Articles

All Content


9,713 Posts found
Previous • Page 278 of 972 • Next
Posted by: Tanja Trezise on Jul 31, 2020

JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. After nearly two decades as a detective for the City of Reynoldsburg Police Department, Tye L. Downard (“Tye”) was arrested and charged with a federal drug trafficking offense. While awaiting a preliminary hearing, Tye committed suicide in his cell at the Delaware County Jail. Karen Downard (“Downard”), the administrator of Tye’s estate, filed suit in the Southern District of Ohio, naming, among others, Officer Amy Foley and Officer Daniel Wallace as defendants. In her complaint, Downard asserts federal claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deliberate indifference to Tye’s serious medical need and state-law claims for wrongful death and survival. The district court denied summary judgment to Foley and Wallace, finding that neither was entitled to federal qualified immunity or immunity under Ohio law. They appeal those decisions. Because the facts and inferences as found by the district court do not, as a matter of law, show that Foley or Wallace was aware that Tye posed a “strong likelihood” of attempting suicide, we reverse.

Posted by: Tanja Trezise on Jul 31, 2020

Petitioner, Harvey Lee Webster, appeals the trial court’s summary dismissal of his motion filed pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1. He alleges that his sentences are illegal because his concurrent sentences had to run consecutively because he was on probation at the time of the offenses. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Posted by: Tanja Trezise on Jul 31, 2020

Defendant, Jamie Thomas, appeals as of right from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his motion under Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 as amended to correct illegal sentences. Defendant contends that the trial court erred by concluding that relief was not available because his illegal sentence as to Case Nos. 06-09288 and 06- 08706 had expired and thus was not subject to correction under Rule 36.1. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court as to Case Nos. 06-09288 and 06-08706, but as to allegations that concurrent sentencing in Case Nos. 06-02344 and 06-04638, which the trial court did not address, the amended motion is remanded to the trial court for disposition.

Posted by: Tanja Trezise on Jul 31, 2020

A Henderson County Grand Jury indicted the Defendant-Appellant, Mary Ann Scates, with alternating counts of driving under the influence and driving under the influence (second offense) (counts 1 and 2); following another vehicle too closely and speeding (counts 3 and 4); reckless aggravated assault by use of an automobile as a deadly weapon causing Faith Coleman, Cassandra Coleman, and Alexandria Springer to fear and suffer bodily injury (counts 5, 6, and 7); and vehicular assault of Grace Coleman by reckless operation of an automobile as a result of intoxication (count 8). See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 55-10-401; 55- 8-124; 55-8-152; 39-13-102; 39-13-106. The Defendant entered an open guilty plea to the offenses as charged, with the trial court to determine sentencing. After a hearing, the trial court imposed a four-year consecutive term of imprisonment for the reckless aggravated assault in count 5 and the vehicular assault by intoxication in count 8, for an effective sentence of eight years’ confinement. The remaining counts were to be served concurrently. The sole issue presented for our review is whether the trial court erred in ordering consecutive sentencing. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Posted by: Tanja Trezise on Jul 31, 2020

A Fayette County Circuit Court Jury convicted the Appellant, Kenneth D. Rudd Sr., of rape and incest. The Appellant was sentenced as a Range II, multiple offender to a total effective sentence of seventeen years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence sustaining his convictions and the length of the sentences imposed by the trial court. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Posted by: Tanja Trezise on Jul 31, 2020

The defendant, Edward Powell, appeals his Dyer County Circuit Court jury conviction of the sale of cocaine, challenging the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Posted by: Tanja Trezise on Jul 31, 2020

A Rutherford County jury convicted Defendant, Jonathan Montgomery, of driving under the influence (“DUI”) per se, DUI with blood alcohol content over .08 percent, DUI, sixth offense, and driving on a revoked license. The trial court sentenced Defendant to three years with a thirty percent release eligibility for DUI and to a concurrent sentence of six months for driving on a revoked license. On appeal, Defendant contends the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his convictions. Following a thorough review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Posted by: Tanja Trezise on Jul 31, 2020

Petitioner, Larry Donnell Golden, Jr., appeals from the denial of his petition for postconviction relief from his 2016 convictions for second degree murder and reckless endangerment. Petitioner contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on direct appeal. Following our review of the record, we affirm the denial of the petition.

Posted by: Tanja Trezise on Jul 31, 2020

The Petitioner, Roosevelt Bigbee, Jr., appeals the denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The State has filed a motion asking this Court to affirm pursuant to Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20. Said motion is hereby granted.

Posted by: Tanja Trezise on Jul 31, 2020

This appeal arises from a petition filed by a former wife alleging that the former husband breached their marital dissolution agreement. Wife sought $10,000 in damages to property that husband had allegedly damaged in the manner in which the property was stored. The trial court awarded Wife $7,820 in damages. Husband appeals, asserting that the court erred in adopting the values stated in the marital dissolution agreement in assessing Wife’s damages and in not holding that Wife failed to mitigate her damages. Wife asserts that she was entitled to attorney’s fees in accordance with the enforcement provision of the MDA. We affirm the award of damages and reverse the denial of Wife’s application for attorney’s fees.


Previous • Page 278 of 972 • Next