Ricky Lynn Hill v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Ricky Lynn Hill, appeals the Lake County Circuit Court’s dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner pled guilty to vehicular assault, driving under the influence (“DUI”) fifth offense, attempted tampering with evidence, and leaving the scene of an accident.1 Pursuant to the plea agreement, Petitioner was sentenced 1 to an effective sentence of seven years, eleven months, and twenty-nine days and released to intensive probation. Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in which he argued that his guilty pleas were involuntary, that his convictions violated double jeopardy, and that his sentence was excessive. The habeas corpus court denied relief for failure to comply with the habeas corpus statute and for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. Following review of the record, we affirm the denial of habeas corpus relief. |
Lake | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Darrin Mosby
The defendant, Darrin Mosby, pled guilty in the Shelby County Criminal Court to two counts of carjacking, a Class B felony. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the defendant to concurrent ten-year sentences, to be served in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant challenges the imposed sentences, specifically contending that: (1) the term of ten years is excessive in light of the trial court’s misapplication of an enhancement factor and failure to consider mitigating factors; and (2) the court erred in ordering the sentences be served in confinement. Following a review of the record, we remand the case to the trial court for reconsideration based upon this opinion. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Erda M. Gonzalez v. Neft Ali Gonzalez
Mr. Gonzalez filed a petition to alter his final divorce decree, alleging that the decree violates federal law by allowing the wife to receive more than 50% of his military retirement. The trial court denied relief. Mr. Gonzalez appealed. We affirm, holding that federal law does not limit Tennessee trial courts to awarding a maximum of 50% of a former service member’s retirement to the ex-spouse. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Darrin Mosby - Concurring and Dissenting
|
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Mark Patton
In this interlocutory appeal, the appellant, Mark Patton, appeals the Roane County Criminal Court’s denial of his motion to dismiss a three-count indictment against him. The appellant claims that he is immune from prosecution pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 8-47-107 because the State compelled him to testify about matters related to the indictment at a proceeding to oust him as Roane County Constable. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we reverse the order of the trial court and dismiss the indictment. |
Roane | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Deadrick Eugene Garrett
A Knox County Criminal Court jury convicted the defendant, Deadrick Eugene Garrett, of first degree premeditated murder in the shooting death of Dyishun Foust, 1 and the trial court imposed a sentence of life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. In this appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Wendell Wayne Sweeton
The appellant, Wendell Wayne Sweeton, was convicted by a jury of driving under the influence (DUI), third offense. The trial court imposed a sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days, with 150 days to be served in confinement and the remainder to be served on probation. On appeal, the appellant challenges the trial court’s rulings regarding purported discovery and Brady violations, the denial of appellant’s suppression motion, and the admissibility of the appellant’s prior DUI convictions. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Douglas Marshall Mathis v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Douglass Marshall Mathis, filed in the Davidson County Criminal Court a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, seeking relief from his conviction for first degree murder and accompanying life sentence. The habeas corpus court dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner’s conviction and sentence were not void. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jason Michael Fint
A Bradley County Criminal Court jury convicted the defendant, Jason Michael Fint, of one count of theft of property valued at $1,000 or more but less than $10,000. Finding that the defendant qualified as a career offender, the trial court imposed the maximum Class D felony sentence of 12 years’ incarceration. In this appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence and contends that the sentence is excessive. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Bradley | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Clark
The defendant, Michael Clark, was convicted of attempted second degree murder, a Class B felony. He was sentenced to twenty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction as a multiple offender. On appeal, he argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and that the trial court erred in allowing evidence to be presented concerning his prior conviction for aggravated assault. After careful review, we affirm the judgment from the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Christopher Flake v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Christopher Michael Flake, was convicted by a Shelby County Jury of two counts of first degree murder. On direct appeal, Petitioner’s convictions were reversed on the basis that the jury improperly rejected the proof at trial that established Petitioner was insane at the time of the offenses. State v. Christopher Flake, No. W2001-00568-CCA-R3-CD, 2002 WL 1298733 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, June 12, 2002), rev’d on appeal by State v. Flake, 114 S.W.3d 487 (Tenn. 2003). The Supreme Court reversed the decision of this Court on appeal. State v. Flake, 114 S.W.3d 487 (Tenn. 2003). Petitioner sought post-conviction relief, among other things, on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. After a thorough review of the record, we determine that Petitioner has failed to show that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Accordingly, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Melvin Reed v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Melvin Reed, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus relief. He entered a guilty plea to possession with intent to sell cocaine and was sentenced to ten years incarceration. On appeal, he argues that the indictment that led to his conviction was void. The State has moved to affirm the judgment from the trial court pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. After careful review, we grant the motion, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed pursuant to Rule 20. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Lawrence J. Brozik
The Defendant, Lawrence J. Brozik, was charged with ten counts of especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor, a Class B felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1005(c) (2003). Following a jury trial, the Defendant was convicted of ten counts of facilitation of especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor, a Class C felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-403(b) (2003). The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I, standard offender to five years for each count and ordered that five of his sentences be served consecutively, for a total effective sentence of twenty-five years. In this direct appeal, he contends that: (1) the State presented insufficient evidence to convict him; (2) the State failed to disclose promises made to, or agreements with, the minor victim’s husband; (3) the trial court erred when it found that he was the leader in the commission of an offense involving two or more criminal actors; (4) the disparity between the Defendant’s sentence and the minor victim’s husband’s sentence violated the Tennessee Criminal Sentencing Reform Act of 1989; (5) the trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences; and (6) the trial court erred when it found that evidence presented at the motion for new trial hearing was not sufficient to support a new trial. After our review, we affirm the Defendant’s convictions but modify his sentences to be served concurrently. |
Fentress | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John C. Howard
Appellant, John C. Howard, was indicted for three counts of aggravated child abuse. Appellant subsequently pled guilty to two counts of aggravated assault in an open, best interest plea. After a sentencing hearing, a five-year split confinement sentence was imposed. The trial court ordered Appellant to serve one hundred twenty days in incarceration for each offense, followed by five years of probation, and ordered the sentences to be served concurrently. The trial court further denied judicial diversion. Appellant seeks a review of the trial court’s denial of diversion. Because we determine that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying judicial diversion, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Timothy Washington Lyons and Antonio Lamont Scales
A Davidson County Criminal Court jury convicted the defendants, Timothy Washington Lyons and Antonio Lamont Scales, of the attempted second degree murder of Teresa Crenshaw and the reckless aggravated assault of Quanita Robinson. The trial court sentenced each defendant to 22 years’ incarceration. In this appeal, both defendants challenge the sufficiency of the convicting evidence, the trial court’s failure to provide the “missing witness” instruction, and the propriety of the sentences imposed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm the convictions. Because the trial court mistakenly believed it was imposing sentences for Class C felony aggravated assault rather than Class D felony aggravated assault, utilized improper enhancement factors, and imposed consecutive sentences without making required findings of fact, the sentences imposed are vacated, and the case is remanded for resentencing. In addition, new judgment forms for the aggravated assault convictions must be entered to reflect that the defendants were convicted of Class D felony aggravated assault. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Daniel Buck v. State of Tennessee
Following a jury trial, the Petitioner, Daniel Buck, was convicted of aggravated rape, a Class A felony, and aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-13- 502(b), -504(b). This Court affirmed his convictions on direct appeal. See State v. Daniel Buck, No. M2005-02818-CCA-R3-CD, 2006 WL 3831390 (Tenn. Crim. App., Nashville, Dec. 12, 2006), perm. to appeal denied, (Tenn. Apr. 23, 2007). The Petitioner filed a timely petition for post-conviction relief, claiming that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to preserve the issue that his convictions were barred by the statute of limitations. The post-conviction court denied relief, and this appeal followed. After our review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of relief. |
Robertson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Wade Tyler
Appellant, Wade Tyler, was indicted by the Rutherford County Grand Jury for one count of rape, one count of incest, and one count of statutory rape by an authority figure. Appellant was convicted by a jury and sentenced to eight years for the rape conviction, four years for the incest conviction, and four years for the statutory rape by an authority figure conviction. The sentences for rape and incest were ordered to be served concurrently. The sentence for statutory rape by an authority figure was ordered to be served consecutively to the sentence for rape, for a total effective sentence of twelve years. After the denial of a motion for new trial, this appeal ensued. On appeal, the following issues are presented for our review: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to support the convictions; (2) whether the trial court erred by refusing to allow cross-examination of the victim about specific instances of conduct; (3) whether the trial court improperly imposed consecutive sentencing; and (4) whether the indictment was defective. After a review of the record and applicable authorities, we determine that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and that the trial court properly ordered consecutive sentencing. Further, we determine that the trial court properly refused to allow cross-examination of the victim about specific instances of conduct and that the indictment was sufficient to inform Appellant of the charges against him. However, because we have identified several discrepancies in the record, we remand the matter for correction of the judgment form for statutory rape by an authority figure. Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed and the matter is remanded. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Clayton Ward v. Illinois Central Railroad Company
Plaintiff, a railroad employee, filed this lawsuit pursuant to the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, alleging that his left ankle injury was caused by his working conditions. The railroad filed a motion for summary judgment based upon the three-year statute of limitations. The trial court denied the motion for summary judgment but subsequently granted the railroad’s motion for permission to seek an interlocutory appeal. We granted the railroad’s application for an interlocutory appeal and now affirm the trial court’s decision to deny the motion for summary judgment. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Floyd E. Bell v. Eller Media Company, a Tennessee Corporation
Pursuant to a lease agreement, Defendant was allowed to place a billboard on Plaintiff’s building. After the billboard allegedly caused damage to Plaintiff’s building, Plaintiff notified Defendant. Defendant then sent a letter to Plaintiff terminating the lease, but Plaintiff claims Defendant later agreed to remove the billboard and make repairs to his building. When such repair and complete removal were not made, Plaintiff filed suit alleging breach of contract and promissory estoppel. Defendant moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted, and we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Judith Anne Shaw v. Jason Patrick Shaw
In this divorce case, we granted the request of Jason Patrick Shaw (“Father”) for a Tenn. R. App. P. 10 extraordinary appeal on three issues: (1) whether the Trial Court erred when it refused to grant his request for access to his older daughter’s counseling records with a licensed clinical social worker; (2) whether the Trial Court properly prohibited Father from taking this daughter’s deposition, and (3) whether the Trial Court erred when it refused Father visitation with any of the parties’ three children. As to the first issue, we remand this case to the Trial Court for a determination of whether furnishing the social worker’s records would be against the daughter’s best interest, as discussed more fully in this Opinion. We vacate the Trial Court’s refusal to allow Father to depose the daughter. Finally, we vacate the Trial Court’s refusal to allow Father any meaningful visitation and remand for the Trial Court to determine an appropriate supervised visitation schedule. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Mark W. Urlaub, as Next of Kin and Executor of the Estate of Bertha Worley Urlaub v. Select Specialty Hospital-Memphis, Inc., et al.
Plaintiff filed this medical battery suit on behalf of his deceased mother and named as defendants the nephrologist who ordered an allegedly unauthorized hemodialysis procedure, another treating physician, and the hospital where she was treated. The trial court granted summary judgment to the treating physician who did not order the procedure and to the hospital. Plaintiff appeals. We find that both of these defendants were entitled to summary judgment and therefore affirm the trial court’s decision. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Innocent S. Nzamubereka
The Defendant-Appellant, Innocent S. Nzamubereka, was convicted by a Sullivan County Criminal Court jury in count one of domestic aggravated assault, a Class C felony, and in counts two and three of aggravated assault, a Class C felony. The trial court sentenced him to six years for each count and ordered counts one and two served concurrently with one another but consecutively to count three, for an effective sentence of twelve years. The court ordered Nzamubereka to serve six years in the Tennessee Department of Correction and allowed him to serve the remaining six years on probation. On appeal, Nzamubereka argues that (1) the trial court erred in finding that one of the victims was unavailable; (2) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; (3) the trial court erred in ruling on three evidentiary issues; (4) the trial court erred in allowing the State to make an improper comment during voir dire; and (5) the trial court erred in imposing an excessive sentence. Upon review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Eddie Lee Murphy, Sr. v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Eddie Lee Murphy, Sr., appeals the Sumner County Criminal Court’s denial of post-conviction relief from his conviction for felony murder and resulting life sentence. See T.C.A. § 39-13-202(a)(2) (2003) (amended 2005, 2007). He contends that the trial court erred in denying him relief because (1) he did not understand the nature of the charges against him and the consequences of his guilty plea, (2) he was not adequately informed of his right against self-incrimination, (3) trial counsel was ineffective, and (4) his guilty plea was involuntary. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James A. Burgess v State of Tennessee
A Putnam County jury convicted the Petitioner, James A. Burgess, of two counts of second degree murder, two counts of felony murder, especially aggravated burglary, and felony reckless endangerment and sentenced the Petitioner to life imprisonment for each of the felony murder convictions. The Petitioner appealed the convictions, and this Court remanded the case for modification of the Petitioner’s conviction for especially aggravated burglary to aggravated burglary and affirmed in all other respects. State v. Burgess, M2009-00897-CCA-R3-CD, 2010 WL 3025524 (Tenn. Crim. Ct. Aug 4, 2010). In May 2010, the Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis, in which he alleged the existence of newly discovered evidence. The trial court dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to raise the existence of newly discovered evidence. On appeal, the Petitioner contends the trial court’s denial was in error. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Putnam | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Marquise Harris v. State of Tennessee
This matter is before the Court upon the State’s motion to dismiss or in the alternative to affirm the judgment of the trial court by memorandum opinion pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Petitioner, Marquise Harris, appeals the denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus in which he alleged that his transfer to the Middle Tennessee Mental Health Institute for a forensic evaluation was illegally accomplished in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel and trial by jury. Additionally, Petitioner complained that neither the general sessions court nor the criminal court had jurisdiction because of the illegal transfer. Upon a review of the record in this case, we are persuaded that the trial court was correct in dismissing the petition for habeas corpus relief and that this case meets the criteria for affirmance pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals |