Opinions

Richardson vs. Miller
M1997-00205-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Marietta M. Shipley

Welborn vs. Sellars
M1999-00164-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Robert E. Corlew, III
This is an insurance case. The plaintiff was driving a motorcycle when he was involved in an accident with an automobile driven by an uninsured motorist. The plaintiff's motorcycle was not listed in his insurance policy. The plaintiff filed suit seeking damages for his injuries sustained in the accident. The plaintiff's insurance company moved for summary judgment in the case based on an exclusion in the plaintiff's insurance policy which denied uninsured motorist coverage for vehicles for which insurance was not afforded under the policy. The trial court granted the insurance company's motion and the plaintiff appealed. We affirm, finding that the policy exclusion applies to the plaintiff's motorcycle.

Kenneth L. Bonner vs. TN Dept. of Correction
M1999-00343-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle
The petitioner contends that the trial court erred in dismissing his petition regarding the Department of Correction's calculation of his release eligibility date. An adjustment of the release eligibility date, made subsequent to the filing of this appeal, has rendered most of the petitioner's arguments moot. As to the remaining issue, we affirm the dismissal of the petition because we agree with the trial court that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the petition.

Heathman-Wood vs. Wood
M1999-00341-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Leonard W. Martin
This is a post-divorce child custody case. When the mother and father divorced, by agreed order, they gave custody of their minor child to the child's maternal aunt and uncle. The aunt and uncle later petitioned the trial court to allow them to move with the child to another state. The father then sought custody of the child. The trial court found that the father had failed to prove a change in circumstances warranting a change in custody from the aunt and uncle. Consequently, the father's petition for custody was dismissed and the aunt and uncle's petition to move to another state was granted. We reverse, finding that an erroneous legal standard was used. The cause is remanded for a determination of whether granting the father's petition for custody would result in substantial harm to the child.

State vs. Arnold K. Ward
M1999-00357-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Sr. Judge L. Terry Lafferty
Trial Court Judge: Timothy L. Easter
The appellant/defendant, Arnold K. Ward, Jr., appeals as of right from a judgment of conviction and sentencing imposed by the Williamson County Circuit Court. Upon jury conviction for attempted murder second degree and assault, the trial court imposed sentences of eleven (11) years for attempted murder second degree and eleven (11) months and twenty-nine (29) days for assault. The trial court ordered the sentences to be served concurrently. In his appellate issues, the defendant asserts that: (1) the indictment for count one is defective; (2) the defendant was denied his right to compulsory process; (3) extra-judicial communication during the trial between a witness and a juror contaminated the proceedings; (4) there was insufficient evidence for which a rational trier of fact could find the defendant guilty; (5) the defendant was convicted of a charge that does not exist under Tennessee law; and (6) the defendant's sentence is excessive. After a review of the entire record, we find the appellate issues without merit and affirm the trial court's judgment.

State vs. Elpidio Valdez
M1999-00791-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry Smith
Trial Court Judge: J. Randall Wyatt, Jr.

State vs. Elpidio Valdez
M1999-00791-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry Smith
Trial Court Judge: J. Randall Wyatt, Jr.

Ross vs. Campbell
M1999-01805-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle
An inmate in custody of the Tennessee Department of Correction brought an action for declaratory judgment contending that the Department failed to give him all sentence credits due. The trial court granted the respondent's motion for summary judgment and we affirm on the basis that no genuine issue of material fact was shown.

Wright vs. Hull
M1999-02307-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Billy Joe White
Plaintiff/Appellee, Bill D. Wright, sued to set aside a 1986 deed whereby he conveyed a certain tract of land to Defendant/Appellant, Bonnie S. Hull. He charged failure of consideration and fraud. Defendant, Ms. Hull, asserted that she and Mr. Wright cohabited without marriage for twelve years until their separation in 1998. She asserted that the property conveyance was a gift and was also conveyed to her by Mr. Wright to put the property out of the reach of his creditors. The trial court held the parties to be equal tenants in common and ordered the property sold. We reverse the trial court and dismiss the case.

Hartsville Hospital vs. Bay Nat'l Bank & Trust Co.
M1999-01276-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: C. K. Smith
This appeal arises from a dispute over the ownership of monies held in a bond fund. Hartsville Hospital Incorporated ("Hartsville") filed suit against Bay National Bank ("Bank") seeking the contents of the fund. The court below entered judgment for Hartsville, holding that Bank had no claim to the bond fund money pursuant to a release agreement between the parties and that Hartsville was not estopped from asserting ownership. Bank appeals.

Huffer vs. State
M1999-01278-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
The claimants sought to hold the State liable for the personal injuries and deaths caused in an automobile accident on U.S. Highway 64 in Franklin County. After first holding that the State's negligence was the cause of twenty-five percent of the damages, the Claims Commissioner modified his findings and concluded that the State had a discretionary function immunity and that the sole proximate cause of the accident was the negligence of the driver of the automobile in which the injured persons were riding. We affirm on the proximate cause issue.

Johnson vs. Allstate
M1999-01639-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Buddy D. Perry
Insured sued his insurer to recover policy coverage due on a fire loss to his automobile after the insurer denied coverage under the fraud provision of the policy. Judgment was entered on a jury verdict for the insured, and the insurer has appealed.

State vs. Jerry W. Yancey, Jr.
M1999-02131-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Sr. Judge L. Terry Lafferty
Trial Court Judge: Timothy L. Easter
The appellant/defendant, Jerry W. Yancey, Jr., was convicted by the Williamson County Jury on four counts, two counts of aggravated assault and two counts of felony reckless endangerment. In count five, the defendant was found not guilty of felony reckless endangerment. Upon the defendant's conviction for aggravated assault, the trial court imposed sentences of three and one-half (3-_) years in the Department of Correction. However, the trial court placed the defendant on probation for four (4) years with certain special conditions, mainly that the defendant serve sixty (60) days, day for day, in the Williamson County Jail. In his appeal, the defendant challenges: (1) Whether the trial court erred in finding that the District Attorney General did not abuse his discretion in denying the defendant pre-trial diversion?; and (2) Whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant full probation? Upon our review of the entire record, we find no reversible error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

American Airlines vs. Johnson
M1999-02390-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Carol L. Mccoy
American Airlines, Inc., appeals the trial court's final judgment denying its request for a refund of use taxes paid on aviation fuel purchased out of state during the years 1992 through 1995. We affirm the trial court's judgment.

Stanley Bridges v. Liberty Insurance Company of
E1999-01775-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: John K. Byers, Sr. J.
Trial Court Judge: Hon. R. Vann Owens, Chancellor
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated _ 5-6- 225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The chancellor ruled that the plaintiff suffered from pneumoconiosis and that the two physicians who testified the plaintiff had the condition were more credible than the physician who testified he did not. However, the judge found the plaintiff failed to carry the burden of showing he was totally and permanently disabled from the pneumoconiosis; therefore, an award could not be made under the guidelines as expressed in the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969 and adopted by the Tennessee General Assembly in Tennessee Code Annotated _ 5-6-32 et. seq. However, the chancellor ruled that even though the evidence and circumstances did not support an award of one hundred percent permanent total disability under the coal worker's pneumoconiosis provisions, the court could still award permanent partial disability under the general occupational diseases provisions of the Tennessee Worker's Compensation Act. TENN. CODE ANN. _ 5-6- 31. The court then found the plaintiff suffered from coal miner's pneumoconiosis arising out of and in the course and scope of his employment with the defendant and also found the condition causally linked to the plaintiff's exposure to conditions and hazards of his employment. The plaintiff was found to be one hundred percent disabled from a combination of his arthritic condition and pneumoconiosis; however, the disabilityattributable to pneumoconiosis was found much less significant than the non- compensable arthritic disability, resulting in an award of fifteen percent permanent partial disability to the bodyas a whole. We affirm the chancellor's finding that the plaintiff's pneumoconiosis is not totally disabling but reverse the award of permanent partial disability benefits. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e) (1999) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed in part; Reversed in part and Dismissed JOHN K. BYERS, SR. J., in which E. RILEY ANDERSON, and ROGER E. THAYER, SP. J., joined. Linda J. Hamilton Mowles, Knoxville, Tennessee for the appellant, Security Insurance Company of Hartford David H. Dunaway and Frank Q. Vettori, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Stanley Bridges MEMORANDUM OPINION The review of the findings of fact made by the trial court is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of the correctness of the finding, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. TENN. CODE ANN. _ 5-6-225(e)(2); Stone v. City of McMinnville, 896 S.W.2d 548, 55 (Tenn. 1995). The application of this standard requires this Court to weigh in more depth the factual findings and conclusions of the trial courts in workers' compensation cases. See Corcoran v. Foster Auto GMC, Inc., 746 S.W.2d 452, 456 (Tenn. 1988). Facts The plaintiff, forty-seven years of age at the time of trial, has a high school diploma. His work history consists of coal mining and work at the mines as a night watchman. His duties in these positions required him to shovel coal dust, pick rock, sweep, and, when in the mines, be exposed to mine effluence. He has also operated a variety of equipment and loaded supplies to take into the deep mine; when working at strip mining he would shoot powder and also work as a drill operator. The plaintiff last worked in the mines in the fall of 1989. In 1986 the plaintiff was diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis. As a result, the plaintiff was off work for part of 1986 and all of 1987. During that time, the plaintiff was under medical treatment in which he received gold shots and steroids. He returned to the mine as a night watchman but eventually became unable to perform those duties, and he has not been able to work since leaving his last position with the defendant. The plaintiff admitted he quit working for the defendant because of his rheumatoid arthritis, not because of his breathing difficulties. The plaintiff's wife, who testified at trial, also stated he quit working in the mines because of the rheumatoid arthritis symptoms. The plaintiff testified he does not currently know of any work he could do because of his breathing problems and his arthritis_he gets out of breath very easily and coughs and spits up sputum often; he has painfullyswollen joints on his hands and painful knots on his feet. He mainly watches television, goes for short walks and washes dishes sometimes. He testified the arthritis from which he suffers keeps him from doing just about anything, including at times such everyday tasks as holding a coffee cup, brushing his hair, buttoning his clothes and getting out of the bathtub. He cannot engage in any hobbies or activities that involve reaching overhead or behind. -2-

Thomas H. Caffey vs. Kevin Myers, Warden
M2000-00200-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Sr. Judge L. Terry Lafferty
Trial Court Judge: Jim T. Hamilton
Petitioner challenges the trial court's summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner was convicted in Davidson County in 1985 of two counts of armed robbery and felonious use of a motor vehicle. He was sentenced to two terms of life imprisonment and an additional four years, to be served consecutively to one another and consecutively to a prior Oklahoma sentence. Petitioner does not challenge the legality of the convictions underlying his current sentences, but rather asserts that equitable estoppel and a due process violation mandate that he not be required to serve his Tennessee sentences. Upon our review of the record, we affirm the dismissal of the petition for writ of habeas corpus.

Mills vs. Solomon
M1998-00393-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Robert E. Corlew, III
These proceedings began when David Mills filed a complaint seeking to condemn an easement across Linda Solomon's property. In bifurcated proceedings, the jury first determined the location of Mills' easement across Solomon's property and, later, found that Solomon was entitled to an award of damages totaling $11,908 for the easement, including $9900 in incidental damages. On appeal from the trial court's judgment entered on the jury's verdict, Mills challenges only the award of $9900 in incidental damages. We agree with Mills' contention that the record fails to contain material evidence to support the award of incidental damages, and we reverse that portion of the trial court's judgment.

State vs. Ronald Fielding
M2003-01055-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: Cheryl A. Blackburn
The Defendant, Ronald Fielding, pled guilty to three counts of rape of a child, one count of rape of an incapacitated victim and two counts of aggravated sexual battery. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of fifty years in prison to be served at 100 percent. On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the trial court improperly weighed the enhancement and mitigating factors; (2) the trial court abused its discretion by ordering that his sentences run consecutively; and (3) his sentence is excessive. Finding no error, we affirm the trial court's judgments.

Union Planters vs. Island Management
W1999-00541-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: D. J. Alissandratos
This is a dispute regarding the repayment of a $350,000.00 loan that Union Planters National Bank ("Union Planters") made to Island Management Authority, Inc. ("Island Management") in 1989. The trial court found that Mr. Criss, Mr. Tigrett, and Mr. Richards, each of whom had executed a guaranty in favor of Union Planters, are jointly and severally liable to Union Planters for the outstanding balance of this loan. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the ruling of the trial court.

Emmanuel Page vs. Doctor R. Crants
W1999-02127-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Jon Kerry Blackwood
An inmate sentenced in Wisconsin and transferred to Tennessee, where he is presently incarcerated, appeals from the trial court's order dismissing his petition for writ of habeas corpus. We affirm.

Lisa Alfaro Munday vs. William Mark Munday
E1999-02605-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Daryl R. Fansler
In this post-divorce proceeding, the trial court designated William Mark Munday ("Father") as the primary residential custodian of two of the parties' children. He had been awarded primary residential custody of the parties' third child at an earlier time. Lisa Alfaro Munday ("Mother") appeals, arguing (1) that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to modify the custodial arrangement and (2) that there had not been a material change of circumstances to warrant a change in custody. We affirm.

Steven Leach vs. State
M1999-00774-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry Smith
Trial Court Judge: James O. Bond
On November 19, 1995, a Smith County Grand Jury indicted Steven Edward Leach, the defendant and appellant, for first-degree murder, felony murder, two counts of rape of a child, and attempted rape of a child. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the defendant pled guilty to first-degree murder and rape of a child and the trial court sentenced him to serve life without parole for the murder consecutively to twenty-five years for the rape. The defendant filed a post-conviction petition, and, following a hearing, the trial court denied the petition. On appeal, the defendant claims (1) that he was denied his right to counsel of his choice; (2) that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel; (3) that he was denied his due process right to be present at a hearing; and (4) that the cumulative effect of the trial court's errors violated his due process rights. Because the evidence does not preponderate against the findings of the trial court, we affirm its judgment.

State vs. Anthony E. Collier
M1999-01408-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry Smith
Trial Court Judge: Seth W. Norman
On March 31, 1998, Metropolitan Nashville Police Officers executed a search warrant on the residence and person of Anthony E. Collier, the defendant and appellee. Police searched the defendant, his vehicle and his residence and seized drugs, drug paraphernalia and weapons. The defendant moved to suppress the evidence, and, following a suppression hearing, the trial court granted the defendant's motion. On appeal, the State claims that the trial court erred. We hold that the search of the defendant was not supported by probable cause and any evidence seized from the defendant's person was thus properly suppressed. However, we also find that the failure of the trial court to make findings of fact with respect to the question of whether the contraband was in plain view and thus subject to seizure requires us to remand this case for entry of such findings pursuant to Tenn. R. Crim. P. 12(e). Finally, the search of the defendant's residence was supported by the warrant; thus any evidence seized from the defendant's vehicle or residence should not have been suppressed. Accordingly, we reverse in part and affirm in part the judgment of the trial court, and we remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

State vs. Michael E. Wallace
M1999-02187-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry Smith
Trial Court Judge: Steve R. Dozier
On August 25, 1998, a Davidson County Grand Jury indicted Michael E. Wallace, the defendant and appellant, of one count each of the following: possession of cocaine with intent to sell more than .5 grams of cocaine, simple possession of marijuana, possession of a weapon, possession of drug paraphernalia and evading arrest. Following a jury trial, the defendant was convicted for possession with intent to sell less than .5 grams of cocaine, a lesser included offense of count one. The defendant was also convicted of all other counts as charged. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range II, multiple offender, to serve ten years for possession of cocaine with intent to sell consecutively to two years for possession of a weapon. For the remaining counts, the court ordered the defendant to serve two eleven month and twenty-nine day sentences concurrently to each other and the other counts. On appeal, the defendant claims (1) that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction; (2) that the trial court erroneously allowed a police officer to offer expert opinion testimony; (3) that the trial court erroneously denied the defendant's motion for a mistrial after a witness testified to prior bad acts of the defendant; (4) that the court erroneously refused to instruct the jury to consider lesser-included offenses; and (5) that the court erroneously ordered consecutive sentences. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State vs. Shannon Hagewood
M2000-00972-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry Smith
Trial Court Judge: Allen W. Wallace
On November 16, 1999, Shannon Hagewood, the defendant and appellant, pled guilty to three counts of aggravated burglary in a Dickson County Criminal Court. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the defendant as a multiple, Range II offender to six years for the first count, six years for the second count, and eight years for the third count. The court also ordered the defendant to serve the eight-year sentence consecutively to the two six-year sentences, which were to be served concurrently to each other. On appeal, the defendant claims (1) that he did not receive notice, as required by statute, that he would be sentenced as a multiple offender, (2) that the trial court's imposition of an eight-year sentence was erroneous; and (3) that the trial court's imposition of consecutive sentences was erroneous. After a thorough review of the record, we find that, although the trial court did not place its findings in the record, this court's de novo review supports the sentence imposed. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.