Harding Academy v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, et al.
The Zoning Administrator of the Metropolitan Codes Department of Nashville and Davidson County issued a permit to an elementary school to create a park on property adjacent to the school campus. The local neighborhood association appealed the issuance of the permit to the Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals. The Board revoked the permit on the basis that (1) the property would not remain in its natural state; (2) the school intended to use the property as athletic fields for the physical education of their students; (3) instructional activity is not allowed in a park; and (4) the requested use of the property would more likely be classified as a recreation center. The elementary school filed a common law writ of certiorari in Davidson County Chancery Court appealing the revocation. The chancery court reversed the decision of the Board and reinstated the permit finding that the Board acted arbitrarily, capriciously, illegally, beyond its authority, and without supporting evidence in the record. We affirm the decision of the chancery court in all respects. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Brian Lee Cable
The defendant, Brian Lee Cable, was convicted by a Blount County jury of two counts of aggravated burglary, a Class C felony; two counts of theft over $10,000, a Class C felony; two counts of burglary, a Class D felony; and four counts of theft over $1000, a Class D felony. The trial court sentenced him as a Range I, standard offender to three years for each of the Class C felonies and two years for each of the Class D felonies, imposed fines totaling $22,000, and ordered restitution totaling almost $18,000. Finding the defendant to be an offender whose record of criminal activity is extensive, the trial court ordered that all his sentences be served consecutively, for an effective sentence of twenty-four years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant challenges the aggregate length and manner of service of his sentences, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his request for alternative sentencing, in ordering consecutive sentences, and in imposing excessive fines without regard to his ability to pay. Finding no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court but remand for entry of corrected judgments in Count 8 to reflect that the sentence is to be run consecutively to the sentence in Count 7, instead of Count 6, and in Count 2 to reflect that no fine was imposed for that count. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Chivous Robinson v. State of Tennessee
The Appellant, Chivous Robinson, appeals the judgment of the Knox County Criminal Court denying post-conviction relief. Robinson was convicted of second degree murder and solicitation to commit first degree murder and subsequently sentenced to an effective thirty-four year sentence. On appeal, Robinson argues that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel, specifically arguing that counsel was ineffective by: (1) not raising the issue of newly discovered evidence on direct appeal; and (2) not seeking jury instructions on the lesser included offenses of reckless homicide and criminally negligent homicide and not appealing the failure of the trial court to instruct on these lesser offenses. After review, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jennie Jones v. Professional Motorcycle Escort Service, LLC, et al
We accepted Defendant’s interlocutory appeal in this personal injury action to determine whether, under Tennessee Code Annotated section 20-1-119, a plaintiff is required to obtain the permission of the trial court to file an amended complaint naming an additional defendant after an original defendant alleges possible fault by that nonparty. We conclude that permission to file is necessary under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 15.01. We also conclude that, under the facts of this case, Plaintiff has substantially complied with the applicable rules. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's denial of Defendant's motion to dismiss and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Shelby | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Robert A. Wiley, aka Jabo
The Defendant, Robert A. Wiley, aka Jabo, was convicted by a McNairy County jury of identity theft, violation of a Motor Vehicle Habitual Offender (MVHO) order, and driving while license cancelled, suspended, or revoked. For these convictions, the Defendant received an effective three-year sentence as a Range I, standard offender. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant argues that: (1) the trial court made several errors in instructing the jury, (2) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for identity theft, and (3) the trial court committed sentencing errors. Finding plain error, double jeopardy principles require us to vacate the Defendant’s conviction for driving while license cancelled, suspended, or revoked. The remaining judgments of the trial court are affirmed in all respects. |
McNairy | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Christopher Hodge v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Christopher Hodge, appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in finding that he received effective assistance of trial counsel. Following our review, we affirm the dismissal of the petition. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Horace Ray Runions v. Mary Runions
In this divorce case, Appellant/Husband appeals from the trial court’s classification of certain real property as marital property. The property at issue was Husband’s separate property prior to the marriage. The property was sold to a third party during the marriage, and a deed of trust secured the balance of the purchase price. The third party defaulted in the installment payments, and Husband purchased the property at the foreclosure sale and received a trustee’s deed in his name only. Husband asserts that the property is separate property under either T.C.A. §36-4-121(b)(2)(A) or T.C.A. §36-4-121(b)(2)(B). The trial court concluded that the property was marital property under T.C.A. §36-4-121(b)(1)(A). We affirm. |
Henry | Court of Appeals | |
Daniel R. Beaird, et al. v. Willie Rogers, et al.
Plaintiffs/Appellees obtained a judgment on a detainer warrant in the General Sessions Court at Lauderdale County requiring the Defendants/Appellants to relinquish possession of the residence at 465 Maple Hill Circle in Ripley, Tennessee. The Defendants/Appellants filed a de novo appeal as of right in the Circuit Court at Lauderdale County. The circuit court affirmed the judgment of the sessions court. Appellants appeal. We affirm. |
Lauderdale | Court of Appeals | |
Roy L. Tidwell and Richard Coggins, et al. v. City of Memphis
This case involves an appeal filed by thirteen firefighters and one police officer currently or previously employed by the City of Memphis. Each of the employees was diagnosed with an illness or condition claimed to be work-related. After the City of Memphis denied the employees’ claims for benefits stemming from their work-related conditions, the employees appealed to the Chancery Court of Shelby County. The chancery court consolidated the cases, reversed the City’s denial of benefits, and awarded benefits to each of the employees. The chancery court’s decision was based upon its determination that the cases should have proceeded under the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act “UAPA” rather than an alternative process adopted by the City to handle such claims. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the City was not required to comply with the UAPA in resolving claims for work-related benefits. After careful consideration of the record and applicable law, we conclude that the chancery court correctly determined that the employees’ cases were subject to the contested case procedures set forth in the UAPA. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed. We also reverse the trial court’s judgment to the extent that it awards benefits to the employees. The case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings pursuant to this opinion. |
Shelby | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Rita Kay Vines
The defendant, Rita Kay Vines, pled guilty to accessory after the fact, aggravated burglary, theft over $500, theft under $500, vandalism under $500, and three counts of forgery in exchange for a total effective sentence of eight years as a Range I, standard offender, with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. On appeal, she argues that the trial court erred in denying alternative sentencing. Based upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Washington | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Bronson Wayne Coker v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Bronson Wayne Coker, appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance for failing to adequately investigate the case or explain the ramifications of the plea agreement and that his guilty pleas were consequently unknowing and involuntary. Following our review, we affirm the dismissal of the petition for post-conviction relief. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Brandon Goods
The Appellant, Brandon Goods, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of first degree premeditated murder and especially aggravated robbery, resulting in concurrent sentences of life imprisonment and twenty years. On appeal, Goods raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting into evidence certain photographs of the deceased; and (2) whether the trial court’s response to a jury question during deliberations constituted reversible error. After a review of the record, the judgment of the Shelby County Criminal Court is affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Denise Kissick v. Edward Kallaher
The juvenile court dismissed Mother’s dependency and neglect petition. Mother appealed to circuit court, which dismissed her appeal without a hearing or presentation of evidence. Mother appeals. We vacate the order of dismissal and remand. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Donna Marie Tait v. William Frank Tait
Donna Marie Tait (“Wife”) filed for divorce from William Frank Tait (“Husband”) citing grounds of inappropriate marital conduct. The parties entered into a Permanent Parenting Plan and a Property Settlement Agreement, but reserved the issue of alimony for trial. After hearing the evidence, the trial court found that Wife was not in need of additional alimony support from Husband, despite Husband’s ability to pay. Wife appeals. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Alex D. Wells v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Alex D. Wells, appeals from the post-conviction court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, he argues that the post-conviction court erred in finding that his guilty plea was voluntarily entered and that he received the effective assistance of counsel. Following our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Fayette | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Timmy Lee Hill
A Marshall County Circuit Court jury found the defendant, Timmy Lee Hill, guilty of possession with intent to sell one-half gram or more of cocaine, a Class B felony, possession with intent to deliver one-half gram or more of cocaine, a Class B felony, and resisting arrest, a Class B misdemeanor. The trial court merged the possession with intent to deliver conviction into the possession with intent to sell conviction and imposed an eighteen-year sentence for the possession conviction and a sixty-day sentence for the evading arrest conviction to be served consecutively as a Range II, multiple offender in confinement. The defendant appeals, contending that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for possession with intent to sell one-half gram or more of cocaine. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Randy Alan Barnes v. Amy Robertson Barnes
In this appeal, we must determine whether the trial court had the authority to enforce the marital dissolution agreement signed by the parties when one of the parties repudiated its terms prior to court approval. The parties entered into and signed, in the presence of a notary public, a marital dissolution agreement. Shortly thereafter, the husband filed a complaint for divorce in which he expressed his repudiation of the agreement. The wife filed a motion to enforce the agreement as a validly executed contract. The trial court granted the husband a divorce, but enforced the terms of the marital dissolution agreement as a valid contract between the parties. The Court of Appeals overruled the trial court’s enforcement of the agreement, holding that the trial court did not have authority to enter a consent judgment because one of the parties had withdrawn his consent prior to the entry of judgment. We granted the wife’s application for permission to appeal and hold that the marital dissolution agreement was an enforceable agreement, and reinstate the opinion of the trial court. |
Shelby | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Donald Williams, Jr.
The appellant, Donald Williams, Jr., was indicted on one count of first degree murder, two counts of felony murder, especially aggravated robbery, especially aggravated burglary and arson. After a jury trial, the appellant was found guilty of second degree murder, two counts of felony murder, especially aggravated robbery and especially aggravated burglary. The trial court imposed life sentences for the two felony murder convictions, a twenty-five year sentence for the second degree murder conviction, a twenty-five year sentence for the especially aggravated robbery conviction and a twelve-year sentence for the especially aggravated burglary conviction. The trial court denied a motion for new trial. On appeal, the appellant argues that the trial court erred: (1) by refusing to grant a continuance; (2) by refusing to allow the appellant to question Officer Robert Shemwell about a potentially exculpatory witness; and (3) by admitting an excessively graphic photograph of the victim. The appellant also contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict. Because the judgment forms do not reflect whether the sentences were imposed concurrently or merged for an effective life sentence, we remand the matter to the trial court for entry of corrected judgment forms to reflect that the convictions for felony murder and second degree murder are merged into one count of felony murder for an effective life sentence. In all other respects, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Albert Evans
The defendant, Albert Evans, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of first degree felony murder, first degree premeditated murder, and especially aggravated robbery, a Class A felony. The trial court merged the first degree felony murder conviction into the premeditated murder conviction, for which the defendant was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole, and sentenced the defendant to twenty-four years as a Range I, standard offender for the especially aggravated robbery conviction, to be served consecutively to the life sentence without parole. On appeal, the defendant argues: (1) the trial court erred in (a) admitting an exhibit, (b) in allowing the defendant’s spouse to testify in violation of the marital privilege, and (c) in allowing the State to “proffer the contents of a prior statement” of a witness “as substantive evidence under the guise of impeaching” the witness with a prior inconsistent statement; (2) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; and (3) the trial court erred in sentencing the defendant. Finding no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jamie L. Bailey
The trial court found that the defendant, Jamie L. Bailey, was competent to stand trial and he pled guilty to three counts of first degree murder and was sentenced to three concurrent life sentences, reserving as a certified question of law whether the trial court was correct in its competency determination. He then filed a pro se motion to withdraw his pleas of guilty, and defense counsel filed a notice of appeal as to the certified question. Pending the outcome of his appeal, the trial court held in abeyance the pro se motion to withdraw the pleas of guilty. Before considering the appeal as to the certified question, this court remanded the matter to the trial court for a determination as to the motion to withdraw the pleas of guilty. Following the remand, the defendant withdrew his motion to withdraw the pleas of guilty, and this court then considered his appeal as to the certified question. Following our review, we conclude that this appeal does not properly present a certified question because, even if resolved in favor of the defendant, it would result only in remand to the trial court for further determinations. Accordingly, this court does not have jurisdiction as to the matter and the appeal is dismissed. |
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Richardson's Brentwood Homes v. Town of Collierville, Tennessee, Municipal Planning Commission
The trial court dismissed Appellant’s appeal of the Collierville Municipal Planning Commission’s denial of Appellant’s subdivision application as barred by the statute of limitations. We reverse, vacate the order of dismissal, and remand. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Northeast Knox Utility District v. Stanfort Construction Company, et al. - Dissenting
I agree with the majority’s conclusion that “Stanfort had sufficient actual knowledge of its injury no later than January 13, 2000.” I also agree that the second amended counterclaim cannot be saved by the relation-back doctrine found at Tenn. R. Civ. P. 15.03. I write separately to state my opinion that there are no genuine issues of material fact, which, if resolved in Stanfort’s favor, would support a determination that Richard Phillips and/or Robert G. Campbell & Associates, LP, are equitably estopped from relying upon the defense of the statute of limitations.
Statements or conduct that support an estoppel claim include representations, made prior to the expiration of the limitations period, that the defendant either would not assert a statute of limitations defense or that the dispute would be amicably resolved without filing suit. Ingram v. Earthman, 993 S.W.2d 611, 633 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998). I agree that the affidavit of Terry Fortner, Stanfort’s principal, along with the July 27, 1999, letter signed by Campbell and the letter of October 7, 1999, signed by Phillips, establish, for the purpose of this summary judgment analysis, certain things: first, that Fortner had been assured, in the words of the majority opinion, “that the general contractor was pursuing [Stanfort’s] claim for extra compensation” (emphasis mine); second, that Campbell recognized, in the words of the July 27, 1999, letter, that “[Stanfort] reserve[d] the right to file a claim for additional rock excavation, as provided by the contract documents;” and third, that the letter of October 7, 1999, indicated that Stanfort’s claim for compensation for extra rock excavation was “being evaluated” and that there was no contract requirement that the claim be resolved, one way or the other, “prior to the work being executed.” My problem with the majority’s conclusion that these three documents create a genuine issue of material fact is that I find nothing in them that brings this case within the rubric of Ingram. Neither of the letters, expressly or by implication, states that a statute of limitations will not be asserted in the event a lawsuit is filed at a later date. Furthermore, there is nothing in either which could lead one to reasonably believe “that the dispute would be amicably resolved without filing suit.” Certainly, Stanfort had reason to believe that its claim for extra compensation was being considered and might be resolved short of litigation; but this is a “far cry” from the necessary factual predicate for a reasonable belief that the claim was going to be paid without the necessity of suit being filed. In my judgment, the facts before the trial court, construed, as required by applicable law, in Stanfort’s favor, simply do not make out a case of equitable estoppel. I would affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment.
|
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Northeast Knox Utility District v. Stanfort Construction Company., et al.
The Trial Court granted defendants summary judgment on the grounds the statute of limitations had run on plaintiff’s claims. On appeal, we vacate and remand. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
David Mosley, et al. v. Phillip L. McCanless, The Metropolitan Government
The trial court held the Metropolitan Government comparatively liable for injuries sustained by a motorist injured in a vehicular accident. The Metropolitan Government was held comparatively at fault based upon the finding the intersection where the wreck occurred was dangerous, it had notice of the danger, and it failed to remedy the situation. It appeals, contending the design of the intersection and whether to install a stop sign or traffic light is a discretionary function, for which it is immune under the Governmental Tort Liability Act. The evidence supports the findings that the intersection was dangerous and that the Metropolitan Government had notice of the danger, but failed to take remedial action. We therefore affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Cathey Jenkins Jackson v. John Jackson, III
This is an appeal from a post-divorce criminal contempt proceeding. The parties were divorced by final decree in July 1999. The divorce decree incorporated the parties’ marital dissolution agreement, in which the husband agreed to pay the wife spousal support over a period of time. The husband did not make the support payments, and consequently the wife filed several motions for criminal contempt against the husband. After a hearing, the trial court entered an order reserving judgment on the issue of the husband’s criminal contempt, but requiring a non-party corporation in which the husband was a shareholder to pay to the wife a portion of the monies received by the corporation in satisfaction of the husband’s support obligation. The husband now appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in holding the corporation liable for his personal debt. We dismiss the appeal, finding that it is not an appeal from a final order, and remand to the trial court for further proceedings. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals |