Opinions
Erika Cienfuegos v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Erika Cienfuegos, appeals from the post-conviction court’s denial of her petition for post-conviction relief, contending that she received the ineffective assistance of counsel which, given that she was unmedicated for her mental illnesses during the plea submission hearing, led to her unknowingly entering a guilty plea. Upon consideration of the applicable authorities and the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Robert Joseph Harr - Concurring/Dissenting
I concur with the majority opinion, except I respectfully disagree with its affirming the imposition of forty-five days’ confinement. I do not believe the trial court justified confinement as opposed to full probation under the circumstances in this case. My view results from the trial court’s findings and the law that guides its determinations. |
Carroll | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Tony Eric Pickett, Jr.
A Hamilton County Criminal Court Jury found the appellant, Tony Eric Pickett, Jr., guilty of evading arrest, a Class E felony. The trial court sentenced the appellant as a career offender to six years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction and the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury on misdemeanor evading arrest. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Troy Douglas Bartley v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Troy Douglas Bartley, appeals the Sullivan County Criminal Court’s denial of post-conviction relief from his convictions of two counts of aggravated assault, Class C felonies, one count of delivery of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school zone, a Class B felony, one count of possession of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver within 1,000 feet of a school zone, a Class A felony, one count of attempted first degree murder, a Class A felony, one count of retaliation for past action, a Class E felony, and two additional counts of aggravated assault, Class C felonies. Based on the guilty plea hearing transcript, the Petitioner pleaded guilty in case number S57,639, to two counts of aggravated assault, both of which were merged by the trial court, and received a three-year-sentence. In case number S58,333, the Petitioner pleaded guilty to delivery of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school zone, count one, which merged with count two, possession of less than five-tenths of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver within 1,000 feet of a school zone, and received an eight-year sentence. In case number S58,374, the Petitioner pleaded guilty to attempted first degree murder, count one, retaliation for past action, count two, and two additional counts of aggravated assault, counts three and four, which the trial court merged with count two. In regard to case number S58,374, the Petitioner was sentenced to fifteen and four years, respectively. The trial court ordered “all counts in each case [to be served] concurrent[ly] but each of the cases [were] consecutive[,]”for an effective sentence of twenty-six years’ imprisonment. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that he entered involuntary and unknowing guilty pleas. 1 Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Russell Dean Long and Jessica Renee Adkins
A Washington County jury convicted Russell Dean Long of first degree felony murder committed during the perpetration of aggravated child abuse and first degree felony murder committed during the perpetration of aggravated child neglect. The jury convicted Jessica Renee Adkins of first degree felony murder committed during the perpetration of aggravated child neglect. The trial court merged Defendant Long’s convictions and sentenced both of the defendants to serve life in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, Defendant Long asserts that: (1) there is insufficient evidence to support his convictions; (2) the trial court allowed the introduction of inadmissible hearsay evidence through the videotaped conversation between the defendants; and (3) the trial court erred by failing to exclude an autopsy photograph of the victim. Defendant Adkins asserts that: (1) there is insufficient evidence to support her conviction; and (2) the trial court improperly overruled her objection to the State’s use of a visual aid during closing arguments. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we conclude there exists no error in the judgments of the trial court. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. |
Washington | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Stein Holdings, Inc. v. Goense Bounds Management, LP, et al.
The trial court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, fraudulent concealment, aiding and abetting breach of contract, common law tortious interference, statutory interference, and civil conspiracy. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Billy Tate
Appellant, Billy Tate, was convicted of burglary of a business and theft over $1,000, and the trial court sentenced him to twelve years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. After filing a petition for post-conviction relief, he was granted a delayed appeal of his convictions. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred by: (1) denying his motion to suppress a showup identification and the subsequent in-court identification by the same witness; (2) not declaring a mistrial when a witness testified that appellant had refused to give a statement; (3) allowing the State to introduce lay testimony regarding scientific evidence; and (4) denying his motion to suppress based on an illegal seizure. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ray A. Tullos
A Bledsoe County Circuit Court Jury convicted the appellant, Ray A. Tullos, of attempted second degree murder. The trial court sentenced the appellant to eleven years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant challenges the trial court’s evidentiary rulings, the sufficiency of the evidence sustaining his conviction, and the sentence imposed. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Bledsoe | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Sara Eigen Figal v. The Vanderbilt University
A professor denied tenure at Vanderbilt University brought suit against the university asserting causes of action for breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation. We affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the university. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Danna Owen v. Timothy Scott Hutten
This case involves a man and a woman who formed a limited liability company under the Tennessee Revised Limited Liability Company Act, Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 48-249-101 et seq, with the ostensible purpose of investing in real estate. The only investment it made, however, was the purchase of a house for the man and his children to live in. The woman supplied all the money to buy the house, as well as all the capital that was invested in the company. After personal differences arose between the parties, the woman petitioned the court to dissolve the company and to distribute its assets. The man asked the court to divide the assets of the company equally between the parties in accordance with the provisions of Tenn. Code Ann. § 48-249-305(b). The woman asked the court to order that she be repaid her entire financial contribution to the company. The trial court dissolved the company. After hearing proof and argument, it ordered that the house be sold, with the net proceeds of the sale to be applied first to the return of the woman’s capital contributions, with any profits beyond those contributions to be divided equally between the parties. We affirm the trial court. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
Sandra Hendricks Franklin v. State of Tennessee
In 2009, Petitioner, Sandra Hendricks Franklin, was convicted by a Tipton County jury of first degree murder. As a result, she received a sentence of life imprisonment. Petitioner’s conviction and sentence were affirmed by this Court on appeal. See State v. Cassandra Hendricks Franklin, No. W2009-01087-CCA-R3-CD, 2010 WL 2265439, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, June 3, 2010), perm. app. denied, (Tenn. Nov. 10, 2010). In May of 2012, Petitioner filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief in which she claimed, among other things, that she received ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court dismissed the petition for relief as untimely. Petitioner appeals. After a review of the record and authorities, we determine that Petitioner has failed to show that her claims fall within the statutory exceptions to the one-year statute of limitations for post-conviction claims as listed in Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-30-102(b) or that due process requires the tolling of the statute of limitations. Consequently, the judgment of the post-conviction court dismissing the petition is affirmed |
Tipton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Sandra Hendricks Franklin v. State of Tennessee - Dissenting
I respectfully disagree with the majority’s upholding the trial court’s summary dismissal of the petitioner’s pro se post-conviction petition. I acknowledge that the petition was filed beyond the one-year statute of limitations for filing a post-conviction petition. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-102(a). However, our supreme court has held that due process may require the statute of limitations to be tolled in cases where its strict application would deny the petitioner “‘a reasonable opportunity to assert a claim in a meaningful time and manner.’” Williams v. State, 44 S.W.3d 464, 468 (Tenn. 2001) (quoting Seals v. State, 23 S.W.3d 272, 279 (Tenn. 2000)). Notably, “a post-conviction petitioner should not be denied a reasonable opportunity to raise a claim due to another’s misconduct.” Sample v. State, 82 S.W.3d 267, 277 (Tenn. 2002); see also Williams, 44 S.W.3d at 468. |
Tipton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jack Price and Larry Thomas Cochran
Following a jury trial, the Defendants, Jack Price and Larry Thomas Cochran, were convicted of attempted first degree premeditated murder, a Class A felony; aggravated assault, a Class C felony; and two counts of attempted aggravated robbery, a Class C felony. Defendant Cochran was also convicted of resisting arrest and criminal impersonation, Class B misdemeanors. Both Defendants were sentenced to an effective twenty-five years’ incarceration for their respective convictions. In this appeal as of right, the Defendants raise the following issues: (1) both Defendants argue that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding by the jury of premeditation; (2) Defendant Cochran argues that issuance of a criminal responsibility instruction was in error; (3) Defendant Cochran contends that admission of his co-defendant’s statements against him violated Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968); and (4) both Defendants contend that the trial court erred by submitting enhancement factors to the jury and by allowing the prosecutor to charge those factors, and that their sentences were excessive. Following our review, we affirm the Defendants’ convictions but, because the trial court utilized an unauthorized sentencing procedure, remand the case to the trial court for resentencing in accordance with this opinion. |
Sevier | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Robb Thompson v. Brian W. Groves
This is a collateral attack on an order entered by a general sessions court. The plaintiff tenant leased residential property from the defendant landowner. The tenant fell behind in his rent, so the landowner filed a forcible entry and detainer action in general sessions court against the tenant and obtained a judgment for the past-due rent. The tenant did not appeal that judgment. Months later, the tenant filed the instant lawsuit in chancery court to set aside the general sessions court judgment. The tenant alleged in the chancery court complaint that the general sessions court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the FED action because the landowner did not give the tenant a statutorily-required notice of termination of the lease. The chancery court below agreed with the tenant and set aside the general sessions judgment as void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The landowner now appeals. We reverse the decision of the chancery court and remand with directions to dismiss the tenant’s lawsuit in its entirety. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Corey Finley v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Corey Finley, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of attempted first degree murder. State v. Corey Finley, No. W2005-02804-CCA-R3-CD, 2007 WL 1651879, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, June 7, 2007), perm. app. granted, (Tenn. Oct. 15, 2007), aff’d after remand, No. W2007-2321-CCA-RM-CD, 2008 WL 726567 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, Mar. 18, 2008), perm. app. denied, (Tenn. Sept. 29, 2008). He was sentenced to twenty-three years. Id. at *8. Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief arguing that he was afforded ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court denied the petition after an evidentiary hearing. Petitioner has appealed to this Court. After a thorough review of the record on appeal, we conclude that Petitioner has not proven that he was afforded ineffective assistance of counsel. Therefore, we affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of the petition. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jonathan Andrew Dietz
A Putnam County Grand Jury returned an indictment against Defendant, Jonathan Andrew Dietz, charging him with rape. After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty as charged. The trial court sentenced Defendant to serve ten years at one-hundred percent in the Department of Correction as a violent offender. On appeal, Defendant argues that (1) the trial court improperly admitted a video of Defendant, according to the State, attempting to rub the victim’s DNA off his genitalia while he was in the police interrogation room and (2) the evidence was insufficient to support his rape conviction. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Putnam | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Russell Lenox Hamblin v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Russell Lenox Hamblin, appeals from the trial court’s dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief following on evidentiary hearing. Petitioner asserts that his trial counsel and his appellate counsel (separate attorneys) rendered ineffective assistance of counsel. After a review of the record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jacqueline Crank
Jacqueline Crank (“the Defendant”) was convicted after a bench trial of one count of misdemeanor child abuse or neglect. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to eleven months, twenty-nine days, suspended to probation. In this direct appeal, the defendant challenges the constitutionality of the “spiritual treatment exemption” provision set forth in Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-15-402(c). The Defendant also contends that, if this Court affirms her conviction, this matter must be remanded for a hearing under Tennessee’s ''Preservation of Religious Freedom” statute, codified at Tennessee Code Annotated section 4-1-07. Upon our thorough review of the record and relevant authority, for the reasons stated herein, we conclude that it is not necessary to address the constitutional issue or to remand this matter. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Loudon | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Bobby D. Parker
Following a jury trial in the Circuit Court of Rutherford County, Defendant, Bobby D. Parker, was convicted of three counts of attempted aggravated robbery and one count of attempted aggravated burglary. Defendant was sentenced as a career offender for each conviction, with sentences of 15 years imposed for each attempted aggravated robbery and 12 years for the attempted aggravated burglary. The trial court ordered two of the 15-year sentences to be served concurrently with each other but ordered them to be served consecutively to the third attempted aggravated robbery sentence. The attempted aggravated burglary sentence was ordered to be served consecutively to the other sentences, for an effective sentence of 42 years. In this appeal, Defendant raises two issues: (1) the trial court committed reversible error by overruling his objection to a peremptory challenge exercised by the State, and (2) the trial court imposed an excessive sentence by applying improper enhancement factors. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jerald Farmer, Individually and as surviving spouse for the wrongful death beneficiaries of Marie A. Farmer v. South Parkway Associates, L. P., d/b/a Parkway Health and Rehabilitation Center
This appeal concerns the denial of a motion to compel arbitration. The sister of the decedent signed several admissions documents on the decedent’s behalf for purposes of admitting her to the defendant health care facility. At that time, the sister also signed an optional arbitration agreement. Several days later, the decedent passed away, and subsequently, the decedent’s beneficiaries brought a wrongful death action against the healthcare facility on her behalf. The healthcare facility moved to compel arbitration, arguing that the sister had authority to bind the decedent to the terms of the arbitration agreement based on several agency theories, as no power of attorney existed. After reviewing the depositions submitted in lieu of live testimony, the trial court determined the arbitration agreement was not enforceable because the sister lacked the legal authority to bind the decedent. Based on a careful review of the evidence, we affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
William Patton v. Cheri Patton
During the pendency of this divorce action, the trial court found Husband in criminal contempt for failing to pay pendente lite support on five occasions and sentenced Husband to ten days per count for a total sentence of fifty days. Husband was not booked or jailed for contempt but he was detained for two hours during the court’s lunch recess. During the recess, Husband’s trial counsel filed a notice of appeal. Husband was returned to the courtroom thereafter, and he and his counsel participated in the divorce hearing, which commenced after lunch. Following the conclusion of a short divorce hearing, the court took notice of the appeal from the contempt action and granted a stay of the sentence pending this appeal; Husband was then released. This appeal followed. We have concluded that the evidence upon which the five counts of criminal contempt were based was inadmissible and there is no other evidence to support a finding beyond a reasonable doubt that Husband had the ability to pay the support when it was due. Therefore, we reverse the finding of five counts of criminal contempt. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Adriana L. et al.
The trial court terminated the parties’ parental rights based on a finding of severe child abuse and abandonment and determined that the termination of parental rights was in the best interest of the children. We find clear and convincing evidence to support the trial court’s determination that the parties engaged in severe child abuse and that termination of their parental rights is in the children’s best interest. We affirm the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Melissa Brooke Haley, et al v. State of Tennessee
This is a medical malpractice case. The plaintiff filed a claim with the Division of Claims Administration, as the resident physician alleged to have engaged in negligence was purportedly connected to a University of Tennessee training program at Erlanger Hospital in Chattanooga, Tennessee. The State moved the Commissioner to dismiss the plaintiff’s action for failure to comply with the requirements set out in Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-121(a). The Commissioner reluctantly agreed with the State’s position. We hold that the plaintiff complied with section 121(a)’s notice requirement by complying with the claim notice requirements of Tennessee Code Annotated section 9-8-402. We further hold that section 121 does not mandate dismissal with prejudice for noncompliance with its terms, and that the plaintiff’s failure to provide all the items denoted in section 121(a) does not warrant dismissal with prejudice under the facts of this case. We vacate the dismissal order and remand for further proceedings. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Shanice L. Dycus
The Defendant, Shanice L. Dycus, challenges the trial court’s denial of judicial diversion for her multiple convictions for various drug-related offenses, including possession of marijuana in excess of one half of a gram with intent to sell or deliver within 1,000 feet of a school zone. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-17-417, -432. She contends that the trial court erred by failing to consider all of the required factors in deciding her suitability for judicial diversion and by failing to state on the record how it weighed the relevant factors. The State counters that possession of marijuana in excess of one half of a gram with intent to sell or deliver in a school zone is a non-divertable offense and, regardless, that the trial court properly denied diversion under the standard announced in State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 707 (Tenn. 2012). Following our review, we conclude that the offense for which the Defendant stands convicted is eligible for diversion but that the trial court failed to consider and weigh all of the factors relevant in its decision denying diversion. Therefore, we reverse the trial court’s denial of judicial diversion and remand this case for a resentencing hearing. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Monroe E. Davis v. Pinnacle Apartments, et al.
Because the order appealed is not a final judgment, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals |