State of Tennessee v. Corwyn E. Winfield
W2000-00660-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Trial Court Judge: Judge Bernie Weinman

The defendant was convicted of second degree murder by a Shelby County jury in the shooting death of his girlfriend. He was sentenced to twenty years as a standard offender, with his sentence to be served without parole eligibility in the Tennessee Department of Correction. In this appeal as of right, the defendant raises one issue: whether the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of the mother of the victim concerning a prior alleged assault on the victim by the defendant. We conclude that the evidence was admissible, having satisfied all three conditions for admissibility of evidence of prior bad acts pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b)(1)-(3). The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

State of Tennessee v. Darrin Bryant
W2000-01136-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge L. Terry Lafferty
Trial Court Judge: Judge Carolyn Wade Blackett

After a jury trial, Defendant, Darrin Bryant, was convicted of attempted first degree murder. Subsequently, he was sentenced to twenty-five (25) years, Range I, Standard Offender in the Department of Corrections. In this appeal as of right, Defendant asserts that the trial court erred in sentencing Defendant to the maximum sentence of twenty-five (25) years by inappropriately applying an enhancement factor; and the State failed to present sufficient evidence to justify a rational trier of fact in finding beyond a reasonable doubt, that the assault was an attempt to commit premeditated murder. We conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and that the trial court did not err in sentencing Defendant to the maximum of twenty-five (25) years in the Department of Corrections.

William Winchester vs. Glenda Winchester
W2000-01764-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Don H. Allen
In a post-divorce proceeding, father filed a "motion" to increase visitation with his minor child. The trial court found that there had been no material change of circumstances since the entry of the prior visitation order and denied the "motion." Father has appealed. We affirm.

Michael Thomas v. State of Tennessee
W2000-01886-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: Judge James C. Beasley, Jr.

The Defendant, Michael Thomas, appeals as of right from the denial of post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, he asserts that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary and that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. We find no merit to the Defendant's assertions; thus, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. William J. Clouse - Concurring
M2000-00436-CCA-R9-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Trial Court Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle

I join with Judge Ogle in concluding that the Appellant's double jeopardy rights were not violated. I would also make the observation that, similar in purpose to the DUI statute, the stated public policy purpose in enacting the Motor Vehicle Habitual Offender Act was to remove from the highways those offenders who have "demonstrated their indifference to the safety and welfare of others." Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-10-602(2).

Lindsay Taylor vs. Al Beard, et al
W2001-00347-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Robert L. Childers
This appeal involves a grant of summary judgment, which dismissed loss of parental consortium claims brought by the children of a parent injured in an automobile accident. The children seek review of existing Tennessee precedent that fails to recognize loss of parental consortium causes of action resulting from the personal injury of a parent. For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of the trial court and decline to create a new cause of action.

James Ferguson vs. Debbie Warren
W2001-00217-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: J. Steven Stafford
This case involves child visitation with a prison inmate. The child's father has been incarcerated since 1994 at the Northwest Correctional Facility in Lake County, Tennessee. The child resides with his mother in Weakley County, Tennessee. In 1997, the father filed a petition in the Lake County Chancery Court seeking an order requiring the child's mother to allow the father to communicate with his child. The mother failed to respond to the petition. In April 1999, the Lake County Chancery Court sua sponte dismissed the petition, finding that it should have been filed in Weakley County. This Court reversed, holding that lack of venue was a defensewhich was waived when the mother failed to respond. After the case was remanded, the mother sent a letter to the Lake County Chancery Court, advising that a paternity petition had been filed in the Weakley County Juvenile Court. Thereafter, the Lake County Chancery Court transferred the father's petition to the Weakley County Juvenile Court to be determined in conjunction with the paternity petition. The father now appeals the transfer of his petition. We affirm, finding that the trial court acted within its authority in transferring the case to a court with concurrent jurisdiction.

Patricia Sadler vs. Lawrence Sadler
E2000-02110-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Bill Swann
This is a post-divorce child support dispute with a series of hearings and orders stretching over a 29-month period. Lawrence David Sadler ("Father"), the obligor parent, appeals the last order entered below, in which the trial court found him in arrears and awarded Patricia Jane Sadler ("Mother") her attorney's fees of $6,262.50. Because we find that the referee's action, as approved by the trial court in the subject order, retroactively modified Father's child support obligation and erroneously found Father to be in arrears in his child support obligation, we reverse.

State ex rel Elizabeth Durrant vs. Brittain Howard
E2000-02072-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Carey E. Garrett
In this custody dispute, the Trial Court gave custody to the father. The mother appealed. We affirm.

Loue Manning vs. K-Trans Mgt , Inc.
E2000-02462-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Daryl R. Fansler
Loue G. Manning appeals a summary judgment granted in favor of K-Trans Management, Inc., as to his suit seeking damages for violation of the Tennessee Human Rights Act and intentional infliction of emotional distress as a result of his termination by K-Trans. We find there is no material evidence to support his insistence that he was terminated because of his race and affirm the judgment below.

Marilyn Willocks Jeffries v. Irene Gamble,
2000-03120-COA-R3-CV
Trial Court Judge: O. Duane Slone

Roger Ritchie, et al vs. Tommy Pitner, et al
E2000-02689-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Dale C. Workman
This lawsuit arises out of a Letter of Intent entered into between two of the various parties to this action. The trial court entered judgment on the issue of which party was entitled to possession of the property, but did not rule on any of the remaining claims. Because the judgment appealed from is not a final judgment for purposes of Rule 3 of the Tenn. R. App. P., we dismiss the appeal.

Linda Green, M.D. and Steve Ferguson, M.D. vs. United Services Automobile Association and Principal Mutual Life Insurance Company
E2000-02713-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: John F. Weaver
Linda Green, M.D., and Steve Ferguson, M.D. ("Plaintiffs"), who are married, filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment ("Complaint") against their automobile insurance carrier, United States Automobile Association, or USAA, regarding a dispute over the terms of their insurance policy ("Policy"). Plaintiff Green claimed coverage under their Policy's uninsured/underinsured motorist liability section for her physical injuries, medical expenses, and loss of income resulting from an automobile accident. Plaintiff Ferguson claimed coverage for loss of consortium. Defendant contends that the Policy limits Plaintiff Ferguson's loss of consortium claim to the $300,000 each person coverage already extended to Plaintiff Green. After Plaintiffs filed suit disputing this interpretation of the Policy, Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment which was granted by the trial court. Plaintiffs appeal. We affirm.

Dee Ann Gallaher vs. Curtis J. Elam
E2000-02719-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Carey E. Garrett

Dee Ann Gallaher vs. Curtis J. Elam
E2000-02719-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Carey E. Garrett

Lisa Hughes, et vir vs. Wilma Effler, et al
E2000-03147-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: W. Dale Young
Plaintiffs alleged that defendant appraiser's negligence in making an appraisal resulted in their damage. The Trial Court granted defendant summary judgment. Plaintiffs appeal the refusal of the Trial Judge to grant them additional time to defend the summary judgment motion. We affirm.

State of Tennessee v. David Scarbrough
E1998-00931-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Gary R Wade
Trial Court Judge: Judge Ray L. Jenkins

The defendant, David Scarbrough, was convicted of two counts of felony murder, two counts of theft, and aggravated burglary. The trial court imposed sentences of life imprisonment with the possibility of parole for each of the murders, a sentence of six years for the aggravated burglary and sentences of 11 months, 29 days for each of the thefts. All sentences are to be served consecutively. In this appeal of right, the defendant presents the following issues for review: (1) Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; (2) whether the defendant's statement to police was made knowingly and voluntarily; (3) whether the trial court erred by denying the defendant's challenge for cause of a juror; (4) whether the trial court erred by denying defendant's motion for continuance; (5) whether the trial court erred by refusing a jury instruction on facilitation of felony murder; (6) whether the trial court erred by admitting photographs of the crime scene; (7) whether the trial court erred by refusing to permit a private investigator to testify; (8) whether the trial court properly refused to allow the testimony of a psychologist during the guilt phase of trial; (9) whether the sentences were excessive; and (10) whether the trial court erred by denying the defendant's motion for a writ of error coram nobis based on newly discovered evidence. Because the trial court erred by failing to instruct on the lesser included offense of facilitation of felony murder and because such error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, the felony murder convictions are reversed and the causes are remanded for a new trial. The remaining convictions are affirmed.

Dana Allanmore Smith vs. Angela Childress Smith
M2000-02186-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Carol A. Catalano
In this post-divorce proceeding, wife filed petition to modify the prior decree as to child support, custody, and visitation. The trial court modified a previous consent order and set husband's child support with an upward deviation from the guidelines. Husband appeals, and both parties present issues for review. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

John Cappello vs. Hazel Albert
M2000-02104-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.
A corrections officer with the Tennessee Department of Correction, after being discharged for allegedly purchasing a television from an inmate at the institution where he serves, was denied unemployment benefits. The officer's petition for certiorari to the chancery court was dismissed, and the officer has appealed. We affirm.

Yona Boyd, et al. v. Prime Focus, Inc., et al.
M2000-02105-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Carol L. Mccoy
This case began as a dispute between the plaintiffs and their employers. The defendant was awarded summary judgment, and plaintiffs were sanctioned by the court pursuant to Rule 11 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs now appeal this sanction. We affirm sanctions but modify the order.

Laurence Kandel v. Urological Treatment and Research , Ralph Benson, Dean Knoll & Institute for Urological Research
M2000-02128-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Barbara N. Haynes
This is a breach of contract case. The plaintiff physician entered into an employment contract with the defendant physician's group. The contract provided that the physician would work for the group for one year, and that the parties would then "negotiate in good faith" to give the employee physician the opportunity to purchase stock in the group. At the end of the physician's first year of employment, the parties negotiated, but reached an impasse. Subsequently, negotiations ceased, and the physician's employment was terminated. He filed suit against the group, alleging that the defendants breached the contract to "negotiate in good faith," and that the defendants committed promissory fraud in inducing him into signing the employment agreement. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on both counts. The physician now appeals. We affirm. Even if Tennessee recognizes a cause of action for breach of an agreement to negotiate in good faith, the evidence does not demonstrate such a breach, and does not establish promissory fraud.

Dennis Armoneit vs. Elliott Crane Service, Inc., et al
M1998-00988-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Hamilton V. Gayden, Jr.
This appeal arises from an accident involving a crane rented by the plaintiff's employer to aid in a construction project. The plaintiff was helping to attach trusses being lifted by the crane to the roof of a house when the crane's allegedly negligent operation caused him to fall from the roof. The plaintiff filed suit against the owner of the crane in the Circuit Court for Davidson County, alleging that the owner was vicariously liable for the crane operator's actions. The owner of the crane, relying on its standard rental agreement form, sought indemnity from the plaintiff's employer. On the plaintiff's employer's motion for partial summary judgment, the trial court held that the owner of the crane was vicariously liable for the crane operator's alleged negligence and that the indemnity agreement was void as contrary to public policy. The owner of the crane has appealed. We hold that the trial court erred by granting partial summary judgment on the employer's respondeat superior claim but that the trial court properly determined that the indemnity provision in the crane owner's rental agreement is void.

Leta Hoalcraft vs. Walter Troy Smithson
M2000-01347-COA-R10-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Russell Heldman

State of Tennessee v. Tracy Barr
M2000-01502-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: Judge Timothy L. Easter

The Defendant pled guilty without a plea agreement to theft of property valued at more than $500.00 and to identity theft. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced her to concurrent sentences of one year incarceration for the theft of property conviction and three years incarceration for the identity theft conviction. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant argues that the trial court should have granted her some form of alternative sentencing. Because we conclude that the sentence imposed is adequately supported by the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Russell Allen
M2000-01656-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: Judge Robert L. Jones

The appellant, Russell Allen, was convicted in the Maury County Circuit Court of one count of aggravated sexual battery and was sentenced as a Range I offender to eight years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant raises the following issue for our review: whether the trial court erred in failing to grant the appellant a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.