State of Tennessee v. Jeremy Keeton
Following a change of venue, a Giles County jury convicted the Defendant of voluntary manslaughter, and the trial court sentenced him to fifteen years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The Defendant appeals his conviction and sentence, claiming that the trial court erred when it: (1) denied his request for a continuance to secure a material witness to the case; (2) denied his request for a jury instruction on ignorance and mistake of fact; and (3) sentenced him as a Persistent, Range III offender. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Wayne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Randy Lynn Shelby
The Defendant, Randy Lynn Shelby, was convicted by a Montgomery County jury of two counts of aggravated burglary and one count of especially aggravated kidnapping. Following a sentencing hearing, he received an effective sixty-year sentence to be served at 100%. In this direct appeal, the Defendant’s only challenge is to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction for especially aggravated kidnapping, arguing that the short period of confinement was incidental to the burglary and did not substantially interfere with the victim’s liberty. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Rickey Clayton Rogers
Defendant, Rickey Clayton Rogers, was charged in a three-count indictment with DUI third offense; driving on a revoked or suspended license, third offense; and violation of the implied consent law. He filed a motion to dismiss all charges in the indictment on the basis that the charges were filed outside the applicable statute of limitations. The trial court denied the motion. Defendant pled guilty as charged in the indictment, and purported to reserve certified questions of law for appeal pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2). The State argues that the appeal should be dismissed because of Defendant’s failure to comply with all of the requirements to reserve a certified question of law for appeal; in the alternative, the State argues that the judgments should be affirmed. After a review of the record and a review of the applicable case law, we dismiss the appeal. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Timothy Carl Johnson, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Timothy Carl Johnson, Jr., pled guilty to attempted second degree murder, theft of property valued over $1000, attempted escape, burglary, nine counts of burglary of a vehicle, and ten counts of theft of property valued under $500. The trial court sentenced him to eighteen years in prison. The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief in which he alleged he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court dismissed this petition after a hearing. On appeal, the Petitioner contends his trial counsel was ineffective because he did not adequately investigate the case. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Anne Marie Smith v. Intex Enterprises, LLC
The employee filed a motion to compel her employer to provide medical treatment pursuant to a court-approved settlement concerning a claim for an injury sustained in 2002. Her employer opposed the motion, contending that any medical treatment sought by the employee was due to a separate injury sustained in 2004. In the settlement of the 2004 claim, the employee had waived her right to future medical treatment. The trial court granted the employee’s motion, and her employer has appealed. We conclude that the employee’s claim for medical treatment is not ripe for judicial resolution, and vacate the trial court’s order. |
Anderson | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Robin Baker v. A & L Industrial Construction and Maintenance, Inc.
The employee sustained a compensable injury to her left wrist. She alleged that she also sustained a neck injury as a result of the same incident. The employer denied the neck claim. The employee’s evaluating physician expressed somewhat contradictory opinions regarding the causal relationship between the work incident and her neck injury. The trial court held that the employee had a compensable neck injury in addition to her wrist injury and awarded benefits accordingly. The employer has appealed that finding. We affirm the judgment. |
Sullivan | Workers Compensation Panel | |
James Taylor v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, James Taylor, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for first degree felony murder and especially aggravated robbery and resulting sentences of life and forty years, respectively. On appeal, the petitioner contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Lovard Deanta Horton v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Lovard Deanta Horton, appeals from a Davidson County Court’s dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. Petitioner was indicted in a multi-count indictment for three counts of conspiracy to sell cocaine weighing 300 grams or more, one count of conspiracy to possess cocaine weighing 300 grams or more with the intent to sell, one count of possession of marijuana weighing 70 pounds, one gram or more with intent to sell, one count of money laundering, one count of conspiracy to possess 300 pounds or more of marijuana with intent to sell or deliver in a school zone, and one count of possession of 300 pounds or more of marijuana with intent to sell or deliver. Petitioner pled guilty to two counts of conspiracy to sell cocaine weighing 300 grams or more, one count of possession of more than 70 pounds of marijuana with intent to sell, and one count of possession of more than 300 pounds of marijuana with intent to sell. He received an effective sentence of twenty-eight years as a Range I, Standard Offender. Petitioner filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that his guilty pleas were not knowingly and voluntarily entered. After a hearing on the petition, the post-conviction court denied relief. Petitioner has appealed. After a review, we determine 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. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jane Doe
The appellant, State of Tennessee, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court’s order granting the motion of the appellee, Jane Doe, to expunge a criminal indictment that was dismissed pursuant to a plea agreement. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Gary Dwayne Johnson
Following a jury trial, the Defendant, Gary Dwayne Johnson, was convicted of one count of reckless endangerment, a Class E felony, one count of robbery, a Class C felony, one count of assault, a Class A misdemeanor, two counts of carjacking, Class B felonies, one count of especially aggravated kidnapping, a Class A felony, and one count of felony escape, a Class E felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-13-101(b)(1), -13-103, -13-305(b)(1), -13-401(b), -13-404(b), -16-605(b)(2). The trial court found that the Defendant was a career offender and sentenced him to the following terms: six years for his reckless endangerment conviction, fifteen years for his robbery conviction, eleven months and twenty-nine days for his assault conviction, thirty years for each carjacking conviction, sixty years as a violent offender for his especially aggravated kidnapping conviction, and six years for his felony escape conviction. The trial court merged the Defendant’s convictions for reckless endangerment and robbery and ordered that all of his convictions, except the misdemeanor, run consecutively for a total effective sentence of 141 years. In this direct appeal, the Defendant raises the following issues for review: (1) The evidence presented at trial was not sufficient to sustain his convictions for reckless endangerment, robbery, assault, and carjacking; (2) The trial court erred when it sentenced him as a career offender and when it ordered that his sentences run consecutively; and (3) The trial court erred when it denied the Defendant’s motion to dismiss his Trial Counsel before the sentencing hearing. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Appleby Trust Limited, Trustee v. New England Life Insurance Company, a Division of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
Current owner of a life insurance policy filed a complaint for declaratory judgment, alleging that the life insurance company wrongfully terminated the policy after failing to notify the current owner of the impending lapse of the policy for nonpayment of premiums. The life insurance company filed a motion for summary judgment, along with an affidavit and a copy of the policy, in an attempt to demonstrate that it had provided notice in accordance with the policy terms. The current owner filed a response along with an affidavit. The trial court granted summary judgment to the life insurance company. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Renasant Bank, a Mississippi Charter Bank Doing Business in Tennessee v. William R. Hyneman, et al.
This is a breach of contract case. The trial court found two defendants liable for breaches of continuing guaranty agreements related to a construction loan and awarded judgment for the plaintiff. The trial court, however, did not adjudicate a pending cross-complaint. Although the court attempted to certify the judgment as final pursuant to Rule 54.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, the court’s order did not make the express findings essential to certification. Because the trial court did not properly certify the judgment as final, we do not have jurisdiction to consider the issues raised before us. We dismiss the appeal. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Fabian Claxton
Following a jury trial, the Defendant, Fabian Claxton, was convicted of four counts of attempted first degree murder, a Class A felony, and unlawful possession of a handgun while at a public place, a Class A misdemeanor. The Defendant was sentenced to consecutive sentences of 22 years for each of the four attempted first degree murder convictions and a concurrent sentence of 11 months and 29 days for the unlawful possession of a handgun while at a public place conviction, for a total effective sentence of 88 years. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions; (2) the trial court erred in instructing a witness to identify the Defendant; and (3) the trial court improperly imposed consecutive sentences. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tony Stewart
The Defendant, Tony Stewart, was indicted for attempted first degree murder, aggravated assault, coercion of a witness, and misdemeanor evading arrest. After a jury trial, the Defendant was convicted of attempted second degree murder, aggravated assault, coercion of a witness, and misdemeanor evading arrest. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Elma Lou Hale v. Gerald D. Hale et al.
This is the second appeal of an action to partition 74 acres. Plaintiff is a widow who owns a one-half interest in the land as a tenant in common with Defendants, Plaintiff’s stepson and his wife. Plaintiff filed this action in 2008 to partition the property by sale. Defendants opposed a sale and sought partition in kind. The trial court ordered the property sold upon findings that a partition in kind was impractical and that the two tracts were more valuable if sold together. Defendants appealed, and we affirmed with instructions that the property be sold on remand. Before the sale, a survey was conducted which revealed that Defendants’ home, located on a one-acre tract owned separately by Defendants, encroached on the property held by the parties as tenants in common. In order to resolve the encroachment issue, the trial court ordered Plaintiff to quitclaim a mere 0.168 acres to Defendants and ordered Defendants to quitclaim a like-sized portion of the property of equal value to Plaintiff. Although this remedy was favorable to Defendants, they nonetheless appealed, claiming the trial court had no legal authority to order them to quitclaim any property to Plaintiff. We have determined the trial court is authorized to partition a portion of the property in kind, pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-27-104, and to order that the remaining property be partitioned by sale. Thus, we affirm. |
Van Buren | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Alecia Diane Cooper
In summary, we conclude that the two judgments of conviction violate the principles of double jeopardy, and the sentence, as currently structured, violates the express provisions of the misdemeanor sentencing statute. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed, but the case is remanded to the trial court for merger of the two convictions into a single offense for DUI and for imposition of a sentence compliant with our statutory guidelines. Costs are adjudged one-half to the State and one-half to the Defendant, for which execution may issue if necessary. |
Bedford | Supreme Court | |
Lamar Reynolds v. Louis R. Tognetti and Wendee L. Tognetti
Before filing this personal injury action arising from an automobile accident, the plaintiff filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Although the plaintiff’s personal injury action accrued prior to his filing for bankruptcy, he omitted the potential claim from a schedule of assets in the bankruptcy petition. The plaintiff received a discharge in bankruptcy, and, shortly thereafter, filed the instant action. After the defendants moved for summary judgment, the plaintiff moved to amend his complaint in order to add the bankruptcy Trustee as a party. The trial court did not rule on the plaintiff’s motion to amend, and instead granted the defendants summary judgment, finding that the plaintiff lacked standing and was judicially estopped from pursuing his personal injury claim. On appeal, we conclude that the trial court erred when it failed to rule on the plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint prior to adjudicating the defendants’ summary judgment motion. |
Fayette | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Lawrence David Ralph, Jr.
A Warren County Circuit Court jury convicted the appellant, Lawrence David Ralph, Jr., of violating a habitual traffic offender order; reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon; driving on a revoked license, fifth offense; evading arrest; and reckless driving. After a sentencing hearing, the appellant received an effective eight-year sentence. On appeal, he contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction for reckless endangerment and that his sentence is excessive. We conclude that the appeal must be dismissed because we lack jurisdiction in the case. |
Warren | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Stanley Wade Rowe
The appellant, Stanley Wade Rowe, was found guilty by a Davidson County Criminal Court Jury of burglary and theft of property valued over $500 but less than $1000. Following his convictions, the trial court imposed a total effective sentence of twelve years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions, the trial court’s denial of the appellant’s request for a jury instruction on the lesser-included offenses of attempted burglary and attempted theft, and the length of the sentence imposed by the trial court. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Terry Dwight Mooningham, Jr.
The Defendant, Terry Dwight Mooningham, Jr., was found guilty by a Bedford County Circuit Court jury of driving under the influence (DUI), fourth offense, a Class E felony; evading arrest, a Class D felony; driving with a revoked license, a Class A misdemeanor; and violation of the implied consent law, a Class A misdemeanor. See T.C.A. §§ 55-10-401 (2006) (amended 2011), 39-16-603 (2010), 55-50-504 (2006), 55-10-406 (2006). He was sentenced as a Range II, multiple offender to four years’ confinement for the DUI conviction, eight years’ confinement for evading arrest, eleven months and twenty-nine days’ confinement for driving with a revoked license, and six months’ confinement for violation of the implied consent law. The DUI and evading arrest convictions were ordered to be served consecutively for an effective twelve-year sentence. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his DUI conviction and that his sentences are excessive. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Ray Bullard
The Defendant, James Ray Bullard, pled guilty to evading arrest, a Class E felony, and four counts of theft of $500 or less, a Class A misdemeanor. See T.C.A. §§ 39-16-603, 39-14- 103, 39-14-105(1) (2010). He was sentenced as a Range II, multiple offender to three years, six months’ incarceration for the evading arrest conviction and to eleven months, twenty-nine days’ incarceration for each of the theft convictions, with all sentences to be served consecutively. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred by imposing a sentence of confinement. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Robert T. Henry v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Robert T. Henry, appeals the Hamilton County Criminal Court’s dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief from his 1978 conviction for robbery. He claims his conviction is void because the law applicable at the time of his conviction has since been repealed and current law renders his indeterminate sentence illegal. The State has moved the court to affirm the trial court by memorandum opinion pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The State’s motion is granted, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Omer Lee Dixon, Jr. v. Travelers Indemnity Company
The primary issue presented in this appeal is whether an employee, who was injured when a tornado struck the tractor-trailer rig he was driving for his employer, has a compensable workers’ compensation claim. The central dispute between the parties is whether the claim arose out of the employment relationship. After careful review, we conclude that the employee was injured when he was subjected to a hazard not common to the general public but peculiar to the nature of his employment and to the conditions under which his employment was required to be performed. Accordingly, the injury arose out of his employment. The trial court’s judgment holding the employee’s claim to be compensable and its award of benefits is affirmed. |
Madison | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Builders Mutual Insurance Company v. S & W Builders, Inc. and Timothy Morris v. S & W Builders, Inc.
In this workers’ compensation action, the trial court held that the employee sustained a compensable injury to his neck. The trial court found that the employee had a 30% impairment as a result of the injury and awarded 75% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. The employer had two policies of workers’ compensation insurance in effect on the date of the injury. The trial court held each insurer liable for one-half of the benefits paid to the employee. One of the insurers has appealed, contending that the evidence preponderates against the finding that the employee sustained a compensable injury and that it erred in its apportionment of liability. We affirm1 the judgment. |
Hardin | Workers Compensation Panel | |
State of Tennessee v. Richard Odom
The defendant was convicted of first-degree murder in the perpetration of rape. In the penalty phase of the trial, the jury imposed a sentence of death, finding three aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) the defendant was previously convicted of one or more violent felonies; (2) the murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel; and (3) the murder was committed during the defendant’s escape from lawful custody or from a place of lawful confinement. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction, but reversed the death sentence, holding that the trial court’s limitation on the mitigating evidence during the penalty phase required a new sentencing hearing. This Court affirmed. A second jury sentenced the defendant to death, concluding that the single aggravating circumstance, that the defendant had previously been convicted of one or more violent felonies, outweighed the mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. This Court reversed, holding that because the trial court had erroneously admitted detailed evidence of the defendant’s prior violent felony offense, a third sentencing hearing was required. The jury again imposed a sentence of death, concluding that two statutory aggravating factors, that the defendant had been previously convicted of a felony involving the use of violence to the person and that the murder was committed while the defendant was engaged in the commission of a robbery, had been established beyond a reasonable doubt, and further determining that the aggravating circumstances outweighed the evidence of the mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. This sentence was affirmed by the Court of Criminal Appeals. Upon careful review of the entire record, we hold as follows: (1) the defendant’s constitutional right to a fair and impartial jury was not violated by the disqualification of a prospective juror; (2) the prosecutor’s closing argument did not result in the use of non-statutory aggravating factors in the jury’s weighing process warranting reversal of the death sentence; (3) the admission of photographs of the body did not constitute error; (4) the trial court’s instructions on parole did not violate the defendant’s right to due process of law and heightened reliability; (5) the mandatory criteria of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-206(c)(1) are satisfied; and (6) the reduction of the amount of compensation sought by appellate defense counsel by a judge on the Court of Criminal Appeals did not require his disqualification from participating in this case. The judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is, therefore, affirmed. |
Shelby | Supreme Court |