Thomas S. Starks v. Troy D. White
This is a breach of contract case. Purchaser/Appellant appeals the trial court’s finding that Purchaser/Appellant is in breach of the contract for sale of real property, and entry of judgment in favor of Seller/Appellee pursuant to the default provisions of the contract. Specifically, the trial court found Purchaser/Appellant in breach on grounds of late payments, failure to list Seller/Appellee as additional insured, and failure to provide proof of termite treatment. We modify and affirm on the grounds of failure to list Seller/Appellee as an additional insured and on failure to provide termite protection contract. |
Henry | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Willie Andrew Cole
The defendant, Willie Andrew Cole, was convicted by a Davidson County jury of first degree premeditated murder and tampering with evidence, a Class C felony. He was subsequently sentenced by the trial court as a repeat violent offender to concurrent terms of life without the possibility of parole for the first degree murder conviction and six years for the tampering with evidence conviction, to be served consecutively to a previous life sentence for second degree murder. In a timely appeal to this court, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence in support of his first degree murder conviction and argues that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of his prior bad acts, not suppressing his statement, denying his motion to relieve trial counsel, and not addressing alleged prosecutorial misconduct. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Rickey E. Hutchings
The Defendant, Rickey E. Hutchings, appeals as of right from the Williamson County Circuit Court’s revocation of his 1994 probationary sentence for possession of contraband in a penal institution. On June 22, 1998, a warrant was issued against the Defendant, alleging a violation of probation based upon the Defendant’s arrest in Gulfport, Mississippi for possession of approximately one hundred pounds of marijuana with the intent to sell. The warrant was not served on the Defendant until November 27, 2007, and was thereafter amended to include additional criminal behavior. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the delay between the issuance of the probation violation warrant and his revocation hearing violated his right to a speedy revocation hearing and, therefore, that the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss the warrants. Because the Defendant was denied the right to a speedy probation revocation hearing, the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the warrants against the Defendant are dismissed. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tyree Robinson
A Shelby County jury convicted the defendant, Tyree Robinson, of first degree premeditated murder, felony murder, and especially aggravated robbery. On his first direct appeal, this court held that the trial court committed reversible error when it failed to instruct the jury, in response to its question, that accomplices could not corroborate each other and then remanded for a new trial. After retrial, the defendant was again convicted of the above three offenses and sentenced to life imprisonment and twenty years, to be served consecutively. On appeal, the defendant argues under an umbrella challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence that: (1) the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that two of the witnesses, Ilyas Morris and Mieko Saulsberry, were accomplices as a matter of law, and (2) even assuming those witnesses were not accomplices, their testimony was insufficient to corroborate the testimony of the defendant’s accomplices. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court but remand for entry of amended judgments to reflect the correct offense date. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Brent Walker
The defendant, Brent Walker, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of three counts of second offense driving under the influence, which the trial court merged into a single conviction; one count of reckless driving; one count of refusal to submit to a blood-alcohol concentration test while driving on a revoked license with license revoked for prior driving under the influence; and one count of driving on a revoked license. He was sentenced to an effective term of one year to be served in confinement and five months, twenty-nine days on probation. The defendant appeals, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions and that the trial court imposed an excessive sentence. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Darius Jones
The defendant, Darius Jones, was convicted of one count of first degree felony murder, four counts of aggravated robbery, three counts of attempted especially aggravated robbery, two counts of attempted aggravated robbery, and one count of aggravated burglary. He was sentenced to consecutive sentences of life with the possibility of parole for the felony murder, ten years for each of the aggravated robberies and attempted especially aggravated robberies, and four years for each of the attempted aggravated robberies and the aggravated burglary, for an effective sentence of life plus eighty-one years. On direct appeal, this court affirmed all of the defendant’s convictions and his life sentence for the felony murder conviction but remanded for resentencing on the remaining convictions in light of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004). This court also ordered that the trial court revisit the issue of consecutive sentencing and place its specific findings on the record. After being resentenced to life plus fifty-four years, the defendant appeals again, arguing the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences. Following our review, we conclude that the trial court did not revisit the issue of consecutive sentencing and place specific findings in the record regarding its determination. Accordingly, we remand this matter a second time for the court to do so. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ronald Timmons v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee
Plaintiff filed this Governmental Tort Liability Act action against the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County for injuries sustained during his arrest for driving under the influence following a vehicular accident. Plaintiff contends the police officers who arrested him were negligent in failing to recognize that he was not intoxicated but in diabetic shock, in failing to recognize that he could be restrained and handcuffed while standing, instead of in the prone position, and that he sustained a spiral, comminuted fracture of the humerus while an officer was pulling his right arm behind his back in an effort to cuff his hands. Following a bench trial, the trial court found the officers were negligent in the manner in which they assessed the threat posed by Plaintiff and were negligent in the decision to handcuff him in the prone position, which caused his injuries. The trial court, therefore, held the Metropolitan Government liable for the officers’ negligence, assessed 100% of the fault to the officers, and awarded Plaintiff $140,000 in damages. On appeal, the Metropolitan Government insists it is immune from liability because the officers’ actions were not the result of negligence but, it contends, the officers’ consciously and volitionally used an excessive amount of force that constituted the intentional tort of battery. Alternatively, the Government contends, if it is liable under a negligence theory, the trial court erred by apportioning no fault to Plaintiff. We have determined the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s findings that Plaintiff’s injuries resulted from the officers’ negligent acts and omissions, that the Metropolitan Government is liable for the officers’ negligence, that Plaintiff was not contributorily negligent, and that Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages in the amount of $140,000. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court in all respects. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jason M. Justice
The defendant, Jason M. Justice, was convicted by a Madison County Circuit Court jury of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence, the trial court’s admission of evidence concerning an alleged robbery of the defendant by the victim, and the trial court’s admission of text messages between the defendant’s girlfriend and another witness. After our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Rodney Welch v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Rodney Welch, appeals from the Gibson County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his “Petition to Alter or Amend Sentence,” in which he seeks a judicial determination that the Department of Correction has incorrectly calculated his sentence end date and that he is entitled to immediate release. He also challenges the trial court’s taxing of costs to him. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Gibson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jason Malone and Harold Robinson
Defendants Jason Malone and Harold Robinson, along with co-Defendant Johnny Miller, were indicted and tried jointly for aggravated robbery and aggravated burglary. Defendant Miller’s case is not part of this appeal. Following the jury trial, Defendant Malone was found guilty of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, in count one of the indictment, and the lesser included offense of criminal trespass, a Class C misdemeanor, in count two. Defendant Robinson was found guilty of aggravated robbery in count one, and not guilty of aggravated burglary in count two. The trial court sentenced Defendant Malone as a Range II, multiple offender, to nineteen years for his aggravated robbery conviction, and to a concurrent sentence of thirty days for his criminal trespass conviction. The trial court sentenced Defendant Robinson to sixteen years for his aggravated robbery conviction. In their appeal, Defendant Malone and Defendant Robinson challenge the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Brandon McCaslin v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Brandon McCaslin, appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief in which he alleged that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal. Specifically, Petitioner contends that trial counsel was ineffective because he failed (1) to challenge certain prospective jurors during voir dire; (2) to object to the State’s admission of evidence that Petitioner had a prior conviction for the unauthorized use of a vehicle; (3) to request the trial court to instruct the jury on the use of impeachment evidence; and (4) to preserve and raise issues on appeal other than the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that Petitioner has failed to show that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance and affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Donald Bradley Williams
The defendant, Donald Bradley Williams, pled guilty to one count of evading arrest while operating a motor vehicle, a Class E felony, and one count of joyriding, a Class A misdemeanor. The parties agreed to a six year sentence on the felony evading arrest conviction and an eleven month and twenty-nine day sentence on the joyriding conviction, to be served concurrently. At sentencing the trial court found that the sentences should be served consecutively to a previous sentence for which he was incarcerated. The defendant challenges the consecutive sentencing in this appeal. After reviewing the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Gregory D. McDaniel v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. The petitioner asserts that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at his probation revocation proceedings. Upon review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Thomas Dewayne Moffatt
This appeal involves the question of whether a passenger in a car may be subjected to a pat-down search following a traffic stop if officers suspect the presence of a weapon. The appellee, Thomas Dewayne Moffatt, was indicted by an Obion County grand jury for possession of more than .5 grams of Schedule II cocaine with intent to sell or deliver within 1000 feet of a park (a Class B felony) and tampering with evidence (a Class C felony). He was the passenger in a car which was stopped for a traffic violation, and officers testified that, based upon their belief that a weapon was present, both the driver and the passenger were asked to exit the vehicle with the intent to conduct a pat-down search for weapons. The appellee filed a motion to suppress the evidence seized, the drugs, asserting that the officers did not have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to search him. After hearing testimony at the motion to suppress hearing, the Obion County Circuit Court, relying upon Johnson v. State, 601 S.W.2d 326 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1980), concluded that “there was nothing amiss” and that the officers were not entitled to conduct the pat-down search. Because the State was unable to prosecute the case without the suppressed evidence, the charges against the appellee were dismissed. The State now appeals the denial of the motion to suppress. Following review of the record, we conclude that the trial court erred in granting the motion as the evidence presented preponderates against the court’s findings. As such, we reverse the court’s decision granting the motion, and the case is remanded to the trial court for further action consistent with this opinion. |
Obion | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
David Hix v. TRW, Inc., et al.
This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e)(3) (2008) for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. An employee sustained a workrelated repetitive exposure hearing loss injury. After he retired for reasons unrelated to the injury, he filed suit in the Criminal Court for Wilson County seeking workers’ compensation benefits. Following a bench trial, the trial court (1) determined that the injury should be assigned to the scheduled member (hearing) rather than to the body as a whole, (2) awarded 50% permanent partial disability to that member, and (3) set the date of injury as the date that the employee first gave notice to the employer of the injury. The employer appealed arguing that injury should have been assigned to the body as a whole and that the award was excessive. While disagreeing as to the proper date, both the employer and employee argue that the trial court erred in setting the date of injury. We affirm the trial court’s decision to assign the award to the scheduled member (hearing). However, we find that the award was excessive and modify it to 5% permanent partial disability to the hearing of both ears. We have also determined that the trial court erred with regard to its determination of the date of the injury. |
Wilson | Workers Compensation Panel | |
General Motors Corporation v. Weisley Frazier, et al.
This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-225(e)(3) for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Employee injured his back and knees at work. While he was receiving medical treatment, Employee offered a special retirement incentive package to decrease its workforce. Employee chose to accept this plan and retired while he was still receiving medical treatment. At trial, he contended that he was permanently and totally disabled. The trial court found that he was not permanently and totally disabled. The trial court also found that Employee’s recovery was limited to one and one-half times his anatomical impairment. Employee has appealed, and on appeal, Employee asserts that the trial court erred in finding that he was not permanently and totally disabled. In the alternative, he asserts that the trial court erred in applying the one and one-half times “cap.” We affirm the judgment. |
Cannon | Workers Compensation Panel | |
William C. Brothers v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, William C. Brothers, filed a petition for habeas corpus relief in the Circuit Court for Lauderdale County (hereinafter “habeas corpus court”) seeking relief from his two convictions for aggravated sexual battery. The habeas corpus court dismissed the petition, and the petitioner now appeals. Upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we reverse the dismissal of the petition and remand with instructions for the habeas corpus court to transfer the case to the convicting court for correction of the judgments to reflect that the petitioner is required to provide a specimen for DNA analysis in compliance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-321. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Marvin Senathan Hall, Jr.
The defendant, Marvin Senathan Hall, Jr., was convicted by a Tipton County Circuit Court jury of reckless aggravated assault, reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon, and felon in possession of a handgun and sentenced as a multiple offender to four years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues that (1) the trial court erred in allowing evidence of his prior felony conviction to be presented to the jury when he offered to stipulate to such, and (2) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Tipton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Dan Maturen
The defendant, Dan Maturen, appeals the order of the Shelby County Criminal Court revoking his probation. The defendant, pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, pled guilty to aggravated burglary, a Class C felony, and received a four-year suspended sentence. Subsequently, a probation violation warrant was filed alleging that the defendant had violated the terms and conditions of his probation. Following a hearing, his probation was revoked, and he was ordered to serve the balance of his sentence. On appeal, although conceding that he violated the conditions of probation, the defendant argues that the State’s interests in punishment, deterrence, and insuring restitution to victims would be best served by reinstating his probation. Finding no abuse of discretion in the revocation, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Albert F. Kelly v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Albert F. Kelly, proceeding pro se, presents a Rule 3 appeal from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s summary denial of his motion to reopen his post-conviction petition. In his motion to reopen, the petitioner asserted a new rule of constitutional law and relied upon Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S. Ct. 2348 (2000); Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004); Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S. 270, 127 S. Ct. 856 (2007); and State v. Gomez, 239 S.W.3d 733 (2007) (“Gomez II”), to support his argument that he is entitled to have his sentence reduced to the minimum within the range, as the trial court, not the jury, found applicable enhancement factors. The post-conviction court summarily denied the petition, finding that the petitioner had failed to assert a valid statutory basis for a motion to reopen a post-conviction petition. Following the denial, the petitioner filed a Rule 3 notice of appeal in the Shelby County Criminal Court. Because the petitioner has failed to comply with the statutory requirements for appealing the denial of a motion to reopen, this court is without jurisdiction to review the merits of the issue presented. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jasper D. Lewis v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant, Jasper D. Lewis, appeals the trial court's dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The Appellant fails to assert a cognizable claim for which habeas corpus relief may be granted. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Rachel Sumner, et al v. Metropolitan Board of Public Health
Petitioners challenge a mosquito spraying plan adopted by a local board of health alleging that it violates an ordinance on the same subject. Dismissal by the trial court is affirmed since there is no conflict between the plan and ordinance and petitioners fail to allege a legally cognizable ground to challenge the plan since dissatisfaction with the plan is not sufficient. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Dennis Wayne Merriweather v. State of Tennessee
Appellant, Dennis Wayne Merriweather, filed a petition for the writ of habeas corpus in which he alleged that his fifteen year sentence for selling controlled substances within 1,000 feet of a school renders the judgment imposed as a result of his guilty plea void because the judgment provides the sentence is to be served at 100%. Because we find the judgment is not void, we hold the habeas court properly dismissed the habeas corpus petition. Accordingly, the judgment of the lower courtis affirmed. |
Hickman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Apollo Hair Systems of Nashville v. Micromode Medical
Plaintiff filed suit against two defendants, and the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of one of the defendants. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to this Court. However, we find that this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the order appealed from is not a final judgment. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal and remand the case to the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Thomas E. Kotewa v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Thomas Edward Kotewa, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. He pled guilty to second degree murder and received an agreed-upon sentence of fifteen years as a Range I, violent offender. On appeal, he contends that: he received ineffective assistance of counsel; his guilty plea was not entered knowingly and voluntarily; the post-conviction court erred by failing to enter specific factual findings or legal conclusions; and Supreme Court Rule 28 was violated by both the State and the post-conviction court. After careful review, we affirm the judgment from the post-conviction court. |
Anderson | Court of Criminal Appeals |