State of Tennessee v. Thomas Lamont Coleman
The defendant, Thomas Lamont Coleman, was found guilty following a bench trial of violating the implied consent law. He appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in finding him guilty absent a showing by the State that the breathalyzer test was administered in accordance with the standards set forth in State v. Sensing, 843 S.W.2d 412 (Tenn. 1992). After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Johnny Justin Postles v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Johnny Justin Postles, appeals from the post-conviction court’s denial of post-conviction relief as it relates to the petitioner’s convictions for aggravated criminal trespass and assault in case assignment 04-720, and aggravated assault, aggravated burglary, and theft under $500 in case assignment 04-721. On appeal, he contends that the post-conviction court erred in denying relief based on his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Following our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court denying post-conviction relief. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Toneka Y. Reid
The defendant, Toneka Y. Reid, appeals as of right from her jury conviction in the Williamson County Circuit Court of theft of property valued at five hundred dollars or less, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced the defendant to eleven months and twenty-nine days to be served in jail. The defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying her motion to suppress and in denying probation or alternative sentencing. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. David Mark McDade
The defendant, David Mark McDade, pled guilty to one count of aggravated assault, a Class C felony, and was sentenced to four years in the Department of Correction as a Range I, standard offender. The defendant appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in denying the defendant full probation and ordering him to serve his sentence in confinement. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the trial court properly sentenced the defendant and affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Mark Anthony Buntley
The defendant, Mark Anthony Buntley, was convicted by a jury of bribing a witness, a Class C felony. For his conviction, the defendant was sentenced to nine years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant raises the following issues: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain his conviction; and (2) whether the trial court imposed an excessive sentence. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Byron Lebron Roshell - Dissenting
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion’s conclusion that proof of prior drug sales by the defendant was properly admitted. I conclude that this proof was prejudicial and essentially irrelevant to the issues in the trial. I would reverse the judgment of conviction and grant a new trial. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Byron Lebron Roshell
Defendant-Appellant, Byron Lebron Roshell, appeals his conviction by a Davidson County jury of the sale of less than .5 grams of cocaine, a Class C felony. See T.C.A. § 39-17-417 (2006). He argues that (1) the trial court erred in admitting a former co-defendant’s testimony that he had bought drugs from Roshell in the past and (2) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. We affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Kevin Seramur vs. Life Care Centers of America, Inc.
Plaintiff, a former employee of defendant, brought this action to enforce an employment contract for benefits allegedly due under the contract. The Trial Court granted defendant summary judgment on the grounds that a provision in the employment contract to which the parties originally agreed to, was an unenforceable contract, as the provision amounted to an agreement to agree and dismissed the action. On appeal, we affirm. |
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
Corey Moten v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Corey Moten, appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, he argues that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, he argues that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to challenge the suppression of his statement on the grounds that it was involuntarily given. After a thorough review of the record and the parties’ briefs, the judgment of the post-conviction court denying post-conviction relief is affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Gerry Gallimore, et al. v. Reba Gallimore
This case involves a dispute between a decedent’s ex-wife and the decedent’s heirs. When the decedent and the ex-wife divorced, their marital dissolution agreement provided that the decedent would receive certain real property. When the decedent died four years later, the ex-wife had not executed a quitclaim deed conveying her interest in the property to the decedent. Therefore, the heirs filed this action to quiet title. The ex-wife claimed that the decedent wanted her to retain her interest in the property, and she claimed that the heirs were barred from seeking relief under the doctrines of laches and waiver. The trial court found in favor of the heirs, and the ex-wife appeals. We affirm. |
Weakley | Court of Appeals | |
Kassy Janikowski v. Dwight Barbee, Warden (State of Tennessee)
The petitioner, Kassy Janikowski, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court order dismissing her petition for writ of habeas corpus. The State has filed a motion requesting that this court affirm the order pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Following our review, we grant the State’s motion and affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Damien Clark
The defendant, Damien Clark, appeals from his conviction by a jury in the Criminal Court for Shelby County for second degree murder, a Class A felony. He was sentenced to twenty years’ confinement as a violent offender. He contends that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction for second degree murder, (2) the trial court erred in admitting the defendant’s prior robbery conviction as character evidence, (3) the trial court erred in admitting the defendant’s prior robbery conviction when the probative value was outweighed by its prejudicial effect and notice of impeachment was “inadequate and inaccurate,” and (4) the jury instructions requiring the jury to acquit the defendant of second degree murder before examining voluntary manslaughter as a conviction offense deprived the defendant of his constitutional rights to due process and to trial by jury. Although the required procedure was not used to admit the defendant’s prior conviction, we conclude the errors were harmless, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Anthony Bufford
The defendant, Anthony Bufford, pled guilty in October 2005 to driving after being declared a habitual motor vehicle offender, a Class E felony; simple possession of marijuana, a Class A misdemeanor; and violating the seat belt law, a Class C misdemeanor. For the Class E felony, he was sentenced as a Range II, multiple offender to four years in community corrections with sixty days to be served in jail. For the Class A misdemeanor, he received eleven months, twenty-nine days to be served on probation in the community corrections program. For the Class C misdemeanor, the defendant received thirty days’ incarceration at seventy-five percent. All sentences were to be served concurrently. The trial court revoked the defendant’s community corrections sentence in April 2008 after finding that the defendant failed to remain drug-free. On appeal, the defendant contends the trial court erred in removing him from community corrections and ordering him to serve his sentence in the Department of Correction. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Sameh Akladyous, et al. v. GTech Corporation, et al.
This is an appeal from the granting of a summary judgment to Gtech Corporation and Specialized Communications Companies, Inc., relating to the installation of a satellite antenna on the roof of A&S Market located in Davidson County, Tennessee. The market burned and the owners brought suit alleging that the negligent installation of the satellite antenna caused the fire. The trial court granted summary judgment on the ground the negligence alleged by the market owners was not the legal cause of the fire. We reverse. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Antoni Danta Hix
The Appellant, Carlos Bonding, LLC, appeals the Bedford County Circuit Court’s order granting partial exoneration from the final forfeiture of a $20,000 bond and ordering the company to forfeit $6,000 of the bond. On appeal, Carlos Bonding argues that the trial court, by referencing the concept of treble damages, abused its discretion in its method of calculating the amount to be forfeited. Because the trial court must be afforded broad discretion in a bail forfeiture proceeding, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Arthur Creech, et al. v. Robert R. Addington, et al.
The eleven Plaintiffs, investors in a real estate development in Tunica, Mississippi, suffered losses when the financing for hotels on the tracts of land they had leased failed to materialize. Five of the Plaintiffs first learned of the investment opportunity in 1993 while attending a presentation by real estate agents Lloyd and Betty Link in Gatlinburg. After suit was filed against several Defendants based upon breach of oral and written contracts, the trial court entered an order of dismissal as to the Links and other of the Defendants and, later, granted a motion for summary judgment in favor of D.C. Parker and Richard Flowers, the owners of the land. When judgments had been entered as to all of the Defendants, the Plaintiffs appealed, but only as to Parker and Flowers. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that whether an agency relationship existed between Parker and Flowers, as principals, and the Links, and whether the Links had been guilty of misrepresentation were disputed questions of fact. Upon remand, a jury found that the Links were the agents of Parker and Flowers, who were vicariously liable for fraudulent misrepresentations made by the Links. Damages were awarded to the Plaintiffs. In a second appeal, this time by Parker and Flowers, the Court of Appeals affirmed as to those five Plaintiffs who had attended the presentation in Gatlinburg, but remanded for a new trial as to those who did not. We granted an application for permission to appeal to consider whether the order of dismissal in favor of the agents precluded any adjudication of vicarious liability as to the principals. |
Sevier | Supreme Court | |
Mendy Joan Hagler v. Joel Scott Hagler
In this divorce case the Trial Judge granted the parties a divorce and divided the marital estate. The husband appealed on the grounds that a house awarded to the wife was not a marital asset, and otherwise questioned the property and division of the indebtedness of the marital estate. On appeal we affirm, as modified, the modification being that the evidence preponderates against the Trial Judge finding that the father had awarded his son a collection of firearms. |
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: D.C.A.
The trial court terminated the parental rights of the father of an eleven year old boy on the ground of abandonment by willful failure to pay child support. The father admitted that he did not pay the child support ordered by the court, but claimed that his failure was not willful. He argued that his record as a convicted felon prevented him from finding and holding steady employment, thus rendering him unable to pay any support at all. However, the record shows that Father was able-bodied and did in fact work at a number of jobs after his felony conviction. We accordingly affirm the trial court. |
Hickman | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kelly Hill
The defendant, Kelly Hill, by means of a Rule 10 interlocutory appeal, seeks review of the Maury County Circuit Court’s ruling that the assistant district attorney general did not abuse his discretion in denying her application for pretrial diversion. Following review of the record, we conclude that the relevant factors were properly considered by the assistant district attorney general and that no abuse of discretion occurred. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s application for diversion. |
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Lisa Holt v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc.
In this workers’ compensation action, the trial court found that the employee, Lisa Holt, had sustained a compensable injury and awarded 50% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. The employer, Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., has appealed, contending that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s finding of a compensable injury. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.1 |
Madison | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Trinidy Ware v. McKesson Corporation
In this workers’ compensation action, the employee alleged that he sustained an injury to his lower back on May 1, 2002. The trial court ruled that the employee had failed to carry his burden of proving that he had sustained a compensable injury. The employee appealed, contending that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s finding. We affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Shelby | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Mario Morris v. State of Tennessee
The defendant was convicted of four counts of aggravated robbery, which were merged into two counts, and one count of especially aggravated kidnapping. He was sentenced to ten years for each of the aggravated robbery convictions and twenty years for the especially aggravated kidnapping conviction, with all sentences to run consecutively. On appeal, this court found that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions and that the record supported that the sentences be served consecutively. However, the matter was remanded to the trial court for the defendant to be sentenced under the pre-2005 amendments to the 1989 Sentencing Act. Subsequently, the defendant was resentenced to eight years for each of the aggravated robberyconvictions and twenty years for the especially aggravated kidnapping, with all sentences to be served consecutively. He again appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions and that the court erred in sentencing. The State asks that this matter be affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals, and, following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court pursuant to Rule 20. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Brandon Biggerstaff v. Stephen Dotson, Warden
The petitioner, Brandon Biggerstaff, appeals the Hardeman County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal 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 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Because the petitioner has failed to establish that his conviction is void or his sentence illegal, we conclude that the State’s motion is well-taken. Accordingly, we affirm the lower court’s summary dismissal of the petition. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re S.R.M.
This appeal involves a petition filed by the State of Tennessee, Department of Children’s Services, to terminate the parental rights of a biological father to his now ten-year-old daughter. The Juvenile Court granted the petition and the father has appealed. After carefully reviewing the record and relevant legal authority, we affirm the Juvenile Court’s finding of abandonment and the judgment terminating the father’s parental rights. |
Blount | Court of Appeals | |
Allison Lynn Simmons v. Richard Lee Simmons
Husband appeals two convictions of contempt of court and sentence of two days incarceration for each finding of contempt. Finding no error on the part of the trial court, we affirm the convictions. |
Robertson | Court of Appeals |