State of Tennessee v. Ralph Taylor Hopson
E2001-02113-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas T. Woodall
Trial Court Judge: Judge E. Shayne Sexton
Defendant, Ralph Taylor Hopson, was indicted by the Grand Jury of Claiborne County for one count of second degree murder and one count of attempted second degree murder. Prior to trial, Defendant stated his desire to waive his right to representation by counsel and requested to proceed pro se. Four days later, the trial court conducted an inquiry into Defendant’s ability to represent himself and granted his request. Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of the offenses charged. The trial court subsequently sentenced Defendant to twenty-five years for the second degree murder conviction and ten years for the attempt conviction, to be served concurrently. In this appeal, Defendant challenges both convictions on the ground that the waiver of his right to counsel was not knowingly and intelligently made. In addition, Defendant contends that his sentence for the second degree murder conviction is excessive. After a review of the record and applicable law, we conclude that Defendant did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to counsel and that the trial court erred in determining Defendant’s sentences. Accordingly, we reverse the judgments of the trial court and remand this matter for a new trial.

Clayton Eugene Turner v. State of Tennessee
E2001-02476-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: Judge Phyllis H. Miller

The Defendant, Clayton Eugene Turner, brings this appeal from the trial court's denial of post-conviction relief. The Defendant was convicted by a jury of rape of a child, incest, and assault. He argues two issues in this appeal: (1) that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial, and (2) that the trial court erred by denying the Defendant's post-conviction request for the appointment of experts in the fields of DNA analysis and the transmission of infectious diseases. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Dept. of Children's Srvcs vs. T.M.K.
E2000-02840-COA-R3-JV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: John B. Hagler, Jr.
The State of Tennessee, through the Department of Children's Services, seeks to terminate the parental rights of T.M.K. and G.L.K., as to their children, E.K. (d.o.b. 1/3/88), C.K. (d.o.b. 1/17/90), and twin daughters, A.K. and E.K. (d.o.b. 5/4/92). The Trial Court found the State had carried the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence as to grounds for termination, as well as the best interest of the children. We affirm.

Floyd Woody vs. Joy Woody
E2001-02078-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Thomas R. Frierson, II
In this case from the Chancery Court of Hamblen County the Appellant, Floyd Michael Woody contends that the Trial Court erred in amending a final judgment for divorce to include one half of his pension fund as part of the marital property to be awarded the Appellee, Joy Darlene Woody. The judgment of the Trial Court is affirmed as modified.

William Duty vs. Joseph Daugherty
E2001-02861-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Billy Joe White
In this boundary line dispute, the Trial Court established the boundary line between the parties' properties based on testimony that prior owners had agreed on the location of the boundary, which altered the boundary established by an accurate survey. We reverse.

State vs. Steven Arrington
E2002-00249-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: James E. Beckner
In this case from the Greene County Criminal Court the Appellant, Steven Keith Arrington, a juvenile, contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that he was guilty of aggravated kidnaping. Mr. Arrington also asserts that, assuming his conviction was proper, the Trial Court erred in failing to sentence him to an indeterminate commitment. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court and remand.

The Oceanics Schools vs. Clifford Barbour, Jr.
E2002-00181-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Sharon J. Bell
This matter is before us on the petition of the plaintiff for a rehearing pursuant to Tenn. R. App. P. 39.

State of Tennessee v. Jonathan Thornton
E2001-02491-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Gary R Wade
Trial Court Judge: Judge James Edward Beckner

The defendant, Jonathan Thornton, was convicted of one count of theft of property valued at more than $1,000 but less than $10,000 and one count of theft of property valued at less than $500. The trial court imposed concurrent sentences of two years and 11 months and 29 days, respectively. In this appeal of right, the defendant asserts (1) that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions, (2) that the trial court erred in its instructions to the jury, and (3) that the trial court erred by denying an alternative sentence. Because the trial court erred by denying an alternative sentence, the defendant's sentence is modified to a sentence of split confinement with nine months to be served in confinement and the balance to be served on probation.

Alvin Mays vs. Helen Mays
E2001-02630-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Thomas R. Frierson, II
In post-divorce action, the Trial Court changed from the mother to the father, the role as primary custodian of the minor child. On appeal, we affirm.

Natasha W. Cornett v. State of Tennessee
E2002-00034-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Gary R Wade
Trial Court Judge: Judge James E. Beckner

The petitioner, Natasha W. Cornett, appeals the trial court's denial of post-conviction relief. The issues presented for our review are (1) whether the petitioner properly waived her right to a jury trial at sentencing; (2) whether her guilty pleas to three counts of first degree murder, one count of attempted first degree murder, two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, two counts of aggravated kidnapping, and one count of theft over $1,000 were knowingly and voluntarily entered; and (3) whether the petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel. The judgment is affirmed.

Billy Allan Braswell, et ux vs. AC and S, Inc., et al
E2002-00093-COA-R9-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Wheeler A. Rosenbalm
The trial court allowed plaintiff to add seller as party to products liability action more than one year after injury and denied seller summary judgment on defense of the statute of limitations. We affirm.

Larry Parrish vs. Robert Marquis
E2002-01131-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Dale C. Workman
In this appeal from the Circuit Court for Knox County the Appellants, Larry E. Parrish and Larry E. Parrish, P.C., contend that the Trial Court erred in dismissing their cause of action upon grounds that it was not timely filed under T.C.A. 28-1-105(a). We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court.

Larry Parrish vs. Robert Marquis
E2004-00875-COA-RM-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Dale C. Workman
In this malicious prosecution case the Appellants, Larry E. Parrish and Larry E. Parrish, P.C., contend that the Knox County Circuit Court erred in granting motions for summary judgment filed by the Appellees, Robert S. Marquis and Ronald C. Koksal. We reverse the Circuit Court's judgment of dismissal as to Mr. Koksal and we affirm the Circuit Court's judgment of dismissal as to Mr. Marquis on alternative grounds.

State of Tennessee v. Alan Parrigan
M2001-00342-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry L. Smith
Trial Court Judge: Judge Robert L. Jones

The appellant, Alan Parrigan, was convicted of the offense of aggravated sexual battery. He received a sentence of ten years incarceration to be served consecutively to a sentence he was serving at the time of the commission of the instant offense. On appeal he raises three errors for our consideration. First, the appellant maintains that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offenses of child abuse and neglect. Second, he alleges that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict. Finally, the appellant contends consecutive sentencing is unwarranted in his case. After a thorough review of the record, we find that although the failure to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offenses of child abuse and neglect was error, the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. In addition, we find that the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict and that consecutive sentencing is fully supported by the record. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

State of Tennessee v. Damon L. Baugh
M2001-00895-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: Judge Donald P. Harris

The Williamson County Grand Jury indicted the defendant for one count of possession of more than 0.5 grams of cocaine for resale, a Class B felony, and for one count of simple possession of marijuana, a Class A misdemeanor. The defendant filed a motion to suppress the cocaine and marijuana obtained during his arrest, alleging that the search of his car was unconstitutional. Following a hearing, the trial court denied the motion to suppress. A Williamson County jury convicted the defendant of the charged offenses. The defendant now appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in failing to suppress the cocaine and marijuana obtained pursuant to his arrest. Concluding that the search of the defendant's car was constitutional, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Wanda Hinson - Dissenting
M2000-02762-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: Judge Timothy L. Easter
I am unable to agree that the trial court’s error in admitting the victim’s hearsay statement is harmless error. I believe the error requires reversal of the conviction, and I therefore dissent.

State of Tennessee v. Wanda Hinson
M2000-02762-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry L. Smith
Trial Court Judge: Judge Timothy L. Easter
A Lewis County jury convicted the defendant, Wanda Hinson, of criminally negligent homicide, for which she received a one and a half year sentence, and especially aggravated burglary, for which she received a twenty-two year sentence. The trial court ordered the defendant to serve these sentences concurrently. The defendant now appeals her convictions, alleging (1) that the trial court erred by admitting a hearsay statement, (2) that the trial court erred by failing to grant a mistrial when the state improperly impeached the defendant’s only alibi witness, (3) that the evidence is insufficient to support her convictions, and (4) that the trial court erred by failing to grant the defendant a new trial based on the state’s failure to provide certain exculpatory evidence. For the reasons outlined below, we find that none of these allegations merit relief and accordingly affirm the decision of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Christopher Robert Smith
M2001-02297-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: Judge Steve R. Dozier

The appellant, Christopher Robert Smith, was convicted in the Criminal Court of Davidson County of conspiracy to possess with the intent to manufacture, deliver or sell 300 grams or more of any substance containing cocaine, a Class A felony. The trial court sentenced the appellant to twenty-four years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction and imposed a fifty thousand dollar ($50,000) fine. On appeal, the appellant complains that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and that his sentence was excessive. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Terry W. Smith v. State of Tennessee
M2001-03062-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: Judge Robert E. Burch

This is an appeal from the denial of post-conviction relief concerning petitioner's conviction for aggravated kidnapping. The sole issue in this appeal is whether the petitioner was deprived of effective assistance of counsel when trial counsel, during the trial of the case, "opened the door" to the state's introduction of evidence of defendant's prior arrests. We agree with the post-conviction court's finding that petitioner failed to establish prejudice; thus, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Charles William Young v. State of Tennessee
M2000-02007-CCA-MR3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry L. Smith
Trial Court Judge: Judge W. Charles Lee

The appellant, Charles WilliamYoung, was convicted in a jury trial of the offense of theft over $500. He was sentenced to one year and six months and ordered to serve 60 days of incarceration, to pay a $500 fine and restitution of $800. The appellant's probation was revoked for the first time in 1997, but he was again placed on probation for 18 months. Two years later his probation was again revoked and the appellant was ordered to serve his original sentence with 94 days of jail credit. He subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief, or in the alternative, a writ of habeas corpus and alleged inter alia that a number of alleged constitutional errors occurred at both probation revocation hearings. The trial court summarily dismissed the petition.

We hold that the Post-Conviction Procedures Act, Tennessee Code Annotated Section 40-30-201, et seq., does not provide a cause of action for a collateral attack on a probation revocation proceeding. Moreover, the appellant's allegations, taken as true, would at most render the results of the probation revocation proceedings voidable, not void, and therefore the writ of habeas corpus is not available to the appellant. The judgment of the trial court is therefore affirmed.

State of Tennessee v. Marthias S. Phillips and Lanard Keith Armstrong
M2000-02575-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry L. Smith
Trial Court Judge: Judge J. Randall Wyatt, Jr.

A Davidson County jury found the defendants, Marthias S. Phillips and Lanard Keith Armstrong, guilty of facilitation of first-degree murder, criminal attempt to facilitate especially aggravated kidnapping, and criminal attempt to facilitate especially aggravated robbery. The trial court sentenced both defendants to serve 4-year sentences for their criminal attempt to facilitate especially aggravated kidnapping convictions, 4-year sentences for their criminal attempt to facilitate especially aggravated robbery convictions, and 20-year sentences for their facilitation of first-degree murder convictions. The trial court sentenced both defendants as Range I offenders and ordered them to serve their 4-year sentences for criminal attempt to facilitate especially aggravated kidnapping concurrently to their 20-year sentences for facilitation of first-degree murder. The court then ordered them to serve their 4-year sentences for criminal attempt to facilitate especially aggravated robbery consecutively to their concurrent 20-year sentences, resulting in an effective sentence of 24 years. The defendants now bring the instant appeal. Defendant Armstrong and Defendant Phillips both challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support their convictions, the propriety of the trial court's jury instructions, and the effectiveness of their trial counsel. Defendant Armstrong additionally challenges the propriety of his sentence. After thoroughly reviewing the record and applicable law, we find that none of these allegations merit relief.

Robert Spooner v. State of Tennessee
M2001-02356-CCA-R3-CO
Authoring Judge: Judge J. Curwood Witt, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Robert L. Holloway

Robert Spooner appeals from the Wayne County Circuit Court's denial of his petition for the writ of habeas corpus. The petition was filed in an effort to avoid Spooner's extradition to the state of Alabama, where he is charged with having violated his probation on a conviction of receiving stolen property. Because the lower court properly denied the petition, we affirm.

State of Tennessee v. Cornelius Devon Hicks
W2002-00334-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Trial Court Judge: Judge Clayburn L. Peeples

The Appellant, Cornelius Devon Hicks, appeals the sentencing decision of the Humboldt Law Court enlarging his community corrections sentence following revocation. Hicks argues on appeal that it was error to increase his sentence from eight to ten years, when no proof was introduced at the revocation hearing supporting an increased sentence and the trial court made no findings to justify the ten-year sentence. After review, we agree. Accordingly, the trial court's re-sentencing order is reversed, and this case is remanded to the trial court for a new sentencing hearing.

Kelso Oil vs. East West Truck Stop
E2001-02090-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Sharon J. Bell
This main issue in this appeal involves an Unconditional Guaranty signed by Frank Webb ("Webb"), the president and owner of East West Truck Stop, Inc. In this document, Webb guaranteed the debt of the "buyer", which was identified as "Frank Webb d/b/a East West Truck Stop." The "buyer", however, was the corporate entity, East West Truck Stop, Inc. The Trial Court concluded the parties intended for the document to state the "buyer" was the corporate entity and entered judgment against Webb personally. Webb appeals, claiming the Trial Court improperly used parol evidence to supply an essential term of the Unconditional Guaranty (i.e. the identity of the "buyer") in violation of the Statute of Frauds. We affirm.

State ex Rel. Dorothy Phillips vs. James Phillips
E2001-02081-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Billy Joe White
This is a post-divorce case involving child support issues. James Daniel Phillips ("Father") appeals the order below, in which the trial court held that it lacked the authority to reduce the child support arrearage due Father's former spouse, Dorothy Ellen Phillips ("Mother"). Father argued below that he had recently discovered that one of his "children" is not actually his biological child. He contends that this entitles him to the requested relief. Father further challenges the trial court's refusal to declare his 1990 divorce judgment invalid on the ground that it was not signed by Father who was then proceeding pro se. We affirm.