Jerry L. Smith

The case arose after David Johnson was killed in a car accident caused by Dylan Clark, whose insurer, Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company, negotiated a $50,000 settlement paid by check to Beverly Johnson and Medicare. Angela Johnson and Beverly Johnson later sued the insurer, alleging issues with the settlement amount, timing, and form of payment. The trial court granted the insurer's motion to dismiss under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02(6) for failure to state a claim, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The appellate court held that Tennessee does not permit direct actions against a liability insurer for the conduct of its insured absent privity with the claimants, making further discovery or other claims unavailable.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involves the termination of parental rights of a mother and father to their minor child, Taron H., who was born in 2020 and removed from the home in 2021 due to issues including substance abuse, domestic violence, and neglect. The Tennessee Department of Children’s Services petitioned to terminate rights on multiple statutory grounds, including abandonment by failure to support, persistence of conditions leading to removal, and failure to manifest an ability to care for the child. After a hearing where the mother did not appear and the father had recently been released from incarceration, the trial court found four grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence and determined that termination served the child’s best interest. Father appealed, challenging the grounds and best-interest findings. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision, upholding the termination after reviewing the record and statutory factors.

family law

The case involved Robert Lewis Webb, who pled guilty in 2005 to first-degree murder, aggravated rape, aggravated burglary, and aggravated robbery under a plea agreement resulting in a life sentence without parole. Years later, he filed an untimely pro se petition for post-conviction relief claiming an involuntary guilty plea and other issues, later amended to argue tolling of the statute of limitations based on mental incompetence, a new constitutional ruling in Coleman v. State, and attorney misconduct. The post-conviction court dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing, finding no basis for tolling. On appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that the petitioner had made a prima facie showing of mental incompetence through medical affidavits and that due process required an evidentiary hearing to assess whether the limitations period should be tolled under standards from cases like Reid ex rel. Martiniano.

criminal lawprocedure

In State of Tennessee v. Curtis Taylor, the defendant was convicted by a jury of voluntary manslaughter, attempted first degree murder, possession of a firearm after a felony conviction, and use of a firearm during a dangerous felony, arising from a shooting incident outside a Memphis convenience store that left one person dead and involved multiple shooters. The trial court imposed sentences resulting in a total effective term of 35 years. On appeal, Taylor challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for the voluntary manslaughter conviction and the trial court's sentencing decisions. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentences, concluding that the evidence supported the jury's verdict and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing consecutive sentences based on the defendant's criminal history and other factors, while remanding solely for correction of judgment forms to reflect a two-year sentence on the firearm possession count and proper concurrency with other counts.

criminal lawguns

The case involved Richard Cleophus Smith, who was indicted on multiple charges including felony murder, first degree murder, attempted first degree murder, employing a firearm during a dangerous felony, evading arrest, reckless endangerment, and driving while license suspended, arising from a July 2009 shooting incident in Knoxville in which shots were fired from a maroon Cadillac, killing one person and endangering others, followed by a high-speed chase and arrest. A jury convicted Smith on all counts except one, for which he was convicted of a lesser offense, resulting in an effective sentence of life plus twenty-six years. On appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentence after finding the evidence sufficient and no reversible error in the admission of testimony, denial of requested instructions, discovery of witness notes, or imposition of consecutive sentences based on the dangerous-offender factor. The court reversed and dismissed only the conviction for driving without a license in possession, holding that the trial court constructively amended the presentment by instructing the jury on that offense after jeopardy had attached.

criminal lawgunsprocedure

The case involved Tonya Michelle Stoltz, who was charged with initiating the manufacture of methamphetamine and possessing methamphetamine after officers found the drug in a keychain at her residence. The trial court acquitted her on the manufacturing charge but the jury convicted her of possession, resulting in a sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days. On appeal, Stoltz argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the possession conviction. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence, including the defendant's statement admitting ownership of the methamphetamine, was sufficient for a rational jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

criminal law

In this case, Rodregus Carter was convicted by a jury of aggravated burglary and theft of property valued over $1,000 after a home was broken into and items including a television, stereo equipment, air conditioners, clothing, and a dog were stolen. Carter appealed the denial of his motion to suppress his confession, the sufficiency of the evidence, the admission of testimony about the victim's health, his classification as a Range III persistent offender based on prior convictions, and the length of his thirteen-year sentence. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee reviewed the record and found no merit in any of the claims, concluding that the confession was properly obtained and admitted, the evidence supported the convictions, the victim's testimony was admissible, the prior convictions qualified him as a persistent offender without violating the twenty-four-hour merger rule, and the trial court properly applied enhancement factors in sentencing. The court therefore affirmed the convictions and the effective thirteen-year sentence.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Willie Duncan, who was convicted by a jury in Shelby County, Tennessee, of especially aggravated kidnapping, especially aggravated robbery, aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, and employing a firearm during a dangerous felony, stemming from an armed robbery and shooting at a hotel in December 2011. On appeal, Duncan challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, the validity of the indictment and jury instructions for the firearm charge, a reference to his juvenile record, and the length and consecutiveness of his sentences. The Court of Criminal Appeals held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and found no errors in the sentencing or the juvenile record issue, but determined that the indictment for the firearm offense was defective because it failed to specify the underlying felony, leading to reversal and dismissal of that conviction. The court also noted a clerical error on one judgment form requiring remand for correction, while affirming the other convictions and sentences.

criminal lawprocedure

In State of Tennessee v. Kenneth Kirkwood, the defendant was convicted by a jury of especially aggravated robbery, especially aggravated kidnapping, use of a firearm during a dangerous felony, and aggravated burglary, based on evidence that he and a co-defendant robbed and kidnapped a woman at gunpoint in her home after following her from a store. The trial court imposed a 45-year sentence at 100% and denied the defendant's motion for a new trial. On appeal, the defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the verdict, claimed ineffective assistance of counsel, and argued that the trial court erred by denying a continuance to allow further consultation with his attorney on the ineffective assistance claim. The Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed the record and affirmed the convictions and sentence, holding that the evidence was sufficient, that any ineffective assistance did not warrant a presumption of prejudice under the applicable standard, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the continuance because no prejudice was shown.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Michael Williams's petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his 2001 Shelby County conviction for rape and resulting 30-year sentence as a violent offender. Williams claimed the judgment was void because he had been improperly classified and sentenced as a career offender rather than a violent offender. The habeas corpus court dismissed the petition without a hearing, and the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. The court reasoned that the judgment form showed the career-offender designation had been marked out and replaced with the violent-offender classification, any discrepancy amounted only to a correctable clerical error rather than a fatal error rendering the sentence illegal or void, and Williams had not demonstrated that his sentence had expired or that the convicting court lacked jurisdiction.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved David Orlando Avinger, who was indicted for first-degree premeditated murder, first-degree felony murder, and especially aggravated robbery after a drug transaction in a Walgreens parking lot ended with Vincent Perkins being shot and killed. A jury convicted Avinger of second-degree murder as a lesser included offense, along with felony murder and especially aggravated robbery; the trial court merged the murder convictions and imposed a life sentence. On appeal, Avinger challenged the sufficiency of the evidence and the trial court's limitation on cross-examination of a key witness regarding gang affiliations. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the convictions, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdicts and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the gang-related testimony as irrelevant or improper character evidence under Tennessee evidence rules.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved Brian Gauldin, who was charged with multiple counts of selling cocaine in a drug-free zone based on two controlled buys conducted by a confidential informant working with Dyersburg police in December 2010 near Scott Street Park. After the State dismissed some counts, a jury convicted Gauldin of one count of selling 0.5 grams or more of cocaine in a drug-free zone and one count of selling 0.5 grams or less in a drug-free zone, resulting in an effective 20-year sentence as a persistent offender. Gauldin appealed, arguing that contradictions in the evidence regarding identification, drug weights, and sale locations rendered the proof insufficient. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the convictions, holding that the evidence— including the informant's testimony, recorded transactions, lab results confirming the cocaine amounts, and measurements showing the sales occurred within 1,000 feet of the park—was sufficient when viewed in the light most favorable to the State.

criminal law

The case involved Leslie Warren Blevins, who was indicted on three counts of aggravated assault after an incident in which he confronted several juveniles on a private driveway near a car dealership, struck one with a pistol, and threatened others. Following a jury trial, Blevins was convicted of one count of aggravated assault and two counts of assault and received an effective five-year sentence of confinement. On appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee reviewed challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the convictions and to the trial court's sentencing decision. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying alternative sentencing, based on the defendant's criminal history, limited rehabilitation potential, and other statutory factors under Tennessee sentencing law. The judgments of the trial court were therefore affirmed.

criminal law

Janet Lynn Jared was convicted of theft over $10,000 and sentenced to six years of probation conditioned on paying over $82,000 in restitution to her victims. After selling the family farm and applying the proceeds toward restitution, she was ordered by the trial court to pay the remaining balance at $500 per month. Jared appealed, arguing that the court violated Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-304(d) by setting the payment schedule without considering her financial resources and ability to pay. The Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed the appeal, holding that Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(b) provides no appeal as of right from an order modifying the conditions of probation, following the precedent in State v. Lane.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a post-conviction petition filed by Kenneth Dewayne Johnson after his 2011 guilty plea to aggravated assault in Tennessee. Johnson argued that his conviction was invalid because the grand jury foreman was a convicted felon ineligible to serve, that his counsel was ineffective for not raising this issue, and that his plea was unknowing and involuntary; he sought to toll the one-year statute of limitations on the ground that the foreman's status only became public knowledge in 2013. The post-conviction court dismissed the petition as untimely, finding that the defect did not strip the trial court of jurisdiction and that the claim was not a later-arising ground warranting tolling. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, holding that the statutory exceptions and due-process tolling standards were not met because the underlying facts could have been investigated earlier and lack of knowledge alone does not extend the deadline.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Leonard Allen, who was convicted by a jury of especially aggravated robbery and sentenced to twenty years in prison. After filing a notice of appeal, he attempted to plead guilty to the lesser offense of aggravated robbery with a reduced sentence, but the trial court lacked jurisdiction to accept the plea, leading to reinstatement of the original conviction. Allen then sought post-conviction relief, claiming ineffective assistance of trial counsel on issues including decisions about his testimony, failure to challenge a photographic lineup, and handling of plea offers. The post-conviction court denied relief after a hearing, and the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, finding that Allen failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that counsel's performance was deficient or that any deficiencies prejudiced the outcome of the proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

Jarvis Payne was indicted for first-degree murder in the shooting death of his girlfriend but pled guilty to second-degree murder and received a fifteen-year sentence. He later filed a post-conviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, claiming his public defender failed to inform him of the victim's dying declaration to paramedics that he did not mean to shoot her, which he argued would have undermined the intent element and led him to reject the plea. After an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court credited the testimony of the public defender and prosecutor, finding that the reported statement was never made and that counsel's performance was not deficient. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, holding that the evidence supported the lower court's findings and that Payne was not entitled to relief.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved petitioner Brandon Alexander Rankin, who pleaded guilty in 2007 to second-degree murder and facilitation to commit first-degree murder in exchange for concurrent 40-year sentences, with other charges dismissed. He filed a timely motion to withdraw his guilty plea under Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(f), but the trial court reclassified the motion as a post-conviction petition, appointed new counsel, and later dismissed an amended filing as time-barred. The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed and remanded, concluding that the original motion was timely under Rule 32(f) and should not have been treated as a post-conviction petition, which has different standards and deadlines.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Jeffery Odom, who was convicted of two felonies and sentenced to concurrent probation terms. He petitioned for habeas corpus relief, arguing that the sentences should have been consecutive because the second offense occurred while he was on bond for the first, in violation of a Tennessee statute requiring cumulative sentencing. The trial court dismissed the petition, citing a statute that prohibits habeas corpus claims challenging concurrent sentencing in cases of guilty pleas and negotiated sentences. Odom filed his notice of appeal more than 30 days after the dismissal order, leading the appellate court to dismiss the appeal as untimely under Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 4, without finding grounds to waive the deadline in the interest of justice.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Robert King Vaughn, Jr., who pled guilty to aggravated burglary and theft charges and received sentences of probation in one case and community corrections in another. After a warrant alleged violations including failure to report to his officer, failure to complete assessments, and positive drug screens for cocaine, the trial court held a revocation hearing and ordered Vaughn to serve the remainder of his sentences in incarceration. On appeal, Vaughn challenged the revocation as an abuse of discretion given his admitted mental disabilities. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial court's revocation decision, concluding there was ample evidence of violations by a preponderance of the evidence, but remanded solely to correct a clerical error in the order regarding the type of sentence violated.

criminal law