State of Tennessee v. Frank L. Glavin - concurring in part and dissenting in part

Case Number
M2012-00550-CCA-R3-CD

I respectfully disagree with the conclusion by the majority to vacate the Defendant’s conviction for violating the implied consent law. On appeal, the Defendant specifically argues that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of violating the implied consent law. The majority vacates the Defendant’s conviction for violating the implied consent law on procedural grounds, an argument not made by the Defendant on appeal.

Authoring Judge
Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Originating Judge
Judge F. Lee Russell
Case Name
State of Tennessee v. Frank L. Glavin - concurring in part and dissenting in part
Date Filed
Dissent or Concur
This is a dissenting opinion
Download PDF Version