State of Tennessee v. Demario Rawlings
The defendant, Demario Rawlings, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of driving under the influence, a Class A misdemeanor, and was sentenced to eleven months and twenty-nine days in the county jail with all but five days suspended. On appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Rochelle M. Evans v. Ford Motor Company
The employee sought reconsideration of her workers’ compensation settlement. The trial court found that she had voluntarily resigned and was therefore not eligible to receive reconsideration. The employee has appealed. We affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Davidson | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Mohamud Hirsi Mohamed v. Taxi USA of Tennessee, LLC d/b/a Allied Car Company, et al
In this case, the plaintiff, a taxi driver injured in a motor vehicle accident, sought workers’ compensation benefits from the taxi company that he alleged employed him. The trial court held that he was an independent contractor and dismissed the complaint. The plaintiff appealed. We affirm the judgment. |
Davidson | Workers Compensation Panel | |
In Re Estate of Marshal San Miguel
Michael San Miguel (“Claimant”) filed a claim against his brother’s estate, Marshal San Miguel (“Decedent”), alleging that Decedent was responsible for expenses and mortgage payments relating to their jointly-owned Louisiana property. Decedent’s son, Nicholas Brandon San Miguel (“Beneficiary”), filed an exception to the claim. The clerk and master disallowed the claim. Claimant objected to the clerk and master’s report, and the trial court precluded recovery. Claimant appeals. We reverse the court’s preclusion of recovery of the mortgage payments and expenses and conclude that Claimant is entitled to reimbursement for the mortgage payments submitted on behalf of Decedent and a portion of the expenses incurred on behalf of the property. We affirm the court’s decision in all other respects. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Leon Dickson, Sr. v. Sidney H. Kriger, M.D.
This appeal arises from injuries Plaintiff sustained after undergoing laser corrective eye surgery. Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant alleging medical negligence. Subsequently, Defendant filed an amended answer alleging, inter alia, the affirmative defense of comparative fault. Plaintiff filed a motion to strike portions of Defendant’s amended answer, and following a hearing on the motion, Defendant agreed to the entry of a consent order waiving the defense of comparative fault. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed motions in limine to preclude the testimony of two of Defendant’s experts. Plaintiff argued that, because Defendant waived comparative fault, he could not use the causation testimony of the two experts to shift blame away from himself unless he first plead comparative fault under Rule 8.03 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. The trial court denied both motions. We granted permission for interlocutory appeal. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Glen Curtis Letsinger v. State of Tennessee
Glen Curtis Letsinger (“the Petitioner”) filed for post-conviction relief from his conviction of rape of a child and the resulting minimum sentence of fifteen years. He alleges that he received ineffective assistance of counsel in conjunction with his guilty plea and that his plea thereby was rendered constitutionally infirm. After an evidentiary hearing, the postconviction court denied relief, and this appeal followed. Upon our careful review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re: T.W.
This case arises from juvenile proceedings concerning the minor child T.W. The Juvenile Court for Knox County (“the Juvenile Court”) found T.W. to be an unruly child. T.W. filed a Petition to Vacate Orders and to Dismiss (“Petition to Vacate”) regarding the order finding T.W. to be an unruly child. The Juvenile Court denied the Petition to Vacate. T.W. appealed to the Circuit Court for Knox County, Fourth Circuit (“the Circuit Court”). The State of Tennessee (“the State”) moved to dismiss the appeal arguing the appeal was untimely. The Circuit Court granted the State’s motion to dismiss. T.W. appeals to this Court, arguing that the Circuit Court should have heard T.W.’s appeal from Juvenile Court. We hold that the Circuit Court erred in granting the State’s motion to dismiss T.W.’s appeal of the Juvenile Court’s order denying T.W.’s Petition to Vacate. We reverse the judgment of the Circuit Court. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: M.R.
This case arises from juvenile proceedings concerning the minor child M.R. The Juvenile Court for Knox County (“the Juvenile Court”) found M.R. to be an unruly child. M.R. filed a Petition to Vacate Orders and to Dismiss (“Petition to Vacate”) regarding the order finding M.R. to be an unruly child. The Juvenile Court denied the Petition to Vacate. M.R. appealed to the Circuit Court for Knox County, Fourth Circuit (“the Circuit Court”). The State of Tennessee (“the State”) moved to dismiss the appeal arguing the appeal was untimely. The Circuit Court granted the State’s motion to dismiss. M.R. appeals to this Court, arguing that the Circuit Court should have heard M.R.’s appeal from Juvenile Court. We hold that the Circuit Court erred in granting the State’s motion to dismiss M.R.’s appeal of the Juvenile Court’s order denying M.R.’s Petition to Vacate. We reverse the judgment of the Circuit Court. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
Barry Wayne Dunham v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Barry Wayne Dunham, appeals the Macon County Criminal Court’s denial of post-conviction relief from his conviction for first degree murder, for which he is serving a life sentence. The Petitioner contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Macon | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Dexter McMillan
The appellant, Dexter McMillan, filed in the Knox County Criminal Court a motion to reopen his case, which the trial court treated as a petition for post- onviction relief. The trial court dismissed the petition, and the appellant appeals. The State filed a motion requesting that this court affirm the trial court’s denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the trial court properly dismissed the petition. Accordingly, the State’s motion is granted, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Scotty Lee Myers v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Scotty Lee Myers, was convicted of second degree murder, and he received a sentence of twenty-three years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Thereafter, he filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective. The post-conviction court denied the petition, and the petitioner now appeals. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Bradley | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Hanes Cooper
The Defendant, Hanes Cooper, appeals as of right from the trial court’s denial of judicial diversion. The Defendant pled guilty to attempted theft of $10,000 or more but less than $60,000, official misconduct, and conspiracy to commit forgery of $10,000 or more but less than $60,000. After the plea agreement was entered, the Defendant filed an application for judicial diversion which the trial court denied. Following the denial of his application for judicial diversion, the Defendant was sentenced, pursuant to the plea agreement, to a six-year term of probation. The Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his application for judicial diversion. Discerning no error, we affirm the trial court, but we remand the case for correction of the judgments. |
Bradley | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re: B.R.
This case arises from juvenile proceedings concerning the then minor child B.R. The Juvenile Court for Knox County (“the Juvenile Court”) found B.R. to be an unruly child. B.R. filed a Petition to Vacate Orders and to Dismiss (“Petition to Vacate”) regarding the order finding B.R. to be an unruly child. The Juvenile Court denied the Petition to Vacate. B.R. appealed to the Circuit Court for Knox County, Fourth Circuit (“the Circuit Court”). The State of Tennessee (“the State”) moved to dismiss the appeal arguing the appeal was untimely. The Circuit Court granted the State’s motion to dismiss. B.R. appeals to this Court, arguing that the Circuit Court should have heard B.R.’s appeal from Juvenile Court. We hold that the Circuit Court erred in granting the State’s motion to dismiss B.R.’s appeal of the Juvenile Court’s order denying B.R.’s Petition to Vacate. We reverse the judgment of the Circuit Court. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: A.W.
This case arises from juvenile proceedings concerning the then minor child A.W. The Juvenile Court for Knox County (“the Juvenile Court”) found A.W. to be an unruly child. A.W. filed a Petition to Vacate Orders and to Dismiss (“Petition to Vacate”) regarding the order finding A.W. to be an unruly child. The Juvenile Court denied the Petition to Vacate. A.W. appealed to the Circuit Court for Knox County, Fourth Circuit (“the Circuit Court”). The State of Tennessee (“the State”) moved to dismiss the appeal arguing the appeal was untimely. The Circuit Court granted the State’s motion to dismiss. A.W. appeals to this Court, arguing that the Circuit Court should have heard A.W.’s appeal from Juvenile Court. We hold that the Circuit Court erred in granting the State’s motion to dismiss A.W.’s appeal of the Juvenile Court’s order denying A.W.’s Petition to Vacate. We reverse the judgment of the Circuit Court. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Vigil
Appellant, Christopher Vigil, appeals from his conviction for criminally negligent homicide. As a result of the conviction, Appellant was sentenced to two years in incarceration. On appeal, Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and his sentence. We determine that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for criminally negligent homicide where the proof showed Appellant was engaged in conduct that he knew, or should have known, created a substantial and unjustifiable risk to the victim and constituted a gross deviation from the standard of care of an ordinary person under those circumstances and that Appellant’s actions proximately caused the victim’s death. Further, the trial court properly sentenced Appellant to two years where the record indicated Appellant had a “significant” prior criminal history. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Washington | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Margaret Novack v. William Fowler
This case involves the sufficiency of service of process. After an automobile accident, Plaintiff sued Defendant for personal injuries. Private process server served Defendant’s father with the complaint rather than Defendant. The Defendant answered the complaint, raising the defense that there was insufficient service of process as to him. Over a year after the summons had been issued, Defendant moved for summary judgment based on insufficient service of process. The trial court denied summary judgment, finding that the Defendant was evading service. Because we conclude that there was insufficient evidence to find that the Defendant was evading service of process, we reverse and remand. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Damon A. Tatum v. Mercedeas Tatum
Because the order appealed is not a final judgment, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
Michael Wilsey v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Michael Wilsey, appeals the denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging his detention via rendition warrant, and the State moves this court to summarily affirm the denial via Rule 20 of the Rules of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals .The State’s motion is well taken, and accordingly, the denial of habeas corpus relief is affirmed pursuant to Rule 20. Additionally, the petitioner’s request for bond pursuant to Rule 8 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure is denied. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Jerome Degans v. Tennessee Department of Corrections, et al.
Inmate filed petition seeking review of decision of prison disciplinary board. Trial court dismissed petition for failure to comply with applicable constitutional and statutory provisions. Finding that the trial court did not err, we affirm the dismissal of the petition. |
Hickman | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Estate of Reginald Boya Demonbreun
Personal representative appeals from order granting $27,900 claim against decedent’s estate. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
James P. Hurt v. State of Tennessee
Inmate filed petition seeking review of decision of prison disciplinary board convicting him of various disciplinary offenses. Trial court dismissed petition for failure to comply with Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-8-106. Finding that the trial court did not err in dismissing the Petition, we affirm the judgment. |
Hickman | Court of Appeals | |
John A. Brubaker v. H.T. Beckham
This appeal arises out of a dispute over personal property located on land sold at a foreclosure sale. Because the order appealed does not resolve all the claims between the parties, we dismiss the appeal for lack of a final judgment. |
Cheatham | Court of Appeals | |
Michael Hong v. Leroy Foust, et al.
In this boundary line dispute, the defendants sought to claim property beyond a road known as “Creek Road.” The trial court concluded that the road constituted the defendants’ southern boundary. However, because the plaintiff’s complaint sought the adoption of a survey that conceded a small strip of land south of Creek Road to the defendants, along with the fact that the plaintiff testified that he believed that the defendants owned some property south of Creek Road, the trial court granted the defendants a strip alongside the road about four feet deep. After the defendants moved to conform their pleading to the proof and sought relief under the doctrine of adverse possession, the trial court reopened the proof to consider adverse use. Another opinion was issued awarding the defendants a strip extending approximately ten feet from the southern edge of Creek Road. The defendants appeal. We affirm the findings of the trial court. |
Anderson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Chad Allen Love
Following a jury trial, the Defendant, Chad Allen Love, was convicted of one count of aggravated robbery. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-402. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction. Following our review, we conclude that the evidence was insufficient to establish the Defendant’s identity as the perpetrator of the crime. Accordingly, we reverse and dismiss the judgment of the trial court. |
Sevier | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Megan A. Rowe Ellis v. Sammy D. Rowe, Jr.
The divorce action in this case was commenced in 2001. The Final Decree in the divorce action was entered in January 2008. Subsequently, the case was transferred to the Circuit Court in an adjoining county. Post to that transfer, numerous motions and petitions were filed in the Trial Court and on January 5, 2011 the Trial Court tried the issues relating to child support and a parenting plan. As a result of that hearing a Judgment was entered which held that the father failed to appear for the hearing, despite proper notice, had failed to respond to discovery and mediation in violation of the Court's order and the Court found that the mother's proposed parenting plan was in the children's best interest and incorporated the same in its Decree. The Court awarded child support based on the computed amount of income of the father, and also awarded the mother Judgment for her attorney's fees. The Court dismissed all of the father's request for relief and the father appealed. We hold that the facts relied on by the father in his brief are not supported by any evidence in the record, and his conclusions of law are not supported by authority, and the record establishes no basis for finding any merit in the issues raised on appeal. We affirm the Judgment of the Trial Court. |
Jefferson | Court of Appeals |