Opinions
Shannon Leigh Smith v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Shannon Leigh Smith, appeals the denial of her post-conviction petition arguing that the post-conviction court erred in denying her claim that trial counsel was ineffective in 1) failing to uncover evidence of a detective’s sexual relationship with a State’s witness and the same detective’s termination from the Tennessee Alcoholic Beverage Commission for misconduct; 2) failing to file a motion to suppress searches of Petitioner’s cell phone and Facebook account; 3) inadequately cross-examining the victim’s sister-in-law; 4) failing to put forth evidence to support self-defense; 5) failing to call defense witnesses including an expert on battered woman syndrome; 6) and withdrawing motions to disqualify the clerk’s office and the district attorney general’s office. She further argues that she is entitled to relief based on the cumulative effect of trial counsel’s alleged errors. Following our review of the entire record, the briefs and oral arguments of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Union | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Sean Kirk Wagner
An Anderson County jury convicted the Defendant, Sean Kirk Wagner, of sexual battery |
Anderson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jacob Franks v. State of Tennessee
The Defendant, Jacob Franks, was convicted by a Madison County Circuit Court jury of sexual exploitation of a minor involving fifty or more images, a Class C felony, and fifteen counts of sexual exploitation of a minor, a Class D felony. See T.C.A. § 39-17-1003(a), (d)(2025). The trial court imposed an effective six-year sentence, to be served at 100%. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred by excluding evidence of the Defendant’s roommate’s notarized written statement after the roommate invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination at the trial. We conclude that the trial court erred in excluding the evidence. We affirm the judgments in Counts 5, 6,7, 8, 9,10, 11, 13, 14, and 15. We reverse the judgments in Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 12, and 16 and remand for a new trial on these counts. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jason Patrick McCarroll v. Melissa Susan McCarroll
This appeal concerns the trial court’s division of marital debt and award of alimony in a divorce action. After the trial, the court assigned most of the marital assets and debts to the husband and awarded the wife alimony in futuro based on an affidavit that included her “anticipated” expenses. The court also awarded the wife alimony in solido to pay for her attorney’s fees. The husband then filed a motion to alter or amend. While the motion was pending, the net proceeds from the sale of marital real estate were distributed to the parties. In its order on the husband’s motion, the trial court reallocated responsibility for the balance on a credit card account in the husband’s name, and it ordered the balance be paid out of the net proceeds from the real estate sale. On appeal, the husband argues that the trial court erred by relying on the wife’s “speculative future needs” rather than her actual expenses at the time of trial when awarding alimony. The husband also argues that the court should have awarded rehabilitative alimony rather than alimony in futuro because the wife has several vocational certificates that she could use to obtain a better paying job. And both the husband and the wife contend that the division of marital debt was inequitable. We conclude that the parties have waived their objections to the division of marital debt and the award of alimony in solido by failing to comply with the briefing requirements of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. As for the award of alimony in futuro, we find no error in the trial court’s reliance on evidence of the wife’s “anticipated expenses,” and we find no support in the record for the husband’s assertion that the wife could obtain a better paying job with her vocational certificates. Nonetheless, we find it necessary to modify the portion of the trial court’s order requiring the parties to pay off the credit card with funds from the real estate proceeds because they were previously disbursed. |
Jackson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William Lavell Nelson
Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, the Defendant, William Lavell Nelson, pled guilty |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jana Lynn Beck v. Mickey Lewis Beck
This is an accelerated interlocutory appeal as of right pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B § 2.02 from the trial court’s denial of a motion for recusal. Having reviewed the petition for recusal on appeal, we affirm the trial court’s decision to deny the motion for recusal. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
Frank Delmar Raines, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
Frank Delmar Raines, Jr., the Petitioner, appeals from the Blount County Circuit Court’s |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
William Rolandus Keel v. Robert Adams, Warden
The Petitioner, William Rolandus Keel, pro se, was convicted of two counts of rape of a |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Keith Andrew Baggett
The Defendant, Keith Andrew Baggett, appeals from the Madison County Circuit Court’s |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kyle Golden
The Defendant, Kyle Golden, entered a guiltyplea to one count of aggravated assaultand three counts of child abuse. The Shelby County Criminal Court accepted the Defendant’s guilty plea and, following a sentencing hearing, denied the Defendant’s request for judicial diversion and imposed an effective sentence of five years’ supervised probation. The Defendant appeals, arguing that the trial court erred by denying his request for judicial diversion. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Terrance B. Smith v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Terrance B. Smith, appeals from the post-conviction court’s denial of a motion to reopen his post-conviction proceeding. Because the notice of appeal in this case fails to satisfy the requirements for an application for permission to appeal pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-30-117(c), we lack jurisdiction to consider the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. |
Tipton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
IN RE MERCURY H.
Mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. The trial court found multiple grounds for termination and that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. In concluding that termination of Mother’s parental rights is in the child’s best interest, the trial court made specific findings for twelve of the twenty statutory best interest factors but declined to consider eight of the factors based upon a purported pleading deficiency. Mother appeals. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand. |
Court of Appeals | ||
IN RE BEAUM.,ET AL.
This action involves the termination of a father’s parental rights to his minor children. Following a bench trial, the court found that clear and convincing evidence established abandonment by failure to visit and that termination was in the best interest of the children. We reverse, holding that the record does not support the trial court’s finding of clear and convincing evidence in support of the alleged statutory ground of termination. |
Rhea | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Thomas Lymn
Defendant, Thomas Lymn, appeals his Moore County Circuit Court jury conviction of theft of property valued at $2,500 or more but less than $10,000, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. Upon our review, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient and, therefore, affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Moore | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jeffrey Roach v. State of Tennessee
Jeffrey Roach, Petitioner, pled guilty to unlawful possession of a weapon by a convicted |
Hamblen | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jonathan Andrew Berretta
A Coffee County jury convicted the Defendant, Jonathan Andrew Berretta, of one count of vehicular homicide by intoxication and one count of vehicular homicide per se. The trial court merged those convictions and sentenced the Defendant to twelve years’ imprisonment. On appeal, the Defendant raises thirteen issues in three broad categories: challenges to the denial of his motion to suppress the seizure of his blood, trial issues, and a sentencing issue. Challenging the denial of his motion to suppress, he contends that the trial court erred by finding that(1) the affidavit supporting the Vanderbilt University Medical Center (“VUMC”) search warrant for his blood contained no false or reckless statements; (2)probable cause supported the search warrant and judicial subpoena; (3) the search warrant was not overbroad; (4) the search warrant and judicial subpoena established a sufficient nexus between VUMC and the evidence sought; (5) the VUMC blood draws were not the result of state action; and (6) an earlier warrantless EMS blood draw was supported by probable cause and exigent circumstances. Regarding his trial, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred by (7) admitting a life-in-being photograph of the victim; (8) finding that the VUMC specimen release form satisfied the business records exception to the rule against hearsay; (9) finding that chain of custody was established for the VUMC blood samples; (10) admitting the VUMC blood draw evidence in violation of the Confrontation Clause; (11) instructing the jury on vehicular homicide per se in a manner that created an unconstitutional presumption of guilt; and (12) allowing the cumulative effect of those errors to deprive him of a fair trial. Finally, the Defendant maintains that the trial court erred in (13) ordering his sentence to run consecutively to a sentence he had pending in Davidson County at the time of these offenses. Upon our review, we respectfully affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Coffee | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re Kadence B.
This is a termination of parental rights appeal. The trial court found that four statutory grounds existed to terminate Mother’s parental rights to the minor child: abandonment, persistence of conditions, failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody, and severe child abuse. The trial court further concluded that termination was in the child’s best interests. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Cheatham | Court of Appeals | |
Gerald Kiner v. Shelby County Government
In this case involving Tennessee’s Public Records Act, the plaintiff requested copies of |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
JRS Development, LLC v. Alaa Jwaad et al.
This appeal involves a breach of contract action for specific performance of a commercial real estate purchase and sale agreement. The plaintiff buyer brought suit after the defendant sellers refused to convey the property due to a dispute over a mandatory tax withholding. Following a bench trial, the trial court awarded the buyer specific performance and attorney’s fees. The trial court found that the sellers were bound by the agreement because, even though their real estate agent had appended their electronic signatures without contemporaneous authorization, they later ratified the transaction. The trial court further concluded that the sellers’ total refusal to close constituted an anticipatory repudiation, thereby excusing the buyer’s lack of formal tender of the purchase price. The sellers appealed. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Sheppard Washington v. Christopher Brun, Warden
Petitioner, Sheppard Washington, appeals from the Hickman County Circuit Court’s dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The habeas corpus court found that Petitioner’s request for relief, which was based upon a claim that his sentence had expired, was premature. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court. |
Hickman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
John Charles McDowell II v. Jennifer Leigh McDowell
A mother petitioned to extend child support for her severely disabled child into adulthood. The court granted the petition. In doing so, the court used the child support guidelines to calculate the amount of support. The father appealed, arguing that the trial court should have included the child’s social security income in the calculations, but he did not file a transcript or a statement of the evidence. Because the lack of a transcript or statement of evidence prevents us from reaching the substance of the issue raised by the father, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Warren | Court of Appeals | |
Russ Harden v. Pricilla Hill Harden
Appellant filed a petition for accelerated interlocutory appeal seeking recusal of the trial judge under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B. Because it appears that a written motion to recuse was only lodged with the trial court and because the trial court never entered an order on the written motion, we dismiss the appeal. |
Decatur | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Marty Lynn Judd
The Defendant, Marty Lynn Judd, appeals from his Warren County Circuit Court convictions of second degree murder and possession of a prohibited weapon, for which he received an effective sentence of twenty-six years’ incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. He also asserts that the trial court erred by overruling his objections to hearsay and to leading questioning during the State’s direct examination of a witness. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Warren | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Christopher W. Gadsden v. State of Tennessee
Christopher W. Gadsden, Petitioner, sought post-conviction relief from his convictions for second-degree murder and theft, claiming that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because an attorney with the Office of the Public Defender of Metropolitan Nashville & Davidson County (herein “Public Defender’s Office”)previously represented the victim, thereby creating a conflict of interest that rendered trial counsel’s representation ineffective. Following a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John Ernest Rediker
This matter is before the Court upon application of the Defendant, John Ernest Rediker, for permission to pursue an interlocutory appeal. Tenn. R. App. P. 9. The State has filed a response in opposition. The Defendant seeks review of the trial court’s order denying his request for special jury instructions in this case. Upon full consideration, the application is denied for the reasons stated below. |
Hickman | Court of Criminal Appeals |