Opinions

State vs. Almeer Nance
E2000-00170-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry Smith
Trial Court Judge: Ray L. Jenkins
Following the transfer of his case from juvenile court, a Knox County grand jury indicted the defendant on one count of premeditated murder, one count of felony murder, one count of especially aggravated robbery, two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, three counts of aggravated robbery, one count of aggravated assault, and two counts of theft over one thousand but under ten thousand dollars. Prior to trial the defendant filed an unsuccessful motion to suppress the statement he gave to authorities. The case proceeded to trial wherein the defendant was convicted as charged on seven of the aforementioned counts: more specifically, the jury found him guilty of the felony murder, especially aggravated robbery, especially aggravated kidnapping, and aggravated robbery offenses. For these crimes he received an agreed upon effective sentence of life plus twenty-five years in prison. He then filed a "Motion for Judgment of Acquittal, or in the Alternative, Motion for New Trial" alleging the trial court erred in failing to suppress his statement. After the denial of this motion, the defendant brought the instant appeal again raising the suppression issue. However, upon reviewing the record and applicable case law, we affirm the trial court's denial of the motion to suppress the defendant's statement.

State vs. Jimmy Cullop
E2000-00095-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge J. Curwood Witt, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: R. Jerry Beck

State vs. James McBride
E2000-00096-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: E. Eugene Eblen
The defendant appeals his convictions for two counts of first degree murder and one count of attempted first degree murder. He contends that the evidence is insufficient to show premeditation, that his confession should have been suppressed, that the trial court erred in admitting gory photographs of the victims and of the motor vehicle, and that the trial court erred in sentencing him to consecutive sentences. We affirm the convictions and the sentence.

State vs. Robbie Carriger
E2000-00823-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: Robert E. Cupp
The state challenges the trial court's order placing the defendant, Robbie Carriger, on pretrial diversion based upon its finding that the prosecutor abused his discretion for failing to consider all the factors relevant to pretrial diversion in his written response denying diversion. The state contends that the trial court erred in refusing to consider the prosecutor's amended response to the application for pretrial diversion. We hold that the trial court properly refused to consider the prosecutor's amended response, but we reverse the trial court's automatic grant of pretrial diversion and remand the case for the trial court to consider the defendant's entitlement to pretrial diversion in light of the relevant factors.

Christopher J. Moore vs. Robert S. Johnson, et al
E2000-00385-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Harold Wimberly
This is a personal injury action arising out of an automobile accident. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, finding that the defendant and an unidentified driver were equally at fault in causing the accident. The defendant appeals, raising issues that require us to determine whether there is material evidence in the record to support the jury's verdict. We conclude that there is material evidence to support the verdict and thus affirm the judgment.

State vs. Chris A. Jefferson
E2000-00429-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge J. Curwood Witt, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Phyllis H. Miller
Chris A. Jefferson appeals a certified question of law regarding a police officer's stop of him which resulted in his arrest for driving under the influence. Because we agree with the trial court that reasonable suspicion supported by specific and articulable facts existed for the stop, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State vs. Roy Ray Wallace
E2000-00046-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: O. Duane Slone
The defendant appeals his convictions for burglary and theft of property valued at less than five hundred dollars. He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence in light of the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice, the admissibility of a recording of his co-defendant's testimony, and the length of his sentence. We affirm the convictions and sentences.

Clara Frazier,vs. East Tennessee Baptist Hosp., Inc. et al.
E2000-00686-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Dale C. Workman
In this medical malpractice case brought by Clara Frazier, as Administratrix of the Estate of Josie Mae Blalock Pickens against East Tennessee Baptist Hospital, Inc., and Mark W. Jackson, M.D., the Trial Court sustained the motion of Baptist Hospital for summary judgment because the order granting an amendment to add Baptist Hospital as a party defendant after a non-suit had earlier been taken, was not timely and exceeded the one year mandated in T.C.A. 28-1-105(a). Ms. Frazier appeals, insisting that Rule 15.03 of the Tenn. R. Civ. P. is applicable and that the amendment related back to the date of the initial filing. We find the Trial Court acted properly and affirm.

State vs. Randall Best
E1999-00120-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: Carroll L. Ross
The defendant, Randall E. Best, appeals his first degree murder conviction and the resulting sentence of life without parole. He contends: (1) that the evidence is insufficient to show premeditation and deliberation, (2) that certain photographs of the victim were inadmissible at the sentencing phase of the trial, and (3) that the felony murder aggravating circumstance does not sufficiently narrow the class of death-eligible offenders when the jury convicts the defendant of both premeditated murder and felony murder. We hold that the evidence is sufficient, that the challenged photographs are admissible because they are relevant to the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and that the jury properly based the defendant's sentence on the felony murder aggravator. We affirm the trial court's judgment of conviction.

State vs. James Douglas Hampton
E1999-00115-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: D. Kelly Thomas, Jr.
The defendant appeals from the trial court's revocation of his probation. The defendant admits that he materially violated his probation, but contends that the trial court's disposition of the case was improper. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

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

R & D Marina, Inc., et al vs. Roane County, et al
E1999-02687-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Frank V. Williams, III
Plaintiffs, a marina and its owners, were holders of a 1996 lease from Roane County to build and manage a marina. Plaintiffs received a permit from TVA to operate the marina in 1997. Plaintiffs filed suit against Roane County and four boathouse owners, seeking a declaratory judgment that the marina was entitled to monthly rent from the individual Defendants from the date of the Roane County lease until their boathouses were removed from the leased premises. The boathouse owners were holders of prior TVA permits to moor boathouses within the same area which became the marina pursuant to the 1996 lease and 1997 permit. The Trial Court ordered the boathouse owners to pay rent to the marina and to remove their boathouses. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court insofar as it ordered the individual Defendants to remove their boathouses. We hold the Trial Court erred in ordering the individual Defendants to pay rent starting from the date of the lease rather than the date of Plaintiffs' TVA permit. Accordingly, we modify the judgment of the Trial Court to reflect that Defendants owe rent to Plaintiffs from the date of Plaintiffs' TVA permit until the boathouses were removed. The judgment of the Trial Court is affirmed, as modified, and the case is remanded.

State vs. Shirley Cooper
E1999-01810-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Trial Court Judge: D. Kelly Thomas, Jr.
The defendant was charged with violation of probation for harassment. The trial court found that the defendant had materially and repeatedly violated the terms of her probation, and that, given her history, she was not capable of successfully completing a term of supervised probation. Consequently, the trial court revoked the defendant's probation, ordering that she serve her original sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days in jail, with credit given for the forty-one days of jail time she had already served. The defendant filed a timely appeal, presenting the sole issue of whether the trial court erred in revoking her probation. Based upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Terry Eugene Ballard
II-1196-344-B

Trial Court Judge: Donald P. Harris

Chambers vs. Amonette
M1999-01254-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Muriel Robinson
At the time of the parties' divorce in 1992, their minor child was placed in the primary residential custody of the mother, and the father was ordered to pay child support in the amount of $300.00 per month. The mother instituted a petition to modify. The father is in the military and, at the time of trial, had a base pay of $2,888.46 per month, which included allowances for BAS, BAH, and BAQ-DIFF. The parties anticipated at the time of trial that the father would be transferred to Korea for one year of service, and then would be transferred to England. According to the father, he would continue to receive his BAQ-DIFF allowance, but, while in Korea, he would no longer receive BAS or BAH allowances. The mother sought an increase in the monthly support payments based upon a significant variation with the Tennessee Child Support Guidelines and based upon reduced visitation by the father. According to the parties' final divorce decree, the father's visitation schedule provided for an average of sixty-nine days of visitation throughout the year, as compared to the anticipated eighty days in the Guidelines. After a hearing on the matter, the trial court denied the petition and ordered the mother to pay the father's costs and attorney's fees. We reverse and remand.

Taylor vs. Heldman
M1999-00729-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Daniel Benson Taylor V Russell Heldman
Daniel Benson Taylor ("Plaintiff"), a prison inmate, filed suit for damages and other relief against two judges of the 21st Judicial District and, by amended complaint, the assistant attorneys general representing the two judges because of the alleged failure of the judges to grant his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The trial judge granted a Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure 12.02(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The specially appointed trial judge sustained the motion and Plaintiff appeals. We affirm.

Writesman vs. Writesman
M1999-00726-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Muriel Robinson
This appeal is from the trial court's order denying Husband's Petition for Modification and sentencing him to thirty days in jail for criminal contempt. Husband attempted to show that there had been a substantial and material change in the relative financial positions of the parties and that his court ordered alimony obligation should be terminated or modified. Wife counter-petitioned for contempt of court, and Husband was, thereafter, charged with criminal contempt and found guilty for his failure to pay alimony. We agree with the trial court that Husband failed to show a material change in circumstances sufficient to justify terminating or modifying his alimony obligation. We also agree with the trial court's finding of criminal contempt and uphold its sentence of thirty days in prison for such contempt. Therefore, the ruling of the trial court on all issues presented on appeal is affirmed.

Prentice vs. Prentice
M1999-01507-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Muriel Robinson
Ronald Prentice appeals from a decision of the Davidson County Circuit Court. The appeal involves a dispute over property division arising out of a divorce.

State vs. Michael Anthony Maddox
M2000-00193-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Cornelia A. Clark
Trial Court Judge: William Charles Lee
The defendant appeals the sentencing decision of the Marshall County Circuit Court. The defendant was convicted of two counts of sexual battery by an authority figure and sentenced to concurrent four year terms on each count. He was convicted of two counts of aggravated sexual battery and sentenced to concurrent twelve year terms on each count. Those sentences were run consecutively to the sentences for aggravated battery, for an effective sentence of sixteen (16) years. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Thomas J. Williams vs. State
M2000-00506-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Trial Court Judge: Timothy L. Easter
Thomas J. Williams appeals from the Hickman County Circuit Court's denial of his pro se petition for post-conviction relief. After review, we find the trial court's summary dismissal proper because the petition (1) is time barred; (2) fails to state a colorable claim; and (3) raises claims which are waived as they were not raised in previous petitions. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's denial of the petition.

State vs. Deborah Clark
W1999-00893-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry Smith
Trial Court Judge: Roger A. Page
The defendant, Deborah Darlene Clark, was convicted by a Madison County jury of aggravated kidnapping, aggravated robbery, and criminal impersonation. In this appeal the defendant claims the evidence is insufficient to support the verdicts. The court finds the evidence clearly sufficient to support the convictions and thus affirms the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Jerry Wayne Southerland
W1999-01083-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: William B. Acree

State vs. Billy Hancock
W1999-01746-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry Smith
Trial Court Judge: Chris B. Craft
The defendant, Billy Hancock, pled guilty in Shelby County Criminal Court to vehicular homicide, vehicular assault, aggravated child endangerment, three (3) counts of child endangerment, and reckless driving. The trial court sentenced the defendant to serve twelve (12) years for vehicular homicide, four (4) years for vehicular assault, four (4) years for aggravated child endangerment, nine (9) months for each of the three (3) counts of child endangerment, and six (6) months for reckless driving. The court ordered that the sentences for vehicular homicide, vehicular assault, and each of the three counts of child endangerment were to be served consecutively to each other, and that the sentences for reckless driving and aggravated child endangerment were to be served concurrently with the sentence for vehicular homicide. The total effective sentence was eighteen (18) years and three (3) months. On appeal, this court affirms the imposition of consecutive sentences because the trial court properly found that the defendant was a dangerous offender and had an extensive criminal history.

State vs. Eric Young
W2000-00057-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge John Everett Williams
Trial Court Judge: Roy B. Morgan, Jr.
In this appeal from the trial court's denial of his post-conviction petition, the petitioner argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that his guilty plea was unknowing and involuntarily entered. We find no error in the trial court's denial of the post-conviction petition.

Mary Schremp vs. David Schremp
W1999-01734-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: John R. Mccarroll, Jr.
Mother, the custodial parent of minor children, desired to relocate out of state to live with her new husband. Father protested the move and filed a petition in opposition. Finding that Mother's new husband could easily move to Memphis to live with his new family and that dislocating the children was not in their best interest, the trial court granted the petition. We affirm.