Eric Woodruff v. TDOC
M2001-00494-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Carol L. Mccoy
Petitioner, an inmate in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Correction, filed the underlying pro se petition for common law writ of certiorari, seeking review of a prison disciplinary board decision and resulting sanctions that he alleges were made in violation of his constitutional rights to due process and equal protection under the laws. Specifically, Petitioner alleges that the disciplinary board violated Department policies by not providing the Petitioner with an adequate statement of reasons prior to his placement in administrative segregation. The trial court dismissed the suit for failure to state a claim. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand the case to the trial court with the direction that the trial court issue the writ.

Leslie Smith v. State of Tennessee
M2000-02814-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry L. Smith
Trial Court Judge: Judge J. Randall Wyatt, Jr.

In this appeal from the denial of post-conviction relief the appellant claims that his convictions for second degree murder and theft of property valued under $10,000 are constitutionally void or voidable because his presence in Tennessee to stand trial was secured by what he claims was a conspiracy on the part of the prosecution to deprive him of his rights under the Interstate Compact on Detainers, Tennessee Code Annotated Section 40-31-101. The appellant, who was originally charged in Tennessee with first degree murder which carries a possible punishment of death, was returned to Tennessee from the Alabama penal system by means of extradition documents and an executive agreement between the governors of Tennessee and Alabama. The appellant also claims that the post-conviction court should have issued subpoenas to certain law enforcement officials in Alabama in order to help him substantiate his claims of conspiracy in his transfer from Alabama to Tennessee, and in order to demonstrate his trial attorney's alleged ineffectiveness in litigating this conspiracy theory on direct appeal.

Larry Williams v. TDOC
M2000-02905-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: William C. Koch

Eileen Smith v. Robert Smith
M2001-02164-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Jeffrey S. Bivins
This is a divorce case. Acting upon the stipulation of the parties, the trial declared the parties divorced. The court determined that the appreciation of Husband's premarital Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) was marital property. The court also ruled that a bond account that Husband received from his mother and later titled jointly between the parties remained Husband's separate property. Finally, the court addressed marital debt and alimony. Both parties raise issues regarding the trial court's disposition of the case. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand the case to the trial court.

Estate of Nan Francis, Pat Libby, Admin v. Karl Francis
M2001-02707-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Leonard W. Martin
In this second appeal in this matter, the estate seeks a re-determination of an issue decided previously by the trial court and by this court: distribution of proceeds from a certificate of deposit. Because our prior opinion is the law of the case on this issue, we affirm the trial court's dismissal of the estate's motion for post-appellate relief which sought to modify the prior rulings.

State v. Roger D. Haywood
M2000-01400-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: J. Russ Heldman
The Trial Court held that National City Mortgage Company ("National"), which services the mortgage on the property at issue, and its attorneys violated Tenn. R. Civ. P. 11.02 and imposed sanctions against them in this condemnation proceeding. National and its attorneys appeal the Trial Court's Rule 11.02 sanctions. We reverse and remand.

HGI Assoc. vs. Mactronics
W2002-00011-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: John R. Mccarroll, Jr.
Plaintiff was awarded a judgment for breach of contract and incidental damages in the amount of $18,356. The breach occurred when Defendant (Seller) was unable to deliver 500 computers which Plaintiff (Buyer) had contracted to purchase. Plaintiff appeals contending that the damages awarded by the trial court were inadequate. We affirm.

State of TN Dept. of Transportation vs. Tommie/Arlene Goodwin
W2002-00391-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Clayburn L. Peeples
This is a condemnation case. The State filed a petition to condemn a portion of property owned by the defendants for the improvement of a highway. The defendants did not challenge the State's right to condemn the property, but they asserted that the amount proffered by the State as payment for the property was inadequate. After a jury trial, the jury returned a verdict of $13,500. The defendants moved for a new trial or, in the alternative, for an additur. The trial court concluded that the jury's verdict did not adequately compensate the defendants for either their financial loss or the loss to their business resulting from the condemnation, so it granted the motion for an additur, suggesting an additur of $12,000. The State accepted the additur under protest and now appeals. We affirm, finding that the trial court's suggested additur did not constitute an impermissible award for lost profits.

Robert Burton Sr. vs. Kent Gearin
W2002-00537-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: William B. Acree
The plaintiff, a prisoner, sued the defendant who had been appointed to represent the plaintiff in his petition for post-conviction relief. The prisoner, proceeding pro se, filed a motion asking the trial court to hold this matter in abeyance until his release from prison. The motion was denied. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment supported by an un-refuted affidavit which was granted. The prisoner appealed the trial court's denial of the motion for abeyance and we affirm.

State of Tennessee v. Michael E. Owenby
E2001-02012-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: Judge Richard R. Vance

The Defendant, Michael E. Owenby, appeals as of right from his conviction by a jury of theft of property over $1,000, a Class D felony. He was sentenced to three years as a Range I standard offender, with ninety days to be served in confinement and the balance to be served in the Community Corrections program. He argues as his sole issue on appeal that there was not sufficient evidence presented at trial to support his conviction of theft. We affirm the judgment of the trial court but remand to the trial court for entry of an amended judgment deleting the "day for day" requirement relating to the ninety days of confinement.

State of Tennessee v. James Allen Bailey
E2001-02443-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: Judge Ben W. Hooper, II

 The defendant pled guilty to six counts of arson, Class C felonies, and one count of setting fire to personal property, a Class E felony. The trial court ordered an effective sentence of fifteen years incarceration followed by five years of probation. On appeal, the defendant argues: (1) the trial court erred in conducting an independent investigation into pyromania; (2) the length of his individual sentences is excessive; (3) the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentencing; and (4) the trial court improperly denied alternative sentencing. We modify the defendant’s sentences to an effective term of ten years in the Department of Correction.

State of Tennessee v. William C. Smith
E2001-02339-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: Judge Rex Henry Ogle

The Defendant, William C. Smith, pled guilty to burglary, a class D felony, and theft under $500, a class A misdemeanor. Pursuant to the Defendant's plea agreement, he was sentenced as a Range I standard offender with the sentences to run concurrently. The parties left the length, method, and manner of service to the trial judge's discretion. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the Defendant to four years in the Department of Correction for the burglary and a concurrent sentence of 11 months and 29 days at 75% for the misdemeanor theft. The Defendant now appeals as of right. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. James Allen Bailey - Dissenting
E2001-02443-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: Judge Ben W. Hooper, II
Based on my de novo review of the record in this case, I am unable to agree that the imposition of consecutive sentences is warranted. Therefore I respectfully dissent from that portion of the opinion which concludes that two of the Defendant’s sentences should be served consecutively.

Shanna Dean Alder v. State of Tennessee
E2002-00287-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: Judge Mary Beth Leibowitz

The petitioner appeals the denial of her petition for habeas corpus relief. She contends the trial court was without authority to revoke her judicial diversion after her diversionary probation expired, absent the issuance of a revocation warrant prior to its expiration. She, therefore, argues the trial court was without jurisdiction when it revoked judicial diversion, was consequently without jurisdiction when it sentenced her to additional years of probation, and was without jurisdiction when it subsequently issued a probation revocation warrant. We agree and reverse the denial of habeas corpus relief.

State of Tennessee v. Reginald Terry
W2001-03027-CCA-RM-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: Judge W. Fred Axley

A Shelby County jury convicted the Defendant of attempted aggravated burglary, and this Court affirmed the conviction on direct appeal. The Tennessee Supreme Court remanded the case to this Court solely to consider whether the trial court's failure to instruct on certain lesser-included offenses was "plain error," thus warranting review despite the Defendant's failure to timely file his motion for new trial. On remand, we conclude that the trial court's failure to instruct on the lesser-included offenses in this case was not "plain error." Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Ronald Simmons
W2001-02352-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Trial Court Judge: Judge James C. Beasley, Jr.

The defendant pled guilty to sexual battery, a Class E felony, in exchange for a two-year sentence. The trial court sentenced the defendant to ninety days of weekend confinement, suspended the balance of the two-year sentence, and placed the defendant on probation for four years. The defendant appeals his sentence, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his petition for judicial diversion and in sentencing him to ninety days of confinement. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Daniel Henley
W2001-02962-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge J. Curwood Witt, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge John P. Colton, Jr.

The State of Tennessee appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court's dismissal of its petition to declare Daniel Henley a motor vehicle habitual offender. Because the lower court erred in its determination that the state failed to prove the existence of three prior, qualifying convictions, we reverse and remand.

State of Tennessee v. Jerome Sawyer
W2001-01923-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge J. Curwood Witt, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Arthur T. Bennett

Convicted by a jury of the Class B felony offense of aggravated sexual battery and sentenced by the trial court to serve an incarcerative Range II sentence of eighteen years, the defendant, Jerome Sawyer, appeals and claims that the evidence insufficiently supports the verdict and that the court erroneously found him to be a Range II offender. We disagree and affirm.

Kenneth Lee Weston v. State of Tennessee
E2001-01053-CCA-RM-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: Judge Randall E. Nichols

A Knox County jury convicted the Petitioner of robbery by the use of a deadly weapon. The trial court found the Petitioner to be an habitual criminal and sentenced him to life imprisonment. This Court affirmed both the sentence and verdict on direct appeal. The Petitioner subsequently filed his first petition for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel at his trial. The post-conviction court denied relief, but no appeal ensued. The Petitioner then filed a second petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that counsel in his first post-conviction proceeding was ineffective for failing to file an appeal. After a hearing, the post-conviction court dismissed the second petition and ruled that the Petitioner did not have a constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel in a post-conviction proceeding. This Court affirmed. The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case to the post-conviction court for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the Petitioner received ineffective assistance of counsel at his first post-conviction proceeding and whether, as a result, the Petitioner was effectively denied a first-tier appeal of his first post-conviction petition. Before the hearing, the Petitioner filed an amended petition for post-conviction relief. The post-conviction court heard the amended petition, but found that the issues raised were without merit. On appeal, this Court affirmed the post-conviction court’s finding that the Petitioner had been effectively denied a first-tier appeal in the original post-conviction proceedings, but held that the post-conviction court was not authorized to hear the amended petition. The supreme court affirmed this ruling and remanded the case to this Court for a first-tier appeal of the Petitioner’s original and unamended petition for post-conviction relief. Having reviewed the record, we conclude that the Petitioner received effective assistance of counsel at trial. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

State of Tennessee v. John Travis Collins, alias
E2001-01301-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge John Everett Williams
Trial Court Judge: Judge Mary Beth Leibowitz
The State challenges the trial court's jurisdiction to modify sentence more than six years after judgment. Generally a trial court would not have jurisdiction to modify a sentence more than 120 days after judgment becomes final. However, we conclude that where the defendant was never in the physical custody of the Department of Correction, jurisdiction to modify sentence remained in the trial court. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Scott Craig
E2001-01528-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas T. Woodall
Trial Court Judge: Judge R. Steven Bebb

Defendant, Scott Craig, was convicted by a Bradley County jury of one count of aggravated kidnapping and two counts of aggravated rape. He was sentenced to eight years for aggravated kidnapping and fifteen years each for the aggravated rape convictions. The trial court ordered the two aggravated rape convictions to be served concurrently with each other, but consecutively to the aggravated kidnapping conviction, for an effective sentence of twenty-three years. Defendant appeals his conviction and sentence, presenting the following issues for review: (1) whether the trial court made improper and prejudicial comments during the trial which deprived Defendant of his right to a fair trial; and (2) whether the trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences. After a thorough review of applicable law and all relevant facts and circumstances in the record, we affirm Defendant's convictions. We reverse the judgment of the trial court concerning the length of Defendant's sentence for aggravated rape and the trial court's order of consecutive sentencing, and remand this matter for a new sentencing hearing.

State of Tennessee v. Richard Vanover
E2001-01671-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge John Everett Williams
Trial Court Judge: Judge Robert E. Cupp

Defendant pled guilty to seventeen offenses and was subsequently sentenced to fourteen years in confinement. On appeal, defendant alleges that trial court committed error in (1) applying certain enhancing factors, (2) denying any form of alternative sentencing, and (3) ordering consecutive sentencing. We affirm the judgment.

Kecia L. Hill v. Calsonic Yourzu Corporation,
M2001-01314-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Sp. J.
Trial Court Judge: Charles D. Haston, Judge
In this appeal, the employer contends the evidence preponderates against the trial court's finding of a permanent injury related to the claimant's incident at work and the award of seven and one-half percent disability to the body. As discussed herein, the panel has concluded the judgment should be affirmed.

State of Tennessee v. James Michael Davis
E2001-01656-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Gary R Wade
Trial Court Judge: Judge Rebecca J. Stern

The defendant, James Michael Davis, was convicted of driving under the influence. The trial court imposed a sentence of 11 months, 29 days, with all but 48 hours suspended. In this appeal of right, the defendant asserts that because the police officers did not have "reasonable suspicion" to warrant an investigatory stop, the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

State of Tennessee v. William Robert Posey
E2001-02665-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: Judge Stephen M. Bevil

The Defendant, William Robert Posey, appeals as of right from the judgment of the trial court, which found him guilty of driving under the influence (DUI) as a third offender. The Defendant raises two central issues on appeal. First, the Defendant argues that the two preceding DUI convictions are invalid on their face and therefore cannot be used to enhance his punishment for the present conviction. Second, the Defendant argues that the trial court committed error by failing to hold a hearing pursuant to Momon v. State, 18 S.W.3d 152 (Tenn. 1999), to determine whether the Defendant personally waived his right to testify. Because the record is void of any evidence that the Defendant did personally waive his right to testify, we remand the case to the trial court for a hearing to determine whether the Defendant's right to testify was violated, and if so, whether the violation of the Defendant's right to testify was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.