JENNIFER L. BISCAN, ET AL. v. FRANKLIN H. BROWN, ET AL.
Court:TSC
Attorneys:
Alan M. Sowell, Nashville, Tennessee, for the Appellant, Franklin H.
Brown. John R. Hollins, Jr., Nashville, Tennessee, for the Appellant,
Paul N. Worley.
Philip N. Elbert and W. David Bridgers, Nashville, Tennessee, for the
Appellees, Jennifer Biscan and Robert Biscan.
Winston S. Evans, Nashville, Tennessee, for the Amicus Curiae, Mothers
Against Drunk Driving
Judge: ANDERSON
First Paragraph:
We granted this appeal to determine whether an adult who hosts a party
for minors and knows in advance that alcohol will be consumed has or
may voluntarily assume a duty of care towards the minor guests. We
hold that the defendant adult host had such a duty of care even though
he did not furnish any alcohol. We also hold that the trial court did
not err in excluding evidence regarding the minor plaintiff's prior
alcohol-related offenses and her prior experience with alcohol and
that the trial court did not err in determining that the plaintiff's
sister was not at fault as a matter of law pursuant to Tennessee's
statutory shield for furnishers of alcoholic beverages. The Court of
Appeals affirmed the trial court in all respects. We affirm the result
reached by the Court of Appeals on the separate grounds set forth
herein.
http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TSC/2005/biscanj7105.pdf
KATHRYN C. BLACK v. STEVAN L. BLACK
Court:TSC
Attorneys:
Hal Gerber and Margaret M. Chesney, Memphis, Tennessee, for the
Appellant, Kathryn C. Black.
Daniel L. Taylor, Memphis, Tennessee, for the Appellee, Stevan L.
Black.
Judge: ANDERSON
First Paragraph:
We granted this appeal to determine whether the trial court properly
dismissed the wife's complaint for "fraud, deceit, and coercion" after
finding that her complaint failed to state an independent action upon
which to set aside a final divorce decree. The Court of Appeals
affirmed. After reviewing the record and applicable authority, we
conclude that the wife failed to allege sufficient facts to support
either an independent action to set aside the final divorce decree
under Rule 60.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure or a
separate common law cause of action for fraud. Accordingly, the Court
of Appeals' judgment is affirmed on the grounds set forth in this
opinion.
http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TSC/2005/blackk7105.pdf
SHIRLEY HALE v. ERWIN OSTROW, ET AL.
WITH CONCURRING/DISSENTING OPINION
Court:TSC
Attorneys:
Stephen R. Leffler, Memphis, Tennessee, for the Appellant, Shirley
Hale.
Gary R. Wilkinson and Matthew S. Russell, Memphis, Tennessee, for the
Appellees, Erwin Ostrow and Rose Ostrow.
Minton P. Mayer, Memphis, Tennessee, for the Appellee, Max Ostrow.
Judge: ANDERSON
First Paragraph:
We granted review to determine whether the property owners owed a duty
to a person injured off the owners' property as a result of a hazard
existing on the owners' property and if so, to determine whether the
hazard was the cause of the injury. The trial court granted summary
judgment to the defendant property owners, and the Court of Appeals
affirmed. After carefully reviewing the record and applicable
authority, we conclude that the defendants owed a duty of care to the
plaintiff to ensure that the sidewalk was not obstructed by overgrown
bushes and was passable. Viewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff, there are genuine issues of material fact
as to whether the defendants' breach caused her injury. We therefore
reverse and remand for further proceedings.
http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TSC/2005/hales7105.pdf
CONCURRING/DISSENTING OPINION
http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TSC/2005/hales_dis7105.pdf
WILLIAMS HOLDING COMPANY, d/b/a RALEIGH HILLS APARTMENTS v. SHARON T.
WILLIS, ET AL.
Court:TSC
Attorneys:
James W.Cook, Memphis, Tennessee, for the Appellant, WilliamsHolding
Company d/b/a Raleigh Hills Apartments.
Bruce D. Brooke, Memphis, Tennessee, for the Appellee, Joe Leavy.
Judge: ANDERSON
First Paragraph:
We granted this appeal to determine whether a defendant who was found
100% at fault in a negligence action submitted to arbitration was
liable for the full amount of the plaintiff's damages where the
plaintiff had already received half of the amount of damages in a
settlement with another defendant. The Court of Appeals concluded that
the arbitrator had exceeded his scope of authority by requiring the
defendant to pay the full amount of damages and modified the judgment.
After reviewing the record and applicable authority, we conclude that
the trial court correctly determined that the arbitrator did not
exceed his authority and that the defendant was not entitled to a
credit based on the amount of damages received by the plaintiff in a
settlement. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals' judgment is reversed,
and the trial court's judgment is reinstated.
http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TSC/2005/williamsh7105.pdf
CONSOLIDATED WASTE SYSTEMS, LLC v. METRO GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE AND
DAVIDSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE
Court:TCA
Attorneys:
C. Dawn Deaner, Daniel Champney, Thomas Cross, Nashville, Tennessee,
for the appellant, The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and
Davidson County.
James L.Murphy, III; ColinJ. Carnahan, Nashville, Tennessee, for the
appellee, Consolidated Waste Systems, LLC.
Judge: COTTRELL
First Paragraph:
A would-be developer of a construction and demolition landfill sued
the Metropolitan Government after its legislative body adopted zoning
amendments that would effectively preclude the proposed landfill on
the property the company had leased with an option to purchase. The
company attacked the ordinances on multiple grounds and was successful
in having the trial court declare them unconstitutional as violative
of substantive due process and equal protection. Because of the
company's limited interest in the real property, however, the court
refused to grant an injunction prohibiting the enforcement of the
ordinances against the company or to award damages. The trial court
also awarded attorney's fees to the company. The Metropolitan
Government appeals the holding that the ordinances were
unconstitutional on the merits as well as on a number of procedural
grounds and also appeals the award of attorney's fees. The company
appeals the trial court's decision that the ordinances did not
constitute exclusionary zoning. We affirm the trial court on all
issues.
http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCA/2005/consolidatedw7105.pdf
IN THE MATTER OF J. L. E.
Court:TCA
Attorneys:
Elizabeth Earl McDonald, Sparta, Tennessee, for the appellant, T. E.
E.
Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Juan G. Villasenor,
Assistant Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee,
Department of Children's Services.
Judge: COTTRELL
First Paragraph:
This is a mother's appeal of the termination of her parental rights to
her son. After the Tennessee Department of Children's Services took
custody of her son, it prepared a permanency plan requiring Mother to
obtain therapy and case management services and perform other remedial
tasks within approximately twelve months. After only six months,
however, the Department filed a petition to terminate the mother's
parental rights, and the court terminated her rights. Mother appeals
claiming, in pertinent part, that the Department did not make
reasonable efforts to reunite mother and son and that the Department
did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that Mother committed
severe child abuse. We have determined that the Department has failed
to prove a ground for termination byclear and convincing evidence and,
consequently, the judgment of the trial court must be reversed.
http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCA/2005/jle7105.pdf
ROBERT G. ROBINSON v. WENDI DIANA ROBINSON
Court:TCA
Attorneys:
Daryl M. South, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, for the appellant, Wendi
Diana Robinson.
Donald M. Bulloch, Jr., and Aaron S. Guin, Murfreesboro, Tennessee,
for the appellee, Robert G. Robinson.
Judge: CLEMENT
First Paragraph:
Mother appeals the denial of her request to relocate with the parties'
three minor children to Georgia. The trial court found the children
spent substantially equal time with the parents, analyzed the proposed
relocation pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann.S 36-6-108(c), held relocation
was not in the children's best interest and denied the requested
relocation. Mother appeals contending that the trial court erred in
determining the time spent with the parents by deducting time the
children were in the care of other persons - grandparents, new spouses
and babysitters. The deductions resulted in time subtracted from
Mother's parenting time and a finding that the parents spent equal
time with the children. As a result, the trial court applied the
criteria in subsection (c) of Tenn. Code Ann.S 36-6- 108, instead of
(d), which Mother contends erroneously deprived her of the statutory
advantages afforded by subsection (d). We agree. We also find that the
children spent substantially more parenting time with Mother;
therefore, Tenn. Code Ann. S 36-6-108(d) applies. Mother's stated
purpose for relocating to Athens, Georgia is to obtain an
esthetician's license in order to hopefully obtain better employment;
however, we have concluded that such does not constitute a reasonable
purpose for relocating with the children. The evidence also does not
preponderate against the trial court's finding that the proposed
relocation is not in the children's best interest. Therefore, we
affirm the denial of Mother's request to relocate with the children to
Georgia.
http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCA/2005/robinsonr7105.pdf
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. DANIEL BLAKE
Court:TCCA
Attorneys:
Robert WilsonJones, District Public Defender; and Trent Halland W.Mark
Ward, Assistant District Public Defenders, for the Appellant, Daniel
Blake.
Paul G. Summers, Attorney General & Reporter; Michael Markham,
Assistant Attorney General; William L. Gibbons, District Attorney
General; and Alanda Dwyer and Michelle Parks, Assistant District
Attorneys General, for the Appellee, State of Tennessee.
Judge: WITT
First Paragraph:
The defendant, Daniel Blake, stands convicted of aggravated vehicular
homicide, attempt to leave the scene of an accident, and driving on a
revoked or suspended license, and he is serving an effective sentence
of 25 years. He has appealed his aggravated vehicular homicide
conviction and claims that the state failed to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that his blood-alcohol content was above .20 percent
and that he had previously been convicted of DUI. After thoroughly
reviewing the record and applicable authorities, we find sufficient
evidence to support the conviction and affirm the judgment.
http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCCA/2005/blaked7105.pdf
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. CHESTER FLOYD COLE
Court:TCCA
Attorneys:
Jerry Mike Mosier, Jackson, Tennessee, for the appellant, Chester
Floyd Cole.
Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; J. Ross Dyer,
Assistant Attorney General; James G. (Jerry) Woodall, District
Attorney General; and Jody S. Pickens, Assistant District Attorney
General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.
Judge: TIPTON
First Paragraph:
A Madison CountyCircuit Court jury convicted the defendant, Chester
Floyd Cole, of incest, a Class C felony, and assault, a Class B
misdemeanor, and the trial court sentenced him as a Range I, standard
offender to five years for the incest and six months for the assault
to be served concurrently in the Department of Correction. The
defendant appeals, claiming the trial court erred in failing to
dismiss the incest count pursuant to Rule 8, Tenn. R. Crim. P., and
State v. Dominy, 67 S.W.3d 822 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001), and that his
sentence is excessive. We affirm the trial court.
http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCCA/2005/colec7105.pdf
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. BEVERLY DIXON
Court:TCCA
Attorneys:
Larry M. Sargent, Memphis, Tennessee, for the Appellant, Beverly
Dixon.
Paul G.Summers, Attorney General & Reporter J. Ross Dyer, Assistant
Attorney General; William L. Gibbons, District Attorney General; and
Lee Coffee, Assistant District Attorney General, for the Appellee,
State of Tennessee.
Judge: WITT
First Paragraph:
The defendant, Beverly Dixon, pleaded guilty to one count of felony
Class B theft of property over $60,000. The trial court imposed an
incarcerative eight-year sentence and denied any form of alternative
sentencing. On appeal, the defendant argues that the sentencing
process was flawed by the introduction of prejudicial hearsay and that
the trial court should have granted probation or placement into a
community corrections program. We affirm the judgment of the trial
court.
http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCCA/2005/dixonb7105.pdf
ROBERT GAMBLE v. STATE OF TENNESSEE
Court:TCCA
Attorneys:
Joshua B. Spickler, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellant, Robert
Gamble.
Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Michael Markham,
Assistant Attorney General; William L. Gibbons, District Attorney
General; Tracye Jones, Assistant District Attorney General; and Eric
Christensen, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee,
the State of Tennessee.
Judge: WOODALL
First Paragraph:
Following a jury trial, Petitioner, Robert Gamble, was convicted of
two counts of aggravated robbery, one count of fraudulent use of a
credit card, and one count of theft of property over fivehundred
dollars. Petitioner's conviction and sentence were affirmed by this
Court on direct appeal, and Petitioner's Rule 11 application was
denied by the Supreme Court. Petitioner filed a petition for
post-conviction relief, which was subsequently amended. Following a
hearing, the postconviction court dismissed Petitioner's amended
petition for post-conviction relief. In this appeal, Petitioner argues
that the court erred when it dismissed his petition for
post-conviction relief because he received ineffective assistance of
counsel at his trial. After a thorough review of the record, we find
that the lower court properly dismissed the petition. As such, the
judgment of the postconviction court is affirmed.
http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCCA/2005/gambler7105.pdf
CLARENCE CARNELL GASTON v. STATE OF TENNESSEE
Court:TCCA
Attorneys:
Danny H. Goodman, Jr., Tiptonville, Tennessee, for the Appellant,
Clarence Carnell Gaston.
Paul G.Summers, Attorney General & Reporter J. Ross Dyer, Assistant
Attorney General; Thomas A. Thomas, District Attorney General; and
James T. Cannon, Assistant District Attorney General, for the
Appellee, State of Tennessee.
Judge: WITT
First Paragraph:
The petitioner, Clarence Carnell Gaston, appeals the Obion County
Circuit Court's dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief,
in which he challenged his 2001 convictions of first degree felony
murder, second degree murder, and conspiracy to commit second degree
murder. See State v. Clarence Carnell Gaston, No.
W2001-02046-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App., Jackson, Feb. 7, 2003)
(affirming the petitioner's convictions and sentences), perm. app.
denied (Tenn. 2003). After appointing counsel, the post-conviction
court conducted a hearing on May 24, 2004. Following the hearing, the
court denied post-conviction relief. We affirm the post-conviction
court's judgment.
http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCCA/2005/gastonc7105.pdf
KENNATH HENDERSON v. STATE OF TENNESSEE
Court:TCCA
Attorneys:
Donald E.Dawson, Nashville, Tennessee, and Catherine Y.Brockenborough,
Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Kennath Henderson.
Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Alice B. Lustre,
Assistant Attorney General; Elizabeth T. Rice, District Attorney
General and Walt Freeland, Assistant District Attorney General, for
the appellee, State of Tennessee.
Judge: SMITH
First Paragraph:
The petitioner, Kennath Henderson, appeals as of right from the May
21, 2003 judgment of the Fayette County Circuit Court denying his
petition for post-conviction relief. The petitioner entered guilty
pleas to first degree premeditated murder, two (2) counts of
especially aggravated kidnapping, aggravated robbery, attempted
especiallyaggravated kidnapping, aggravated assault, and felonious
escape. The petitioner waived his right to jury sentencing. After a
capital sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed the death sentence
for the murder count and an effective sentence of twenty-three (23)
years in prison for the noncapital offenses. The petitioner's
convictions and sentences, includingthe sentence of death, were
affirmed on direct appeal bythe Tennessee Supreme Court. See State v.
Henderson, 24 S.W.3d 307 (Tenn. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 934
(2000). A pro se petition for post-conviction relief was filed on
February 12, 2001, which was followed by an amended petition on
November 30, 2001. An evidentiary hearing was held on April 28-29,
2003, and, on May21, 2003, the trial court denied relief and dismissed
the petition. The petitioner appeals, presenting for our review the
following claims: (1) the trial judge erred in failing to recuse
himself at both the trial and the post-conviction hearings; (2) the
post-conviction court's findings were clearly erroneous; (3) trial
counsel was ineffective; (4) appellate counsel was ineffective; (5)
the post-conviction court erred in prohibiting a witness from
testifying; and (6) the imposition of the death penalty is
unconstitutional. After a careful and laborious review of the record,
this Court concludes that there is no error requiring reversal.
Accordingly, the order of the post-conviction court denying
post-conviction relief is affirmed.
http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCCA/2005/hendersonk7105.pdf
ROBERT HOWELL v. TONY PARKER, WARDEN
Court:TCCA
Attorneys:
Robert Howell, pro se.
Paul G. Summers, Attorney General & Reporter; Rachel E. Willis,
Assistant Attorney General, for the appellee, the State of Tennessee.
Judge: GLENN
First Paragraph:
The Petitioner, Robert Howell, appeals the trial court's denial of his
petition for habeas corpus relief. The State has filed a motion
requesting that this Court affirm the trial court's denial of relief
pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The
Petitioner has failed to allege any ground that would render the
judgment of conviction void. Accordingly, we grant the State's motion
and affirm the judgment of the lower court.
http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCCA/2005/howellr7105.pdf
DAVID JOHNSON v. STATE OF TENNESSEE
Court:TCCA
Attorneys:
Timothy Boxx, Dyersburg, Tennessee, for the appellant, David Johnson.
Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; David H. Findley,
Assistant Attorney General; Thomas A. Thomas, District Attorney
General; and Jim T. Cannon, Assistant District Attorney General, for
the appellee, the State of Tennessee.
Judge: WOODALL
First Paragraph:
Petitioner, David Johnson, appeals the dismissal of his pro se
petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, Petitioner argues that
his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel when he
failed to interview or call a witness who could have provided an alibi
for Petitioner on the night of the offenses. After a review of the
record in this matter, we affirm the post-conviction court's dismissal
of the petition.
http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCCA/2005/johnsond7105.pdf
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. QAWI NUR, (a/k/a DARRIUS JAMES)
Court:TCCA
Attorneys:
Robert Wilson Jones, District Public Defender; W. Mark Ward, Assistant
Public Defender, Larry Nance, Assistant Public Defender; and Diane
Thackery, Assistant Public Defender, Memphis, Tennessee, for the
appellant, Qawi Nur, a/k/a Darrius James.
Paul G.Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Jennifer L. Bledsoe,
Assistant Attorney General; WilliamL.Gibbons, District Attorney
General; MichelleParks, Assistant District Attorney General; and James
Wax, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, the State
of Tennessee.
Judge: WOODALL
First Paragraph:
Defendant, Qawi Nur, a/k/a/ Darrius James, was indicted on one count
of first degree felony murder and one count of first degree
premeditated murder. The State filed a notice of intent to seek the
death penalty. Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of
first degree felony murder in count one and second degree murder in
count two. The trial court merged Defendant's second degree murder
conviction into his first degree felony murder conviction. The jury
sentenced Defendant to life imprisonment without the possibility of
parole for his first degree murder conviction. The sole issue raised
on appeal challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. After
a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial
court.
http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCCA/2005/nurq7105.pdf
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. NORRIS RAY
Court:TCCA
Attorneys:
Marty B.McAfee, Memphis,Tennessee (on appeal); Robert WilsonJones,
District Public Defender; and William Johnson, Assistant Public
Defender, Memphis, Tennessee (at trial), for the appellant, Norris
Ray.
Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; David H. Findley,
Assistant Attorney General; William L. Gibbons, District Attorney
General; Robert Carter, Assistant District Attorney General; and Paul
Hagerman, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, the
State of Tennessee.
Judge: WOODALL
First Paragraph:
Following a jury trial, Defendant, Norris Ray, was convicted of one
count of unlawful possession of a handgun; one count of first degree
felony murder; and one count of especially aggravated kidnapping.
Defendant was sentenced to life with the possibility of parole on the
felony murder conviction. The trial court sentenced Defendant as a
Range II, multiple offender, to forty years for the especially
aggravated kidnapping conviction and as a Range II, multiple offender,
to four years for the felony possession of a handgun conviction. The
trial court ordered Defendant's sentences to be served consecutively
for an effective sentence of life plus forty-four years. On appeal,
Defendant argues (1) that the evidence is insufficient to identify him
as the perpetrator of the offenses; (2) that the trial court erred by
not allowing the impeachment of the testimony of the victim of
especially aggravated kidnapping with evidence of the victim's
misdemeanor drug convictions; and (3) that the trial court erred in
determining the length of Defendant's sentences and in imposing
consecutive sentencing. After a thorough review of the record, we
affirm the judgments of the trial court.
http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCCA/2005/rayn7105.pdf
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. ALLEN JEAN STEPHENS
Court:TCCA
Attorneys:
J. Colin Morris, Jackson, Tennessee, for the appellant, Allen Jean
Stephens.
Paul G.Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Brent C.Cherry,
Assistant Attorney General; and Thomas A. Thomas, District Attorney
General, for the appellee, the State of Tennessee.
Judge: WOODALL
First Paragraph:
Following a jury trial, Defendant, Allen Jean Stephens, was convicted
of one count of possession of more than .5 grams of cocaine with
intent to sell, a Class B felony, and one count of possession of drug
paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced
Defendant as a Range III, persistent offender, to twenty-three years
for the felony drug conviction, and eleven months, twenty nine days
for his misdemeanor conviction. The trial court ordered Defendant's
sentences to run concurrently, for an effective sentence of
twenty-three years. Defendant does not appeal the length of his
sentences or the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. Defendant
argues however, that the trial court erred in denying Defendant's
motion to suppress the crack cocaine found at his house during the
execution of a search warrant; and that the trial court erred in
ruling admissible certain evidence about a prior sale of crack
cocaine, an offense for which Defendant was not charged. Following a
review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.
http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCCA/2005/stephensa7105.pdf
JASON RAY TAYLOR v. STATE OF TENNESSEE
Court:TCCA
Attorneys:
Jim L. Fields, Paris, Tennessee, for the appellant, Jason Ray Taylor.
Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Seth P. Kestner,
Assistant Attorney General; Robert Radford, District Attorney General;
and Steven L. Garrett, Assistant District Attorney General, for the
appellee, State of Tennessee.
Judge: WELLES
First Paragraph:
The Defendant, Jason Ray Taylor, pled guilty to aggravated burglary,
burglary, two counts of vandalism and three counts of forgery. He
subsequently filed for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective
assistance of counsel. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court
denied relief; this appeal followed. We affirm the judgment of the
trial court.
http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCCA/2005/taylorj7105.pdf
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. DARRELL TOOMES
Court:TCCA
Attorneys:
Gary F. Antrican, District Public Defender, and Julie K. Pillow,
Assistant Public Defender, for the appellant, Darrell Toomes.
Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Benjamin A. Ball,
Assistant Attorney General; Elizabeth T. Rice, District Attorney
General; and Tracey Anne Brewer, Assistant District Attorney General,
for the appellee, State of Tennessee.
Judge: TIPTON
First Paragraph:
A Lauderdale County Circuit Court jury convicted the defendant,
Darrell Toomes, of robbery, a Class C felony. The trial court
sentenced him as a Range I, standard offender to five years in the
Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant contends (1) that
the evidence is insufficient to convict him as the perpetrator, (2)
that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence
relating to a photograph array and a subsequent in-court
identification of him, and (3) that his sentence is excessive. We
affirm the judgment of the trial court.
http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCCA/2005/toomesd7105.pdf
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. MACK T. TRANSOU
Court:TCCA
Attorneys:
Mike Mosier, Jackson, Tennessee, for the Appellant, Mack T. Transou.
Paul G.Summers, Attorney General & Reporter; Renee W.Turner, Assistant
Attorney General; Jerry Woodall, District Attorney General; and Jody
Pickens, Assistant District Attorney General, for the Appellee, State
of Tennessee.
Judge: WITT
First Paragraph:
The defendant, Mack T. Transou, stands convicted of rape and sexual
battery, for which he received an effective sixteen-year sentence.
Aggrieved of his convictions and sentence, the defendant brings the
instant appeal challenging the trial court's denial of his motion to
suppress DNA evidence and the imposition of his sentence in violation
of his right to trial by jury. Following our review upon the record,
we affirm the defendant's convictions and sentence.
http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCCA/2005/transoum7105.pdf
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. TRAVIS YOUNG
Court:TCCA
Attorneys:
Robert Wilson Jones, District Public Defender; W. Mark Ward, Assistant
Public Defender; and Timothy Albers, Assistant Public Defender,
Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellant, Travis Young.
Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Rachel E. Willis,
Assistant Attorney General; WilliamL.Gibbons, District Attorney
General; Paul Goodman,Assistant District Attorney General; and
MichaelMcCusker, Assistant District Attorney General, for the
appellee, the State of Tennessee.
Judge: WOODALL
First Paragraph:
Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted in case no. 03-05457
of two counts of aggravated assault, a Class C felony, two counts of
reckless aggravated assault, a Class D felony, and one count of
evading arrest, a Class D felony . Defendant was convicted in case No.
03-05459 of two counts of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, and
one count of aggravated assault, a Class C felony, against victim
Christopher Bridges. The trial court sentenced Defendant as a Range
II, multiple offender, to six years for each of his Class C and Class
D felony convictions. The trial court merged Defendant's aggravated
robbery convictions in counts one and two in case No. 03-05459, and
sentenced Defendant as a Range I, standard offender, to ten years for
the aggravated robbery conviction. The trial court ordered Defendant's
sentences in case No. 03-05457 to be served concurrently. The trial
court ordered Defendant's sentences in case No. 03-05459 to be served
concurrently with each other and consecutively to Defendant's sentence
in case No. 03-05457, for an effective sentence of sixteen years. On
appeal, Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting
evidence and the imposition of consecutive sentencing. Defendant does
not challenge the length of his sentences. Following our review of the
record, we affirm Defendant's convictions. We remand for a new
sentencing hearing because the trial court failed to make specific
findings justifying the imposition of consecutive sentencing, failed
to identify and support the enhancement factors used to enhance
Defendant's sentences for his Class D and Class B felony convictions;
and failed to identify which specific convictions it was relying upon
to classify Defendant as a multiple offender for sentencing him for
his Class D and Class C felony convictions.
http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCCA/2005/youngt7105.pdf
|
