The defendant, Patricia Adkisson, who was charged with 253 counts of animal cruelty and one count of tampering with evidence, was convicted on three counts of animal cruelty. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-14-202, 39-16-503. The trial court imposed three consecutive terms of 11 months, 29 days, and granted supervised probation. As a condition of probation, the defendant was prohibited from owning any caged animals for a period of five years. The defendant appealed. Later, the trial court revoked probation and a second appeal followed. In this consolidated proceeding, the defendant claims that (1) the trial court erred by denying her motion to suppress evidence gathered during the initial search of her property; (2) the evidence was insufficient; (3) the sentence was improper; and (4) the trial court lacked authority to revoke her probation. Because the search of the defendant's premises violated constitutional principles, the trial court erred by failing to suppress the evidence which led to the convictions. Accordingly, the convictions are reversed and the causes are remanded.
Hickman
Court of Criminal Appeals
State of Tennessee v. Michael Fields M2000-01657-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Gary R Wade
Trial Court Judge: Judge John H. Gasaway, III
In 1992, the defendant, Michael Fields, was convicted of two counts of sale of cocaine; the trial court imposed concurrent sentences of eight years in community corrections. In 1993, the defendant pled guilty to possession of cocaine with intent to sell; the trial court imposed an additional sentence of eight years in community corrections and ordered it to be served concurrently with the 1992 sentences. In February of 1997, the trial court revoked the community corrections sentences and ordered the defendant to serve the remainder of his sentences in the Department of Correction. In May of 1997, the defendant entered a plea of nolo contendere to possession with intent to sell less than one-half gram of cocaine; the trial court imposed a sentence of three years, consecutive to his prior sentences, for an effective sentence on all offenses of 11 years, and granted probation. On July 1, 1998, a probation violation warrant was filed in all three cases. The defendant was ordered to serve 30 days of periodic confinement for the violations. On August 1, 1999, another probation violation warrant, which was later amended, was served on the defendant. Ultimately, probation in all three cases was revoked. In this appeal of right, the defendant complains that he had completed his sentence and the trial court had no authority to revoke probation. In the alternative, the defendant argues that if the sentence had not been completed, he should have been returned to intensive probation. The judgments are affirmed.
Montgomery
Court of Criminal Appeals
Terry Brough vs. Muriel Adcroft W2001-00786-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: George H. Brown
This appeal involves a trial court's grant of prejudgment interest on arbitration awards. Subsequent to an automobile accident, the plaintiffs filed suit against their uninsured motorist policy carrier and another individual involved in the accident. The case proceeded to arbitration and the plaintiffs were awarded $140,000.00, which was paid by the insurance company. Upon obtaining new counsel, the plaintiffs learned of a relationship between the arbitrator and the insurance company and motioned the court to vacate the arbitration award. The trial court granted plaintiff's motion and resubmitted the case for a second arbitration. The plaintiffs were awarded $245,000.00 at the second arbitration and, soon after, motioned the court for prejudgment interest on the award. The trial court awarded the plaintiffs $71,042.72 of prejudgment interest. The insurance company appealed the decision to grant prejudgment interest and both parties have contested the method of calculation employed by the trial court. For the following reasons, we affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Shelby
Court of Appeals
Robert Smith vs. Warden Larry Craven W2001-00955-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Jon Kerry Blackwood
Petitioner appeals from the trial court's order denying Petitioner's petition for writ of certiorari. We affirm.
The Defendants, Johnie Jefferson and Larry Johnson, were found guilty by a Shelby County jury of first degree murder in No. W1999-00747-CCA-R3-CD. Both Defendants received life sentences with the possibility of parole. The Defendants now appeal, arguing (1) that there was insufficient evidence to convict them of first degree premeditated murder, (2) that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence a demonstrative exhibit showing the organizational structure of the Gangster's Disciples, (3) that the trial court erred in allowing the jury to take an exhibit showing the organizational structure of the Gangster's Disciples into the jury room during deliberations, (4) that the trial court erred in admitting for impeachment purposes Jefferson's prior convictions, (5) that the trial court erred in denying Jefferson's motion to sever, and (6) that the trial court erred in allowing into evidence the contents of Johnson's car. In addition, Defendant Jefferson sought relief in a petition for a writ of error coram nobis, which was denied by the trial court. Jefferson's appeal from the denial of this petition came before this court in a separate appeal, No. W2000-01970-CCA-R3-CO; however, both cases were consolidated for appellate purposes. We find no reversible error with regard to any of the issues raised; thus, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The defendants, Matthew DeLoss Larsen and Andrew Lee Matthews, were indicted for aggravated robbery and aggravated assault. Pursuant to negotiated plea agreements, the defendants pled guilty to robbery, Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-401, and aggravated assault, Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-102, both Class C felonies. The defendants also agreed to serve consecutive sentences, with the manner of service and length of their sentences to be determined by the trial court. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed five-year sentences for each felony conviction and denied any form of alternative sentencing, which resulted in effective sentences of ten years confinement for both defendants. In this appeal, Larsen and Matthews separately challenge their sentences on similar grounds, essentially alleging that the trial court erred by (1) finding no mitigating factors were applicable in their respective cases, and (2) denying both defendants any form of alternative sentencing. Our de novo review reveals that the trial court erred in its application of enhancement factors. After a thorough review of applicable law and all relevant facts and circumstances in the record, we modify the trial court’s sentencing determination concerning the length of the defendants’ sentence for aggravated assault and affirm all other aspects of the judgment of the trial court.
Sumner
Court of Criminal Appeals
James E. Gunter v. U.C.H.R.A. and Kristi A. Poore M1999-01591-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Conrad E. Troutman, Jr.
In this appeal, the appellant, Mr. Gunter, filed a claim for personal injury and property damages against a local governmental entity in general sessions court. The governmental entity orally moved to dismiss citing the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, which grants exclusive jurisdiction over these cases to the circuit court. The general sessions court denied the motion and transferred the case to circuit court, and that court dismissed the action based on the statute of limitations. Mr. Gunter now appeals the dismissal of his case by the circuit court.
The Defendant, Jerry W. Jordan, was convicted of second degree murder in the Criminal Court of Davidson County. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I offender to twenty-two years of imprisonment. In his appeal as of right pursuant to Rule 3(b) of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, the Defendant argues that (1) the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support a verdict of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, (2) the Defendant’s Due Process and Equal Protection rights were violated when the State excluded four African-American jurors, (3) the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury as to reckless homicide as a lesser-included offense, and (4) the trial court erred in sentencing the Defendant to twenty-two years. We reverse the Defendant’s second degree murder conviction due to the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury regarding reckless homicide as a lesser-included offense to first degree murder.
I agree with the majority opinion in all respects except for the failure to charge the lesser included offense. Although I agree with the majority’s conclusion that the failure to charge reckless homicide was error, I would find the failure to charge the lesser offense harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Davidson
Court of Criminal Appeals
Eileen Dunloy v. Brian Dunloy M2000-03103-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Lee Russell
Marshall
Court of Appeals
Eileen Dunloy v. Brian Dunloy M2000-03103-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Lee Russell
Marshall
Court of Appeals
M2001-00095-COA-R3-CV M2001-00095-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Frank G. Clement, Jr.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Charles Moore v. Clyde Green M2000-03203-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge John J. Maddux, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Frank G. Clement, Jr.
This appeal involves a dispute concerning the estate of Nellie K. Ellis. The plaintiffs, Charles W. Moore, Linda Moore Maggart (Executrix of the estate of Herschel Moore, deceased), Ray Swing, Juantia Swing Sircy, Jeane S. Pennington, and James E. Swing, contested the decision to admit the will to probate. Their position is that the will is invalid because of a train of circumstances which shows the will was (1) not properly executed, (2) the testator lacked sufficient mental capacity, or (3) the beneficiary exercised undue influence over the testator. The trial court granted the defendant Clyde Green summary judgment, holding that the will was properly executed and that the plaintiffs did not adequately prove undue influence or lack of mental capacity. We affirm the trial court's decision.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
City of Lebanon vs. Raymond Harris M1999-01025-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Clara W. Byrd
This case involves the zoning and sign ordinances of Lebanon, Tennessee. Mr. Harris had placed small outdoor insulated metal storage buildings at several properties within the city of Lebanon. The buildings had on the sides information advertising his company and a phone number to contact him for information to buy or rent one of these buildings. He was fined for violations of the City of Lebanon ordinance allowing only one principal building and its customary accessory buildings on a lot and for violation of the sign ordinance. The circuit court reversed the city court's fines and held that the buildings were not principal buildings and that they were not portable signs. For the reasons below, we affirm the circuit court's decision in part and reverse in part.
Wilson
Court of Appeals
BellSouth Publishing v. Ruth Johnson, Commissioner of Revenue M2000-03091-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Claudia C. Bonnyman
The State Commissioner of Revenue imposed a use tax on the cost price of telephone directories produced in Alabama and distributed in Tennessee by BellSouth Advertising and Publishing Company ("BAPCO"). BAPCO claimed a credit for sales taxes it paid in Alabama when it purchased the photocompositions used to print the directories. The Chancery Court of Davidson County granted summary judgment to the Commissioner. We affirm the lower court's decision because BAPCO did not show that it was entitled to the credit and the Tennessee use tax in this case does not violate the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Kurt Seraphine v. Aqua Bath M2000-02662-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Claudia C. Bonnyman
This is an appeal from the grant of Appellees' motion for summary judgment. Appellant, a former employee of Appellee company, brought various claims against the company, and the company's top executives. Against the company, Appellant sought damages and specific performance based on an alleged breach of a stock option agreement and damages for breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing. Against the individual defendants, Appellant sued on claims of statutory and common law inducement to breach. Appellees counterclaimed for a declaratory judgment that Appellant had no option to purchase shares in the company because the option expired when his employment terminated. Summary judgment was granted on Appellees' declaratory judgment claim and Appellant's claims were dismissed. We reverse the trial court's holding that the stock option expired with termination of employment, but find Appellant has not demonstrated a breach of the stock option agreement or his right to any remedy thereunder. We affirm the trial court's grant of summary judgment on the breach of duty of good faith and intentional interference claims.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Rene Mercer, et al vs. HCA Health Services of TN, Inc. M2000-02785-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Barbara N. Haynes
A widow claimed that her husband's suicide was caused by the negligence of the defendant hospital and the defendant psychiatrist in releasing him prematurely from involuntary commitment. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding that the hospital was obligated to release the patient when ordered to do so by the psychiatrist, and that the psychiatrist was entitled to absolute immunity for actions undertaken under the involuntary commitment statutes. We reverse the trial court.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Thomas Roache vs. Justine Bourisaw M2000-02651-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Carol A. Catalano
This case involves a non-custodial parent's petition for change of custody. The original marital dissolution agreement granted the mother full custody of the child and the father alternate weekends and holidays and two weeks each summer. The mother later moved to Missouri, and the parties adjusted visitation accordingly. Later, the father filed and was granted a contempt motion due to the mother's failure to allow him to see the child. He subsequently filed a motion for change of custody which was also granted. The court found that the circumstances warranted the change of custody. The mother appeals. We affirm the trial court's change of custody.
Montgomery
Court of Appeals
Thomas Harrison, et al. v. Earl Laursen, et al. M2001-00073-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Robert L. Jones
This appeal involves pre-judgment interest on unpaid attorney's fees. The defendants owed the law firm attorney's fees alleged to be in the amount of $16,544.52 that accrued between November 1990 to April 1993. In 1996, the parties orally agreed to a lesser payment of $7,000.00 in settlement of the larger debt. The defendants paid $1,500.00 but failed to pay the remaining balance owed. The trial court ordered Defendants to pay pre-judgment interest on the unpaid fees and Defendants appeal. We affirm.
Giles
Court of Appeals
Oliver Randolph, et al vs. Coffee County Beer Bd. M2001-00077-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge J. S. Steve Daniel
Trial Court Judge: John W. Rollins
This is an appeal by the Coffee County Beer Board from a decision of the Coffee County Circuit Court ordering the Beer Board to issue permits to Oliver Randolph and Susan Nichols. The trial court concluded that the Coffee County Beer Board regulation prohibiting the issuance of a beer permit to an applicant within two thousand feet of a school or church was void because of discriminatory application of this regulation. The County has appealed this decision insisting that it had uniformly enforced its distance rule including a grandfather provision which authorized the reissuance of permits to nonconforming locations who had enjoyed such a privilege prior to the readoption of the county resolution in 1980. For the reasons stated in this opinion, we affirm the trial court's decision and remand the case.
Coffee
Court of Appeals
Raymond Workman, et ux v. Wal-Mart Stores East, Inc. M2001-00664-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge J. S. Steve Daniel
Trial Court Judge: Robert L. Holloway
This is an appeal by Wal-Mart, Inc., from a jury verdict and a judgment totaling $30,000 in favor of Raymond D. Workman and Nola Ann Workman, for damages caused by a slip and fall Mr. Workman suffered at Wal-Mart's store. Wal-Mart, Inc. has appealed this judgment insisting that the trial court erred by not setting aside the jury verdict and directing a verdict in their favor, or not granting a new trial. For the reasons stated in this opinion, we affirm the trial court's decision and remand the case.
State v. David Black M2000-02935-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Clara W. Byrd
The State has petitioned this court to rehear its decision in this case. The state also requested, and was twice granted, additional time to supplement or correct the appellate record to include an amended judgment reflecting the details of Mr. Black's 1997 conviction and sentencing. The State has now filed this amended judgment properly certified by the trial court which heard Mr. Black's petition for restoration of citizenship. The amended judgment was introduced at the hearing on the restoration petition but was not included in the record in the appeal. Because the trial judge has certified that the amended judgment was introduced and considered in the hearing, we grant the State's motion to supplement the record.
Sumner
Court of Appeals
Kenneth Varney v. Heather Roemer M2000-03234-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Arthur E. Mcclellan
This is a post-divorce custody case in which Father alleged a change of circumstances due to step-father disciplining the two minor children in an inappropriate manner, Mother not being able to provide a stable and consistent home and school environment, the children experiencing emotional problems while in Mother's home, and Mother voluntarily relinquishing custody. The trial court found that Father failed to demonstrate a change of circumstances warranting change of custody. Although the two children had been living with Father, the court refused to change the initial award of custody to Mother. We find that the evidence preponderates against the trial court's determination regarding changes in circumstances and that, by focusing on one alleged incident of inappropriate discipline, the court failed to consider other circumstances relevant to the inquiry.
