Paul Dennis Reid, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
Paul Dennis Reid, Jr. was convicted and sentenced to death on seven counts of first degree murder. Reid’s convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal by the supreme court. The instant appeals stem from evidentiary hearings wherein the Montgomery and Davidson County trial courts concluded that Reid was competent to decide on his own behalf to forego any post-conviction relief on his convictions and sentences. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial courts.
|
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Stephen Davis
The defendant, Stephen Davis, a pharmacist at Rite Aid, was convicted of one count of obtaining a controlled substance by fraud (a Class D felony) after he filled several suspicious prescriptions for Hydrocodone (a Schedule III controlled substance). The trial court imposed a two-year suspended sentence. On appeal, the defendant claims that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction and that the trial court erred by denying his motion for a mistrial and by failing to place him on judicial diversion. After carefully reviewing the record and the arguments of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Federated Rural Electric Insurance Exchange, et al. v. William R. Hill, et al.
Defendant allegedly suffered an on-the-job injury to his knees over the course of several years, and Plaintiffs paid workers’ compensation benefits on his behalf. However, after Defendant was videotaped building a barn, his employment was terminated and suit was filed against him for fraud. Defendant then filed a counter-complaint alleging, among other things, retaliatory discharge. The trial court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment with regard to the retaliatory discharge claim, and we affirm and remand. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
The Bank of Nashville v. Charles Chipman, Sr., et al.
Defendant defaulted on a $300,000 loan from plaintiff bank. He subsequently renewed the loan but not before transferring certain assets to his wife. He never repaid the loan. The bank filed suit against the husband for breach of contract and fraud and against both defendants for fraudulent conveyance, conversion, civil conspiracy to defraud, and unjust enrichment. The bank also sought a lien lis pendens, a constructive trust, and a judicial sale and foreclosure. The trial court found against the husband with respect to the bank’s claims for breach of contract and fraud (in renewing the loan), against the wife for unjust enrichment, and against both defendants for fraudulent conveyance. The court denied the bank’s request for a constructive trust and a judicial sale and foreclosure. The parties appeal the trial court’s disposition of claims for fraud, civil conspiracy to defraud, and unjust enrichment, as well as its decision not to impose a constructive trust. We find for the bank on its fraud (against the husband) and unjust enrichment (against the wife) claims. We find against the bank on its claims for civil conspiracy to defraud and the imposition of a constructive trust. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
William H. Thomas, Jr. v. Tennessee Department of Transportation, et al.
An applicant for a billboard permit appeals the dismissal of his Petition for Judicial Review of the decision of the Commissioner of Tennessee Department of Transportation to deny his application. During the pendency of this action, the applicant admitted he had sold his leasehold interest in the property on which the billboard was to be located. Upon the filing of a motion to dismiss for lack of standing, the trial court concluded that petitioner “lacks standing to maintain this lawsuit and this cause is moot as a matter of law.” We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Daniel O’Sicky
The Defendant, Daniel O’Sicky, pled guilty to second degree murder, a Class A felony; especially aggravated robbery, a Class A felony; and especially aggravated burglary, a Class B felony, in exchange for concurrent sentencing, with the length of his sentences left to the discretion of the trial court. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to concurrent sentences of 25 years as a violent offender for the Class A felony offenses and 12 years as a Range I, standard offender for the Class B felony offense. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred in setting the length of his sentences. Following our review, we conclude that the Defendant’s conviction for especially aggravated burglary should be modified to reflect a conviction for aggravated burglary, a Class C felony, because his especially aggravated burglary conviction was precluded by Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-14-404(d). Because our modification of the Defendant’s conviction does not affect the Defendant’s sentence length pursuant to the plea agreement, we impose a concurrent sentence of 6 years for the Class C felony conviction. We affirm the judgments of the trial court in all other respects. |
Cocke | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Milburn L. Edwards v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Milburn L. Edwards, was convicted by a Davidson county jury of multiple counts of rape, first degree burglary, aggravated burglary, and one count each of second degree burglary, aggravated rape, assault with intent to commit rape, and robbery. State v. Edwards, 868 S.W.2d 682, 685 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993) The trial court sentenced Petitioner to an effective sentence of life plus 415 years. Id. On appeal, this Court affirmed Petitioner’s convictions and modified his sentence to an effective sentence of life plus seventy-five years and an additional effective sentence of 120 years. Id. at 705. Subsequently, Petitioner unsuccessfully filed a petition for post-conviction relief and three petitions of writ of habeas corpus relief. See Milburn L. Edwards v. Cherry Lindamood, No. M2009-01132-CCA-MR3- HC, 2010 WL 2134156 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, May 27, 2010); Milburn L. Edwards v. Cherry Lindamood, No. M2006-01092-CCA-R3-HC, 2007 WL 152233 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Jan. 17, 2007), perm. app. denied, (Tenn. Apr. 16, 2007) (affirming the habeas corpus court’s dismissal of the petition for writ of habeas corpus); Milburn L. Edwards v. State, No. M2004-01378-CCA-R3-HC, 2005 WL 544714 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Mar. 7, 2005), perm. app. denied, (Tenn. Aug. 29, 2005) (affirming the habeas corpus court’s dismissal of the petition for writ of habeas corpus); Milburn L. Edwards v. State, No. M2002-02124-CCA-R3-PC, 2003 WL 23014683 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Dec. 15, 2003) (affirming the post-conviction court’s denial of the petition for postconviction relief). The subject of this appeal is Petitioner’s fourth petition for writ of habeas corpus in which he argues that the habeas corpus court erred in summarily dismissing his petition based on the State’s argument that the issue of whether Petitioner was properly sentenced under the 1982 Sentencing Act as opposed to the 1989 Sentencing Act was previously determined. Because we have concluded that this issue was previously determined on direct appeal, we affirm the habeas corpus court’s dismissal of the petition.
|
Wayne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Robert Colin Pelfrey
A Roane County grand jury indicted the Defendant, Robert Colin Pelfrey, for aggravated burglary, a Class C felony, resisting arrest, a Class B misdemeanor, and assault, a Class B misdemeanor. The Defendant pled guilty to the aggravated burglary charge and agreed to a sentence of three years, with the manner of service left to the discretion of the trial court. The remaining counts were dismissed. The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I, standard offender to three years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying all forms of alternative sentencing. Following our review, we affirm the Defendant’s sentence for the aggravated burglary conviction. However, we remand the Defendant’s case because the judgment for the resisting arrest count improperly reflects that the Defendant was indicted for evading arrest, a Class E felony. The trial court is directed to correct that judgment in accordance with the indictment. |
Roane | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Donnie Lee Sullivan
The defendant, Donnie Lee Sullivan, stands convicted of voluntary manslaughter, a Class C felony. The trial court sentenced him as a Range I, standard offender to four years and nine months in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, the sentence length, and the denial of alternate sentencing. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ernest Lee Jennings
A Fayette County jury convicted the Defendant, Ernest Lee Jennings, of sexual exploitation of a minor and three counts of rape of a child, and the trial court sentenced him to an effective sentence of eighty-five years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions and that the trial court erred when it imposed consecutive sentencing. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. |
Fayette | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. George Washington
Following a jury trial, Defendant, George Washington, was convicted of aggravated vehicular homicide. He was sentenced to serve twenty-five years in the Department of Correction. In this appeal Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction and asserts that the sentence is excessive. Following a review of the record and the briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jose Luis Vizcaino-Ramos
The Defendant-Appellant, Jose Luis Vizcaino-Ramos, was convicted by a Hardeman County jury of first degree premeditated murder and sentenced to life with the possibility of parole. On appeal, Vizcaino-Ramos presents the following issues for our review: (1) whether the trial court erred by admitting the testimony of the victim’s son; and (2) whether the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Nicholas Shawn Marshall
The defendant, Nicholas Shawn Marshall, stands convicted of rape, a Class B felony. The trial court sentenced him as a Range II, violent offender to fifteen years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in admitting hearsay and that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jerry Kittrell v. Wilson County, Tennessee, et al.
The owner of a piece of rural property in Wilson County applied for a “permissible use” permit that would allow him to display vehicles for sale on the property. The County planning staff recommended against issuance of a permit, reasoning that the proposed use was not consistent with other uses permitted in an A-1 (agricultural) zoning district. The owner appealed to the Board of Zoning Appeals, which agreed to issue the permit, but limited the use to “no more than 10 serviceable items being on the property at any given time.” The owner challenged the limitation by filing a petition for writ of certiorari in the Wilson County Chancery Court. The court determined that the BZA had acted arbitrarily and had exceeded its authority by placing a condition on the owner’s use of the property of a type not contemplated by the controlling ordinance, and it removed that condition. We affirm the removal of the condition, but we reverse the trial court’s holding that the BZA had violated the property owner’s substantive due process rights. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
Robert Earl Cole v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Robert Earl Cole, appeals from the trial court’s order dismissing his petition for writ of habeas corpus. After review of the entire record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Johnson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jimmy Sprague
The defendant, Jimmy Sprague, was convicted of failure to appear in court, a Class E felony. He was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to two years in the Tennessee Department of Correction consecutive to an existing federal sentence. On appeal, he argues that: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction; (2) the trial court improperly refused to allow the admission of his medical records; and (3) he was improperly sentenced. After careful review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court in all respects. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Davey Mann, and wife, Teresa Mann v. Alpha Tau Omega Fraternity, et al.
Plaintiffs sued Defendants in an amended complaint following the expiration of the statute of limitations. Defendants moved for summary judgment/judgment on the pleadings based on the expiration of the statute of limitations. Subsequently, co-defendants alleged Defendants’ comparative fault in an amended answer. Defendants’ motions for summary judgment and for judgment on the pleadings were granted, but were not made final. Based on co-defendants’ answer, Plaintiffs again amended their complaint to name Defendants pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 20-1-119. However, Defendants claimed that section 20-1-119 could not be utilized as they were already parties to the lawsuit, and they moved for summary judgment and to dismiss. The trial court granted said motions, and we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Lamar Tyrone Harris
The Defendant, Lamar Tyrone Harris, was charged with tampering with evidence, a Class C felony. Following the denial of his motion to suppress his inculpatory statement following a traffic stop, the Defendant pled guilty as charged. In accordance with the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I, standard offender to three years, suspended to probation. Pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2)(A) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Defendant sought to reserve a certified question of law challenging the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Maurice Edward Carter
The defendant, Maurice Edward Carter, pled guilty in Smith County to one count of aggravated statutory rape and one count of criminal exposure to HIV for an effective sentence of twenty years. Additionally, he pled guilty in Rutherford County to four counts of aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor, two counts of solicitation of sexual exploitation of a minor, one count of statutory rape, and one count of criminal exposure to HIV for an effective sentence of twenty years, to be served concurrently with his Smith County sentences. As a condition of his guilty pleas, the defendant reserved a certified question of law pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2)(A) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure regarding the denial of his motions to suppress the stop and search of his automobile, and his subsequent statement to police and evidence obtained during the execution of search warrants. After review, we conclude that the record supports the findings of the trial courts that the motions to suppress were without merit and that the certified question is not dispositive of the charges against the defendant and, as a result, this court is without jurisdiction to consider the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. |
Smith | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Louis Bonanno, Sr. v. Willa Faris
The plaintiff requested a transcript of a deposition from the defendant, a court reporter. When the defendant notified the plaintiff that the transcript was ready and told him her fee, he neither retrieved the transcript nor paid her. After the defendant made several telephone calls to the plaintiff in an attempt to obtain payment, the plaintiff brought an action against the defendant. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff appeals. We affirm. |
Washington | Court of Appeals | |
Walter Jessee Brumit v. Stefanie Lynnne Brumit (Durham)
This wife, Stefanie Lynne Brumit (Durham) (“Wife”), and husband, Walter Jessee Brumit (“Husband”), were divorced in the early 1990s. The parties had one child, and Husband was ordered to pay $1500 per month in child support. From that amount, Wife was ordered to place $300 per month into an educational trust account for the child’s benefit. In 2008, Husband filed a motion for contempt, asserting that Wife was $6,600 behind in the payments to the trust account. Wife claimed that she had fallen behind in the payments because of financial difficulties and brought the trust account up to date prior to filing her response. In April 2009, the trial court, prior to hearing, dismissed the contempt motion and taxed the costs to Husband. Upon Husband’s appeal, we vacated the trial court’s judgment and remanded the case for a hearing on the merits before a new trial judge. On remand, the trial court found Wife in contempt of court. As Wife had brought the payments to the trust account up to date, the trial court ordered her to pay the interest income lost by the account due to her delinquent payments and half of Husband’s attorney’s fees. Husband appeals. We affirm. |
Greene | Court of Appeals | |
David Cantrell v. Joe Easterling, Warden
We granted this appeal to determine if the defendant’s four sentences for aggravated rape are illegal because each of the four uniform judgment documents designates the defendant as a “Multiple 35% Range 2” offender and does not designate the defendant as a “Multiple Rapist.” Because the four uniform judgment documents indicate that the defendant is eligible for early release on parole, which is in direct contravention of a statutory provision, we hold that the four sentences are illegal and void. The defendant’s underlying convictions of aggravated rape, which arose from a jury verdict before a court of competent jurisdiction, remain intact. We remand this matter to the sentencing court for the entry of four amended judgment orders, each to set forth the legal sentence on each of the defendant’s four convictions of aggravated rape, including the designation that the defendant is a “Multiple Rapist.” |
Hardeman | Supreme Court | |
David Cantrell v. Joe Easterling, Warden - Concurring
I can concur that the petitioner’s sentence is illegal and void because it directly contravenes the multiple rapist sentencing statute. By granting limited habeas corpus relief and remanding to the trial court for entry of a corrected sentence, the majority has essentially adopted the position of the State. While this result is proper under these specific circumstances, I would submit that the ruling today is inconsistent with the opinion in Edwards v. State, 269 S.W.3d 915 (Tenn. 2008), a case I continue to believe was wrongly decided. Moreover, in an apparent effort to conform its decision today with rulings in our previous habeas corpus cases, the majority has created new and heightened standards for relief which, in my assessment, will serve to further confuse this area of the law. Finally, I believe that this case offered an opportunity to overrule altogether our decision in Edwards and, by doing so, reconcile a series of our prior opinions on the subject of habeas corpus. |
Hardeman | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Salwillel Thomas Fields
In February 2005, a 14-count indictment was returned against the Defendant, Salwillel Thomas Fields. In exchange for concurrent sentencing, the Defendant pled guilty to possession with intent to sell over 300 grams of cocaine, a Class A felony; possession with intent to sell more than one half ounce but less than ten pounds of marijuana, a Class E felony; possession of a machine gun, a Class E felony; and three counts of unlawful possession of a weapon, a Class E felony. The parties agreed to the Defendant’s sentencing range for each of the convictions but left the length of the sentences to the trial court’s discretion. The remaining counts were dismissed. The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range II, multiple offender to 38 years for the Class A felony and as a Range III, persistent offender to 5-years for each of the Class E felonies. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred in setting the length of his Class A felony sentence. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ashraf M. Saweres v. Royal Net Auto Sale, Inc., et al.
This appeal arises out of an action in which the plaintiff asserted a claim that the agent of a used car business in which the plaintiff allegedly invested committed misrepresentation, fraud, and conversion, and violated the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act in failing to give him stock in the business or compensate him for work performed at the business. Plaintiff also asserted a claim based on defendants’ alleged failure to repair his vehicle. The trial court held that plaintiff had not established the necessary elements for any of his claims and dismissed the case; plaintiff appeals. Finding no error, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals |