Jeremy Crosby v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Jeremy Crosby, appeals as of right the Davidson County Criminal Court's order denying his petition for post-conviction relief attacking his jury convictions of possession with the intent to sell .5 grams or more of cocaine and possession of drug paraphernalia. On appeal, he contends that appellate counsel committed ineffective assistance by failing to raise or effectively argue certain issues on direct appeal. Following our review, we affirm the order of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Eric Davis v. State of Tennessee
|
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Steve Billman, Jr.
The Defendant, Steve Billman, Jr., was convicted of driving under the influence (DUI), second offense, a Class A misdemeanor, and violation of the implied consent law, a Class C misdemeanor. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the Defendant for DUI, second offense, to 11 months and 29 days suspended to probation following the service of 60 days in the county jail. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends that (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction for DUI and that (2) the trial court erred in denying the Defendant's motion for a mistrial. Following our review, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in declining to grant a mistrial. Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for a new trial. |
Wayne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Joy C. Lindsey vs. Walgreen Company, et al
Joy C. Lindsey ("Plaintiff") sued Walgreen Company ("Walgreen"), Robert Cortney ("Cortney"), and Kane David Stackhouse ("Stackhouse") after David Z. Lindsey, Sr. was shot and killed by Stackhouse in a Walgreen's parking lot. Approximately ten months after filing their answer to Plaintiff's complaint, Walgreen and Cortney filed a motion to amend to add a cross-claim against Stackhouse. The Trial Court denied Walgreen and Cortney permission to amend. We granted permission for an interlocutory appeal on the sole issue of whether Walgreen and Cortney should be granted leave to amend to add a cross-claim against Stackhouse. We reverse the Trial Court's order and grant Walgreen and Cortney permission to add a cross-claim against Stackhouse. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Earl Faulkner and Faye Faulkner v. Tom Emmett Construction Company
Earl and Faye Faulkner ("Plaintiffs") hired Tom Emmett Construction Company ("Defendant") to construct a new driveway at their home in Knox County. Plaintiffs refused to pay $ 8,000 of the total $ 18,000 contract price because they were dissatisfied with the workmanship of the driveway. Plaintiffs sued Defendants seeking as damages what it would cost to remove and replace the allegedly defective driveway. Defendant asserted that the driveway was properly constructed and filed a counterclaim for the remaining $ 8,000 balance owed on the oral contract. Following a bench trial, the Trial Court [*2] concluded that any problems with the driveway were not sufficient to require that it be removed and replaced. Because there was a problem with how the concrete on one portion of the driveway had been poured, the Trial Court required Plaintiffs to pay Defendant only $ 5,000 of the remaining $ 8,000 owed on the contract. Plaintiffs appeal. We affirm as modified. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Spencer Peterson v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Spencer Peterson, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in finding that he received the effective assistance of counsel. After review, we affirm the denial of the petition. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Robert Lee Miller
The appellant, Robert Lee Miller, was found guilty of the first degree murder of the victim, Krystal Dubuque, during the perpetration of an aggravated rape, and he was sentenced to life imprisonment in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant argues (1.) that the trial court erred in admitting a videotaped interview of the appellant dressed in his prison uniform; (2.) that the trial court should have excluded the testimony of Rodney Perkins identifying the appellant as the person he saw near the victim's car; (3.) that the trial court erred in not granting a mistrial when the State disclosed that recent blood testing had revealed that blood in the victim's underwear was not that of the appellant; (4.) that the trial court erred in not granting the appellant's motion for a judgment of acquittal pursuant to Rule 29 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure; (5.) that the trial court erred in permitting the introduction of prior act evidence regarding the appellant's dealings with other women and specifically regarding statements about his desire to be sexually involved with the victim; (6.) that the trial court erred in not suppressing all statements made by the appellant as they were obtained in violation of his right to counsel as secured by the Tennessee State Constitution Article I, Section 9 and Amendments Five and Six of the U.S. Constitution; and (7.) that the appellant's right to a speedy trial was violated. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. However, we must remand to the trial court for entry of a corrected judgment of conviction to reflect the appellant's guilt of count one, felony murder, instead of count two, premeditated first degree murder. |
Carter | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Derrick Lemon Goode
A Bedford County Circuit Court jury convicted the defendant, Derrick Lemon Goode, of one count of the sale of .5 grams or more of cocaine, see T.C.A. _ 39-17-417(a)(3) (2006), and one count of the delivery of .5 grams or more of cocaine, see id. _ 39-17-417(a)(2). The trial court merged the convictions and imposed a sentence of 12 years' incarceration. In this appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court erred by failing to excuse a juror for cause, that the trial court erred by denying his pretrial request for material pursuant to Rule 26.2 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure, that the State withheld exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), that the trial court erred by failing to give a limiting instruction regarding the jury's use of the defendant's prior convictions, and that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Rodney Jeffries v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Rodney Jeffries, appeals the habeas corpus court's order summarily dismissing his "Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus or in the Alternative, Petition to Re-open Petition for Post-Conviction Relief." Following our review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the habeas court's denial of relief. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Andre Jabbar Johnson
A trial jury found the defendant, Andre Jabbar Johnson, guilty of resisting arrest, a Class B misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced the defendant to six months in the county jail, with a release eligibility of 75%. On appeal, the defendant contends that his sentence is excessive because the trial court failed to properly weigh the mitigation factors against the enhancement factors. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Cecret C. Williams
The Defendant, Cecret C. Williams, was charged with one count of aggravated child abuse and one count of aggravated child neglect. Following a jury trial, she was convicted of both offenses; however, the trial court merged the two counts. In this direct appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the evidence was not sufficient to convict her on either count; (2) the trial court erred in failing to fulfill its duties as the thirteenth juror; and (3) the trial court erred in entering separate judgments and sentences for each of her convictions. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the trial court misconstrued its authority to grant a new trial under the thirteenth juror rule, Rule 33(d) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure. We accordingly reverse and remand for a new trial. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Sammie Maness and SKM Wood Products, LLC v. Joannie Collins, Mike Smith, Josh Smith, and SKM, LLC
This appeal involves an employment contract. The plaintiff employee owned a manufacturing business. He sold the business to the defendant new owners, and agreed to stay on as a management-level employee. To that end, the plaintiff entered into a three-year employment agreement with the company, and signed a non-competition agreement. After a few months, the company's new owners terminated the plaintiff employee on the basis that he had not fulfilled his job duties. The plaintiff filed this lawsuit against the company and the new owners, alleging breach of the employment agreement. After a bench trial, the trial court held that the company breached the employment agreement by terminating the plaintiff's employment without cause, finding that one of the new owners prevented the plaintiff from performing his job duties. However, the trial court declined to award damages to the plaintiff employee because the plaintiff did not seek other employment, and thus failed to mitigate his damages. Both parties appeal. We affirm the trial court's finding that the company breached the employment agreement, finding that one of the new owners prevented the plaintiff from performing his job duties, and therefore the plaintiff's failure to perform under the employment agreement was excused. We reverse the trial court's holding on mitigation of damages, finding that the defendant company and the new owners were required to prove the availability of suitable and comparable substitute employment, and failed to do so. |
McNairy | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jimmy Daniel Prater
A Wayne County jury acquitted the Defendant, Jimmy Daniel Prater, of driving under the influence and mitigated criminal littering, but it found that the Defendant violated the implied consent law and violated the open container law. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction for violation of the implied consent law. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Wayne | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Siron S. Shields
The defendant, Siron S. Shields, appeals the revocation of his community corrections sentence, claiming that the trial court erred by revoking his community corrections sentence and ordering him to serve his original sentence in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kenneth Meyer
The Defendant, Kenneth Meyer, was found guilty by a Bledsoe County Circuit Court jury of voluntary manslaughter, a Class C felony. See T.C.A. _ 39-13-211 (2010). He was sentenced as a Range II, multiple offender to ten years' confinement. On appeal, he contends that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, (2) the trial court erred by admitting only part of a 9-1-1 tape into evidence, (3) the trial court erred by admitting hearsay into evidence, (4) the state improperly withheld exculpatory evidence, (5) the trial court erred by refusing to issue a self-defense instruction requested by the defendant, (6) the trial court erred by considering prior criminal convictions that were not proven by certified copies of conviction and were not disclosed to the defendant before the sentencing hearing, and (7) the trial court imposed an excessive sentence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Bledsoe | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Rent-N-Roll v. Highway 64 Car and Truck Sales
Appellee sold a vehicle to a third party, retaining a security interest duly perfected on the vehicle's certificate of title. Appellant later leased custom wheels and tires to the third party without the knowledge or consent of appellee. After the lease was signed, appellant modified the body of the vehicle to accommodate the custom wheels and tires, installed the custom wheels and tires on the vehicle, and gave the third party the old wheels and tires. The third party defaulted on both the security agreement with appellee and the lease with appellant. Appellee repossessed the vehicle and refused to relinquish the custom wheels and tires to appellant. The third party could not be located for service of process or recovery of the old wheels and tires. Appellant sued for recovery of the custom wheels and tires. The trial court found that, pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. _ 47-2A-310, the wheels and tires became accessions at the point of installation, Appellant's leasehold interest in the accessions was superior to appellee's security interest in the vehicle as a whole, and appellant was liable for physical injury it caused to the vehicle when installing the accessions. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Madison | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Montorius G. Herron
The defendant, Montorius G. Herron, stands convicted of identity theft, a Class D felony, and theft of property under $500, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced him to eleven months, twenty-nine days in the county jail with a release eligibility of 75% for the misdemeanor conviction concurrent with twelve years as a career offender in the Tennessee Department of Correction with a release eligibility of 60% for the felony conviction. On appeal, the defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for identity theft and the trial court committed plain error by not charging fraudulent use of a credit card as a lesser-included offense of identity theft. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Krystal Johnson
The defendant, Krystal Johnson, pled guilty to criminal attempt to commit aggravated child neglect, a Class B felony. She received an eight-year sentence as a Range I, standard offender in the Tennessee Department of Correction. She petitioned the trial court for probation, which the court denied after a hearing. The defendant now appeals the denial of probation or alternative sentencing. Specifically, the defendant argues that the trial court (1) did not consider all of the factors enunciated in Stiller v. State, 516 S.W.2d 617 (Tenn. 1974) when denying probation; (2) improperly considered that the defendant pled guilty to a Class B felony when the grand jury indicted her for a Class A felony; and (3) did not consider a sentence involving community corrections. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Johnny M. Burroughs v. State of Tennessee
A Dickson County jury convicted the Petitioner, Johnny M. Burroughs, of felony murder, especially aggravated robbery, and theft of property over $1000, and it imposed a life sentence for his murder conviction. The trial court sentenced him to twenty years for his robbery conviction and to two years for his theft conviction, to be served concurrently with his life sentence. On direct appeal, this Court affirmed the Petitioner's convictions and sentence. The Petitioner then filed a petition for post-conviction relief, claiming he received the ineffective assistance of counsel, which the post-conviction court dismissed after a hearing. On appeal, the Petitioner contends the post-conviction court erred when it dismissed his petition. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the postconviction court's judgment. |
Dickson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James Daniel Marshall v. Jenine Estelle Marshall
Husband appeals the entry of a default judgment and the resulting Final Decree in a divorce action. Wife filed a complaint for divorce; Husband filed an answer and counter-complaint. Later in the proceedings, Wife filed a motion for default judgment and other relief against Husband due to his failure to comply with the court's discovery deadline. The trial court entered an order granting a default judgment against Husband, striking his pleadings, and deeming Wife's discovery requests admitted. Husband timely filed a motion to set aside the order on the ground he did not receive proper notice of the hearing, which the trial court denied. We have determined that Husband did not receive proper notice; as a consequence the order granting the default judgment and other relief is void. Therefore, the trial court erred as a matter of law in denying Husband's motion to set aside the order. The court's failure to set aside the order also greatly impaired Husband's right to assert the defenses and affirmative claims that were stricken. Accordingly, the Final Decree is also reversed and we remand for a new trial of the issues properly raised by the parties in their pleadings subject, of course, to Husband complying with discovery and the trial court's orders. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
First Horizons Home Loan Corporation d/b/a First Tennessee Home Loans, et al.
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Gerald and Helen Lilly, Individually and as Guardians and Next of Kin of Tadarius M. Moore, Deceased v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, et al.
Plaintiffs, the guardians and grandparents of a fourth-grader at Amqui Elementary School filed this wrongful death action against the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County. While at school, the decedent became ill. After school employees cared for him for a period of time, his condition worsened; school employees then called 911 and performed CPR while awaiting for the paramedics. Tragically, the child died on the way to the emergency room. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant did not properly train or supervise its school employees and that Defendant's employees were negligent in failing to secure proper medical care. The trial court summarily dismissed the action upon findings that Defendant had not breached a duty to the decedent and that its actions were not the proximate cause of decedent's death. Plaintiffs appeal. We reverse finding there are genuine issues of material fact that preclude summary judgment. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. George John Byrd
The Defendant-Appellant, George John Byrd, was convicted by a Knox County jury of three counts of aggravated rape, a Class A felony, and one count of aggravated assault, a Class C felony. He was sentenced to twenty-five years for each aggravated rape and to twelve years for aggravated assault. The trial court ordered the sentences to be served concurrently, for an effective sentence of twenty-five years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The sole issues presented for our review are whether the trial court erred by (1) allowing testimony of certain thefts by Byrd; and (2) allowing a nurse to testify about statements made by the victim during her medical examination. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jeffrey Booth
The Defendant-Appellant, Jeffrey Booth, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, a Class A felonies; one count of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony; and one count of aggravated assault, a Class C felony. Booth received concurrent sentences of twenty years for each of the two especially aggravated kidnapping convictions, eight years for the aggravated robbery conviction, and three years for the aggravated assault conviction, for an effective sentence of twenty years in confinement. On appeal, Booth argues that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; (2) the prosecutor made improper comments during closing argument; (3) his separate convictions for especially aggravated kidnapping, aggravated robbery, and aggravated assault violate due process pursuant to State v. Anthony, 817 S.W.2d 299 (Tenn. 1991) and State v. Dixon, 957 S.W.2d 532 (Tenn. 1997); (4) the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on voluntary intoxication; (5) the trial court erred in failing to merge the two convictions for especially aggravated kidnapping. Upon review, we merge the dual especially aggravated kidnapping convictions into a single conviction and remand the case to the trial court for entry of corrected judgments to reflect the merger of these convictions. We affirm the judgments of the trial court in all other respects. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jose A. Iniguez
Defendant, Jose A. Iniguez, was convicted by a Madison County jury of stalking, a Class A misdemeanor, and driving while unlicensed, a Class C. Misdemeanor. For stalking, the trial court imposed a sentence of 11 months, 29 days and for driving while unlicensed a sentence of 30 days, to be served concurrently in the county jail. On appeal, Defendant's sole issue is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence for his stalking conviction. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals |