State of Tennessee v. Joseph Nelson
The defendant, Joseph Nelson, was convicted by a Madison County jury of two counts of rape of a child, a Class A felony. He was subsequently sentenced by the trial court to concurrent sentences of twenty-five years, to be served in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant has raised the single issue of sufficiency of the evidence. Following review of the record, we affirm the judgments of conviction. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In the Matter of: Michael C. M., Shania M. J., and Jania M. J.
The trial court terminated Father's parental rights upon a finding of abandonment and upon determining termination was in the best interests of the children. Father appeals. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Aubrey Tremaine Eisom and Cedric Moses
A Dyer County Circuit Court jury convicted the defendant, Aubrey Tremaine Eisom, of two counts of first degree felony murder and one count of especially aggravated robbery and convicted the defendant, Cedric Moses, of two counts of the facilitation of first degree felony murder and one count of especially aggravated robbery. The trial court sentenced Mr. Eisom to consecutive sentences of life imprisonment for both of the felony murder convictions and a consecutive sentence of 40 years' incarceration for the especially aggravated robbery conviction. The trial court sentenced Mr. Moses to 25 years' incarceration for each of his three convictions and ordered the sentences to be served concurrently, for a total effective sentence of 25 years. In this appeal, Mr. Eisom contends that the trial court erred by denying his motion for a bill of particulars, that the trial court erred by denying his motion to sever his trial from that of Mr. Moses, that the trial court erred by prohibiting him from presenting a "third party defense," and that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. Mr. Moses also challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence, claiming that the State failed to sufficiently corroborate the testimony of accomplice Ewan Dewayne Anthony. Mr. Moses additionally asserts that the trial court erred by refusing to sever his trial from that of Mr. Eisom and that his sentence is excessive. Discerning no error in the judgments of the trial court in Mr. Eisom's case, we affirm Mr. Eisom's convictions and the accompanying sentence. Because the State failed to produce sufficient evidence to corroborate the accomplice testimony relative to Mr. Moses' involvement in the crimes, we reverse Mr. Moses' convictions and dismiss the charges against him. |
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Billy J. Coffelt v. State of Tennessee
In Davidson County Criminal Court, following a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of felony escape, two counts of aggravated assault and three counts of especially aggravated kidnapping. State v. Lyle T. Van Ulzen, No. M2004-02462-CCA-R3-CD, 2005 WL 2874654, at *1-2 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Oct. 31, 2005); State v. Billy J. Coffelt, No. M2002- 01214-CCA-R3-CD, 2003 WL 22116628, at *1-2 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Sept. 11, 2003), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Feb. 2, 2004). After direct appeal to this Court and resentencing, Petitioner's effective sentence was ninety years. Lyle T. Van Ulzen, 2005 WL 2874654, at *6-7. Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. Following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied the petition. On appeal, Petitioner argues that the post-conviction court erred in denying his petition. Petitioner specifically argues that trial counsel was ineffective because trial counsel: (1) refused to allow Petitioner to testify at trial and failed to request a Momon hearing; (2) failed to request Pattern Jury Instruction 8.02 and an instruction on the elements of false imprisonment as a lesser included offense of especially aggravated kidnapping; (3) failed to request a jury instruction for the natural and probable consequences rule; (4) failed to raise in either the motion for new trial or on direct appeal the issue of stipulation of the offense for which Petitioner was incarcerated at the time of his escape; and (5) failed to request a severance from the co-defendant. After a thorough review of the record on appeal, we affirm the post-conviction court's denial of the petition. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William Anthony Jones
A Dyer County Circuit Court jury convicted the defendant, William Anthony Jones, of aggravated assault. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erroneously prohibited him from"argu[ing] that the defendant lacked the mental state of intentionally or knowing[ly] with respect to causing serious bodily injury." Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jennifer (Pitts) Bradford vs. David Wilson Pitts
The father was paying child support, became disabled and filed a Petition to suspend child support payments until his disability insurance began paying. By the time of the hearing on his Petition, his disability insurance began paying a monthly amount. The Trial Judge ultimately refused to lower the child support payments, finding that the father established no variance between his income before and after his disability. The father tendered his income tax return for the year when the child support obligation was set, but the Trial Court refused to consider this evidence. On appeal, we vacate and remand. |
Cumberland | Court of Appeals | |
Quint Bourgeois vs. McCurdy and Candler, LLC, et al
The pertinent order in this case was entered by the trial court on August 25, 2010. Therefore, the thirtieth day from and after the date of entry of the order was Friday, September 24, 2010. The date of September 24, 2010, was not a legal holiday and there is nothing before us to indicate that it was a day when "weather or other conditions have made the office of the court clerk inaccessible." Tenn. R. App. P. 21(a). The appellant's notice of appeal was received and filed by the trial court clerk on Monday, September 27, 2010. As can be seen, the notice was not filed and received by the trial court clerk within 30 days of the date of entry of the order from which the appeal was taken. Accordingly, we have no jurisdiction of this appeal due to the untimely filing of the notice of appeal. Appeal dismissed. |
Sevier | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jeffrey Thomas Pardue
Appellant, Jeffrey Thomas Pardue, was indicted by the Davidson County Grand Jury for burglary of a motor vehicle and theft of property valued at more than $1,000. A jury found aAppellant guilty of both charges. The trial court sentenced appellant to two years for burglary and three years for theft, and the sentences were ordered to be served concurrently. The trial court suspended the sentences and placed appellant on probation. Appellant was also ordered to receive alcohol treatment and pay restitution in the amount of $1,184. After the denial of a motion for new trial, appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. On appeal, appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the convictions. After a review of the record, we determine that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for burglary of a vehicle and theft of property valued at more than $1,000. Consequently, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Kathy Michelle Fowler v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Kathy Michelle Fowler, was indicted by the Davidson County Grand Jury in one indictment for domestic assault, harassment, and aggravated criminal trespass. Petitioner subsequently pled guilty to domestic assault. The remaining two charges were dismissed. Petitioner was sentenced to eleven months and twenty-nine days, to be served on probation. Petitioner filed a petition to expunge the dismissed charges pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-32-101. After a hearing, the trial court denied the petition, concluding that the plain language of the statute excluded expungement of "cases in which the defendant has been convicted of a charge within the case." Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in this Court. We granted the petition in order to determine if the trial court has exceeded its jurisdiction or has acted illegally. After a review of the record, we determine that based on this Court's decision in State v. Gerald Gifford, No. E2006-02500- CCA-R3-CD, 2008 WL 1813105 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxville, Apr. 23, 2008), perm. app. denied, (Tenn. Oct. 27, 2008), the trial court herein improperly denied the petition to expunge the dismissed charges where petitioner was indicted in a multi-count indictment, pled guilty to one count of the indictment, and the remaining charges were dismissed. The judgment of the trial court is, therefore, reversed and the matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings, including granting petitioner's petition to expunge the dismissed charges of harassment and aggravated criminal trespass. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Catherine M. Love et al vs. Doris Lakins Woods
This case arises from the trial court's denial of Plaintiff/Appellants' motion to enforce a settlement agreement. Appellants, the surviving children of decedent, filed a wrongful death claim against the Appellee herein, the driver of a car involved in the accident that killed decedent. During negotiations, Appellee/Defendant's attorney proposed a settlement in the amount of Appellee's insurance policy limit, which Appellee's attorney misstated to be $100,000, when, in fact, the policy limit was $50,000. The trial court denied Appellants' motion to enforce the $100,000 settlement finding that the settlement was not enforceable, as it failed to contain certain material terms of the agreement. We conclude that the trial court failed to determine whether an agency relationship existed between the Appellee's attorney and the insurance company and also whether the insurance company is required to be a party to this litigation. Vacated and remanded. |
Blount | Court of Appeals | |
Michael Szemborski, et al vs. Roger Sayner
The order from which the appellant Roger Sayner seeks to appeal was entered in the trial court on August 18, 2010. A notice of appeal was filed with and received by the trial court clerk on September 21, 2010. Because the notice of appeal was not timely filed, we lack jurisdiction of this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed with costs taxed to the appellant. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jim Hunter
The Defendant, Jim Hunter, was indicted for attempted first degree murder and domestic aggravated assault. After a jury trial, the Defendant was convicted of reckless endangerment and reckless aggravated assault. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to concurrent sentences of eight years for the reckless aggravated assault conviction and 11 months and 29 days for the reckless endangerment conviction. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends (1) that the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial by basing his sentence on enhancement factors not determined by the jury and (2) that one of his convictions should not have been considered in determining his status as a multiple offender because of its age. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Patsy Freeman, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of John R. Freeman, Deceased v. CSX Transportation, Inc., a Florida Corporation, et al. - Dissenting
I must respectfully dissent from the majority opinion’s conclusion that Rutherford County was an appropriate venue for this action and, consequently, that the Rutherford County court had subject matter jurisdiction. In particular, I disagree with the majority’s statement that “unless the plaintiff and at least one ‘material defendant’ reside in the same county and that county is where the cause of action accrued” the common county rule does not apply. Essentially, the majority holds that the venue statute does not apply, a conclusion that I believe is erroneous. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Patsy Freeman, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of John R. Freeman, Deceased v. CSX Transportation, Inc., a Florida Corporation, et al.
The issues in this case are whether Tennessee's "common county rule" deprived the Rutherford County Circuit Court of subject matter jurisdiction and whether the court erred in assessing discretionary costs. This wrongful death action arises from a fatal vehicular accident in Normandy, Bedford County, Tennessee, in which the decedent's vehicle was stuck by a train owned by CSX Transportation, Inc. The mother of the decedent, in her individual capacity and as the personal representative of the decedent's estate, timely filed this action in the Circuit Court for Rutherford County against CSX and the conductor of the train. Over the next five years the parties conducted extensive discovery. On the first day of trial, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice. On the motion of the defendants, the Rutherford County Circuit Court assessed $34,098.27 in discretionary costs against plaintiff. In this appeal, plaintiff contends the Rutherford County Circuit Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction as a consequence of the common county rule, and that it erred in awarding discretionary costs. We have determined that the common county rule does not apply, the Rutherford County Circuit Court had subject matter jurisdiction, and that the court did not abuse its discretion in assessing discretionary costs of $34,098.27 against plaintiff after she voluntarily dismissed this action. Accordingly, we affirm the award of discretionary costs. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Eddie Ward vs. Teresa Yokley, et al
In this action to enforce a contract to purchase real estate, the trial court declared the contract enforceable, the seller had breached the contract by refusing to sell to plaintiff, and held that a third party who had a lien against the property tortiously interfered with the sale. The trial judge rescinded the quit claim deed to Tyler Lawson from Yokley and assessed costs and damages. On appeal, we reverse the trial judge and hold the contract became unenforceable because plaintiff did not comply with the conditions set forth in the contract. |
Roane | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Maysoon M.A.A.K., and Falasteen M.A.A.K., Muhammad I.S. and Tessa D. S., v. Sonya G.
Petitioners, custodians of two minor children, filed this action to terminate the mother's parental rights. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial judge found there was clear and convincing evidence to support termination, based upon willful failure to support/visit and persistent conditions. The court also found that the evidence was clear and convincing that termination was in the children's best interest. On appeal, we affirm the Judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Elliot Fullilove
The defendant, Elliot Fullilove, was convicted of first degree (felony) murder and especially aggravated robbery, a Class A felony. He was sentenced to concurrent life sentences. On appeal, he argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions and that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress a statement he made to the police, in admitting hearsay, and in admitting a crime scene photograph. After careful review, we affirm the judgments from the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Russell Lee Maze v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Russell Lee Maze, appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief in which he alleged that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, Petitioner contends that (1) counsel failed to make an offer of proof regarding the testimony of Dr. Edward Yazbak; and (2) counsel failed to consult with a qualified medical expert regarding imaging evidence of the victim's neurological damage and failed to present a qualified medical expert to contradict the State's medical evidence regarding causation of the victim's brain and neurological damage. Petitioner also contends that the trial court erred in denying his petition for writ of error coram nobis. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that Petitioner has failed to show that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel. Furthermore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the petition for writ of error coram nobis. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Albert Lynn Norton
The Appellant, Albert Lynn Norton, appeals as of right from the Blount County Circuit Court's order revoking his probation and ordering him to serve his sentences in incarceration. On appeal, he argues that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering him to serve his sentences in confinement. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Philander Butler v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Philander Butler, pro se, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief for being filed after the statute of limitations had expired. On appeal, he argues that the post-conviction court erred in dismissing his petition before appointing counsel and conducting a hearing to determine the merits of his petition. After review, we affirm the summary dismissal of the petition for post-conviction relief. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Anthony Tharpe
The defendant, Michael Anthony Tharpe, appeals the revocation of his probation by the Circuit Court for Carroll County. On May 11, 2009, he entered a guilty plea to theft over $500, and was sentenced to three years probation. He later committed new law violations and failed to report to his probation officer. Following a hearing on March 29, 2010, the defendant's probation was revoked, and he was ordered to serve the balance of his sentence in confinement. After careful review, we affirm the judgment of the Circuit Court. |
Carroll | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Providence Crossings, LLC v. SC Realty Capital, L.P., SC Capital, LLC, and Smith Realty Interests, L.P. - Concurring
I write this concurring opinion because I find it very difficult to believe that the contractual rights at issue were not foreclosed upon and, thus, passed to the bank as a result of the foreclosure, in which event Defendants would be entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law as the trial court found. However, as the majority correctly notes, there may be a small crack in the evidentiary chain that pertains to material facts at issue. I am not fully convinced there is a deficiency, but for purposes of summary judgment the court must be convinced that material facts are not in dispute. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Providence Crossings, LLC v. SC Realty Capital, L.P., SC Capital, LLC, and Smith Realty Interests, L.P.
Purchaser of landlocked property brought action against the sellers, seeking to recover damages allegedly caused by the failure of the sellers to complete a road extension or otherwise to insure reasonable access to the property, which had been purchased for development of multi-family rental units. The trial court granted summary judgment to the sellers, finding that the right of the purchaser to proceed with the action was extinguished when the bank that provided financing for the development of the property foreclosed on the loan secured by the property and subsequently sold the property to another entity. The court concluded that the purchaser did not have standing to pursue the claims. Finding that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the purchaser's cause of action was included in the assets foreclosed upon, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for further proceedings. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Franklin A. Christy
Defendant, Franklin A. Christy, appeals the trial court's order revoking his probation and ordering him to serve his sentence in confinement. In this appeal, Defendant acknowledges that the evidence showed he violated the terms of his probation. However, he argues that the trial court should have sentenced him to community corrections rather than order service |
Dickson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Archie Hill, Jr.
The Defendant, Archie Hill, Jr., pled guilty to one count of aggravated burglary and one count of burglary. The trial court sentenced him to seven years, with the Defendant to serve eleven months and twenty-nine days in confinement and then be released to probation. Soon after the Defendant began serving his probation sentence, a violation of probation affidavit was filed against the Defendant. After a hearing, the trial court revoked the Defendant's probation sentence and ordered him to serve the remainder of his sentence in confinement. The Defendant appeals, contending the trial court erred in placing into effect his original sentence. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the trial court's judgment. |
Franklin | Court of Criminal Appeals |