02S01-9804-CH-00041
|
Obion | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Joleen Creson vs. Tammy Creson
|
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
McNairy Co. vs. John Sellers
|
McNairy | Court of Appeals | |
James Judd vs. State
|
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Dennis Smith v. Walker-J-Walker, Inc.
|
Smith | Workers Compensation Panel | |
In the matter of: Kristalena Kay Smith et al
|
White | Court of Appeals | |
State vs. Graves
|
Jefferson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
03C01-9709-CC-00434
|
Sevier | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. CarlosHayes
|
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Schleicher vs. Founders Security Life Ins. Co.
|
Maury | Court of Appeals | |
D.D. Roberts, D/B/A Roberts Construction Co., et al. v.Tommy Yarbrough, et al., Thomas Lumber Co., Inc. v. Naran Patel, et al., and Tommy Yarbrough, et al.
Two subcontractors recovered judgments for work done on a construction project in Clarksville. On appeal the general contractor and the surety on his bond allege that the appellees were not licensed contractors and that neither complied with the notice of nonpayment statute. In addition, the appellant disputes the trial court’s version of the proof and the award of prejudgment interest. We affirm the trial court. |
Montgomery | Court of Appeals | |
03C01-9804-CC-00145
|
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Keffer
|
Sevier | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Jackie Ozier
|
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Zip Gillespie
|
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. David Keen
|
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Worth vs. Cumberland Mt. Property Owners
|
Cumberland | Court of Appeals | |
Ricky Brown vs. State
|
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Jeff Warfield
|
Maury | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Jeffery Holder
|
Lincoln | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State vs. Delores Smith & David Robinson
|
Putnam | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Daniel B. Taylor v. State of Tennessee, John Doe, State Coordinator of Elections, Ms. Bobbie White, Shelby County Registrar of Voters; and Charles W. Burson, Atty General
The only question presented in this complaint is whether a law making all felonies infamous crimes can, upon conviction, be applied to crimes committed before the date of the act. The Chancery Court of Davidson County dismissed the plaintiff’s request for a declaratory judgment. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee vs. Roy D. Nelson, Jr.
The defendant, Roy D. Nelson, stands convicted of burglary, aggravated burglary, aggravated arson and possession of marijuana as a result of his efforts to blow up his ex-wife's home. Nelson received his convictions at the conclusion of a jury trial in the Washington County Criminal Court. A Range III offender, Nelson is presently serving an effective 62-year sentence in the Department of Correction for his crimes.1 In this direct appeal, Nelson claims he was improperly convicted of aggravated arson because he, rather than another person, suffered the serious bodily injury relied upon to elevate the offense from arson to aggravated arson. Having reviewed the appellate record, the arguments of the parties and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Washington | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee vs. Roy D. Nelson, Jr.
The defendant, Roy D. Nelson, stands convicted of burglary, aggravated burglary, aggravated arson and possession of marijuana as a result of his efforts to blow up his ex-wife's home. Nelson received his convictions at the conclusion of a jury trial in the Washington County Criminal Court. A Range III offender, Nelson is presently serving an effective 62-year sentence in the Department of Correction for his crimes. In this direct appeal, Nelson claims he was improperly convicted of aggravated arson because he, rather than another person, suffered the serious bodily injury relied upon to elevate the offense from arson to aggravated arson. Having reviewed the appellate record, the arguments of the parties and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Washington | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee vs. Mark Crites
Mark Crites appeals from the revocation of his community corrections sentence. He challenges both the propriety of that revocation and his resentencing, arguing that: (1) the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his community corrections sentence; (2) the trial court misapplied certain enhancement factors and that his sentences are, therefore, excessive; and (3) the trial court erred in ordering consecutive sentencing. After careful review of the record and arguments of counsel, we conclude the trial court relied upon improper evidence in revoking the community corrections sentence. We remand for another revocation hearing. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals |