Robert B. Ledford v. State of Tennessee
The pro se petitioner, Robert B. Ledford, appeals the Hamilton County Criminal Court’s summary denial of his petition for writ of error coram nobis attacking his convictions of second degree murder, kidnapping, aggravated robbery, and theft. Because we conclude that coram nobis relief is not available to provide relief from a guilty-pleaded conviction, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Javon Frazier
The defendant, Javon Frazier, appeals the trial court’s termination of his judicial diversion, arguing that he was denied due process at the revocation hearing, and the State concurs. After review, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for a new revocation hearing. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kevin Millen
The pro se defendant, Kevin Millen, appeals the order of the Shelby County Criminal Court affirming the Shelby County General Sessions Court’s finding that he was guilty of contempt. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the criminal court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Montrel Gilliam
The defendant, Montrel Gilliam, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of first degree premeditated murder and three counts of attempted first degree murder. He was sentenced by the trial court to consecutive terms of life imprisonment for the first degree murder conviction and as a Range I standard offender to twenty-five years, twenty-two years, and twenty years, respectively, for the attempted murder convictions, for an effective term of life plus sixty-seven years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence in support of his convictions and argues that the trial court erred by instructing the jury on his silence as a tacit admission to the crimes. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Roger Wilkes, et al. v. Shaw Enterprises, LLC
This is an appeal of the trial court’s determination on remand that the Appellee did not breach the parties’ contract when it constructed the Appellant’s house without through-wall flashing and weep holes, as required by the applicable building code. The parties’ contract provided that the builder would construct the house in accordance with “good building practices.” The trial court concluded the builder constructed the house in accordance with good building practices even though it was not in strict conformance with the building code. We affirm this holding. The Appellants also appeal the trial court’s failure to award them their attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in their first appeal. We remand this matter to the trial court with directions that it award to Appellants reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in their first appeal, as determined by the trial court. |
Maury | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Deciandra M., et al.
Mother and Father appeal the termination of their parental rights to four children. Father’s rights were terminated on grounds of abandonment by failure to visit the children within four months prior to the filing of the petition and wanton disregard for the children’s safety based on his criminal history; Mother’s rights were terminated on grounds of severe child abuse, substantial noncompliance with permanency plans, and persistence of conditions. Finding no error, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
David Macklin v. Dollar General Corporation, d/b/a Dollar General Store #2311
This is a premises liability case. The plaintiff slipped and fell on a clear liquid at the defendant’s store. The defendant moved for summary judgment arguing it did not have a reasonable opportunity to clean the floor, warn the customer of the clear liquid, or take adequate precautionary measures upon receiving notice of the dangerous condition. The trial court granted the motion and the plaintiff appealed. Having determined the defendant effectively moved for and received only partial summary judgment, we dismiss this appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. |
Haywood | Court of Appeals | |
Elmer Elliott, Jr. v. Pearl Elliott, et al.
The trial court granted summary judgment to defendants, finding that plaintiff was ousted from the property at issue, that defendant Pearl Elliott was the presumptive owner of the property due to recordation and payment of property taxes, and that plaintiff’s suit was statutorily barred. We affirm. |
Gibson | Court of Appeals | |
David Ramey v. John Carroll, County Mayor of Perry County, Tennessee
On remand, the trial court conducted a hearing regarding the reasonableness of attorney fees and awarded $20,000.00 in attorney fees to Appellee. In this appeal, Appellant contends that the trial court erred in awarding the fee because it failed to consider the requisite factors regarding fee reasonableness, it failed to differentiate between time spent on fee-generating versus non-fee-generating duties, and because it failed to comply with the requirements of Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 52.01. From our review of the record, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding $20,000.00 in attorney fees. Accordingly, the award is affirmed. |
Perry | Court of Appeals | |
Louise Y. Ledbetter v. Christopher Douglas Dirr
In this post-divorce proceeding, Father appeals the trial court’s visitation determination and classification of previously awarded attorney’s fees. We affirm the trial court’s judgment in part, vacate in part, and remand the case for entry of a parenting plan. |
Maury | Court of Appeals | |
Marilyn Denise Avinger v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Marilyn Denise Avinger, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court’s denial of post-conviction relief from her conviction of attempted second degree murder, for which she received a nine-year sentence, with all but thirty days to be served on probation. On appeal, she contends that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Robert S. Wilson v. State of Tennessee
Following a jury trial, the Petitioner, Robert S. Wilson, was convicted of attempted aggravated sexual battery and rape of a child. This Court affirmed his convictions on direct appeal. The Petitioner filed a timely petition for post-conviction relief and, after a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. In this appeal, the Petitioner claims that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because Trial Counsel: (a) failed to adequately meet with him prior to the trial and investigate his case; (b) failed to adequately cross-examine the victim, the victim’s brother, and the victim’s mother; and (c) failed to adequately convey the State’s plea offer such that the Petitioner could make an informed and knowledgeable decision. Additionally, the Petitioner contends that the cumulative effect of Trial Counsel’s alleged deficiencies amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel. After our review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of relief. |
Marion | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Samuel Wesley Woods v. Tracy Dean Tidwell
Mother appeals both the trial court’s refusal to approve an agreed upon parenting arrangement reached between the parents and the trial court’s finding that father should be designated the primary residential parent. Finding the trial court was required to make an independent determination of custody issues and that the court acted within its discretion, we affirm. |
Lawrence | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee ex rel. Jacqueline D. Davis v. James (Jason) McClain
This is an appeal from an Order Establishing Parentage and Support entered by the Juvenile Court for Maury County on June 1, 2010. Because the appellant did not file his notice of appeal within the time permitted by Tenn. R. App. P. 4, we dismiss the appeal. |
Maury | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Antonio C. F., Jr.
The State of Tennessee, Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) filed a petition seeking to terminate the parental rights of LaCondra DeShay B. (“Mother”) to her minor child Antonio C. F., Jr. (“the Child”) (d.o.b. 7-26-96). Temporary custody of the Child was awarded to DCS on February 21, 2006, and the Child has been in foster care since that date. During this period of time, DCS made reasonable efforts by offering case management services to the paternal grandmother, Carrie F., who was the Child’s custodian at the time of removal, but because she was incapable of managing his behavior, the Child was adjudicated dependent and neglected on April 27, 2006. Following a bench trial on May 21, 2010, the court entered its order finding and holding, inter alia, that clear and convincing evidence existed to support the termination of Mother’s parental rights based upon, (a) willfully failing to visit or making only token visitation with the Child for four months immediately preceding the filing of the petition to terminate; (b) abandonment of the Child by willfully failing to support or to make reasonable payments toward the support of the Child for four consecutive months immediately preceding the filing of the petition; and pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(i) it is in the best interest of the Child that Mother’s parental rights be terminated. Mother appeals, asserting that DCS failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that termination of her parental rights was in the best interest of the Child. We affirm. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Paul L. McMillin v. Lincoln Memorial University, et al.
The plaintiff sued the university and two of its representatives for negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation, negligence, and violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, alleging that the placement of special credits on his transcript in contradiction to the school’s policies and procedures rendered his transcript without value and, consequently, damaged his future applications for employment or graduate school. The trial court entered summary judgment for the defendants. The plaintiff appealed. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Patricia Ann Gho Massey v. Gregory Joel Casals
Appellant filed a motion to quash garnishment of his individual retirement accounts to satisfy an award of attorney’s fees to Appellee, asserting the accounts were exempt pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated §§ 26-2-105 and 26-2-111. The trial court denied the motion to quash. We reverse. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Elizabeth C. Wright v. Frederico A. Dixon, III.
In this action to enforce a contract for the sale of real estate against defendant buyer, the Trial Court held that defendant failed to make reasonable efforts to obtain a loan in accordance with the requirement to obtain a mortgage for 100% financing, and awarded damages to plaintiff for breach of the contract since the plaintiff had sold the property before trial. On appeal, we hold that the evidence preponderates against the Trial Judge's finding that the defendant failed to put forth reasonable efforts to obtain a loan which was a condition in the contract for purchase of the property, and remand. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Scott Clevenger
The Grainger County Grand Jury indicted Appellant, Scott Clevenger, for one count of aggravated sexual battery, one count of rape of a child, and two counts of incest. The trial court sentenced Appellant to an effective sentence of fifty years. On appeal, Appellant argued that he was denied his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). State v. Scott G. Clevenger, No. E2007-298-CCA-R3-CD, 2008 WL 588862, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxville, Mar. 5, 2008). Appellant was unsuccessful on appeal because he had failed to file a motion for new trial and because this Court determined that he was advised of his rights under Miranda and, therefore, a clear and unequivocal rule of law had not been breached in order to allow plain error review. Id. at *4. After being granted a delayed appeal, Appellant once again raises the issue that he was denied his rights under Miranda. However, this issue was previously determined in this Court’s review under the plain error doctrine. Therefore, the law of the case doctrine prevails and we are unable to revisit the issue. For this reason, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Grainger | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Orlando Jones v. State of Tennessee
Pursuant to a plea agreement, the Petitioner, Orlando Jones, pled guilty as a Range III offender to aggravated assault and aggravated kidnapping in exchange for an effective sentence of twelve years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, claiming that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel and that his guilty pleas were not knowingly and voluntarily entered. The post-conviction court denied relief after a hearing, and the Petitioner now appeals. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Frankie Kelly McGowan v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Frankie Kelly McGowan, entered a best interest plea in Bedford County to one count of aggravated burglary and two counts of burglary in exchange for an effective ten-year sentence. The effective sentence was ordered to run consecutively to sentences in two other cases for which Petitioner was on parole at the time of the offenses. Subsequently, Petitioner sought post-conviction relief on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel and because his guilty plea was unknowingly and involuntarily entered. The post-conviction court dismissed the petition after a hearing. Petitioner has appealed the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief to this Court. After a review of the record, we conclude that Petitioner has failed to present clear and convincing evidence that his guilty plea was involuntarily or unknowingly entered or that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Accordingly, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Terrell Robinson
A Bedford County jury convicted the Defendant, Christopher Terrell Robinson, of violating the Habitual Motor Vehicle Offender (“HMVO”) Act, evading arrest, and violating the light law. Subsequently, the Defendant also pled guilty to felony failure to appear for not appearing at his original court date. For all the Defendant’s convictions, the trial court sentenced him to an effective sentence of twelve years, to be served as a Range II offender at 60%. On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction for violating the HMVO Act; and (2) his sentence is excessive because the trial court inappropriately ordered his sentences to run consecutively. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Charles Ray Harvey v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Charles Ray Harvey, appeals from the Scott County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his conviction of first degree murder, for which he is serving a life sentence. He contends that his trial attorneys failed to provide effective assistance because they did not advise him that accepting a guilty plea offer was in his best interest and did not accurately advise him of the unlikelihood that he would prevail at trial. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Scott | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Dennis Wade Suttles v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Dennis Wade Suttles, appeals from the judgment of the Knox County Criminal Court denying his petition for post-conviction relief. A Knox County Criminal Court jury convicted the Petitioner of premeditated first degree murder and sentenced him to death. The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the Petitioner’s conviction and sentence on direct appeal. State v. Suttles, 30 S.W.3d 252 (Tenn.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 967 (2000). On appeal, the Petitioner challenges the effectiveness of his counsel’s representation before trial, during trial, and on direct appeal. The Petitioner also challenges the constitutionality of the death penalty. This court holds that the trial court did not err in finding that the Petitioner received the effective assistance of counsel at all stages of the case and that the Petitioner’s challenges against the death penalty are without merit. The judgment of the trial court denying post-conviction relief is affirmed. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Freda Michelle Humbard Miller v. Steven Dwayne Miller
This case stems from the divorce of Freda Michelle Humbard Miller (“Wife”) and Steven Dwayne Miller (“Husband”). The Trial Court, among other things, granted the parties a divorce, designated Wife the primary residential parent, and awarded Wife child support and alimony. Husband appeals, raising a number of issues. We hold that the Trial Court erred in setting child support without entering supporting worksheets in the record as required. We further hold that the Trial Court did not err as to the other issues. We vacate, in part, and, affirm, in part, and remand for the Trial Court to set child support utilizing the worksheets as required. |
Jefferson | Court of Appeals |