Hampton-Hoover vs. Hoover M1999-01922-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Muriel Robinson
Davidson
Court of Appeals
James Earl Kirk, et al. vs. State M1999-01369-CCA-OT-CO
Authoring Judge: Judge John Everett Williams
Trial Court Judge: Jim T. Hamilton
In this interlocutory appeal the State raises the question of whether the Maury County Circuit Court, relying on Tenn. R. Crim. P. 5(a), erred by ordering that all proceedings in a case heard in general sessions court must be heard in the court closest to the location of the offense. It is the opinion of this Court that the plain language of Tenn. R. Crim. P. 5(a) controls the outcome of this case. The controversy in this case turns on the word "nearest" as used in the statute. A cursory reading of the statute could understandably lead one to believe that the term "nearest" was intended to convey geographic proximity. However, such a narrow reading of the word does not yield the desired result the Rule was intended to have, and cannot be read within the strict confines of the plain language set forth therein. The term "nearest" is broader in scope than mere geographical distance. It is the opinion of this Court that as used in Tenn. R. Crim. P. 5(a), "nearest" was intended to be analyzed temporally.
Wilson vs. Wilson M1999-01274-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Larry G. Ross
Warren
Court of Appeals
State vs. Rhonda Jennings M1999-01093-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry Smith
Trial Court Judge: Timothy L. Easter
On October 28, 1998, at the conclusion of a bench trial, Rhonda Jennings, the defendant and appellant, was found guilty of one count of theft over five-hundred dollars and one count of theft under five-hundred dollars. Following a sentencing hearing on February 26, 1999, the trial court ordered the defendant to serve two years on community corrections after serving twenty days in jail. On April 29, 1999, a warrant was filed against the defendant alleging that she had violated a condition of her community corrections sentence. After an evidentiary hearing on July 12, 1999, the trial court revoked the defendant's community corrections sentence and re-sentenced her to eighteen months incarceration. On appeal, the appellant claims that her sentence is excessive. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Williamson
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Bobby Garner M1999-01427-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry Smith
Trial Court Judge: Robert W. Wedemeyer
Following a Montgomery County Grand Jury indictment, Bobby Garner, the defendant and appellant, pled guilty to one count of aggravated burglary and one count of theft of property over one-thousand dollars. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the defendant to serve five years for aggravated burglary and three years for theft. The trial court ordered the defendant to serve the sentences consecutively. On appeal, the defendant argues (1) that the sentences imposed were excessive, (2) that he should have been sentenced alternatively, and (3) that consecutive sentences were inappropriate. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Montgomery
Court of Criminal Appeals
Joey Lee Smith vs. State M1999-01896-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry Smith
Trial Court Judge: William Charles Lee
In April of 1995, a Bedford County jury convicted the petitioner of one count of child rape, multiple counts of aggravated sexual battery, one count of sexual battery, and two counts of reckless endangerment. For these offenses he received an effective sentence of nineteen years. Having unsuccessfully pursued a direct appeal, the petitioner filed a pro se post-conviction petition and subsequently received appointed counsel. Through his amended petition the petitioner contended that counsel's alleged misdeeds had risen to the level of ineffective assistance of counsel and also that certain actions taken by the trial court had violated his due process rights. The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing on these matters and denied the petitioner relief. From this denial the petitioner brings this action again asserting that he received ineffective assistance both at trial and on direct appeal. However, following our review of the record, we find that the trial court correctly denied the petition, and we, therefore, affirm the lower court's decision.
State vs. Sheila Kay Cooper E1999-00220-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas T. Woodall
Trial Court Judge: James B. Scott, Jr.
Anderson
Court of Criminal Appeals
Jacob E. Warren v. American Holding Company d/b/a M1999-00012-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Tom E. Gray, Sp. J.Drowota, J.
Trial Court Judge: John J. Maddux, Jr., Judge
This Workers' Compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6- 225(e)(3) for a hearing and reporting of finding of fact and conclusions of law to the SupremeCourt. The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court's award of 4 weeks of permanent total disability benefits is contrary to Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-27(4)(A)(i), which cuts off permanent total benefits when the worker reaches 65 years of age provided the compensable injury occurred before the workerreached age 6. We hold that the trial court's award of 4 weeks exceeds the number of weeks payable under Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-27(4)(A)(i). For the reasons set forth below, the judgment of the trial court is modified to reflect an award of 195 weeks of permanent total disability benefits. Tenn.R.App.P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Trial Court Modified TOM E. GRAY, SP. J.DROWOTA, J., in which FRANK F. DROWOTA, III, J. and SAMUEL L. LEWIS, SP. J., joined. Bryan Essary, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, American Holding Company d/b/a Wilson Sporting Goods, and Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company. Ronald Thurman, Cookeville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Jacob E. Warren. OPINION This Workers' Compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6- 225(e)(3) for a -2-
