State of Tennessee v. Scotty Wayne Poarch
The Defendant, Scotty Wayne Poarch, challenges (1) the length of his sentence imposed by the trial court as a result of his guilty pleas and (2) the trial court’s denial of alternative sentencing. After a review of the record and the applicable authorities, we discern no error in the trial court’s determinations and affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Omar Theron Davis v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Omar Theron Davis, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his 2006 Montgomery County Circuit Court convictions of aggravated rape, aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery, especially aggravated kidnapping, and theft of property valued over $500, claiming that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial. Discerning no error, we affirm the order of the Circuit Court. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kimar Rashad Peebles
A Davidson County jury convicted the Defendant, Kimar Rashad Peebles, of aggravated robbery, and the trial court sentenced him to ten years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant contends: (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction; and (2) the trial court erred when sentencing him. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Daniel David Colby
Defendant, Daniel David Colby, was charged in a presentment returned by the Dickson County Grand Jury with two counts of rape of a child, a Class A felony. He subsequently was allowed to plead guilty to two counts of aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony, in lieu of the greater offense of rape of a child. Defendant submitted to the trial court’s determination the length and manner of service of the sentences following a hearing. The trial court imposed the minimum sentence of eight (8) years for each conviction and ordered the sentences to be served consecutively. In Defendant’s only issue on appeal, he argues that the trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentencing. After a thorough review, we affirm the sentences and the imposition of consecutive sentencing, but remand to the trial court for entry of appropriate amended judgments which set forth all pretrial jail credits to which Defendant may be entitled, and for correction to show the convictions are in Dickson County rather than Anderson County. |
Dickson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re: Taylor H., et al
This is a termination of parental rights case focusing on the four minor children (“the Children”) of mother, Kelly H. (“Mother”) and father, Bernard H. (“Father”). A termination petition was filed by the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) after the third custody episode involving these parents. The petition alleges the sole statutory ground of severe child abuse. Following a bench trial, the trial court granted the petition upon its finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that Mother and Father had committed severe child abuse pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-1-113(g)(4) and § 37-1-102. The court further found, by clear and convincing evidence, that termination of parental rights was in the Children’s best interest. Father has appealed. We affirm. |
Loudon | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Marlo Davis
The Defendant, Marlo Davis, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of second degree murder and reckless homicide. Subsequently, the trial court merged the reckless homicide into the second degree murder conviction and imposed a sentence of forty years. In this direct appeal, the Defendant challenges (1) the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions; (2) the mutually exclusive nature of the verdicts and whether the offenses were properly merged; (3) the admission of prior inconsistent statements by a witness, who had no memory of making those statements at the time of trial, as substantive evidence; (4) the imposition of the maximum forty-year sentence in violation of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004); and (5) the cumulative effect of these errors. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable authorities, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennesse v. Vincent Clifton
Vincent Clifton (“the Defendant”) pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated robbery, two counts of aggravated burglary, one count of employing a firearm during a dangerous felony, and one count of possession of a handgun by a convicted felon, with no agreement as to his sentences. After a hearing, the trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective sentence of thirty-five years. The trial court also ordered the Defendant to serve his thirty-five-year sentence consecutively to a previous sentence. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred in sentencing him. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. We remand the case solely for correction of a clerical error on one of the judgment orders. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William Henry Smith, Jr.
The appellant, William, Henry Smith, Jr., appeals his Bedford County jury conviction for Driving while Motor Vehicle Habitual Offender, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. He also states that his six year sentence in the Department of Correction was excessive. Finding the evidence sufficient and the sentence proper, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James G. Coons, II v. State of Tennessee
James G. Coons, II ("the petitioner") filed for post-conviction relief from his open plea of guilty to the lesser included offense of Second Degree Murder and received a maximum Range II sentence of 40 years in the Department of Correction. Specifically, he asserts that counsel did not investigate or prepare for trial properly or advise him properly as to the possibilities of sentencing. The petition was denied and this appeal followed. Upon a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jerrico D. Graves
The Appellant, Jerrico D. Graves, appeals as of right from the trial court’s revocation of his probation for Aggravated Assault. Although admitting to the violation, the appellant argues that ordering the original sentence of six years to be served in the Department of Correction was not ‘the right thing to do” because of his mental health issues. Following our review, we affirm the trial court’s revocation of probation and the appellant's sentence to the Department of Correction. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re: Estate of John Leonard Burke
Robert LaFever appeals the Trial Court’s order of July 12, 2012 dismissing his notice of will contest after finding and holding, inter alia, that the Last Will and Testament of John Leonard Burke had been admitted to probate in solemn form and could not be challenged in a later will contest. We affirm the Trial Court’s July 12, 2012 order. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Gerald Branden Fitzpatrick
The Petitioner, Gerald Branden Fitzpatrick, was convicted in the Davidson County Criminal Court of aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced him to eleven years in confinement to be served at 100%. On appeal, the appellant contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction; (2) the trial court erred by failing to grant his motion for judgment of acquittal when the minor victim placed the date of the crime outside the dates alleged in the indictment; (3) the trial court erred by allowing the victim to testify through anatomical drawings rather than verbal testimony, which permitted the State to lead the victim; and (4) the trial court erred by allowing two State witnesses to give hearsay testimony. Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Kenneth Miller v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Kenneth Miller, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his Davidson County Criminal Court jury convictions of conspiracy to deliver 300 grams or more of cocaine, delivery of 300 grams or more of cocaine, and possession with intent to deliver 300 grams or more of cocaine. In this appeal, he contends that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Eugene Spivey v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Eugene Spivey, appeals the Crockett County Circuit Court’s denial of post conviction relief from his conviction of second degree murder, a Class B felony. In this appeal, the Petitioner argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that he entered an involuntary and unknowing guilty plea. In the alternative, he argues the State withheld exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 1196-97 (1963). Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Crockett | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tolbert Cates Kail
The Defendant-Appellant, Tolbert Cates Kail, was convicted by a Crockett County jury of two counts of especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor, a Class B felony, sexual exploitation of a minor with fifty images or less, a Class D felony, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, a Class A misdemeanor, and assault, a Class B misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced Kail as a Range I, standard offender to an effective sentence of twelve years at 100%. On appeal, Kail argues (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; and (2) the trial court erred in denying his motion to sever. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Crockett | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Gabriella M. Dorado
The Defendant, Gabriella M. Dorado, pled guilty to attempted possession with intent to sell a Schedule I controlled substance, simple possession of a Schedule VI controlled substance, and possession of drug paraphernalia. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective six-year sentence to be served on supervised probation. Thereafter, the Defendant filed a motion to withdraw her guilty plea, claiming that she received the ineffective assistance of counsel, which constituted a “manifest injustice.” After a hearing, the trial court denied her motion. The Defendant appeals the trial court’s denial, claiming the trial court erred when it found that she had not proved that Counsel’s representation prejudiced her. After a thorough review of the applicable law and the record, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Timothy Clinger v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Timothy Clinger, appeals from the trial court’s summary dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The State has filed a motion for this court to affirm pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Having reviewed the record, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ruby Blackmon v. Eaton Electrical, et al.
Appellant’s claim for unemployment benefits was denied based upon a finding of work-related misconduct. Appellant sought review in the chancery court, which upheld the decision of the Commissioner’s Designee. On appeal to this Court, Appellant claims that the chancery court erred in denying her request for a continuance and in affirming the decision of the Commissioner’s Designee without considering the evidence which purportedly would have been introduced had a continuance been allowed. We affirm the decision of the chancery court. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Prince Adams
The defendant was convicted of first degree premeditated murder and received a life sentence. In his appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals, he alleged that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction; that a discharged alternate juror improperly communicated with the jury foreman; and that the trial court erred by failing to exclude from the evidence certain photographs and recordings and by failing to provide a special jury instruction on diminished capacity. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence. This Court granted permission to appeal to address whether the communication by the alternate juror to the foreman entitled the defendant to a new trial. Because the State successfully rebutted the presumption of prejudice that accompanies an improper communication with a juror, we find no error and, therefore, affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals. |
Shelby | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Jackie Ray Elkins
Appellant, Jackie Ray Elkins, was indicted by the Davidson County Grand Jury for one count of possession with intent to sell or deliver not less than one-half of an ounce but not more than ten pounds of marijuana in a drug-free zone. This charge was the result of a traffic stop in Shelby Bottoms in Nashville, Tennessee and the subsequent search of the vehicle in which Appellant was travelling. Appellant filed a motion to suppress the proceeds of the search. The trial court denied the motion. A jury convicted Appellant as charged. On appeal, Appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion and asks this Court to review his complaint under the plain error rule. In addition, Appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that plain error review is not necessary to do substantial justice and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
D'Army Bailey, et al. v. Shelby County, Tennessee, et al.
Plaintiffs, former part-time Shelby County employees, claim they were wrongfully excluded from Shelby County’s retirement plan. The trial court dismissed all claims based on the six year limitations period applicable to contract actions. We affirm in part, reverse in part, vacate in part, and remand. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Tyrone Spates v. Tracy Howell and Robert Preston
Appellant appeals the dismissal of his complaint against the prison’s medical staff for failure to properly diagnose and treat him. The trial court determined that Appellant prisoner’s claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations, which was not tolled by operation of Tennessee Code Annotated Section 29-26-121. Appellant also appeals the trial court’s findings concerning his status as an indigent person. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm and remand. |
Hardeman | Court of Appeals | |
Robert Trey Wood, III v. Jennifer Rose Wood
Mother appeals the trial court’s order naming Father primary residential parent and setting child support. Discerning no error, we affirm and remand. |
Obion | Court of Appeals | |
Willowmet Homeowners Association, Inc. v. City of Brentwood, Tennessee
The homeowners’ association of a residential subdivision in Brentwood,Tennessee seeks just compensation from the City of Brentwood for loss of property rights in a portion of the subdivision’s open space. The City acquired the property by purchasing it from the developers of the subdivision without the Association’s knowledge. The Declaration of Protection Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions of the subdivision, which the developers drafted and of which the City was on notice, states that the developers “will deed the completed Open Space on the subject Properties to the Association free and clear of any encumbrances before the first Lot is conveyed to a Lot Owner.” Although they sold the first individual lot in 2001, the developers did not convey any of the open space to the homeowners’ association until after the sale to the City. This action by the homeowners’ association ensued. The trial court summarily dismissed the action on the City’s motion, finding the homeowners’ association did not own a compensable property right in the Open Space when it was sold to the City. We have determined the homeowner’s association had an equitable interest in the Open Space pursuant to the Declaration of Protective Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions when it was sold to the City; therefore, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Anthony Leroy Harris v. Henry Steward, Warden
The petitioner, Anthony Leroy Harris, appeals the summary denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner is currently serving an effective ninety-year sentence in the Department of Correction following convictions for aggravated kidnapping and armed robbery. In his petition, he alleges he is entitled to habeas corpus relief because his sentences are disproportionate to the severity of the offenses he committed. On appeal, he contends that the habeas corpus court erred in its denial because proportionality of a sentence has been recognized as a habeas corpus claim in the United State Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Following review of the record, we conclude no viable habeas corpus claim was presented and affirm the denial of the petition. |
Lake | Court of Criminal Appeals |