Frankie White, et al vs. Ronnie Gault, et al
M2000-00534-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: L. Craig Johnson
The plaintiff filed a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02 motion, seeking to reinstate his claim after the Supreme Court reversed a decision cited by this court when dismissing his appeal. The trial court denied the motion. We affirm.

Kenneth Lewis vs. Dept. of Correction
M2000-00675-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.
Appellant, a Department of Corrections inmate, appeals the dismissal of his petition for a writ of certiorari relative to disciplinary action by the TDOC resulting from a positive drug screen. We affirm the trial judge.

Peggy Boles vs. Dept. of Correction
M2000-00893-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.
The wife of an incarcerated person brought an action seeking to have a policy of the Department of Correction declared invalid. The policy involved a visitor's responsibility to control children while visiting an inmate in a state prison. The trial court dismissed the petition. We affirm.

Jeff Utley, et al vs. Jim Rose, et al
M2000-00941-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Carol L. Mccoy
Two prison inmates sued the Assistant Commissioner of Correction and four other correctional employees for failing to release them from maximum security. The trial court dismissed the suit for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. We affirm.

Peter Greer v. Dept of Correction
M2000-00222-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.
This appeal involves a dispute between a prisoner and the Tennessee Department of Correction regarding a change in the way the Department reports pre-trial sentence credits. Believing that the change increased the length of his sentence, the prisoner filed suit in the Chancery Court for Davidson County to rescind the change. The trial court concluded that the change had not altered the prisoner's sentence expiration date and dismissed the petition. We affirm.

Charles Bobo v. Dept. of Corrections
M2000-00517-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle
Appellant, a prison inmate, filed, in the Chancery Court of Davidson County, a Petition for Writ of Certiorari questioning disciplinary actions against him by the Department of Corrections. The petition was dismissed by the Chancellor with costs assessed against Appellant. Appellant then sought exemption of his inmate trust account from execution for costs asserting that Tennessee Code Annotated Section 26-2-103 rendered his trust account and personal property to a value of $4,000 exempt from execution for court costs. The Chancellor held Tennessee Code Annotated Section 26-2-103 to be inapplicable, and we affirm the Chancellor.

Mitchell Tarver vs. Dept. of Correction
M2000-01622-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle
A prison inmate filed a petition seeking a declaratory judgment that he was entitled to parole consideration in accordance with his plea bargain. The trial court dismissed the petition on summary judgment. We affirm.

Ronald L. Davis vs. Hershell D. Koger
M2000-01598-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Stella L. Hargrove
This appeal involves a dispute between a convicted felon and the lawyer appointed to represent him in his efforts to reopen his post-conviction challenge to his conviction. After the efforts to set aside his conviction proved unsuccessful, the prisoner sued the lawyer in the Chancery Court for Maury County arguing that his civil rights had been violated because his lawyer had conspired with the prosecutor and the trial judge to prevent him from obtaining the post-conviction relief to which he believed he was entitled. The lawyer denied these allegations, and the prisoner moved for a summary judgment. On June 15, 2000, the trial court summarily dismissed the prisoner's complaint on two grounds. First, the court concluded that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction to consider claims regarding the denial of the prisoner's request for post-judgment relief. Second, the trial court concluded that the prisoner had failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. We affirm the dismissal of the prisoner's complaint.

Derrick Jackson v. Dept of Correction
M2000-02065-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Jeffrey S. Bivins
This appeal involves a dispute between a prisoner and the Department of Correction over the prisoner's loss of sentence credits as punishment for a disciplinary offense. Failing to obtain redress from the Department, the prisoner filed a petition in the Chancery Court for Williamson County alleging that he was being held unlawfully because his sentence had expired. The trial court dismissed the petition, and the prisoner appealed. We have determined that this appeal is now moot because the prisoner has been released from custody. Therefore, we vacate the trial court's order and remand the case with directions to dismiss the prisoner's petition.

State vs. Alexander Lee
W1999-01804-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Trial Court Judge: Chris B. Craft
The Appellant, Alexander A. Lee, pled guilty to one count of felony possession of cocaine, a class C felony. The Shelby County Criminal Court sentenced the Appellant to three years, suspended, with nine months to serve in the county workhouse. On appeal, the Appellant contends that the trial judge erred in denying his request for total probation. After review, we find no error. Therefore, the judgment is affirmed.

Frances Wolfe vs. Kroger Co.
W2000-00281-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: James F. Russell
Plaintiff sued Defendant to recover for injures she received from a fall inside Defendant's store. The trial court granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment. We affirm based on Plaintiff's failure to counter Defendant's evidence that it neither caused the condition which caused the fall nor did it have notice of that condition.

Michael Love vs. Dr. Crants
W2000-01518-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Jon Kerry Blackwood
This case involves the incarceration of the Appellant in the State of Tennessee pursuant to a contract between the Wisconsin Department of Corrections and Corrections Corporation of America. The Appellant filed a petition for habeas corpus relief in the Circuit Court of Hardeman County. The trial court entered an order dismissing the Appellant's for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

State vs. Terry Johnson
W2000-00749-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge J. Curwood Witt, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Joseph H. Walker, III
A Lauderdale County jury convicted the defendant of felony reckless endangerment, and in this appeal, the defendant claims two errors: (1) The trial court erroneously determined that the eight-year-old victim was competent to testify, and (2) the defendant was denied his right to a unanimous verdict. We find no error requiring reversal and affirm the conviction.

Emanuel Johnson vs. Doctor Crans, et al
W2000-01587-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Jon Kerry Blackwood
Inmate, a State of Wisconsin prisoner in custody at a private correctional facility in Tennessee pursuant to a contract between the State of Wisconsin and the facility, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus against respondent, the chief executive officer of the private correctional facility and the warden of the private facility. The petition alleges, in substance, that the act of the State of Wisconsin in sending the prisoner to a private correctional facility out of the state waived its jurisdiction over the inmate, voided his sentence, and released him from custody. The trial court dismissed the petition for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and inmate has appealed. We affirm.

Brenda Woods vs. Howard Hayden
W2000-02362-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Joe C. Morris
The cases on appeal are three actions that were consolidated by Order of the court below. The Defendants in all cases are practicing attorneys. While Appellant's brief is difficult to follow and contains no citations to the record, it appears that she was dissatisfied with the outcome of two cases which were pending in the Chancery Courts of Shelby County, Tennessee. As a result, she sued the attorneys who worked on her behalf as well as her adversaries' counsel.

Isbell vs. Travis Electric Co., et al
M1999-00052-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Hamilton V. Gayden, Jr.
After Plaintiff resigned from his job and attempted to start his own competing business, his former manager informed a mutual client of the circumstances surrounding his resignation. Plaintiff sued his former employer and its service manager, alleging slander, libel, defamation, and tortious interference with contract. The trial court directed a verdict for Defendants, and Plaintiff appeals, arguing that the trial court misapplied the substantial truth doctrine, failed to apply the doctrine of implication, and was incorrect in its finding that no contract existed between Plaintiff and his new company's main client. Plaintiff also insists that, by failing to grant a new trial so that he could add an allegation of invasion of privacy, the court ignored the proper legal consequences arising from the disclosure of a confidential drug test. For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of the trial court.

State vs. Jeffrey Coffey
M2000-00770-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Trial Court Judge: Jim T. Hamilton
The defendant was convicted by a Maury County jury of aggravated child abuse of a child six years of age or less, a Class A felony, and was sentenced to twenty-five years in confinement, the maximum sentence for a Range I, standard offender. In this appeal as of right, the defendant presents two issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction; and (2) whether the sentence was excessive. We conclude that the convicting evidence was sufficient. We further conclude that, although the trial court erred in applying enhancement factors (5) and (6), two other statutory enhancement factors were appropriately applied. Additionally, we conclude that, although the trial court erred in not applying mitigating factors (6) and (13), the defendant was appropriately sentenced. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

State vs. Carlos L. Batey
M2000-00759-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: Seth W. Norman
The defendant appeals a certified question from the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress cocaine seized incident to his warrantless arrest. He contends that the police lacked probable cause to arrest him because the state failed to prove the basis of knowledge and the reliability of the informant who arranged the drug transaction which led to his arrest. We affirm the trial court's denial of the motion to suppress.

State vs. Michael Nevens
M2000-00815-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: Timothy L. Easter
The defendant appeals from his conviction for theft of a bottle of tea, contesting the jury instructions, the effectiveness of his trial counsel, the state's cross-examination of defense witnesses, the state's closing argument and the trial court's failure to rule upon a subsequent objection, and his sentence. Because the trial court erred in instructing the jury, we reverse the defendant's conviction and remand the case to the trial court.

Ray Charles Gasaway vs. State
M2000-00991-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas T. Woodall
Trial Court Judge: Steve R. Dozier
Petitioner, Ray Charles Gasaway, filed a Petition for Post-Conviction Relief in the Davidson County Criminal Court, which the post-conviction court subsequently denied. Petitioner challenges the denial of his petition, raising the following issue: whether the trial court erred in ruling that the Petitioner was provided effective assistance of counsel. Specifically, Petitioner argues that his trial counsel failed to investigate, failed to raise the fatal variance between the indictment and the proof at trial and failed to raise as an issue the violation of Petitioner's right to due process because of the delay between the commission of the crimes and commencement of adversarial proceedings. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the trial court's denial of the Petitioner's post-conviction petition.

Sneed vs. Bd. of Professional Responsibility
M1999-01588-SC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Justice Adolpho A. Birch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Tom E. Gray
This case is before the Court on an appeal of right from the judgment of the Chancery Court of Davidson County suspending Michael H. Sneed, the appellant, from the practice of law for six months together with other sanctions. Sneed contends that the trial court erred in imposing discipline and that the six-month suspension is too harsh a sanction. Because we conclude that the trial court had the authority to impose sanctions and that the sanctions imposed are fair and proportionate in light of the entire record, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Sheucraft vs. Roberts
M1999-01645-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Marietta M. Shipley
This is a custody dispute between the maternal grandparents, Petitioners, and the biological father, Respondent. The child, Lexie, was born to Dewey and Lisa Roberts in October of 1991 and was seven years of age at the June 1999 trial. In 1995, Dewey Roberts and Lisa Sheucraft Roberts separated, and Lisa Roberts and Lexie moved in with the Petitioners. Ms. Roberts and the child continued to reside with the Petitioners until her unexpected death in 1998 from a brain aneurysm related to a cocaine overdose. The Respondent has a history of drug and alcohol abuse and, at the time of trial, was involved in an abusive relationship with a female companion. The trial court, applying the "substantial harm" test of Bond v. McKenzie, 896 S.W.2d 546 (Tenn. 1995), found that to change the residential arrangements from the grandparents' home to the father's home would be devastating to the child and would result in substantial harm to her. The trial court further found that it is in the child's best interests to spend the majority of her time with the maternal grandparents. Respondent appeals and we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Fontenot vs. Fontenot
M1999-02322-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: C. K. Smith
This appeal arises from the trial court's division of marital property and martial debt, award of alimony, and award of attorney's fees. After reviewing the record and applicable law, the trial court's judgment is affirmed as modified.

Moore vs. Moore
M1999-02301-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Charles D. Haston, Sr.
In this divorce case, the husband argues that the trial court erred in the way it classified and distributed the parties' marital property. We agree that the trial court's implied classification of the parties' home on Pleasant Cove Road was erroneous as a matter of law, but we find that its disposition of the property was nonetheless within the court's authority and discretion. We accordingly modify the final decree to reflect our view of its correct classification, but otherwise affirm the trial court.

Owen vs. Martin
M1999-02305-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle
The trial court found that a mother and her adult son had both breached an oral contract whereby the son agreed to pay off the mortgage on his mother's home and to permit her to remain there for the rest of her life, and the mother agreed to give the son her equity in the home upon her death, and to allow him to use a garage apartment in the home until that time. We reverse the trial court's finding that there was an enforceable contract between the parties, but we impress a resulting trust on the son's interest in the home, which inures to his mother's benefit.