The Estate of Maynie Bess Morris, Deceased v. Anita Morris
The trial court awarded summary judgment to Defendant based on the statute of limitations in this will contest action. We affirm. |
Obion | Court of Appeals | |
Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County by and through The Office of The Assessor of Property v. Lamar Tennessee, LLC d/b/a Lamar Advertising of Nashville
This case involves a subpoena issued by the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, on behalf of the Davidson County Assessor of Property, which required the appellant to provide information regarding its business operations. When the appellant did not comply with the subpoena, Metro filed a complaint seeking to enforce it. The trial court ruled that the appellant must provide the requested information. We reverse and remand for further proceedings. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Vario Tally
The defendant, Vario Tally, was convicted of aggravated robbery and carjacking, both Class B felonies, and sentenced as a Range II, multiple offender to eighteen years and twenty years, respectively. The trial court ordered that the sentences be served consecutively for a total effective sentence of thirty-eight years. On appeal, he argues that the proof was insufficient to sustain the conviction for aggravated robbery and that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jeffery Thomas
On August 14, 2007, the defendant, Jeffery Thomas, pleaded guilty to one count of DUI second offense, a Class A misdemeanor, in exchange for serving forty-five days in the workhouse followed by ten months and fourteen days of probation. Subsequently, the defendant moved the court to withdraw his guilty plea. The defendant argued that his guilty plea resulted in a manifest injustice because he entered the plea due to fear and ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court denied the motion. Defendant now appeals. Following our review, we affirm the judgment below. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Nathaniel Banks
A Shelby County jury convicted the defendant, Nathaniel Banks, of two counts of aggravated sexual battery. The trial court sentenced him as a Range II, multiple offender, to fifteen years in the Tennessee Department of Correction at one hundred percent. On appeal, he presents two issues for review: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support his convictions; and (2) whether the trial court erred in sentencing him as a Range II offender. Following our review of the parties’ briefs, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Pierre Terry, A/K/A Pierre Walker
The defendant, Pierre Terry, also known as Pierre Walker, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of attempted voluntary manslaughter, a Class D felony; aggravated robbery, a Class B felony; and evading arrest, a Class A misdemeanor. He was sentenced to three years, ten years, and eleven months, twenty-nine days, respectively. The court ordered that the felony sentences be served consecutively to each other and the misdemeanor sentence be served concurrently for an effective term of thirteen years as a Range I offender. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sentences imposed by the trial court on his felony convictions. After review, we modify the defendant’s sentence for aggravated robbery to eight years and affirm the sentences imposed by the trial court in all other respects. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James L. Milligan, Jr. v. Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee
In this direct appeal, the issue presented is whether the trial court properly affirmed a Board of Professional Responsibility hearing panel’s denial of a suspended attorney’s petition for reinstatement of his law license. The trial court affirmed the hearing panel’s decision that the attorney failed to present sufficient proof of his moral qualifications to practice law in this state and that his reinstatement will not be detrimental to the integrity and standing of the bar or the administration of justice or subversive to the public interest. After reviewing the entire record, we hold that the attorney failed to present sufficient evidence that he has the moral qualifications to practice law in this state and that his reinstatement will be not detrimental to the integrity and standing of the bar or the administration of justice or subversive to the public interest. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court denying the petition for reinstatement is affirmed. |
Knox | Supreme Court | |
Julie A. Bellamy v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., et al - Dissenting
I applaud the majority’s willingness to decide this case in an expeditious manner. I disagree, |
Wilson | Supreme Court | |
Julie A. Bellamy v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., et al
The Applicants, Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., and Paul Ludovissie (“Cracker Barrel” and |
Wilson | Supreme Court | |
Julie A. Bellamy v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., et al
This cause was heard upon the record on appeal from the trial court and the application of |
Wilson | Supreme Court | |
Jason Morris v. City of Memphis Civil Service Commission
This is an appeal from the decision of the Civil Service Commission of the City of Memphis, upholding the decision to terminate Appellant, Jason Morris’ employment with the Memphis Police Department. We find that the Civil Service Commission failed to make the required findings of fact and conclusions therefrom. Accordingly, it is impossible for this Court to review the case based on the record before it. Therefore, we vacate the order of the Chancery Court and remand for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Andra Guy
The Defendant-Appellant, Andra Guy, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony. The trial court sentenced Guy as a mitigated offender to 7.2 years in the county workhouse with a release eligibility of twenty percent. On appeal, Guy argues: (1) the evidence was insufficient to convict him, and (2) the trial court erred in failing to grant a motion for judgment of acquittal or a motion for new trial based on allegedly exculpatory polygraph evidence. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ronald Lester Brooks
The Defendant-Appellant, Ronald Lester Brooks, pleaded guilty in the Madison County Circuit Court to aggravated burglary, a Class C felony; possession of less than point five (.5) grams of cocaine with the intent to sell, a Class C felony; felony evading arrest, a Class E felony; and a third offense of driving on a revoked license, a Class A misdemeanor. The sole issue presented for our review is whether the trial court erred in ordering Brooks to serve his felony sentences consecutively. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tycorrian Chandler
Following a jury trial, Defendant, Tycorrian Chandler, was found guilty of first degree premeditated murder and sentenced to life with the possibility of parole. On appeal, Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Cody Matthew Headrick - Dissenting/Concurring
While I agree with the procedural analysis in the majority opinion, I respectfully disagree with the result. The facts of this case reveal a young Defendant who, while driving in excess of eighty miles per hour, lost control of his vehicle and struck another car, which was stopped at an intersection. The two passengers in the Defendant’s car and all three occupants of the stopped car were injured. A passenger in the stopped car died at the scene, and one of the passengers in the Defendant’s car was admitted to the Intensive Care Unit for several days. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Cody Matthew Headrick
The State appeals from the Hamilton County Criminal Court’s decision to order the prosecution to grant pretrial diversion to the defendant, Cody Matthew Headrick, who was indicted for vehicular homicide. First, the State maintains that an appeal as of right pursuant to Rule 3 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure lies from the trial court’s overruling the denial of diversion by the assistant district attorney general. In the alternative, the State requests that this court treat its improperly-filed Rule 3 appeal as an extraordinary appeal under Rule 10 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Tenn. R. App. P. 3(c), 10(a). Second, the State argues that the trial court erred in reversing the assistant district attorney general’s denial of pretrial diversion. Upon our review, we hold that the State’s appeal does not present a proper Rule 3 appeal and that, although the case does meet the threshold of Rule 10 review, the order should be affirmed. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Charlotte Branson v. Joyce Fitzgerald, D/B/A Realty Executives of Kingston
Charlotte Branson (“Plaintiff”) sued Joyce Fitzgerald, d/b/a Realty Executives of Kingston with |
Roane | Court of Appeals | |
In RE: M.M.M. (d/o/b 10/13/2007), A Child Under Eighteen (18) Years of Age
The juvenile court terminated the parental rights of the appellant, L.M. (“Mother”), on April 7, 2009. The court found multiple grounds for termination and concluded that termination was in the best interests of the child. Mother appeals. We affirm in part and reverse in part. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
Robin Lee Stanfill, et al v. John T. Mountain, et al. - Concurring/Dissenting
I concur in most of the majority’s well-reasoned analysis. I write separately, however, to state my disagreement that Mr. and Mrs. Mountain and Mr. Brooks shifted the burden of production to the Stanfills with respect to the allegation of fraudulent concealment of mold. |
Maury | Supreme Court | |
Robin Lee Stanfill, et al v. John T. Mountain, et al
The buyers of real property brought this action against the sellers and the real estate agent after discovering numerous allegedly dangerous and defective conditions in the house and on the property. The issue in this case is the propriety of the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendants. After review, we conclude that there are no genuine issues of material fact and the defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the plaintiffs’ claims regarding the alleged mold infestation of the house, and that Mrs. Mountain is entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ claim regarding the underground fuel storage tanks. As to the remainder of the plaintiffs’ claims, we conclude that summary judgment was improper because the plaintiffs met their burden in establishing the existence of several genuine issues of material fact. We affirm in part and reverse in part the trial court’s judgment and remand for further proceedings |
Maury | Supreme Court | |
Thomas Cothran v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Thomas Cothran, was convicted by a jury of four counts of aggravated vehicular homicide, three counts of vehicular assault, and one count of driving under the influence. The petitioner now appeals the denial of post-conviction relief, claiming the post-conviction court erred in finding that he received effective assistance of counsel. Upon our review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Hickman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ronald Yates v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Ronald Yates, appeals the post-conviction court’s dismissal of his petition for postconviction relief, arguing that dismissal was improper because the court did not make specific findings or conduct an evidentiary hearing. He additionally argues that if the court’s intent was to dismiss on grounds that the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel had been previously determined, such action was in error because he had different trial and appellate counsel. After review, we conclude that the post-conviction court erred in dismissing the petition without conducting an evidentiary hearing as to the petitioner’s claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. Therefore, we reverse the dismissal and remand for proceedings consistent with the Post-Conviction Procedure Act. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jesse Daniel Wright
Following a jury trial, Defendant, Jesse Daniel Wright, was convicted of driving under the influence, a Class A misdemeanor, possession of a Schedule III narcotic, a Class A misdemeanor, and running a stop sign, a Class C misdemeanor. Following a sentencing hearing, Defendant was sentenced to concurrent sentences of eleven months, twenty-nine days for each Class A misdemeanor conviction, and thirty days for his Class C misdemeanor conviction, for an effective sentence of eleven months, twenty-nine days, all of which was suspended after serving ten days in confinement. On appeal, Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of driving under the influence of an intoxicant. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. April Jennifer Warren
The Defendant, April Jennifer Warren, was convicted upon her guilty plea in the Blount County Circuit Court of voluntary manslaughter, a Class C felony. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the Defendant received a Range II, ten-year sentence with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered the Defendant to serve the sentence in confinement. The Defendant appeals, contending that the trial court erred in denying alternative sentencing. Based upon conduct by the trial judge, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for resentencing. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Robert Philip Rayburn, Sr. v. Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee
This opinion addresses an appeal from a judgment affirming the disbarment of an attorney by a hearing panel designated by the Board of Professional Responsibility. The first issue presented is whether the panel was divested of jurisdiction when the Board approved a proposed offer of a conditional guilty plea that the attorney later accepted with modifications. A second issue is whether the attorney was entitled to a voluntary nonsuit in the trial court after filing a petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of the adverse decision by the panel. Initially, the panel retained jurisdiction to enter the order of disbarment. Further, because the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure apply to our rules of disciplinary enforcement, an attorney who files a petition for writ of certiorari is entitled to a voluntary nonsuit; however, principles of sovereign immunity preclude the application of the one-year savings statute, Tennessee Code Annotated section 28-1-105(a). A petition for certiorari must, therefore, be filed within sixty days of the panel judgment in order to preserve an appeal. In summary, the voluntary nonsuit is granted; however, the appeal is dismissed because a second petition for writ of certiorari was not timely filed. We, therefore, reverse the judgment of the trial court as to the denial of a voluntary nonsuit; we affirm the judgment of disbarment by the panel. |
Hamilton | Supreme Court |