Opinions

Larry Wade v. State of Tennessee
M2000-01260-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: Judge Seth W. Norman

The petitioner, Larry Wade, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief by the Criminal Court for Davidson County. He asserts that the ineffective assistance of counsel and the unknowing and involuntary nature of his guilty pleas entitle him to relief from his convictions of attempted second degree murder and possession of one-half gram or more of cocaine with intent to sell. Following a review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

State of Tennessee v. Melvin E. Beard
M2000-02394-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: Judge Timothy L. Easter

The appellant, Melvin E. Beard, was convicted in the Williamson County Circuit Court of one count of the sale and delivery of less than .5 grams of crack cocaine, a class C felony. The trial court sentenced the appellant to ten years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction and imposed a fine of two thousand dollars ($2000). On appeal, the appellant raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence at trial was sufficient to sustain the appellant's conviction; (2) whether the trial court erred in allowing the State to introduce the portion of an audio tape recording of the drug transaction that occurred outside the presence of the appellant; (3) whether the trial court erred in refusing to grant the appellant's motion for mistrial; and (4) whether the trial court erred in sentencing the appellant. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Deborah Louise Reese v. State of Tennessee
M2000-02553-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: Judge J. S. Daniel

The petitioner, Deborah Louise Reese, pled guilty in the Rutherford County Circuit Court to one count of felony murder, one count of especially aggravated robbery, and one count of conspiracy to commit especially aggravated robbery. The trial court sentenced the petitioner to a total effective sentence of life imprisonment. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging that she received ineffective assistance of counsel and that her guilty pleas were neither voluntarily nor knowingly made. Following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court dismissed the petition. The petitioner now appeals this ruling. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Lloyd Paul Hill v. State of Tennessee
M2000-01428-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry L. Smith
Trial Court Judge: Judge Leon C. Burns, Jr.

On September 25, 1998, the petitioner entered best interest pleas to four counts of child rape. For these offenses he received concurrent sixteen year sentences. According to the announced plea the convictions arising out of Pickett and Overton Counties were set to be served at thirty percent while the Putnam County convictions were at one hundred percent with the potential to be reduced to eighty-five percent. Within the statute of limitations the petitioner filed a post-conviction petition alleging that his plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered concerning the consequences thereof. Subsequently, the trial court conducted a hearing and later denied the relief sought in the petition. It is from that denial that the petitioner brings the present appeal continuing to maintain that his plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered. After reviewing the record and applicable caselaw, we find that the sentences imposed are illegal and, therefore, reverse and remand the matter.

State of Tennessee v. Edward Drummer
W2000-00414-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Trial Court Judge: Judge Arthur T. Bennett

The Appellant, Edward Drummer, appeals from the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief by the Shelby County Criminal Court. In September, 1997, Drummer pled guilty to one count of aggravated rape and was sentenced to fifteen years confinement in the Department of Correction. In 1998, Drummer filed a petition for post-conviction relief challenging the validity of his guilty plea upon grounds of (1) voluntariness and (2) ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court, finding the claims unsupported, dismissed the petition. On appeal, Drummer contends that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. After review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

State of Tennessee v. Wygenzo Coburn
W2000-01550-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Trial Court Judge: Judge W. Fred Axley

The defendant was convicted of voluntary manslaughter, a Class C felony, and sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to four years, six months in the county workhouse. In this appeal as of right, he raises the following issues: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction; (2) whether the trial court erred in failing to include "moral certainty" language in its reasonable doubt instruction to the jury; and (3) whether the trial court erred in its application of enhancement factor (10). Based upon a careful review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Scarlett/Patrick Spencer vs. James Aydlotte
W2001-00995-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: George R. Ellis
This is a suit for the termination of parental rights. The Appellants filed a petition in the Chancery Court of Gibson County to terminate the Appellee's parental rights to his child. Following a hearing, the trial court entered an order denying the Appellants' petition. The Appellants appeal the trial court's order denying the Appellants' petition to terminate the Appellee's parental rights. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the trial court's decision.

State of Tennessee v. Ralph D. Cooper
W2000-02612-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Trial Court Judge: Judge W. Fred Axley

This is an appeal from an order denying a petition for reinstatement of a motor vehicle operator's license pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated Section 55-10-615(b). The court ruled that a subsequent conviction for driving without a license precluded the court from restoring the petitioner's driving privileges for a period of three years after the new conviction. After a careful review, we hold that the court incorrectly concluded it did not have discretion to grant driving privileges and remand to the court for reconsideration of the petition.

James Ray vs. Billy Williams
W2000-03000-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Jon Kerry Blackwood
This case involves the doctrine of promissory fraud. The plaintiff service station owner claimed that the defendant rental trailer company fraudulently induced him into entering into a contract to operate a rental trailer dealership by orally assuring him that his dealership rights would be exclusive in Ripley, Tennessee. At the bench trial below, the trial court admitted parol evidence of the oral assurances to show fraud in the inducement of the dealership contract. Based on that evidence, the trial court held that the rental trailer company had committed promissory fraud and awarded damages to the plaintiff service station owner. The rental trailer company now appeals. We affirm the finding of promissory fraud, but reverse in part the damage award.

Richard Crowe vs. First American
W2001-00800-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Jon Kerry Blackwood
Owner of a pickup truck sued the bank that financed the purchase for conversion after the bank repossessed the truck. The trial court entered judgment on a jury verdict for plaintiff in the amount of $250,000.00. Bank appeals. We affirm in part reverse in part and remand.

Thomas Wynns III vs. Rae Cummings
W2000-02156-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Walter L. Evans
This case involves a dispute between Thomas Clinton Wynns, III ("Thomas") and Rae Ann Cummings ("Rae Ann"), the son and granddaughter of Mrs. Leola Wynns ("Leola"), concerning Leola's mental capacity and ability to manage her own affairs. Plaintiff, Thomas, holder of a power of attorney from his mother, filed a complaint against the defendant, Rae Ann, seeking to have Rae Ann turn over to him all of Leola's assets in possession of Rae Ann. Rae Ann filed an answer to the complaint and a petition for appointment of a conservator for Leola and for an injunction against Thomas from removing any more of her assets. After a nonjury trial, the trial court found that the court had jurisdiction to appoint a conservator for Leola; that the facts warranted the appointment of a conservator; that the power of attorney held by Thomas and a will executed by Leola in 1998 were void, and that the quit claim deed executed on April 22, 1999, in favor of Thomas, was also void. Thomas appeals. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.

Guy Varnadoe vs. Shelton McGhee Jr.
W2001-00075-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Floyd Peete, Jr.
This appeal arises from a breach of contract claim brought by the Appellee against the Appellants in the Chancery Court of Shelby County. The trial court entered a consent order, referring the case to a special master. Pursuant to the consent order, the trial court directed the special master to conduct an investigation and report his findings to the trial court. The special master conducted an investigation and submitted his report to the trial court. The special master concluded that the Appellee was entitled to full payment under the contract but that the Appellants were entitled to a set-off. The trial court entered a judgment in the Appellee's favor and gave the Appellants a set-off. The trial court ordered that the fees approved by the special master be divided equally between the Appellants and the Appellee.

Lonnie Wilder vs. Leslie Wilder
E2000-03184-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: John D. Mcafee
In this divorce case, the Trial Court awarded husband attorney's fees against wife. On appeal, we reverse.

Myron Hubbard vs. Sandi Hubbard
E2001-00110-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: W. Dale Young
The Trial Court granted appellee Judgement before the 30 days to answer process provided in the Rules of Civil Procedure had expired. On appeal, we vacate and remand.

George Tipton vs. Axis Fabrication & Machine Co.
E2001-00258-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: W. Dale Young

George Tipton vs. Axis Fabrication & Machine Co.
E2001-00258-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: W. Dale Young

Denise Frazier vs. Robert Frazier
E2000-02929-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Sharon J. Bell
Appellant ask the Court to void portions of the marital settlement agreement incorporated in the parties' Divorce Decree in the State of Illinois. The Trial Court refused and granted appellee summary judgment. We affirm.

New Covenant Baptist Church vs. Panther Sark
E2000-02930-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Thomas R. Frierson, II
In this suit New Covenant Baptist Church seeks a declaration that certain restrictions applicable to Technology Park West subdivision do not preclude New Covenant from using one of the lots for driveway purposes to other unrestricted property owned by New Covenant outside the subdivision. Panther Sark, a partnership, and certain other owners of lots in the subdivision were named as Defendants and they filed a counter-complaint seeking a declaration to the contrary. The Trial Court found in favor of New Covenant. We reverse and hold in favor of the partnership and other owners of lots in the subdivision.

Rouse Construction Co. vs. Interstate Steel Corp.
E2001-00242-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Sharon J. Bell
This is a case wherein the Plaintiff/Appellant, Rouse Construction Company, seeks damages for breach of contract from the Defendant/Appellee, Interstate Steel Corporation. The Chancellor found that there was no meeting of minds between the parties as to essential contract terms and, therefore, ordered that Rouse's claim be denied. The Chancellor further determined that Interstate should be allowed a judgment in the amount of $19,090.00 for materials and plans delivered to Rouse. We concur in the determination of the Chancellor and affirm.

CH-00-1207-2
CH-00-1207-2
Trial Court Judge: Floyd Peete, Jr.

David Miller vs. State
E1998-00247-SC-R11-PD
Authoring Judge: Justice Frank F. Drowota, III
Trial Court Judge: Ray L. Jenkins
We granted petitioner, David Earl Miller's application for permission to appeal to determine whether this Court's decision in State v. Brown, 836 S.W.2d 530 (Tenn. 1992) created a new state constitutional rule regarding the elements of deliberation and premeditation. Petitioner claims that Brown created a new state constitutional rule and that the jury instructions given at his initial trial violated this rule by relieving the prosecution of its burden to prove the elements of premeditation and deliberation beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the petitioner argues that his conviction of first-degree murder was not supported by sufficient proof. After due consideration, we conclude that Brown did not announce a new state constitutional rule, did not implicate any constitutional right, is not retroactive, and may not serve as the basis for post-conviction relief. Accordingly, we conclude that the petitioner's complaint about the jury instructions given at his initial trial has been waived because it was not raised on direct appeal and that his complaint about the sufficiency of the evidence to support premeditation and deliberation was previously determined by this Court on direct appeal. Accordingly, the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.

Paul Seaton, et al vs. Richard Rowe, et al
E2000-02304-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: John B. Hagler, Jr.
Monroe County -This is an action for specific performance of an option agreement for the sale of some farmland acreage, from which a 60-acre tract was excepted. The trial court dismissed the action, holding that the option agreement did not satisfy the statute of frauds because the description of the excepted property was inadequate and that the deficiency could not be remedied by parol evidence. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed a motion to "reopen the proof" to introduce evidence to support reformation of the description of the excepted property. The motion was denied. The plaintiffs appeal, arguing that the trial court erred in (1) finding that the option agreement did not satisfy the statute of frauds; (2) refusing to consider parol evidence of the location of the excepted property; and (3) refusing to "reopen the proof" on the issue of reformation. The defendants argue that the appeal is frivolous. We find that the option agreement is sufficiently definite to satisfy the statute of frauds and that parol evidence should have been admitted to locate the excepted property. We therefore vacate the judgment of the trial court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

State of Tennessee v. Glenn Russell Parvin
E2000-01756-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry L. Smith
Trial Court Judge: Judge R. Jerry Beck

The Sullivan County grand jury issued presentments against the defendant on one count of operating a motor vehicle without a face shield; two counts of speeding; three counts of driving under the influence; three counts of driving on a revoked license; two counts of driving on revoked license after second or subsequent conviction for driving while intoxicated; one count of driving on revoked license after second or subsequent conviction for driving under the influence; one count of driving while intoxicated, fourth offense; and one count of driving under the influence, fourth offense. The charges resulted from three separate cases. The defendant pled to all of the crimes in two different plea hearings and the defendant was sentenced as a career offender to a total of eighteen years, with a minimum jail time of 585 days, and with his last six years to be served on probation. The trial court sentenced the defendant as a career offender and did not apprise the defendant of the possibility that he could be sentenced as a persistent offender, as opposed to a career offender. He moved to withdraw his guilty pleas on this ground. The trial court denied his motion, and he appeals the denial. Furthermore, the defendant waived his right to request probation or alternative sentencing in one case, and the state agreed to allow the defendant to serve probation in one case. In the third case, the defendant requested probation or alternative sentencing. The trial court denied his request, citing his extensive criminal history in support of its denial. The defendant also appeals this denial. After reviewing the record and applicable case law, we find these issues to be without merit and therefore affirm the lower court's denial of defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty pleas and its denial of probation or alternative sentencing.

Jeffrey Miller v. State of Tennessee
E2000-01192-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge J. Curwood Witt, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge E. Eugene Eblen

Jeffrey Miller appeals the Meigs County Criminal Court's dismissal of his petitions for writ of error coram nobis and writ of habeas corpus. Both petitions seek redress for Miller's grievance that he has been required to serve felony sentences in the Department of Correction, although his plea agreements designated the location of confinement to be the Meigs County Jail. Because neither coram nobis nor habeas corpus relief is available to address a concern of this nature and because the petitioner's claims are factually unfounded, we affirm.

Carl O. Koella, Jr. vs. Fred McHargue, et ux
E2001-00544-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: C. K. Smith
Defendants have right of first refusal on tract of real property. The Trial Court held that the giving of a quitclaim deed did not trigger the right of first refusal. Defendants appealed, we affirm.