Tracey Chandler and Kelly Wilson v. Charleston Volunteer Fire Department
The trial court reformed a lease agreement, finding certain terms had been erroneously transposed. Appellants contend the reformation was error. We affirm. |
Tipton | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Anthony Saunders
A Dickson County Circuit Court jury convicted the defendant, Michael Anthony Saunders, of one count of aggravated assault, see T.C.A. § 39-13-104(a)(1)(B) (2006), and one count of vandalism of propertyvalued at $1,000 or more butless than $10,000,see id.§ 39-14-408. The trial court imposed concurrent sentences of three years and two years, suspended to probation following the service of six months’ incarceration in the county jail. In addition to contesting the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions, the defendant contends on appeal that the trial court erred by (1) denying his motion for a mistrial based upon inflammatory statements made by the victim, (2) denying his request for judicial diversion, and (3) denying him full probation. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Dickson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Michael D. Williams v. George M. Little, et al.
Inmate filed a petition for writ of certiorari challenging his conviction of the prison disciplinary offense of conspiracy to violate state law. The chancery court considered the merits of the inmate’s petition and granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. We affirm. |
Hickman | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Dequon Letray Boyd and Jemarow Deverius Tillison
Defendants Jemarow Deverius Tillison and Dequon Letray Boyd were originally indicted separately by the Hamilton County Grand Jury for offenses that occurred in the same shooting incident against the same victims. Upon motion of the State and by agreement between the parties, the indictments were consolidated, and a superceding indictment charged both defendants with attempted first degree premeditated murder of Darlisa Wynn; first degree premeditated murder of Casey Woods; felony murder of Casey Woods; especially aggravated robbery of Darlisa Wynn; aggravated assault of Darlisa Wynn; reckless endangerment; and especially aggravated burglary of the home of Kysha Henderson. Following a jury trial, Defendant Boyd was convicted of attempted first degree premeditated murder; first degree premeditated murder; felony murder; two counts of aggravated assault, one as charged and the other as a lesser-included offense of especially aggravated robbery; reckless endangerment; and aggravated criminal trespass as a lesser-included offense of especially aggravated burglary. Defendant Boyd’s felony murder conviction was merged with his conviction for first degree murder, and both aggravated assault convictions were merged with his conviction for attempted first degree murder. He received an effective sentence of life imprisonment. Defendant Tillison was convicted of facilitation of attempted first degree premeditated murder; facilitation of first degree premeditated murder; facilitation of felony murder; aggravated assault of Darlisa Wynn; attempted aggravated assault, a lesser included offense of aggravated assault; reckless endangerment; and aggravated criminal trespass, a lesser-included offense of especially aggravated burglary. He was sentenced to an effective sentence of 25 years imprisonment. On appeal, both Defendants challenge the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. Defendant Boyd also raises the following additional issues: 1) whether the trial court erred by not granting a mistrial following testimony that he was a gang member; and 2) whether the prosecutor’s statement during closing argument that the jury had a duty to the community to convict constitutes misconduct. After a careful review of the record before us, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kenneth McIntyre
The Defendant-Appellant, Kenneth McIntyre, pled guilty to a violation of the habitual motor vehicle offender (HMVO) order, a class E felony, and passing worthless checks under the value of $500, a class A misdemeanor. Under the terms of the plea agreement, the Defendant-Appellant agreed to be sentenced as a career offender with the time and manner of the sentence to be determined by the trial court. The Defendant-Appellant received a sixyear term of imprisonment for the HMVO conviction, and eleven months and twenty-nine days imprisonment for the worthless check conviction. The trial court ordered these sentences to be served concurrently. In this appeal, the Defendant-Appellant argues the trial courterred inimposing sentence. Because the Defendant-Appellant filed his notice of appeal more than five months after the judgment became final, we dismiss this appeal. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Terrance Cecil v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner,Terrance Cecil,was found guilty by a Maury County jury of possessing twenty-six grams or more of cocaine with intent to sell, a Class B felony, and was sentenced to serve ten years in the Department of Correction as a Range I standard offender. On direct appeal, this Court affirmed the judgment. See State v. Terrance Cecil, No. M2004-00161-CCA-R3-CD, 2004 WL 3044896 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 30, 2004) app. denied (Tenn. May 23, 2005). Petitioner timely filed a petition for post-conviction relief. The post-conviction court granted relief to the extent of setting aside the sentence and granting a new sentencing hearing. The State has not appealed from that order. Petitioner has appealed from the post-conviction court’s denial of the relief requested by Petitioner to set aside his conviction. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that Petitioner failed to prove that he suffered any prejudice from any alleged deficiencies by his counsel. Since the prejudice prong was not proven, we need not address the alleged deficiencies of counsel. Accordingly, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Anthony Clinton
The Defendant, Anthony Clinton, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of robbery, a Class C felony. See T.C.A. § 39-13-401 (2010). He was sentenced as a career offender to 15 years’ confinement. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Terry Johnson
Following a jury trial Defendant, Terry Johnson, was convicted of aggravated robbery of a Family Dollar Store in Memphis. The offense involved the theft of merchandise from the store. The trial court sentenced Defendant to serve twenty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. In this appeal, relying upon State v. Owens, 20 S.W.3d 634 (Tenn. 2000) and State v. Swift, 308 S.W.3d 827 (Tenn. 2010), Defendant asserts that the evidence is legally insufficient to support his conviction for aggravated robbery. Defendant also argues that the trial court erred by overruling his objection to testimony concerning another theft related offense by Defendant of the same store, also involving merchandise, which occurred about two weeks prior to the offense in the case sub judice. After a thorough analysis, we distinguish Owens and Swift. We also conclude that the admission into evidence of the prior theft related offense was not error. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Devaron Taylor
Defendant, Devaron Taylor, was indicted by the Shelby County Grand Jury for two counts of felony murder and one count each of aggravated burglary and attempt to commit especially aggravated robbery. Prior to trial, one count of felony murder was dismissed on motion of the State. Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of felony murder, attempt to commit especially aggravated robbery, and aggravated burglary. Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment for his felony murder conviction and concurrent sentences of eight years for attempted robbery and three years for aggravated burglary for an effective sentence of life imprisonment. In this appeal, Defendant raises the following issues for our review: 1) whether the trial court erred by refusing to grant a mistrial after a juror was dismissed for sleeping; 2) whether the trial court erred by failing to restrict the State’s use of a hypothetical fact pattern during voir dire and by limiting Defendant’s voir dire. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Terry Johnson
Following a jury trial Defendant, Terry Johnson, was convicted of aggravated robbery of a Family Dollar Store in Memphis. The offense involved the theft of merchandise from the store. The trial court sentenced Defendant to serve twenty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. In this appeal, relying upon State v. Owens, 20 S.W.3d 634 (Tenn. 2000) and State v. Swift, 308 S.W.3d 827 (Tenn. 2010), Defendant asserts that the evidence is legally insufficient to support his conviction for aggravated robbery. Defendant also argues that the trial court erred by overruling his objection to testimony concerning another theft related offense by Defendant of the same store, also involving merchandise, which occurred about two weeks prior to the offense in the case sub judice. After a thorough analysis, we distinguish Owens and Swift. We also conclude that the admission into evidence of the prior theft related offense was not error. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Misty Nanette Brooks v. Stephen Earl Brooks
This case involves the filing of three separate orders of protection that were requested by Misty Nanette Brooks (“Wife”) seeking protection from Stephen Earl Brooks (“Husband”). Based upon Wife’s initial petition, the trial court issued the first order of protection, which included a provision regarding the division of the mortgage payment for the marital home. Wife subsequently filed a motion to show cause as to why Husband should not be held in contempt for violating the protective order, and the trial court entered a second order of protection that also included the mortgage rovision. Wife subsequently filed two motions to show cause as to why Husband should not be held in contempt for violating the second protective order. The first motion related to Husband’s unwanted contact with Wife, while the second motion related to the mortgage payment. Following a hearing on the first motion, the trial court entered a third order of protection that did not include the mortgage provision. Following a hearing on the second motion, an order was entered by the trial court evidencing an agreement between the parties that Husband was to pay his portion of the mortgage payment. Wife then filed another motion to show cause as to why Husband should not be held in contempt for his failure to pay his portion of the mortgage, and a hearing was held on that motion. The trial court dismissed the motion, finding that the court lacked jurisdiction to enter the order directing Husband to pay his portion of the mortgage. Wife appeals. We affirm the decision of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: London V.P.
The Juvenile Court terminated the parental rights of Andre T. (“Father”) to the minor child London V. P. (“the Child”) pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113 (g)(1) and § 36-1-113 (g)(6) (2010). Father appeals the termination of his parental rights to this Court. We find and hold that clear and convincing evidence existed to terminate Father’s parental rights pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113 (g)(1) and § 36-1-113 (g)(6), and that clear and convincing evidence existed that the termination was in the Child’s best interest. We, therefore, affirm the Juvenile Court’s January 3, 2011 order terminating Father’s parental rights to the Child. |
Washington | Court of Appeals | |
Stephanie Denise Phillips v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Stephanie Denise Phillips, appeals as of right from the Cocke County Circuit Court’s denial of her petition for post-conviction relief. The Petitioner argues that errors in her trial denied her due process of law. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Cocke | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jeanette Rae Jackson v. Bradley Kent Smith
This is a grandparent visitation case. Following the death of her daughter (the minor child’s mother), the Appellant grandmother petitioned the trial court for visitation rights with her granddaughter pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated Section 36-6-306. The trial court denied visitation based upon its finding that Appellant had not carried her burden to demonstrate a danger of substantial harm to the child. No appeal was taken from this order. Subsequently, the Legislature amended Tennessee Code Annotated Section 36-6-306 to create a rebuttable presumption of substantial harm based upon the cessation of the relationship between the child and grandparent. After the law was changed, Appellant filed a second petition for visitation with her granddaughter, citing the amended statute as grounds for re-visiting the issue of visitation. The trial court granted Appellee father’s Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02 motion to dismiss the second petition on the ground of res judicata. We conclude that the doctrine of res judicata may apply even though there has been an intervening change in the substantive law. However, because the prior order, upon which the trial court based its res judicata finding, is not in the appellate record, this Court cannot review the question of whether the motion to dismiss was properly granted. Affirmed. |
McNairy | Court of Appeals | |
Thaddius Brown v. State of Tennessee
In August 2003, the Petitioner, Thaddius Brown, pleaded guilty to multiple counts of especially aggravated kidnapping and aggravated robbery. Pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, he received an effective twenty-year sentence. He subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief, and the post-conviction court denied relief. On appeal, the crux of the Petitioner’s argument is that he received an illegal sentence because both boxes were checked on his judgment forms for especially aggravated kidnapping indicating that his sentences should run at 30% and 100%. The post-conviction court found that the error in the Petitioner’s judgment forms was a clerical error and that his plea was voluntarily and knowingly entered. We agree. We remand solely for entry of corrected judgment forms to reflect a single release eligibility of 100% for the Petitioner’s especially aggravated kidnapping convictions. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Sean L. Johnson v. Randstad North America, L.P. and Ace 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 suffered an episode of serious breathing difficulty after work while at home. He was transported by ambulance to a hospital where an emergency tracheotomy was performed to allow him to breathe. He alleged that this episode was caused by exposure to airborne contaminants in his workplace. His employer denied the claim. The trial court found that the employee had sustained a compensable injury and awarded permanent total disability benefits. The employer has appealed, contending that the trial court erred by finding that employee had a compensable injury, and by finding him to be permanently and totally disabled. We affirm the judgment. |
Lawrence | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Naomi Jewell Kelley v. Union Carbide Corporation
This case involves a claim for workers’ compensation benefits by the dependent spouse of a deceased employee. The decedent was exposed to asbestos in the course of his employment and contracted asbestosis as a result. His claim for benefits was settled in 1991. He died in December 2007, and his widow filed this action seeking death benefits under the workers’ compensation law. The trial court awarded benefits, and the employer has appealed, contending that the widow’s claim was barred by the terms of the 1991 settlement. The widow contends that the trial court incorrectly set the rate at which benefits are to be paid. We affirm the judgment. |
Maury | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Maxine Watley v. Whirlpool Corporation and Sue Ann Head, Administrator, Second Injury Fund
In this workers’ compensation case, the employee injured her lower back at work in May 2006. She received medical treatment for a short period of time and was then released by her doctor. In July 2007, she consulted a neurosurgeon for continuing lower back pain. Around the same time, she accepted a voluntary layoff from her employer, then retired. She later had two surgeries on her lower back: a discectomy in October 2007, and a fusion in April 2008. She filed this action, alleging that the surgeries and resulting disability were caused by her employment. Her employer denied the claim. The trial court found that the October 2007 surgery was caused by her May 2006 injury, but the April 2008 surgery was not. It further found that her award of permanent disability benefits was “capped” at one and one-half times her anatomical impairment due to her voluntary retirement. Her employer has appealed, contending that the trial court erred by finding her claim was not barred by the statute of limitations, and by using an incorrect impairment rating as the basis of its award. Employee contends that the trial court erred by failing to find that she was permanently and totally disabled. We affirm. |
Rutherford | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Bobby Murray, et al. v. Dennis Miracle, et al.
The plaintiffs, Bobby Murray and Loretta Murray (“the Murrays”), asserted a complaint against the defendants, Dennis Miracle and Robert Daniel Smith, for denying them access to a road and interfering with their use and enjoyment of their property. After several hearings, the trial court concluded that the Murrays were not following the court’s orders and dismissed their claims against both Mr. Miracle and Mr. Smith without prejudice. The Murrays appeal. We reverse. |
Roane | Court of Appeals | |
James Eldridge v. Katie Hundley
Father filed a petition to modify the juvenile court’s order naming Mother primary residential parent and establishing a visitation schedule. The trial court modified the visitation schedule, but did not establish visitation as requested by Father. Father appeals. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Richard E. Brown, Jr.
Following a bench trial, the Defendant, Richard E. Brown, Jr., was convicted of one count of driving on a revoked license. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-50-504. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends (1) that the trial court improperly found him guilty of driving on a revoked license when the indictment charged him with driving on a suspended license; (2) that he could not be convicted of driving on a revoked license because the Department of Safety never revoked his license; and (3) that he did not effectively waive his right to a jury trial. Following our review, we conclude that the Defendant’s driver’s license had not been revoked, as the term is defined in Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-50-102, prior to the alleged criminal act. Accordingly, we reverse and dismiss the Defendant’s conviction for driving on a revoked license. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Kynaston Scott v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Kynaston Scott, appeals as of right from the Davidson County Criminal Court’s dismissal of his petition for a writ of error coram nobis. The Petitioner contends that the coram nobis court erred by summarily dismissing his petition without an evidentiary hearing. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the coram nobis court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Boyd L. Hughes et al v. Curtis E. Hughes, Executor Of The Estate Of Lucille C. Luttrell
This is a will contest case in which the plaintiffs attempt to invalidate the will of Lucille C. Luttrell due to her supposed lack of testamentary capacity. The executor of Ms.Luttrell’s estate filed two motions for summary judgment. The first one was denied; the second one was granted. The court ultimately held that the affidavits of medical doctors who evaluated the testator’s mental faculties approximately six months before she signed her will do not create a genuine issue of fact regarding her testamentary capacity at the time she signed the will. The plaintiffs appeal. We vacate the order granting summary judgment and remand for further proceedings. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tavares Duone Braden
A Davidson Countyjuryconvicted the Defendant,Tavares Duone Braden,for the sale of less than 0.5 grams of cocaine, possession with intent to sell 0.5 grams or more of cocaine, promotion of prostitution, possession of marijuana, and evading arrest. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective sentence of eighteen years in the Tennessee Department of Corrections. On appeal, the Defendant contends: (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions; (2) the trial court erred when it denied his motion for judgment of acquittal; (3) the trial court imposed an excessive sentence; and (4) he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities,we conclude the evidence is sufficient to sustain the Defendant’s convictions and that the trial court properly sentenced him. We, therefore, affirm the trial court’s judgments. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Daniel Deeter v. Cherry Lindamood, Warden
The Petitioner, Daniel Deeter, appeals from the dismissal of his petition for the writ of habeas corpus. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court’s denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. We find the State’s motion has merit. Accordingly, the motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. |
Wayne | Court of Criminal Appeals |