State vs. Thomas Williams W1999-01748-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Trial Court Judge: Roy B. Morgan, Jr.
Madison
Court of Criminal Appeals
Elizabeth Bosi vs. Kevin Bosi W1999-01533-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Karen R. Williams
Shelby
Court of Appeals
State vs. Patrick Maxwell E1999-00124-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Trial Court Judge: R. Jerry Beck
Sullivan
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Patrick Maxwell E1999-00124-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Trial Court Judge: R. Jerry Beck
Sullivan
Court of Criminal Appeals
Landstar Poole, Inc. v. George Hugh Rhoades, Jr. M1999-00040-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Samuel L. Lewis, Sp. J.
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) (1999) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Appellate review of factual issues in workers' compensation cases is de novo with a presumption that the trial court's findings are correct, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. _5-6-225(e)(2) (1999); Hill v. Eagle Bend Mfg., Inc., 942 S.W. 2d 483, 487 (Tenn. 1997). When a trial court has seen and heard witnesses and issues of credibility and weight of testimonyare involved, considerable deference is afforded the trial court's findings of fact. See Humphrey v. David Witherspoon, Inc., 734 S.W. 2d 315, 315-16 (Tenn. 1987). Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed SAMUEL L. LEWIS, SP. J., in which FRANK F. DROWOTA, III, J., and TOM E. GRAY, SP. J., joined. Kent. E. Krause, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Landstar Poole, Inc. Alan Wise, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellee, George Hugh Rhoades, Jr. 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) (1999) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Appellate review of factual issues in workers' compensation cases is de novo with a presumption that the trial court's findings are correct, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. _5-6-225(e)(2) (1999); Hill v. Eagle Bend Mfg., Inc., 942 S.W. 2d 483, 487 (Tenn. 1997). When a trial court has -2-
Davidson
Workers Compensation Panel
Linda Liles v. The Yasuda Fire & Marine Insurance M1999-00016-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Samuel L. Lewis, Sp. J.
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)(1999) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Appellate review of factual issues in workers' compensation cases is de novo with a presumption that the trail court's findings are correct, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. _5-6- 225(e)(2)(1999); Hill v. Eagle Bend Mfg., Inc., 942 S.W. 2d 483, 487 (Tenn. 1997). When a trial court has seen and heard witnesses and issues of credibility and weight of testimony are involved, considerable deference is afforded the trial court's findings of fact. See Humphrey v. David Witherspoon, Inc., 734 S.W. 2d 315, 315-16 (Tenn.1987). Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed SAMUEL L. LEWIS, SP. J., in which FRANK F. DROWOTA, III, J., and TOM E. GRAY, SP. J., joined. A. Gregory Ramos, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, The Yasuda Fire & Marine Insurance Company of America, Inc. Christina Henley Duncan, Manchester, Tennessee, for the appellee, Linda Liles. 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)(1999) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Appellate review of factual issues in workers' compensation cases is de novo with a presumption that the trail court's findings are correct, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. _5-6- -2-
Franklin
Workers Compensation Panel
State vs. Henry M1995-00005-SC-R11-CD
Authoring Judge: Justice E. Riley Anderson
Trial Court Judge: Seth W. Norman
We granted this appeal to determine whether the trial court erred in admitting statements made by the co-defendant following the arrest of the defendant and the co-defendant for first-degree murder, attempted first-degree murder and related offenses. The Court of Criminal Appeals concluded that although the conspiracy to commit the offenses had ended, the co-defendant's statements were made during the course of and in furtherance of a separate conspiracy to conceal the offenses and were admissible pursuant to the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule set out in Tenn. R. Evid. 803(1.2)(E). After reviewing the record, we conclude that the co-defendant's statements were made after the conspiracy had ended and, therefore, were not admissible under Tenn. R. Evid. 803(1.2)(E). We further conclude, however, that the error was harmless, and we affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals.
Davidson
Supreme Court
Reece vs. Brown M1997-00217-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Jeffrey F. Stewart
Marion
Court of Appeals
State vs. Dimarko Bojere Williams M1997-00113-SC-R11-CD
Authoring Judge: Justice Adolpho A. Birch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Jim T. Hamilton
Dimarko Bojere Williams was convicted of second degree murder and was sentenced to the Department of Correction for twenty-five years. Williams appealed, contending, inter alia, that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction for second degree murder because he and the victim had been engaged in "mutual combat" at the time of the killing. In cases in which a victim is killed during mutual combat, he asserted, the defendant may be convicted of voluntary manslaughter only. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction for second degree murder but modified Williams's sentence on other grounds. We hold that the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction for second degree murder. In so doing, we reject the defendant's contention that a killing which occurs during mutual combat is, as a matter of law, voluntary manslaughter. The judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is, therefore, affirmed.
McKee vs. McKee M1997-00204-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Jim T. Hamilton
Maury
Court of Appeals
McKee vs. McKee M1997-00204-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Jim T. Hamilton
Maury
Court of Appeals
State vs. Henry Daniels W2002-00193-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Trial Court Judge: Joseph B. Dailey
The defendant was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of aggravated burglary, a Class C felony, and aggravated rape, a Class A felony. He was sentenced by the trial court as a career offender to fifteen years for the aggravated burglary conviction and as a violent offender to forty years for the aggravated rape conviction, with the sentences to be served consecutively, for an effective sentence of fifty-five years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he raises the sole issue of whether the trial court committed reversible error by denying his request to represent himself at trial. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court but remand for entry of a corrected judgment as to the aggravated burglary conviction to reflect the defendant's conviction offense which was omitted from the judgment form.
Shelby
Court of Criminal Appeals
State vs. Stevie Smith E1999-00386-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas T. Woodall
Trial Court Judge: Richard R. Baumgartner
Ronald E. Walton vs. State E1999-01165-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge John Everett Williams
Trial Court Judge: Douglas A. Meyer
After a hearing, the petitioner appeals the criminal court's order dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief. Convicted in 1968 of assault and battery with intent to rape, the petitioner was sentenced to incarceration for ten years. The petitioner has fully served his sentence in Tennessee. However, his Tennessee conviction was used to enhance his 1980 conviction of rape in Indiana. The petitioner proceeds to challenge his Tennessee conviction, in hope of a sentence reduction in Indiana. After careful review, we affirm the criminal court's dismissal.
