Opinions
State of Tennessee v. Travis Vaughn
The defendant, Travis Vaughn, appeals the decision of the Dyer County Circuit Court revoking his probationary sentence. The defendant pled guilty in the Dyer County Circuit Court to three counts of non-support of a minor child and received three consecutive sentences of eleven months and twenty-nine days, all suspended to probation but for thirty days. Thereafter, a violation report was filed charging the defendant with multiple violations of the terms and conditions of his probation. Following a hearing, the trial court revoked the defendant’s probation and ordered him to serve the remainder of his sentence in incarceration. On appeal, the defendant contends: (1) that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to revoke his probation as the case was not properly commenced; and (2) that the determination to revoke was error as it conflicts with public policy. Following review of the record, we find no error and affirm the revocation of probation. |
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James R. Troxell
A Campbell County Criminal Court jury convicted the defendant, James R. Troxell, of two counts of rape of a child and one count of aggravated sexual battery. The trial court imposed a total effective sentence of 56 years’ incarceration. On appeal, the defendant contests the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions and the trial court’s allowing witness testimony which, the defendant alleges, improperly bolstered the victim’s testimony. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Campbell | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Christopher A. Davis v. State of Tennessee
The Davidson County Criminal Court denied the Petitioner, Christopher A. Davis, post-conviction relief from his convictions on two counts of first degree murder, two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, and two counts of especially aggravated robbery, but granted relief from his sentence of death and ordered a new capital sentencing hearing. The Petitioner appeals the denial of a new trial and the State appeals the granting of a new sentencing hearing. Having discerned no error, we affirm the order of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Mitchell Jarod Ford
The Defendant, Mitchell Jarod Ford, was convicted by a Marshall County Circuit Court jury of arson and aggravated burglary, Class C felonies. See T.C.A. §§ 39-14-301, 39-14-403 (2010). He was sentenced as a Range III, persistent offender to two concurrent fifteen-year terms. The trial court ordered the sentences to be served consecutively to three previous sentences. On appeal, the Defendant contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions and (2) the trial court erred by imposing fifteen years’ confinement for each conviction. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. John Edward Lynch
A Marshall County Grand Jury returned two indictments against Defendant, John Edward Lynch, charging him with violation of the Habitual Motor Offenders Act (count one), eleventh offense driving under the influence of an intoxicant (DUI) (count two), and violation of the implied consent law (count three) in Case No. 08-CR-16 and felony failure to appear in Case No. 08-CR-98. Following two jury trials, Defendant was convicted of the offenses. He was sentenced to four years for violation of the Habitual Motor Offenders Act, three years for eleventh offense DUI, eleven months, twenty-nine days for violation of the implied consent law, and four years for felony failure to appear. The trial court ordered count three of case no. 08-CR-16 to run concurrently to count one,and the remaining counts in case nos. 08-CR-16 and 08-CR-98 were ordered to run consecutively with each other for an effective eleven-year sentence in the Department of Correction. On appeal, Defendant argues: (1) that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for DUI; (2) that the trial court erred in denying his request for a jury instruction on necessity; (3) that the trial court erred in denying his request for a continuance in case no. 08-CR-98; and (4) that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Chris Brown v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Chris Brown, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of post-conviction relief from his convictions for attempted first degree murder, especially aggravated robbery, aggravated robbery, attempted aggravated robbery, two counts of aggravated assault, and being a felon in possession of a handgun, for which he is serving an effective twenty-year sentence. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that his guilty pleas were not knowingly, voluntarily, and understandingly made. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Wayne Donaldson
An officer stopped the defendant for a traffic violation. When the officer ordered the defendant out of his vehicle to sign the citation, he observed what appeared to be a bag of cocaine on the floorboard of the driver’s side. Charged with possession with intent to sell or deliver twenty-six grams or more of cocaine in a school zone, the defendant moved to suppress the evidence as the product of an unlawful seizure. The trial court sustained the motion, and the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. This Court granted the State’s application for permission to appeal. Because an officer, after making a lawful stop for a traffic violation, may routinely direct the driver outside of the vehicle, the order of suppression is reversed, and the cause is remanded for trial. |
Davidson | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Denny James McAbee
Defendant, Denny James McAbee, was indicted by the Davidson County Grand Jury for the offenses of aggravated burglary, evading arrest, and criminal impersonation. Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement,he pled guilty to aggravated burglary as a persistent offender with a range of punishment of not less than 12 years nor more than 15 years. According to the plea agreement, the exact length of the sentence and the manner of its service would be determined by the trial court after a sentencing hearing. The other charges were dismissed. The trial court sentenced Defendant to 14 years, rejected Defendant’s request to receive the only alternative sentence legally available, which was community corrections, and thus ordered Defendant to serve the sentence in the Department of Correction. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court should have ordered the sentence to be served in the community corrections program. Defendant does not contest the length of the sentence. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Thanath Sayadeth v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, Thanath Sayadeth, appeals from the post-conviction court’s dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Kenneth Womble
Defendant, James Kenneth Womble, pled guilty to driving under the influence of intoxicants (DUI), first offense, pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement. He properly reserved a certified question of law for appeal. The question of the law is dispositive of the case. After a thorough review we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Giles | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Estate of Deola Miller, et al. v. Jim Rice
Administrator of decedent’s estate who was also the sole heir-at-law of decedent asserted |
Hickman | Court of Appeals | |
Gary R. Bunton v. David Sexton, Warden and State
The Petitioner, Gary R. Bunton, appeals the Johnson County Criminal Court’s dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that he is being illegally restrained because his probation and community corrections sentences expired before revocation warrants were filed. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the habeas corpus court properly dismissed the petition. |
Johnson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ophelia L. Lomax v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Ophelia L. Lomax, appeals the Lauderdale County Circuit Court’s denial of post-conviction relief from her convictions for aggravated child abuse by causing serious bodily injury and aggravated child abuse by neglect or endangering a child. On appeal, she contends that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to (1) meet with her or discuss with her the nature of the charges and her potential defenses, (2) call an expert witness at the trial to contest the issue of serious bodily injury, and (3) raise an issue of prosecutorial misconduct on appeal. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Lauderdale | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James Patrick Stout v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, James Patrick Stout, was convicted of felony murder, especially aggravated kidnapping, and especially aggravated robbery. At the sentencing hearing for the felony murder conviction, the jury found three aggravating circumstances: (1) the defendant was previously convicted of one or more felonies whose statutory elements involved the use of violence to the person; (2) the murder was committed for the purpose of avoiding, interfering with, or preventing a lawful arrest or prosecution of the defendant or another; and (3) the murder was knowingly committed, solicited, directed, or aided by the defendant, while the defendant had a substantial role in committing or attempting to commit, or was fleeing after having a substantial role in committing or attempting to commit, any robbery or kidnapping. T.C.A. § 39-13-204(1)(2), (6) (Supp. 1995). The jury also found that the evidence of these aggravating circumstances outweighed evidence of the mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt and imposed a sentence of death for the Petitioner’s felony murder conviction. In a separate sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the Petitioner to forty years for each of his convictions for especially aggravated robbery and especially aggravated kidnapping, to be served consecutively to one another and consecutively to the death sentence. On direct appeal, the Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the Petitioner’s convictions and sentences. See State v. Stout, 46 S.W.3d 689 (Tenn. 2001). The Petitioner filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief, which was later amended by appointed counsel. Following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court entered an order in which it denied the Petitioner post-conviction relief from each of his three convictions and his sentences for the convictions of especially aggravated robbery and especially aggravated kidnapping. The post-conviction court’s order granted the Petitioner post-conviction relief from his sentence of death, ordering that the Petitioner have a new sentencing hearing. The Petitioner appeals the post-conviction court’s order denying relief regarding the guilt phase of trial. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities, we affirm the postconviction court’s judgment. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Danny Smith v. Nestle Waters North America, Inc., et al.
This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 51. After the employee sustained a compensable back injury, he filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits in the Chancery Court for Macon County. During the bench trial, the trial court admitted, over the employer’s objection, testimony from a physician selected through the Medical Impairment Registry (“MIR”) stating that the employee’s impairment arose from a work-related injury. The trial court thereafter awarded the employee permanent disability benefits based on a 6% impairment. We affirm the judgment. |
Macon | Workers Compensation Panel | |
State of Tennessee v. James Edward Church, Jr.
Appellant, James Edward Church, Jr., pled guilty to eleven counts of theft of property valued at less than $500, three counts of burglary, one count of resisting arrest, four counts of auto burglary, and one count of theft of property valued at more than $1,000 in Bedford County. The trial court was to determine the manner and length of the sentences at a sentencing hearing. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of approximately twelve years and six months. Appellant appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in denying alternative sentencing. After a review of the record and the evidence, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Travis Jay Woods v. David Osborne, Warden
Travis Jay Woods (“the Petitioner”), proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that the indictment underlying his conviction of attempted first degree premeditated murder contains a fatal variance entitling him to habeas corpus relief. The habeas corpus court summarily dismissed the Petitioner’s claim for relief. The Petitioner has appealed. We affirm the habeas corpus court’s ruling. |
Morgan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Ricky Lee Burris
Ricky Lee Burris (“the Defendant”) pled guilty to one count of promoting the manufacture of methamphetamine, a Class D felony. The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range II, multiple offender to six years in the Tennessee Department of Correction, suspended to supervised probation. After his second probation violation, the trial court revoked the Defendant’s probation and ordered him to serve his sentence in confinement. The Defendant has appealed. We affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Stephen Vowell v. St. Thomas Hospital et al.
This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 51. An employee, who was rendered permanently and totally disabled following a compensable back injury, suffered severe depression after his employer informed him that his employment had been terminated. He filed suit in the Chancery Court for Davidson County seeking workers’ compensation benefits. Following a bench trial, the trial court concluded that the employee’s depression was compensable and, therefore, that the employee was entitled to receive medical benefits for treatment. The employer asserts on this appeal that the trial court erred by admitting the testimony of the employee’s evaluating psychiatrist and that the award of benefits is inconsistent with Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(15) (2008 & Supp. 2011). We affirm the judgment. |
Davidson | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Donald Robinson v. Memphis-Shelby County Airport Authority
Petitioner, a police officer for the Memphis Airport Police Department (“MAPD”), was terminated by the Memphis-Shelby County Airport Authority (“MSCAA”) for violating several of its policies and procedures. On appeal to this Court, Petitioner argues that MSCAA’s policies, and its application of those policies, violated his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Petitioner also argues that MSCAA violated his equal protection rights by applying its policies and procedures in a disparate fashion. After throughly reviewing the record, we find no basis for Petitioner’s claims. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Estate of Omer Stidham
The Bureau of TennCare filed a petition to appoint an administrator of Omer Stidham’s estate in order to file a claim against the estate for medical assistance rendered. The court appointed an administrator, and the Bureau of TennCare filed its claim. The administrator found that the estate was insolvent but moved the court to determine whether real property held in a revocable trust could be used to satisfy the debts of the estate. The heirs objected, arguing that the claim was untimely and that the property could not be reached because it was held in a revocable trust. The court authorized the use of the property to satisfy the debts of the estate, finding that the claim was not untimely and that the revocable trust was subject to claims against the estate. The heirs appeal. We affirm the decision of the trial court. |
Hamblen | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Farmer and Anthony Clark - Concur
I concur with the Court’s conclusions that all gunshot wounds do not necessarily cause bodily injury that involves a “substantial risk of death” for the purpose of Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-106(a)(34)(A) (2010). I also agree that the State failed to present sufficient evidence that the particular gunshot wound Mr. Westbrooks received involved a substantial risk of death. Accordingly, I join the Court’s decision to vacate Messrs. Farmer’s and Turner’s convictions for especially aggravated robbery and to remand for resentencing for aggravated robbery. I have chosen to write separately to highlight the important role that expert medical testimony must play in many cases in which the State must establish that the injury to the victim carried with it a substantial risk of death. |
Shelby | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Jonathan Radford
The Defendant, Jonathan Radford, pled guilty to two counts of facilitation of aggravated robbery. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced the Defendant, as a Range I offender, to two concurrent five-year sentences and ordered him to serve eleven months and twenty-nine days in confinement, with the remainder to be served on supervised probation. The Defendant’s probation officer filed a probation violation report, the second such report filed against the Defendant. After a hearing, the trial court revoked the Defendant’s probation for a second time and ordered that he serve the balance of his sentences in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it revoked his probation. After reviewing the record, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
William A. Stafford v. State of Tennessee
Petitioner, William A. Stafford, pled guilty to facilitation of aggravated kidnapping and was sentenced to nineteen years in incarceration. Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus relief that was dismissed by the habeas corpus court. After a thorough review of the record and briefs on appeal, we conclude that Petitioner has not shown that his sentence was void or that his confinement was illegal. Therefore, we affirm the habeas corpus court’s dismissal of his petition. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Marvin Christopher Long, Desmond Shelton Spann and Dontillus Williams
Defendants, Marvin Christopher Long, Desmond Shelton Spann, and Dontillus Williams, were indicted by the Davidson County Grand Jury for possession with intent to deliver 300 grams or more of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school and for conspiracy of the same offense, both Class A felonies. Following a jury trial, all three defendants were convicted as charged. Defendant Long was sentenced by the trial court as a career offender to 60 years’ incarceration for each conviction with his sentences to be served concurrently; Defendant Spann was sentenced as a multiple offender to 25 years’ incarceration for each conviction with his sentences to be served concurrently; and Defendant Williams was sentenced as a persistent offender to 40 years’ incarceration with his sentences to be served concurrently. Defendants appeal and assert the following: 1) Defendant Long challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence and the trial court’s classification of him as a career offender; 2) Defendant Spann challenges the trial court’s jury verdict form regarding the schedule of the controlled substance, challenges the trial court’s instructions as to lesser-included offenses, and argues the trial court erred when it failed to instruct the jury regarding the weight of the controlled substance; and 3) Defendant Williams challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence. After a careful review of the record before us, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals |