State of Tennessee v. Ronald Woods, Jr.
The Defendant-Appellant, Ronald Woods, Jr., appeals pro se from multiple convictions in the Criminal Court of Shelby County. He pled guilty to intentionally evading arrest in a motor vehicle, a Class D felony, driving while a habitual motor vehicle offender, a Class E felony, driving under the influence of an intoxicant, a Class E felony, reckless driving, a Class B misdemeanor, and two counts of aggravated assault, a Class C felony. Woods received a an effective sentence of six years to be served consecutively to another unrelated sentence. On appeal, Woods claims: (1) he was denied his right to a fair trial because of prosecutorial misconduct; and (2) his conviction for reckless driving and intentionally evading arrest violated principles of double jeopardy. Upon review, we conclude that Woods's claims of prosecutorial misconduct and double jeopardy have been waived. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Sequna Copeland
The defendant, Sequna Copeland, pled guilty in the Lauderdale County Circuit Court to one count of facilitation of second degree murder, a Class B felony. The agreement provided for an eight-year sentence, with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. The trial court denied the defendant's request for an alternative sentence and ordered confinement in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant contends that the court erred in denying alternative sentencing. Following review of the record, we find no error and affirm the sentence as imposed. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re: Kaylei M.D.T.
This is a termination of parental rights case. The appellee, Tennessee Department of Children's Services, has filed a motion to dismiss based upon its assertion that the Court "lacks jurisdiction to consider [the appellant's] appeal." We agree with the appellee. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed with costs taxed to the appellant, Mark J.T. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Michael C.S. & Makanzie A.M.S.
This is a termination of parental rights case. The Department of Children's Services concedes that it did not prove the grounds for termination of parental rights by clear and convincing evidence. We likewise find that procedural errors were committed by the trial court. Accordingly, the trial court's decision is vacated. |
Cocke | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Victoria Nicole Spicer
The Dickson County Grand Jury indicted Appellant, Victoria Spicer, for one count of theft of property worth more than $500 but less than $1,000 and one count of criminal trespass. At the conclusion of the State's proof, the State conceded that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction for criminal trespass. At the end of trial, the jury convicted Appellant for one count of facilitation of theft, for property worth $500 or less. The trial court sentenced Appellant to six months in the county jail. On appeal, Appellant argues that her conviction cannot stand because theft of property worth $500 or less is a misdemeanor and the crime of facilitation under the statute applies only to felonies. The State concedes that facilitation of a misdemeanor is not a crime under the Tennessee statutory scheme. After a review of the record and the statute, we conclude that facilitation of a misdemeanor is not a crime under the statutes of Tennessee. Therefore, Appellant's conviction must be reversed and dismissed. |
Dickson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joseph W. Denton
The Defendant, Joseph W. Denton, pleaded guilty to one count of forgery and one count of impersonation of a licensed professional, both Class E felonies. Under the terms of the plea agreement, he received concurrent terms of two years as a Range I, standard offender to be served on probation. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court denied the Defendant's request for judicial diversion. He challenges that ruling on appeal. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the Putnam County Circuit Court. |
Putnam | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Timothy Ray Gentry v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Timothy Ray Gentry, pled guilty to multiple theft, forgery, and drug offenses and received a total effective sentence of eighteen years, eleven months, and twenty-nine days. The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that his counsel was ineffective and that his guilty pleas were not knowingly and voluntarily made. The Petitioner acknowledged that his petition was untimely but asserted that due process required the statute of limitations be tolled. The post-conviction court dismissed the petition without a hearing, and the Petitioner now appeals. We reverse the ruling of the post-conviction court and remand for a hearing to determine whether due process requires tolling of the statute of limitations. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Tacle Seating USA, LLC v. Ricky Lee Vaughn
Pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51, this workers’ compensation 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. The trial court awarded 100% permanent partial disability (“PPD”) to the left arm and 18% PPD to the right arm. The employer contends the trial court erred in awarding compensation to both arms, rather than the left thumb only. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Rutherford | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Theo Kampert, et al. v. Valley Farmers Cooperative, et al.
We agreed to hear this extraordinary appeal in order to decide whether the proper venue for a case involving the breach of a construction contract is in the county named in the forum selection clause of the contract, or in the county where the realty is located upon which the construction took place. We hold that the forum selection clause determines the proper venue, because the underlying action cannot fairly be characterized as an action for injury to real property and is, thus, a transitory action. |
Giles | Court of Appeals | |
Performance Food Group of Georgia, Inc., d/b/a PFG Milton's vs. Healthlink, LLC., Healthlink Srvices, LLc. vs. HCC Healthcare of Charlotte, LLC., et al
Plaintiff brought this action against defendant for an unpaid debt. Both parties moved for summary judgment and the trial court granted plaintiff's summary judgment and denied defendant's summary judgment. On appeal, we affirm the trial court's decision. |
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
Luis D. Vidales Romero v. Joe Easterling, Warden
The pro se petitioner, Luis D. Vidales Romero, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Following our review, we affirm the habeas court's dismissal of the petition. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Brandon Williamson
The defendant, Brandon Williamson, appeals the revocation of his community corrections sentence, claiming that the trial court erred by 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 | |
Federal Insurance Company, A/S/O Robert and Joanie Emerson vs. Martin Edward Winters, D/B/A Winters Roofing Company
Plaintiff insurer of insured brought this action as a subrogee of the insureds, who had been paid under plaintiff's policy for a fire loss to their home. The insureds had employed a roofer to replace their roof, whose subcontractor caused the fire which destroyed the home. Plaintiff brought this action to recover from defendant roofer who filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and the trial court ruled defendant could not be held liable in tort for the negligent acts of his subcontractor under the facts of this case, and plaintiff could not recover under the theory of contract, because plaintiff could not show that the loss was caused by the contractual services or foreseeable. On appeal, we hold that summary judgment was inappropriate, because under contract law the defendant had a non-delegable duty to see that the work he was contractually obligated to perform was done in a careful, skillful and workmanlike manner. The case is remanded with instructions to proceed in accordance with this Opinion. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tamabe Trinise Leke
The Defendant-Appellant, Tamabe Trinise Leke, was convicted by a Madison County jury of disorderly conduct, a Class C misdemeanor, and resisting arrest, a Class B misdemeanor. She was sentenced to thirty days for disorderly conduct and to six months for resisting arrest. The trial court ordered these sentences to be served concurrently. On appeal, Leke challenges the sufficiency of the evidence for both convictions. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Angela Milhorn
The defendant, Angela Milhorn, appeals the denial of her request for judicial diversion, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by placing undue emphasis on the circumstances of her offense while ignoring positive factors in favor of diversion. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Julius W. Weaver
Appellant, Julius W. Weaver, was indicted by a Rhea County Grand Jury on three counts of aggravated sexual battery. On count one of the indictment, he was convicted of the lesser included offense of Class B misdemeanor assault. The jury found him not guilty on counts two and three. The trial court sentenced Appellant to six months incarceration. He now appeals the length and manner of service of his sentence. We affirm. |
Rhea | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Teresa Rita Day v. State of Tennessee
The pro se petitioner, Teresa Rita Day, appeals the post-conviction court's summary dismissal of her petition for post-conviction relief. Because the petition was untimely and the petitioner has not shown any reason that the statute of limitations should be tolled, we affirm the post-conviction court's summary dismissal of the petition as time-barred. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Terry O'Neil Greene
The Defendant, Terry O'Neil Greene, was convicted by a jury of driving under the influence of an intoxicant, second offense. In this appeal as of right, the defendant contends that the trial court erred in admitting the results of his breath-alcohol test. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hamblen | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Patrick Wayne Tripp
A Lincoln County jury convicted the Defendant, Patrick Wayne Tripp, of rape of a child, a Class A felony; aggravated child abuse, a Class A felony; aggravated child neglect, a Class A felony; sexual exploitation of a minor, a Class D felony; and attempted incest, a Class D felony. The trial court imposed a total effective sentence of forty-two years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant raises four issues: (a) whether the trial court erred when it denied his motion for a judgment of acquittal; (b) whether the evidence at trial was sufficient to support his convictions; (c) whether the trial court committed plain error when it instructed the jury on the offense of rape of a child; and (d) whether the trial court erred when it sentenced the Defendant. After a thorough review of the record and relevant authorities, we conclude the evidence supports the Defendant's convictions, the trial court properly instructed the jury, and the trial court properly sentenced the Defendant. Therefore, we affirm the trial court's judgments. |
Lincoln | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Gregory M. Nicholson v. Tonya S. Nicholson
In this divorce case, Wife/Appellant appeals the trial court's division of marital property and denial of her request for alimony. Finding that the trial court correctly valued the dental practice and properly awarded same to Husband/Appellant, we affirm that portion of the trial court's order. However, because the trial court did not specifically determine whether certain debt was separate or marital debt, and, consequently, did not allocate that debt, we vacate the trial court's division of marital property, and remand for a determination of the nature of the marital debt, and division of same. Because the trial court did not meet the requirements of Tenn. Code Ann. _ 36-5-121(i), we vacate the trial court's denial of alimony, and remand for further proceedings concerning Wife/Appellant's need for alimony, and Husband/Appellee's ability to pay same. Affirmed in part; vacated in part, and remanded. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals | |
Eldridge Hill v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Eldridge Hill, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court's denial of post-conviction relief from his conviction for especially aggravated robbery. In his appeal, he claims that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to make a motion for judgment of acquittal regarding the especially aggravated robbery charge and that appellate counsel was ineffective in failing to challenge the sufficiency of the conviction on appeal based on his claim that the victim's shooting did not occur prior to or contemporaneously with the robbery. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Michael Wayne Maples v. State of Tennessee - Concurring
I concur in the results, but I respectfully disagree with the conclusion that trial |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Michael Wayne Maples v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Michael Wayne Maples, appeals from the Blount County Circuit Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief attacking his convictions of two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping on the basis of the ineffective assistance of trial counsel. On appeal, he contends that trial counsel was ineffective in the investigation and presentation of evidence concerning his mental health. Discerning no error, we affirm the order of the post-conviction court. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Shelby County Health Care Corporation d/b/a Regional Medical Center v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company
Kevin L. Holt, injured in an automobile accident in Arkansas, was first taken by ambulance to an Arkansas hospital and then transported to the Regional Medical Center in Memphis, where he incurred $33,823.02 in expenses. Shelby County Health Care Corporation, the operator of the Regional Medical Center, filed affidavits for a lien as prescribed by statute. Thereafter, Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, which had medical coverage for Holt with limits of $5,000, paid $1,290 for ambulance services and $3,710 to the Arkansas hospital. Shelby County Health Care Corporation sued Nationwide for impairment of its lien, seeking as recovery the entire amount due for its medical services to Holt. The trial court awarded $5,000 in damages. The Court of Appeals revised the amount of the judgment to $33,823.02. Because we have determined that liens under the Hospital Lien Act do not attach to medical payment benefits paid pursuant to an insurance policy, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the cause is dismissed. |
Shelby | Supreme Court | |
Bethany (Bumgarner) Schroedel vs. Timothy Adam Bumgarner
Bethany (Bumgarner) Schroedel ("Mother") and Timothy Adam Bumgarner ("Father") are the divorced parents of one minor child ("the Child"). In October of 2007, Mother filed a petition alleging, among other things, that Father was refusing to allow Mother her visitation with the Child. Mother's petition sought, in part, to modify the parenting plan to name Mother as the Child's primary residential parent. After a trial, the Trial Court entered an order on June 29, 2009 finding and holding that a change of circumstances existed that affected the Child's well-being in a meaningful way, but not one sufficient to justify a change in primary residential custody. The trial court's June 29, 2009 order did modify the parenting plan to allow Mother greater visitation. Mother appeals to this Court raising an issue regarding the trial court's refusal to change primary residential custody, and an issuec regarding the trial court's finding her in contempt. We affirm the trial court's order as to the parenting plan, vacate the trial court's order finding Mother in contempt, and remand for further proceedings in compliance with this Opinion. |
Hamblen | Court of Appeals |