In Re: Estate of Ardell Hamilton Trigg, Deceased
The Bureau of TennCare filed a claim against a decedent’s estate to recover the cost of medical assistance provided to the decedent. The Estate filed an exception to the claim. The probate court sustained the claim, and the Estate appealed the probate court’s ruling to the circuit court which heard the matter de novo. The circuit court reversed the probate court and disallowed the claim of TennCare. TennCare appeals; we hold that the circuit court was without subject matter jurisdiction to review the probate court’s order. We vacate the judgment of the circuit court and remand the case. |
Putnam | Court of Appeals | |
Melany Faye (Ellett) Morris v. Johnny Edward Morris, II
This is a divorce case. One minor child was born of the marriage. After the parties filed for divorce, the wife relocated out of state with the parties’ child without obtaining court permission to do so. The husband filed a petition to hold the wife in contempt for relocating out of state with the child. The trial court declined to hold the wife in contempt, designated the wife as the primary residential parent, and ordered the husband to pay child support. In dividing the marital property, the husband was ordered to pay the statutory penalty for early withdrawal of the monies in his retirement savings account. The wife was awarded rehabilitative alimony and attorney fees as alimony in solido. The husband now appeals the relocation decision, the designation of primary residential parent, the assessment of the retirement account penalty, and the award of attorney fees. We affirm. |
Fayette | Court of Appeals | |
Advanced Photographic Solutions, LLC v. National Studios, Inc., et al.
Advanced Photographic Solutions, LLC (“Advanced”) sued National Studios, Inc. a/k/a NSI Closeout, Inc. (“National”) and Harold C. Lewis (“Lewis”) alleging that National owed on an account that was in default. After a jury trial, the trial court entered its Final Judgment on the jury’s verdict finding, inter alia, that Advanced had a contract with National, that National had breached the contract, that Lewis had a contract with Advanced providing his personal guaranty to pay National’s debt, and that Lewis had breached his contract of personal guaranty. The Final Judgment awarded Advanced judgment against National and Lewis jointly and severally in the amount of $400,526.70, and judgment against Lewis solely in the amount of $54,806.00 as attorney’s fees. National and Lewis appeal to this Court. The issues raised on appeal concern whether there was material evidence to support the jury’s verdict. We find that the record contains material evidence to support the jury’s verdict, and we affirm the trial court’s Final Judgment. |
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ivan Charles Graves
A Knox County Criminal Court jury convicted the appellant, Ivan Charles Graves, of first degree premeditated murder and felony murder committed during the perpetration of a kidnapping. Immediately after the jury’s verdict, the trial court merged the convictions and sentenced the appellant to life in prison. On appeal, the appellant contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support the premeditated murder conviction because the State failed to show he premeditated killing the victim; (2) the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions because the testimony of one of the witnesses was irreconcilable with the physical evidence; (3) the State’s use of his recorded jail conversations during its case-in-chief violated his constitutional rights; (4) the trial court committed plain error by allowing the jury to have transcripts of the recorded conversations during its deliberations; (5) the trial court erred by dismissing a potential juror for cause and failing to dismiss another juror for cause; and (6) the trial court erred by allowing a State witness to testify about the appellant’s prior bad acts. Although the trial court erred with regard to the transcripts, the errors do not warrant reversal, and we affirm the appellant’s convictions. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Donald Ray Jones v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Donald Ray Jones, pleaded guilty to two counts of first degree murder and received concurrent terms of life with the possibility of parole. The Petitioner filed a timely petition for post-conviction relief and, after a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. In this appeal, the sole issue that the Petitioner raises is that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his Trial Counsel failed to request insanity and competency evaluations. After our review, we conclude that the Petitioner’s appeal should be dismissed because his notice of appeal was not timely filed. |
Hancock | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James Paul Hurt v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, James Paul Hurt, was convicted by a Marshall County jury of selling 0.5 grams or more of cocaine and delivery of 0.5 grams or more of cocaine. The trial court merged the convictions, and on direct appeal, this court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. State v. James Paul Hurt, No. M2006-02381-CCA-R3-CD, 2007 WL 4552987 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville, Dec. 27, 2007), no perm. to app. filed. Subsequently, Petitioner timely filed a petition for post-conviction relief. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied relief and dismissed the petition. Petitioner appeals, arguing that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel. Following review of the briefs and the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction trial court. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Levi Battle III v. State of Tennessee
A Davidson County jury convicted the Petitioner, Levi Battle, III, of possession of twenty-six grams or more of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver, and the trial court sentenced him to thirty years, at 60%, in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The Petitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus relief, in which he alleged that his sentence was illegal because he was sentenced outside of his sentencing range. The habeas corpus court dismissed the petition, and the Petitioner appeals the habeas corpus court’s judgment. After careful review, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court. |
Hickman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Shawn Blair v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Shawn Blair, appeals the post-conviction court’s dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief from his two convictions for simple possession of marijuana and resulting sentences of eleven-months, twenty-nine days for each conviction to be served consecutively. The post-conviction court summarily dismissed the petition without appointing counsel or conducting a hearing on the basis that the Petitioner had filed it while his direct appeal was pending. The Petitioner argues that he is entitled to post-conviction relief because he did not plead guilty knowingly and voluntarily and because he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. The State contends that the post-conviction court improperly dismissed the petition because the Petitioner did not file it prematurely. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we reverse the judgment of the post-conviction court and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Andrew Colin Hicks
The Defendant, Andrew Colin Hicks, appeals as of right from the trial court’s denial of judicial diversion following his guilty plea to facilitation of attempted aggravated arson, a Class C felony. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a sentence of three years probation. The Defendant contends that the trial court erred by denying his application for judicial diversion. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Dewitt William Stickle, III
The Defendant, Dewitt William Stickle III, was charged with two counts of aggravated assault. Following a jury trial, he was convicted of one count of the lesser-included offense of assault, a Class A misdemeanor. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-101(b)(1). In this direct appeal, the Defendant, who maintained that he hit the victim in self-defense, contends that the trial court erred when it excluded testimony intended to corroborate his theory that the victim was the first aggressor. After our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Jackson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Robert Conley
Defendant, Robert Conley, filed a pro se notice of appeal which was timely as to the trial court’s order denying Defendant’s motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 35. The trial court subsequently appointed counsel to represent Defendant. In his brief on appeal, Defendant challenges the trial court’s order revoking his community corrections sentence and ordering service of the fourteen-year sentence by incarceration, in addition to arguing that the trial court erred by denying his Rule 35 motion. We conclude that the issue regarding revocation of the community corrections sentence is waived by Defendant’s failure to timely appeal that order. Further, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Defendant’s Rule 35 motion, and, accordingly affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Sonny Wayne Smith
Defendant, Sonny Wayne Smith, was indicted by the Marshall County Grand Jury for harassment, a class E felony, in violation of Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-308. Defendant entered a guilty plea to the offense as charged. Following a sentencing hearing, Defendant was sentenced as a Range I standard offender to serve two years in confinement, and his sentence was ordered to be served consecutively to a misdemeanor sentence. In this direct appeal, Defendant challenges the length of his sentence and the consecutive sentencing. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Willie Long, Jr.
A Madison County Circuit Court Jury convicted the appellant, Willie Long, Jr., of two counts of the sale or delivery of a Schedule I drug and one count of simple possession/casual exchange of a Schedule I drug. The trial court imposed a total effective sentence of eleven years in the Tennessee Department of Correction (TDOC) and ordered the appellant to serve eleven months and twenty-nine days of his felony sentences in the county jail “day for day” prior to being released on community corrections. On appeal, the appellant argues that the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to sustain his convictions, that the trial court erred in enhancing the appellant’s felony sentences to eleven years, and that the trial court erred in ordering the appellant to serve eleven months and twenty-nine days of his felony sentences in the county jail “day for day.” The State concedes that the trial court erred in imposing “day for day” confinement in the county jail but argues the judgments should be affirmed in all other respects. Upon review, we affirm the appellant’s convictions and the length of the sentences imposed but remand for a correction of the judgments to provide that the appellant is entitled to earn good conduct credits while serving eleven months and twenty-nine days of his felony sentences in jail. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ronald A. Barker, a/k/a George N. Bailey v. Tennessee Department of Correction, et al
Inmate of the Tennessee Department of Corrections appeals the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the Department in inmate’s declaratory judgment action. Finding no error, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Jimmy N. White, et al. v. Bruce White, et al.
This appeal arises out of the dissolution of a partnership. After several days of trial, the parties reached a settlement agreement. After the partnership property was sold pursuant to the settlement agreement and the proceeds were to be disbursed, one of the defendants claimed that he was entitled to more money than the settlement agreement provided for him to receive. The trial judge denied the request for additional funds. We affirm and remand for the trial court to determine a reasonable and appropriate attorney’s fee. |
Henderson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Collins
The Defendant, Christopher Collins, was indicted by the Lawrence County grand jury on three counts of felony child neglect, a Class E felony. The Defendant waived his right to trial by a jury and was convicted by the trial court of two counts of felony child neglect and one count of misdemeanor child neglect. The Defendant received concurrent sentences of 18 months in the Tennessee Department of Correction for the felony convictions and a concurrent sentence of 11 months and 29 days in the county jail for the misdemeanor conviction. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions and that in the alternative, he should have been convicted of attempted child neglect. Following our review, we conclude that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the Defendant’s convictions. As there was sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction of attempted child neglect, we reverse and vacate the Defendant’s convictions of felony and misdemeanor child neglect and impose two convictions of attempted felony child neglect, a Class A misdemeanor, and one conviction of attempted child neglect, a Class B misdemeanor. The case is remanded for a new sentencing hearing. |
Lawrence | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jonathan T. Stewart
The Defendant, Jonathan T. Stewart, entered a plea of guilty to driving under the influence, first offense. The trial court imposed a sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days to be suspended to probation after the service of forty-eight hours of confinement. As part of the plea agreement, the Defendant attempted to reserve a certified question of law, challenging the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress the evidence resulting from his traffic stop. Because the Defendant has failed to properly certify his issue for review, the appeal is dismissed. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Sandra Kay Hembree v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Sandra Kay Hembree, pleaded guilty to second degree murder and especially aggravated robbery. She received two twenty-year sentences, those sentences to be served concurrently at 100%. She now appeals from the Cocke County Circuit Court’s order denying post-conviction relief, contending that this denial was error because she received the ineffective assistance of counsel and, consequently, entered her pleas involuntarily and unknowingly. Specifically, she contends that trial counsel failed to interview the State’s witnesses, failed to provide her with discovery materials, and failed to meet with her often enough to adequately prepare for trial. Following our review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Cocke | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Martha Patlan
A Davidson County jury convicted the defendant, Martha Patlan, of aggravated child abuse, a Class A felony, and first degree felony murder during the perpetration of aggravated child abuse. The trial court sentenced the defendant to a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment for the murder conviction and, consecutive to the life sentence, twenty years for the aggravated child abuse conviction both to be served in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant argues that (1) the evidence was insufficient to convict her of aggravated child abuse and felony murder; (2) her felony murder conviction is unconstitutional; (3) the trial court erred when it failed to require the state to elect an incident of neglect; (4) the trial court erred when it refused to allow testimony regarding bruises on the defendant’s face; (5) the trial court erred when it allowed certain photographs into evidence; (6) the trial court erred in overruling the defendant’s objection to the use of the term Battered Child Syndrome; and (7) the trial court erred by ordering that the defendant serve her sentences consecutively. After reviewing the record, the parties’ briefs, and applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Melvin L. Finley
The Defendant, Melvin L. Finley, pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-402(b). The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I, standard offender to nine years in the Department of Correction. In this direct appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it: (1) did not sentence him to the Community Corrections Program; and (2) did not consider his drug addiction as a mitigating factor. After our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re: Navaeh L.
This is a termination of parental rights case concerning a minor child Navaeh L. (“the Child”), who is the daughter of Elizabeth L. (“Mother”) and William T.(“Father”). Separate petitions to terminate the parents’ rights were filed by Nicole Q., the Child’s maternal aunt, and her husband, Bryan (collectively, “Aunt and Uncle”), after the Child was adjudicated dependent and neglected, pursuant to Mother’s stipulation. Following this finding, the Child was placed in the custody of Aunt and Uncle. Father’s paternity of the Child was not established until after the adjudicatory hearing, but before the petition to terminate was filed. Mother and Father, represented by separate counsel, each opposed the termination of their rights. Following a bench trial, the court granted both petitions upon finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that each of the alleged grounds was established and that termination was in the best interest of the Child. As to Father, the trial court relied upon the grounds of abandonment by failure to support and failure to visit and the persistence of unremedied conditions. Father appeals. 1 We affirm. |
Hamblen | Court of Appeals | |
Tammy V. Galloway v. Brian K. Vaughn, et al.
Plaintiff, a guest passenger in a vehicle involved in an accident, filed this action to recover uninsured motorist benefits. The vehicle in which Plaintiff was riding was owned and operated by an insured of Shelter Insurance Company. The accident was the fault of the driver of another vehicle who was not insured; therefore, Plaintiff seeks to recover uninsured motorist coverage benefits from Shelter. Insisting that Plaintiff was not entitled to benefits under the driver’s policy because Plaintiff did not meet the definition of an “insured” in the policy, Shelter moved for summary judgment. The trial court found that Plaintiff was an “insured” under the terms of the Shelter policy and denied the motion. This interlocutory appeal followed. We have determined that Plaintiff is not an “insured” pursuant to the terms of the Shelter policy and that Shelter is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. Therefore, we reverse and remand with instructions to grant Shelter’s motion for summary judgment. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Celso Vilorio Melendez,a/k/a Edwin Canales v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Celso Vilorio Melendez, aka Edwin Canales, appeals as of right the Davidson County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The Petitioner alleges that his guilty pleas to two counts of facilitation to deliver over 300 grams of cocaine, a Class B felony, was not voluntarily, knowingly and understandingly made due to the ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, he contends that trial counsel did not advise him of the eligibility requirements for participation in the Department of Correction’s (DOC) Boot Camp Program, and that, had he been properly advised, he would not have pleaded guilty. After the appointment of counsel and a full evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court found that the Petitioner failed to prove his allegations by clear and convincing evidence and denied the petition. Following our review, we conclude that trial counsel rendered deficient representation when he incorrectly advised the Petitioner that he was eligible for the boot camp program. We reverse the judgment of the post-conviction court and remand for a determination regarding whether that deficiency was prejudicial to the Petitioner. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
George Shelton Rucker v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Gene Shelton Rucker, appeals the habeas corpus court’s summary dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief from his convictions for criminally negligent homicide and aggravated arson. In his petition, he asserts that his sentence is illegal because it was improperly enhanced in violation of the United States Supreme Court’s holding in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004). Following our review of the record and the applicable authorities, we conclude that principles of res judicata dictate that this issue not be relitigated. The order of dismissal is affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Roger Dale Raper v. Johanna Raper
In this divorce case, the trial court granted Roger Dale Raper (“Husband”) and Johanna Raper (“Wife”) an absolute divorce, thereby ending their 26-year union. A bench trial was held to resolve the remaining issues of property division and alimony. The court divided the marital property and awarded Wife alimony in solido and alimony in futuro. Husband appeals and challenges each of these determinations. We affirm. |
Monroe | Court of Appeals |