Robert Kent Drake, et al., v. Paula Mae Drake
E2009-00540-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Judge Thomas R. Frierson, II

Brothers of defendant mother brought this action to have a conservator appointed for their mother on the grounds that the mother suffered dementia, Parkinson's disease and other infirmities and was incompetent and unable to make decisions about her health and finances. Following trial, the trial court found there was clear and convincing evidence that the mother was disabled and in need of supervision, protection and assistance by means of a conservatorship due to her permanent mental incapacity. The sons were named as co-conservators of her person and estate. The attorney for the mother filed an appeal, and we affirm the Judgment of the trial court.

William Laurence Hardy, M.D. v. State of Tennessee, Department of Health, Division of Health Related Boards
M2009-00619-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge J. Steven Stafford
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Russell T. Perkins

This is an appeal from the decision of the Chancery Court, reversing a decision of an
administrative judge. The administrative judge denied Appellant’s Motion to Dismiss, but
found the parties had entered into two separate agreements and ordered the parties to submit
an agreed order to the Medical Board for review. On appeal, the Chancery Court, in
reversing the decision of the administrative judge, found that the parties had not entered into
any agreements and that the administrative judge could not order the parties to enter into a
consent order. Appellant appeals from this decision, contending that the parties have entered
into two separate agreements and that due process requires this action be dismissed. Upon
review of the record, we find material facts in dispute. Therefore the administrative judge
erred in finding that the parties entered into two agreements, and the Chancery Court erred
in finding that the parties did not enter into any agreements. Further, we affirm the Chancery
Court in finding that the administrative judge erred in ordering the parties to submit an
agreed order to the Medical Board after the Appellee withdrew its consent. Affirmed in part,
reversed in part and remanded.

Nielsen Bainbridge, LLC v. Thomas Shinn
M2008-01639-WC-R3-WC
Authoring Judge: Justice William C. Koch
Trial Court Judge: Judge Clara Byrd

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation
Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e)(3) (2008)
for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Employee suffered a hernia as a result of his work. The trial court awarded 28.5% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. On appeal, Employer contends that the trial court erred in basing its award upon the
testimony of Employee’s evaluating physician. We agree, and consequently modify the judgment to 4.5% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole.

State of Tennessee v. Tammy L. McDonald
E2008-02747-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: Judge David Reed Duggan

The Defendant, Tammy L. McDonald, appeals her conviction upon a guilty plea in the Blount County Circuit Court for theft of property over $60,000, a Class B felony. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the Defendant received a Range I, ten-year sentence with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered the Defendant to serve the sentence in confinement. The Defendant appeals, contending that the trial court erred in denying alternative sentencing. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Michael D. Sweat
E2008-00423-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: Judge Kenneth F. Irvine

The Defendant, Michael D. Sweat, was convicted by a jury in the Knox County Criminal Court of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, and was sentenced by the trial court as a Range II, multiple offender to seventeen years in the Department of Correction. The Defendant appeals, contending (1) that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction, (2) that he was denied his constitutional right to a fair trial when the State suborned perjury, (3) that the State impermissibly shifted the burden of proof to the Defendant when it questioned why additional alibi witnesses were not called, (4) that the trial court erred when it allowed the admission into evidence of his prior convictions, (5) that the trial court erred when it failed to allow the Defendant to poll the jury, and (6) that he was denied a fair trial because the verdict was based on juror misconduct. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Linda F. Seals v. H & F, Inc., et al
M2009-00330-SC-R23-CQ
Authoring Judge: Justice Gary R. Wade
Trial Court Judge: Judge William J. Haynes

The defendants, a funeral home and a crematory operator, arranged for and conducted a cremation at the joint request of the decedent’s fiancée and his fourteen-year-old son. The decedent’s mother, who claims the entitlement to have directed the disposal of his body, filed suit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee contending wrongful cremation and seeking damages under a variety of theories in tort. Three certified questions of state law have been presented to this Court for consideration. Our responses are as follows: (1) where decedent did not make a pre-mortem election for the method of disposal of his remains, a parent has a right of control superior to that of a fiancée or minor child; (2) while a minor may be an “heir” under the safe harbor provisions for crematory operators under our statute, reliance on the instructions of a minor may qualify as so reckless as to subject the operator to liability; and (3) a funeral home that merely makes arrangements for a cremation and contracts for another party to perform the cremation is not the operator of a crematory facility for purposes of the statutory safe harbor.

Linda F. Seals v. H & F, Inc., et al - Dissenting
M2009-00330-SC-R23-CQ
Authoring Judge: Justice William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge William J. Haynes, Jr.

This Court has accepted three questions certified by the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee in accordance with Tenn. S. Ct. R. 23 that require us to determine how existing Tennessee law addresses certain questions involving the cremation of human remains. I regret that I am able to concur with the Court’s answers to only the second and third questions. I cannot concur with the Court’s answer to the first question because it overlooks that, by virtue of the definitive actions of the Tennessee General Assembly in 2000, the common-law right of sepulchre, recognized by this Court over eighty years ago, provides the basis for answering the question.

Derek T. Payne v. State of Tennessee
W2008-02784-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: Judge W. Mark Ward

The Petitioner, Derek T. Payne, appeals as of right the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The Petitioner was convicted by a jury of second degree murder and attempted especially aggravated robbery, and he received an effective sentence of thirty-seven years. On appeal, he argues that the denial of his petition was error because he did not receive the effective assistance of counsel at trial or on appeal. Specifically, he contends that counsel failed to raise or challenge certain jury instruction issues, failed to fulfill promises made during the opening statement, failed to introduce evidence of the victim’s past conduct to show that the victim was the first aggressor, and failed to object to the State’s improper closing argument. Additionally, he contends that his sentence was unconstitutionally imposed based on Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004). Following our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the Petitioner has not shown that he is entitled to relief. The judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed.

State of Tennessee v. Abby L. Mills
W2009-02394-CCA-RM-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge J. C. McLin
Trial Court Judge: Judge Joseph H. Walker, III

This case is before the court upon the Tennessee Supreme Court’s remand for further consideration in light of its opinion in State v. Saine, 297 S.W.3d 199 (Tenn. 2009). The defendant, Abby L. Mills, was indicted by the Lauderdale County Grand Jury for possession of a Schedule II controlled substance, cocaine, with the intent to deliver; possession of a Schedule III controlled substance, Hydrocodone, with the intent to deliver; and possession of a Schedule VI controlled substance, marijuana, with the intent to deliver over .5 ounces. After a hearing, the trial court granted defendant’s motion to suppress evidence of items found in the defendant’s home. On appeal, the state asserted that the trial court erred in suppressing the evidence obtained as a result of a valid search warrant. This court initially affirmed the trial court’s suppression of evidence based on lack of probable cause to support the issuance of a search warrant. Upon review, we hold that the warrant to search the defendant’s home was supported by probable cause. We therefore reverse the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Stephen Louis Young
W2008-01885-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge J. C. McLin
Trial Court Judge: Judge C. Creed McGinley

A Decatur County jury found the defendant, Stephen Louis Young, guilty of one count of rape of a child, a Class A felony, and one count of aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony. The court sentenced the defendant to twenty-five years for rape of a child to be served concurrently with twelve years for aggravated sexual battery at 100% in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant argues that (1) the district attorney’s comments during closing arguments constituted prosecutorial misconduct; (2) the trial court erred in sentencing the defendant; and (3) the trial court erred in ruling that the defendant’s confession was voluntary. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

In Re: Tyrone A. Byrd, D/B/A A Alpha Bail Bond Agency v. State of Tennessee
W2009-01257-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge John Everett Williams
Trial Court Judge: Judge J. Weber McCraw

The appellant, Tyrone A. Byrd, acting pro se, appeals from an order revoking his right to issue bail bonds in the Twenty-Fifth Judicial District. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in suspending his right to issue bonds. After careful review, we affirm the order from the trial court.

Ricky Harris v. State of Tennessee - Concurring
E2005-00566-SC-R11-PC
Authoring Judge: Justice William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge R. Jerry Beck

I concur with the Chief Justice’s conclusion that Mr. Harris is not entitled to coram nobis relief with regard to either of his newly discovered evidence claims. Her conclusion that the claim based on the evidence regarding the “Bill” letters is time-barred is correct. I cannot, however, concur in her conclusion that the claim based on the evidence regarding the alibi witness is likewise time-barred because Mr. Harris has made out a prima facie case for equitable tolling with regard to that claim. Apart from the question of the timeliness of these claims, I would affirm the trial court’s denial of coram nobis relief on both claims because of fatal substantive deficiencies in Mr. Harris’s petition for coram nobis relief.

Ricky Harris v. State of Tennessee
E2005-00566-SC-R11-PC
Authoring Judge: Chief Justice Janice M. Holder
Trial Court Judge: Judge R. Jerry Beck

We granted the State’s appeal to determine whether the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in reversing the trial court’s summary dismissal of the petition for writ of error coram nobis and remanding for a determination of whether due process requires tolling of the one-year statute of limitations. We conclude that the delay in seeking coram nobis relief is unreasonable as a matter of law under the circumstances of this case, and therefore due process considerations do not preclude application of the statute of limitations to bar the petition. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals and reinstate the judgment of the trial court dismissing the petition.

State of Tennessee v. Randall Gene Reynolds a.k.a Randy Reynolds
W2008-01752-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Camille R. McMullen
Trial Court Judge: Judge Russell Lee Moore, Jr.

The Appellant-Defendant, Randall Gene Reynolds, pled guilty in the Circuit Court of Lake County to flagrant nonsupport of a minor child, a Class E felony. He was sentenced to five years of probation and was ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $13,440. Pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37, Reynolds reserved as a certified question of law the issue of whether the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss the indictment. Reynolds contends the order setting child support was invalid, and therefore his failure to comply with the order cannot form the basis of prosecution. Following our review of the record, we conclude that the certified question is not dispositive of this case, and thus we lack jurisdiction to review this appeal. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Chris Yousif, d/b/a Quality Motors vs. Notrial Clark and The Circuit Court of Knox County - Dissenting
E2008-02626-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge John W. McClarty
Trial Court Judge: Judge Dale C. Workman

I respectfully dissent. Based upon the factual history present in this case, I would affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the writ.

Chris Yousif, d/b/a Quality Motors vs. Notrial Clark and The Circuit Court of Knox County
E2008-02626-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel Pickens Franks
Trial Court Judge: Judge Dale C. Workman

Petitioner filed for a writ of certiorari after his bank accounts were attached for a
judgment which had been entered by the Sessions Court against him. The petition alleged that
petitioner was unaware of the judgment against him and had not been served with service of  process in the Sessions Court. The Trial Court granted the petition and considered a motion to dismiss by the respondent. The writ was dismissed and petitioner has appealed. On appeal we hold that the Trial Court erred in dismissing the petition and remand for further proceedings on the writ.

Asata D. Lowe v. State of Tennessee
M2009-00444-CCA-R3-HC
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer

The Appellant, Asata D. Lowe, appeals the trial court's dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The Appellant fails to assert a cognizable claim for which habeas corpus relief may be granted. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The State of Tennessee, ex rel. The Board of Education of the Memphis City Schools, et al. v. City of Memphis, et al.
W2009-00366-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Judge Kenny W. Armstrong

The City of Memphis and the Memphis City Council appeal the trial court’s writ of mandamus ordering the City to restore funding to the Memphis City Schools for the 2008-09
school year in compliance with Tennessee Code Annotated § § 49-2-203 and 49-3-314. We affirm.

Michael Angelo Coleman v. State of Tennessee
W2007-02767-CCA-R3-PD
Trial Court Judge: W. Mark Ward

State of Tennessee v. Jamie Lee McKinney
W2008-01719-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Camille R. McMullen
Trial Court Judge: Judge Donald E. Parish

The Defendant-Appellant, Jamie Lee McKinney, appeals the revocation of his probation. He pled guilty in the Circuit Court of Henry County to attempt to commit aggravated sexual battery, a Class C felony. He was sentenced to six years supervised probation after nine months of confinement. On appeal, he claims: (1) the probation condition prohibiting marriage to someone with a minor child is unconstitutional; and (2) the trial court abused its discretion by revoking McKinney’s probation because he left Henry County without his probation officer’s permission. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Betty Brasfield v. Raymond C. Dyer, et al.
E2008-01774-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge D. Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Judge Dale C. Workman

State of Tennessee v. Tommy Holmes
W2008-00759-SC-R11-CD
Authoring Judge: Justice Cornelia A. Clark
Trial Court Judge: Judge James C. Beasley, Jr.

We granted permission to appeal in this case to address whether the trial court erred in ruling that an indigent defendant forfeited his right to counsel at trial by telling his appointed lawyer, “I know how to get rid of you,” and, at a subsequent meeting, physically assaulting his lawyer by striking the lawyer’s eyeglasses with his finger. The defendant was tried by a jury pro se and convicted of aggravated rape. We hold that, under the facts and circumstances of this case, the trial court committed reversible error in ruling that the defendant had forfeited his right to appointed counsel at trial. While the defendant’s physical attack on his lawyer was serious misconduct, it did not rise to the level of “extremely serious misconduct” sufficient to warrant an immediate forfeiture. State v. Carruthers, 35 S.W.3d 516, 548 (Tenn. 2000). Because the defendant was erroneously denied his fundamental constitutional right to counsel, we must reverse his conviction and remand this matter for appointment of new counsel and a new trial. The judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is reversed.

State of Tennessee v. Tallie Riley
E2008-02714-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge J. Curwood Witt, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Richard R. Baumgartner

A Knox County Criminal Court jury convicted the defendant, Tallie Riley, of aggravated kidnapping, kidnapping, and aggravated criminal trespass. On appeal, the defendant avers that the trial court erred in permitting the assistant district attorney general to question the defendant about inadmissible prior bad acts, see Tenn. R. Evid. 404(b), and in denying his motion for mistrial. Further, the defendant alleges prosecutorial misconduct. After a careful review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Mark Alan Deakins
E2008-02761-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge J. Curwood Witt, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Don W. Poole

The defendant, Mark Alan Deakins, appeals the revocation of his probation, claiming that the State failed to establish a probation violation by substantial evidence. Because the record establishes that the defendant violated the terms of his probationary sentence, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Bob Fannon v. City of Lafollette
E2008-01616-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge John W. McClarty
Trial Court Judge: Judge John D. Mcafee

In this action for declaratory judgment against the City of LaFollette, the City Council, and three City Councilmen, the trial court awarded the plaintiff attorney’s fees, costs and discretionary costs. On appeal, the defendants argue that the trial court erred in finding the plaintiff as the “prevailing party” in the litigation and that the trial court’s award was unwarranted and erroneous. We hold that the plaintiff was not a prevailing party, and therefore, the trial court erred in awarding the plaintiff attorney’s fees and costs on that basis.