In Re: Adoption of T.A.M. This appeal involves the termination of the parental rights of an incarcerated biological father of a five-year-old child. The child’s mother and her new husband filed a petition in the Chancery Court for Lincoln County seeking to terminate the biological father’s parental rights and to approve the new husband’s adoption of the child. Following a bench trial, the trial court entered an order on August 29, 2003 granting the petition to terminate the biological father’s parental rights on the ground of abandonment. The biological father appealed. We concur with the trial court’s conclusion that the father abandoned his child by willfully failing to support and visit the child and that terminating the biological father’s parental rights is in the child’s best interests. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. | Lincoln | Court of Appeals | |
In Re: Adoption of T.A.M. - Concurring I disagree with the standard of review employed by the court in this case for the reasons discussed at more length in In Re Z.J.S., No. M2002-02235-COA-R3-JV, 2003 WL 21266854, at *18-22 (Tenn.Ct.App. June 3, 2003) (No Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application filed); Estate of Acuff v. O’Linger, 56 S.W.3d 527, 533-37 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2001). I agree, however, that a review of the evidence in the case discloses that the truth of the factual conclusions made by the trial are “highly probable” and thus the clear and convincing evidence standard is met. Therefore, I concur with the court’s decision to affirm the order terminating R.G.L.’s parental rights. | Court of Appeals | ||
Troy Sterling Fuller v. Janie Marie Nicholson This is primarily a child custody dispute. The father and mother lived together with their infant son and the mother's two older sons in the mother's house trailer before moving into a house purchased by the mother with a down payment provided by the father. When their son was approximately eight months old, the parties separated and thereafter began a contentious legal battle over his custody. Following a bench trial, the trial court awarded the mother primary custody, granted the father broad visitation rights, and denied the father's request for the return of his down payment and closing costs, finding there was no equity in the house. The father appeals the trial court's award of primary custody to the mother and its denial of his request for the return of his down payment and closing costs. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. | Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
We granted permission to appeal in this case to determine whether the Chancellor erred in denying temporary total disability benefits because he concluded that injuries due to an idiopathic loss of consciousness are not compensable under the Workers' Compensation Act. We hold that an injury due to an idiopathic condition is compensable if an employment hazard causes or exacerbates the injuries. The accident arises out of employment if there is a causal connection between the conditions under which the work is performed and the resulting injury. This causal link must be between the employment and the injury, rather than between the employment and the idiopathic episode. We affirm the Chancellor's factual finding that Phillips's injuries occurred within the course of his employment. Thus, the judgment of the Chancellor is reversed in part, affirmed in part, and this case is remanded to the chancery court for reinstatement of temporary total disability benefits and further proceedings consistent with this opinion. | Rutherford | Supreme Court | |
Larry Stephen Brumit v. State of Tennessee The petitioner, Larry Stephen Brumit, filed for post-conviction relief from 1996 convictions for two counts of first degree murder and one count of conspiracy to commit first degree murder. The post-conviction court denied the petition. In this appeal, the petitioner argues (1) that the petition was not barred by the applicable statute of limitations; and (2) that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. The judgment is affirmed. | Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Bryan Christopher Hester A Davidson County Criminal Court jury convicted the defendant, Bryan Christopher Hester, of second degree murder, a Class A felony, and the trial court sentenced him as a Range I, violent offender to twenty-five years in confinement. The defendant appeals, claiming that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction; (2) the trial court erred by denying his motion to continue when the state revealed three days before trial that the victim had been taking an antidepressant and seeing a psychiatrist; (3) the trial court erred by allowing hearsay into evidence; (4) the trial court erred by allowing the state to introduce a bow saw into evidence; (5) the trial court erred by allowing a witness to testify about experiments conducted on the murder weapon when the state failed to prove the chain of custody; (6) the trial court erred by allowing the state medical examiner to testify; and (7) the defendant's sentence is excessive. We conclude that the trial court erred by allowing hearsay into evidence but that the error was harmless. We also conclude that the defendant's sentence is not excessive, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court. | Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Randy D. Vowell v. State of Tennessee The petitioner appeals the Anderson County Criminal Court's denial of habeas corpus relief relating to his convictions for aggravated rape and rape. On appeal, the petitioner contends the original sentencing court erred in amending the judgments to reflect 100% release classification after they became final. We affirm the lower court's judgment denying habeas corpus relief. | Anderson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jarret A. Guy The defendant, Jarret A. Guy, was convicted of facilitation of first degree premeditated murder, felony murder, and robbery. The trial court merged the facilitation of premeditated first degree murder conviction into the conviction for felony murder and, after finding the existence of five aggravating circ*mstances, the jury imposed a sentence of life without the possibility of parole. The trial court imposed a concurrent sentence of fifteen years for the robbery conviction. In this appeal, the defendant asserts that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions; (2) the trial court included erroneous definitions of "knowing" and "intentional" in its instructions to the jury; (3) the trial court erred by severing his trial from that of his co-defendant, Jacob Edward Campbell; (4) the sentence is excessive; and (5) the cumulative effect of the errors at trial require reversal. The judgments of the trial court are affirmed. | Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James D. Rowland This appeal involves review of a certified question of law following the Defendant, James D. Rowland's, guilty plea to DUI. See Tenn. R. Crim. P. 37(b)(2)(1). Because we find that the certified question is not dispositive, we are without jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. | Rutherford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Edwin Earl Sanborn v. Carlotta Joan Sanborn After twenty-five years of marriage, Father filed for divorce asserting irreconcilable differences and inappropriate marital conduct due to Mother's alleged prescription drug abuse. Father requested that he be the primary residential parent of the parties' two minor children. Mother filed an answer and counterclaim also requesting to be the primary residential parent. The trial court granted Father the divorce but designated Mother as the primary residential parent. Father appealed, asserting that the trial court erred in designating Mother as the primary residential parent and in setting the residential schedule. We affirm. | Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Stanley Ray Davis In Re: Ray D. Driver, d/b/a Driver Bail Bonds Ray D. Driver appeals the Campbell County Criminal Court’s judgment requiring his bail bonding company, Driver Bail Bonds, to pay $570.50 as a bond forfeiture because Stanley Ray Davis failed to appear at a general sessions court probation hearing. The appellant contends that T.C.A. § 40-11-138(b) relieved his company from liability under the bond because the defendant already had pled guilty and been sentenced. He also claims that his company is not liable for the defendant’s fine and costs because his company did not assume such obligations in the defendant’s bond. We hold that appellant remained obligated under the bond and that the trial court did not require him to pay the defendant’s fine and costs. The trial court is affirmed. | Campbell | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Stanley Ray Davis in re: Ray D. Driver, d/b/a Driver Bail Bonds - Dissenting I agree that Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-11-130 governs the issue of the duration of Driver Bail Bonds' obligation. The current statute, passed in 1996, permits the trial court to extend the liability of the surety on a bail bond for the length of a sentence of probation by providing in a written order that the current bond is sufficient. In this case, the General Sessions Court noted on the judgment form that the defendant and surety were to remain liable under the original bond. Thus, Driver remained obligated under the terms of the original bond to secure the defendant's appearance at the March 11, 2002, hearing. | Campbell | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jama Elaine Penley The appellant, Jama Elaine Penley, was convicted by a Greene County jury of facilitation of first degree premeditated murder, a Class A felony. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the appellant as a Range I standard offender to twenty-five years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant challenges the denial of her motion for judgment of acquittal and the sentence imposed by the trial court. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we remand to correct a clerical error in the judgment but otherwise affirm the judgment of the trial court. | Greene | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Patrick D. Paris v. State of Tennessee The petitioner, Patrick D. Paris, appeals the denial of his post-conviction relief petition relating to his convictions for attempted first degree murder and especially aggravated robbery. On appeal, the petitioner contends: (1) he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial; and (2) the trial court erred in failing to charge attempted voluntary manslaughter as a lesser-included offense of attempted first degree murder. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. | Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Roger B. Ammons v. John Bouchard & Sons Co.; and | Davidson | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Michael D. Hughes v. State of Tennessee On November 30, 1992, the petitioner, Michael Douglas Hughes, entered a plea of no contest to one (1) count of aggravated rape and a plea of guilty to ten (10) counts of aggravated rape. He received an effective eighty-year sentence after a sentencing hearing. The petitioner’s sentence was affirmed in a delayed appeal. See State v. Michael Douglas Hughes, No. 01C01-9701-CR-00021, 1998 WL 301730, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville, June 10, 1998), perm. to appeal denied (Tenn. Feb. 22, 1999). The petitioner sought post-conviction relief on various grounds. After the trial court denied the petition as untimely, the petitioner appealed. This Court reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the petition and remanded for an evidentiary hearing. See Hughes v. State, 77 S.W.3d 801 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001). On remand, the trial court denied the petition after an evidentiary hearing. The petitioner then presented this appeal, arguing that the trial court erred finding that the petitioner received the effective assistance of counsel and that his guilty plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered. We affirm the dismissal of the petition. | Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Don Wesley McMillen v. State of Tennessee The petitioner, Don Wesley McMillen, entered a plea of guilty to two (2) counts of attempted rape of a child in May of 1998. In exchange for the guilty pleas, the petitioner received concurrent, seventeen-year sentences at 35% as a Range II Offender. The petitioner timely filed a petition for post-conviction relief arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that his guilty plea was not knowing or voluntary because the trial court violated the provisions of State v. Mackey, 553 S.W.2d 337 (Tenn. 1977). The trial court denied the petition following an evidentiary hearing and this appeal followed. We affirm the dismissal of the post-conviction petition. | Coffee | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Roxanne R. Vance Following a bench trial, the defendant, Roxanne R. Vance, was convicted of DUI per se, a Class A misdemeanor, and was sentenced to eleven months, twenty-nine days, all suspended except seven days with the balance to be served on probation. In addition, her driver's license was suspended for one year and she was ordered to pay a fine of $350 and attend alcohol and drug safety school. On appeal, she argues that the trial court erred in finding that her breath alcohol test results created an irrebuttable presumption of DUI per se and that the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction. Based upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. | Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Patrick E. Simpson v. State of Tennessee The petitioner, Patrick E. Simpson, pled guilty to two counts of aggravated assault and was sentenced to concurrent terms of three years to be served consecutively to his parole violation. He appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief, arguing that the trial court failed to enforce his guilty plea agreement and that his sentence has expired. Following our review, we affirm the dismissal of the petition. | Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ronald L. Johnson v. Flora Holland, Warden The petitioner, Ronald L. Johnson, appeals as of right from the Davidson County Criminal Court's summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. He argues that his convictions for two counts of passing worthless checks are void because they were not ordered to be served consecutively to a sentence from which he had been paroled at the time of the check offenses, his parole subsequently being revoked. The habeas corpus court dismissed his petition without a hearing, and we affirm that action. | Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Henry Rankins v. State of Tennessee The Petitioner, Henry Rankins, filed a petition for post-conviction relief based on the Post- Conviction DNA Analysis Act. The trial court denied relief and Petitioner now seeks review of the lower court’s decision. 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. After review, we conclude that the petition fails to satisfy the criteria of the Post-Conviction DNA Analysis Act. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. | Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Timothy Earl Waters, pro se v. State of Tennessee The Petitioner, Timothy Earl Waters, appeals the trial court's summary dismissal of his petition for common law writ of certiorari seeking relief from a post-conviction judgment. 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. Finding that the lower court properly dismissed the petition, theState's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. | Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Donna S. Young v. Fred C. Hartley, M.D., et al Donna S. Young ("Plaintiff") sued Fred C. Hartley, M.D. ("Defendant") claiming that during a tubal ligation, defendant negligently performed additional surgeries upon plaintiff's vagin*l area without her consent and that those extra surgeries caused plaintiff to suffer physical and emotional damage. After trial, the jury returned a verdict in defendant's favor. Plaintiff appeals raising, among other things, several questions regarding the admission of evidence at trial. We affirm. | Washington | Court of Appeals | |
Allie Jane Collins, and husband, Cle Collins, v. Dana Edwards, M.D. and Robert Hunt, M.D. The trial judge dismissed this medical malpractice action on the ground that the statute of limitations had run. On appeal, we vacate and remand. | Hamblen | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennesseev. Ira Ishmael Muhammed, alias Ira Ishamel Muhammed The defendant, Ira Ishmael Muhammed, was convicted of attempted second degree murder, a Class B felony; two counts of aggravated assault, Class C felonies; attempted voluntary manslaughter, a Class D felony; and felony reckless endangerment which the trial court, acting as thirteenth juror, dismissed at the sentencing hearing. He was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to twelve years for the attempted second degree murder conviction, six years for each aggravated assault conviction, and four years for the attempted voluntary manslaughter conviction, with the sentences to be served consecutively, for an effective sentence of twenty-eight years. On appeal, the defendant argues: (1) the trial court erred in admitting an audiotape of telephone conversations between him and his ex-wife, one of the victims; (2) the trial court erred in not suppressing an audiotape of statements he made shortly after being shot; (3) the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentencing; and (4) the application of consecutive sentencing is unconstitutional. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. | Hamilton | Court of Criminal Appeals |
FAQs
What is the role of the Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts? ›
The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) provides support to the Tennessee Supreme Court and the entire state court system. The director, appointed by the Supreme Court, is administrative officer for the courts and oversees the AOC.
Does Tennessee have a case search? ›You can search the Public Case History database using one of four items: (1) the Case Number of the appeal, (2) the Case Style, (3) the first or last name of a party to an appeal; or (4) an organization. For example: When searching by case number, you can search using the sequence number listed in the appeal.
Is the Attorney General of Tennessee a part of the Tennessee court system? ›Although not a part of the court system, the offices of the attorney general, district attorneys general and district public defenders are associated with the judicial branch of state government.
Who oversees judges in Tennessee? ›ABOUT THE BOARD OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT
The Board of Judicial Conduct can investigate complaints made against judges, including appellate, trial, general sessions, probate, juvenile, municipal and senior judges, as well as claims commissioners and candidates for judicial office. There are 16 members of the Board.
An administrative court is a type of specialized court on administrative law, particularly disputes concerning the exercise of public power. Their role is to ascertain that official acts are consistent with the law. Such courts are considered separate from ordinary courts.
Which of the following is the responsibility of the court administrator? ›Duties/Responsibilities:
Manages, oversees, and directs the daily operations of the court system. Assists with and plans for implementation of new technologies and procedures to improve court efficiency including those affecting filing, recordkeeping, and case management.
The Tennessee Bureau of Investigation maintains a central database of criminal records that can be searched by name or case number. Criminal records include felony and misdemeanor convictions and sex offender registry information.
Does Tennessee have public records? ›All governmental entities subject to the Tennessee Public Records Act are required to have a public records policy that sets forth the process for requesting access to public records, the process for responding to requests, a statement of any fees charged for copies of public records, and the name and title of the ...
How long are court records kept in Tennessee? ›Circuit and Criminal Court Records Retention Schedule
| Retention Schedule for Circuit and Criminal Court Clerks | |
|---|---|
| Retention Period | Legal Authority/Rationale |
| In criminal cases, retain 10 years, then destroy; in civil cases, retain three years, then destroy. | T.C.A. § 18-1-202(a)—(b). |
The TENNESSEE SUPREME COURT is the state's highest court and the court of last resort. The five justices review civil and criminal cases appealed from lower state courts. They interpret the laws and constitutions of Tennessee and the United States.
What is the court hierarchy in TN? ›
Tennessee Courts
The Tennessee court system is made up of the Supreme Court, appellate courts, trial courts, and courts with limited jurisdiction. Limited jurisdiction means these courts can only hear certain legal issues. These are the general sessions courts, juvenile courts, and municipal courts.
The Court is composed of five members: a chief justice, and four justices. As of September 1, 2023, the chief justice is Holly M. Kirby.
Who holds judges accountable? ›is an independent state agency responsible for investigating complaints of judicial misconduct and judicial incapacity and for disciplining state judges (see article VI, section 18 of the California Constitution).
Do you have to be a lawyer to be a judge in Tennessee? ›To serve on the Tennessee Circuit Court, a judge must be: authorized to practice law in state; a circuit resident for at least one year; a state resident for five years; and.
What is the rule 10 in the Tennessee Supreme Court? ›A judge shall comply with the law, including the Code of Judicial Conduct. A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.
What does the Administrative Office of the US Courts do? ›Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
The Administrative Office is the agency within the judicial branch that provides a broad range of legislative, legal, financial, technology, management, administrative, and program support services to federal courts.
The court administrator both increases the amount of time a judge has for adjudication and brings professional management knowledge to the judiciary. The success of a court administrator depends on a defined job description, acceptance by the judges, adequate funding, and good communications with other court personnel.
How much does an administrative judge get paid in Tennessee? ›$83,100 is the 25th percentile. Salaries below this are outliers. $119,800 is the 75th percentile.
What is the hierarchy of the Tennessee court system? ›The Tennessee court system is made up of the Supreme Court, appellate courts, trial courts, and courts with limited jurisdiction. Limited jurisdiction means these courts can only hear certain legal issues. These are the general sessions courts, juvenile courts, and municipal courts.