Courtney Allison West v. Phillip Ryan Chase Byrd
The Notice of Appeal filed by the appellant, Courtney Allison West, stated that appellant was appealing the judgment entered on January 7, 2021. As the parenting plan entered on January 7, 2021 does not constitute a final appealable judgment, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal. |
Scott | Court of Appeals | |
Amber Lyn Rogers v. Joshua Michael Rogers, Sr.
A wife obtained an ex parte order of protection from her estranged husband. After a hearing, the trial court found that the wife had proven the allegations of domestic abuse by a preponderance of the evidence. So the court extended the order of protection for one year. Because the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s abuse finding, we affirm. |
Blount | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Marvin Maurice DeBerry
A jury convicted the Defendant, Marvin Maurice DeBerry, of driving after having been declared a motor vehicle habitual offender (“MVHO”) and of three misdemeanor offenses not presented for appellate review. After his conviction but prior to his sentencing, an amendment to the statute that was the basis of his MVHO conviction went into effect, so that the Defendant’s conduct was no longer criminalized and, concomitantly, triggered no penalty. The trial court, after initially sentencing the Defendant to serve five years, modified the Defendant’s judgment to reflect that he was to be subjected to no penalty. On appeal, we are called to determine whether the Defendant may benefit from the savings statute in Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-11-112. We hold that the savings statute applies because Legislature’s act of removing punishment for the offense constitutes a lesser penalty. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment reducing the Defendant’s sentence. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Debra Sue Byington v. Jamie Reaves, D.O., Et Al.
This is a health care liability case. The trial court granted Appellees’ motion to dismiss because Appellant failed to provide Appellees with the proper pre-suit notice under Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-121(a)(1). Discerning no error, we affirm. |
Sullivan | Court of Appeals | |
Alexander R. Carino v. State of Tennessee
Alexander R. Carino, Petitioner, appeals the summary dismissal of his 2020 Petition for Post-Conviction Relief which challenged his 2010 convictions for two counts of second degree murder. We affirm. |
Cumberland | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Stacy Ann Givens
Defendant-Appellant, Stacy Ann Givens, was indicted by a Henderson County grand jury of filing a false police report in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-16-502, a Class D felony, and misuse of 911 in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 7-86-316, a Class C felony. Following a jury trial, the Defendant was convicted of both offenses. The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range II, multiple offender to five years’ imprisonment for the filing a false police report conviction and thirty days’ imprisonment for the misuse of 911 conviction, to be served concurrently. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant presents the following issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to support the filing a false police report conviction, and (2) whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying the Defendant an alternative sentence. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Henderson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Braxton Levar Taylor
A Madison County jury convicted the defendant, Braxton Levar Taylor, of second-degree murder and unlawful possession of a firearm for which he received an effective sentence of twenty-five years’ incarceration. On appeal, the defendant argues the trial court erred in denying two, pre-trial motions to suppress the victim’s dying declaration, wherein the victim named the defendant as his shooter, and a photographic lineup which contained his picture and resulted in two witness identifications. The defendant also argues the trial court erred by failing to provide a jury instruction concerning the victim’s dying declaration and in sentencing. Following our review of the briefs, the record, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Randall G. Himes v. Elizabeth Bates Himes
In this post-divorce dispute, ex-spouses filed competing petitions to modify alimony. The wife also sought to hold her former husband in civil contempt for failure to maintain the term life insurance policy specified in the parties’ marital dissolution agreement. The trial court declined to hold the husband in contempt. Both parties obtained partial relief on their modification petitions. The court granted the wife a judgment for a retroactive increase in alimony. The court also reduced the husband’s alimony obligation prospectively based on his inability to pay the current amount during his retirement. We conclude that the evidence preponderates against a finding that the husband had the ability to pay additional alimony in the first two months of 2019. We further conclude that the wife is entitled to an award of post-judgment interest. So we modify the court’s retroactive judgment accordingly. Otherwise, we affirm. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
In Re Brilee E. et al.
Two children were removed from their grandmother’s custody and subsequently adjudicated dependent and neglected. The grandmother appeals the trial court’s denial of her petition for custody of the children, asserting that granting her custody is in the children’s best interest. We affirm the trial court’s judgment as to one child and dismiss the appeal as moot as to the other. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Elgene K. Porter
The Petitioner, Elgene K. Porter, acting pro se, appeals the summary dismissal of his “Motion to Correct and/or Amend Sentence” pursuant to Rule 36.1 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure. Upon our review, we affirm. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State, ex rel., James Frederick Roberts v. Elizabeth Dale Crafton
This appeal concerns a post-divorce child support matter. Elizabeth Dale Crafton (“Mother”) sued James Frederick Roberts (“Father”) for divorce. In 2007, the Circuit Court for Shelby County (“the Circuit Court”) entered a final decree of divorce in the case. In 2008, the Circuit Court entered a permanent parenting plan concerning the parties’ children. The Juvenile Court for Shelby County (“the Juvenile Court”) later accepted jurisdiction for child support matters. Father went on to file a series of motions seeking to be relieved from paying for private school tuition. In 2019, the Juvenile Court entered an order denying Father relief and resolving all outstanding matters. Father appeals, arguing among other things that the original child support order is void as against public policy for failure to adhere to the Child Support Guidelines, and that the succeeding orders are void, as well. As the original child support order did not entirely relieve the parents of their duty to support and otherwise was jurisdictionally sound, we hold that it is not void. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Timothy Leon Ledford
The Defendant, Timothy Leon Ledford, pleaded guilty to eleven counts of aggravated assault, and he was sentenced to an effective sentence of twenty-four years in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant challenges his sentence by arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing an excessive sentence, denying him alternative sentencing, and ordering consecutive sentencing. We affirm the trial court’s judgments. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Rimmer
This is a direct appeal in a capital case. The defendant had one prior trial. In the second trial, a Shelby County jury found the defendant guilty of first degree premeditated murder, murder in the perpetration of robbery, and aggravated robbery. He was sentenced to death plus a consecutive eighteen years of incarceration. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the convictions and the sentence. We now consider the appeal on automatic review pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-206(a)(1). We hold the following: (1) based on sequential jury instructions given in the first trial, the first jury did not have a full opportunity to consider the felony murder count, so double jeopardy principles did not bar retrial on the felony murder count; (2) alleged prosecutorial misconduct in the first trial did not trigger double jeopardy protections and did not bar retrial of the defendant; (3) because the State did not have a duty to preserve the defendant’s vehicle, the trial court did not err in denying the defendant’s motion to suppress DNA evidence from the vehicle; (4) the trial court did not err under Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b) in admitting evidence of the defendant’s prior convictions for rape and assault of the victim; and (5) the trial court did not err under Rule 404(b) in admitting evidence of the defendant’s escape attempts and corroborating evidence of homemade shanks in his cell. We hold further that imposition of the death penalty is not arbitrary, given the circumstances of the crime; that the evidence supports the jury’s finding that the State proved one aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt; that the evidence supports the jury’s conclusion that the aggravating circumstance outweighed any mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt; and that the sentence of death is neither excessive nor disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases. As to the remaining issues raised by the defendant, we agree with the conclusions of the Court of Criminal Appeals and attach as an appendix to this opinion the relevant portions of the intermediate court’s decision. We affirm the convictions and the sentence. Note: See "Rehear Order May 21, 2021". |
Shelby | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Rimmer - Concurring
I concur in the Court’s opinion except for the analysis of the proportionality review. In 1997, this Court narrowed the scope of the proportionality review required by Tennessee Code Annotated section 39 13 206(c)(1)(D) (2018 & Supp. 2020) by limiting consideration to only those cases in which the State sought the death penalty. State v. Bland, 958 S.W.2d 651, 666 (Tenn. 1997). A majority of this Court reaffirmed this truncated approach in State v. Pruitt, 415 S.W.3d 180, 217 (Tenn. 2013). |
Shelby | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Jimmie Dean Roy
Pursuant to a plea agreement, the Defendant, Jimmie Dean Roy, pled guilty to five counts of identity theft and one count of identity theft trafficking, and he conceded that he violated the terms of his probation with respect to his prior convictions for three counts of burglary of an automobile and one count of theft of property valued over $1,000. The Defendant received an effective eight-year sentence to be served in confinement, and the trial court stayed the execution of the sentence and granted the Defendant a furlough to the drug court program. The Defendant subsequently fled the state. Following his arrest, the drug court removed him from the program, and the trial court ordered his sentences into execution. On appeal, the Defendant challenges his removal from the drug court program and argues that he was not afforded due process protections during the removal hearing. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Nulife Ventures, LLC v. Avacen, Inc., F/K/A Avacen Medical, Inc.
The trial court declined to grant injunctive relief to the plaintiff, NuLife Ventures, LLC (“NuLife”), regarding its claims that the defendant, AVACEN, Inc., f/k/a AVACEN Medical, Inc. (“AVACEN”), had been competing with NuLife and soliciting NuLife’s affiliated sellers to do the same in violation of the parties’ written agreements. NuLife has appealed. Determining that NuLife demonstrated sufficient evidence of a threat of irreparable injury warranting injunctive relief, we reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand this matter to the trial court for further proceedings. |
Hamilton | Court of Appeals | |
James Eggleston v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, James Eggleston, appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition, arguing the post-conviction court erred in finding he received the effective assistance of counsel at trial. Following our thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Russell Wheeler, Jr.
A Madison County jury convicted the defendant, Russell Wheeler, Jr., of attempted aggravated statutory rape, attempted solicitation of a minor, and disorderly conduct. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed an effective sentence of six years, eleven months, and twenty-nine days in confinement. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his attempted aggravated statutory rape and attempted solicitation of a minor convictions. The defendant also contends the trial court erred in failing to merge his convictions and in ordering a sentence of confinement without requiring a psychosexual evaluation or properly considering the appropriate factors. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court with respect to the defendant’s convictions for attempted aggravated statutory rape and disorderly conduct. However, we vacate the defendant’s conviction for attempted solicitation of a minor because the defendant was convicted of a crime which does not exist. Consequently, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jamarcus Dequan Murdock
Aggrieved of his Hardeman County Circuit Court jury convictions of aggravated robbery, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence for two of his convictions and the total effective sentence. We affirm the defendant’s convictions but, because the trial court failed to make the requisite findings to support consecutive sentences based upon the dangerous offender category, we vacate the imposition of consecutive sentences and remand the case for the limited purpose of making the appropriate findings on this issue. Upon remand, the trial court should also correct the minor clerical error in the judgment form for Count 3. |
Hardeman | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
William Maurice West, Jr. v. Julie A. West
A decedent’s son brought an action for unlawful detainer against the decedent’s widow in general sessions court in an effort to take possession of property left to the son in the decedent’s will. After the general sessions court dismissed the son’s case, he requested a de novo appeal in circuit court. The son prevailed in the circuit court proceeding, and the widow appealed. Because the widow did not occupy the property pursuant to a landlord-tenant contract, the son does not have a cause of action for unlawful detainer. We, therefore, conclude that the circuit court erred in awarding possession of the property to the son. The judgment of the circuit court is reversed and the case is remanded for entry of an order of dismissal. |
Knox | Court of Appeals | |
David Nichols v. Metropolitan Nashville Airport Authority
This case concerns the civil rights exception to government liability for an employee’s negligent acts under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-29-205(2). The plaintiff filed a complaint against the Metropolitan Nashville Airport Authority, asserting three negligence claims. He alleged that airport officers injured him by using an “arm bar restraint” during an arrest. The trial court dismissed the complaint upon finding the allegations amounted to a claim that the officers violated his civil rights by using excessive force. On appeal, the plaintiff argues that the civil rights exception does not apply because he alleged that the officers negligently assessed the amount of force necessary rather than alleging that they intentionally used excessive force. We agree with the trial court’s determination that the plaintiff’s allegations sound squarely in civil rights and are barred by § 20-29-205(2). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Mario Myers
A Shelby County jury convicted the defendant, Mario Myers, of aggravated sexual battery for which he received a twelve-year sentence. On appeal, the defendant asserts the trial court erred in denying his right to self-representation and challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Kimberly Anne McGrath v. Melissa Powers Hester
This appeal arises from an action regarding life insurance proceeds. As part of a permanent parenting plan, both parents were to insure their respective lives for $300,000 until the child support obligation was completed, with the children named as the sole beneficiaries to the policies and the other parent named as trustee for the benefit of the children. The Trial Court granted summary judgment finding that the children had a vested interest in the life insurance policy but that they were only entitled to the portion of the proceeds equivalent to the remaining child support obligation. With the defendant’s concession on appeal that the children had a vested interest in the life insurance proceeds, that a constructive trust was appropriate, and that the most recent permanent parenting plan was controlling, the only issues before this Court involved the amount of life insurance proceeds to which the children were entitled and attorney’s fees. We modify the amount of the Trial Court’s judgment and hold that the children are entitled to the entire $300,000 life insurance proceeds per the agreed permanent parenting plan. We affirm the Trial Court’s denial of attorney’s fees. Additionally, we deny the mother’s request for an award of attorney’s fees incurred on appeal. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
Natasha S. Et Al. v. Madison M.
Adoptive parents filed a petition to terminate their child’s visitation with her biological grandmother on the grounds that the grandmother violated the terms of the agreed order setting visitation. The trial court terminated the grandmother’s visitation based upon its determination that continued visitation presented a risk of substantial harm to the child. Because the trial court failed to analyze the case under the legal standards applicable to a modification of visitation, we vacate the order of the trial court and remand for the entry of an order with the necessary findings of fact and conclusions of law. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
Candes Prewitt v. Saint Thomas Health
The plaintiff commenced this action against Saint Thomas Health alleging negligence per se and invasion of privacy through the unauthorized access and disclosure of her confidential medical records relating to the birth of her child at Saint Thomas Midtown Hospital (“Midtown Hospital”) in violation of Tennessee’s Patient’s Privacy Protection Act. Saint Thomas Health responded by filing a motion to dismiss under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 8.01 for failure to plead facts stating a claim with particularity. Specifically, it argued the claims should be dismissed because the complaint failed to address how Saint Thomas Health could be held liable for unauthorized access and use of the plaintiff’s medical information from a separate and distinct entity, Midtown Hospital, when the complaint did not allege that an employee or agent of Saint Thomas Medical engaged in such conduct. Alternatively, relying on Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6), Saint Thomas Health claimed the action was barred by the statute of limitations under Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-104. The trial court granted the motion on both grounds and dismissed all claims. This appeal followed. In her appellate brief, Plaintiff takes issue with the trial court’s application of the statute of limitations but ignores the trial court’s dismissal of her claims under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 8.01. Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 27 provides that the appellant’s brief shall contain “[a] statement of facts, setting forth the facts relevant to the issues presented for review with appropriate references to the record” as well as “an argument” setting forth the contentions of the appellant with respect to the issues presented. Tenn. R. App. P. 27(a)(6) and (7). Additionally, Rule 6(a)(4) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals requires the appellant provide a written argument in regard to each issue on appeal that includes “[a] statement of each determinative fact relied upon with citation to the record where evidence of such fact may be found.” A party’s failure to comply with these rules “waives the issues for review.” Bean v. Bean, 40 S.W.3d 52, 55 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000). Plaintiff’s brief fails to comply with these rules by, inter alia, failing to set forth an argument or facts relevant to the trial court’s dismissal of her complaint under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 8.01, which was an independent basis for dismissal. As a consequence, the issue is waived. Accordingly, we affirm. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals |