Veric Dean Osgood v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Veric Dean Osgood, pled guilty in the Blount County Circuit Court to two counts of aggravated kidnapping, one count of aggravated robbery, and one count of aggravated burglary. He received a total effective sentence of thirty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Subsequently, he filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective and that his pleas were not knowingly and voluntarily entered. The post-conviction court denied the petition, and the Petitioner now appeals. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Dewayne Sharkey v. Molly O'Toole, M.D.
An inmate appeals a summary judgment dismissing his medical malpractice and 42 U.S.C._ 1983 claims against the correctional facility's psychiatrist. Since the defendant's doctor negated essential elements of both claims with her expert affidavit and plaintiff failed to create a genuine issue of material fact, the trial court is affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Trustmark National Bank, et al. v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, et al.
This case concerns the priority of lienholders' respective interests in real property. The plaintiffs/appellees, Trustmark National Bank and FirstBank, filed this joint action as amended for declaratory judgment against the defendants/appellants, Long Beach Mortgage Company, Sonya R. Thomas, and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, and for enforcement of their liens through judicial sale of the property. The plaintiffs' amended complaint asserted that Trustmark and FirstBank held judgment liens against the property that were valid, enforceable, and superior to the defendants' interests. The defendants responded in pertinent part that they were entitled to priority under the doctrine of equitable subrogation, even if the plaintiffs held prior-recorded judgment liens against the property. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that the undisputed facts demonstrated that the plaintiffs' liens were enforceable and superior to the defendants' later-recorded deeds of trust and that the defendants were not entitled to equitable subrogation. The defendants appealed, challenging only whether the trial court erred when it granted summary judgment on the question of equitable subrogation. Because the plaintiffs failed to negate an essential element of equitable subrogation or show that the defendants cannot establish an essential element of equitable subrogation at trial, we reverse the grant of summary judgment in part and remand. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
John A. Van Grouw v. Tracey P. Malone
Plaintiff appeals the trial court's award of summary judgment to defendant attorney in an action alleging professional malpractice, fraud, and violation of the consumer protection act. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Thomas Greer v. City of Memphis, Tennessee
This case involves the award of attorney's fees and costs against the Appellant City of Memphis for its alleged failure to comply with the appellee's document request, made under the Tennessee Public Records Act, Tenn. Code Ann. _10-7-501 et seq. The trial court awarded fees and costs against the city under Tenn. Code Ann. _ 10-7-505(g), which requires a finding of knowledge and willful failure to comply with the public records act. Based upon the record, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion because: (1) the trial court made no specific finding concerning the city's alleged willful failure to comply, and (2) the record does not support a finding of willful failure to comply on the part of the city. Reversed. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Jerry Robertson, a/k/a Jere Robertson vs. Clara Robertson Hodges, et ux., et al
In this action plaintiff asked the Court to declare that he had an interest in property which he inherited by will, and for a partition and sale of the land. The trial court determined that plaintiff was judicially estopped to claim an interest in the land and dismissed the action. On appeal, we affirm the Judgment of the trial court. |
Sevier | Court of Appeals | |
Phedrek T. Davis v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Phedrek T. Davis, appeals from the dismissal of his petition for writ of error coram nobis. In this appeal, he contends that the coram nobis court erred by summarily denying his petition. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the coram nobis court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Gary Wayne Armstrong
The defendant, Gary Wayne Armstrong, appeals from his Marshall County Circuit Court jury convictions of assault and aggravated assault. He claims that the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions and that the trial court erroneously sentenced him. Upon our review of the record, we affirm the trial court's judgments. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Herman Majors, Jr.
The defendant, Herman Majors, Jr., appeals the Montgomery County Circuit Court's revocation of his community corrections sentence for his conviction of aggravated assault, alleging that the trial court erred in not returning him to community corrections or placing him on probation. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Phillippe Rogers
A Davidson County jury convicted the defendant of one count of conspiracy to sell 300 grams or more of cocaine, see T.C.A. __ 39-17-417(a)(3), (j)(5); 39-12-103 (2003), and one count of possession with intent to sell 300 grams or more of cocaine, see id. _ 39-17- 417(a)(4), (j)(5). The defendant appeals, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of conspiracy to sell 300 grams or more of cocaine. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re Tyrus V.
Mother appeals the trial court's change of custody of the parties' minor child to Father, challenging the court's best interest determination. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Raymond Konop, et al. v. James Henry, et al.
Purchasers of real estate brought suit against the sellers as well as against the appraiser, the sellers' real estate agent, the agent's managing broker and brokerage firm alleging fraudulent misrepresentation and breach of duty to disclose adverse facts related to the property purchased. Upon their motions for summary judgment, the appraiser, real estate agent, the agent's managing broker and brokerage firm were dismissed as defendants; the purchasers appeal the dismissal of the real estate agent, the managing broker and the brokerage firm. Finding no error, we affirm. |
Marshall | Court of Appeals | |
In the matter of: April F. (d.o.b. 11/20/98), Dylan F. (d.o.b. 3/30/00), and Devin F. (d.o.b. 7/24/06 et al.
This is a termination of parental rights case. The juvenile court terminated the parental rights of the father on the grounds of persistence of conditions, substantial noncompliance with the terms of the permanency plans, and abandonment by willful failure to support. The father appeals, arguing that the Department of Children's Services did not clearly and convincingly show that it made reasonable efforts to help him address his addiction to methamphetamine, clearly and convincingly prove grounds for termination, or clearly and convincingly demonstrate that termination of his parental rights was in the best interests of the children. Because DCS did not clearly and convincingly demonstrate that it made reasonable efforts to reunite the father with his children, we reverse. |
Campbell | Court of Appeals | |
Brenda M. McGhee v. Holland Group of Tennessee, Inc.
The employee filed a workers' compensation claim against her employer for back pain resulting from the aggravation and advancement of her degenerative disc disease, which she claimed had occurred from her injury while working on a brake line assembly. The trial court found that the employee had not carried her burden of proof, and the employee appealed. Because the evidence does not preponderate against the findings of fact made by the trial court, the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel, sitting in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-225(e)(3) and Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51, affirms the judgment. |
Greene | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Joseph Scott Richardson v. James Brown Contracting, Inc. D/B/A James Brown Trucking Company et al.
The owner and operator of a tractor-trailer filed a workers' compensation claim against a common carrier for injuries that he incurred while attempting to verify a load to transport to another location. The trial court ruled that the owner/operator, while an independent contractor, was entitled to workers' compensation benefits by virtue of a written contract between the parties extending coverage, as permitted by statute. The trial court reserved judgment on the award and permitted an interlocutory appeal. The Supreme Court granted the appeal and referred it to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-225(e)(3) and Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51. Because the evidence does not preponderate against the findings of fact made by the trial court, the judgment is affirmed. The cause is remanded to the trial court for the disposition of the remaining issues. |
Hamilton | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Rick Bovee v. Home Depot, USA, Inc.
In this workers’ compensation action, employee sought benefits for injuries to his hips, shoulders, and feet. The trial court awarded benefits for injuries to his shoulders and feet but found that he failed to give timely notice of his bilateral hip injuries to his employer and dismissed those claims. Employee has appealed, contending that the trial court erred in finding that he did not provide timely notice of his hip injuries and that the complaint is barred by the statute of limitations. He requests that temporary disability, medical, and permanent disability benefits be awarded for those claims. Employer argues that the trial court erred in its calculation of the amount to be set off for social security retirement benefits. We conclude that the employee gave sufficient notice of his hip injuries to satisfy the requirements of the workers’ compensation statute. However, we find that those claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The judgment is affirmed in all other respects. |
Davidson | Workers Compensation Panel | |
John Freeman v. General Motors Corporation
The trial court granted the employee’s post-judgment motion to compel his employer to provide certain medical treatment. The employer has appealed, contending that the trial court erred by finding that the proposed treatment was related to the work injury. We affirm the judgment. |
Maury | Workers Compensation Panel | |
State of Tennessee v. Joshua Shane Hayes
Following a jury trial, Defendant, Joshua Shane Hayes, was convicted of possession with intent to deliver three-hundred grams or more of cocaine (count one), manufacturing twenty or more marijuana plants (count two), and possession with intent to deliver more than ten pounds but less than seventy pounds of marijuana (count three). The trial court conducted a sentencing hearing and imposed a sentence of twenty-four years for count one, five years for count two, and four years for count three. The court ordered counts one and two to run consecutively to each other and concurrently to count three for an effective twenty-nine year sentence in the Department of Correction. On appeal, Defendant argues that (1) the trial court erred in failing to suppress the evidence seized from the residence at Deer Valley Trail; (2) that the trial court erred in allowing the State to introduce evidence of seventeen firearms, ammunition, and photographs of multiple firearms at trial; and (3) that the trial court erred in sentencing Defendant to an effective twenty-nine year sentence. Following our review of the record, we reverse the judgments of the trial court because the warrant does not comply with the requirements of Rule 41 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jonathon C. Hood v. State of Tennessee
Defendant, Jonathon C. Hood, appeals the dismissal of his motion to discharge fines. More specifically, he contends that because his sentence was expired, the trial court erred in dismissing the motion. The State argues that this Court does not have jurisdiction to hear this appeal because Rule 3 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure does not provide for an appeal as of right from the denial of a motion to discharge fines. We agree. Additionally, the record is incomplete. Therefore, Defendant's appeal is dismissed. |
Franklin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Kardius Wilkes v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Kardius Wilkes, was convicted by a jury of one count of first degree murder. This Court affirmed his conviction on direct appeal, and his application for permission to appeal was denied by the Tennessee Supreme Court. See State v. Kardius Wilkes, No. W2001-02172-CCA-R3-CD, 2002 WL 818255 (Tenn. Crim. App., Jackson, Apr. 26, 2002), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Oct. 7, 2002). He later filed a petition for post-conviction relief. Following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied the Petitioner relief. In this appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred in denying him relief because his trial counsel failed to: (1) impeach a particular witness using transcripts of the Petitioner's first trial, which ended in a mistrial; (2) adequately meet with the Petitioner before his second trial; (3) call the Petitioner's brother as a witness; and (4) adequately investigate and interview potential witnesses. After our review, we affirm the post-conviction court's denial of relief. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Brandon Taylor Fisher
The defendant, Brandon Taylor Fisher, stands convicted of robbery and kidnapping, both Class C felonies. The trial court sentenced him as a Range I standard offender to five years for robbery and four years for kidnapping and ordered him to serve the sentences consecutively in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant challenges the trial court's imposition of consecutive sentences. Following our review, we conclude that the trial court failed to make findings sufficient to justify consecutive sentences under Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-115(b) and remand for a new sentencing hearing solely on the issue of whether consecutive sentences are appropriate in this case. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Brent R. Stewart
In this appeal, the defendant claims that his due process rights were violated because the judge presiding over his probation revocation had previously served as a member of his drug court team and had received ex parte information regarding the defendant's conduct at issue by virtue of his prior involvement. After due consideration, we agree that the Due Process Clause requires that a defendant's probation revocation be adjudicated by a judge who has not previously reviewed the same or related subject matter as part of the defendant's drug court team. Accordingly, we reverse the decision below and remand the defendant's case for a new hearing in front of a different judge. |
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Carlos Kennedy
The Defendant-Appellant, Carlos Kennedy, was convicted by a jury in the Circuit Court of Chester County of rape of a child, a Class A felony, attempted rape of a child, a Class B felony, assault, a Class A misdemeanor, and coercion of a witness, a Class D felony. He was sentenced to twenty-five years for rape of a child, ten years for attempted rape of a child, eleven months and twenty-nine days for assault, and four years for coercion of a witness. The trial court ordered the sentence for attempted rape of a child to be served consecutively with the sentence for rape of a child. It also ordered the sentences for assault and coercion of a witness to run concurrently with the conviction for rape of a child. Thus, Kennedy received an effective sentence of thirty-five years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, Kennedy claims: (1) that the conviction for rape of a child is not supported by sufficient evidence; (2) the trial court erred by prohibiting defense counsel from questioning the victim and her mother about a prior allegation of sexual abuse made by the victim; and (3) the trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentencing. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Chester | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Mario Chambers
In the Shelby County Criminal Court, the Defendant-Appellant, Mario Chambers, entered guilty pleas to four Class E felonies and one Class A misdemeanor. Specifically, Chambers pled guilty to possession of Morphine with intent to sell, possession of Hydrocodone with intent to sell, possession of Alprazolam with intent to sell and possession of marijuana. As a part of his plea agreement, Chambers received concurrent two-year sentences for each of the felony convictions to be served in the county workhouse and a concurrent thirty-four day sentence to be served in the county jail for the misdemeanor conviction, with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. On appeal, Chambers argues that the trial court erred in denying an alternative sentence. Upon review, we affirm the trial court's judgments. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Edward Thompson
The defendant, Edward Thompson, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court's denial of his petition to suspend his sentence to probation. The defendant pled guilty to attempted rape of a child, a Class B felony, and received an agreed sentence of ten years. However, as part of the agreement, he reserved the right to request that the trial court sentence him to probation. On appeal, he contends that the trial court erred in its decision by "not appropriately bas[ing] the denial of probation upon the sentencing considerations set forth in Tennessee Code Annotated 40-35-103." Following review of the record, we conclude that the trial court did not err in denying the petition. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals |