State of Tennessee v. Courtney L. Johnson
M2000-02991-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge J. Curwood Witt, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge John H. Gasaway, III

The defendant, Courtney L. Johnson, appeals the revocation of her probation by the Montgomery County Circuit Court. On appeal, she challenges the trial court's decision, after revocation, to order her to serve the balance of her effective sentence of approximately ten years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Because we find no abuse of discretion, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Larry N. Wilson v. State of Tennessee
M2001-00022-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge J. Curwood Witt, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Cheryl A. Blackburn

The post-conviction petitioner, Larry N. Wilson, seeks to set aside his four Davidson County Criminal Court convictions of aggravated robbery and his effective 24-year sentence. The convictions were based on guilty pleas. In his post-conviction proceeding, he posited that the pleas were involuntarily or unknowingly made and that they were the result of the ineffective assistance of counsel. After an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. Concluding that the record supports that determination, we affirm.

Richard Wilson v. University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
M2000-02573-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.
In this appeal from the Chancery Court for Davidson County, Dr. Richard Wilson, the Plaintiff/Appellant, contends that the Chancellor erred in affirming an Administrative Judge's decision that Dr. Wilson engaged in conduct warranting his dismissal as a tenured faculty member at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, the Defendant/Appellee, for violation of the University's policy against sexual harassment. We reverse the judgment of the Chancery Court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We adjudge costs against the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga.

Lois Miller v. James Miller
M2001-00501-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Muriel Robinson
In this appeal from the Chancery Court for Davidson County Dr. Richard Wilson, the Plaintiff/Appellant, contends that the Chancellor erred in affirming an Administrative Judge's decision that Dr. Wilson engaged in conduct warranting his dismissal as a tenured faculty member at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, the Defendant/Appellee, for violation of the University's policy against sexual harassment. We reverse the judgment of the Chancery Court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We adjudge costs against the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga.

Michael Douglas Hughes v. State of Tennessee
M2001-00888-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: Judge Cheryl A. Blackburn

The Defendant, Michael Douglas Hughes, entered a plea of no contest to one count of aggravated rape, and a plea of guilty to ten counts of aggravated rape, on November 30, 1992. On March 4, 1993, a sentencing hearing was held and the Defendant was sentenced for these crimes to an aggregate term of eighty years. The Defendant's trial counsel failed to timely perfect the Defendant's appeal, and on June 30, 1995, the Defendant filed a petition for post-conviction relief, seeking a delayed appeal. The delayed appeal was granted and this Court affirmed the Defendant's sentence. See State v. Michael Douglas Hughes, No. 01C01-9701-CR-00021, 1998 WL 301730, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., Nashville, June 10, 1998). The Tennessee Supreme Court denied the Defendant's application for permission to appeal on February 22, 1999. The Defendant filed the present petition for post-conviction relief on August 25, 1999, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel at his plea, sentencing, and on appeal; that his guilty plea is invalid because it was not made voluntarily, understandingly, and knowingly; and that the length of his sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. The trial court dismissed the present petition on the grounds that it was not timely filed, that the grounds for relief have been waived, and that it does not contain grounds sufficient to constitute a motion to reopen the previous petition. The Defendant now appeals as of right. We reverse the trial court's ruling and remand this matter for an evidentiary hearing.

David Pitts v. Floyd Blackwell
M2000-01733-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Floyd Don Davis
This appeal involves the decision of a probate court to approve the amended first and final accounting of a conservatorship and award attorney's fees for the conservator's defense of the accounting. The conservator, owner of a funeral home, conducted a $26,367.75 funeral for the conservatee. An interested party objected to approval of the funeral expenses and a hearing was held. The probate court ordered the conservator to return the proceeds from a prepaid burial life insurance policy to the estate, but confirmed the accounting in all other respects. For the following reasons, we affirm in part, reverse in part, vacate in part and remand for further proceedings.

Ishaaq (aka Alonzo Stewart) v. Dept. of Correction, et al.
M2000-01957-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Carol L. Mccoy
Ishaaq, a prisoner in the Department of Corrections serving a combined 130 year sentence for Class X felonies committed prior to July 1, 1982, seeks to rescind a waiver by which he chose, in 1987, to gain the sentence reduction credit benefits applicable to him under Tennessee Code Annotated section 41-21-236. He seeks to rescind the waiver under the belief that he would thereby become eligible for mandatory parole. The trial judge dismissed his complaint, and we affirm the action of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Donavan Edward Daniel
W2000-00981-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge John Everett Williams
Trial Court Judge: Judge William B. Acree

After a jury trial, the defendant, a juvenile at the time of the offenses, was convicted of six counts arising out of the shooting deaths of two victims. The jury sentenced him to life in prison for Count One, first degree premeditated murder of the first victim, and for Count Two, first degree felony murder of the first victim based upon robbery of the first victim. The jury sentenced him to life in prison without the possibility of parole for Count Three, first degree felony murder of the second victim based upon premeditated murder of the first victim, and for Count Four, first degree felony murder of the second victim based upon robbery of the first victim. The trial court merged the conviction for Count Two into Count One, and the conviction for Count Four into Count Three. The trial court sentenced the defendant to twenty (20) years for Count Five, especially aggravated robbery, one (1) year for Count Six, possession of marijuana with intent to resell, and ordered the sentences to be served concurrently. On appeal, the defendant challenges the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress and his request for a state-funded mitigation expert, as well as the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions for first-degree murder. After careful review of the record, we hold that the trial court did not err in failing to suppress the defendant's statements. Further, we hold that although the defendant's status as a non-capital defendant did not preclude him from receiving state-funded expert services, our de novo review of the record reveals that the defendant failed to make the required showing of a particularized need for a mitigation expert. Therefore, the trial court's denial of the defendant's request for such services was correct. Finally, we hold the evidence is sufficient to sustain the defendant's convictions for premeditated and felony murder in the first degree. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Tony D. Johnson
W2001-00026-CC-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: Judge Chris B. Craft

The Defendant, Tony D. Johnson, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of felony possession of cocaine with intent to sell. After a sentencing hearing, the Defendant was sentenced to ten years as a Range I standard offender. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends that (1) the evidence presented at trial is insufficient to support the jury’s verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and (2) the trial court erred in imposing a ten year sentence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Ronald Dotson
W2000-03115-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: Judge Joseph B. Dailey

A Shelby County jury convicted the Defendant of aggravated robbery, and the trial court sentenced him as a repeat violent offender to life imprisonment. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant argues (1) that insufficient evidence of his identity as the perpetrator was presented at trial and (2) that there was a material variance between the indictment and the proof at trial. Having reviewed the record, we conclude (1) that sufficient evidence was presented to support the Defendant's conviction and (2) that a variance between the indictment and the proof at trial existed, but that the variance did not affect the substantial rights of the Defendant and thus was not fatal. We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Washshukru Al-Jabbar vs. State
W2001-02049-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
This is an appeal from an order of the Claims Commission granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendant. The claim was brought by an inmate in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Correction claiming that employees of the Department lost two pages of pleadings he filed in an action in circuit court.

State Children Serv. vs. Donald Grant
W2001-01934-COA-R3-JV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Christy R. Little
This case involves the termination of parental rights. The child was voluntarily placed in the custody of the Department of Children's Services in April 1996 due to the parents' substance abuse. A petition was filed to terminate the parental rights of both parents. The mother's parental rights were terminated by default, but the petition was dismissed as to the father. The trial court then ordered visitation and child support. The father stopped making visits after two months and failed to pay any child support. A second petition to terminate the father's parental rights was filed on the grounds, inter alia, of abandonment and that the conditions which led to the child's removal persisted and were unlikely to be remedied. The trial court granted the petition to terminate parental rights and the father appeals. We affirm, finding clear and convincing evidence to support the termination of the father's parental rights.

Candace Fleck vs. Cooper Realty
W2001-00465-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: D'Army Bailey
Plaintiff allegedly sustained injuries at Mid Memphis Tower Building when she exited an elevator which failed to level. She and her husband sued the building's management company and the company that owns the manufacturer of the elevator. The suit against the elevator company alleges that the company was negligent "by failing to insure that the elevator in question was properly inspected, maintained, and repaired." The elevator company's interrogatories, inter alia, requested the identity of any expert witness the plaintiffs planned to use at trial. Plaintiffs answered this interrogatory in December, 1998: "Plaintiffs have not identified such individuals at this time." The interrogatories were never supplemented, and the case was set for trial on December 1, 1999. In October, 1999, the elevator company filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that the lack of an expert witness prevented plaintiffs from proving essential elements of the case. Plaintiffs were granted additional time within which to obtain an expert witness and subsequently announced that plaintiffs did not intend to have an expert witness. The trial court granted summary judgment to the elevator company. Subsequently, the building's management company settled its case and upon dismissal of that suit, the grant of summary judgment became final. Plaintiff-wife appealed. We reverse.

Angela Phillips vs. William Phillips
W2001-01685-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Daniel L. Smith
This appeal arises from a divorce proceeding wherein the parties had two minor children. While the divorce was pending, the trial court issued a temporary order outlining the custodial rights of the parties with respect to their children. The final decree of divorce adopted a permanent parenting plan and distributed the marital property and debts. The husband filed this appeal contesting the permanent parenting plan and the manner in which the marital debts were apportioned. For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of the trial court

State of Tennessee v. Joseph Matthew Maka
W2001-00414-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: Judge Roger A. Page

Indicted for the offense of premeditated first degree murder, defendant was convicted of the lesser-included offense of second degree murder and sentenced to twenty-three years. In this appeal as of right, defendant presents the following issues: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict; (2) whether the trial court erred in failing to grant a mistrial when the state referred to defendant's being in jail pending trial; (3) whether the trial court erred in admitting defendant's prior misdemeanor convictions for impeachment purposes; (4) whether the trial court erred in failing to grant a mistrial when the prosecutor misstated the evidence in final argument; (5) whether the trial court erred in failing to grant a mistrial when extraneous prejudicial information was present during jury deliberations; and (6) whether the sentence was excessive. We find no error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Debbie Risner vs. Nathan Harris
W2001-01041-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: William B. Acree
This is an action to recover personal property. The plaintiff and defendant lived together for seventeen years. In November 1999, the plaintiff moved out. She left personal property in the trailer in which the couple was living, in the nearby convenience store owned by the defendant, and in a storage unit in another town. In August 2000, the convenience store caught on fire, and the plaintiff's personal property in the store was destroyed. Soon thereafter, the defendant took possession of the plaintiff's other personal property that had been held in the storage unit and called her to come get it. In November 2000, the plaintiff filed a warrant in general sessions court to recover her personal property from the defendant. She claimed that the defendant had prevented her from retrieving any of her personal property. She received a judgment which was appealed to circuit court. The circuit court entered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, awarded damages, and ordered the defendant to return certain items to the plaintiff. The defendant now appeals. We reverse the trial court's decision with respect to two of the items ordered returned and the property that the plaintiff had kept in the storage unit in another town, and affirm the remainder of the order.

Steffone McClendon, father of Damien O'Shay Maurice McClendon, the next of kind of Cyhthia Vanessa Francis, Deceased, v. Dr. Elaine Bunick
E2001-02816-COA-RM-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Judge Dale C. Workman

This case involves a medical malpractice claim that was dismissed on summary judgment by the trial court. The plaintiff, Steffone McClendon, appealed to this Court, seeking a reversal of the trial court’s summary judgment. We affirmed the trial court’s decision based on the legislative history and our interpretation of Section 20-1-119 of the Tennessee code. The plaintiff sought a review of this Court’s decision with the Tennessee Supreme Court. Although the supreme court refused to hear the case, it remanded the case to this Court for reconsideration in light of Townes v. Sunbeam Oster Co., Inc., 50 S.W. 3d 446 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001) released this year by the middle
section of this Court and recently published.

Harrison Driver v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc.
M2000-02944-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Gayden, Sp. J.
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Don R. Ash, Judge
The employer argues that the employee's pre-existing condition was not advanced, progressed, or anatomically changed during his employment at Bridgestone. In the face of conflicting medical testimony, the trial court found in favor of the employee, awarding $13,766 for a 7% permanent disability to his body as a whole. Relying on the employee's own medical testimony as well as an opinion of one of the testifying physicians, concluding that the employee's injury more probably than not was a result of his employment, the Panel affirms the trial court's finding that the employee suffered a compensable injury while at work.

State of Tennessee v. Eugene Floyd Lockhart, a/ka/ Floyd E. Lockhart
M2000-02171-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: Judge Steve R. Dozier

The defendant appeals the denial of probation for the five-year sentence he received for sexual battery by an authority figure, a Class C felony. He asserts that the record fails to support a conclusion that the statutory presumption of his eligibility for alternative sentencing has been rebutted. We modify the term of confinement and order supervised probation forthwith and remand the case to the trial court for imposition of appropriate conditions.

Nathaniel Hampton v. Connecticut Indemnity Company
W2000-02057-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Sp. J.
Trial Court Judge: John R. Mccarroll, Jr., Judge
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) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this appeal, the employee insists the evidence preponderates against the trial court's finding that he did not suffer a permanent injury. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the judgment should be affirmed. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e) (2) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed. JOE C. LOSER, JR., SP. J., in which JANICE M. HOLDER, J., and ROBERT L. CHILDERS, SP. J., joined. Steve Taylor, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellant, Nathaniel Hampton Jeffery G. Foster, Jackson, Tennessee, for the appellee, Connecticut Indemnity Company MEMORANDUM OPINION On or about June 7, 1999, the employee or claimant, Hampton, strained his knee at work. He reported the accident to his employer, who provided medical care, including diagnostic testing and physical therapy. A Magnetic Resonance Imaging scan revealed no abnormality. Dr. James Varner viewed the test report and examined the claimant, but found no evidence of a permanent injury. Dr. Joseph Boals examined the claimant and found minimal tenderness over the injured knee and guessed the claimant's permanent impairment at 5 percent, based on subjective complaints. Accepting the medical testimony of Dr. Varner, the trial court found that the evidence failed to establish the probability of a permanent injury. Appellate review is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of correctness of the findings of fact, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225 (e)(2). This tribunal is not bound by the trial court's findings but instead conducts an independent examination of the record to determine where the preponderance lies. Galloway v. Memphis Drum Serv., 822 S.W.2d 584, 586 (Tenn. 1991). Where the trial judge has seen and heard the witnesses, especially if issues of credibility and weight to be given oral testimony are involved, considerable deference must be accorded those circumstances on review, because it is the trial court which had the opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor and to hear the in-court testimony. Long v. Tri-Con Ind., Ltd., 996 S.W.2d 173, 178 (Tenn. 1999). The appellate tribunal, however, is as well situated to gauge the weight, worth and significance of deposition testimony as the trial judge. Walker v. Saturn Corp., 986 S.W.2d 24, 27 (Tenn. 1998). The extent of an injured worker's vocational disability is a question of fact. Story v. Legion Ins. Co., 3 S.W.3d 45, 456 (Tenn. 1999). The claimant seeks an "in-depth review" of the evidence to determine where the preponderance of the evidence lies.

Town of Greeneville vs. Jack Cobble, et ux
E2001-00869-COA-R9-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Kindall T. Lawson
Trial Court refused to grant partial summary judgment as to the extent of land taken. On appeal, we reverse.

E2001-01363-COA-R3-JV
E2001-01363-COA-R3-JV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Tom Wright

Monroe Davis vs. State
E2001-02032-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
The plaintiff, Monroe E. Davis is a prisoner in state custody. He filed a complaint with the Tennessee Claims Commission ("the Claims Commission") against the State of Tennessee and the warden of the facility at which he is incarcerated, seeking damages for the alleged detention and/or conversion of his personal property by the warden. The Claims Commission granted the defendants' motion to dismiss. We affirm.

Johnson vs. CCA
W2001-00595-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Jon Kerry Blackwood
This is an appeal from an order of the trial court granting a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. We reverse in part and affirm in part.

Franklin Scott Keith v. State of Tennessee
E2001-00220-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Trial Court Judge: Judge Rex Henry Ogle

The petitioner appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The petitioner pled guilty to ten counts of rape of a child. On appeal, the petitioner raises the issues of whether the post-conviction court erred in finding that he received the effective assistance of counsel and whether his guilty plea was entered voluntarily and knowingly. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.