In Re: Braxton R.
This appeal involves the termination of a father’s parental rights to his nearly three-year-old child. In 2014, the child was adjudicated dependent and neglected due to his parents’ substance abuse, including the fact that the child was born with illegal drugs and non-prescribed medication in his system. In 2015, the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services filed a petition seeking to terminate the father’s parental rights on the statutory grounds of abandonment and severe child abuse. The juvenile court found that the grounds of abandonment and severe child abuse were proved by clear and convincing evidence and also found by clear and convincing evidence that termination of father’s rights was in the child’s best interests. The father appeals. We affirm. |
White | Court of Appeals | |
Joseph Corso v. Accident Fund Insurance Company, et al
Joseph Corso (“Employee”) was employed by D & S Remodelers, Inc., also known as Servpro (“Employer”). On September 29, 2011, he sustained a compensable injury to his left shoulder. While under treatment for that injury, Employee sustained an injury to his right shoulder. Employer denied that claim because of discrepancies about the date of injury. Employee continued to work for Employer until May 2013. However, he was reassigned from a production job to a sales position. He was subsequently terminated based on a customer complaint. The trial court found that the right shoulder injury was compensable and that Employee did not have a meaningful return to work. As a result of its finding that Employee did not have a meaningful return to work, the trial court awarded permanent partial disability benefits in excess of one and one-half times the medical impairment. Employer has appealed, contending that the trial court erred by incorrectly weighing the expert medical proof and by finding that Employee did not have a meaningful return to work. The appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Workers Compensation Panel | |
MLG Enterprises, LLC v. Richard Johnson
We granted permission to appeal in this case to determine whether the individual who signed a commercial lease agreement on behalf of the corporate tenant also agreed to be personally liable for the tenant’s obligations when he signed the agreement a second time. Over a dissenting opinion, the Court of Appeals held that the individual’s second signature did not personally bind him because he handwrote “for Mobile Master Mfg. LLC” after his name. We hold that the second signature, which followed a paragraph clearly indicating that the parties agreed that the individual would be personally responsible for the tenant’s obligations, was effective to bind the individual. Accordingly, we reverse the Court of Appeals’ judgment and remand this matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Williamson | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Randall Evans
The Defendant-Appellant, Randall Evans, was convicted by a Bradley County jury of one count of casual exchange of a controlled substance. See T.C.A. § 39-17-418. Evans received a sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days, with fifteen days’ incarceration and the remainder on supervised probation, and a $750 fine. He subsequently filed a motion to reconsider his sentence, which the trial court interpreted as a motion for a reduction of sentence pursuant Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 35, and, following a hearing, the motion was denied. The sole issue raised on appeal is whether the trial court improperly denied Evans’s motion for sentence reduction. Upon review, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Bradley | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re Efrian F.
Because the notice of appeal was not timely filed, we have no jurisdiction to consider this appeal and this matter must be dismissed. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Thomas H. Bullington
The Defendant, Thomas H. Bullington, was convicted by a Lincoln County Circuit Court jury of violation of an order of protection, a Class A misdemeanor. See T.C.A. § 39-13-113(a)(1) (2014). The Defendant received a sentence of eleven months, twenty-nine days. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction and (2) the trial court erred by ordering the maximum sentence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Lincoln | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Anthone Tyrone Love
Following his conviction for delivery of not less than one-half ounce of schedule VI drugs, the Defendant, Anthone Tyrone Love, received a two-year sentence, sixteen months of which was to be served on probation. Following a hearing, the trial court revoked the Defendant’s determinate release probation and ordered him to serve the balance of his sentence in confinement. On appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court erred in ordering him to serve the remainder of his sentence in confinement and that ninety days of split confinement and treatment for substance abuse is an appropriate sanction for the violation. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jonathan D. Drewry v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Jonathan D. Drewry, pleaded guilty to aggravated rape, aggravated assault, and aggravated kidnapping and received an effective sentence of twenty-five years in the Department of Correction. The Petitioner filed a post-conviction petition, and the post-conviction court denied relief following a hearing. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel in the trial court. We affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Bradley Keith Cathey
The defendant, Bradley Keith Cathey, appeals the Dickson County Circuit Court’s finding of criminal contempt for failing to appear at a scheduled attorney setting. The trial court found the defendant in direct contempt of court and summarily sentenced him to ten days incarceration. On appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court erred in finding him in summary contempt. Following our review, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and vacated. The cause is remanded for a hearing in accordance with Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 42(b). |
Dickson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Baby Dashea Nix
The Defendant, Baby Dashea Nix, appeals as of right from the Sumner County Criminal Court’s partial revocation of her effective twelve-year community corrections sentence.The Defendant contends that the evidence presented at the revocation hearing was insufficient to establish that a violation of the conditions of her sentence occurred and that, therefore, the trial court abused its discretion. The Defendant also submits that she was not afforded due process because counsel failed to present the testimony of the Defendant’s mother at the revocation hearing. Following our review, we affirm the trial court’s partial revocation of the Defendant’s community corrections sentence. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In re Savannah F. et al.
The trial court terminated the parental rights of Mother and Father to their three children on the grounds of persistence of conditions and severe abuse. Because there was no judicial finding of dependency, neglect, or abuse removing the children from the custody of Mother and Father more than six months prior to the termination hearing, as required by Tennessee Code Annotated Section 36-1-113(g)(3), we reverse the trial court’s determination that the ground of persistence of conditions was shown by clear and convincing evidence. Because we affirm the trial court’s determination of severe abuse and its determination that termination is in the children’s best interests, however, we affirm the termination of Mother’s and Father’s parental rights to their three children. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Rachel Kay Bond
A Lawrence County jury found the Defendant, Rachel Kay Bond, guilty of first degree premeditated murder, and she was sentenced to life imprisonment in the Department of Correction. The Defendant asserts that the evidence is insufficient and that the trial court erred when it admitted into evidence incriminating text messages allegedly sent by the Defendant. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Lawrence | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Eric G. Glasgow v. K-VA-T Food Stores, Inc.
This is an appeal from a jury verdict in a premises liability action in which the plaintiff filed suit against the defendant, alleging that he sustained injury while using the restroom in a grocery store operated by the defendant. The court denied the defendant’s request for a directed verdict and submitted the case to the jury, which awarded $350,000 in compensatory damages. Following the denial of post-trial motions, the court approved the verdict but reduced the award to conform to the amount of damages pled. The defendant appeals, claiming the reduced award is not supported by material evidence. We affirm. |
Blount | Court of Appeals | |
In re Savannah F. et al.
The trial court terminated the parental rights of Mother and Father to their three children on the grounds of persistence of conditions and severe abuse. Because there was no judicial finding of dependency, neglect, or abuse removing the children from the custody of Mother and Father more than six months prior to the termination hearing, as required by Tennessee Code Annotated Section 36-1-113(g)(3), we reverse the trial court’s determination that the ground of persistence of conditions was shown by clear and convincing evidence. Because we affirm the trial court’s determination of severe abuse and its determination that termination is in the children’s best interests, however, we affirm the termination of Mother’s and Father’s parental rights to their three children. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Brooke Lee Whitaker
The Appellant, Brooke Lee Whitaker, is appealing the trial court’s order dismissing her motion to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to Rule of Criminal Procedure Rule 36.1. The State has filed a motion asking this Court to affirm pursuant to Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20. Said motion is hereby granted. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Andrea Scott et al v. Carlton J. Ditto et al.
This action involves a dispute between the holders of conflicting claims to the ownership of a residential lot in Chattanooga. The City sold the property at a delinquent tax sale. Unbeknownst to those involved in the tax sale, the property had earlier been sold at a foreclosure sale conducted by the holder of a deed of trust on the property. After a dispute arose between Andrea Scott, who had bought the property from a successor to the purchaser at the foreclosure sale, and Carlton J. Ditto, who bought the property at the tax sale, Scott filed this action against Ditto and others to quiet title to the property. Ditto filed a counterclaim. He also filed a cross-claim against several of the defendants. The trial court granted Scott summary judgment based on its determination that she was a bona fide purchaser without notice of the tax sale to Ditto and that she had recorded her deed first. The trial court dismissed Ditto’s cross-claim. We affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the cross-claim against the lender and others, because Ditto does not have standing to challenge the foreclosure sale. With respect to the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Scott, we hold that the evidence presented by Ditto in opposition to summary judgment establishes a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Scott had notice of Ditto’s interest in the property prior to her purchase of that property. Accordingly, we vacate the trial court’s grant of summary judgment and remand for further proceedings. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Lawrence Taylor III aka "PIG"
The defendant, Lawrence Taylor III, aka “Pig,” was indicted for first degree murder, especially aggravated kidnapping, and aggravated assault. After trial, a jury found the defendant guilty of the lesser-included offense of second degree murder, especially aggravated kidnapping, and aggravated assault. The defendant argues on appeal that the guilty verdict is not supported by the evidence and the trial court improperly admitted a prior written statement of an unavailable witness into evidence. The State argues the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions, and the trial court properly allowed the witness's prior statement to be read into evidence. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Tipton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jerry Williams
A Shelby County jury convicted the Defendant, Jerry Williams, of aggravated burglary and vandalism over $10,000, and the trial court sentenced the Defendant to four years of supervised probation for each count. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it limited his cross-examination of the victim and that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions. After review, we affirm the trial court's judgments. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Thomas R. Boykin
A Gibson County jury found the Defendant, Thomas R. Boykin, guilty of two counts of aggravated child abuse. The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a multiple offender to thirty-five years imprisonment for each count to be served consecutively for a total effective sentence of seventy years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal the Defendant asserts that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions and his sentence is excessive. After review, we dismiss this appeal because the Defendant failed to timely file a notice of appeal. |
Gibson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Frederick E. Braxton v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Frederick E. Braxton, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his 2010 convictions for selling less than 0.5 gram of cocaine within 1000 feet of a school zone, evading arrest, and criminal impersonation and his effective fifteen-year sentence. The Petitioner contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Johnny Malcolm Vinson
The Defendant, Johnny Malcom Vinson, was convicted by a Davidson County Criminal Court jury of attempt to commit second degree murder, a Class B felony, two counts of aggravated assault, Class C felonies, and employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, a Class C felony. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-210 (2014), 39-12-101 (2014), 39-13-102 (2014) (amended 2015); 39-17-1324 (2014). The trial court sentenced the Defendant to concurrent sentences of twenty-four years for attempted second degree murder, fifteen years for aggravated assault, and ten years for aggravated assault. The court also sentenced the Defendant to ten years for the firearm violation and ordered consecutive service, for an effective thirty-four-year sentence. The court further ordered the effective sentence in the present case to be served consecutively to a ten-year sentence in another case, for an overall effective forty-four-year sentence. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jerry Floyd
The Defendant, Jerry Floyd, was arrested without a warrant for driving under the influence (DUI), third offense, a Class A misdemeanor, and several other traffic offenses not relevant to this review. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 55-10-401, -402(a)(3)(A). The Defendant consented to a bench trial in Sullivan County General Sessions Court and was found guilty of DUI, third offense. The Defendant then appealed to the Sullivan County Criminal Court. Following a bench trial, the Defendant was again found guilty of DUI, third offense. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to eleven months and twenty nine-days with 120 days to be served in confinement. The Defendant now appeals to this court, contending that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction. Following our review, we conclude that the affidavit of complaint filed after the Defendant’s arrest was void and that no valid arrest warrant was issued in this case. Therefore, prosecution was never commenced in this matter within the applicable statute of limitations. Accordingly, we reverse and dismiss the judgment of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In re Samuel P.
This accelerated interlocutory appeal arises from the trial court's denial of a motion for recusal filed by a father in a custody proceeding. After carefully reviewing the trial court's ruling pursuant to the de novo standard of review required under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B, we affirm the decision of the trial court denying the motion for recusal. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Anita V. Wadhwani v. Peter L White
In this post-divorce matter, the parties have been litigating for several years regarding issues of co-parenting time, child support, and contempt. In 2013, the trial court reduced the father’s child support obligation based upon its finding that a significant variance existed between the prior child support amount and the new amount calculated utilizing the father’s income. The trial court ordered that such modification would begin as of May 2012, when the State of Tennessee filed a petition seeking modification on the father’s behalf. The father attempted to file an appeal of this matter in 2013, but the appeal was dismissed due to lack of a final order. Following remand, the trial court reviewed and adjusted the child support modification based upon demonstration of the father’s income from all sources, including an inheritance he received from a relative. A final order was entered July 27, 2015. The father has appealed the trial court’s judgment. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Beacon4, LLC v. I & L Investments, LLC
This case involves a contract dispute over the construction of a “Fireworks Over America” retail store in Blountville, Tennessee (“FOA Project”). The defendant company, I & L Investments, LLC (“I & L”), sought to build the store on an 11.71-acre tract of undeveloped property that it had acquired in November 2010. A contracting and development corporation, Altera Development, Inc. (“Altera”), submitted a bid to complete the site work and building construction for the FOA Project.1 At this time, the plaintiff contractor, Beacon4, LLC (“Beacon4”), had been entering into a relationship with Altera in which Altera would market and secure construction work to be performed by Beacon4. Upon I & L’s acceptance of Altera’s bid, Beacon4 eventually became the designated contractor for both the building and site portions of the FOA project, which was divided into two contracts. On January 28, 2011, Beacon4 obtained its Tennessee general contractor’s license with a monetary limit of $1,100,000.00 plus ten percent. On February 7, 2011, I & L and Beacon4 entered into a site contract, valued at $795,486.00, and a building contract, valued at $1,097,115.00. A certificate of occupancy was granted for the FOA store on May 17, 2011. One year later, Beacon4 filed a complaint alleging that I & L had violated the Prompt Pay Act of 1991, see Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 66-34-101 to -602, and breached the parties’ site contract. Beacon4 sought, inter alia, enforcement of a mechanics’ and materialmen’s lien in the amount of $212,856.02 allegedly owed under the site contract. I & L conceded that it had withheld a retainage of $46,942.75 but otherwise asserted affirmative defenses, including, inter alia, that Beacon4 had willfully and grossly exaggerated the lien claim and had violated the Tennessee Contractor’s Licensing Act of 1994, see Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 62-6-101 to 62-6-521, by dividing the Project into two contracts in order to circumvent its monetary licensing limit. I & L also filed a counterclaim, alleging that Beacon4 had violated the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act of 1977, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 47-18-104(b)(35). Following a five-day bench trial, the trial court dismissed I & L’s counterclaim and entered a judgment in favor of Beacon4, finding that I & L had violated the Prompt Pay Act and breached the parties’ site contract. The court awarded to Beacon4 $150,390.04 plus six-percent interest per annum, reasonable attorney’s fees, and, upon a post-trial motion, out-of-pocket expenses. The court also granted a lien in favor of Beacon4 on the title to I & L’s Blountville FOA store property. I & L has appealed the trial court’s judgment, and Beacon4 has raised an issue regarding the statutory penalty provided in the Prompt Pay Act and has requested attorney’s fees on appeal. Having determined that the trial court made a typographical error in entering the final award of interest to Beacon4, we modify the award of interest from $32,715.76 to $31,715.76. We affirm the judgment in all other respects. Having also determined that an award to Beacon4 of reasonable attorney’s fees on appeal is appropriate under the PPA, we remand for the trial court to determine reasonable attorney’s fees incurred by Beacon4 during the appellate process. |
Sullivan | Court of Appeals |