Opinions

State of Tennessee v. James Brent Moubray
W2001-00214-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: Judge William B. Acree

The Defendant was convicted by a jury of possessing a firearm where alcoholic beverages are served, a Class A misdemeanor, and the trial court sentenced him to eleven months and twenty-nine days to be served at seventy-five percent. The Defendant now appeals, arguing that the sentence imposed by the trial court was excessive. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Darrell S. Miller
W2000-01306-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: Judge Julian P. Guinn

The appellant, Darrell S. Miller, was convicted by a jury in the Benton County Circuit Court of two counts of possessing controlled substances with intent to manufacture, sell, or deliver, and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia. The trial court sentenced the appellant to a total effective sentence of eight years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction, suspending all but one year and placing the appellant in a community corrections program for the remainder. On appeal, the appellant raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether the trial court properly admitted drug exhibits; (2) whether the trial court erred in permitting the testimony of Stacy Mumper regarding a prior transaction between the appellant and Mumper's companion; (3) whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain his convictions; (4) whether the trial court approved the verdict as thirteenth juror; and (5) whether the trial court erred in failing to grant a new trial when the appellant produced sworn affidavits that Brenda Wynn perjured herself on the witness stand. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Arfken & Associates, P.A. vs. Simpson Bridge Company, Inc.
E2000-02780-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Jerri S. Bryant

Arfken & Associates, P.A. vs. Simpson Bridge Company, Inc.
E2000-02780-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Jerri S. Bryant

Karen Mountjoy vs. City of Chattanooga
E2001-02017-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Howell N. Peoples

Karen Mountjoy vs. City of Chattanooga
E2001-02017-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Howell N. Peoples

Doug Jones vs. Eddie Gillette, Sr., et al
E2001-01499-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Samuel H. Payne
The defendants/appellants, Eddie Gillette, Sr., and Vivian Gillette, the maternal grandparents of A.B.J., contend that the trial court abused its discretion when it granted custody of A.B.J. to her father, the plaintiff/appellee, Doug Jones. The Gillettes further contend that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied their oral motion to stay enforcement of its judgment pending appeal and when it denied their oral motion to award them visitation pending appeal. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

M.P.P.,al vs. D.L.K. In Re: C.E.P.
E2001-00706-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: William E. Lantrip
The stepfather, M.P.P. ("Stepfather"), and the biological mother, A.P.P. ("Mother"), of a minor child ("Child") filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of the Child's biological father, D.L.K. ("Father"), so that Stepfather could adopt the Child. When the Child was 17 months old, Father received a 130-month prison sentence. The Trial Court granted partial summary judgment as a matter of law to Mother and Stepfather and terminated Father's parental rights. Father appeals. We affirm, in part, and vacate, in part, and remand.

Walter Fletcher v. Deanna M. Fletcher,
E2001-01223-COA-R3-JV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: John K. Wilson

City of Collegedale vs. Hamilton County Water Treatment
E2001-02041-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Samuel H. Payne
This is a suit brought by the City of Collegedale, seeking a declaration that Hamilton County Wastewater and Wastewater Treatment Authority is required to arbitrate a dispute between them in connection with the City annexing certain property served by the Authority. The complaint also sought a declaration that in the event the City prevails the Authority would not be entitled to prosecute a suit to condemn and re-acquire the facilities in question. The Trial Judge found in favor of the City on both issues and the Authority appeals. We affirm in part and vacate in part.

Elizabeth Petty vs. State
E2001-02124-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Vance W. Cheek
In this action, the Commission found no contract between the parties and dismissed the claim. On appeal, we affirm.

Peggy Gaston vs. Tennessee Farmers Mutual Ins.
E2001-01487-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Lawrence H. Puckett
This appeal from the Circuit Court of McMinn County questions whether the Trial Court erred in granting a directed verdict in favor of Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company because it refused to pay its policyholder, Peggy Gaston, under the uninsured motorist provision of her policy which covered Peggy Gaston. We vacate and remand.

Peggy Gaston vs. Tennessee Farmers Mutual Ins.
E2001-01487-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Lawrence H. Puckett
This appeal from the Circuit Court of McMinn County questions whether the Trial Court erred in granting a directed verdict in favor of Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company because it refused to pay its policyholder, Peggy Gaston, under the uninsured motorist provision of her policy which covered Peggy Gaston. We vacate and remand.

Jamie Mason vs. Charles Mason, Jr.
E2001-02208-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
This appeal from the Chancery Court of Cocke County questions whether the Trial Court erred in failing to grant Mr. Mason standard visitation with his minor son. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court.

2000-02521-COA-R3-CV
2000-02521-COA-R3-CV
Trial Court Judge: James B. Scott, Jr.

Services v. C.S.M. And L.M.M.
2000-02806-COA-R3-JV
Trial Court Judge: Darryl W. Edmondson

2001-02185-COA-R3-CV
2001-02185-COA-R3-CV
Trial Court Judge: William E. Lantrip

State of Tennessee v. Charles Damien Darden
W2001-01833-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Trial Court Judge: Judge R. Lee Moore Jr.
The Appellant, Charles Damien Darden, proceeding pro se, appeals as of right from an order of the Lake County Circuit Court denying his petition for the writ of habeas corpus. After a review of the record, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for the appointment of counsel.

State of Tennessee v. Antonio Dewayne Carpenter
W2001-00580-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Gary R Wade
Trial Court Judge: Judge Jon Kerry Blackwood

The defendant, Antonio Dewayne Carpenter, was indicted for premeditated murder, felony murder, especially aggravated kidnapping, and especially aggravated robbery. The state filed notice seeking the death penalty. The defendant was convicted on each count of the indictment and the trial court merged the felony murder conviction with the premeditated murder conviction. At the conclusion of the penalty phase of the trial, the jury imposed a sentence of life without the possibility of parole. The trial court ordered concurrent twenty-year sentences for especially aggravated kidnapping and especially aggravated robbery. All of these sentences were ordered to be served consecutively to three life sentences for federal convictions stemming from the same incident. In this appeal of right, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and argues that the dual sovereignty doctrine, which permits successive federal and state prosecutions for the same acts, should be abandoned. The judgments are affirmed.

Lynn Hall, et al vs. Mark Bookout
E2001-01172-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Samuel H. Payne
Lynn and Lillian Hall, the maternal grandparents ("Grandparents") of the minor child ("Child"), filed a Petition for Custody seeking permanent custody of the Child, naming the Child's biological father ("Father"), Mark Bookout, as the defendant. The Grandparents had temporary custody of the Child pursuant to an ex parte order. At the close of proof at trial, the Trial Court found that the Father was not unfit. In its Order, however, the Trial Court made no specific finding regarding the risk of substantial harm if the Child was placed in Father's custody. The Trial Court denied the Grandparents' petition but did not order the Child returned to Father's custody by any set date but instead provided only that the "ultimate goal" was for the Child to be returned to Father. Father appeals. We affirm, in part, and modify, in part, and remand.

Mark Graham vs. Michael J. Mohr
E2001-00824-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: L. Marie Williams
These consolidated cases arise out of a two-vehicle accident. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Mark Graham, assigning 51% of the fault to Michael J. Mohr and 49% to Graham. Mohr appeals, raising issues pertaining to the propriety of the trial court's ruling excluding the testimony of the police officer who investigated the accident. We affirm.

Judith Silvey vs. Darrel Silvey
E2001-02007-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: W. Frank Brown, III
In this divorce action the Trial Court granted divorce ordered rehabilitative alimony, child support and divided the marital property. Issues on appeal include the valuation, classification and division of marital property and the award of alimony. We affirm in part, vacate in part and remand.

State of Tennessee v. Kenneth Herring
M2001-00751-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: Judge Stella L. Hargrove

The Defendant was convicted in Wayne County Circuit Court of five counts of rape of a child and two counts of aggravated sexual battery. The Defendant received an effective sentence of seventy-five years incarceration. This Court subsequently reversed the five rape of a child convictions and remanded the case to the trial court to determine whether the remaining two twelve-year sentences for aggravated sexual battery should be served consecutively or concurrently. The trial court determined that the sentences should be served consecutively for an effective sentence of twenty-four years incarceration. The Defendant now appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in ordering that the Defendant's sentences for aggravated sexual battery run consecutively. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Barry Dunham v. State of Tennessee
M2000-02557-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: Judge J. O. Bond

On October 5, 1998, the defendant, Barry Dunham, pled guilty in the Macon County Criminal Court to one count of second degree murder and received a sentence of twenty-five years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The defendant filed for post-conviction relief which was granted by the post-conviction court. The State now appeals. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court and remand for new trial.

State of Tennessee v. Timothy Johnson
M2001-01362-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: Judge Seth W. Norman

Pursuant to a plea agreement, the Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of possessing with intent to sell less than 0.5 grams of a substance containing cocaine, and the trial court sentenced him as a Range I standard offender to five years incarceration in the workhouse. The trial court suspended the sentence and placed the Defendant on probation for five years. Approximately four months later, a warrant was issued against the Defendant alleging that he had violated the terms and conditions of his probation. The warrant alleged that the Defendant had been arrested for evading arrest and aggravated assault, that the Defendant had failed to report these arrests to his probation officer, and that the Defendant had failed to report to his probation officer after being released from jail. Following a hearing on the warrant, the trial court revoked the Defendant's probation and ordered him to serve the remainder of his sentence in confinement. The Defendant now brings this appeal, in which he challenges the trial court's order requiring him to serve the remainder of his sentence in confinement. Because we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.