State of Tennessee v. Arthur Donahue
The defendant, Arthur Donahue, appeals the revocation of his community corrections sentence, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by basing its revocation decision on his mere technical violations of the sentence. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jackie F. Curry v. Howard Carlton, Warden
The petitioner, Jackie F. Curry, appeals the Johnson County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus. Following our review, we affirm the summary dismissal of the petition. |
Johnson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re: Tiphani H.
This is a parental termination case. The juvenile court terminated the parental rights of mother and father on the grounds of persistence of the conditions that required the child’s removal and substantial noncompliance with the terms of the permanency plans. Both parents appealed. The mother and father argue the Department of Children’s Services did not clearly and convincingly prove grounds for termination of parental rights and did not clearly and convincingly prove termination of parental rights was in the best interests of the child. The mother also argues the trial court erred in determining she waived her right to appear at the termination hearing. We affirm. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Will Rogers Salmon
The defendant, Will Rogers Salmon, pled guilty in the Sevier County Circuit Court to DUI, first offense, and violation of the implied consent law and was sentenced to eleven months, twenty-nine days in the county jail, suspended to supervised probation following the service of forty-eight hours. As a condition of his guilty pleas, the defendant attempted to reserve the following two certified questions of law: (1) whether reasonable suspicion, based on specific and articulable facts, justified his traffic stop and detention; and (2) whether the arresting officer’s intrusion into his vehicle constituted a custodial environment that required the suppression of any post-arrest statements pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona. 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Based on our review, we agree with the State that the trial court properly found that the traffic stop and detention were justified. We further agree that the defendant’s second certified question of law is not dispositive of his case and, thus, is not properly before this court. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Sevier | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tobias Senter, a/k/a Toby Senter
The defendant, Tobias Senter, a/k/a Toby Senter, was convicted by a Cocke County Circuit Court jury of first degree premeditated murder and sentenced to life imprisonment, to be served consecutively to a life sentence imposed by a federal district court. On appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and the trial court’s imposition of a consecutive sentence. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Cocke | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Valentino L. Dyer
The defendant, Valentino L. Dyer, was convicted by a Rhea County jury of especially aggravated burglary, especially aggravated robbery, reckless endangerment, and aggravated assault. The trial court modified the conviction for especially aggravated burglary to aggravated burglary, merged the convictions for aggravated assault and reckless endangerment into the especially aggravated robbery conviction, and sentenced the defendant as a Range II, multiple offender to concurrent terms of eight years at thirty-five percent for the aggravated burglary conviction and thirty-two years at 100 percent for the especially aggravated robbery conviction, with the sentences to be served consecutively to the defendant’s sentences in another case. The defendant raises the following issues on appeal: (1) whether the indictment was defective for failing to state sufficient facts; (2) whether he adequately waived his right to testify in his own defense; (3) whether the trial court erred by disallowing evidence of the victims’ alleged activity as drug dealers to show their reputation for dishonesty; (4) whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions; and (5) whether the trial court properly sentenced him as a Range II offender and whether the sentences were excessive. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Rhea | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
W. Allen Barrett v. Giles County, et al.
The losing candidate filed an election contest alleging that the election commission made a mistake byplacing the candidate who eventually won the election on the ballot. The election commission admitted iterred in determining thatthe candidate who later won had a sufficient number of valid signatures on her nominating petition. The trial court found that the losing candidate failed to carry his burden of proof and dismissed the case. He appealed. We affirm, finding that this was not a proper election contest and that a challenge to a person’s appearance on a ballot should ordinarily be filed before the election. |
Giles | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Brittany M. A.
The petition filed by the father asked that the father become primary residential parent of the child, and that child support be set pursuant to Tennessee child support guidelines. At an evidentiary hearing, the Trial Judge granted the father temporary custody of the child and gave the mother parenting time with the child on two weekends each month. The father's obligation of child support was suspended, and the Trial Court set the matter for further hearing five months later. At the conclusion of that hearing the Trial Court determined that the mother's income was "not less than $90,000.00 per year" and ordered child support and a back judgment pendente lite for child support. The mother appealed. We hold the Trial Court's Judgment should be modified because the evidence does not support income at the level set by the Trial Court. We modify the amount downward to $52,000.00 a year and remand for the purposes of establishing child support in accordance with these guidelines. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Estate of Ina Ruth Brown
This appeal arises from a dispute concerning a contract to execute mutual wills. Ina Ruth Brown(“Mrs. Brown”), and her husband, Roy Brown, Jr. (“Mr. Brown”), executed mutual wills as agreed by contract. After Mr. Brown’s death, Mrs. Brown executed a new will. Mrs. Brown died. Rockford Evan Estes (“Defendant”), Mrs. Brown’s son, submitted the new will for probate. Mr. Brown’s adult children, Roy E. Brown, III, Joan Brown Moyers, and Donna Brown Ellis (“the Plaintiffs”) filed this will contest suit in the Chancery Court for Knox County, Probate Division (“the Trial Court”), contesting the new will on the basis that, among other things, the mutual wills between Mr. Brown and Mrs. Brown were irrevocable. Both the Plaintiffs and Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. The Trial Court denied Defendant’s motion, granted the Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, and voided the new will created by Mrs. Brown. Defendant appeals. We hold that the Trial Court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion for summary judgment because the Trial Court did have subject matter jurisdiction to hear this will contest based on this breach of contract claim. We further find that the Trial Court did not err in granting the Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment after also finding that the June 13, 2002 contract to execute mutual wills was supported by adequate consideration. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee, ex rel. Mary Tucker v. Randy Simmons
When Father failed to pay child support as ordered, the State filed a petition for contempt against him. The juvenile court found him in civil contempt based upon his willful nonpayment. We affirm. |
Lauderdale | Court of Appeals | |
Michael G. McCall v. Jennifer Sue McCall a/k/a Jennifer Sue Jordan
Mother and Father, the divorced parents of two minor children, filed a joint motion in the trial court to modify the permanent parenting plan. The trial court denied the joint motion and Mother appeals. |
Crockett | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Angelica S.
This is a termination of parental rights case focusing on Angelica S. (“the Child”), the minor daughter of Irene S. (“Mother”) and Jose S. “Father”). When the Child was five, Mother left her with Father. Mother never returned. Father, an illegal immigrant, subsequently married Melissa S. (“Stepmother”) and made her the Child’s legal custodian. In 2009, the Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) took custody of the Child after the Child alleged that Stepmother had abused her. The following year, DCS filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of Mother and Father. Following a bench trial, the court granted 1 the petition after finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that both parents had abandoned the Child by failing to visit her in the relevant four-month time period and that termination is in the Child’s best interest. Father appeals. We affirm. |
Roane | Court of Appeals | |
Kimberly L. Smith v. Gary E. Mills, M.D., et al
This is an appeal from a jury verdict in a medical malpractice case. The jury entered a judgment in favor of the defendants. The plaintiff has appealed. We affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Willie March Richardson
The appellant, Willie Michael Richardson, pled guilty in the Warren County Circuit Court to initiating a process intended to result in the manufacture of methamphetamine, promoting the manufacture of methamphetamine, and evading arrest. The trial court merged the first two convictions and sentenced the appellant to twelve years in confinement. For the evading arrest conviction, the trial court sentenced the appellant to eleven months, twenty nine days to be served consecutively to the twelve-year sentence. On appeal, the appellant contends that his twelve-year sentence is excessive and that consecutive sentencing is improper. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Warren | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Malcolm Dudley Thomas
A Williamson County Circuit Court jury convicted the appellant, Malcolm Dudley Thomas, of aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony, and the trial court sentenced him to eight years in confinement. On appeal, the appellant contends that (1) the trial court erred by ruling that the State’s rebuttal witnesses could testify about the victim’s character for truthfulness and (2) the State committed prosecutorial misconduct throughout the trial by placing or attempting to place prejudicial and irrelevant facts before the jury. Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the trial court committed reversible error by allowing the State’s rebuttal witnesses to testify about the victim’s character for truthfulness. Therefore, the appellant’s conviction is reversed, and the case is remanded to the trial court for a new trial. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jason Wayne White
The defendant, Jason Wayne White, appeals the revocation of his probation, claiming that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his probation and ordering execution of the original sentence. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Robertson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re: Bobby D. Green
A pro se litigant failed to pay the court costs resulting from complaints he had filed, and the Circuit Court entered an order in 2006 that allowed it to refer future complaints by that litigant to a Special Master for screening. The court’s order directed the Special Master to determine whether the court costs had been satisfied and to file a written report recommending whether the complaint should be allowed to proceed or be dismissed. The trial court was empowered to dismiss the complaint without a hearing if the recommendation of the Special Master was that the case not proceed. In the appeal before us, the litigant appealed from a general sessions judgment that denied him any relief for the purchase of a lawn mower that he alleged was defective. The Special Master’s investigation revealed that the litigant had failed to pay any of the court costs previously assessed against him and that additional costs had accrued since then. In accordance with the Special Master’s recommendation, the court dismissed his complaint. We find that the trial court acted within its authority, and we accordingly affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Ashley King v. Kenneth J. Wulff
In this dispute over child support arrearage, father argues that the trial court erred in increasing the amount of his monthly payment. We affirm the trial court’s decision. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Joe Burnette, Individually and Next Friend of Sons, Joshua Burnette, and Jacob Burnette v. Joel Porter, Jr., et al.
This is an appeal from a grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellees on claims of invasion of privacy by intrusion upon seclusion, and conspiracy to commit that tort. Appellees were invitees, and there is no evidence that they exceeded the scope of the invitation despite the fact that Appellees had ulterior motives in procuring admission. Appellants failed to show that Appellees’ actions were objectionably unreasonable or highly offensive, which are essential elements of the invasion of privacy tort. Furthermore, in the absence of an underlying tort, there can be no conspiracy to commit the tort. Affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Courtney Watkins
A Shelby County jury convicted the Defendant, Courtney Watkins, of especially aggravated robbery, and the trial court sentenced him to twenty-three years of imprisonment. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred by allowing the hearsay testimony of several witnesses, that photographs depicting the victim’s injuries were prejudicial, that the trial court erred by allowing him to be impeached with evidence of a prior conviction, and that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re Gary's Bonding Company
A final forfeiture was entered against the Appellant, Gary’s Bonding Company, in the Marion County Circuit Court ordering the complete forfeiture of the bail bond in the case of criminal defendant Judson Layne. On appeal, the Appellant contends that the trial court erred in ordering a final forfeiture and in denying its petition for exoneration. Because the notice of appeal was not timely filed in this matter, we are without jurisdiction to determine whether the trial court erred. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. |
Marion | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Keith Lonell Richardson
Dissatisfied with his conviction of aggravated assault, the defendant, Keith Lonell Richardson, appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea, arguing that he should have been permitted to withdraw his plea to correct a manifest injustice. Discerning no error, we affirm |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Marsha Bordes v. Julian Bordes
Husband filed a petition to modify the amount of alimony in futuro set in the divorce decree, asserting that health problems and a decrease in his income arising after the divorce constituted a substantial and material change in circumstances that warranted a reduction in the amount of alimony. Husband appeals the denial of the petition and award of attorneyfees to Wife. Finding that Husband was entitled to modification and that the award of attorney fees was inappropriate, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and modify the award of alimony. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Bob Keith Watson v. Tennessee Department of Safety
This appeal involves the forfeiture of personal property seized in connection with a criminal investigation. The petitioner’s home was searched pursuant to a search warrant executed on his home. Items of his personal property were seized by authorities, and later forfeited and sold. The petitioner property owner filed this lawsuit, arguing that administrative protocols regarding forfeiture proceedings were not followed and contesting the forfeiture of his personal property. The administrative law judge held that the forfeiture and sale were valid, and the property owner appealed to the trial court. The trial court affirmed. The property owner now appeals to this Court. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Doyle Sweeney v. David Tenney
Plaintiff sued defendant, alleging defendant owed money on a loan. Defendant defended on the ground that the contract was oral and the statute of frauds barred any collection. The Trial Court awarded Judgment in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $4,500.00. On appeal, we affirm the Trial Court. |
Greene | Court of Appeals |