Kyuhwan Hwang v. Jerry Quezada Arita, et al.
The trial court dismissed this case without prejudice after determining that the plaintiff failed to properly respond to the defendant’s discovery requests for over a year despite multiple extensions. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
John Patrick Tracy, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, John Patrick Tracy, Jr., pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated sexual battery and two counts of attempted aggravated sexual battery, and the trial court imposed the agreed upon effective sentence of fifteen years in the Tennessee Department of Correction, followed by an additional fifteen years to be served on Community Corrections. The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, claiming that he had received the ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and that his guilty pleas were not voluntary. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to file essential motions, failed to investigate, and misrepresented his legal experience. He also argues that his guilty pleas were unknowingly and involuntarily entered. He further contends that the cumulative effect of his attorney’s errors entitles him to relief. After review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
JAMES ANDREW FISHER v. HAILEY ANN DAVIS
A mother appeals from the trial court’s decision regarding custody of her two minor children. However, because the mother filed a motion to recuse the trial court judge on which he failed to rule before entering a final order on the merits of the case, the judgment of the trial court must be vacated and remanded for further proceedings. |
Cumberland | Court of Appeals | |
DR. DAVID BRUCE COFFEY v. BUCKEYE HOME HEALTH CENTER, INC.
In the Circuit Court for Scott County (“the Trial Court”), Dr. David Bruce Coffey filed a complaint alleging that Buckeye Home Health Center, Inc. (“Buckeye”) breached its lease agreement with Dr. Coffey by failing to obtain fire insurance coverage on its leased portion of Dr. Coffey’s building. The building burned down during Buckeye’s tenancy. Buckeye filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that it was impossible to obtain fire insurance coverage for only a portion of the building as required by the lease. The Trial Court granted Buckeye’s motion. Dr. Coffey appealed. Upon our review, we conclude that there is a genuine issue of material fact and reverse the Trial Court’s order dismissing Dr. Coffey’s complaint. |
Scott | Court of Appeals | |
ELEVATION OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, LLC v. CITY OF PIGEON FORGE, TENNESSEE
The plaintiff, Elevation Outdoor Advertising, LLC (“Elevation”), submitted six applications for billboard sign permits to the defendant, the City of Pigeon Forge, Tennessee (“the City”), and all six were denied by the City’s Planning Commission. In this action, Elevation sought a judgment (1) declaring the City’s former sign regulation ordinance and temporary moratorium on sign permits void and unenforceable, (2) declaring the City’s new sign regulation ordinance inapplicable, and (3) compelling the City by injunction or writ of mandamus to issue permits for Elevation’s proposed signs. Upon the City’s motion to dismiss, the trial court dismissed Elevation’s complaint with prejudice. The trial court determined that the proper relief for Elevation would have been via common law certiorari review, for which Elevation had not met the procedural requirements of timeliness and filing under oath. Elevation has appealed. Upon careful review, we determine that Elevation’s complaint properly stated a claim for declaratory judgment rather than writ of certiorari. We therefore reverse the trial court’s dismissal of Elevation’s complaint and remand for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. |
Court of Appeals | ||
Douglas E. Alvey v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Douglas E. Alvey, appeals from the denial of his petition seeking post-conviction relief from his conviction of first degree murder. On appeal, he argues: (1) trial counsel were ineffective in failing to present expert testimony negating the mens rea; and (2) that he did not knowingly understand the nature of his constitutional right to testify at trial. After review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Rhea | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
BENJAMIN MCCURRY v. AGNESS MCCURRY
This appeal arises from an order of protection issued against the appellant/defendant, Agness McCurry, in Washington County Circuit Court case 42482. Although the defendant raises numerous issues and the record contains numerous documents that pertain to other cases filed in the general sessions and circuit court of Washington County, as well as federal court, in which defendant sued almost every judge in Washington County, this opinion is limited to Washington County Circuit Court case 42482. The defendant contends the order of protection was issued in violation of Tennessee law, constitutional due process, and judicial conduct standards. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. |
Washington | Court of Appeals | |
Curtis Keller v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Curtis Keller, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for writ of error coram nobis as “utterly devoid of accuracy.” Following our review of the entire record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the coram nobis court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Richard Townsend v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Richard Townsend, appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in denying his claim that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel and that his plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered. Following our review of the entire record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Decatur | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Cameron Henderson
Defendant, Cameron Henderson, appeals his Shelby County convictions for sexual battery and aggravated sexual battery for which he received an effective sentence of 7.2 years of confinement as an especially mitigated offender to be served at a rate of 100 percent. On appeal, Defendant contends that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of other bad acts pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b), in declining to instruct the jury on child abuse and neglect as a lesser included offense of aggravated sexual battery, and in ordering him to serve 100 percent of his sentence. Because Defendant failed to file a timely motion for new trial and a timely notice of appeal, we dismiss the appeal. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
JOHN SCHMEECKLE v. HAMILTON COUNTY, TN ET AL.
Appellant’s Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 59.04 motion to alter or amend was untimely and did not toll the time limit for filing his notice of appeal. As such, Appellant’s notice of appeal is untimely, and the appeal is dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Jeffrey Heatley et al. v. Estate of David G. Gaither et al.
Appellants have filed three related lawsuits against appellee and other entities. Here, appellants claim a continuing nuisance stemming from the alleged discharge, onto appellants’ property, of e. coli-contaminated wastewater from a dismantled septic system, which previously serviced appellee’s property. In a previous appeal, this Court affirmed the grant of summary judgment to the appellees on appellants’ claim of trespass based on our finding of an existing easement appurtenant for the septic system. As relevant here, the trial court granted appellee’s motion for summary judgment on appellants’ claim of nuisance, and they appeal. Because appellants have failed to meet their burden of proof, at the summary judgment stage, to show that there is leaching of contaminated wastewater onto their property, they have failed to establish the existence of the nuisance averred in their complaint. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s grant of appellee’s motion for summary judgment. |
Putnam | Court of Appeals | |
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. HARLAN V. FERGUSON
A Knox County jury convicted Defendant, Harlan V. Ferguson, alias Harley T. Martin, of two counts of vehicular homicide, evading arrest, reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon, driving under the influence (“DUI”), DUI per se, and failure to drive within a single lane of traffic. The trial court merged the vehicular homicide and DUI convictions into one vehicular homicide conviction and imposed an effective ten-year sentence with one year to be served in confinement followed by probation. While Defendant’s direct appeal was pending in this court, he filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis, in which he alleged that newly discovered evidence may have resulted in a different judgment. The trial court denied the petition, and this court consolidated Defendant’s direct appeal of his convictions and his appeal from the denial of coram nobis relief. On appeal, Defendant challenges (1) the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress his statements to law enforcement; (2) the State’s failure to establish the chain of custody of Defendant’s blood samples; (3) the trial court’s denial of his motion to dismiss due to the destruction of evidence; (4) the trial court’s admission of lay testimony regarding the cause of the victim’s injuries; (5) the trial court’s admission of Defendant’s medical records; (6) the trial court’s exclusion of defense evidence; (7) the trial court’s failure to issue a missing witness instruction; (8) the State’s comments during closing arguments; (9) the State’s failure to disclose evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); and (10) the trial court’s denial of Defendant’s petition for writ of error coram nobis. Defendant also argues that the cumulative effect of the errors entitles him to relief. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Reggie Horton v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Reggie Horton, was found guilty in an October 2016 trial of the offenses of attempted voluntary manslaughter, aggravated kidnapping, and simple assault related to conduct occurring on April 27, 2015. State v. Horton, No. W2017-00676-CCA-R3-CD, 2018 WL 1598895 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 29, 2018), no perm. app. filed. On April 27, 2023, while post-conviction proceedings were pending, the Petitioner filed a writ of error coram nobis petition challenging only his conviction of aggravated kidnapping, claiming newly discovered evidence entitled him to a new trial on this offense. The Petitioner appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s dismissal of his petition for writ of error coram nobis, arguing he is entitled to due process tolling of the statute of limitations and the merits of his claim warrant relief. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the coram nobis court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Heather Marie Bailey v. Daniel Michael Bailey
Father and Mother divorced. In ruling upon various matters contested by the parties, the trial court evenly divided Father’s pension without determining whether a portion was separate property, awarded Mother rehabilitative alimony, and named Mother as the primary residential parent. Father appeals, asserting error as to all three determinations. We conclude that the trial court erred in failing to treat the pre-marriage portion of the pension as separate property. As for the trial court’s alimony award and primary residential parent decision, the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are insufficient under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 52.01. Accordingly, we vacate the portions of the trial court’s order regarding the classification and division of assets, alimony, and primary residential status and remand. |
Warren | Court of Appeals | |
Cory Randolph Cox v. Rebecca Lynne Thumm Cox
In this post-divorce action, the father sought a reduction of his child support obligation because he had recently lost his employment and two of the parties’ three minor children had become emancipated. Following a two-day hearing, the trial court removed the parties’ two emancipated children from the child support worksheet but increased the father’s child support payment upon finding that the father was willfully unemployed and imputing to him a salary commensurate with his previous wages. In calculating the father’s new child support obligation, the trial court considered the father’s recent tax information, his frequent job changes, his residential arrangements, his long-term failure to exercise his full weekend parenting time with the children, and the cost of his leisure travel. The trial court also imputed the proscribed statutory salary amount to the mother, who was not employed at the time of trial. Although both parties appeared pro se at the trial, the trial court entered an order granting the mother’s request for attorney’s fees without including an explanation of how the court determined the reasonableness of the fees. The father has appealed. Despite his pro se status before this Court, the father seeks attorney’s fees on appeal, claiming that an out-of-state attorney prepared his appellate briefs. Upon thorough review, we deny the father’s request for attorney’s fees on appeal because the attorney who allegedly prepared the father’s briefs did not sign the briefs or otherwise file an appearance with this Court as required by Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b). We vacate the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees to the mother and remand that issue to the trial court for a written order containing sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law. In all other respects, we affirm. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Juwan Jaheim Gaines
The Defendant, Juwan Jaheim Gaines, appeals from his convictions for attempted first degree premeditated murder wherein the victim suffered serious bodily injury, employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, and reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon. He asserts that the trial court’s refusal to instruct the jury on self-defense constitutes reversible error, that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions, and that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing an excessive sentence. After review, we remand the case to the trial court for entry of corrected judgment forms. In all other respects, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Kenneth Brown v. State of Tennessee
In October 2012, a jury convicted Petitioner, Kenneth Brown, of one count of first degree premeditated murder, twelve counts of criminal attempt to commit first degree murder, twelve counts of aggravated assault, one count of employment of a firearm during a dangerous felony, and one count of reckless endangerment, for which he received an effective sentence of life imprisonment plus 308 years. In August 2023, Petitioner filed pro se petitions for post-conviction DNA and fingerprint analysis and a petition for writ of error coram nobis. The post-conviction court summarily dismissed the petitions. On appeal, Petitioner asserts that the post-conviction court improperly dismissed the petition for post-conviction fingerprint analysis and the petition for writ of error coram nobis. Following a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
ROHIT UPPAL v. NEERA UPPAL
A self-represented defendant in a divorce case moved to recuse the trial judge. After the trial judge denied the motion, this accelerated interlocutory appeal followed. Because the motion for recusal failed to comply with Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B, we affirm the denial of the motion. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tra'Shawn Glass
Defendant, Tra’Shawn Glass, entered guilty pleas to three counts of vehicular homicide, four counts of drag racing resulting in serious bodily injury, and two counts of reckless aggravated assault resulting in serious bodily injury. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court merged various convictions and imposed an effective twelve-year sentence to be served in confinement. On appeal, Defendant contends that the trial court erred in ordering him to serve a sentence of full confinement and in imposing consecutive sentences. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jonnella Risharra Hambrick
The Defendant, Jonnella Risharra Hambrick, was convicted by a Davidson County Criminal Court jury of attempted second degree murder, employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, and two counts of aggravated assault and received an effective twenty-year sentence. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred by denying her the right to counsel at the trial and by imposing a sentence without her being present. Because we agree that the Defendant was denied her right to counsel and that she had a constitutional right to be present for sentencing, we reverse the judgments of the trial court and remand for a new trial. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Flamini, Jr.
The lead opinion considers the Defendant to have preserved for appeal his constitutional issue concerning the admission of the civil forfeiture order, although it ultimately subjects the issue to a relevancy analysis. I respectfully disagree that the constitutional claim on appeal was preserved in the trial court. The Defendant’s non-contemporaneous reference to his right to remain silent arguably preserved a Fifth Amendment self-incrimination claim. The problem for the Defendant, however, is that he raises a Fourteenth Amendment due process claim on appeal that was never presented to or ruled upon by the trial court. As such, the issue concerning the admission of the civil forfeiture order is waived, and the Defendant is not otherwise entitled to relief. For this reason, I concur only in the result of the lead opinion as to this issue. I fully join the lead opinion as to the other issues raised by the Defendant. |
Court of Criminal Appeals | ||
State of Tennessee v. Michael Flamini - Concurring in part
I join the court’s judgment affirming the convictions and agree with much of the reasoning in the lead opinion. I write separately, however, to express my respectful disagreement with how the lead opinion treats the trial court’s error in admitting evidence that the Defendant did not contest the asset forfeiture order. |
Court of Criminal Appeals | ||
State of Tennessee v. Michael Flamini, Jr.
The Defendant, Michael Flamini, Jr., was convicted by a Knox County Criminal Court |
Court of Criminal Appeals | ||
Gladys Claire Bowen v. Michael W. Nelson, M.D., et al.
Plaintiff appeals the trial court’s decision to exclude the testimony of her proffered expert for failure to comply with the locality rule. Plaintiff also appeals the grant of summary of judgment based on the exclusion of that expert. Finding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the testimony, we affirm that ruling. Additionally, we affirm the trial court’s decision to grant summary judgment as the excluded testimony was the only evidence offered regarding the applicable standard of care. |
Obion | Court of Appeals |