State of Tennessee v. Keith Richard Gibson
Defendant-Appellant, Keith Richard Gibson, was convicted after a jury trial for possession of .5 grams or more of cocaine with intent to sell, a Class B felony, and simple possession of a controlled substance, a Class A misdemeanor. He was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender and received eight years’ incarceration for the felony and eleven months and twenty-nine days’ incarceration for the misdemeanor. He appeals the trial court’s denial of his motions to suppress evidence, arguing that the police lacked reasonable suspicion to support the investigatory stop of the defendant as required by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and article 1, section 7 of the Tennessee Constitution. Upon review, although we reject a part of the trial court’s reasoning in its denial of the motions to suppress, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Obion | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Troy Mitchell v. Fayetteville Public Utilities
The trial court awarded workers’ compensation benefits to an injured lineman who had violated a rule requiring the use of protective gloves while in a bucket lift. The employer appealed, contending that the statutory defenses of willful misconduct and, more particularly, the willful failure or refusal to use a safety appliance or device precluded recovery. The appeal was 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 Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-225(e)(3) (2008). After oral argument before the Panel, but before the Panel filed its opinion, the case was transferred to the full Court. Because the evidence establishes that the employee admitted his knowledge of a regularly enforced safety rule, understood the rationale for the rule, and willfully (rather than negligently or recklessly) failed to comply, the injuries he suffered because of the rule violation are not compensable. The judgment of the trial court is, therefore, reversed and the case is dismissed. |
Lincoln | Supreme Court | |
Troy Mitchell v. Fayetteville Public Utilities - Dissent
Today the majority adopts Larson’s four-element test for applying the defenses of willful misconduct or willful failure to use a safety device. This test allows an employer to assert the defenses of willful misconduct or willful failure to use a safety device when four elements are satisfied: the employee has actual notice of the employer’s rule, the employee understands that the rule is in place for safety reasons, the employer consistently enforces the rule, and the employee has no valid excuse for violating the rule. I disagree with the majority that the application of Larson’s test compels the conclusion that Mr. Mitchell’s removal of his gloves was a willful failure to comply with his employer’s safety rule. The majority concludes that “[t]he lack of a valid excuse for the failure to use a safety appliance or device, when the first three elements [of Larson’s test] have been satisfied, amounts to willfulness.” Our case law compels a different conclusion. |
Lincoln | Supreme Court | |
Daniel Lee Coleman v. Andrea Gibson Coleman
In this divorce action the parties engaged in mediation and resolved several issues in the case. The Trial Court entered a Divorce Decree without conducting an evidentiary hearing on the disputed issues remaining. The father appealed to this Court. We affirm that part of the |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Kyler R.C.H., et al.
In this case for parental termination, the Trial Court found statutory grounds for terminating the parents' parental rights to their three minor children. Only the father has appealed, and we hold that the evidence preponderates in favor of the Trial Court's finding for grounds of abandonment, as well as termination of parental rights being in the best interest of the children. |
Cumberland | Court of Appeals | |
Tommy Hinton and wife, Jean Marie Hinton v. Jerry L.Edmonds and wife, Susan D. Edmonds
Adjoining property owners dispute the validity of an Agreement which placed restrictions upon a roadway across one property which provided access to the other property. The trial court, after making specific factual findings, found the Agreement invalid and non-binding upon the parties. We affirm the trial court’s factual findings as well as its ultimate determination of invalidity. |
Hardin | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Nicholas Short
A Davidson County jury convicted the Defendant-Appellant, Nicholas Short, of one count of first degree premeditated murder and one count of second degree murder. The trial court merged the convictions and sentenced Short to life imprisonment. The sole issue presented for our review is whether the evidence is sufficient to establish his convictions given Short’s theory of self-defense. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Teresa Ann Barrett Goodman v. Jeffery Wayne Goodman
This divorce case deals primarily with child support. The parties entered into a consent order n the amount of child support to be paid. Father subsequently lost his job and sought modification of his obligation. The divorce referee modified the support based on Father’s alleged earning capacity rather than on his actual income. Father appealed the ruling of the referee, but did not file a transcript of the hearing with the trial court. The trial court entered a final decree of divorce, finding all property to be marital, affirming the ruling of the referee, setting permanent child support based on Father’s alleged earning capacity, and awarding attorney fees to Mother. We reverse the judgment setting child support based on Father’s earning capacity and remand for a determination of Father’s child support based on his actual income. Additionally, we vacate the judgment of the trial court awarding Mother $35,000.00 in attorney fees, award Mother $7,675.00 in attorney fees and remand to the trial court for reconsideration of the remaining portion of the attorney fees in light of this opinion. This case is affirmed in all other respects. Reversed in part, vacated in part, affirmed in part, and remanded. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Christina K. Deweese Richmond v. Gregory Alan Richmond
Christina K. Deweese Richmond (“Wife”) and Gregory Alan Richmond (“Husband”) were divorced in June of 1999. In March of 2011, Wife filed a motion to clarify the parties’ Final Decree of Divorce. After a hearing, the Trial Court entered its order holding, inter alia, that Wife was awarded 42.5% of Husband’s disposable military retired pay. The Trial Court also ordered that Husband shall pay to Wife her share of his military retirement accruing from August 2010 through June 2011 in the amount of $4,915.90 less federal taxes. Husband appeals raising issues regarding whether Husband should be entitled to the protection of the unclean hands doctrine and whether Wife waived her rights to past payments of Husband’s military retirement. We find neither unclean hands nor waiver, and we affirm. |
Cumberland | Court of Appeals | |
PNC Multifamily Capital Institutional Fund XXVI Limited Partnership, et al. v. Bluff City Community Development Corporation, et al.
This is an appeal from the grant of a Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02(6) motion to dismiss in favor of Appellees, an attorney, her professional limited liability company (“PLLC”), a title company, and a law firm. As to the law firm, the trial court found that the causes of action, if any, sounded in legal malpractice and were barred by the applicable one-year statute of limitations found at Tennessee Code Annotated Section 28-3-104(a)(2). As to the attorney, the PLLC, and the title company, the trial court found that any causes of action alleged against these Appellees sounded in tort and were claims for unliquidated damages; thus the court held that it lacked jurisdiction under Tennessee Code Annotated Section 16-11-102. After reviewing the Complaint, we conclude that: (1) the trial court did not apply the discovery rule in reaching its conclusion that Appellants’ claims that sound in legal malpractice are barred by the statute of limitations; (2) applying the discovery rule, there is nothing in the pleadings from which to infer that the Appellants’ knowledge of breach or misappropriation on the part of the general partner also means that Appellants knew, or should have known, about any wrongdoing on the part of the law firm, the PLLC, and the attorney; (3) therefore, any claims sounding in legal malpractice, against the law firm, the attorney, and her PLLC, survive the motion to dismiss; however, because there was no attorney-client relationship between the Appellants and the title company, claims for legal malpractice cannot lie against the title company; (4) many of the claims against the law firm, the PLLC, and the title company that sound in tort are not sufficiently pled under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 8.01 or, where they sound in fraud, are not pled with particularity as required by Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 9.02; these claims were properly dismissed with the following exceptions: (a) the Complaint does sufficiently plead a cause of action for aiding and abetting the breach of a fiduciary duty against the title company, the law firm, the attorney, and her PLLC; to the extent that the alleged aiding and abetting was the result of a plan or design by the Appellees, conspiracy may also lie for that tort; (b) the Complaint does sufficiently plead causes of action for misappropriation or conversion and conspiracy against the Appellee attorney, individually, but not against the law firm, the title company, or the PLLC (due to lack of particularity in the pleadings as to these Appellees); (5) because the amounts of the alleged misappropriations are known, the damages sought are not all unliquidated; therefore, the chancery court has jurisdiction. Reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Brandi Nicole Sosebee v. John Charles Sosebee, Jr.
In March of 2011, John Charles Sosebee, Jr. (“Husband”) was found guilty of 69 counts of criminal contempt for violating an order of protection in favor of Brandi Nicole Sosebee (“Wife”). Husband was sentenced to 10 days in jail for each violation, for a total of 690 days. Husband appeals raising several issues including whether he received proper notice that Wife was seeking criminal contempt. We find and hold that Husband did not receive proper notice that criminal contempt was being pursued and should not have been convicted and sentenced accordingly. We, however, hold that the record on appeal supports a finding that Husband violated the order of protection on 69 occasions. We, therefore, modify the judgment to reflect that Husband committed civil contempt, and remand to the Trial Court with direction to set a purge amount and proceed accordingly. |
Blount | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Carlos Cannon
The defendant, Carlos Cannon, was convicted by a Madison County Circuit Court jury of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, and was sentenced to ten years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Wilson Reynolds v. Lee Roy Roberson
This appeal involves a contract dispute over the purchase of more than 100 acres of rustic property adjacent to the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Wilson Reynolds offered to purchase the property from Lee Roy Roberson, Jr. for 3 million dollars. The parties formed a contract evidencing their agreement. Following the closing date, Wilson Reynolds filed suit, alleging breach of contract. The trial court ruled that Lee Roy Roberson, Jr. breached the contract and awarded Wilson Reynolds $600,000 in damages plus interest, attorney fees, and other costs. Lee Roy Roberson, Jr. appeals. We affirm. |
Blount | Court of Appeals | |
James William Swafford, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
James William Swafford, Jr. (“the Petitioner”) filed for post-conviction relief from his multiple convictions for drug and other offenses which resulted in an effective sentence of thirty-three years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. He alleges that he received ineffective assistance of counsel in conjunction with his guilty plea and that his plea was constitutionally infirm. After an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief, and this appeal followed. Upon our careful review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Dale M. Rogers v. State of Tennessee
In 2002, the Defendant, Dale M. Rogers, pled guilty to two counts of rape of a child, and the trial court sentenced him to fifteen years, to be served at 100%, for each conviction and ordered that the sentences run concurrently. The trial court later amended the judgements to reflect that the Petitioner was sentenced to community supervision for life after the expiration of his sentence. In 2011, the Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that he did not have notice that his sentences were amended until 2011 and asking the court to toll the applicable statute of limitations. He further alleged that the trial court’s amending of his judgments, adding the community supervision for life provision, rendered his guilty pleas unknowingly and involuntarily entered. The post-conviction court summarily dismissed the Petitioner’s post-conviction petition based upon its finding that the petition was untimely filed. On appeal, the Petitioner contends the post- conviction court erred when it dismissed his petition. The State agrees with the Petitioner that the post-conviction court erred and asks this Court to remand the case for an evidentiary hearing to determine when the Petitioner knew that his judgments had been amended. We agree with the parties, and we reverse the post-conviction court’s order and remand the case to the trial court for appointment of counsel and an evidentiary hearing. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kenneth Nathaniel Jones
The Defendant, Kenneth Nathaniel Jones, pled guilty to facilitation of aggravated robbery, and the trial court sentenced him to four years, to be served on probation. The Defendant’s probation officer filed a probation violation warrant, alleging that the Defendant had violated the terms of his probation. After a hearing, the trial court revoked the Defendant’s probation and ordered that he serve eleven months and twenty-nine days in confinement and then return to probation for the remainder of his sentence. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it revoked his probation because his violations were “technical” in nature. Further, he asserts the trial court erred when it imposed jail time because this was his first petition of revocation filed against him. After reviewing the record, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Charles Wayne Dalton v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner appeals the Circuit Court for Lincoln County’s denial of post-conviction relief. He was convicted of forty-three counts, thirteen counts by a jury trial and thirty counts by guilty pleas. On the date of his scheduled sentencing hearing, petitioner agreed to sentences on the thirteen counts for which the jury convicted him and pled guilty to the remaining thirty counts. He accepted an effective sentence of twenty-five years at 100% for all forty-three counts. On appeal, petitioner alleges that trial counsel made numerous mistakes in preparing for and conducting the trial and did not adequately explain the consequences of his guilty pleas. He further alleges that the post-conviction court abused its discretion by refusing to grant his motion to remove post-conviction counsel. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Lincoln | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Randall Kelvin Madison
A jury convicted Randall Kelvin Madison (“the Defendant”) of twenty-two counts of rape, three counts of aggravated statutory rape, and one count of forgery. The trial court subsequently merged several of the offenses so as to leave in place twelve counts of rape and one count of forgery. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered the Defendant to serve an effective sentence of thirty-five years. In this appeal, the Defendant challenges (1) the trial court’s ruling under Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b) that evidence of his uncharged bad acts was admissible; (2) the State’s election of offenses; (3) the sufficiency of the evidence; and (4) his sentence. We hold that (1) the Defendant is not entitled to relief from the trial court’s Rule 404(b) ruling; (2) the Defendant has not demonstrated that the State’s election of offenses was fatally deficient; and (3) the evidence is sufficient to support his convictions. We also affirm the trial court’s sentencing decisions. Accordingly, we affirm the Defendant’s convictions and sentences. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Marine Accessories Corporation v. Edwina Woods
In this workers’ compensation case, the employee sustained a compensable back injury for which he was prescribed medication. Approximately five weeks after his injury, the employee died from gastrointestinal bleeding. His widow sought workers’ compensation benefits, claiming that his death was compensable because it was caused by the medication he was prescribed for his work injury. The employer denied her claim, contending that the employee’s death was not caused by the medication, but was instead the result of esophageal varices caused by alcoholism and cirrhosis of the liver. The trial court held that the widow did not sustain her burden of proof, and she appeals. We affirm. |
Knox | Workers Compensation Panel | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Earl Watts
A Davidson County Criminal Court Jury convicted the appellant, Christopher Earl Watts, of four counts of aggravated child abuse, two counts of aggravated child neglect, and one count of child neglect. After a sentencing hearing, the appellant received an effective sentence of seventy-five years to be served at one hundred percent. On appeal, the appellant contends that (1) the trial court erred by denying his motion to sever the offenses; (2) the trial court erred by instructing the jury that the appellant’s co-defendant was an accomplice; (3) the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions; (4) the trial court erred by failing to merge the appellant’s aggravated child neglect convictions; and (5) his effective sentence is excessive. The State concedes that the trial court erred by failing to merge the appellant’s aggravated child neglect convictions. We conclude that the trial court erred by failing to grant the appellant’s motion to sever but that the error was harmless. We also conclude that the evidence is insufficient to support one of the appellant’s convictions for aggravated child abuse, one of his convictions for aggravated child neglect, and his conviction for child neglect. The appellant’s remaining convictions and effective seventy-five-year sentence are affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Sheila Shults, et al. v. Johnny Richard Talley
A show cause order was entered in this case on April 13, 2012, directing the appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The appellant has responded to the show cause order, but the argument presented in the response does not appear to present good cause for maintaining this case in this court. The review of the record reveals that the order to which the notice of appeal is directed is not “a final judgment adjudicating all the claims, rights, and liabilities of all parties” from which an appeal as of right would lie. See Tenn. R. App. P. 3(a). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. |
Cocke | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Alessa E.N., Cassondra N.A.N. and Moses C.N.
A show cause order was entered in this case on March 23, 2012, directing the appellants to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The appellants have responded to the show cause order, but the argument presented in the response does not appear to present good cause for maintaining this case in this court. The review of the record reveals that the order to which the notice of appeal is directed is not “a final judgment adjudicating all the claims, rights, and liabilities of all parties” from which an appeal as of right would lie. See Tenn. R. App. P. 3(a). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. |
Greene | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. David Ingram Ownby, Alias
Following the Knox County Criminal Court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence, the Defendant, David Ingram Ownby, alias, entered a guilty plea to driving under the influence (DUI), first offense. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to forty-eight hours incarceration, placed him on unsupervised probation for eleven months and twenty-nine days, and ordered the Defendant to pay a $350 fine. Pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2)(A) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Defendant reserved a two-part certified question of law challenging the legality of his seizure and subsequent arrest. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. David Ingram Ownby, Alias - concurring
I concur in that the facts of the case would engender a reasonable suspicion that the defendant was driving while impaired. I would emphasize that the presence of the defendant’s vehicle headed in the wrong direction in the restaurant’s drive-through lane, in addition to the condition of the driver, is the fact that justifies the seizure. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Brian Montrel Brawner, Randy Leon Miller, and Sam Edward Stevenson
The Madison County Grand Jury indicted the defendants, Brian Montrel Brawner, Randy Leon Miller, and Sam Edward Stevenson, with attempted first degree murder, aggravated assault, especially aggravated kidnapping, and aggravated arson for having assaulted, kidnapped, and set fire to the victim, Freddy Jones. At the conclusion of their joint trial, a Madison County jury convicted Defendants Brawner and Stevenson of aggravated assault, especially aggravated kidnapping, and facilitation of attempted first degree murder. The jury convicted Defendant Miller of aggravated assault, aggravated arson, especially aggravated kidnapping, and attempted first degree murder. The trial court merged Defendant Brawner’s and Defendant Stevenson’s aggravated assault convictions into their convictions for facilitation of attempted first degree murder and sentenced them to effective terms of thirty and fifty-three years, respectively. The trial court merged Defendant Miller’s aggravated assault conviction into his conviction for attempted first degree murder and sentenced him to an effective term of forty years in the Department of Correction. Defendant Miller raises the following four issues on appeal: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain his convictions for aggravated arson and especially aggravated kidnapping; (2) whether his dual convictions for attempted first degree murder and aggravated arson violate principles of double jeopardy; (3) whether the State should have been required to make an election of offenses for the aggravated assault charges; and (4) whether the trial court erred by ordering consecutive sentencing. Defendant Stevenson raises essentially two issues on appeal: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain his convictions for facilitation of attempted first degree murder and especially aggravated kidnapping; and (2) whether the State should have been required to elect the offenses for his aggravated assault charges. Defendant Brawner challenges the sufficiency of the evidence in support of his convictions for facilitation of attempted first degree murder and especially aggravated kidnapping. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals |