State of Tennessee v. Judy Johnson and Stanley Johnson W2001-01272-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Trial Court Judge: Judge George R. Ellis
The husband and wife defendants, Stanley and Judy Johnson, were convicted of eleven counts of cruelty to animals, as the result of conditions at a kennel in Gibson County where they were keeping approximately 350 dogs. Stanley Johnson was sentenced to eleven months and twenty-nine days on each count, with all sentences to be served concurrently, and, as to these sentences, to serve ninety days in the county jail with the remainder on probation. Judy Johnson was sentenced, likewise, to eleven months and twenty-nine days on each count, with all sentences to be served concurrently, but she was to serve six months before being put on probation. Both defendants were fined $1000 in each of the eleven counts. On appeal, they argue that the trial court erred in allowing testimony as to a prior similar complaint against Stanley Johnson and in denying total probation for both. Additionally, they argue that the proof is insufficient to sustain the verdicts. We affirm the judgments of conviction.
Gibson
Court of Criminal Appeals
State of Tennessee v. Judy Johnson and Stanley Johnson - Concurring W2001-01272-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Gary R. Wade
Trial Court Judge: Judge George R. Ellis
While I concur in the result reached by the majority, I disagree on three points. First, it is my view that the trial court erred by permitting the state to cross-examine Stanley Johnson on a 1993 animal cruelty charge that did not result in a conviction. Tennessee Rule of Evidence 608 permits limited use of character evidence for impeachment purposes. Rule 608 provides in pertinent part as follows:
The appellant, Herman Holston, was convicted after a trial by jury of sale of cocaine, a Class C felony, and was sentenced as a Range II offender to eight years and six months confinement in the Department of Correction. On appeal, Holston raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict, and (2) whether his sentence was proper. After a review of the record, we find that Holston's issues are without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the Shelby County Criminal Court is affirmed.
The defendant, Patsy Webster, appeals the Henry County Circuit Court's ordering her to serve one year of her effective two-year sentence in continuous confinement. She claims that the trial court erred in requiring her to serve a full year in jail because she was eligible as a Range I offender with only a two-year sentence for release after serving thirty percent of her sentence. The state agrees. We hold that the defendant was improperly sentenced and remand the case for resentencing.
Henry
Court of Criminal Appeals
Sherry Hopkins vs. James Hopkins E2001-02849-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Ben W. Hooper, II
In this appeal from the Circuit Court for Sevier County the Appellant, James Franklin Hopkins questions whether the Trial Court erred in awarding alimony to the Appellee, Sherry Mae Hopkins, and in ordering that all of Ms. Hopkins' debts be paid out of proceeds from the sale of the marital residence. Mr. Hopkins also asserts that Ms. Hopkins unlawfully disposed of marital assets. We affirm in part and modify in part.
Sevier
Court of Appeals
Larry Morgan d/b/a Morgan Contracting vs. Tellico Plains E2001-02733-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Lawrence H. Puckett
In this contract dispute, the Plaintiff, Morgan Contracting, Inc. ("Morgan") sued the Town of Tellico Plains, alleging that it was due $68,464.86 under the terms of the contract. Tellico Plains answered with the defense that Morgan's claim was time-barred under the sixty-day limitations period set forth in the contract. After a non-jury trial, the Court ruled that Morgan had not filed suit within the contractual limitations period and consequently dismissed Morgan's cause of action. On appeal, Morgan argues that the Trial Court erred in not finding that Tellico Plains waived its right to rely upon the contractual limitations period provision. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court.
Monroe
Court of Appeals
Robert Jones vs. Vick Idles E2001-02833-COA-R9-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: William E. Lantrip
Anderson
Court of Appeals
Robert Jones vs. Vick Idles E2001-02833-COA-R9-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: William E. Lantrip
Cheryl Nichols v. Transcor America M2001-01889-COA-R9-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Marietta M. Shipley
A female prisoner who was allegedly raped by an employee of TransCor America, Inc., an inmate transportation company, brought suit against the company for negligence and breach of contract. The trial court granted partial summary judgment to the defendant company on the negligence claim, ruling among other things that it is not a common carrier under Tennessee law. The court also denied the company's motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff's contract claim. Both parties filed applications for an interlocutory appeal, which we granted. We affirm the trial court as to both issues.
The defendant was indicted for first degree murder and convicted by the jury of second degree murder. He filed a petition for post-conviction relief, and was permitted to make a delayed motion for a new trial, which ultimately was denied by the trial court. The defendant appeals the denial, arguing that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support his conviction for second degree murder. After a review of the record, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence to convict the defendant of second degree murder and that the trial court properly denied the defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal and a new trial.
An Obion County Circuit Court jury convicted the defendant, Ernest Lee Littles, of rape of a child, a Class A felony. The trial court sentenced him as a child rapist to twenty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction, with 100% of the sentence to be served. In his appeal as of right, the defendant claims only that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction. We affirm the judgment of the trial court but remand for entry of a corrected judgment
Obion
Court of Criminal Appeals
Jonathan H. vs. James Stewart E2001-02485-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: William E. Lantrip
This is a suit brought by Jonathan H., through his mother and next friend, Lisa S., and Lisa S., individually, seeking by means of a writ of certiorari and supercedes, to reverse a determination of the Anderson County School Board expelling Jonathan H. for one year because the Board found that he had violated its zero tolerance policy by possessing drugs on a school campus. We vacate the judgment below, dismiss the appeal and remand.
Kasiea Chance vs. Carl Gibson E2001-02836-COA-R3-JV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Jeffrey D. Rader
This is a suit by Kasiea Delawn Chance, adult daughter of Kayla D. Leonard, and Ms. Leonard, who joins in the prosecution of this suit against Carl Dennis Gibson, Jr., seeking to establish his paternity as to Ms. Chance and recover support from the date of Ms. Chance's birth, medical expenses incident thereto, and attorney fees. We affirm in part; vacate in part and remand.
Sevier
Court of Appeals
Dairy Gold vs. Michael Thomas E2001-02463-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: W. Frank Brown, III
In this dispute over a commercial lease, the Chancellor entered Judgment for lessor for limited rents, taxes and attorney's fees. On appeal, we affirm. In this dispute over a commercial lease, the Chancellor entered Judgment for lessor for limited rents, taxes and attorney's fees. On appeal, we affirm.
Hamilton
Court of Appeals
Richard Taylor vs Steven Burleson E2001-02381-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Thomas J. Seeley, Jr.
In this declaratory judgment action, plaintiffs lot owners, sought to invalidate subdivision restrictive covenants on grounds other lot owners had violated the restrictions. The Trial Court refused. We affirm.
Washington
Court of Appeals
Vicky Lynn Presley v. Vf Workwear, Inc. M2001-01912-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Sp. J.
Trial Court Judge: Vernon Neal, Chancellor
In this appeal, the employer insists (1) the trial court erred by considering the operating surgeon's medical impairment rating and (2) the award of permanent partial disability benefits is excessive. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the judgment should be affirmed.
Putnam
Workers Compensation Panel
Josephine Bryant v. Imperial Manor Convalescent M2000-01582-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Sp. J.
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Chancellor
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 hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this appeal, the employer-appellant questions (1) the trial court's finding of compensability and (2) the imposition of a 6 percent penalty. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the judgment should be affirmed. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e) (21 Supp.) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed JOE C. LOSER, JR., SP. J., in which FRANK F. DROWOTA, III, C. J., and JOHN K. BYERS, SR. J., joined. Clarence E. Lutz, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Imperial Manor Convalescent Center, LLC. Carson W. (Bill) Beck, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Josephine Bryant MEMORANDUM OPINION The employee or claimant, Josephine Bryant, injured her back at work. When the employer, Imperial Manor, denied her claim for workers' compensation benefits, she initiated this civil action. Following a trial on the merits, the trial court found the claimant's injury to be compensable and awarded benefits. The employer has appealed. Appellate review is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of correctness of the findings of fact, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(2). The reviewing court is required to conduct an independent examination of the record to determine where the preponderance of the evidence lies.
Davidson
Workers Compensation Panel
Betsy D. Coker v. Beverly Enterprises Tennessee, Inc. M2000-01630-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Sp. J.
Trial Court Judge: Jeffrey Stewart, Chancellor
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 hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this appeal, the employer-appellant questions (1) the trial court's finding that the employee's injury arose out of and in the course of her employment and (2) the award of permanent partial disability benefits based on 65 percent to the leg. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the judgment should be affirmed. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e) (21 Supp.) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed. JOE C. LOSER, JR., SP. J., in which FRANK F. DROWOTA, III, C. J., and JOHN K. BYERS, SR. J., joined. Pamela M. McCord and Richard E. Spicer, Nashville, for the appellant, Beverly Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Beverly Healthcare Robert T. Carter, Tullahoma, Tennessee, for the appellee, Betsy D. Coker MEMORANDUM OPINION The employee or claimant, Ms. Coker, initiated this civil action to recover workers' compensation benefits for an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of her employment as a nurse for Beverly Healthcare. The employer denied liability and denied the claimant suffers any permanent disability. Following a trial on the merits on May 21, 21, the trial court resolved the issues in favor of the claimant and awarded, inter alia, permanent partial disability benefits based on 65 percent to the leg. The employer has appealed. Appellate review is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of correctness of the findings of fact, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(2). The reviewing court is required to conduct an independent examination of the record to determine where the preponderance of the evidence lies.
The sole issue in this appeal is whether the trial court erred in ordering the defendant to pay $18,000 in restitution. We reverse the judgment of the trial court regarding restitution and remand this matter for further proceedings.
The defendant was convicted of premeditated first degree murder by a Davidson County jury and sentenced to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. In this appeal, he contends (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction; (2) he was denied the opportunity to retain his counsel of choice; (3) the state committed prosecutorial misconduct when it failed to sua sponte redact a portion of an audio tape, and the trial court improperly denied the defendant's request for a mistrial; and (4) the trial court erred when it failed to instruct the jury on facilitation of first degree murder and voluntary manslaughter as lesser-included offenses of first degree murder. After reviewing the record, we affirm.
Davidson
Court of Criminal Appeals
Donald Tangwall vs. Patrick Stapleton E2001-02121-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: W. Dale Young
Plaintiff filed a Petition in bankruptcy and subsequently filed suit in Circuit Court, claiming damages against defendants. The Trial Court dismissed plaintiff's action. On appeal, we affirm.
Blount
Court of Appeals
Guy R. Jenkins, et al vs. Dan Gibbs E2001-01802-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Sharon J. Bell
After a dispute arose over the ownership of 1000 shares of stock in City Bonding Company ("City Bonding"), Guy Jenkins and Aubrey Allen Jenkins ("Plaintiffs") sued Dan Gibbs ("Defendant") seeking a determination as to how many shares of stock were owned by the various parties. Guy Jenkins also claimed Gibbs unlawfully procured the breach of a contract Guy Jenkins had with City Bonding. The trial court granted Gibbs summary judgment on the unlawful procurement of breach of contract claim. After a trial on the remaining issues, the trial court determined Gibbs owned 490 shares of stock, Guy Jenkins owned 255 shares, and the remaining 255 shares were unissued. All parties appealed the trial court's determination with respect to ownership of the stock. Guy Jenkins also appealed the granting of summary judgment on his claim against Gibbs for unlawful procurement of breach of contract. We vacate the summary judgment granted to Gibbs and affirm the judgment in all other respects.
