State of Tennessee v. Vernon Waller We granted this appeal to determine whether the trial court erred in ruling that the appellant's prior felony drug convictions would be admissible for impeachment purposes if he testified. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial court, holding that the prior convictions were relevant to the issue of the appellant's credibility and that the probative value of the evidence outweighed any unfair prejudicial effect. We granted the appellant's application for permission to appeal. After thoroughly reviewing the record and applicable law, we conclude that the trial court erred in allowing the State to use the appellant's prior felony drug convictions for impeachment purposes. However, because the appellant failed to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by the trial court's erroneous ruling, we hold that the error was harmless. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed. | Davidson | Supreme Court | |
Mark Henderson v. Board of Professional Responsibility This is a direct appeal from an attorney disciplinary proceeding originating in the Board of Professional Responsibility ("Board"). After the appellant, Mark Henderson, disagreed with an initial proposal for a public censure, Disciplinary Counsel filed a petition for discipline. Henderson entered a conditional guilty plea before the Board in exchange for a public censure, but upon review, this Court rejected that plea. The Board ultimately recommended that Henderson be suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months. Henderson then filed a petition for certiorari in the Chancery Court for Sumner County alleging several procedural defects, including the allegation that the Board did not have authority to pursue the disciplinary petition because he had not demanded a formal hearing. The trial court dismissed Henderson's petition for certiorari due to his failure to file a complete transcript with the court. On direct appeal to this Court, Henderson argues that the Board lacked jurisdiction to pursue the petition for discipline, that the Board failed to follow the required procedure when it submitted the conditional guilty plea to this Court for review, and that the trial court erred in dismissing his petition for certiorari. We affirm the decision of the trial court, holding that it properly dismissed the petition for certiorari, that the Board had authority to initiate a formal petition for discipline, and that this Court had the authority to review and reject the conditional guilty plea. | Sumner | Supreme Court | |
Joan Schmitt v. James Charles Smith; In Re: S. Denise McCrary v. Joan Schmitt The issues in this case are whether the lien for attorney's fees was properly preserved, and if so, whether a separate action was required to enforce that lien. The trial court found that the lien had been properly preserved and enforced it in the amount of $37,332. On direct appeal, the intermediate court reversed that judgment and held that the attorney's failure to note the lien in the final judgment as required by Chumbley v. Thomas, 198 S.W.2d 551 (Tenn. 1947), or to amend the judgment to include a notation of the lien, was fatal to the preservation and enforceability of the lien. We granted permission to appeal to revisit and reconsider the "notation" requirement of Chumbley. After careful consideration, we now overrule Chumbley to the extent that it requires an attorney's lien be noted in the final judgment. We also hold that the lien in this case was properly enforced in the court in which the matter was litigated. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand this case to the trial court for enforcement of the lien and a determination of attorney's fees on appeal. | Shelby | Supreme Court | |
Rutherford County v. Martha Jordan Wilson, et al This appeal arises out of a condemnation proceeding brought by Rutherford County against the appellees. The appellant, claiming an interest through her deceased husband in the property to be condemned, filed a motion to intervene in the proceeding. The trial court denied the appellant's motion to intervene and dismissed her cross-claim for declaratory judgment, finding that she held no interest in the property under the provisions of the granting instrument. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court, holding that the granting instrument conveyed a contingent remainder to each member of the class. As such, the conveyance to the appellant's husband lapsed when he predeceased the life tenant, leaving appellant without an interest in the property. We granted review, and we now hold that each class member held a vested, transmissible interest in the property prior to the death of the life tenant and that the appellant holds no interest in the property. We remand this cause to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this opinion. | Rutherford | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. James Mellon Although the defendant, James A. Mellon, raises numerous issues on appeal, the dispositive issue is whether his guilty plea was unknowing and involuntary, and the subsequently imposed death sentence in violation of due process, when he was not adequately informed of the consequences should he breach the plea agreement. Prior to trial, the defendant pleaded guilty to felony murder and especially aggravated robbery as part of a plea agreement with the prosecution. The agreement provided that, in exchange for his pleas of guilty, the State would recommend a sentence of life in prison with the possibility of parole on the felony murder conviction and a concurrent sentence of fifteen to twenty-five years for the especially aggravated robbery conviction, with the trial court to decide the actual length of the sentence. Pursuant to the agreement, sentencing would be reserved until after testimony by the defendant in any related proceeding or at the conclusion of such proceedings. The defendant reneged on the agreement and instead moved to withdraw his guilty pleas. The trial court denied the defendant's motion and empaneled a jury. A sentencing hearing was conducted, resulting in a sentence of death. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction and death sentence for the felony murder. On automatic appeal to this Court, we conclude that the defendant was not adequately informed of the consequences if he should breach the plea agreement. We are constrained to hold that the defendant's pleas were not knowingly and voluntarily entered, and thus the subsequent sentence denied him due process of law. Therefore, we reverse the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals and remand to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. | Knox | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Clay A. Thompson The appellant, Clay A. Thompson, pled guilty to theft of property valued over $1,000. The McNairy County trial court sentenced him as a Range II multiple offender to seven years incarceration. On appeal, the appellant contends his sentence is excessive. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. | McNairy | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Leonard Franklin A Shelby County jury convicted the defendant, Leonard Franklin, of simple assault. The trial court sentenced him to seven months in the Shelby County Correctional Center with sixty days incarceration followed by eleven months and twenty-nine days probation. On appeal, the defendant contends the trial court erred in: (1) denying the defendant’s motion for a continuance; (2) limiting the defendant’s cross-examination of the victim concerning her civil lawsuit against him; (3) admitting evidence of the defendant’s suspension from his place of employment; (4) improperly commenting on the evidence; and (5) imposing a period of confinement. We reduce the probationary term to ten months but otherwise affirm the judgment of the trial court. | Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Reginald Terry We granted the defendant's application for permission to appeal pursuant to Rule 11 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure to decide whether attempted aggravated criminal trespass is a lesser-included offense of attempted aggravated burglary, and, if so, whether the trial court in this case committed plain error by failing to so instruct the jury. The Court of Criminal Appeals held that attempted aggravated criminal trespass is not a lesser-included offense of attempted aggravated burglary and thus found no error in the trial court's failure to so instruct the jury. The defendant appealed to this Court. After a thorough review of the record and the relevant case law, we conclude that attempted aggravated criminal trespass is a lesser-included offense of attempted aggravated burglary. However, we hold that the failure to instruct the jury on this lesser-included offense was not plain error. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals. | Shelby | Supreme Court | |
State of Tennessee v. Paul Charles Carnahan The Defendant, Paul Charles Carnahan, was indicted by the Grand Jury of Morgan County for unlawfully, knowingly, and intentionally failing to provide support for a minor child pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-15-101. After the Defendant waived his right to a jury trial, the trial judge found him guilty of the Class E felony "Flagrant Nonsupport" and sentenced the Defendant to one year imprisonment and six years of probation. Further, the court ordered that the Defendant pay $64,041.19 in restitution. The Defendant now appeals that order contending: (1) that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction; and (2) that the indictment contained a fatal flaw. Finding reversible error in the judgment of the trial court below, we reverse the Defendant's conviction and dismiss the indictment. | Morgan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Allen Harris On October 29, 1997, the Hamblen County Grand Jury returned an indictment against the appellant, Christopher Allen Harris for rape of a child in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-522. On January 19, 2000, the appellant entered a guilty plea to attempted rape of a child. He received a sentence of eight years to be served as a work-release sentence for 11 months and 29 days in the county workhouse with the balance on intensive probation. The appellant raises the following issues in this appeal: (1) whether he was properly subject to revocation of a Community Corrections sentence, and (2) whether the record preponderates against a determination that he had violated the terms of his Community Corrections sentence. After a review the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. | Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Luis Anthony Ramon The Henry County Grand Jury indicted the fifteen-year-old Defendant for first degree murder for the stabbing death of his aunt. The Defendant was tried as an adult and convicted of the charged offense, after a jury rejected his insanity defense. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to life imprisonment. The Defendant appealed, arguing that his insanity defense was established by clear and convincing evidence. In an opinion filed August 9, 2002, a majority of this Court reversed the judgment of conviction, modified the judgment to “Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity,” and remanded the case for further proceedings pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 33-7-303. State v. Ramon, No. W2001-00389-CCA-R3-CD, 2002 WL 1841608, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 9, 2002). The State filed an application for permission to appeal with the Tennessee Supreme Court pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. On December 23, 2002, the Tennessee Supreme Court granted the State’s application for the purpose of remanding the case to this Court for reconsideration in light of State v. Flake, 88 S.W.3d 540 (Tenn. 2002). On remand, we find that a rational jury could have found that the Defendant failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, as a result of a severe mental illness or defect, the Defendant was unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of his act of stabbing his aunt to death so as to entitle him to the insanity defense. Accordingly, we affirm the Defendant’s conviction for first degree murder and his sentence of life imprisonment. | Henry | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ruthie Curbow v. James Stucki | Williamson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Randall Scott | Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Roger Dale Lewis v. State of Tennessee Roger Dale Lewis, the petitioner, appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief by the Sumner County Criminal Court. Through his petition, the petitioner sought to collaterally attack his aggravated arson conviction on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel and due process violations in the nature of suppression of exculpatory evidence and prosecutorial misconduct. After consideration of the entire record, we affirm the post-conviction courts disposition. | Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Sherry Hunter v. Jay Ura | Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
Shemeka Buford v. State | Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Jerry Worley v. State of Tennessee The Defendant, Jerry Worley, pled guilty to nine counts of selling .5 grams or more of cocaine and one count of possession with intent to sell over .5 grams of cocaine. For these offenses, the Defendant received an effective sentence of twenty years. The Defendant did not perfect an appeal of his sentence, but petitioned for post-conviction relief on the grounds that his guilty plea was not valid; was the result of ineffective assistance of counsel; and that his sentence offends constitutional due process. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied relief, and this appeal followed. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. | Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Whirlpool Corporation v. Sherry Pratt | Davidson | Workers Compensation Panel | |
State of Tennessee v. Stephen Denton In August 1998, the McMinn County Grand Jury indicted the Defendant, Stephen L. Denton, M.D., for one count of rape, two counts of sexual battery, and two counts of unlawful distribution of a Schedule IV controlled substance. In November 1998, the McMinn County Grand Jury indicted the Defendant for three counts of rape, one count of attempted rape, and eight counts of sexual battery. In March 1999, the McMinn County Grand Jury indicted the Defendant for one count of rape and four counts of sexual battery. In sum, the Defendant was charged in three different indictments for twenty-two criminal offenses involving eleven different female patients. Despite repeated objections by the Defendant, the three indictments were consolidated for trial. Four of the counts were nollied before trial, two more counts were dismissed at the conclusion of the State's proof, and the final sixteen counts were considered by the jury. The jury convicted the Defendant for six counts of sexual battery, one count of sexual battery by an authority figure, and three counts of assault and acquitted the Defendant on the remaining six counts. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed an effective sentence of five years of incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant contends: (1) that the trial court erred by denying his Motion for Severance; (2) that the trial court erred by denying his Motion to Suppress his statement given to law enforcement officers after his arrest; (3) that the trial court erred by allowing the State to improperly cross-examine the Defendant and his former wife; (4) that the Defendant did not exercise "supervisory power" over his patient, and, therefore, was improperly convicted for sexual battery by an authority figure; (5) that the State presented improper closing arguments that were "so inflammatory and prejudicial as to require reversal;" (6) that the Defendant's conviction for assault against an undercover law enforcement officer should be dismissed because the undercover officer consented to the actions of the Defendant; (7) that the State failed to elect the incident upon which it was relying to support one of the Defendant's sexual battery convictions; and (8) that the trial court improperly sentenced the Defendant. Finding reversible error in case number 98-538, we reverse and remand the Defendant's conviction for assault in that case. We affirm all of the other judgments of the trial court. | McMinn | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
John M. Johnson v. David Mills, Warden The Defendant, John M. Johnson, appeals from the denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Finding that denial of the petition was appropriate, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. | Morgan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Dolwin Deon Cormia v. State of Tennessee A Hamilton County jury convicted the Petitioner, Dolwin Deon Cormia, of first degree murder and abuse of a corpse, and the trial court imposed a life sentence with the possibility of parole plus a concurrent two year sentence. On direct appeal, this Court affirmed the conviction, and the Tennessee Supreme Court denied the Petitioner's application for permission to appeal. The Petitioner then sought post-conviction relief, alleging that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. Following a hearing on the post-conviction petition, the trial court dismissed the petition, and this appeal ensued. We affirm the trial court's dismissal of the petition. | Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Glenn C. Summers The defendant, Glenn C. Summers, was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. In this appeal, the defendant presents two issues for review: (1) that he established the affirmative defense of insanity and (2) that the trial court erred by providing an irrelevant definition of "intentional" in its jury instructions. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. | Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Gregory A. Hedges v. State of Tennessee The petitioner filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis claiming a due process violation in that the State failed to disclose a plea agreement with a material witness. We conclude the issues raised by the petitioner have been previously determined and are time barred. We further conclude the facts of this case do not justify tolling of the statute of limitations. We affirm the trial court's dismissal. | Greene | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Zellburge Gleaves The Appellant, Zellburge Gleaves, appeals the sentencing decision of the Davidson County Criminal Court following his guilty plea to one count of aggravated assault. Under the terms of the plea agreement, Gleaves agreed to an eight-year sentence as a Range II multiple offender. The plea agreement further provided that the manner of service of the sentence was to be determined by the trial court. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered total confinement. Gleaves appeals, contending that the trial court erred in failing to grant a sentence of split confinement. After review of the record, we affirm. | Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Karen Scoggins vs. Larry Scoggins | Hamilton | Court of Appeals |
