Melvin Hill v. Whirlpool Corporation et al.
This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with Tenn.Sup.Ct. R. 51. The employee filed a complaint in the ChanceryCourt forCoffee Countyseeking workers’compensation benefits forhis lossofhearing. Following a bench trial, the trial court concluded that the employee’s hearing loss was caused by his exposure to noise at the workplace. Accordingly, the trial court awarded the employee $68,759.73 in permanent partial disability benefits after concluding that the employee had a vocational disability of 78% to his hearing. The court also awarded the employee his reasonable and necessary medical expensesand discretionary costs. The employer raises two issues on this appeal: (1) whether the employee gave timely notice of his alleged injury; and (2) whether the employee failed to prove that his hearing loss was work-related. We hold that the trial court did not err in finding that the employee gave timely notice and that the employee proved his hearing loss was work-related. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Coffee | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Kiewit-Act, a Joint Venture v. Chris Jones and Christopher Bryon Jones v. Kiewit-Act a Joint Venture and Zurich American Insurance Company
Pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51, this workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The employee has appealed the trial court’s denial of benefits for injuries to his right shoulder purportedly caused by a fall at work. The trial court denied the claim based on a finding that the employee’s testimony was not credible and that he failed to establish that his injury arose out of and in the course of his employment. The employee has also challenged the trial court’s award of $3,245.25 in discretionary costs to the employer. We affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
DeKalb | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Lojac Enterprises et al. v. Leonard J. Kanipe
Pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51, this workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The employee was injured on the job and was able to return to his pre-injury position. His initial workers’ compensation claim was settled after a benefit review conference. As a part of his settlement he retained a right of reconsideration pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-241(d)(1) (2008). Subsequently,he lost his employment. After an impasse at the benefit review conference, his employer filed this action to reconsider the employee’s benefits in the county where the injury occurred. The employee then filed a similar suit in the county of his residence. The employee filed a motion to dismiss the employer’s action, contending that Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-241(d)(1)(B)(iv) does not permit an employer to file a reconsideration action. The employer contended that the statute did permit filing of a reconsideration action by an employer or in the alternative, the statute was unconstitutional. The trial court in the employer’s case granted the motion to dismiss and found the statute constitutional. The employer has appealed. We affirm the judgment. |
Davidson | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Ricky Thomas Hughes v. David Sexton, Warden
The petitioner, Ricky Thomas Hughes, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus, arguing that he is entitled to habeas corpus relief from his especially aggravated robbery conviction because the victim died instantly rather than suffering a serious bodily injury. Following our review, we affirm the summary dismissal of the petition. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Schurman
Appellant, Christopher Schurman, appeals the trial court’s revocation of his probation, arguing that he is entitled to credit for time served on probation under the supervision of community corrections and that the underlying probation revocation agreement violated his right to due process. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kevin Jamelle Baldwin
The defendant, Kevin Jamelle Baldwin, was charged with possession with intent to sell between ten and seventy pounds of marijuana after the narcotics were discovered in the trunk of his car during a traffic stop. Thereafter, the defendant filed a motion to suppress, arguing that the stop and search of his vehicle were unconstitutional. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion and dismissed the indictment. The State appeals the trial court’s grant of the defendant’s motion to suppress, and after review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Obion | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Curtis Blackmon
Following a jury trial, the defendant, Curtis Blackmon, was convicted in the Shelby County Criminal Court in case number 10-01211 of the November 18, 2009 unlawful sale of cocaine, possession of cocaine with the intent to sell, and possession of cocaine with the intent to deliver, and in case number 10-01212 of the November 19, 2009 unlawful sale of cocaine, possession of cocaine with the intent to sell, and possession of cocaine with the intent to deliver. The trial court subsequently merged counts two and three with the first count of the indictment in each case and sentenced the defendant to two concurrent terms of eight years. The sole issue the defendant raises on appeal is whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain his convictions. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Bobby Joe Croom
The defendant, Bobby Joe Croom, was convicted by a Madison County Circuit Court jury of three counts of rape of a child, a Class A felony, and three counts of aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony. He was sentenced to an effective term of fifty years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in not requiring the State to elect the particular instances of rape and sexual battery it was relying on for conviction and that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions. After review, we reverse and remand in part, and reverse and dismiss in part. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Terrance Dixon
The defendant, Terrance Dixon, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of assault and criminal trespass, Class A and C misdemeanors, respectively, and sentenced to an effective term of six months to be served on probation after service of thirty days. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in allowing testimony of his prior bad acts and that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Gary L. Graham
The defendant, Gary L. Graham, was convicted by a Fayette County Circuit Court jury of driving under the influence (“DUI”), and the court found the defendant guilty of DUI third offense and violation of the implied consent law. The court merged the DUI convictions and sentenced the defendant to eleven months and twenty-nine days, suspended to misdemeanor probation upon service of 145 days at 75% in the county jail, and suspended the defendant’s driver’s license for two years as a result of his violation of the implied consent law. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence convicting him of DUI. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Fayette | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Larry C. Pittman v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Larry C. Pittman, appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in finding that he received effective assistance of trial counsel. Following our review, we affirm the dismissal of the petition. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Bradley Scott
The defendant, Bradley Scott, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury, under two separate indictments, of first degree premeditated murder, first degree felony murder, and two counts of aggravated rape and was sentenced to an effective term of life plus twenty-two years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues that: (1) the trial court erred in denying his motions to suppress DNA evidence and the statements given by him to the police; and (2) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Dearick Stokes
The defendant, Dearick Stokes, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of felony murder and attempted especially aggravated robbery, for which he received concurrent terms of life imprisonment and nine years, respectively. In this direct appeal, he argues that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his felony murder conviction because the proof showed that the killing of the victim occurred during an attempted aggravated robbery, rather than an aggravated robbery, as alleged in the indictment. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Gail Lynn Padgett (a.k.a. "Gail Lynn Nevels")
A Knox County jury convicted the Defendant, Gail Lynn Padgett, of driving under the influence of an intoxicant (“DUI”), fourth offense, a Class E felony, and driving on a revoked license. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to one year of incarceration for felony DUI with 150 days to be served in confinement and the remainder to be served on probation. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to six months probation for driving on a revoked license, to be served concurrently with the DUI sentence. The trial court also revoked the Defendant’s license for five years, ordering the Defendant to attend DUI school. On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain her conviction for DUI, fourth offense; (2) the trial court erred in denying the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for the State’s failure to preserve evidence; and (3) the trial court erred by denying the Defendant’s Motion to Suppress evidence of her actions and statements to police due to the lack of probable cause to effectuate the arrest. After a thorough review of the record and relevant authorities, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Charles Edward Durham
The appellant, Charles Edward Durham, was convicted in the Davidson County Criminal Court of possession of not less than one-half ounce but not more than ten pounds of marijuana in a school zone with the intent to sell and of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The trial court imposed a total effective sentence of three years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence that he alleges was discovered after he was illegally detained and the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his drug conviction. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Drew Freeman, Jr.
The defendant, James Drew Freeman, Jr., appeals from his White County Circuit Court jury conviction of second degree murder, claiming that the admission of the autopsy report via a witness who did not perform the autopsy violated his constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him, that the State engaged in improper and inflammatory closing argument, and that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
White | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Raleigh Kristopher Frye
A Coffee County Circuit Court jury convicted the defendant,Raleigh Kristopher Frye,of one count of third offense driving under the influence (“DUI”), and the trial court found the defendant guilty of violating the implied consent law. In this appeal, the defendant challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained following the stop of his vehicle and the sufficiency of the convicting evidence, claims that the trial court committed reversible error by permitting the State to exercise four peremptory challenges and by permitting the indictment for the implied consent violation to be taken to the jury room, and contends that the cumulative effect of the errors at trial entitles him to a new trial. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. |
Coffee | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Joseph S. Lucas, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Joseph S. Lucas, Jr., appeals the Williamson County Circuit Court’s denial of post-conviction relief from his guilty plea to rape of a child and resulting twenty-five year sentence. On appeal, he contends that (1) his guilty plea was not voluntarily and knowingly entered, (2) trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to preserve a suppression issue for appeal, failing to address waiver of the Petitioner’s ex post facto rights during sentencing, and failing to prepare witnesses for the sentencing hearing, and (3) appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to include transcripts of the suppression hearing and the guilty plea hearing in the record on direct appeal, failing to request a rehearing, and failing to argue that the Petitioner’s sentence constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Keesha P. Washington
The Defendant, Keesha P. Washington, was found guilty by a Williamson County Circuit Court jury of aggravated arson, a Class A felony. See T.C.A. § 39-14-302 (2010). She was sentenced as a Range I, violent offender to eighteen years’ confinement. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court committed plain error by not holding a hearing to ensure that she knowingly and voluntarily waived her right not to testify and that her sentence is excessive. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jeffrey Wade Osborne
The defendant, Jeffrey Wade Osborne, appeals his Williamson County Circuit Court bench trial conviction of felony failure to appear, see T.C.A. § 39-16-609, arguing that his trial should not have occurred while competency proceedings were still pending and that the trial court erroneously denied a motion for judgment of acquittal made at the close of the State’s proof. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Robert Kenneth Dubose
The defendant, Robert Kenneth Dubose, appeals the decision of the Hardin County Circuit Court revoking his probationary sentence. The defendant pled guilty to rape, a Class B felony, and received a sentence of eight years. The sentence was to be suspended to supervised probation following the service of one year. Subsequently, a violation warrant was issued charging the defendant with multiple violations of the terms and conditions of his probation. Following a hearing, the trial court revoked the defendant’s probation and ordered the balance of the sentence be served in the Department of Correction. Following review, we conclude that the defendant has failed to show that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering the revocation or in imposing a sentence of confinement. Therefore, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Hardin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Randall Murphy
The defendant, Randell Murphy, appeals from his Madison County Circuit Court guilty-pleaded convictions of burglary of an automobile; theft of property valued at $10,000 or more but less than $60,000; vandalism of property valued at $500 or more but less than $1,000; possession of burglary tools; and criminal impersonation. The defendant received an effective sentence of 21 and one-half years. In this appeal, he contends that the trial court erred by rejecting his plea agreement with the State, by denying his motion to withdraw his guilty pleas, and by imposing an excessive sentence. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Thorne Peters
A Shelby County Criminal Court jury convicted the defendant, Thorne Peters, of one count of simple possession of marijuana, see T.C.A. § 39-17-418, and the trial court imposed a sentence of 11 months and 29 days’ incarceration in the local workhouse; with respect to the manner of service, the judgment said,“[T]ime served.” On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction, the trial court’s granting the State’s motion to quash a subpoena of the former sheriff, and the trial court’s limitation of crossexamination of a witness. Discerning neither a paucity in the evidence nor reversible error committed by the trial court, we affirm the judgment of the trial court but remand for clarification of pretrial jail credit. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jeremiah L. Woods
The defendant, Jeremiah L. Woods, was convicted by a Madison County jury of one count of premeditated first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal, the defendant raises the single issue of sufficiency of the evidence. He contends that the evidence is insufficient only with regard to the element of premeditation. Following review of the record, we conclude that the evidence of premeditation in the record is overwhelming and, accordingly, affirm the conviction. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ashley Herman v. Daniel Herman
Two years after the divorce, Father sought to be named primary residential parent due to Mother’s alleged deteriorating mental health. Father sought discovery of Mother’s mental health records. Mother objected. The trial court ordered production of the records for in camera inspection. Mother filed an appeal pursuant to Tenn. R. App. P. 10, which this court granted. We reverse the trial court’s order. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals |