In re: Speedy Release Bail Bonds - Concurring and Dissenting
W2000-02260-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: Judge Donald H. Allen

I concur in the majority’s conclusion that Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-11-204(a) (1997) must govern any reimbursement of the conditionally forfeited bail bond in this case. As noted by the majority, Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-11-201(b) (1997) does prohibit the rendering of a conditional or final judgment of forfeiture, and therefore the entry of and execution on a final judgment of forfeiture, when a surety is unable to surrender a defendant due to the defendant’s incarceration in a jail, workhouse, or penitentiary and the surety furnishes the trial court with an affidavit of the jailer, warden, or other responsible officer. As also noted by the majority, the appellant did not provide the requisite affidavit to the trial court. Of course, the Madison County Sheriff’s Department has since obtained custody of the defendant, and a final judgment of forfeiture has yet to be entered in this case. Still, Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-11-201 places no affirmative obligation on the trial court to order reimbursement of money paid pursuant to a bail bond agreement following a defendant’s failure to appear. Cf. Blankenship v. State, 443 S.W.2d 442, 445-446 (Tenn. 1969)(interpreting the different language of Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-11-201’s predecessor statute).

State of Tennessee v. Jeffrey L. Marcum
W2000-02698-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: Judge Roy B. Morgan, Jr.

The appellant, Jeffrey L. Marcum, appeals his convictions by a jury in the Madison County Circuit Court of one count of rape of a child, one count of aggravated sexual battery, and one count of incest. In this appeal, the appellant raises the following issues for our consideration: (1) whether the trial court erred under Tenn. R. Evid. 412 in limiting his cross-examination of the victim concerning her "sexual history and knowledge;" (2) whether the evidence adduced at trial is sufficient to support the jury's "verdict" of guilt; and (3) whether the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of attempt to commit rape of a child. Following a careful review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court for the offenses of aggravated sexual battery and incest, but we reverse the judgment for the offense of rape of a child and remand the case for a new trial on that charge.

Joel Petty vs. Daimler Chrysler
W2001-01152-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: D. J. Alissandratos
Plaintiff in this case alleges that Defendant violated Tennessee's motor vehicle glass safety statutes which were in effect when Plaintiff purchased his vehicle in 1998. The court below found no violation and entered judgment for Defendant. We find that Plaintiff failed to introduce evidence of injury or damages and therefore affirm judgment for Defendant.

Union Planters vs. American Home
W2001-01124-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Karen R. Williams
This is an insurance case dealing with a standard loss-payee clause. On September 1, 1980, the appellee insurance company issued an aircraft hull and liability insurance policy to a commercial airline. The policy had an attached breach of warranty endorsement specifying the appellant bank as the loss payee for a particular airplane. In November 1980, the airline cancelled its insurance coverage for the airplane without giving notice to the bank. In December 1980, the airplane was found in Puerto Rico and seized by the United States government as an instrument of drug trafficking. When the airplane was seized, the seats and log books were missing. The bank sought recovery for the loss to the airplane under the breach of warranty endorsement attached to the original insurance policy. The insurance company denied coverage, and the bank sued the insurance company in the trial court below. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the insurance company. The bank now appeals. We reverse, finding that because notice of the cancellation of the insurance policy was not given to the loss-payee bank, the cancellation was not effective as to the loss-payee.

Stacy Turney vs. Ronald Turney
W2001-00492-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Joe C. Morris
This appeal from a divorce decree raises issues concerning the classification and distribution of the parties' property, and the determination of income for the purposes of setting child support. We modify the distribution of property and remand for determination of child support.

Timothy Potts v. State of Tennessee
W2001-00400-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: Judge Roger A. Page
The petitioner, Timothy Potts, pled guilty to second degree murder, a Class A felony, and was sentenced as a Range II, multiple offender to thirty-five years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. He appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, claiming (1) that his guilty plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made because he did not understand that he was pleading guilty as a Range II offender and (2) that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the trial court's denial of the petition.

Ishmael Mace vs. Phyllis Mace
W2001-00574-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Karen R. Williams

Ishmael Mace vs. Phyllis Mace
W2001-00574-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Karen R. Williams

John/Diana Asbury vs. Lagonia-Sherman
W2001-01821-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: D'Army Bailey

John/Diana Asbury vs. Lagonia-Sherman
W2001-01821-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: D'Army Bailey

William Perry vs. Ricki Perry
W2001-01350-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Martha B. Brasfield

William Perry vs. Ricki Perry
W2001-01350-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Martha B. Brasfield

William Perry vs. Ricki Perry
W2001-01350-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Martha B. Brasfield

State of Tennessee v. Kenneth Lee Kendrick
E2001-00817-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: Judge R. Jerry Beck

The defendant, Kenneth Lee Kendrick, appeals the Sullivan County Criminal Court's revocation of his probation. We affirm the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Nathan Scott Potter - Concurring
E2001-01760-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: Judge Phyllis H. Miller

I concur in the results reached in the majority opinion. However, I disagree with its implicit conclusion that legislative action regarding pretrial procedure in cases before the courts does not infringe upon the separation of powers doctrine.

Ida Douglas, et al. v. William Foster, et al.
M2000-03177-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Carol A. Catalano
The appellants, Ida Douglas and Dovie Allen, and appellees, William and Barbara Foster, entered into a contract for the sale of a house. After the buyers had lived in the house for a few years, several problems emerged. The buyers sued the sellers for rescission of the contract. The trial court granted the sellers' motion for involuntary dismissal after the presentation of the buyers' proof at trial. We affirm the decision of the trial court.

Khyva Phipps v. Insurance Company of The State of
M2000-01962-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Weatherford,.Sr. J.
Trial Court Judge: Larry Ross, General Sessions Judge
In this appeal, the appellants, Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania and Carrier Corporation insist that: 1) the trial court erred in excluding the medical records of Dr. Robert Cannon, M.D. documenting the employee's treatment for injuries sustained in a previous car accident, which was offered into evidence by appellant through the deposition of the physician's custodian of records; 2) the evidence preponderates against the trial court's finding that the plaintiff suffered a compensable injury to her back under the Workers' Compensation Act; and 3) the trial court erred in its application of the burden of proof as provided by the Workers' Compensation Act. After a complete review of the entire record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Patricia Daisy Coleman v. Tower Automotive,
W2001-00284-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Sp. J.
Trial Court Judge: Julian P. Guinn, Judge
In this appeal, the employer-appellant contends the award of permanent partial disability benefits based on 35 percent to the body as a whole is excessive. As discussed below, the panel concludes the judgment should be affirmed.

Rhonda Anderson vs. Lester Jarrett & Melinda Benson vs. Herman Harris
W2001-00484-COA-R3-JV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: J. Roland Reid
This is a child support case concerning jurisdiction to review certain administrative decisions rendered by the Department of Human Services. In its order, the juvenile court transferred the case, concluding that section 4-5-322 of the Tennessee Code placed jurisdiction with the "appropriate chancery court." Despite its order transferring the case, the juvenile court also decided the case on the merits and ruled that the State acted in contravention to section 36-5-905 of the Tennessee Code regarding the seizure of an obligor's assets. The court further concluded that section 36-5-905 was unconstitutional. We reverse the trial court regarding its jurisdictional determination and hold that the trial court erred by reaching the constitutional issue

Paul Nee vs. Big Creek
W2001-01482-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: George H. Brown
This is a premises liability action. Plaintiff alleges he was injured in a fall that took place on Defendant's steps. At trial, Plaintiff introduced pictures of the steps into evidence and testified that he heard a "crackling noise" as his "foot began to slide." After considering Plaintiff's evidence, the trial court granted Defendant's motion for a directed verdict. The trial court determined that Plaintiff failed to introduce evidence that the stairs constituted a defective or dangerous condition. Further, the trial court ruled that the jury would be forced to speculate on the cause of Plaintiff's fall. We affirm the decision of the trial court.

Melvin Bonds Jr. vs. Mike Emerson
W2001-00812-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Clayburn L. Peeples
This is a personal injury case arising from an automobile accident involving a sixteen-year old driver and a police officer. Officer, who was responding to a backup call, was allegedly driving 99 m.p.h. when driver pulled out of driveway. In a bench trial, the trial court found driver 80% at a fault for the accident and the officer 20% at fault. Driver has appealed. Judgment vacated and remanded.

Lance Morris vs. Collis Foods
W2001-00918-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Roger A. Page
This appeal involves a suit against a restaurant for a tort committed by a waitress. The appellant visited the restaurant on a crowded night. After the appellant's first waitress quit, another waitress took appellant's order. Following a long wait for his food, the appellant approached his waitress and words were exchanged. The waitress threw an object at the appellant, which caused injures. The appellant filed suit against both the restaurant and waitress. The relevant portion of the appellant's suit against the restaurant relied on the doctrine of respondeat superior. The court granted a motion for summary judgment filed by the restaurant, holding that the waitress was not acting within the scope of her employment. For the following reasons, we affirm.

Nora/Sylvester Eddings vs. Sears
W2001-01107-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Robert A. Lanier
This appeal involves a personal injury and allegations of promissory fraud stemming from a display bed collapsing at the defendant's department store. The plaintiffs spoke with the defendant's claim adjustor following the incident and were allegedly assured that medical bills would be paid by the defendant or that the claim would be "concluded." The plaintiffs, however, were informed by the defendant's claims adjustor approximately one year after the accident that the defendant held no liability due to the lapse of the statute of limitation. The plaintiffs sued the defendant for both personal injury and promissory fraud. Both claims were eventually defeated before a trial could be held and the plaintiffs appealed. We affirm.

State of Tennessee v. Shaun Michael Fleegle
E2000-02045-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: Judge Richard R. Baumgartner

A Knox County jury found the Defendant guilty of voluntary manslaughter, a Class C felony; and the trial court sentenced him as a Range I, standard offender to five years, four of which were to be served on probation. The Defendant now appeals, arguing the following: (1) that the trial court failed to properly consider enhancement and mitigating factors during sentencing, and (2) that the trial court erred in failing to grant judicial diversion. Finding that the trial court properly sentenced the Defendant, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Chris Haire
E2000-01636-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge J. Curwood Witt, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Carroll L. Ross

The defendant appeals from his McMinn County Criminal Court convictions and sentences for second degree murder and facilitation of attempted second degree murder. The trial court sentenced the defendant to 25 years in the Department of Correction as a Range I offender for the second degree murder conviction and to five years incarceration for the facilitation of attempted second degree murder conviction. In this direct appeal, the defendant complains that the evidence is insufficient; that photographs and expert testimony were improperly admitted; that prosecutorial misconduct taints the verdict; that the state improperly questioned the defendant about his post-arrest exercise of his right to remain silent; that the jury instructions regarding intoxication were prejudicially inadequate; and that the sentences imposed are excessive. Unpersuaded by the defendant's assignments of errors, we affirm the trial court's judgment and sentence.