State of Tennessee v. Aaron James
M2000-00495-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Trial Court Judge: Judge J. Randall Wyatt, Jr.

The Appellant, an inmate at Riverbend Maximum Security Institution in Nashville, was convicted by a jury of attempted felony escape, aggravated robbery and especially aggravated kidnapping stemming from a failed prison escape. The Appellant was incarcerated at the Riverbend facility as a result of his prior convictions for especially aggravated robbery, especially aggravated kidnapping and second degree murder. The Appellant challenges on appeal his convictions for aggravated robbery and especially aggravated kidnapping, arguing (1) sufficiency of the convicting evidence, (2) systematic removal of African-Americans from the petit jury in violation of Batson v. Kentucky, and (3) the prejudicial admission into evidence of the Appellant's prior convictions for especially aggravated robbery, especially aggravated kidnapping, and second degree murder. The State argues that proof of the Appellant's prior convictions was an essential element of the felony escape charge and, therefore, admissible. After review, we find reversible error in the admission in the instant case of the Appellant's prior convictions for especially aggravated robbery, especially aggravated kidnapping and second degree murder. As such, the judgments of convictions are reversed and remanded for a new trial.

In Re: Adoption of J.R.W.
E2000-01335-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: John B. Hagler, Jr.
R.J.W. ("the Wife of the Adopter") instituted this action against her sister-in-law, K.D.W., seeking to set aside the adoption of K.D.W.'s natural son, J.R.W., by the plaintiff's late husband, M.W. ("the Adopter"), some eleven years earlier. The trial court dismissed the petition. We affirm.

Donnie Walton v. Credit General Insurance Company
W1999-01769-SC-WCM-CV
Authoring Judge: Don R. Ash, Sp. J.
Trial Court Judge: Martha Brasfield, Chancellor
The trial court found the Plaintiff, Donnie Walton ("Walton"), suffered a permanent partial impairment of fifty percent to the body as a whole. The Defendant, Credit General Insurance Company ("General Credit"), stated the evidence does not support the finding. We affirm and modify the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Thomas J. Tackett
M1999-02541-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge J. Curwood Witt, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Charles D. Haston, Sr.

Thomas J. Tackett appeals from his Warren County especially aggravated robbery conviction, for which he received a 25-year incarcerative sentence. He urges us to find error based upon insufficiency of the convicting evidence, admission of certain evidence at trial, jury instructions not given, and sentencing. Although there is no merit in the issues advanced by the defendant, we notice as plain error that the defendant's conviction is for a greater crime than that which is charged in the indictment. We therefore modify his especially aggravated robbery conviction to aggravated robbery and remand for sentencing for that crime.

X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX

X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX

X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX

State of Tennessee v. Christopher Michael Vigil
E1999-02740-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: Judge Lynn W. Brown

The defendant appeals two convictions for stalking, contesting the sufficiency of the evidence and the admissibility of photographs. We affirm one of the defendant's convictions for stalking, but we vacate the judgment of conviction for the other because the evidence reflects the existence of only one stalking offense.

William Singleton v. State of Tennessee
E2000-02820-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry L. Smith
Trial Court Judge: Judge Bobby H. Capers

On December 16, 1993, William Singleton, the Defendant and Appellant, was convicted by a Claiborne County jury of first-degree murder. This Court affirmed the Defendant’s conviction following direct appeal. Subsequently, the Defendant filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging, inter alia that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial. Following a hearing, the trial court dismissed the petition. The Defendant appeals here, arguing that the trial court erroneously dismissed the petition. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. William Makransky
E2000-00048-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: Judge Carroll L. Ross

The defendant, William Makransky, appeals his convictions for aggravated sexual battery, sexual battery, and two counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. He contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and that the trial court applied the incorrect standard for the prejudice prong in denying him relief on this issue in his motion for a new trial. Although we determine that the trial court did apply the incorrect standard for prejudice, our de novo review reveals that the defendant's trial attorney was not ineffective. Because of an error in the judgments, the sentences for contributing to the delinquency of a minor are modified.

Bobby Gates v. Jackson Appliance Company
W1999-00743-SC-WCM-CV
Authoring Judge: W. Michael William Michael Maloan, Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Joe C. Morris, Chancellor
The defendant, Jackson Appliance Company, appeals the judgment of the Chancery Court of Madison County awarding plaintiff, Bobby Gates, twenty-five (25) percent permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. For the reasons stated in this opinion, We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Dr. Nord's Mouth As Was Successfully Done Bycounsel In Kerr v. Magic Chef, 793 S.W.2D 927, 928-
W1999-00743-SC-WCM-CV
Authoring Judge: Henry D. Bell, Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Joe C. Morris, Chancellor
The defendant, Jackson Appliance Company, appeals the judgment of the Chancery Court of Madison County awarding plaintiff, Bobby Gates, twenty-five (25) percent permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. For the reasons stated in this opinion, We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

John Sands v. Murray Outdoor Products, Inc.
W2000-00468-SC-WCM-CV
Authoring Judge: L. Terry Lafferty, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Julian P. Guinn, Judge
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Worker's Compensation Panel of the Supreme Court inaccordance with Tennessee Code Annotated _ 5-6-225(e) for a hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The plaintiff has appealed contending that the trial court erred in granting the defendant a motion to dismiss his complaint pursuant to Rule 41, Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, for a work-related injury occurring on October 6, 1998. After a review of the entire record, briefs of the parties and applicable law, judgment of the trial court is reversed and remanded. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e) (1999) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court is Reversed and Remanded. L. TERRY LAFFERTY, SR. J., in which JANICE M. HOLDER, J., and JOE C. LOSER, JR., SP. J., joined. Ricky L. Boren, Jackson, Tennessee, for the appellant, John Sands. J. Arthur Crews, II and Michael A. Carter, for the appellee, Murray Outdoor Products, Inc. MEMORANDUM OPINION The plaintiff, age forty (4), testified that on April 29, 1997, while pulling a load of engines, he twisted his back and it popped. The plaintiff reported his injury and he was treated by Dr. John Holancin, but Workers' Compensation sent the plaintiff to see Dr. David Johnson who ran an MRI. The plaintiff lost no work and was on light duty for six (6) weeks. Between his return to work and October 1998, the plaintiff's back would lock up and his legs would tingle from prolonged standing about three to four times a month. The plaintiff stated that on October 6, 1998, he was picking up a unit off the floor to set it on the line, when his back went out and he hit the floor in pain. The plaintiff saw Dr. Holancin, who ordered a CT scan. At the request of the defendant, the plaintiff was referred to Dr. John Brophy. The plaintiff stated that he was restricted in his ability to do any lifting or bending while on light duty. The plaintiff testified that he saw Dr. Robert Barnett and that Dr. Barnett's nurse took down his history. When asked if he told the nurse about the October 1998 injury, the plaintiff stated, "I believe I did." In several parts of his testimony, the plaintiff is sure that he told the nurse about his October injury and cannot explain why such event is not recorded in her intake notes. The plaintiff admitted that while talking to Dr. Barnett he did not tell Dr. Barnett about the October injury. In his deposition, Dr. John D. Brophy, a neurosurgeon, testified that he first saw the plaintiff on January 6, 1999. Dr. Brophy obtained the plaintiff's historyin which the plaintiff injured his back in April 1997, while pulling a load of engines at work. An MRI was within normal limits. After conservative treatment, the plaintiff described approximately a twenty percent (2%) improvement from his injury. In October 1998, the plaintiff re-injured his back from lifting a lawn mower. Dr. Brophy reviewed the films of a CAT scan which revealed a bulging disc at L-5 S- 1. Dr. Brophy would not call this bulge a "ruptured disc." It was Dr. Brophy's opinion that the clinical exam of the plaintiff was a myofascial pain syndrome, with no evidence of radiculopathy. Dr. Brophy permitted the plaintiff to return to work full time without any restrictions on January 18, 1999. Dr. Brophy recommended to the plaintiff that he commence a physical exercise program, which consisted of walking and other activities. Dr. Brophy saw the plaintiff on March 17, 1999, with a complaint of no improvement in his pain syndrome. Dr. Brophy recommended that he continue his walking exercises. An evaluation of AP and lateral spine thoracic films demonstrated multi-level spondylosis. On October 6, 1999, the plaintiff returned with a complaint of continuing pain to his back and leg. Dr. Brophy's physical overall exam found the plaintiff's strength, gait, sensory, and symmetric reflexes normal. As of October 6, 1999, Dr. Brophy opined that the plaintiff had a zero permanent partial impairment rating, with no permanent restrictions. When asked about the differences in the MRI of 1997 and the CAT scan of 1998, the question was: Q. Doctor, certainly a lifting incident is capable of causing a bulging disc, is that correct? A. Yes. Q. And - - A. - - And the most common hist ory I get is I just woke up with it, Doctor, I don't understand. Q. But that's not the history you got in this case? A. No. -2-

State of Tennessee v. William Cash Pate
M2000-02442-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: Judge Donald P. Harris & Judge Cornelia Clark

The Defendant, William Cash Pate, was convicted by a jury of second offense driving under the influence (DUI). In this appeal as of right, he argues that the trial court erred by failing to suppress the evidence obtained against him because that evidence was the fruit of his unlawful seizure at a roadblock. We agree. Accordingly, we reverse the Defendant's conviction and the trial court's order denying the Defendant's motion to suppress.

Leon Terrell Phillips v. State of Tennessee
M2000-02383-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: Judge William Charles Lee

The petitioner appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief from his 1999 guilty plea to and resulting conviction for the attempt to commit first degree murder. He contends that his plea resulted from the ineffective assistance of counsel in that he was not advised that a jury could consider lesser included offenses to the offense charged in the indictment. He also contends that the trial court based the dismissal of his case upon an improper standard. We reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for further proceedings.

State of Tennessee v. Marty Scott Slatten
M2000-01155-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: Judge Lillie Ann Sells

The defendant was convicted by a jury of theft of a vehicle worth more than $10,000, a Class C felony, for which he received a fifteen-year sentence as a career offender. He contends that the evidence is insufficient to convict him of theft and that the trial court erred in allowing evidence of his attempt to steal gasoline that led to his arrest. We affirm the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Orlando Crayton
W2000-00213-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Gary R Wade
Trial Court Judge: Judge Donald H. Allen

The defendant, Orlando Crayton, was convicted of aggravated assault, reckless endangerment, unlawful carrying or possession of a weapon, and two counts of vandalism under $500.00. The trial court sentenced the defendant to 11 months, 29 days for each vandalism count, six years for aggravated assault, two years for reckless endangerment and 11 months, 29 days for unlawful possession of a weapon. Because the sentences were ordered to be served concurrently, the effective sentence is six years. In this appeal of right, the defendant challenges (1) the admissibility of evidence indicating the defendant's gang affiliation; (2) the admission of an estimate regarding the damage to a vehicle; and (3) the admission of a hearsay statement. The judgment is affirmed.

State of Tennessee v. Jessie Nelson Hodges
W2000-00742-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge L. Terry Lafferty
Trial Court Judge: Judge Jon Kerry Blackwood

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of theft of property less than $500. He was subsequently sentenced to eleven (11) months and twenty-nine (29) days in the Lauderdale County jail. In this pro se appeal, Defendant argues that the State failed to provide him with discoverable material or information under Rule 16 of Tenn. R. Crim. P. After a review of the record, briefs of the parties and applicable law, we conclude that the State complied with the mandates of Rule 16. Thus, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Joshua Lee Williams and Maurice Miguel Teague
W2000-01435-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Trial Court Judge: Judge Julian P. Guinn

The defendants, Joshua Lee Williams and Maurice Miguel Teague, encountered each other on the street where Teague produced a pistol and attempted to shoot Williams. When the gun did not fire, Williams knocked it from Teague's hands, picked it up, and fired in turn at Teague, in the process fatally wounding a neighborhood resident. Williams was indicted for first degree murder for the shooting death of the deceased, and criminal attempt to commit first degree murder of Teague, who was indicted for criminal attempt to commit first degree murder of Williams. At the conclusion of their joint trial, Williams was found guilty of second degree murder and criminal attempt to commit second degree murder, and Teague guilty of criminal attempt to commit second degree murder. Williams received an effective sentence of twenty years at 100% as a violent offender. Teague was sentenced as a standard, Range I offender to ten years. Teague raises essentially three issues on appeal: (1) sufficiency of the evidence; (2) not instructing the jury on aggravated assault as a lesser-included offense; and (3) the propriety of his sentence. Williams challenges the sufficiency of the evidence in support of his conviction for second degree murder. After a careful review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Jennifer Gale McClure
W2000-01822-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: Judge Donald H. Allen

This is an appeal by permission pursuant to Rule 9 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. The Defendant, Jennifer McClure, was indicted by the Haywood County Grand Jury for various charges arising out of the seizure and subsequent search of the commercial motor carrier in which she and her husband were traveling. The trial court suppressed the evidence obtained as a result of that seizure and search, ruling that the seizure of the motor carrier was unconstitutional. The State then filed a motion for an interlocutory appeal, which was granted by the trial court. This Court likewise granted the State's application for permission to appeal. On appeal, the State asserts: (1) that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing the State's request to either reopen the proof or be allowed to file with the court the rules and regulations governing Department of Safety inspections; and (2) that if these rules and regulations are considered, the trial court erred by granting the Defendant's motion to suppress. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing the State's request to reopen the proof or to file the applicable rules and regulations because the trial court did permit the State to file with the court the rules and regulations regarding Department of Safety inspections. In addition, we hold that the trial court did not err by granting the motion to suppress because the seizure of the Defendant's commercial motor carrier was conducted in violation of the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.

State of Tennessee v. Kelvin Wilson
W2000-02704-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: Judge Jon Kerry Blackwood

The Petitioner was convicted of aggravated kidnapping and sentenced to ten years incarceration. Following direct appeal to this Court, which affirmed the Petitioner's conviction and sentence, and to the Tennessee Supreme Court, which denied permission to appeal, the Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. The post-conviction court conducted a hearing and denied relief. The Petitioner now appeals the post-conviction court's decision. Having reviewed the record, we conclude that the Petitioner's representation at trial was adequate and therefore affirm the post-conviction court's denial of post-conviction relief.

Jerome Beasley, et al vs. Lloyd Amburgy
M2000-03122-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Barbara N. Haynes
A limousine driver, after taking Tylenol and two or three shots of novocaine for an abscessed tooth, suffered a blackout and lost control of the automobile. The trial court granted summary judgment to the driver and his employer on the ground that the blackout was not reasonably foreseeable. We affirm.

In re: Adoption of A.K.S.R. and A.T.S.R.
M2000-03081-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Leonard W. Martin
This appeal stems from a petition by both a paternal aunt and the foster parents to adopt twenty-month-old twin girls. The trial court found that the paternal aunt should adopt the children because relatives have preference over non-relatives in adoption proceedings and the foster parents did not meet the terms of the contract they signed with the Department of Children's Services. We reverse the decision of the trial court and grant the petition of the foster parents.

Anthony Murray vs. Dewey Lineberry
M2001-00097-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Julian P. Guinn
This appeal arises from a defamation action. The appellant sued the appellee for slander after the appellee aired a series of political advertisements including statements about the appellant, a deputy sheriff. The Wilson County Circuit Court granted the appellee's motion for summary judgment. We affirm the trial court's decision.

John T. Bell, et al vs. Richard Gene Nolan, et al
M2000-02684-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: John W. Rollins
The parents of a woman who died after being assaulted by her husband on the premises of an American Legion post filed a wrongful death claim, which named the husband and the American Legion post as defendants. The parents alleged that the Legion's employees had failed to render assistance to the injured woman. The trial court dismissed the complaint against the American Legion, reasoning that the surviving spouse is the only party entitled to maintain an action for the wrongful death of the other spouse. We reverse.