Section 29-26-121 conflicted with Rule 3 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. On this basis, it held that the statute infringed upon the authority of the judicial branch to enact rules governing the procedures for commencing a lawsuit, and thus violated the separation of powers clause of the Tennessee Constitution. The defendant health care providers were granted permission for this interlocutory appeal under Rule 9 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. We reverse, holding that pre-lawsuit notice requirement in Section 29-26-121 does not contravene the separation of powers clause of the Tennessee Constitution. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Nickolus L. Johnson
A jury convicted the defendant of premeditated first degree murder for shooting and killing a police officer. As the penalty phase of the trial began, the defendant refused to allow his lawyers to present mental health mitigation evidence. After questioning the defendant about his decision, the trial court directed two mental health experts to evaluate the defendant’s mental competency. After the evaluation, the mental health experts testified that they could not render an opinion as to the defendant’s competency because the defendant had refused to cooperate. The trial court ruled that the defendant had failed to overcome the presumption of competency and was therefore competent to waive the presentation of expert mental health testimony. The State proved the existence of two aggravating circumstances pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated sections 39-13-204 (i)(2) and (9) (2006). The defendant presented testimony from family and friends. The jury sentenced the defendant to death. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the defendant’s conviction and sentence. State v. Johnson, No. E2010-00172-CCA-R3-DD, 2012 WL 690218 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 5, 2012). We hold that a mentally competent defendant may waive the presentation of mitigation evidence during the penalty phase of a capital trial. We further hold that (1) the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s ruling that the defendant was mentally competent to waive the presentation of mitigation evidence; (2) the trial court did not err in overruling the defendant’s motion for a mistrial based on the State’s improper reference to abortion during its closing argument; (3) the defendant’s challenge to the constitutionality of Tennessee’s death penalty is without merit; and (4) based on our review of the death sentence, as required by Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-206(c) (2010), the death sentence was not imposed in an arbitrary fashion; the evidence supports the jury’s finding of statutory aggravating circumstances; the evidence supports the jury’s finding that the aggravating circumstances outweigh any mitigating circumstances; and the sentence of death is not excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases. We affirm the defendant’s first degree murder conviction and sentence of death. |
Sullivan | Supreme Court | |
William D. Stalker and Stephen L. Young v. David R. Nutter and Tamara D. Nutter
This appeal arises out of a breach of contract action. Following the presentation of the plaintiffs’ proof, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss. We vacate the decision of the trial court and remand the case for findings of fact required by Tenn. R. Civ. P. 41.02(2) and 52. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kalvin Hardaway
A Shelby County Criminal Court Jury convicted the appellant, Kalvin Hardaway, of reckless aggravated assault and initiating a false report, Class D felonies. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced him as a Range III, career offender to twelve years for each conviction to be served concurrently. On appeal, the appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions and that the trial court erred by refusing to allow him to question the victim about the victim’s drug use. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Henry Jones
Appellant, Henry Lee Jones, appeals from his convictions of two counts of premeditated first degree murder and two counts of felony murder and his sentences of death resulting from the August 2003 deaths of Clarence and Lillian James. At the conclusion of the penalty phase, the jury unanimously found the presence of four statutory aggravating circumstances relating to the murder of Mrs. James: (1) Appellant was previously convicted of two or more felonies involving the use of violence; (2) the murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel; (3) the murder was committed for the purpose of avoiding, interfering with, or preventing a lawful arrest or prosecution of Appellant or another; and (4) the murder was knowingly committed while Appellant had a substantial role in committing any robbery. See T.C.A. § 39-13-204(i)(2), (5), (6), (7). The jury unanimously found the presence of the same four statutory aggravating circumstances with regard to the murder of Mr. James, as well as an additional statutory aggravating circumstance, that the victim was 70 years of age or older. See id. at (i)(14). The jury determined that these aggravating circumstances outweighed any mitigating circumstances and imposed sentences of death. On appeal, the following issues are presented for our review: (1) whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence of a subsequent murder; (2) whether the evidence is sufficient to support the convictions; (3) whether the trial court erred in admitting photographs of the victims; and (4) whether Tennessee’s sentencing statute for first degree murder is unconstitutional. After a review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm Appellant’s convictions and sentences of death and remand this matter to the trial court for entry of a single judgment of conviction for first degree murder with regard to each victim. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Henry Jones - Concurring In Part & Dissenting In Part
I respectfully dissent from the portion of the majority opinion in this case concluding that the trial court properly admitted the murder of Carlos Perez (the Florida murder) pursuant to Rule 404(b) of the Tennessee Rules of Evidence. In my view, the State failed to show that the method used in these murders was so unique as to constitute a signature that would give rise to the inference of identity. Based on the following authority and analysis, I would have concluded that the admission of the Florida murder was unfairly prejudicial and reversed the judgment of conviction and remanded for a new trial. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Vincent Lanier v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Vincent Lanier, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Petitioner was indicted for rape but entered a guilty plea to statutory rape. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that his judgment is void because (1) he entered a guilty plea to statutory rape, which is not a lesser included offense of the charged offense of rape, and his indictment was never amended from rape to statutory rape, and (2) trial counsel and the trial court failed to advise him that he would have to comply with the registration requirements of Tennessee’s sexual offender registration act because of his guilty plea to statutory rape. See T.C.A. § 39-13-506(d)(2)(B) (stating that “[i]n addition to the punishment provided for a person who commits statutory rape for the first time, the trial judge may order, after taking into account the facts and circumstances surrounding the offense, including the offense for which the person was originally charged and whether the conviction was the result of a plea bargain agreement, that the person be required to register as a sexual offender pursuant to title 40, chapter 39, part 2”). Upon review, we affirm the habeas corpus court’s summary dismissal of the petition. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Glen Walsh
The Defendant, Michael Glen Walsh, appeals from his convictions by a Sevier County Circuit Court jury for driving under the influence (DUI), second offense, a Class A misdemeanor, violating the implied consent law while his driver’s license was revoked for a previous DUI conviction, a Class A misdemeanor, and driving with a revoked license, a Class B misdemeanor. See T.C.A. §§ 55-10-401, 55 10-406, and 55-50-504 (2012). He received an eleven-month, twenty-nine-day sentence with 150 days to serve for each of the DUI and the implied consent violation convictions and received a six-month sentence, suspended except for forty-eight hours, for the revoked license conviction, all to be served concurrently. On appeal, the Defendant contends (1) that the evidence is insufficient to support his DUI and implied consent violation convictions and (2) that the trial court erred in sentencing him to serve 150 days. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Sevier | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In the Matter of: Deon S.
This is a termination of parental rights case. Mother appeals the trial court’s termination of her parental rights on several grounds, including abandonment by willful failure to visit pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated Sections 36-1-113(g)(1) and 36-1-102(1)(A)(i). We conclude that the ground of abandonment by willful failure to visit is met by clear and convincing evidence in the record and that there is also clear and convincing evidence that termination of Mother’s parental rights is in the child’s best interest. Affirmed and remanded. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Marvin Lee Keeling
Marvin Lee Keeling (“the Defendant”) was convicted by a jury of one count of kidnapping, two counts of aggravated burglary, one count of assault causing bodily injury, and one count of assault by offensive touching. After a hearing, the trial court denied judicial diversion and sentenced the Defendant as a Range I offender to five years for the kidnapping conviction, five years for each of the aggravated burglary convictions, eleven months and twenty-nine days for the assault causing bodily injury conviction, and six months for the assault by offensive touching conviction, all to be served concurrently, for an effective sentence of five years. The trial court ordered the Defendant to serve one year of his sentence confined in the county jail with five years of probation. In this direct appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the evidence is not sufficient to support his kidnapping conviction; (2) the trial court erred in denying judicial diversion; and (3) the trial court erred in denying full probation. Upon our thorough review of the record and relevant authorities, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Wade Allen Willis
Defendant, Wade Allen Willis, was indicted by the Maury County Grand Jury for the offenses of driving under the influence of intoxicants per se (DUI), violation of the registration law, violation of the financial responsibility law, and for failure to maintain control of his vehicle. The charges were the result of a traffic stop of Defendant by a state trooper of the Tennessee Highway Patrol. Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of his arrest, solely on the basis that his arrest "was without a warrant and without probable cause." Defendant did not assert that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to initiate a stop of Defendant. Following a hearing on the motion to suppress, the trial court took the matter under advisement. The trial court subsequently entered a written order granting Defendant’s motion to suppress all evidence obtained "following the initial detention and subsequent arrest." The State has appealed, following a nolle prosequi of the indictment. Following a thorough review we reverse the judgment of the trial court, reinstate the charges, and remand for further proceedings. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Charles Webb and Evangeline Webb, Individually and as Husband and Wife v. Charles Roberson, M.D., et al.
In this interlocutory appeal, Plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-121, which requires a medical malpractice claimant to provide certain notice sixty days prior to filing suit. We conclude that Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-121 is not an unconstitutional infringement upon the courts’ rule-making authority, that it is not preempted by HIPAA, and that it does not violate the equal protection and due process provisions of state and federal law. Affirmed and Remanded. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Michael T. Braxton v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Michael T. Braxton, appeals the Circuit Court of Lauderdale County’s denial of his pro se 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. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Justin Diana v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Justin Diana, pled guilty in the Shelby County Criminal Court to one count of attempted solicitation of sexual exploitation of a minor by electronic means and three counts of statutory rape. He received a total effective sentence of four years. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that his trial counsel were ineffective and that his guilty pleas were not knowingly and voluntarily entered. The post-conviction court denied the petition, and the petitioner appeals. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Tommie L. Hill Jr. v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Tommie L. Hill, Jr., appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court denying the petition. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re: Dallas G.
The Juvenile Court terminated the parental rights of the mother of a child on the ground of severe abuse; the court also found that termination was in the best interest of the child. Mother appeals, contending that the evidence is not clear and convincing that termination of her rights is in the child’s best interest. We affirm the decision of the trial court. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Brandon T. et al
Father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his four biological children. The trial court terminated his parental rights on the grounds of abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home, substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan, and persistence of conditions. Finding that at least two of the grounds for termination are supported by clear and convincing evidence and that the Department of Children’s Services exerted reasonable efforts to reunite the family, we affirm the trial court. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Kelley Higgins v. Bobby Higgins
In this divorce case, the trial court’s judgment ended the twenty-year marriage of Kelley Higgins (“Wife”) and Bobby Higgins (“Husband”). Husband appeals. He challenges the trial court’s classification and division of the parties’ property. He also contends that alimony was improperly awarded to Wife. We affirm. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Ryne W. Brown v. Catherine L. Brown, Trustee, et al.
This case involves a trust. In a previous appeal, this Court remanded for the appointment of a corporate co-trustee as specifically required by the terms of the trust. Thereafter, the defendant existing trustee, who is also a beneficiary, unilaterally appointed a corporate cotrustee and then sought to have the trial court “ratify” her appointment. The plaintiff beneficiary challenged the appointment, claiming that the trustee was not authorized to unilaterally appoint a corporate co-trustee and arguing that the corporate co-trustee who was chosen did not meet the qualifications listed in the trust agreement. After hearing some testimony about the proposed co-trustee, the trial court decided that the plaintiff beneficiary lacked standing to participate in the selection or ratification of a corporate co-trustee. The trial court then granted the defendant trustee’s motion to ratify her appointment of the cotrustee. The plaintiff beneficiary appeals. We reverse and remand for further proceedings. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jeremy Keeton
This case was remanded by the Tennessee Supreme Court for reconsideration after ordering that the record be supplemented with a statement of evidence regarding a missing portion of the trial transcript. See Tenn. R. App. P. 24(c). A Wayne County jury convicted the Defendant, Jeremy Keeton, of manufacturing marijuana by growing or cultivating not less than 100 nor more than 499 marijuana plants, and the trial court sentenced him to twelve years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant contends: (1) that he is being denied an "effective appeal" because the record on appeal does not include an official transcript of his cross-examination of a material prosecution witness; (2) the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress; (3) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction; and (4) the trial court erred when it sentenced him by not considering a relevant mitigating factor. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities, we conclude there exists no reversible error in the judgment of the trial court. We, therefore, affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Wayne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Paul Allen St. Clair
The defendant, Paul Allen St. Clair, was convicted by a jury of one count of the sale of between 14.175 grams and 4,535 grams of a Schedule VI substance identified as marijuana, a Class E felony, and one count of the sale of a Schedule IV drug, a Class D felony. The trial court sentenced the defendant to four years’ incarceration as a Range II offender on count one and to eight years’ incarceration as a Range II offender on count two, to be served consecutively. The trial court also fined the defendant two thousand dollars for each count and two hundred and fifty dollars to go to the Drug Testing Fund for each count. The defendant appeals, asserting that the trial court improperly weighed the mitigating factors in assigning a sentence within the range. The defendant also contests the fines, which he argues are unconstitutional because they were determined by the trial court rather than the jury. After a careful review of the record, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining the length of the defendant’s sentences. However, because the fines were assessed in violation of the Tennessee Constitution, we vacate the fines and remand for further proceedings. |
Trousdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Paul Allen St. Clair - Concurring in Part, Dissenting in Part
I concur in the majority opinion with regard to the holding that the incarcerative sentences in this case are appropriate. However, I dissent from the holding of the majority that the error by the trial judge in the imposition of the mandatory minimum fines prescribed by statute for the offenses in this case requires plain error review and a remand for a jury determination as to the imposition of these fines. |
Trousdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Barry H. Hogg
Appellant, Barry Hogg, was indicted by the Wilson County Grand Jury for eleven counts of especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor, nine counts of criminal exposure to HIV, nine counts of aggravated statutory rape, and one count of sexual battery. Prior to trial, the State dismissed one count of sexual battery, two counts of criminal exposure, and three counts of aggravated statutory rape. A jury found Appellant guilty of the remaining counts, including eleven counts of especially aggravated sexual exploitation, seven counts of criminal exposure of another to HIV, and six counts of aggravated statutory rape. As a result of the convictions, the trial court sentenced Appellant to twelve years at one hundred percent incarceration for the especially aggravated sexual exploitation convictions, six years at thirty percent for each of the criminal exposure of another to HIV convictions, and four years at thirty percent for each of the aggravated statutory rape convictions. The trial court ordered the convictions for especially aggravated sexual exploitation to be served consecutively to the seven convictions for criminal exposure of another to HIV and consecutively to each other. The trial court ordered Appellant’s aggravated statutory rape sentences to run concurrently with one another and with all other counts, for a total effective sentence of 174 years. Appellant appeals his convictions, contesting the sufficiency of the evidence and his sentences. After a review of the record, we determine that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and that the evidence supported individual convictions for events that occurred during one sexual encounter. Further, the trial court properly sentenced Appellant. Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed. |
Wilson | Court of Criminal Appeals |