State of Tennessee v. Marcus J. Turco W2001-01085-SC-R11-CD
Authoring Judge: Justice Adolpho A. Birch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge John P. Colton, Jr.
The parties have addressed several issues in this case, each of which concerns the trial court's authority to grant relief pursuant to Rule 35(b) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure, which articulates the procedure for correcting or reducing a sentence. Only one, however is dispositive: whether the trial court can, after adjudicating guilt, imposing sentence, and entering judgment, grant judicial diversion as Rule 35(b) relief. This issue is one of first impression in this state. After careful examination of the record and due consideration of applicable authority, we conclude that there is no statutory authority for permitting judicial diversion after an adjudication of guilt or imposition of sentence. Therefore, judicial diversion was erroneously granted. Because our ruling on this issue is dispositive of this cause, we need not address other issues presented by the parties.
The defendants, Jackie Leonard Durham and Gary Lee Raines, alias Gary L. Rains, appeal as of right their convictions by a Hamilton County Criminal Court jury for second degree murder, a Class A felony. Durham received an agreed twenty-five-year sentence as a violent offender, and Raines received an agreed twenty-year sentence as a violent offender. Both defendants contend that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support their second degree murder convictions and (2) prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument requires a new trial. Additionally, Raines contends that (3) the trial court committed plain error by not instructing the jury on voluntary intoxication. We affirm the trial court's judgments of conviction.
Hamilton
Court of Criminal Appeals
Ronnie Jones vs. George Stokely E2002-01593-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Telford E. Forgerty, Jr.
This is a boundary line dispute. The plaintiffs, Ronnie A. Jones and his wife, Vonda H. Jones ("the Jones"), appeal the trial court's finding that the property line they share with their neighbors, the defendants George Stokely and his wife, Sheila Y. Stokely ("the Stokelys"), is as alleged in the Stokelys' counterclaim. The Jones contend: (1) that the evidence preponderates against the trial court's determination of the location of the boundary line; (2) that the trial court committed reversible error when it admitted into evidence, as ancient records, certain maps and documents; and (3) that the trial court abused its discretion when it refused to grant the Jones a new trial based upon "newly discovered" evidence. We affirm.
Cocke
Court of Appeals
E2002-01158-COA-R3-CV E2002-01158-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Jacqueline E. Schulten
Hamilton
Court of Appeals
Phyllis Patrice Braden v. Nissan North America, Inc., M2002-01173-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: James L. Weatherford, Sr.J.
Trial Court Judge: Robert E. Corlew, III, Chancellor
In this case, the employee sustained an elbow injury caused by her repetitive work activities. The trial court found that the employee had suffered a 1% vocational disability to her right arm. In her appeal, the employee argues that the evidence preponderates against a finding of 1% and that the judgment in this matter should be increased to adequately compensate the plaintiff for her loss of employment opportunity. For the reasons stated in this opinion, We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Rutherford
Workers Compensation Panel
State of Tennessee v. Christina B. Jones M2002-02428-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas T. Woodall
Trial Court Judge: Judge Donald P. Harris
Defendant, Christina B. Jones, pled guilty to the offense of theft of property over $1,000, a Class D felony. Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, Defendant received a sentence of two years with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered Defendant to serve ninety days in confinement and four years on probation. The trial court also ordered Defendant to complete her GED, obtain full-time employment, and pay restitution in the amount of $1,750 to be paid at the rate of fifty dollars per month. In this appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court erred by denying her request for alternative sentencing and by imposing the same sentence that her co-defendant received. After a careful review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Williamson
Court of Criminal Appeals
State of Tennessee v. Christina B. Jones - Dissenting M2002-02428-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: Judge Donald P. Harris
I respectfully disagree with some of the reasoning and the result reached in the majority opinion. I do not believe that the state overcame the presumption that the defendant is a favorable candidate for alternative sentencing. I would hold that she is entitled to a sentence that does not involve time confined in jail. In this respect, I disagree with the view in the majority opinion as to what constitutes an alternative sentence.
Williamson
Court of Criminal Appeals
Heather Carey v. Margaret R. Johnson M2002-00911-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Frank Clement, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Thomas W. Graham
An employee of a utility company went to the private residence of a customer to re-connect service which had been disconnected for non-payment where she was violently attacked by the customer who hit her in the jaw with a flashlight, beat her with car keys and threatened to kill her by throwing her off of the mountain and, thereafter, show her dead carcass to her children. The utility employee sued the customer for personal injuries, infliction of emotional distress and punitive damages. The trial court granted judgment by default as to liability against the defendant for the defendant's repeated failure to attend her discovery deposition. The trial on damages was conducted without a jury. The trial court awarded compensatory damages and punitive damages. We affirm.
The Defendant entered a "best interest" guilty plea to arson, a Class C felony. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the Defendant to a split confinement sentence of four years, with one year to be served in the Bledsoe County jail and the remainder to be served on probation. The Defendant now challenges the propriety of the sentence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Bledsoe
Court of Criminal Appeals
State of Tennessee v. Ronald Paxton W2002-00268-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Gary R Wade
Trial Court Judge: Judge Joseph B. Dailey
The defendant, Ronald Paxton, was convicted of second degree murder. The trial court imposed a twenty-five year sentence. In this appeal, the defendant argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction and that the sentence is excessive. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Shelby
Court of Criminal Appeals
Jennifer Burnett vs. Christopher Burnett E2002-01614-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Bill Swann
Jennifer Chante Burnett ("Mother") filed a Complaint for Absolute Divorce seeking a divorce from Christopher John Burnett ("Father") and requesting to be designated as the primary residential parent of the parties' minor daughter. Father filed an answer and counterclaim wherein he also sought a divorce and to be the primary residential parent. After a trial, the Trial Court determined it was in the best interests of the minor child for Father to be the primary residential parent, and entered judgment accordingly. Mother appeals, claiming the Trial Court failed to consider all relevant factors when making its custody determination and that the Trial Court's conclusion with regard to custody was intended to punish Mother and reward Father. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court.
Knox
Court of Appeals
David Hill vs. Herbert Moncier E2003-00075-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Dale C. Workman
David T. Hill sued Herbert S. Moncier and David S. Wigler ("the Attorneys"), both of whom are attorneys engaged in the practice of law in Knoxville, alleging legal malpractice. According to Hill, the Attorneys represented him in federal court in connection with "criminal charges and criminal and civil forfeitures." He was convicted of conspiracy, conducting an illegal gambling operation, and money laundering, fined $25,000, and received concurrent sentences of 57 months. Forfeiture of property was ordered by the district court. In the instant case, Hill seeks to recover damages allegedly caused by the Attorneys' malpractice. The Attorneys moved for dismissal on two grounds, i.e., (1) the failure of Hill to obtain post-conviction relief, and (2) the bar of the statute of limitations. The trial court dismissed the complaint without reciting its basis for doing so. Hill appeals. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
Knox
Court of Appeals
In the Matter of: H.E.J and H.E.J M2002-00539-COA-R3-JV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Alfred L. Nations
The trial court terminated the parental rights of a father of twins on multiple grounds, including abandonment and the commission of severe child abuse against the twin's mother while she was a minor child residing in his home. The court also ordered him to pay $14,400 in child support arrearages. We affirm the termination, but we reverse the child support award.
Williamson
Court of Appeals
Dianna Boarman v. George Jaynes E2001-01049-SC-R11-CV
Authoring Judge: Justice William M. Barker
Trial Court Judge: Thomas R. Frierson, II
Dianna Boarman, the Clerk and Master for the Washington County Chancery Court, filed a complaint on September 30, 1998, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 8-20-101, et. seq., seeking a pay increase for the three chief deputy clerks working in her office. Boarman later filed a second and third complaint for fiscal years 1999-2000 and 2000-01. Defendant George Jaynes, the Washington County Executive, answered denying that salary increases were necessary to enable Boarman to properly and efficiently conduct the business of her office. Jaynes also filed a counterclaim seeking the elimination of one deputy clerk position in Boarman's office. Boarman's complaints were consolidated, and a hearing was conducted before Chancellor Thomas R. Frierson, II, sitting by interchange. The trial court approved salary increases for the three chief deputy clerks. It denied the defendant's counterclaim. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of the county executive's counterclaim, but reversed the trial court's judgment increasing the salaries of Boarman's three chief deputy clerks. For the reasons stated herein, we reverse that part of the decision of the Court of Appeals which reverses the trial court's judgment approving the position of deputy clerk and increase in compensation. We affirm the Court of Appeals' dismissal of defendant Jaynes counterclaim.
Washington
Supreme Court
State v. Michael Evans E1997-00325-SC-R11-CD
Authoring Judge: Justice Frank F. Drowota, III
Trial Court Judge: E. Eugene Eblen
We granted this appeal primarily to clarify the procedure that governs when a trial court or the Court of Criminal Appeals determines that a criminal defendant was unilaterally deprived of the right to seek second-tier review pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 11. We conclude that Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 28, section (9)(D) has superseded the procedural framework of State v. Pinkston, 668 S.W.2d 676 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1984). However, the State has raised valid concerns about voids in the procedure, and as a result, we have filed contemporaneously with this opinion an order publishing for public comment a proposed amendment to Rule 28, section (9)(D). The amendment addresses the concerns raised by the State in this case, as well as other procedural issues likely to arise in the delayed appeal context. The Court solicits comments from all interested parties. Although the trial court's order granting a delayed appeal in this case contained inappropriate language purporting to "vacate[] and reinstate[]" the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals, the trial court otherwise substantially complied with the procedure set forth in Rule 28, Section (9)(D). Therefore, the defendant's delayed application for permission to appeal was properly filed in this Court. This Court granted the application, and after reviewing the record and considering the issues raised, we conclude that none of the assigned errors warrant reversal. Therefore, the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.
Roane
Supreme Court
Jerry Lee Harbin vs. Chris Marie Harbin E2002-01456-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: W. Neil Thomas, III
Chris Marie Harbin appeals a judgment entered by the Circuit Court for Hamilton County which decreed that the parties were divorced, awarded custody of their three minor children to their father, Jerry Lee Harbin, affirmed a visitation plan proposed by Mr. Harbin, which she signed, and ordered Mr. Harbin to pay token alimony ($1.00 per month) to her. She appeals the judgment of the Court. We affirm.
Hamilton
Court of Appeals
Jerry Lay v. Scott County Sheriff's Dept E2002-01731-SC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Justice Frank F. Drowota, III
Trial Court Judge: Billy Joe White
The primary issue in this workers' compensation appeal is whether the attainment of maximum medical improvement is a necessary factor in determining whether there has been a meaningful return to work under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-241. The trial court found that since the pre-injury employer returned the employee to work at a lower wage than his pre-injury wage, Section 50-6-241(a)(1) did not apply, and the trial court set the employee's permanent partial disability award based on 60% to the body as a whole, approximately 4.6 times the employee's 13% impairment rating. We reverse the trial court and find that where an employee has had a meaningful return to work for five months, resigns for reasons unrelated to his injury, and then returns to the same employer a year later at a lower wage, the employee may not take advantage of this statute by arguing that he has not had a meaningful return to work. Thus, Section 50-6-241(a)(1) applies to limit the employee's recovery to two and one-half times his impairment rating, and the employee's award is modified to 32.5% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole.
Scott
Supreme Court
State of Tennessee v. Susan Sophia McDaniel E2002-02469-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: Judge Leon C. Burns, Jr.
In this direct appeal, the defendant argues the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s verdict convicting her of theft over $1,000. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Cumberland
Court of Criminal Appeals
State of Tennessee v. Susan Sophia McDaniel - Concurring E2002-02469-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge James Curwood Witt, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Leon C. Burns, Jr.
I believe the issue raised in the footnote in Judge Riley’s opinion bears further elaboration in view of this court’s recent opinion in State v. Brigitte Pauli, No. M2002-01607-CCAR3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App., Nashville, June 5, 2003).
Cumberland
Court of Criminal Appeals
Kaila Williams Sanders, v. Tracie Traver, All Women's Care, Shelby Shivers, Maryville Anesthesiologists & Blount Memorial Hospital E2001-02926-SC-R11-CV
Authoring Judge: Justice Frank F. Drowota, III
Trial Court Judge: W. Dale Young
In this wrongful death case brought under the Governmental Tort Liability Act, we address the issue of whether Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 6.01, which provides the computation of time for statutes of limitations, is applicable to actions involving governmental entities. Having determined that the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure are applicable to actions involving governmental entities in Doyle v. Frost, 49 S.W.3d 853, 858 (Tenn. 2001), and finding that Rule 6.01 defines, rather than extends, the Governmental Tort Liability Act's statute of limitations, we hold that the Court of Appeals did not err in finding that Rule 6.01 applies to actions brought under the Governmental Tort Liability Act. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
State of Tennessee v. Robert Clark W2002-00940-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Trial Court Judge: Judge John P. Colton, Jr.
Following a jury trial, the defendant, Robert Clark, was convicted of second degree murder, a Class A felony, and sentenced to twenty-four years to be served at 100% as a violent offender. On appeal, he argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and that the trial court improperly instructed the jury regarding the definitions of the mental states pertaining to second degree murder. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
A Hamilton County jury convicted the Defendant of DUI and imposed a $500 fine. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to eleven months and twenty-nine days in the penal farm, which was suspended after service of forty-eight hours. The trial court further ordered the Defendant to perform fifty days of community service, imposed a fine of $510, revoked his license for a year, and required him to attend DUI school. The Defendant now appeals, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him. After a careful review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Hamilton
Court of Criminal Appeals
Cathy Cooke v. Randy Cooke M2001-03026-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Vernon Neal
Wife sought divorce from Husband on the grounds of irreconcilable differences and inappropriate marital conduct. Husband sought divorce from Wife on identical grounds. After declaring the parties divorced, the trial court awarded Wife 42% of the marital estate and awarded Husband 58% of the marital estate. The trial court also awarded alimony in solido to Wife in the amount of $30,000. Husband appeals both the valuation of the marital estate and the award of alimony to Wife. Because we find that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court's valuation of the marital estate, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding alimony to Wife, we affirm the decision of the trial court.
White
Court of Appeals
State vs. Gregory Anderson M2002-02289-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge John Everett Williams
Trial Court Judge: Frank G. Clement, Jr.
The defendant was found guilty of driving under the influence, fifth offense. The defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of the roadblock, contending that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to detain the defendant, the roadblock guidelines are unconstitutional, and the police did not substantially comply with the roadblock guidelines. The defendant also made a motion in limine to keep out testimony regarding the defendant's use of a racial slur. Both motions were denied. We affirm the judgment of the trial court as to all issues.
