State of Tennessee v. Tibila Aida Tekle
Tabila Aida Tekle was charged in the Monroe County Criminal Court with two counts of |
Monroe | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re Maddox H.
This appeal concerns the termination of a mother’s parental rights to one of her children. The trial court found that Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) established four grounds for terminating the mother’s parental rights and that termination of her rights was in the best interest of the child. The mother appeals. We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Joe Riley Prichard v. Rhonda Kay Prichard
This appeal arises from a divorce case. The husband filed a petition for divorce, and the |
Dyer | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Vincent John Elliott, Jr.
The Defendant, Vincent John Elliott, Jr., pled guilty to second degree murder and reserved a certified question of law concerning whether his right to a speedy trial was violated. Also on appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by sentencing him to eighteen years instead of the minimum sentence of fifteen years. Upon review, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction to review the Defendant’s certified question and respectfully dismiss that portion of the appeal. We further conclude that the trial court acted within its discretion in sentencing the Defendant. Accordingly, we respectfully affirm the Defendant’s conviction and sentence in all respects. |
Coffee | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Johnny Dewayne Boyd
Defendant, Johnny DeWayne Boyd, was convicted by a jury of rape of a child and incest. The trial court imposed an effective thirty-year sentence in the Department of Correction. On appeal, Defendant contends (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss due to the State’s failure to file a bill of particulars, and (2) that the trial court abused its discretion in denying Defendant’s motion to continue trial after a court security officer tested positive for COVID-19 and by failing to comply with the Tennessee Supreme Court’s Order on COVID-19 protocol. Following a review of the record, the briefs and oral arguments of the parties, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Giles | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Juan LaSean Perry
Defendant, Juan Lasean Perry, appeals the denial of his motion, filed pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1, to correct an illegal sentence. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Giles | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re Lucca M. Et Al.
In this case, prospective adoptive parents Whayne D., Lauren D., James K., and Heather K.1 (“Petitioners”) filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of Miya M. (“Mother”) to two of her minor children. They alleged these grounds: (1) abandonment by failure to visit; (2) abandonment by failure to financially support the children; (3) abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home; (4) persistence of the conditions that led to the children’s removal; and (5) failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody of the children. The trial court found that Petitioners established four of the five alleged grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence and that termination of parental rights was in the children’s best interest. We reverse the trial court’s holding that Petitioners established the ground of abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home, and affirm the judgment of the trial court in all other respects, including its ultimate ruling terminating Mother’s parental rights. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
State Ex Rel. Misti Leigh Haney O'Dell v. Andrew M. O'Dell
Because the notice of appeal was not timely filed, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider |
Court of Appeals | ||
In Re Avery W. Et Al.
A mother and father appeal the termination of their parental rights to two children. The trial court concluded that the petitioner proved five statutory grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence. The court also concluded that there was clear and convincing evidence that termination was in the children’s best interest. After a thorough review, we agree that clear and convincing evidence supports three grounds for termination and that termination was in the children’s best interest. So we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Cody Ricky Cofer v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Cody Ricky Cofer, was convicted in the Cumberland County Criminal |
Cumberland | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Christopher Lee Dunn v. Bruce Vukodinovich Et Al.
This appeal arises from a suit to rescind a contract for the sale of a home due to fraud. The |
Court of Appeals | ||
Linda Mears v. Nashville Center for Rehabilitation and Healing, LLC
Plaintiff alleges she was injured from a fall at a skilled nursing facility while using a defective shower chair with a broken lock and torn netting. The circuit court concluded the Plaintiff did not need to file a certificate of good faith under the Tennessee Health Care Liability Act because the common knowledge exception is applicable and the complaint’s negligence allegations do not require expert testimony. The nursing facility appeals, arguing expert testimony is required to establish both the standard of care and proximate causation; therefore, a certificate of good faith must be filed. Because the allegations set forth in the complaint do not require expert testimony to maintain the Plaintiff’s claim, we affirm the circuit court’s judgment. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Antwain Tapaige Sales
The Defendant, Antwain Tapaige Sales, appeals the Bedford County Circuit Court’s order dismissing his claim that his judgments of conviction for second degree murder and attempted second degree murder are fraudulent and void. After review, we conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Montreal Portis Robinson
A Madison County jury found the Defendant, Montreal Portis Robinson, guilty of felony |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Lester Tolliver
Defendant, Lester Tolliver, appeals as of right from his jury conviction for aggravated rape, |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Tyler D. Bolton v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Tyler D. Bolton, appeals the Washington County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his guilty-pleaded convictions for possession of twenty-six grams or more of methamphetamine with intent to sell, unlawful possession of a firearm, and two counts of aggravated burglary. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the post-conviction court erred by denying his motion in limine to exclude jail call recordings from the post-conviction hearing. The Petitioner also argues that the post-conviction court erred by denying relief on his claims alleging that he received the ineffective assistance of trial counsel by trial counsel’s failing to adequately investigate the Petitioner’s mental health history and request a mental health evaluation prior to advising him to accept a plea offer. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Washington | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re Liberty T.
In this case involving a petition to terminate the mother’s parental rights to her child and |
Court of Appeals | ||
Martina Smith, et al. v. Donna Jean Walker, et al.
The plaintiffs, Martina and Eddie Smith (“Buyers”), filed suit in the Madison County |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Frank M. Green
The Defendant, Frank M. Green, was convicted by a Davidson County Criminal Court jury of rape in Counts 1 and 3 and assault by extremely offensive or provocative physical contact in Counts 2 and 4 and was acquitted of the charge of aggravated kidnapping in Count 5. The Defendant filed a post-trial motion for judgment of acquittal as to the rape conviction in Count 3 and the assault conviction in Count 4. The trial court denied this motion but merged Count 3 with Count 1 and merged Count 4 with Count 2. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a sentence of ten years for each of the rape convictions and a sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days for each of the assault convictions and ordered the rape and assault convictions served concurrently, for an effective sentence of ten years. On appeal, the Defendant argues: (1) the State’s faulty election of offenses led the trial court to provide erroneous and misleading jury instructions, which undermined the integrity of the jury’s verdict; (2) the evidence is insufficient to sustain the convictions in count 3 for rape and count 4 for assault; and (3) the convictions in Counts 2 and 4 reflect the incorrect offense class and sentence. Because the State failed to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that errors regarding the election, the charge, and the supplemental jury instructions were harmless, we reverse the Defendant’s convictions and remand the case for a new trial on the offenses of rape in Counts 1 and 3 and the offenses of assault by extremely offensive or provocative physical contact in Counts 2 and 4. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
W. David Hall v. Zora Humphrey
This is a conservatorship action initiated by University of Tennessee Medical Center with |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Frank M. Green - Dissenting
I agree with the majority’s conclusion that the State’s election of the offenses was flawed and that the trial court erred in instructing the jury pursuant to the State’s faulty election. Cf. State v. Ellis, 89 S.W.3d 584, 596 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000) (“[B]ecause the election requirement is ‘fundamental, immediately touching the constitutional rights of an accused,’ a trial court has a duty even absent a request by the defendant to ensure the timely election of offenses by the State and to properly instruct the jury concerning the requirement of a unanimous verdict.” (quoting Burlison v. State, 501 S.W.2d 801, 804 (Tenn. 1973)). I part ways with the majority regarding the remedy to which the Defendant is entitled for the double jeopardy issue which resulted from the State’s flawed election and the court’s reliance upon the election in its jury instructions. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Mosley
Michael Mosley, Defendant, claims the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of attempted aggravated assault, that the trial court erred by not requiring the State to make an election as to the precise definition of serious bodily injury for which a conviction was being sought, and that the trial court erred by denying Defendant’s request for two special jury instructions. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Katherine Mechelle Stooksbury v. Matthew D. Varney
This appeal concerns a father’s continued failure to remit payment for his child support |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Steven Lamont Anderson
A Sumner County jury convicted the defendant, Steven Lamont Anderson, of unlawful possession of a firearm after being convicted of a felony involving violence and unlawful possession of a handgun by a convicted felon, for which he received an agreed-upon sentence of twelve years in confinement. On appeal, the defendant contends the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his convictions. The defendant also argues the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress and in sentencing the defendant as a Range II offender. After reviewing the record and considering the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Marlon Jackson
The Defendant, Marlon Jackson, appeals the trial court’s revocation of his three-year |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals |