Opinions
Joshua Timothy Canada v. Tonya Marie Canada
This post-divorce appeal arises from the trial court's denial of Father's petition to modify custody. Following a one-day trial, the court found that Father failed to demonstrate a sufficient material change in circumstances and denied his petition. We affirm. |
Dyer | Court of Appeals | |
Kimberly Urban v. Robin Nichols, individually and d/b/a Willow Brook Lodge
This is a negligence action. The plaintiff sustained injuries to her foot and heel while attempting to use a water slide on the defendants’ property. The plaintiff filed suit against the defendants exactly one year after her injury. The complaint, filed against “Robin Nichols and Willow Brook Lodge,” failed to include the proper name of the company, which is “Accommodations by Willow Brook Lodge, LLC.” Approximately fifteen days after filing the complaint, instead of serving Robin Nichols, the plaintiff served her son, Grant Nichols. The defendants’ answer made the errors known, but the plaintiff’s counsel was dilatory in filing a motion to amend. Upon the defendants filing a motion for summary judgment claiming that the suit was barred by the statute of limitations, the trial court granted the motion. We affirm the decision of the trial court. |
Sevier | Court of Appeals | |
Howard Lavelle Tate v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Howard Lavelle Tate, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. After review, we affirm the denial of the petition. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Heather Russell Wilder v. Joseph Chamblee Wilder
This appeal involves post-divorce child support matters. Heather Russell Wilder (“Mother”) filed a petition in the Fourth Circuit Court for Knox County (“the Trial Court”) for modification of child support against Joseph Chamblee Wilder (“Father”). Mother later alleged that Father had fraudulently misstated his true income, and that he owed more in support towards the parties' three children (“the Children”) than had been ordered. The Trial Court adopted the Magistrate's findings and recommendations and held that Mother could not obtain Rule 60 relief on her fraud claim as time had expired. Mother appeals to this Court raising a number of issues. We affirm the Trial Court. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
In re: Conservatorship of Horace Duke
|
Robertson | Court of Appeals | |
Timothy R. Parsons v. Wilson County, Tennessee
Inmate at Wilson County jail, who fell from top bunk bed and injured his shoulder, sued the County under the Governmental Tort Liability Act for failing to assign him to a bottom bunk or provide him with a ladder to access the top bunk. Following a trial, the court held that the bunk assignment was a discretionary function, and consequently, the County was immune from suit; that the county owed no duty to provide a bottom bunk, and that the inmate was more than 50 percent at fault for his injuries. We reverse the trial court’s ruling that the County was immune and the court’s consideration of comparative fault; determining that the County was not negligent, we affirm the judgment in favor of the County. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joseph John Volpe
The Defendant, Joseph John Volpe, was found guilty by a Hamilton County Criminal Court jury of attempt to commit second degree murder, a Class B felony, aggravated assault, a Class C felony, and reckless endangerment, a Class E felony. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-210 (2014) (second degree murder), 39-12-101 (2014) (criminal attempt), 39-13-102 (2010) (amended 2011, 2013) (aggravated assault), 39-13-103 (2010) (amended 2011, 2012, 2013) (reckless endangerment). The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I, standard offender to concurrent sentences of ten years for attempted second degree murder, three years for aggravated assault, and one year for reckless endangerment. The court ordered the Defendant to serve eleven months, twenty-nine days in confinement and suspended the remainder of his sentence to probation. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions, (2) the trial court erred by denying his motions to suppress evidence, (3) the trial court erred by admitting inadmissible hearsay in evidence at the trial, (4) the trial court erred by admitting photographs at the trial, and (5) the prosecutor engaged in misconduct during closing argument. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.
|
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Roderick D. Tate v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Roderick D. Tate, appeals from the denial of post-conviction relief by the Criminal Court for Knox County. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the Petitioner entered guilty pleas to six drug-related offenses, for which he received an effective twenty-one-year sentence. On appeal, he argues that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel in relation to his guilty pleas because counsel misinformed him regarding the applicable range of punishment. Upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Anthony Phillip James, Sr.
Anthony Phillip James, Sr. (“the Appellant”) was convicted by a Montgomery County jury of aggravated child abuse. On appeal the Appellant alleges that the evidence presented at his trial was insufficient to prove that he knowingly injured the child. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Kevin Lewis v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Kevin Lewis, appeals as of right from the Hamilton County Criminal Court’s partial denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to argue to the jury that the State did not prove the element of “sexual contact” accompanying his conviction for aggravated sexual battery and for failing to impeach a witness. In response, the State asserts that the post-conviction court erred when it vacated and dismissed the Petitioner’s conviction for aggravated kidnapping after concluding that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to mount a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence on direct appeal. The State also responds that the post-conviction court did not err when it denied the Petitioner’s remaining claims. Following our review, we reverse the post-conviction court’s ruling dismissing the aggravated kidnapping charge against the Petitioner because we conclude that the court should have vacated the judgment without dismissing the charge in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-30-111. In all other respects, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Harold Gamble v. Mid-State Industrial Supply, Inc.
Employee filed this workers’ compensation action alleging that he suffered two low back injuries while working as a truck driver for Employer. The trial court held that Employee was not a credible witness and that Employee’s alleged workplace injuries did not occur within the course and scope of his employment. Employee has appealed the trial court’s decision. Pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51, the appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel for hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Dickson | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Corey Alan Bennett v. State of Tennessee
The notice of appeal was not timely filed and therefore, this appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. |
Hardeman | Court of Appeals | |
Tremaine Roberson v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Termaine Roberson, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. Petitioner contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel based on his trial counsel’s failure to adequately prepare for trial, including failing to call two witnesses at trial and failing to obtain DNA testing of a ski mask worn by one of the perpetrators. Having reviewed the record before us and the briefs of the parties, we conclude that the evidence does not preponderate against the post-conviction court’s findings. Accordingly, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Lesergio Duran Wilson
The Defendant-Appellant, Lesergio Duran Wilson, was charged with first degree premeditated murder, and the State filed its notice of intent to seek the death penalty. Wilson then filed a notice of intent to introduce expert testimony regarding his mental diseases, defects, and other mental conditions bearing on his guilt for the charged offense, and the State filed a motion to exclude this expert testimony. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court granted the State’s motion. In this interlocutory appeal, Wilson argues that the trial court erred in ruling that he could not present expert testimony during the guilt/innocence phase of trial regarding his incapacity to form the requisite culpable mental states for the offense. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court and remand this matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Michael George Medina v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Michael George Medina, appeals from the denial of post-conviction relief by the Criminal Court for Smith County. He was convicted of first degree murder of his wife and sentenced to life imprisonment in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Smith | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joseph R. Vibbert
The Defendant, Joseph R. Vibbert, was indicted for two counts of sexual battery by an authority figure, a Class C felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-527. The Defendant pled guilty to one count of sexual battery, a Class E felony, and the second count was dismissed. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-505. The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I, standard offender to two years to be served in confinement. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends (1) that the trial court erred by denying his request for judicial diversion; and (2) that the trial court erred by denying his request for an alternative sentence. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Overton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Billy Jeremy Jones
The Defendant, Billy Jeremy Jones, entered an open guilty plea to felony failure to appear. The trial court, thereafter, sentenced him to four years, as a Range II, persistent offender, and ordered that sentence to run consecutively to the eight-year sentence on the underlying conviction for which the Defendant failed to appear. The sole issue presented for our review is whether the effective twelve-year sentence is excessive. Discerning no abuse of discretion, we affirm the sentencing decision of the Bedford County Circuit Court. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Dennis Lee Arnold
The Defendant, Dennis Lee Arnold, was convicted by a Davidson County Criminal Court jury of two counts of aggravated sexual battery, Class B felonies, and solicitation of a minor, a Class C felony. See T.C.A. §§ 39-13-504, 39-13-522, 39-12-102 (2014). The trial court sentenced the Defendant to consecutive terms of eleven years for the aggravated sexual battery convictions at 100% service and five years for the solicitation conviction, for an effective twenty-seven-year sentence. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erroneously admitted prior bad act evidence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b). We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Dennis Lee Arnold - Separate Concurring Opinion
I write separately to highlight the trial court's copious references to “completing the story of the crime” as a basis for allowing testimony that was challenged pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b). |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In re Estate of Linda Quasnitschka Kirbus
This is an estate case involving the division of two properties used as collateral to secure a commercial note. When the decedent‟s beneficiaries sought to partition the properties, her former husband objected, asserting that he assumed sole ownership of the properties by fulfilling the note with proceeds from the decedent's life insurance policies. Following a hearing, the trial court found that the beneficiaries were entitled to a 70 percent share of the properties. The former husband appeals. We affirm the decision of the trial court as modified. |
Monroe | Court of Appeals | |
Allen Riggs v. Richard B. Wright, et al.
Appellant did not timely file the Notice of Appeal and thus, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear this appeal. Consequently, the appeal must be dismissed. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Daetrus Pilate
A Shelby County jury convicted the Defendant, Daetrus Pilate, of aggravated assault by use of a deadly weapon and evading arrest in a motor vehicle creating a high risk of death or injury, and the trial court sentenced him to a total effective sentence of nine years of incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions; (2) the trial court erred when it excluded photographs of him taken during his hospitalization after being shot during this incident; and (3) his sentence is excessive. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable authorities, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jarrod Reese Spicer
Defendant, Jarrod Reese Spicer, was convicted by an Obion County jury of second degree murder and aggravated robbery and sentenced to serve concurrent sentences of twenty-five and twelve years, respectively, as a standard offender. On appeal, Defendant argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions and that the trial court abused its discretion by sentencing him to the maximum sentence for each conviction. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Obion | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tabitha Gentry aka Re Bey
The Defendant, Tabitha Gentry aka Abka Re Bey, appeals as of right from her Shelby County jury convictions for two counts of aggravated assault and one count of intentionally evading arrest in an automobile. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-13-102, -16-603. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred by: (1) imposing the maximum sentences for each of her convictions; (2) ordering each of her sentences be served consecutively; (3) denying judicial diversion; and (4) denying all other forms of alternative sentencing. Following our review, we conclude that the trial court improperly applied the dangerous offender classification when ordering consecutive sentences. After conducting a de novo review, we conclude that the Defendant’s sentences should have been ordered to run concurrently, rather than consecutively. In all other respects, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Curtis Morgan v. TRW Automotive U.S., LLC
The trial court found that Employee, a utility technician, suffered a work-related injury to his left hand and awarded thirty percent vocational disability. Employer has appealed, contending the trial court erred in awarding benefits for an injury to Employee's left hand rather than to his left index finger. This 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. Because there is no evidence suggesting unusual and extraordinary hand conditions stemming from the finger injury, we reverse the trial court's judgment. |
Wilson | Workers Compensation Panel |