Opinions
CLAUDE R. ELLIS v. MELISA JANE GODFREY ELLIS
This is a long-running divorce case on appeal to this Court for the third time. The husband |
Bradley | Court of Appeals | |
Jacquet Moore v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Jacquet Moore, appeals from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his underlying conviction for aggravated rape. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he received ineffective assistance of counsel based on trial counsel’s failure to (1) perform adequate investigation in preparation for trial, including seeking funds for investigative services, and (2) effectively impeach the victim on cross-examination. As a preliminary matter, we remanded the case to the post-conviction court for the entry of an amended order to include sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law on these two issues. After our review of the amended order, as well as the issues presented by the parties and the record on appeal, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Howard Jefferson Atkins
The Appellant, Howard Jefferson Atkins, acting pro se, appeals from the Tipton County |
Tipton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re Isaiah M.
Petitioner/Mother seeks accelerated review of the trial court’s denial of her 12th motion to recuse. A final judgment has been entered in the underlying termination of parental rights case, and Mother has appealed that judgment. Issues related to the trial court’s denial of Mother’s motion to recuse may be raised in Mother’s appeal of the trial court’s final judgment. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. |
Court of Appeals | ||
In Re Isaiah M.
Petitioner/Mother seeks accelerated review of the trial court’s denial of her 13th motion to recuse. Because a final judgment has been entered in the underlying termination of parental rights case, and Mother has appealed that judgment, issues related to the trial court’s denial of Mother’s recusal motion may be raised in her appeal of the final judgment. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. |
Court of Appeals | ||
IN RE ALEXANDER B.
In this case involving termination of a mother’s parental rights, the trial court determined |
Claiborne | Court of Appeals | |
Zurich American Insurance Company v. Tom James Company et al.
This is an interlocutory appeal concerning the scope of a commercial property insurance policy and whether the insured has stated sufficient facts to invoke coverage. The insurer filed a complaint for a declaratory judgment, seeking a declaration that the policy at issue did not provide coverage for the insured’s claimed losses. The insured filed a counterclaim seeking a declaratory judgment that the policy provided coverage and asserting a breach of contract claim. The insurer filed a motion to dismiss and for judgment on the pleadings, which the trial court denied. We granted permission for an interlocutory appeal. After interpreting the policy, we determine that the insured failed to invoke coverage, and we reverse the trial court’s contrary finding. However, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion to dismiss, finding that the counterclaim sufficiently stated a claim for a declaratory judgment. Because the pleadings had not closed when the trial court ruled on the motion for judgment on the pleadings, we vacate the order of the trial court and remand for further proceedings. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Andrew Paige
Defendant, James Andrew Paige, appeals from his convictions for three counts of rape, for which he is serving an eleven-year sentence in confinement. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court erred by(1) denying his motion for judgment of acquittal because the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; (2)admitting the victim’s hearsay statements; and (3) failing to inquire into defense counsel’s unintentional contact with a juror or declare a mistrial. Defendant also avers that the cumulative effect of these errors entitles him to relief. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re Liam M.
The circuit court determined that two grounds for termination of a mother’s parental rights to her child had been proven by clear and convincing evidence but concluded that the petitioners failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. The petitioners appealed. Discerning no error, we affirm the circuit court’s decision. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Riley Davidson v. Shelbyville Hospital Company, LLC
This appeal arises out of a health care liability claim. The case proceeded to trial, and the jury entered a verdict in favor of the appellee-defendant. The appellant-plaintiff appeals the trial court’s acceptance of two of defendant’s expert witnesses. Upon diligent review of the record, we conclude that the trial court erred in allowing defendant’s causation expert witness to testify about his interpretation of a diagnostic image when his opinion about that image had not been properly disclosed as required by the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. We also conclude that this error more probably than not affected the judgment. We further conclude that the trial court erred in allowing defendant’s standard-of-care expert witness to testify despite not satisfying the locality rule contained in the Health Care Liability Act. However, we conclude that this error did not more probably than not affect the judgment. We vacate the jury’s verdict and the trial court’s judgment and remand this matter for a new trial. |
Bedford | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Bravon K.
The father of the minor child appeals the termination of his parental rights. The paternal aunt and uncle, who sought custody of the minor child, appeal the denial of their motion to intervene. We affirm both decisions. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Deviest Patton
Following a bench trial, Deviest Patton (“Appellant”) was found not guilty by reason of insanity. The trial court ordered Appellant to be diagnosed and evaluated pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 33-7-303(a)(1). Upon completion of the evaluation, the State filed a complaint for judicial commitment. Following an evidentiary hearing, the court ordered Appellant to be judicially committed. On appeal, Appellant asserts the trial court erred by ordering judicial hospitalization. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michele Lee Ridgeway
The Defendant, Michele Lee Ridgeway, pled guilty to two counts of the sale of more than 0.5 grams of methamphetamine. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of eight years suspended to supervised probation. Thereafter, the Defendant allegedly violated the terms of her probation by possessing drug paraphernalia in her residence. Following a revocation hearing, the trial court fully revoked the Defendant’s suspended sentences and ordered her to serve the remainder of her sentences in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant raises two issues: (1) whether the State proved that she violated the conditions of her suspended sentences; and (2) whether the trial court abused its discretion in fully revoking her probation as a consequence of the alleged violation. Upon our review, we conclude that the State did not prove that the Defendant violated the terms of her probation. Because we resolve the appeal on that basis, we do not reach the second issue. Accordingly, we respectfully reverse and vacate the revocation order and remand the case for dismissal of the revocation proceedings. |
Henry | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Joshua Daniel Gibbons
Defendant, Joshua Daniel Gibbons, appeals his Sullivan County Criminal Court jury conviction of disorderly conduct, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and that the trial court erredin its instructions to the jury. We find that the trial court erred by instructing the jury on a mode of disorderly conduct not included in the charging instrument and that, in any event, the evidence was insufficient to support Defendant’s convictionunder either mode of liability charged to the jury. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and dismiss the charge. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Todd Allen Burrows, Jr.
Defendant, Todd Allen Burrows, Jr., appeals the Sullivan County Criminal Court’s revocation of his probation, arguing that the trial court erred by ordering that he serve the balance of his sentence in confinement. Because we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
IN RE OLIVIA S.
This action involves the trial court’s denial of a petition for termination of a biological |
Sevier | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Cordero Klein Blake
A Henderson County jury convicted the Defendant, Cordero Klein Blake, of driving while |
Henderson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Dana Denea Hickerson Page v. Richard Charles Page, Jr.
This is a Rule 10B interlocutory appeal of the denial of a second recusal motion. We find, as the trial court did, that the second motion is repetitive of the first and should be denied. We further grant attorney’s fees for a frivolous appeal. |
Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Troy R., et al.
This appeal involves a long-running custody dispute between unmarried parents. In this |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Julie C. Bartholomew v. Douglas K. Southard, et al.
The trial court determined Defendants/Appellants were liable for damages arising from |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Andrew Bettis Aviation, LLC v. Howard Wayne Lanier
This appeal presents two issues: (1) whether Appellant preserved his evidentiary issues |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
BENJAMIN MCCURRY v. AGNESS MCCURRY
The trial court found the appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of three charges of criminal contempt. The appellant appeals those criminal contempt findings. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Washington | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Bradley Michael Lesniewski
Following a jury trial, Defendant, Bradley Michael Lesniewski, was convicted of possession of a handgun by a felon; possession of a firearm by a felon-prior felony drug conviction; false imprisonment; evading arrest; possession of a Schedule I controlled substance with intent to sell or deliver (Heroin); possession of a Schedule II controlled substance with intent to sell or deliver (0.5 grams or more of Methamphetamine); possession of a Schedule II controlled substance with intent to sell or deliver (Fentanyl); possession of drug paraphernalia; and driving while license is suspended, cancelled, or revoked. For these offenses, the trial court imposed a total effective sentence of twenty years’ incarceration. On appeal, Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions. Following a thorough review, we affirm Defendant’s convictions but remand for the merger of two counts and the entry of corrected judgment forms. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re Conservatorship of Leon Aubrey Manners
This appeal concerns the trial court’s decision to charge the costs of a conservatorship proceeding against the petitioner under Tennessee Code Annotated § 34-1-114. The petitioner sought a conservatorship for the respondent—the petitioner’s 84-year-old father—to protect his father and to prevent him from wasting his assets. The court found clear and convincing evidence that the respondent was a disabled person in need of a conservatorship and that it was in the respondent’s best interest that the petitioner be appointed his conservator. But the court charged the costs of the proceedings to the petitioner rather than the property of the respondent. The court reasoned, inter alia, that the petitioner benefited from the conservatorship and that the respondent’s need for a conservatorship was “borderline” and “not clear cut.” The petitioner appeals. Having reviewed the trial court’s discretionary decisions pursuant to the three-part analysis set forth in Lee Medical Inc. v. Beecher, 312 S.W.3d 515, 524 (Tenn. 2010), we have determined that the trial court’s decision to charge the costs of the proceedings to the petitioner was based on an erroneous assessment of the relevant facts and a misapplication of the relevant legal principles. Accordingly, we vacate the decision and remand with instructions to assess all the guardian ad litem fees against the property of the respondent, the amount of which has already been approved, and to assess against the property of the respondent the reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees and costs the petitioner incurred in the trial court and on appeal, the amount of which is to be determined on remand. The trial court shall also determine the reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees and costs incurred by the attorney ad litem in this appeal and assess those charges against the property of the respondent. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Roy Gene Nicholson, III
The Defendant, Roy Gene Nicholson, III, appeals from his Williamson County Circuit Court convictions of reckless aggravated assault, evading arrest, possession of marijuana with the intent to sell or deliver, and unlawful possession of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, for which he received an effective sentence of five years’ incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant argues that his arresting officer did not have reasonable suspicion to initiate a traffic stop pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-8-204 and that his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was violated by the trial court’s granting the State’s motion to continue his trial, during which time the State procured a superseding indictment. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals |