State vs. Randall Best E1999-00120-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: Carroll L. Ross
The defendant, Randall E. Best, appeals his first degree murder conviction and the resulting sentence of life without parole. He contends: (1) that the evidence is insufficient to show premeditation and deliberation, (2) that certain photographs of the victim were inadmissible at the sentencing phase of the trial, and (3) that the felony murder aggravating circumstance does not sufficiently narrow the class of death-eligible offenders when the jury convicts the defendant of both premeditated murder and felony murder. We hold that the evidence is sufficient, that the challenged photographs are admissible because they are relevant to the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and that the jury properly based the defendant's sentence on the felony murder aggravator. We affirm the trial court's judgment of conviction.
Monroe
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. James Douglas Hampton E1999-00115-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: D. Kelly Thomas, Jr.
The defendant appeals from the trial court's revocation of his probation. The defendant admits that he materially violated his probation, but contends that the trial court's disposition of the case was improper. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Writesman vs. Writesman M1999-00726-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Muriel Robinson
This appeal is from the trial court's order denying Husband's Petition for Modification and sentencing him to thirty days in jail for criminal contempt. Husband attempted to show that there had been a substantial and material change in the relative financial positions of the parties and that his court ordered alimony obligation should be terminated or modified. Wife counter-petitioned for contempt of court, and Husband was, thereafter, charged with criminal contempt and found guilty for his failure to pay alimony. We agree with the trial court that Husband failed to show a material change in circumstances sufficient to justify terminating or modifying his alimony obligation. We also agree with the trial court's finding of criminal contempt and uphold its sentence of thirty days in prison for such contempt. Therefore, the ruling of the trial court on all issues presented on appeal is affirmed.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Taylor vs. Heldman M1999-00729-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Daniel Benson Taylor V Russell Heldman
Daniel Benson Taylor ("Plaintiff"), a prison inmate, filed suit for damages and other relief against two judges of the 21st Judicial District and, by amended complaint, the assistant attorneys general representing the two judges because of the alleged failure of the judges to grant his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The trial judge granted a Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure 12.02(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The specially appointed trial judge sustained the motion and Plaintiff appeals. We affirm.
Hickman
Court of Appeals
State vs. Michael Anthony Maddox M2000-00193-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Cornelia A. Clark
Trial Court Judge: William Charles Lee
The defendant appeals the sentencing decision of the Marshall County Circuit Court. The defendant was convicted of two counts of sexual battery by an authority figure and sentenced to concurrent four year terms on each count. He was convicted of two counts of aggravated sexual battery and sentenced to concurrent twelve year terms on each count. Those sentences were run consecutively to the sentences for aggravated battery, for an effective sentence of sixteen (16) years. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Marshall
Court of Criminal Appeals
Prentice vs. Prentice M1999-01507-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Muriel Robinson
Ronald Prentice appeals from a decision of the Davidson County Circuit Court. The appeal involves a dispute over property division arising out of a divorce.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Chambers vs. Amonette M1999-01254-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Muriel Robinson
At the time of the parties' divorce in 1992, their minor child was placed in the primary residential custody of the mother, and the father was ordered to pay child support in the amount of $300.00 per month. The mother instituted a petition to modify. The father is in the military and, at the time of trial, had a base pay of $2,888.46 per month, which included allowances for BAS, BAH, and BAQ-DIFF. The parties anticipated at the time of trial that the father would be transferred to Korea for one year of service, and then would be transferred to England. According to the father, he would continue to receive his BAQ-DIFF allowance, but, while in Korea, he would no longer receive BAS or BAH allowances. The mother sought an increase in the monthly support payments based upon a significant variation with the Tennessee Child Support Guidelines and based upon reduced visitation by the father. According to the parties' final divorce decree, the father's visitation schedule provided for an average of sixty-nine days of visitation throughout the year, as compared to the anticipated eighty days in the Guidelines. After a hearing on the matter, the trial court denied the petition and ordered the mother to pay the father's costs and attorney's fees. We reverse and remand.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Thomas J. Williams vs. State M2000-00506-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Trial Court Judge: Timothy L. Easter
Thomas J. Williams appeals from the Hickman County Circuit Court's denial of his pro se petition for post-conviction relief. After review, we find the trial court's summary dismissal proper because the petition (1) is time barred; (2) fails to state a colorable claim; and (3) raises claims which are waived as they were not raised in previous petitions. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's denial of the petition.
R & D Marina, Inc., et al vs. Roane County, et al E1999-02687-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Frank V. Williams, III
Plaintiffs, a marina and its owners, were holders of a 1996 lease from Roane County to build and manage a marina. Plaintiffs received a permit from TVA to operate the marina in 1997. Plaintiffs filed suit against Roane County and four boathouse owners, seeking a declaratory judgment that the marina was entitled to monthly rent from the individual Defendants from the date of the Roane County lease until their boathouses were removed from the leased premises. The boathouse owners were holders of prior TVA permits to moor boathouses within the same area which became the marina pursuant to the 1996 lease and 1997 permit. The Trial Court ordered the boathouse owners to pay rent to the marina and to remove their boathouses. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court insofar as it ordered the individual Defendants to remove their boathouses. We hold the Trial Court erred in ordering the individual Defendants to pay rent starting from the date of the lease rather than the date of Plaintiffs' TVA permit. Accordingly, we modify the judgment of the Trial Court to reflect that Defendants owe rent to Plaintiffs from the date of Plaintiffs' TVA permit until the boathouses were removed. The judgment of the Trial Court is affirmed, as modified, and the case is remanded.
Roane
Court of Appeals
State vs. Shirley Cooper E1999-01810-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Trial Court Judge: D. Kelly Thomas, Jr.
The defendant was charged with violation of probation for harassment. The trial court found that the defendant had materially and repeatedly violated the terms of her probation, and that, given her history, she was not capable of successfully completing a term of supervised probation. Consequently, the trial court revoked the defendant's probation, ordering that she serve her original sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days in jail, with credit given for the forty-one days of jail time she had already served. The defendant filed a timely appeal, presenting the sole issue of whether the trial court erred in revoking her probation. Based upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Blount
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Hooper M1997-00031-SC-R11-CD
Authoring Judge: Justice William M. Barker
Trial Court Judge: Allen W. Wallace
The single issue in this appeal is whether the proof introduced at the sentencing hearing is sufficient to support a denial of probation based solely upon the need for deterrence. The Court of Criminal Appeals initially affirmed the sentence and held that proof of deterrence was not needed because drug use and possession cases are "deterrable per se." Upon the defendant's petition to rehear, however, the intermediate court reversed itself, holding that a "per se" rule of deterrence is inconsistent with the holding of this Court in State vs. Ashby, 823 S.W.2d 166 (Tenn. 1991). The State appealed to this Court. For the reasons given herein, we hold that the proof in this case is sufficient to justify denial of probation on the sole ground of deterrence. The judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals granting an alternative sentence is reversed, and the defendant's original term of incarceration is reinstated.
Humphreys
Supreme Court
State vs. Deborah Clark W1999-00893-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry Smith
Trial Court Judge: Roger A. Page
The defendant, Deborah Darlene Clark, was convicted by a Madison County jury of aggravated kidnapping, aggravated robbery, and criminal impersonation. In this appeal the defendant claims the evidence is insufficient to support the verdicts. The court finds the evidence clearly sufficient to support the convictions and thus affirms the judgment of the trial court.
Madison
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Eric Young W2000-00057-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge John Everett Williams
Trial Court Judge: Roy B. Morgan, Jr.
In this appeal from the trial court's denial of his post-conviction petition, the petitioner argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that his guilty plea was unknowing and involuntarily entered. We find no error in the trial court's denial of the post-conviction petition.
Madison
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Billy Hancock W1999-01746-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry Smith
Trial Court Judge: Chris B. Craft
The defendant, Billy Hancock, pled guilty in Shelby County Criminal Court to vehicular homicide, vehicular assault, aggravated child endangerment, three (3) counts of child endangerment, and reckless driving. The trial court sentenced the defendant to serve twelve (12) years for vehicular homicide, four (4) years for vehicular assault, four (4) years for aggravated child endangerment, nine (9) months for each of the three (3) counts of child endangerment, and six (6) months for reckless driving. The court ordered that the sentences for vehicular homicide, vehicular assault, and each of the three counts of child endangerment were to be served consecutively to each other, and that the sentences for reckless driving and aggravated child endangerment were to be served concurrently with the sentence for vehicular homicide. The total effective sentence was eighteen (18) years and three (3) months. On appeal, this court affirms the imposition of consecutive sentences because the trial court properly found that the defendant was a dangerous offender and had an extensive criminal history.
Shelby
Court of Criminal Appeals
Mary Schremp vs. David Schremp W1999-01734-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: John R. Mccarroll, Jr.
Mother, the custodial parent of minor children, desired to relocate out of state to live with her new husband. Father protested the move and filed a petition in opposition. Finding that Mother's new husband could easily move to Memphis to live with his new family and that dislocating the children was not in their best interest, the trial court granted the petition. We affirm.
Shelby
Court of Appeals
International Deli/Caterers vs. Raymond/Kimberly Shields W2000-00269-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: James F. Russell
This is a contract case. The defendants entered into a franchise agreement with the plaintiff to own and operate a franchise. After the defendants failed to make royalty payments for two months and then failed to make a note payment, the plaintiff filed suit alleging breach of contract. The defendants counter-claimed, alleging that the plaintiff breached the contract first by not operating a marketing fund mentioned in the franchise agreement and by not furnishing a sign provided for in the purchase agreement. At trial, the trial court allowed testimony by the plaintiff as to discussions, prior and subsequent to the signing of the agreements, in which he claimed that the parties had agreed upon different terms regarding the marketing fund and sign. The trial court found that the plaintiff had not breached the agreements by not maintaining the marketing fund or furnishing the sign, and that even if it were a breach, it was not a material breach. The defendants now appeal. We affirm.
Eric Petty, a child W2000-00907-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: William B. Acree
This case involves an appeal regarding the lower court's determination that Eric Dylan Petty was a delinquent child. In February 2000, a petition was filed with the Juvenile Court of Obion County alleging that Eric Dylan Petty committed the delinquent acts of aggravated assault and vandalism. The juvenile court determined that Petty was delinquent and ordered him committed to the Tennessee Department of Children's Services. After a de novo hearing, the circuit court also declared Petty delinquent based on the acts of aggravated assault and vandalism and affirmed Petty's commitment to the Department of Children's Services. This appeal followed.
Jerry Wayne Killion vs. Sandra Faye Sweat E1999-02634-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Robert M. Summitt
In this post-divorce proceeding, the father of Dustin Lynn Killion filed a petition seeking the child's custody. The trial court denied the father's petition. The father appeals the trial court's determination that the proof fails to demonstrate a material change of circumstances warranting a change of custody. We reverse.
Campbell
Court of Appeals
Brenda D. Estes, et al vs. Sandra H. Peels, et al E1999-00582-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Ben W. Hooper, II
This case arises out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred when a vehicle exited a manufacturing plant's parking lot and collided with the plaintiff's vehicle on a public highway. Brenda D. Estes and her husband sued the owner of the plant for negligence. The trial court granted the plant owner summary judgment. We hold that, under the circumstances of this case, the plant owner did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff and therefore affirm the grant of summary judgment.
Jefferson
Court of Appeals
Wilson Pharmacy, Inc., vs. General Computer Corp. E2000-00733-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Thomas J. Seeley, Jr.
The origin of this appeal is a complaint filed by Plaintiff Wilson Pharmacy, Inc., against Defendant General Computer Corporation, seeking damages for allegedly furnishing defective computer hardware and software programs pursuant to contracts entered into between the parties. The Trial Court found that the provision providing suit must be brought within one year after accrual of the action barred Wilson Pharmacy's claim. Wilson Pharmacy appeals, contending the contract they entered into was one of adhesion, rendering the contract limitation period ineffective. We affirm.
