State of Tennessee v. Charles W. White Sr.
The defendant, Charles W. White, Sr., was convicted of driving under the influence (“DUI”) by a Henderson County Circuit Court jury and sentenced to eleven months and twenty-nine days, with all but forty-eight hours suspended. His driver’s license was also suspended for one year for violation of the implied consent law. On appeal, he challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress the stop of his vehicle. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Henderson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Patrick Trawick v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Patrick Trawick, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by advising him not to testify at trial, which precluded him from presenting his only viable defense. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as Receiver for Tennessee Commerce Bank v. Bill Chapman, Jr.; Lisa Chapman; Chapman Ventures, LLC f/k/a Chapman Homes, LLC; State of Tennessee
Defendants in suit to reform deed of trust or warranty deed appeal the denial of their motion to dismiss action on ground of prior suit pending. Finding no error, we affirm. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Weston T. R.
Father has a son who was placed in the custody of his maternal grandmother when he was ten months old because Mother was deceased and Father was incarcerated. Grandmother filed a petition for termination of Father’s parental rights. Following a hearing the trial court determined Father had abandoned his child as that term is defined by Tenn. Code Ann. §361-102(1)(A)(iv) and that it was in the child’s best interests for Father’s parental rights to be terminated. Father has been incarcerated for all but five months of the child’s life and has engaged in conduct that exhibits his wanton disregard for his son’s welfare. The child has no meaningful relationship with Father due to Father’s life choices, which have resulted in repeated arrests and periods of incarceration. We agree with the trial court that Father has abandoned his child and that it is in the child’s best interest for Father’s parental rights to be terminated. We therefore affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Doris Hinkle, et al. v. Kindred Hospital, et al.
The widow of a man who suffered a devastating injury while undergoing a medical procedure in the defendant hospital filed suit against the hospital and the doctor who ordered the procedure, claiming medical malpractice, failure to obtain informed consent, and battery. The defendant hospital filed a motion for summary judgment, and the defendant doctor filed a motion to dismiss, both arguing that the plaintiff’s malpractice claims had to be dismissed because she failed to strictly comply with requirements of the Medical Malpractice Act, specifically Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121 (a)(1) (60-day notice) and §29-26-122(a) (certificate of good faith). The trial court granted both motions in part and denied them in part. We reverse the trial court’s dismissal of the medical malpractice claims against both defendants as well as the related claims. We also reverse the trial court’s dismissal of the claim against the defendant doctor for failure to obtain the patient’s informed consent, but we affirm its dismissal of the medical battery claim against the defendant doctor. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Doris Hinkle, et al. v. Kindred Hospital, et al. - CONCUR/DISSENT
I concur with the majority’s decision in all respects, except the decision to affirm the dismissal of the medical battery claim against Dr. Nguyen pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6). |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Ready Mix, USA, LLC v. Jefferson County, Tennessee - Concur
I concur with the Court’s conclusion that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s finding that Ready Mix, USA, LLC’s activities on its property established pre-existing use and, therefore, qualify for protection under Tenn. Code Ann. § 13-7-208 (2011). I base my decision entirely on our prior precedents construing Tenn. Code Ann. § 13-7-208 without any consideration, directly or indirectly, of the diminishing assets doctrine. |
Jefferson | Supreme Court | |
Danny E. Iloube, Sr. v. Don M. Cain
This action arises from an automobile accident. The trial court granted Defendant’s motion for a directed verdict on Plaintiff’s claim for damages for medical expenses at the close of proof. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Defendant on Plaintiff’s claim for pain and suffering and loss of earning capacity. On appeal, Plaintiff asserts the trial court erred by granting the directed verdict on his claim for medical expenses. We reverse and remand for further proceedings. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Harold Bernard Schaffer
Harold Bernard Schaffer (“the Defendant”) was convicted by a jury of first degree felony murder. The trial court subsequently sentenced the Defendant to life imprisonment. In this direct appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the indictment; (2) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence; (3) the State engaged in prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument; and (4) the evidence is not sufficient to support his conviction. After a thorough review of the record and relevant authorities, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Anna Parker, Administrator of Estate of Wanda Faye Dobbs, Deceased et al. v. Portland Nursing & Nursing Rehab et al.
In this action, the plaintiff has attempted to assert claims for ordinary negligence and medical malpractice against nursing home defendants by filing two separate actions and then seeking to consolidate the cases or to amend the complaint to assert both types of claims in one case. The first complaint filed only asserted claims for ordinary negligence against the nursing home defendants. Sixty days after having given the statutory notice to the healthcare providers of her intent to file medical malpractice claims, the plaintiff commenced a separate action against the same nursing home defendants and an additional defendant, a physician who treated the nursing home patient, by filing a complaint for medical malpractice. Upon motions of the nursing home defendants, the trial court refused to consolidate the cases, dismissed the medical malpractice claims against the nursing home defendants upon the ground of a prior suit pending, and denied the plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint in the first case to add claims for medical malpractice against the nursing home defendants. Having determined that the plaintiff complied with Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-26121(a) by giving the requisite 60 days notice to the medical providers and that the statute of limitations had not run, we have concluded that the trial court erred in denying the plaintiff’s Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 15.01 motion to amend the complaint. Accordingly, we reverse and remand with instructions to grant the plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint for ordinary negligence against the nursing home defendants thus allowing the plaintiff to assert medical malpractice claims against the nursing home defendants and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
William Glenn Rogers v. State of Tennessee
The capital Petitioner, William Glenn Rogers, appeals as of right from the post-conviction court’s order denying his initial and amended petitions for post-conviction relief challenging his merged first degree murder conviction and death sentence for the killing of nine-year-old Jacqueline Beard, as well as his convictions for especially aggravated kidnapping, rape of a child, and two counts of criminal impersonation. The Petitioner received an effective sentence of forty-eight (48) years’ imprisonment for his non-capital offenses. On appeal, the Petitioner claims that the post-conviction court erred in denying relief because defense counsel provided ineffective assistance in both the trial and appellate proceedings related to these convictions and sentences and because multiple other constitutional violations call into question the validity of these convictions and sentences. After a careful and laborious review of the record, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Brandon Sean Sutton
A Jefferson County jury convicted appellant, Brandon Sean Sutton, of first degree murder, and he received a sentence of life without the possibility of parole. On appeal, appellant argues that (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction; (2) the trial court erred when it admitted certain photographs; (3) emotional displays from the victim’s family violated his right to a fair trial; (4) the evidence did not support the sentence of life without parole; (5) the victim impact evidence was improper; and (6) the trial judge did not follow proper procedure when selecting the manner in which he removed alternate jurors. After reviewing the record, the parties’ briefs, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Jefferson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jonathan Curtis Austin
Defendant, Jonathan Austin, was indicted by the Greene County Grand Jury for one count of aggravated assault, a Class C felony. Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted as charged. On appeal, Defendant argues that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support his conviction. After a careful review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Greene | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ready Mix, USA, LLC v. Jefferson County, Tennessee
The plaintiff, a producer of construction aggregates, acquired property with proven reserves for mining and quarrying operations. Afterward, Jefferson County enacted a comprehensive zoning ordinance limiting the use of the property to agricultural purposes. Before the passage of the ordinance, the plaintiff undertook various activities designed to establish business operations. When the county issued a stop work order, the plaintiff, without first receiving a decision from the county’s board of zoning appeals, filed a declaratory judgment action arguing that the portion of the property not previously subject to zoning qualified as a pre-existing non-conforming use, protected by Tennessee Code Annotated section 13-7-208 (1992). After concluding that the plaintiff was not required to exhaust its administrative remedies, the trial court ruled that the business activities on the property were “in operation” at the effective date of the ordinance for purposes of grandfather protection under section 137-208. Because the Court of Appeals held that the plaintiff had failed to exhaust its administrative remedies, the judgment was set aside. We hold that the trial court, under these circumstances, did not err by ruling that the plaintiff was not required to exhaust the administrative remedies. We further hold that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s finding that the plaintiff had established operations sufficient to qualify for protection under Tennessee Code Annotated section 13-7-208. |
Jefferson | Supreme Court | |
City of Memphis, A Municipal Corporation for the Use and Benefit of Memphis Light Gas and Water v. Tandy J. Gilliland Family, L.L.C., et al
This is a condemnation case. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Appellees, the landowners, finding that Appellant MLGW's attempted condemnation was not necessary. The evidence clearly establishes that MLGW had the right to take, and that the taking was for a public purpose. Therefore, the burden fell to Appellees to show that MLGW’s taking was arbitrary or capricious. The evidence contained in the record does not establish that the taking was arbitrary or capricious with the result being that the condemnation is “conclusive upon the court.” Because the court considered necessity and location in contravention of MLGW’s condemnation power, we reverse the grant of summary judgment and remand to the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kendell Edward Johnson
The Defendant, Kendell Edward Johnson, appeals from his jury conviction for second degree murder, for which he received a fifteen-year sentence. In this direct appeal, the Defendant argues (1) that the trial court erred by admitting the redacted recording of a conversation between the Defendant and his father made at the police station following the Defendant’s arrest on an unrelated charge, (2) that the trial court erred by permitting the irrelevant testimony of the victim’s brother, and (3) that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable authorities, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Sapinder Singh v. Larry Fowler Trucking, Inc.
This case arises from an accident involving two semi-trucks. The truck owned by Appellee trucking company rear-ended the truck driven by Appellant, causing injury to Appellant’s back. Litigation ensued and the Appellee filed a motion in limine to exclude portions of Appellant’s medical expert’s testimony concerning Appellant’s possible future need for surgery and the costs thereof. The trial court granted the motion, and Appellant appeals. Discerning no error, we affirm |
Henderson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Roger Weems Harper
Appellant, Roger Harper, was convicted by a Montgomery County jury of evading arrest. The trial court sentenced Appellant as a Range I, standard offender to three years and six months. The trial court set the sentence to run consecutivelyto a five-year diversion sentence imposed under Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-313 that Appellant was serving from another case. On appeal, Appellant argues that the trial court erred because: (1) the jury failed to specify that it found the aggravating factors required to find Appellant guilty of a Class D felony and furthermore, the trial court sentenced Appellant as if the conviction was a Class D felony; (2) Appellant’s sentence is excessive due to the presence of mitigating factors that the trial court failed to find; and (3) the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentencing. We have reviewed the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court committed no error. However, the judgment form must be corrected to reflect that Appellant was convicted of the Class D felony. Therefore, we affirm Appellant’s conviction and sentence but remand for the trial court to enter a corrected judgment. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Mauricio Morales
The defendant, Mauricio Morales, appeals his Davidson County Criminal Court jury convictions of three counts of rape of a child, one count of aggravated sexual battery, and one count of aggravated burglary, claiming that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions, that the trial court erred by admitting certain evidence, that the trial court erred in its instructions to the jury, and that the 100-year effective sentence is excessive. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Curtis Harper
The Defendant, Curtis Harper, was found guilty by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of attempt to commit second degree murder, a Class B felony, employing a firearm during the commission of a felony, a Class C felony, and two counts of aggravated assault, a Class C felony. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-210(a)(1) (2010), 39-12-101(a) (2010), 39-17-1324 (Supp. 2008) (amended 2009), 39-13-102(a)(1)(A) (2006) (amended 2009, 2010, 2011). The trial court merged the aggravated assault convictions into the attempted second degree murder conviction, and sentenced the Defendant as a Range I, standard offender to twelve years’ confinement for attempted second degree murder and six years for employing a firearm during the commission of a felony. The trial court ordered the sentences to be served consecutively, for an effective eighteen-year sentence. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction for attempted second degree murder. We affirm the Defendant’s convictions, but we vacate the aggravated assault and attempted second degree murder judgments and remand the case for entry of a corrected judgment reflecting the merger of the aggravated assault convictions into the conviction for attempted second degree murder. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Lori Anne Yattoni-Prestwood v. John Stewart Prestwood
This is a divorce case that focuses on the parties’ debt and the issue of attorney’s fees. The trial court dissolved the marriage of Lori Anne Yattoni-Prestwood (“Wife”) and John Stewart Prestwood (“Husband”). During their brief time together, the parties accumulated only debt, no assets. Husband’s liability for the parties’ debts was discharged in bankruptcy. In considering the issue of property division and allocation of debt, the trial court found that expenditures made by Wife to and for Husband’s benefit, both before and during the marriage, were “gifts” to him; accordingly, the court declined to treat the after-marriage payments as marital obligations. Instead, the court decreed that each party would be responsible for that party’s “own respective liabilities.” Wife appeals and contends that the trial court erred in failing to properly classify and equitably divide the marital debt and in denying, after first approving, her request for an award of attorney’s fees. She also seeks an award of her fees for legal work on appeal. We modify the judgment as it pertains to the parties’ debt in a way that results in an alimony in solido award to Wife. As additional alimony in solido, we award Wife her reasonable attorney’s fees for work at the trial court level. We further grant Wife’s request for an award of her attorney’s fees incurred for work on appeal as further alimony in solido. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Teresa Holt, et al. The Dollywood Company
Teresa Holt and Archie J. Holt (“Plaintiffs”) sued The Dollywood Company, a joint venture between Dolly Parton Productions, Inc. and Herschend Family Entertainment Corp. (“Defendant”) with regard to injuries Ms. Holt received as a result of her fall on a Dollywood tram. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. After a hearing, the Trial Court granted Defendant summary judgment finding and holding, inter alia, that Ms. Holt’s own negligence was the primary cause of her fall and that Ms. Holt was at least 50% at fault. Plaintiffs appeal to this Court. We find and hold that a reasonable jury could find that Ms. Holt was less than 50% at fault. We, therefore, reverse the Trial Court’s judgment and remand for further proceedings. |
Sevier | Court of Appeals | |
Laura June Bowling v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Laura June Bowling, filed a timely pro se petition for post-conviction relief challenging her guilty-pleaded conviction of second degree murder for which she received a sentence of 15 years’ incarceration. Following the appointment of counsel and the exhaustion of the one-year limitations period, the petitioner entered into an agreed order with the State withdrawing her petition. The post-conviction court then dismissed the petition with prejudice. The petitioner now appeals the dismissal order, alleging that her withdrawal of the petition was unknowingly and involuntarily entered. Discerning no error in the postconviction court’s dismissal, we affirm the order of the post-conviction court. |
Scott | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Charles E. Lowe-Kelley
A defendant was sentenced following his conviction on two counts of first degree murder and nine counts of attempted first degree murder. Eighteen days later, his attorney filed a motion requesting a new trial and withdrew as counsel. The motion contained no specific grounds for relief. The trial court appointed replacement counsel. Several months later, replacement counsel amended the motion for new trial to allege specific grounds for relief. The trial court denied the amended motion for new trial. The Court of Criminal Appeals held that the original motion for new trial was a nullity because it contained no grounds for relief and that the trial court therefore did not have jurisdiction to permit the amendment of the motion for new trial. The Court of Criminal Appeals therefore considered the defendant’s specific grounds for relief as waived. We hold that the original motion for new trial met the requirements of Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 despite its failure to allege specific grounds for relief and that the trial court retained jurisdiction to permit the amendment of the motion. The cause is remanded to the Court of Criminal Appeals to consider the defendant’s appeal of the denial of his amended motion for new trial. |
Maury | Supreme Court | |
Sonya Frances Kelly Rutledge v. Dan Kenneth Kelly
Father was found guilty of five counts of criminal contempt for his failure to pay child support and was sentenced to 50 days in jail. On appeal, Father argues the trial court failed to make the requisite finding regarding his ability to pay. We have determined that the evidence established beyond a reasonable doubt that Father did have the ability to pay the child support obligation, but that the maximum sentence is not appropriate based on the circumstances. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court with modifications to Father’s sentence. We also award Mother attorney fees for this appeal and remand the case to the trial court for a determination of the appropriate amount. |
Robertson | Court of Appeals |