State of Tennessee v. Marlos Shields
The defendant, Marlos Shields, was indicted on charges of aggravated robbery and aggravated burglary. After a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of the charged offenses. The trial court imposed a sentence of twelve years for the aggravated robbery conviction and six years for the aggravated burglary conviction and ordered the sentences to run consecutively for an effective sentence of eighteen years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant argues that: (1) the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion for a mistrial; (2) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions; and (3) the trial court erred in imposing an excessive sentence. Following our review of the parties’ briefs, the record, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Phillip Gray Stewart
The Defendant, Phillip Gray Stewart, was convicted in the Franklin County Circuit Court of driving under the influence, second offense. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to eleven months and twenty-nine days, with forty-five days to be served in the county jail. In this direct appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. Following a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Franklin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Thuy-T-Lam d/b/a Nail Paradise v. Tuan Ngoc Buile a/k/a David Le
The appellant-defendant appeals the trial court’s denial of his Motion for Summary Judgment and the modification and enforcement of his non-competition agreement with appellee-plaintiff. We affirm the trial court’s denial of appellant-defendant’s motion for summary judgment; we affirm the trial court’s ruling modifying the territorial restrictions in the non-compete agreement; we further modify the terms of the non-competition agreement in order to be consistent with Tennessee’s public policy; and we reverse the trial court’s institution of a permanent injunction against the appellantdefendant. |
Cocke | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Carlos Cooper
The defendant, Carlos Cooper, appeals from the judgment of the Madison County Circuit Court, revoking his probation and reinstating his original sentence of eight years. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Marvin Anthony Matthews v. Henry Steward, Warden
The petitioner, Marvin Anthony Matthews, appeals the lower court’s denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The state has filed a motion requesting that this court affirm the lower court’s denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. We grant the state’s motion and affirm the judgment of the lower court. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
William M. Putnam v. Ricky Bell, Warden
The pro se petitioner, William M. Putman, challenges the summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Following our review, we affirm the dismissal of the petition. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Georgia O'Keeffe Foundation (Museum) v. Fisk University
At issue in this appeal are the respective rights of three parties concerning charitable gifts of 101 pieces of art given, subject to conditions, to Fisk University in the late 1940s and early 1950s. The collection has an estimated present value in excess of $60 million. Four of the pieces, including the painting Radiator Building - Night, New York, were the property of Georgia O’Keeffe and given to the University by Ms. O’Keeffe. The other ninety-seven pieces were part of a much larger collection formerly owned by Alfred Stieglitz, Georgia O’Keeffe’s late husband. The ninety-seven pieces were gifted to the University by Ms. O’Keeffe as executrix of the estate and/or as the owner of a life estate in the ninety-seven pieces. All 101 pieces were charitable, conditional gifts that were subject to several restrictions, two of which are at issue here; the pieces could not be sold and the various pieces of art were to be displayed at Fisk University as one collection. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Georgia O'Keeffe Foundation (Museum) v. Fisk University - Concurring
|
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William Harold Jones, Alias
The Defendant, William Harold Jones, appeals the revocation of his enhanced probation sentences in the Criminal Court for Knox County. He pled guilty to two charges of theft, a Class D felony, for which he received two consecutive, suspended sentences of four years; theft, a Class E felony, for which he received a consecutive suspended sentence of three years; and reckless endangerment, a Class E felony, for which he received a suspended sentence of two years, with a total effective sentence of eleven years of enhanced probation as a Range II, multiple offender. On appeal, the Defendant contends the trial court erred in revoking his probation and ordering him to serve his sentences in confinement. We affirm the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Taurus Merriweather
The Defendant-Appellant, Taurus Merriweather (“Merriweather”), was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of second degree murder and was subsequently sentenced to twenty-five years in confinement. Merriweather’s sole issue on appeal is whether the evidence was sufficient to establish his identity as the shooter in this case. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Johnny L. Burns
The Defendant, Johnny L. Burns, was originally tried and convicted of one count of selling less than .5 grams of cocaine within 1000 feet of a school, a Class B felony. Due to an error in jury instructions, this Court reversed and remanded his case for a new trial. See State v. Johnny L. Burns, No. M2005-01945-CCA-R3-CD, 2007 WL 595632, (Tenn. Crim. App., Nashville, Feb. 26, 2007). The Defendant was retried and again convicted of one count of selling less than .5 grams of cocaine within 1000 feet of a school. In this appeal, he contends that the trial court erred because it: (1) denied his request for supplementary police reports that he claims contain exculpatory information; (2) refused to admit into evidence a photograph used by the defense in cross-examination; (3) denied his motion for a mistrial due to improper remarks made by the prosecutor during closing argument; and (4) failed to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of attempted sale of less than .5 grams of cocaine within 1000 feet of a school. After our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Janie Vincent v. Calsonic Kansei North America, Inc., et al.
This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers Compensation Appeals Panel in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court held that Employee suffered a compensable injury to her left shoulder; that she did not make a meaningful return to work and the statutory cap therefore did not apply; and awarded her benefits based upon a vocational disability of 35% to the body as a whole. Employer and its insurance company appealed. Upon our review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Bedford | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Jeld-Wen, Inc. v. Marvin L. Clark
This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensatiom Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated § 50-6-225(e)(3) for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court ordered Employer to provide pain management treatment to Employee. Employer has appealed, contending that the proposed treatment was made necessary by a pre-existing condition, an independent intervening cause, or both, rather than Employee’s work injury. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
White | Workers Compensation Panel | |
State of Tennessee v. Jesse Wade Glover
Defendant, Jesse Wade Glover, was indicted in count one for initiation of a process to manufacture methamphetamine by beginning the extraction of an immediate methamphetamine precursor from a chemical product, a Class B felony, in count two for promotion of methamphetamine manufacture by possessing more than 9 grams of an immediate methamphetamine precursor with the intent to manufacture methamphetamine, a Class D felony; in count three for promotion of methamphetamine manufacture by acquiring a chemical and an ingredient that could be used to produce methamphetamine knowing that it would be used to produce methamphetamine, a Class D felony; and in count four for possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor. Defendant was tried jointly with co-defendant, Britt Alan Ferguson. Co-defendant Ferguson’s case is not part of this appeal. Following a jury trial, Defendant was found not guilty of the charges in counts one, two, and four, and guilty of the lesser-included offense of facilitation of the promotion of methamphetamine manufacture, a Class E felony, in count three. The trial court sentenced Defendant as a Range II, multiple offender, to four years. On appeal, Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of facilitation of promotion of methamphetamine manufacture. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Obion | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Craig Abston
Defendant, following a jury trial, was convicted of one count of second degree murder and two counts of attempted second degree murder. The trial court sentenced Defendant to twenty years for Count 1, second degree murder, twelve years for Count 2, attempted second degree murder, and eight years for Count 3, attempted second degree murder. Counts 1 and 2 were ordered to run concurrently to each other but consecutively to Count 3 for a total effective sentence of twenty-eight years. On appeal, Defendant argues: (1) the trial court erred in its remarks to the jury venire; (2) the trial court erred in allowing the testimony of Sergeant Berryman that Defendant had two gold teeth at the time he was interviewed; and (3) the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentencing. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the convictions. We reduce the sentence in Count 2 from twelve years to eight years. Further, we reverse the judgments only insofar as they order consecutive sentencing, and remand for a new sentencing hearing solely to determine whether consecutive sentencing should be imposed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Marcus Richards - Dissenting
The pivotal question in this case is straightforward. Did the law enforcement officers who came upon Marcus Richards and his three associates sitting at a picnic table on which residue of powder cocaine was in plain view have probable cause to search Mr. Richards incident to arresting him for the simple possession of the cocaine on the table? The Court has concluded that they did not. I respectfully disagree. Based on the essentially undisputed facts, I would affirm the trial court’s conclusion that the warrantless search incident to Mr. Richards’s arrest was valid. |
Williamson | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Marcus Richards
The issue presented in this case is whether evidence seized from the Defendant’s person following a warrantless search should have been suppressed or, conversely, whether the search was justified as a search incident to lawful arrest. After receiving a tip from a citizen informant that three individuals were involved in drug activity around a picnic table in the back yard of a house, police officers were dispatched to the scene and found the three identified persons plus a fourth person – the Defendant – seated around the picnic table. As the officers approached, they observed one participant sweep the table with his arm and drop a corner baggie to the ground, and they subsequently discovered that this person held a rolled dollar bill containing a white powdery residue. The officers also saw a white powdery residue on the surface of the table that field-tested positive for cocaine. Although the Defendant was seated at the picnic table where the police officers observed evidence of cocaine use, they did not see the Defendant engaged in any illegal or suspicious activity. An initial “pat down” search of the Defendant revealed no drugs or weapons. After a consensual search of one of the participants at the table revealed white powder on the seat of his wheelchair, the officers searched the Defendant a second time and found a bag of marijuana and a bag of cocaine in his pocket. The Defendant was indicted for misdemeanor possession of marijuana and cocaine. The trial court found that the search was proper due to exigent circumstances supported by probable cause, but the Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, finding that the circumstances did not support the existence of probable cause. After review, we conclude that the search of the Defendant cannot be justified as a search incident to an arrest because, at the time of the search, the officers did not have probable cause to arrest the Defendant. The judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed. |
Williamson | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Marico Fowler
Following a jury trial, Defendant, Marico Fowler, was convicted of aggravated assault, a Class C felony, reckless endangerment, a Class A misdemeanor, reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon, a Class E felony, and vandalism, a Class A misdemeanor. At the conclusion of the sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Defendant to concurrent sentences of eleven months, twenty-nine days for vandalism, eleven months, twenty-nine days for reckless endangerment, three years for reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon, and ten years for aggravated assault, for an effective sentence of ten years. The felony sentences are as a Range II multiple offender. The trial court ordered Defendant to serve his sentences in confinement. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his request for alternative sentencing. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Emma Lou Hale vs. Gerald D. Hale and Bonnie F. Hale
Plaintiff sought a partition by sale of property she owned as a tenant in common. The defendants sought a partition in kind. The undisputed proof showed that the parcels were more valuable if sold together than if they were divided and sold separately. The trial court ordered the property sold. The defendants appealed. We affirm. |
Van Buren | Court of Appeals | |
State Of Tennessee, Department Of Children's Services v. Ruth Sails, et al. - Dissenting
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State Of Tennessee, Department Of Children's Services v. Ruth Sails, Sylvester Pollard, Kenny Jones, and Unknown Fathers
This is a termination of parental rights case. The appellant mother of four children has a history of mental illness and substance abuse. The children were taken into state custody based on the mother’s lack of safe and stable housing and her drug abuse. The children were then placed together in the home of their maternal grandmother and ultimately stayed in State custody for over eight years. For the first several years, the children’s permanency plans required the mother to obtain drug treatment, attend parenting classes, seek treatment for her mental health issues, and provide a stable home for the children. At various times, these goals were accomplished, but at other times they were not. In 2006, the state petitioned the trial court to permit the mother to regain custody of the children, indicating that the mother had fulfilled her responsibilities. Around the same time, however, the mother tested positive for illegal drugs. Soon thereafter, the state filed the instant petition to terminate the mother’s parental rights. After a trial, the trial court granted the petition for termination based on the ground of persistent conditions, finding that the State had made reasonable efforts to assist the mother and that the children’s best interest would be served by termination. The mother as well as the children’s guardian ad litem now appeal the termination. We reverse, finding that DCS failed to make reasonable efforts to assist the mother, particularly with respect to her underlying mental illness, and dismiss the petition to terminate her parental rights. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Demetry Fitzgerald Conley - Dissenting
I respectfully depart from the majority’s determination that Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-501(a)(3)’s mandate for release of a defendant operates upon the aggregate sentencing from two or more counties. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Demetry Fitzgerald Conley
The defendant, Demetry Fitzgerald Conley, pled guilty in four separate cases to multiple counts of forgery and theft. In Lincoln County case number S0700004, the defendant pled guilty to two counts of forgery between $500 and $1000 (Class E felony). In Lincoln County case number S0700062, the defendant pled guilty to one count of forgery between $500 and $1000. For these three convictions, the defendant was sentenced to concurrent two-year sentences, with 365 days to serve in the county jail. In Marshall County case number 17437, the defendant pled guilty to thirty-two counts of forgery up to $1000 (Class E felony). In Marshall County case number 17438, the defendant pled guilty to thirty-four counts of forgery up to $1000 (Class E felony), fifteen counts of theft under $500 (Class A misdemeanor), and two counts of theft of property between $500 and $1000 (Class E felony). The court subsequently imposed a sentence of one-year and six-months for each forgery conviction and eleven months and twenty-nine-day sentences for each theft. Based upon the imposition of partial consecutive sentencing, the effective sentence in the two Marshall County cases was six years, with 365 days to serve. The court further ordered that the Marshall and Lincoln County cases be served consecutively to each other for a total effective sentence of eight years, with two terms of 365 days to be served in the local county jail. The balance of the sentence was to be served on community corrections. On appeal, the defendant raises two issues for our review: (1) whether the trial court erred by ordering a sentence of split confinement rather than a full community corrections sentence and whether the sentence of confinement, as imposed, violates Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-501(a)(3); and (2) whether the trial court erred in sentencing the defendant to the maximum sentence within the range in the Lincoln County cases based upon the application of enhancement factors in violation of the defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights. Following review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court with the following exceptions: 1) remand for entry of corrected judgments as identified supra; and 2) remand for resentencing with regard to the two Class E felony thefts in Marshall County case number 17438 as discussed infra. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Raymond Clay Murray, Jr. v. Jes Beard
This is the second appeal in a legal malpractice case filed by Raymond Clay Murray, Jr. (“the Client”) against Jes Beard (“the Attorney”). In the first appeal, we affirmed the Trial Court’s sanction against the Attorney for discovery abuse which prohibited the Attorney from introducing any expert testimony at trial. However, a majority of this Court reversed the Trial Court’s issuance of a default judgment as a further sanction against the Attorney. We also affirmed the Trial Court’s determination that the amount of the Client’s damages totaled $16,697.38. We remanded the case on the sole issue of liability. On remand, both parties filed motions for summary judgment. The Trial Court granted the Client’s motion for summary judgment and found the Attorney 100% at fault for the Client’s damages. The Trial Court then denied the Attorney’s motion for summary judgment, found that motion was filed in violation of Tenn. R. Civ. P. 11, and awarded an additional $1,374.94 in damages. The Attorney appeals raising several issues. We affirm the Trial Court’s judgment in all respects. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Herbert Jones v. Lemoyne-Owen College and Cheryl Golden
This is a breach of contract case. The plaintiff college professor was asked by his employer college to teach a summer class. The class was cancelled after the professor had taught only two class sessions. The college said that the class was cancelled due to low enrollment; this reason was disputed by the professor. The professor filed a lawsuit against the college for breach of express contract, breach of contract implied in fact, breach of contract implied in law, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and intentional interference with contractual relations. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant college on all of the professor’s claims. The professor appeals, arguing that he was denied discovery and that the grant of summary judgment was erroneous. We affirm the challenged discovery rulings and the grant of summary judgment as to the claims for breach of express contract, breach of contract implied in fact, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, intentional interference with contractual relations, and as to the claim for breach of contract implied in law with respect to the second class taught by the plaintiff. We reverse the grant of summary judgment as to the claim for breach of contract implied in law with respect to the first class taught by the plaintiff. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals |