James Mellon v. State of Tennessee
Syllabus
The Petitioner, James Mellon, appeals as of right from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because trial counsel failed to present a viable defense. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- ruling claim preclusion branch of res judicata applies to CHINS proceedings
- observing “past acts by parents can be relevant to new CHINS filings involving the same parents and children”
- noting where the statute provided parents the right to challenge the elements DCS must prove to establish a child is a CHINS, the mother “had at least some cognizable responsibility” to challenge the CHINS petition before the trial court
- “Past acts by parents can be relevant to new CHINS filings involving the same parents and children.”
- Slaughter, J. concurring in part and in the judgment with separate opinion in which Massa, J., joined
- evidence of parents’ prior experiences with DCS, including CHINS adjudications, is relevant “to all potential future CHINS proceedings involving the parents and children”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Judge D. Kelly Thomas, Jr.
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.