Opinions
State of Tennessee v. Frank Graham
A jury convicted the defendant, Frank Graham, of the first degree premeditated murder of his ex-fiancee, Taffi Crawford. The defendant received a life sentence. On appeal, the defendant contests the sufficiency of the evidence establishing premeditation. He also asserts that the trial court erred in refusing to suppress the statement he gave police, in which he acknowledged having accidentally shot the victim. The defendant asserts that he was arrested without probable cause and that his waiver of rights was not valid because police did not inform him about the presence of an attorney who had been contacted by his family to represent him. The defendant also appeals on the ground that the trial court erred in allowing certain testimony regarding prior bad acts. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the trial court did not err, and we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Gregory E. Hearn et al v. Erie Insurance Exchange
Homeowners claim that cracks in the exterior bricks of their home were caused by blasting in the neighborhood. Their insurance company denied coverage under the homeowner policy. The juryreturned a verdict in favor of the homeowners. Based upon our construction of the insurance contract and its exclusion for damage caused by earth movement, we conclude that the judgment approving the verdict is erroneous and must be reversed. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
Lisa Arnold, an un-emancipated child, by Renate Arnold, Mother/Next-Best Friend v. Randy Kennedy
The trial court dismissed Plaintiff’s claim for damages under Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-21-108. We affirm |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Lamont Johnson
After a trial by jury, the defendant was found guilty of the first degree felony murder of his girlfriend’s five-month-old daughter. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court’s decision to exclude the testimony of four potential witnesses concerning the defendant’s son’s propensity toward violence violated his constitutional right to present a defense. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the defendant has failed to establish that the testimony of these four witnesses was critical to the defense. In addition, strong societal interests support the exclusion of this type of character evidence when nothing in the record might suggest that the defendant’s son actually committed the crime. Consequently, the trial court’s decision to exclude the testimony of these witnesses did not violate the defendant’s constitutional right to present a defense. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Gibson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Carlos Kennedy v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Carlos Kennedy, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The petitioner is currently serving an effective sentence of thirty-five years in the Department of Correction following his convictions for rape of a child, attempted rape of a child, assault, and coercion of a witness. On appeal, he contends that the post-conviction court erred in denying him relief because he was denied his right to the effective assistance of counsel at trial. Secifically, he contends that trial counsels were ineffective by: (1) failing to consider moving for a change of venue; (2) failing to interview all fact witnesses; (3) failing to file important pre-trial motions; and (4) failing to utilize an expert witness. Following review of the record, we discern no error and affirm the denial of the petition. |
Chester | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Marquon Lanorris Green
The defendant, Marquon Lanorris Green, was convicted by a Madison County Circuit Court jury of aggravated kidnapping, a Class B felony; aggravated rape, a Class A felony; and aggravated robbery, a Class B felony. He was sentenced to twenty years on the aggravated kidnapping and aggravated rape convictions and ten years on the aggravated robbery conviction, to be served consecutively to each other and a prior ten-year sentence. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence and the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Bobby Jackson v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Bobby Jackson, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel at trial. Following our review, we affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of the petition. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Stephanie Lawson Miller v. Stephen Lee Miller
Stephanie Lawson Miller (“Mother”) appeals the Trial Court’s April 26, 2012 order finding and holding her in criminal contempt for violating the parties’ Permanent Parenting Plan. Mother raises issues on appeal regarding whether Stephen Lee Miller (“Father”) proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Mother had violated the Permanent Parenting Plan, whether Mother could be jailed for said contempt, whether the parties’ minor child has a constitutional right to exercise his religious beliefs, and whether the Trial Court erred in failing to consider the testimony of the child. We find and hold that Father did prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mother violated the Permanent Parenting Plan, that Mother could be jailed for said contempt, that the Trial Court did not err in refusing to consider the child’s testimony about his religious decision making, and that the issue of whether the child has a constitutional right is not properly before this Court. We affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Stephanie Lawson Miller v. Stephen Lee Miller - Dissenting
CHARLES D. SUSANO, JR., Presiding Judge, dissenting. With all due respect to my colleagues, I believe the conduct, or lack thereof, of Mother has been blown way out of proportion. Certainly, not all of the i’s were properly dotted and not all of the t’s were correctly crossed, but, in the final analysis and way before the date scheduled for the Child’s Baptism, Father had ample opportunity to weigh in on the decision. He failed to stop the Baptism when he could. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Andrew Douglas Sprague v. Mary Nelle Sprague
In this post-divorce case, the issues are twofold: whether the trial court erred in awarding Mary Nelle Sprague (“Mother”) a judgment against her former spouse, Andrew Douglas Sprague (“Father”), in the amount of $5,604.65 for uncovered medical expenses pursuant to the terms of the parties’ parenting plan; and whether the trial court erred in the process of holding Father in criminal contempt of court. We modify the medical expense award by decreasing it to $2,124.32, the amount claimed by Mother and the amount established by the proof. Further, we reverse the criminal contempt finding because Father was not provided adequate notice of the criminal contempt charges as required by Tenn. R. Crim. P. 42(b). |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
Bryant Coley, Sr. et al. v. Mike Di Sorbo et al.
Property owners, Bryant Coley, Sr., his son, Bryant Coley, Jr., and their wives, filed a declaratory judgment action against fiduciaries, Mike Di Sorbo and Michelle Di Sorbo, after the Di Sorbos refused the Coleys access to a road that crossed their ward’s property. The Coleys requested that the court declare the road a public road and enjoin the interference of its use. Following a bench trial, the court found that the “route” in question was not a dedicated public road. Consequently, it dismissed the complaint. The Coleys appeal. We affirm. |
Cumberland | Court of Appeals | |
George Smith v. General Tire and Emily Alexander
A man who was injured in a head-on collision filed suit against the woman driving the car that hit him and the company that owned the car. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, accompanied by affidavits indicating that the woman unexpectedly blacked out just prior to the collision, probably as a result of her diabetic condition. After examining the affidavits of medical experts for both the plaintiff and the defendants, the trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, holding that the driver’s loss of consciousness was unforeseeable. The plaintiff appeals the summary judgment. We affirm the trial court. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Steve E. Dowlen v. Luana A. Dowlen
Mother and Father were divorced in 2010, and Father filed a petition for modification of the parenting plan seven months later in an effort to reduce Mother’s parenting time. The trial courtdetermined Fatherdid notshow a materialchange of circumstances and denied Father’s petition. Father appealed,alleging the trial court erred in four different ways: (1) concluding Father had not proved a material change of circumstances; (2) precluding Father from introducing evidence of Mother’s mental health prior to the divorce; (3) allowing the parenting plan to stay intact such that Mother is able to return to court to prove her mental stability and seek an increase in her parenting time; and (4) not awarding Father his attorney’s fees. We affirm the trial court’s judgment in all respects. |
Robertson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Sean Leifer
Appellant, Sean M. Leifer, was indicted for first degree felony murder and aggravated child abuse. A jury convicted him of reckless homicide and aggravated child abuse, and the trial court imposed concurrent sentences of four years and sixteen years, respectively. Appellant now challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence and the trial court’s rulings with regard to the State’s expert witness. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Fayette | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Susan Moore Taylor v. John Thomas Taylor
Husband appeals the trial court’s determination that the parties’ residence was marital property; he also appeals the division of the marital property. Finding no error, we affirm. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Ginger Jackson v. Gursheel S. Dhillon et al
The plaintiff appeals arguing that the trial court erred in setting aside a default judgment and dismissing all claims under the doctrine of res judicata. Based upon the record on appeal, we find no error and affirm the decision of the trial court. |
Coffee | Court of Appeals | |
Jalal Bachour v. Devin Mason, et al
This case arose from two contracts between the same parties for the sale of commercial property. A provision in the second contract that was not included in the first provided that the buyer would retain $75,000 of the contract price if an access road to the property was not completed by a certain date. Completion was defined as occurring “upon the dedication and turning the streets over to the town of Woodbury and/or Cannon County, Tennessee.” The buyer subsequently filed a petition for declaratory judgment, asking the court to find that completion had not occurred and that he was therefore entitled to keep the $75,000. The trial court ruled against the buyer, holding that he was obligated to pay the full contract price to the sellers. We affirm the result reached by the trial court because we find that the $75,000 clause was not a valid liquidated clause provision, but rather a penalty. |
Cannon | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Clark Beauregard Waterford, III
The Defendant, Clark Beauregard Waterford, III, was indicted for first degree premeditated murder. Following a jury trial, the Defendant was convicted of the lesser-included offense of second degree murder and sentenced to forty years as a Range II, multiple offender. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends (1) that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction for second degree murder; (2) that the trial court erred in deciding that the Defendant’s two prior convictions for aggravated assault would have been admissible for impeachment purposes if the Defendant had decided to testify at trial; and (3) that the trial court erred by imposing the maximum sentence. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Larry Jereller Alston, et al
In this appeal as of right, the State challenges the Knox County Criminal Court’s setting aside the jury verdicts of guilty of especially aggravated kidnapping, aggravated burglary, and possession of a firearm with intent to go armed during the commission of a dangerous felony and ordering dismissal of the charges. Because the trial court erred by setting aside the verdicts and dismissing the charges of especially aggravated kidnapping and aggravated burglary, the jury verdicts are reinstated, and the case is remanded to the trial court for sentencing. Although the trial court erred by dismissing the firearms charge on the grounds named in its order, error in the indictment for that offense nevertheless requires a dismissal of those charges. Finally, the defendants’ convictions of aggravated robbery and the sentences that accompany them are affirmed. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Robert Otis Simerly v. State of Tennessee
In 2004, a Johnson County jury convicted the Petitioner, Robert Otis Simerly, of first degree felony murder, and the jury sentenced him to life in prison with the possibility of parole. This Court affirmed his conviction on appeal. State v. Robert Simerly, No. E2002-02626-CCA-R3-CD, 2004 WL 443294, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxville, Mar 11, 2004), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Oct. 4, 2004). The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief and a motion for recusal, which the post-conviction court denied after a hearing. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred when it denied the Petitioner’s motion for recusal because, during the trial, the judge improperly reminded the prosecutor to establish venue. The State counters first that the appeal was untimely filed. The State further avers that the Petitioner is not entitled to relief based upon the trial court’s failure to recuse itself. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities, we conclude that, pursuant to the circumstances of this case, the Petitioner’s petition should not be dismissed based on his failure to timely file a notice of appeal. We further conclude that he is not entitled to post-conviction relief based upon the merits of his claim. The post-conviction court’s judgment is, therefore, affirmed. |
Johnson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Andrew Reginald Mackinnon
In 2007, a Sevier County jury convicted the Defendant, Andrew Reginald Mackinnon, of violating the implied consent law. The Defendant appealed, and this Court vacated the judgment, remanding the case for the trial court to determine whether the Defendant violated the implied consent law. State v. Andrew Reginald MacKinnon, No. E2009-00093-CCA-R3-CD, 2011 WL 1460167 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxville, Mar. 30, 2011), no Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application filed. On remand, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to suppress, both of which the trial court denied after a hearing. After a non-jury trial, the trial court determined that the Defendant had violated the implied consent law. The trial court ordered the Defendant’s license be revoked for a period of one year. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it:(1) denied his motion to dismiss; and (2) denied his motion to suppress. After a thorough review of the record, the briefs, and relevant authorities, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Sevier | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jeffrey Booth v. State of Tennessee
Jeffrey Booth (“the Petitioner”) was convicted by a jury of two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, one count of aggravated robbery, and one count of aggravated assault. Pursuant to a sentencing agreement, the trial court sentenced the Petitioner to an effective sentence of twenty years’ incarceration. On appeal, this Court merged the two especially aggravated kidnapping convictions. The Petitioner subsequently filed for postconviction relief, which the post-conviction court denied following an evidentiary hearing. The Petitioner now appeals, arguing that the post-conviction court should have applied State v. White, 362 S.W.3d 559 (Tenn. 2012), retroactively. He also contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Upon our thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re: Victoria G. et al.
This is a termination of parental rights case involving two minor children, Victoria G. and Ethan G. (“the Children”). The Children were born during the marriage of David G. (“Father”) and Rachel M. (“Mother”). When Father and Mother divorced in 2004, Mother was awarded primary custody of the Children. In 2005, Mother suffered a recurrence of cancer. She and the Children subsequently moved in with her sister, Amanda M., and her sister’s husband, Paul M. When Mother died on October 6, 2005, Amanda M. obtained custody of the Children the following day. Father did not seek custody of the Children until April 2006. The parties engaged in protracted litigation, during which Father was allowed varying types of visitation. In September 2010, Father was granted progressively expanding visitation with the Children, designed toward increasing co-parenting in frequency and consistency over time. The visits did not go well, however, and the Children eventually refused to go with Father. The last attempted exchange, occurring on September 9, 2011, resulted in an incident wherein Father was arrested for assault. Father did not seek visitation with the Children after that date. Paul M. filed a petition seeking to terminate Father’s parental rights on January 26, 2012, based upon the statutory ground of abandonment by willful failure to visit and support. Following a bench trial, the trial court granted the petition after finding clear and convincing evidence that Father had willfully failed to visit the Children for at least four months preceding the filing of the petition, and upon determining that termination was in the Children’s best interest. Father appeals. We affirm. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Angela Carroll v. Robert Corcoran
Unmarried Father and Mother of infant child filed petitions to establish initial custody, calculate parenting time, set child support, and determine residential sharing schedule. Father sought to have the child bear his surname. The trial court entered a parenting plan and denied Father’s request to change the child’s surname. Father appeals and assigns as error certain parenting plan provisions, the trial court’s award to Mother of her attorney fees, and the trial court’s decision not to change the child’s surname. Mother appeals the trial court’s calculation of the number of days of parenting time for purposes of determining child support. Finding that the court miscalculated the number of days of parenting time, we remand for a redetermination of child support. We also remand the attorney fee award for reconsideration. In all other respects, we affirm the trial court. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Kevin Fisher et al. v. Rutherford County Regional Planning Commission et al.
The main issue in this case is whether Rutherford County provided adequate notice, under the Open Meetings Act, concerning a planning commission meeting to vote on the site plan for a mosque. We have concluded that the trial court erred in finding the notice provided to be inadequate under the Open Meetings Act. In all other respects, we affirm the decision of the trial court. |
Rutherford | Court of Appeals |