In re Quadavon H. et al.
Mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to two children, asserting that the evidence does not sustain the grounds of abandonment by failure to support and persistence of conditions as found by the court and does not support the finding that termination of Mother's rights was in the children's best interest. Upon our review, the record clearly and convincingly supports the grounds found by the court, as well as the finding that termination of Mother's rights is in the children's best interest; consequently, we affirm the judgment. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William Jermaine Stripling
William Jermaine Stripling (“the Defendant”) was convicted of two counts of sale of less than .5 grams of cocaine in a drug-free zone and two counts of delivery of less than .5 grams of cocaine in a drug-free zone. His convictions merged, leaving him with one conviction for sale of less than .5 grams of cocaine in a drug-free zone. In a bifurcated proceeding, the Defendant's sentence was enhanced pursuant to the criminal gang offenses enhancement statute, Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-121. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the criminal gang offenses enhancement statute is facially unconstitutional. Specifically, the Defendant contends that the criminal gang offenses enhancement statute violates due process because it is overly broad and void for vagueness and that it violates his First Amendment right to free association and expression. Additionally, the Defendant argues there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions. Upon review, we conclude that the criminal gang offenses enhancement statute is unconstitutional because it violates substantive due process. However, we hold that the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's convictions of sale and delivery of less than .5 grams of cocaine within a drug-free zone. The judgments of the trial court are affirmed in part, modified in part, and reversed in part. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In re Anicia B.
The trial court terminated Mother's parental rights based on the grounds of abandonment by failure to visit, abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home, substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan, and persistent conditions and based on the trial court's finding that it was in the child's best interest to terminate Mother's parental rights. Mother appealed. We affirm. |
Sullivan | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William Jermaine Stripling - concurring
I concur in the majority opinion, but respectfully, I write separately to address the remand that the majority believes is mandated by the order filed and published by the supreme court in State v. Marquize Berry, No. W2014-00785-SC-R11-CD (Tenn. Nov. 16, 2015) (order). |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Dustin Samples
The Defendant, James Dustin Samples, pleaded guilty in Bradley County Criminal Court to driving under the influence and received a sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days, which the trial court suspended to supervised probation following seven days’ incarceration. Pursuant to his plea agreement, the Defendant reserved a certified question of law concerning the trial court’s denial of his Motion to Suppress evidence of the Defendant’s intoxication obtained following the stop of his vehicle. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Bradley | ||
Amanda Gilreath, et al. v. Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hospital Authority, et al.
This is a medical malpractice action1 in which the plaintiffs filed suit against the defendant hospital. The defendant hospital requested summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment and dismissed the action. We affirm. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Rico Cortez Bevins
The defendant, Rico Cortez Bevins, pleaded guilty to three counts of the sale or delivery of a Schedule II controlled substance, and the Montgomery County Circuit Court sentenced him as a Range II, multiple offender to a term of six years’ imprisonment. On appeal, the defendant challenges the manner of service of his sentence. We affirm the convictions and sentence but remand for correction of clerical errors in the judgments. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Timothy Allen Johnson
A Davidson County jury convicted the Defendant, Timothy Allen Johnson, of sale of less than .5 grams of cocaine in a drug-free school zone. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jerrie Coleman
The Defendant, Jerrie Coleman, was convicted by a Carroll County Circuit Court jury of aggravated burglary, a Class C felony, vandalism of property valued at more than $500 but less than $1000, a Class E felony, possession of less than one-half ounce of marijuana, a Class A misdemeanor, and possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor. See T.C.A. §§ 39-14-403(a) (2014) (aggravated burglary), 39-14-408(a) (2010) (amended 2015) (vandalism), 39-17-418(a) (2010) (amended 2014, 2016) (possession of a controlled substance), 39-17-425(a)(1) (2010) (amended 2012) (possession of drug paraphernalia). The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective four years. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions, (2) his speedy trial rights were violated by an investigatory delay, and (3) the arrest warrant was not supported by probable cause, the arresting officers committed an illegal entry of the house during the arrest, and the officers violated the Defendant's Miranda rights. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Carroll | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Bendale Romero
Bendale Romero (“the Defendant”) stands convicted of attempted first degree murder, employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, and aggravated assault for the August 10, 2013 shooting of Nathan Kelso. The Defendant, along with his co-defendant, Joshua Johnson, were tried jointly but have pursued separate appeals in this court. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred when (1) it allowed the jury to hear a 911 call under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule and (2) it ruled that, if the Defendant called a witness to testify that the victim had been the first aggressor in the past, the State could use a portion of the 911 tape, previously excluded by the trial court, in which the caller stated that he knew the shooter because he was the person who shot him in the eye last year. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John Pierce Lankford
Appellant, John Pierce Lankford, appeals the trial court’s summary denial of his petition for post-conviction relief and the execution of his original sentence following a revocation of his suspended sentence on Community Corrections. Because Appellant was not appointed an attorney and afforded an opportunity to amend his petition for post-conviction relief, we reverse the summary denial of his petition and remand for further proceedings. However, because the trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering Appellant to serve his original sentence in confinement, we affirm the judgment of the trial court in this regard. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Bobby Waddle
The defendant, Bobby Waddle, appeals the summary dismissal of his motion, filed pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1, to correct what he believes to be an illegal sentence imposed for his 2012 Washington County Criminal Court guilty-pleaded convictions of aggravated burglary, theft of property valued at $10,000 or more but less than $60,000, and theft of property valued at $1,000 or more but less than $10,000. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Washington | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Devin Lamar Jamison
Aggrieved of his Knox County Criminal Court jury convictions of aggravated assault, possession with intent to sell more than one-half ounce of marijuana in a drug free school zone, evading arrest, resisting arrest, driving with a suspended license, failing to comply with the financial responsibility law, and violating the safety belt requirement and vehicle registration requirements, the defendant, Devin Lamar Jamison, appeals. In this appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court erred by refusing to admit a video recording into evidence, that the trial court erred by imposing a fine greater than $10 for the safety belt violation, and that the court erred by imposing consecutive sentences. Because the trial court erred by taxing the costs associated with the safety belt violation to the defendant, we remand that count to the trial court for the entry of a corrected judgment. We affirm the judgments of the trial court in all other respects. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Kenneth Watts v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Kenneth Watts, appeals the denial of post-conviction relief from his 2009 Knox County Criminal Court jury convictions of vandalism and theft of property, for which he received a sentence of 15 years. In this appeal, the petitioner contends only that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Darrin Dewayne Dickerson
An Obion County jury convicted the Defendant, Darrin Dewayne Dickerson, of casual exchange of marijuana, casual exchange of methamphetamine, and delivery of less than 0.5 grams of a Schedule II controlled substance, methamphetamine, within 1,000 feet of a drug-free school zone, a Class C felony. The trial court merged the two methamphetamine convictions, and it sentenced the Defendant to an effective sentence of three years. On appeal, the Defendant contends: (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions; (2) that juror misconduct warrants a new trial; (3) the trial court erred when it sentenced him; and (4) the cumulative effect of the errors requires that he be given a new trial. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. |
Obion | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Keith C. Celebrezze v. Robin Ruben Flores, et al.
The final judgment from which the pro se appellant seeks to appeal was entered on March 22, 2016. The Notice of Appeal received by the Clerk and Master on April 19, 2016, was submitted via facsimile transmission. The appellant subsequently filed a second Notice of Appeal on May 31, 2016, more than thirty (30) days after entry of the March 22, 2016 judgment. Because the second Notice of Appeal was not timely filed, and the first Notice of Appeal submitted by facsimile transmission was insufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court, we have no jurisdiction to consider this appeal. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Antonio Henderson and Marvin Dickerson
Following a jury trial, Antonio Henderson ("Defendant Henderson") and Marvin Dickerson ("Defendant Dickerson") (collectively, "the Defendants" or "both Defendants") were each convicted of one count of especially aggravated robbery (Count 1), one count of attempted second degree murder (Count 2), two counts of attempted aggravated robbery (Counts 3 and 4), one count of aggravated assault (Count 5), and one count of employing a firearm during the commission of or attempt to commit a dangerous felony (Count 6). The trial court imposed partially consecutive sentences for both Defendants and sentenced Defendant Henderson to an effective forty-one years‘ incarceration and Defendant Dickerson to an effective thirty-seven years‘ incarceration. In this consolidated direct appeal, both Defendants claim the evidence was insufficient to support their convictions for each count of the indictment. As to the conviction of especially aggravated robbery, both Defendants assert that the victim‘s serious bodily injury had to precede or be contemporaneous with the taking in order to constitute especially aggravated robbery. Additionally, both Defendants contend the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury as to certain lesser included offenses and in its instructions as to the elements of unlawful employment of a firearm. Additionally, Defendant Henderson claims the trial court erred in sustaining the State‘s objection during Defendant Henderson‘s closing argument and in sentencing him to serve partially consecutive sentences. Upon review, we conclude that the trial court committed reversible error when it failed to make any factual findings to support its order that Defendant Henderson‘s sentence in Count 1 run consecutively to his sentences in Counts 2 and 6, and we reverse and remand the case for resentencing on the alignment of Count 1 with Counts 2 and 6 of Defendant Henderson‘s sentence. As to the sufficiency of the evidence concerning the conviction for especially aggravated robbery, we reject the Defendants‘ argument that a victim must suffer serious bodily injury before or contemporaneous to the taking of property, and we hold that the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for especially aggravated robbery because the taking of property was accomplished with a deadly weapon and serious bodily injury was suffered by the victim in connection with the taking. We affirm the judgments of the trial court in all other respects. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jeremy Glen Nichols
Defendant, Jeremy Glen Nichols, pleaded guilty to the vehicular homicides of A.D. (Count 1) and Teri Ann David (Count 2), the aggravated vehicular homicides of Teri Ann David (Count 3) and A.D. (Count 4), driving under the influence of an intoxicant (DUI)(Count 5), third offense DUI (Count 6), failure to yield resulting in death (Count 7), driving on a revoked license (DORL) (Count 8), DORL with a prior DUI (Count 9), and fourth offense DORL (Count 10). The trial court imposed an effective sentence of 44 years, 11 months, and 29 days. On appeal, Defendant argues that his sentence is excessive. After a thorough review, we affirm the sentence imposed by the trial court. However, we remand the case to the trial court for entry of separate judgment forms for each conviction, including those that must be merged, in light of the supreme court's order in State v. Marquize Berry, No. W2014-00785-SC-R11-CD, slip op. at 5 (Tenn. Nov. 16, 2015)(order granting Tenn. R. App. P. Rule 11). |
Henderson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Billy Applegate - concurring opinion
The majority opinion adverts to the possibilities that the defendant's arrest had already become a fait accomplis when the behavior that gave rise to the resisting charges occurred and that two convictions of resisting arrest may have violated principles of double jeopardy. The majority notes that the defendant has raised neither of these issues and has, accordingly, waived our consideration of the same. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Essam Eshak v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Essam Eshak, appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief as untimely. He asserts that the statute of limitations should be tolled in the interest of justice because trial counsel had an actual conflict of interest by simultaneously representing the Petitioner and his co-defendant and should not have assisted the Petitioner in entering a guilty plea. After review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Robert Merle Coblentz
Defendant, Robert Merle Coblentz, was charged with one count of sexual exploitation of a minor. This is an interlocutory appeal filed by the State from the trial court's order granting Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained from his computer pursuant to a search warrant. Upon our review of the record and relevant caselaw, we hold that the search warrant authorized the search of Defendant's computer despite the fact that he was not named in the search warrant or affidavit as an occupant of the residence to be searched or as an owner of the items to be seized. We reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for further proceedings. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Billy Applegate
The Defendant, Billy Applegate, was indicted for one count of driving under the influence (DUI); one count of DUI per se; one count of leaving the scene of an accident resulting in damage to property adjacent to a highway; one count of driving a motor vehicle with an expired registration; and two counts of resisting arrest. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-16-602, 55-4-104, -10-105, -10-401. Following a jury trial, the Defendant was acquitted of the DUI, DUI per se, and leaving the scene of an accident charges. The jury convicted the Defendant of driving with an expired registration and both resisting arrest charges. The trial court imposed a total effective sentence of six months' incarceration to be served at seventy-five percent. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends (1) that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his resisting arrest convictions; and (2) that the trial court erred in denying the Defendant's request for alternative sentencing. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
In Re Bailey W., et al
This case involves termination of the parental rights of a mother to her four children. After investigating a report of drug exposure, the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) obtained emergency temporary custody of the children. Ten months after the children were removed from the mother’s home, DCS filed a petition to terminate the mother’s parental rights on the grounds of abandonment by willful failure to support and failure to establish a suitable home, substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan, and persistence of conditions. The juvenile court found all grounds were established by clear and convincing evidence and that termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests. The mother appeals both the grounds for termination and that termination was in the children’s best interests. The mother also argues her due process rights were violated because the court admitted testimony by deposition. Although we conclude that the proof was less than clear and convincing that the mother willfully failed to support her children, we affirm the termination of parental rights. |
Fentress | Court of Appeals | |
HCA Health Services of Tennessee, Inc., et al v. Bluecross Blueshield of Tennessee, Inc.
Interlocutory appeal in suit brought by healthcare corporations to recover costs for emergency medical services rendered to patients participating in Defendant’s insurance plans. We conclude that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) preempts plaintiffs’ state-law cause of action based on implied-in-law contract; that we are without subject matter jurisdiction to rule on whether Plaintiffs should be deemed to have exhausted the insurance company’s appeals process and therefore decline to consider whether summary judgment should have been granted on the defense of failure to exhaust administrative remedies; that Plaintiff is not entitled to relief under an implied-in-law contract cause of action as to those plans which are not governed by ERISA based upon the duties imposed on the parties by state and federal law; that the insurance company should have been granted summary judgment on certain coverage claims arising from plans not governed by ERISA because Plaintiffs failed to exhaust grievance procedures; that Tenn. Code Ann. § 56-7-110(b) does not bar coverage claims; and that 47 coverage claims were improperly included in this lawsuit and should have been dismissed on summary judgment. Accordingly, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and vacate in part the lower court’s order and remand for further proceedings. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Austin Davis v. Covenant Presbyterian Church of Nashville, et al.
Following the trial court’s dismissal of their complaint, the plaintiffs filed a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule 60.02”). The trial court found no basis for setting aside the judgment under Rule 60.02 and denied the motion. The plaintiffs appealed. We affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals |