Clayton D. Richards v. Vanderbilt University Medical Center
In this health care liability action, Clayton D. Richards asks us to consider whether the trial court erred in dismissing his complaint. Previously, Mr. Richards sued Vanderbilt University Medical Center alleging negligence. That lawsuit ended in a voluntary nonsuit. Mr. Richards refiled his complaint, which became the current action, over a year later. The trial court dismissed his complaint, holding that he had not complied with the terms of the saving statute, Tennessee Code Annotated section 28-1-105. On appeal, Mr. Richards argues that Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-121(c) offers him a 120-day extension of the one-year saving statute, making his lawsuit timely. We disagree and conclude that section 29-26-121(c) does not extend the saving statute. Thus, we affirm the trial court’s order granting Vanderbilt University Medical Center’s motion to dismiss. |
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
Victor Hugo Hernandez v. Jodie L. Land
A father moved to set aside two court orders as absolutely void. See TENN. R. CIV. P. 60.02(3). The trial court denied the motion. We affirm. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Jim Spangler et al. v. Mack McClung
At issue in this appeal are claims for unjust enrichment and breach of a limited liability company’s operating agreement. The plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the LLC, filed the complaint against his business partner. The complaint alleged that the defendant breached the LLC’s operating agreement by executing a promissory note to satisfy a foreclosure deficiency and by securing that note with a deed of trust on the LLC’s remaining real estate. After a bench trial, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims with prejudice. The court found that the promissory note was an extension or renewal of the LLC’s existing loan and that the defendant’s actions were authorized by a “written consent,” which allowed the defendant “to do any acts, including but not limited to the assignment, delivery, pledge, or hypothecation . . . of any or all assets of this LLC to secure such Loan, renewals and extensions.” Thus, the court concluded that the defendant did not breach the operating agreement. And because the parties had a valid and enforceable contract, the court determined that the plaintiff had no claim for unjust enrichment. But the court denied the defendant’s request for an award of attorney’s fees under the operating agreement’s fee-shifting provision. The court reasoned that the action was not “to secure enforcement” of the operating agreement, as required by the operating agreement. We affirm the court’s judgment on the plaintiff’s claims, albeit for different reasons with respect to the unjust enrichment claim but reverse the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s request for attorney’s fees. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Timothy Eugene Sanders
A Davidson County jury convicted Defendant, Timothy Eugene Sanders, of two counts of carjacking and one count of robbery. Defendant contends on appeal that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions and that the trial court failed to properly charge the jury regarding use of force. We find all of Defendant’s issues waived for insufficient briefing and therefore affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Howard Hawk Willis v. State of Tennessee
In 2010, a Washington County jury found Petitioner, Howard Hawk Willis, guilty of two |
Washington | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re Colten B.
This appeal involves a petition to terminate parental rights of a mother and father to their young son. The trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that a ground for termination existed due to a prior finding of severe child abuse and that termination of parental rights was in the best interest of the child. The parents appeal. We affirm. |
Cocke | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kyle J. Frey
The pro se Defendant, Kyle J. Frey, was convicted by a Williamson County jury of driving under the influence of an intoxicant (DUI); DUI per se; resisting arrest; and speeding. See T.C.A. §§ 55-10-401 (DUI) (2024); 39-16-602(a) (2018) (resisting arrest); 55-8-152 (Supp. 2021) (subsequently amended) (speeding). The trial court merged the DUI convictions. The Defendant received an effective sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days, suspended to supervised probation after service of sixty days’ incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant alleges that the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction. We conclude that the Defendant’s brief fails to comply with Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 27 and Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 10(b) and that the appellate record is incomplete. See T.R.A.P. 24(b). Accordingly, the Defendant’s issues are waived, and his appeal is dismissed. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jimmy Uhl
A Dickson County jury convicted the Defendant, Jimmy Uhl, of aggravated sexual battery, and the trial court sentenced him to twelve years of incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it denied his motion for a mistrial and when it sentenced him. Following our review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. We remand to the trial court to make the requisite findings with respect to the fine imposed by the jury. |
Dickson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Natasha C. v. Dustin C.
Mother appeals the trial court’s decision to modify the parties’ parenting plan and name Father primary residential parent of the parties’ two children. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. |
Hardin | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jonathan Cole Treadway
The Defendant, Jonathan Cole Treadway, appeals his jury conviction of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, for which he received a Range II sentence of eighteen years' incarceration. In this appeal, the Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictionand that the trial court erred in its weighing of the enhancement and mitigating factors during sentencing. Following our reivew, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Court of Criminal Appeals | ||
Morris Jason Pepper v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Morris Jason Pepper, was convicted of first degree premeditated murder in 2000 and was sentenced to life imprisonment. In 2022, the Petitioner, with the assistance of counsel, filed a motion to reopen his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that new scientific evidence established his actual innocence, referencing issues of inconsistent testimony, chain of custody, and the existence of alibi witnesses. He simultaneously filed a petition requesting touch DNA analysis of the several shotgun shells found at the murder scene and in the front yard of his home for the possible presence of either canine DNA or his codefendant’s DNA, contending that analysis was pertinent to answer the question of who or what might have touched the shells. A hearing was held on the Petitioner’s motion to reopen and his DNA petition, following which the post-conviction court denied relief in a single order. The Petitioner now appeals that decision, and he also requests relief via the doctrine of plain error due to the possible existence of a recording of his police interview and due to the destruction of evidence. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Lincoln | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re Taiden B.
In this action to terminate parental rights, Mother appeals the trial court’s findings by clear and convincing evidence that she abandoned her child and that the termination of her parental rights was in the child’s best interest. The evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s determination. Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s decision. |
Putnam | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jason David Baine
A Decatur County jury convicted Jason David Baine, Defendant, of two counts of assault and one count of reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon. He received an effective sentence of two years of incarceration to be served at a rate of at least thirty percent. On appeal, Defendant contends the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Decatur | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re Dilmer S.M. ET AL.
A mother appeals from an order terminating her parental rights to her four minor children. The trial court held that the evidence presented supported termination of the mother’s rights based on the statutory ground of severe child abuse. The court also found that termination was in the children’s best interests. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Dilmer S.M. ET AL. - Concurring
The majority thoughtfully addresses the present appeal. I agree with the majority that the record establishes that Mother committed severe child abuse and that the termination of her parental rights is in the best interest of the children. I respectfully diverge from the majority insofar as the majority opinion suggests that the termination petition’s notice — which specifically alleges severe abuse against the children that are named in the petition (which does not include Ervin Leonard) — extends to a finding of severe abuse by Mother of another child, Ervin Leonard. I concur in the majority’s conclusion affirming the termination of Mother’s parental rights based on harmless error. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Richard P. Nielsen, Jr.
Came the Defendant, Richard P. Nielsen, Jr., pro se, and also came the Attorney General on behalf of the State of Tennessee, and this case was heard on the record on appeal from the Criminal Court for Knox County, and up0on consideration thereof, this Court is of the opinion that there is no error in the judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Alanna Lee Kummer v. Johnny Kummer, III
A husband never answered his wife’s complaint for divorce, and the trial court entered a default against him. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court granted the wife a divorce and divided the marital estate. Within thirty days of entry of the final decree, the husband moved for relief from the judgment. On appeal, the husband faults the court for denying his motion. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Timothy Elijah Ogburn
A Montgomery County jury convicted the Defendant, Timothy Elijah Ogburn, of one count of first degree premeditated murder, two counts of attempted first degree murder, and two counts of employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a life sentence for the first degree murder conviction, forty years for each attempted murder conviction, and ten years for each employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony conviction. The trial court ordered the sentences to run consecutively to one another for an effective sentence of life plus 100 years. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions; (2) the trial court’s sentence was excessive; (3) the trial court erred by not granting a new trial based on newly discovered evidence; and (4) the trial court erred by issuing a material witness bond for Devion Lisenby. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Thomas Marlin Roberts, et al. v. Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, et al.
Homeowners removed underground storage tanks found on their property. After finding evidence of petroleum contamination where the tanks had been located, the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation began an extensive cleanup process. The Department subsequently issued a cost-recovery order against the homeowners to recoup its expenditures. The homeowners petitioned for review of the cost-recovery order to the Underground Storage Tanks and Solid Waste Disposal Control Board, which upheld the order. The homeowners appealed this initial ruling to the Board and the order was again upheld. The homeowners then appealed the Board’s final ruling to the trial court, which reversed the Board’s judgment. The Department and the Board now appeal. Because we determine that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, we vacate the trial court’s order and remand the matter for transfer to the proper court. |
Tipton | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Conservatorship of Sylvia Carlyle Brainard
After two sets of relatives filed competing petitions for the appointment of a conservator over the respondent, the parties entered into an agreed order and settlement agreement that provided that the respondent was not in need of conservator, but that the parties had certain obligations that were subject to review by the court and guardian ad litem going forward. Months later, appellants filed a petition to set aside the agreed order on the basis that appellees had not complied with its terms; appellees responded with a motion to dismiss appellants’ petition on the basis that they had not alleged proper grounds to set aside the parties’ agreement. After a hearing on the motion to dismiss, the trial court entered an order stating that “[a]ll outstanding orders should be set aside and all petitions and the case dismissed” without explanation. Because we cannot review the trial court’s sua sponte dismissal without an adequate explanation, we vacate the judgment of the trial court and remand for further proceedings. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Lee Simmons, Jr.
James Lee Simmons, Jr., Defendant, pleaded guilty to possession of 0.5 grams or more of methamphetamine with intent to sell, possession of drug paraphernalia, violation of the registration law, and resisting arrest. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the manner of service of Defendant’s nine-year sentence was to be determined by the trial court. Following a sentencing hearing, the court ordered the sentence to be served in confinement. Defendant appeals arguing that the trial court erred in denying him probation. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jamie P. Dennis v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Jamie P. Dennis, appeals from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, wherein he challenged his convictions for attempted rape of a child and attempted incest. On appeal, he argues that the post-conviction court erred in finding that the Petitioner’s trial counsel and appellate counsel provided him with effective assistance of counsel. The Petitioner bases his ineffectiveness claims on trial counsel’s failure to present a specific defense related to criminal attempt as a lesser included offense, failure to request reclassification of his prior conviction offenses to establish the appropriate sentencing range, and appellate counsel’s failure to raise the same issues on direct appeal. After review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Stewart | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ashley Ledford and Brandon Stepp
Defendants, Ashley Ledford and Brandon Stepp, were convicted by a Campbell County jury of two counts of aggravated child abuse and neglect of a child under the age of eight resulting in serious bodily injury. The trial court imposed effective twenty-one-year sentences for each Defendant. On appeal, Defendants argue that the evidence was insufficient to support their convictions, that the trial court erred by admitting the victim’s out-of-court statements and by consolidating Defendants’ cases, and that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing Defendants. Defendants also assert that they are entitled to relief under the cumulative error doctrine. Upon our review of the entire record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Campbell | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Eric Martell Small v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Eric Martell Small, appeals as of right from the Tipton County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief in which he claimed that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that his guilty plea was coerced, involuntary, and unknowing. Following our review, we affirm. |
Tipton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Allen Worley
Following a jury trial, the Defendant, James Allen Worley, challenges his convictions and sentences for four counts of rape of a child and one count of attempted rape of a child on multiple statutory and constitutional grounds. Specifically, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred by 1) admitting the forensic interview of the child victim on the grounds of the forensic interviewer’s lack of requisite experience and improper authentication by the victim, 2) denying the Defendant’s motion to suppress his statements to law enforcement on the ground that they occurred during an impermissibly lengthy warrantless detainment, and 3) excessively sentencing the Defendant to consecutive terms on all counts. After a thorough review of the record and consideration of the parties’ arguments, we remand the case to the trial court for entry of corrected judgment forms in counts 1 through 5. In all other respects, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Grundy | Court of Criminal Appeals |