Larry Howard, M.D. vs. Cornerstone Medical Associates, P.C.
E2000-01659-SC-WCM-CV
Authoring Judge: Justice Janice M. Holder
Trial Court Judge: W. Frank Brown, III
In this workers' compensation case, the employee sustained injuries in an automobile accident while traveling to one of two nursing homes at which he worked as medical director pursuant to his employment contract. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the employer, finding that the employee's injuries did not occur in the course of his employment. The Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel reversed the trial court's decision, held that the injuries were compensable, and remanded the case for a determination of benefits. We disagree with the Panel's recommendation and affirm the trial court's judgment.

2000-01720-COA-R3-CV
2000-01720-COA-R3-CV
Trial Court Judge: Jerri S. Bryant

Randall Webber, Jr., et al vs. State Farm Mutual Ins. Co.
E1999-01909-SC-R11-CV
Authoring Judge: Justice William M. Barker
Trial Court Judge: James B. Scott, Jr.
Anderson County -The sole issue in this appeal is whether the plaintiff ratified an insurance policy that provided uninsured motorist coverage in amounts less than the policy's coverage for bodily injury liability. The plaintiff argued in the trial court that he did not authorize the lesser limits of uninsured motorist coverage contained in the contract and that the court should construe the policy to provide for coverage equivalent to the liability provided for bodily injury. The trial court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding that the plaintiff had ratified, and was bound by, the coverage limits as expressed in the contract. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed, finding that an issue of fact existed as to whether the plaintiff intended to ratify the lower uninsured motorist coverage limits. We granted permission to appeal and hold that the trial court correctly granted summary judgment to the defendant. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.

B. Gayden Pate, et al vs. C & S of Tenn., Inc., et al
M2000-02283-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Leonard W. Martin
The plaintiffs signed a contract for the purchase of a new home, conditional on their ability to sell their present home and to obtain a mortgage loan. They gave the defendant developer $30,000 as earnest money. When they were unable to sell their home, they asked for the return of the earnest money. The defendant refused, and the purchasers sued. The trial court ordered the defendant to return the $30,000. We affirm, but we modify the court's judgment to assess interest and attorney fees against the sellers.

Billy Hembree, et al vs. State
M2000-00767-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Lester Peavyhouse, having been found not guilty by reason of insanity after an April 1985 attack upon his sister with a hatchet, was committed by the Circuit Court of Stewart County to the Middle Tennessee Mental Health Institute ("MTMHI") in Nashville for involuntary care and treatment on March 1, 1988. In January 1989, he was transferred from MTMHI to Luton Community Mental Health Center subject to a mandatory outpatient therapy plan. In July 1989, he was transferred to Vanderbilt Mental Health Center Adult Outpatient Services section. Ultimately, Peavyhouse enrolled as a student at Austin Peay State University with out patient therapy through Harriet Cohn Center in Clarksville. On October 31, 1991, Peavyhouse entered a private residence in Clarksville with a .410 gauge shotgun and shot to death Misty Harding and Billy Hembree, seriously wounded David Ross and Robert Huff, and committed aggravated assaults upon Charity Baggett, Deanna Shepherd, Walter Scott Palmer, and Jeffery Underwood. Peavyhouse was convicted on all charges and sentenced to two consecutive life terms in prison plus fifty-six years. The estates of Harding and Hembree, together with the other victims of the October 31, 1991 assaults, brought suit against the State of Tennessee before the Tennessee Claims Commission charging MTMHI with negligence in the January 23, 1989 release of Peavyhouse from a secure treatment facility. The Tennessee Claims Commission rendered judgment in favor of the claimants and the State of Tennessee Appeals. We affirm the judgment of the Claims Commission.

State of Tennessee v. William R. Stevens
M1999-02067-CCA-R3-DD
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: Judge Steve R. Dozier

The Defendant, William R. Stevens, was convicted of two counts of first degree premeditated murder and one count of especially aggravated robbery, arising out of the deaths of his wife and mother-in-law. For each of his murder convictions, he was sentenced to death. He now appeals as of right, raising the following eleven issues for our review: (1) whether it was error to limit the testimony of crime-scene expert Gregg McCrary; (2) whether it was error to exclude evidence which tended to show that Corey Milliken had an independent motive to commit the murders; (3) whether it was error to admit a redacted version of Sandi Stevens' diary; (4) whether the trial court failed to apply the hearsay and other evidentiary rules in an evenhanded manner; (5) whether the hearsay statements of Corey Milliken to Sarah Suttle should have been excluded as not being "in furtherance of the conspiracy"; (6) whether the cumulative effect of all errors at trial violated the Defendant's right to due process of law; (7) whether instructing the jury that it must agree unanimously in order to impose a life sentence and prohibiting it from being told the effect of a non-unanimous verdict violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments; (8) whether the Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-204(i)(4) aggravating circumstance fails to narrow the class of death-eligible defendants in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments; (9) whether the failure to articulate meaningful standards for proportionality review mandated by Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-206 violates the Defendant's right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment; (10) whether the unlimited discretion vested in the prosecutor as to whether or not to seek the death penalty violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments; and (11) whether the death penalty is imposed in a discriminatory manner in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. After a thorough review of the record and the relevant legal authorities, we find no reversible error on the part of the trial court. Accordingly, we affirm the Defendant's convictions and his sentences of death.

Derrick Webb vs. Marvell Collier
W1999-01682-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Robert A. Lanier
This is a false arrest case. The plaintiff was arrested by one of the defendants, a security guard, in a Kroger grocery store. The plaintiff sued the security guard, Kroger, and others. The uncontroverted evidence showed that the security guard was an employee of a private security firm and not an employee of Kroger. The trial court granted Kroger's motion for summary judgment. We reverse, finding that Kroger may be held liable under some circumstances for the actions of a security guard who is an independent contractor.

Richard Lee Franklin v. State of Tennessee
E2000-01398-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas T. Woodall
Trial Court Judge: Judge Leon C. Burns, Jr.

In his original trial, the Petitioner, Richard Lee Franklin, was convicted of first degree murder by a Cumberland County jury for the death of David Kirkland. Due to procedural errors at Petitioner's first trial, the trial court granted Petitioner's motion for a new trial. Petitioner was retried and the jury convicted him of second degree murder. The trial court sentenced the Petitioner to twenty-two years of incarceration. State v. Richard Lee Franklin, No. 03C01-9706-CR-00219, 1998 WL 458580, at *1, Cumberland County (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, August 10, 1998), perm. to appeal denied (Tenn. 1999). Subsequently, Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief which was denied. In this appeal as of right, he asserts that the post-conviction court erred in finding his trial counsel's performance to be effective. Specifically, the appellant contends that trial counsel was ineffective for (1) failing to investigate and present witnesses that would support a defense of self-defense; (2) for failing to discuss trial strategies and defenses with the Petitioner; and (3) for failing to request an instruction on self-defense. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

George Clayton vs. Betty Clayton
E2000-01413-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Lawrence H. Puckett
This is a divorce case. The trial court granted the counter-plaintiff, Betty L. Clayton ("Wife"), a divorce from the original plaintiff, George M. Clayton ("Husband"), on the ground of inappropriate marital conduct; divided the parties' marital property; identified and decreed the distribution of their separate property; and awarded Wife alimony in solido of $325,000, plus attorney's fees of $15,000. Husband appeals the division of property, the amount of the alimony award, and the award of attorney's fees. We affirm.

Tennessee Farmers Mutual Ins. Co. vs. Robert Westmoreland, et al
E2000-02693-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Jeffrey F. Stewart
Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company ("Plaintiff") filed a declaratory judgment action claiming that the homeowner's insurance policy issued to Robert and Elizabeth Westmoreland ("Defendants") was void due to material misrepresentations made on the application for insurance by Mr. Westmoreland. Defendants claim they provided the correct information, but it was incorrectly recorded by the insurance agent. The Trial Court granted Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. We affirm.

State of Tennessee v. Charles Arthur Reeves
M2000-01201-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge John Everett Williams
Trial Court Judge: Judge John H. Gasaway, III

The defendant appealed the trial court's loss of jurisdiction when he was transferred into the custody of the Department of Correction. The issue is now moot. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

Johnny Wayne Garner and Richard Darrell Miller v. State of Tennessee
M2000-01258-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge John Everett Williams
Trial Court Judge: Judge Stella L. Hargrove

Both Petitioners appeal from the post-conviction court's denial of their post-conviction relief petitions. The Petitioners claim ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal for failing to object to an erroneous jury instruction and failing to raise the erroneous jury instruction in their direct appeal. The post-conviction court found the jury instruction to be erroneous; however, it denied relief. After a thorough review, we conclude that the jury instruction was erroneous and prejudicial to the Petitioners and find that trial and appellate counsel were ineffective for failing to object to the erroneous jury instruction at trial and for failing to raise it on direct appeal. Accordingly, we reverse the post-conviction court's denial of relief and remand the Petitioners' cases to the trial court for new trials on the issues of aggravated arson.

State of Tennessee v. Marlo Jones
W2000-01565-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: Judge Joseph H. Walker, III

The defendant was convicted by a jury of aggravated criminal trespass, attempted aggravated assault, and two counts of felony reckless endangerment. The trial court sentenced the defendant to concurrent sentences of eleven months and twenty-nine days for aggravated criminal trespass, two years for attempted aggravated assault, and one year each for both counts of felony reckless endangerment. The defendant was granted probation after service of 120 days. In this appeal, the defendant challenges the trial court's denial of full probation. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the sentence imposed by the trial court.

Danny J. Wilson v. Fred J. Raney, Warden
W2000-03066-CCA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Trial Court Judge: Judge R. Lee Moore Jr.

The petitioner was sentenced to an effective ten-year sentence on December 13, 1990, and on December 20, 1991, he received an additional two-year sentence for felony escape, to be served consecutively to his original sentences. He filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus claiming that he was being illegally restrained because, by his calculations, his sentence had expired. The post-conviction court denied the petition, as well as a subsequent petition to rehear, and the petitioner timely appealed. We affirm the judgment of the trial court denying the petition.

Gregory Hatton v. State of Tennessee
M2000-00756-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Gary R Wade
Trial Court Judge: Judge Jim T. Hamilton

The petitioner, Gregory Hatton, sought post-conviction relief on the grounds that his trial counsel was ineffective, that his guilty pleas were not knowing and voluntary, and that his sentence is illegal. The trial court concluded that the petition was barred by the statute of limitations. Insofar as an illegal sentence is subject to correction at any time, the trial court's dismissal of the petitioner's illegal sentence claim was erroneous. Because, however, the petitioner is not entitled to relief on that claim, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

State of Tennessee v. Robert A. Hayden
M2000-00901-CCA-MR3-CD
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Gary R Wade
Trial Court Judge: Judge Timothy L. Easter

Indicted for aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery, aggravated sexual battery, two counts of aggravated rape, and especially aggravated kidnapping, the defendant entered negotiated pleas of guilt to aggravated robbery, two counts of aggravated rape, and especially aggravated kidnapping.  The remaining charges were dismissed. After a hearing, the trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range I offender to 12 years for the robbery, 25 years for each of the rapes, and 25 years for the kidnapping. The rape sentences were ordered to be served consecutively to one another and to the robbery sentence, for an effective sentence of 62 years. In this appeal of right, the defendant claims that one of the aggravated rape convictions and the especially aggravated kidnapping conviction violate due process. He asserts that his sentences are excessive and should not have been ordered to be served consecutively. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Curtis Majors v. State of Tennessee
M1999-02138-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: Judge J. Randall Wyatt, Jr.

The Petitioner was indicted for three counts of aggravated robbery and convicted by a Davidson County jury of one count of aggravated robbery and two counts of aggravated assault. The trial court sentenced him as a Range II, multiple offender to an effective sentence of seventeen years, and on direct appeal, this Court modified his sentence to an effective sentence of fifteen years. The Tennessee Supreme Court denied permission to appeal. The Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial because his attorneys failed to challenge two of his indictments prior to trial. Following a hearing, the trial court denied post-conviction relief, and the Petitioner now appeals the trial court's denial of relief. We hold that the Petitioner received effective assistance of counsel at trial and therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Ricky A. Burks
M2000-00345-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Trial Court Judge: Judge Walter C. Kurtz

Ricky A. Burks was convicted by a Davidson County jury of the first-degree murder of his wife. The trial court granted Burks' motion for judgment of acquittal and entered a judgment for second-degree murder. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Burks, as a range II offender, to forty years confinement in the Department of Correction. Burks now appeals both the judgment of conviction and the sentence entered by the Davidson County Criminal Court, challenging the trial court's (1) denial of his motions to suppress; (2) admission of prior bad acts of the defendant; (3) jury instructions regarding prior bad acts; (4) admission of autopsy photographs of the victim; (5) refusal to instruct on the lesser-included offense of reckless homicide; (6) finding that the evidence is sufficient to support a conviction of second-degree murder; and (7) imposition of the maximum sentence of forty years. The State cross-appeals challenging the trial court's ruling in reducing the jury's verdict of first-degree murder to that of second-degree murder. Finding no error, we affirm.

In the matter of Leola Dedman vs. Mary Murphy
W2000-00086-COA-R3-CV
Trial Court Judge: Robert S. Benham
This appeal arises from an order of the Probate Court of Shelby County surcharging George Henderson, executor and trustee of the estate of Leola Dedman, in the amount of $11,018.29. This Court granted Mr. Henderson's T.R.A.P. Rule 10 Application for Extraordinary Appeal as to the surcharge. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the trial court's decision.

James Byron Transou v. State of Tennessee
W2000-01060-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Gary R Wade
Trial Court Judge: Judge Joe C. Morris

The petitioner, James Byron Transou, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The issues presented for review are (1) whether the petitioner was denied his constitutional right to self-representation; (2) whether the denial of a motion for continuance is a basis for relief; (3) whether the election on the charge made by the state is a basis for relief; and (4) whether the petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel. The judgment is affirmed.

State of Tennessee v. Michael D. Rimmer
W1999-00637-CCA-R3-DD
Authoring Judge: Judge John Everett Williams
Trial Court Judge: Judge W. Fred Axley

The Defendant appeals his conviction for murder in the first degree and the sentence of death imposed by the jury.1 This opinion is delivered in two parts, with a separate opinion addressing Part II.
In Part I of this opinion we address the following issues:

(1) Admission of evidence regarding his escape attempts;
(2) Shackling of his feet and hands;
(3) Prohibition of mitigation evidence at sentencing;
(4) Admission of his statement to police;
(5) Propriety of the prosecutor’s closing argument;
(6) Unconstitutionality of the death penalty; and
(7) Proportionality of sentence of death.

After careful review, we affirm the conviction for murder in the first degree.  In Part II of this opinion, Judge Williams sets forth his minority position on the following issues:

(1) Application of the (i)(2) aggravating factor in the imposition of the death penalty; and (2) Cumulative effect of errors.

The position of the majority on the issues addressed in Part II is set forth in the separate opinion filed by Judge Witt, in which Judge Hayes has joined. The majority concludes that the verdict is enigmatic and uncertain, requiring reversal of the sentence of death and re-sentencing.

State of Tennessee v. Michael D. Rimmer
W1999-00637-CCA-R3-DD
Authoring Judge: Judge James Curwood Witt, Jr.

This separate opinion addresses issues relative to the sentencing phase of the trial, as well as the defendant’s cumulative error issue. Expressed herein are the views of the majority, consisting of Judge Hayes and Judge Witt. The minority view of Judge Williams is expressed in his lead opinion.

Vernon Bernard Love v. State of Tennessee
W2000-02808-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: Judge Julian P. Guinn

The petitioner was originally convicted by a Carroll County jury of the sale of a controlled substance.  The conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. The petitioner sought post-conviction relief, which was denied by the post-conviction court. In this appeal as a matter of right, the petitioner contends that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the trial court correctly denied post-conviction relief.

Stefan Olaru vs. John Cooper, et al
E2001-00243-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Samuel H. Payne
This case arises out of an automobile accident. The plaintiff, Stefan Olaru, brought a personal injury action against John Cooper, the driver of the other vehicle involved in the accident. The plaintiff also sued Roberts Express, Inc., from whom the plaintiff had leased the 1995 GMC van involved in the accident. Roberts was sued for medical expenses, lost wages, and disability benefits under Personal Injury Protection ("PIP") insurance coverage provided to him by Roberts. By way of a special verdict, the jury found the plaintiff 60% at fault for the accident; assessed Cooper with the remaining 40% of fault; and determined that the plaintiff had not suffered any injuries as a result of the accident, thereby precluding the plaintiff's recovery under his PIP insurance coverage. The plaintiff appeals, arguing one issue, i.e., that the jury's verdict is contrary to the evidence. We affirm.

2000-00197-COA-R3-CV
2000-00197-COA-R3-CV
Trial Court Judge: Pat Hess