State vs. Curtis Emery Duke
M2000-00350-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: William Charles Lee
The appellant, Curtis Emery Duke, was convicted in the Marshall County Circuit Court of two counts of the sale of crack cocaine, one count of possession of crack cocaine with the intent to sell, two counts of criminal impersonation, and one count of failure to appear. The trial court sentenced the appellant to a total effective sentence of thirty-nine years. On appeal, the appellant raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to sustain the appellant's convictions; (2) whether the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of simple possession; and (3) whether the trial court erred in sentencing the appellant. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court as modified.

Clifton vs. Acosta-Delgado
M2000-00253-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Muriel Robinson
This is a post-divorce child custody dispute. The mother filed a petition to regain custody of the parties' three children after she had entered into an agreed order in 1995 granting custody to the defendant father. After hearing testimony on, inter alia, the father driving while intoxicated with the children in the car with him, the trial court found a material change in circumstances, granted custody to the mother, and ordered the father to pay child support. The father appeals, arguing that there was not a material change in circumstances sufficient to warrant a change in custody, that the trial court inappropriately considered his child support arrearage prior to the 1995 agreed order, and that the trial court miscalculated his income, resulting in an unreasonably high child support award. We affirm, finding a material change in circumstances warranting a change in custody, and finding that the evidence does not preponderate against the award of child support.

State vs. Harold Bayuk
M2000-01654-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Trial Court Judge: Timothy L. Easter
The Appellant, Harold M. Bayuk, was convicted by a Hickman County Circuit Court jury of one count of driving under the influence of an intoxicant and one count of driving on a revoked license. Following his conviction for DUI, the Appellant waived his right to jury sentencing and agreed to submit the issue of enhanced punishment to the trial court. The trial court found the Appellant guilty of DUI, third offense, and sentenced him to eleven months twenty-nine days, with 150 days to be served in confinement. On appeal, the Appellant argues that the trial court erred in sentencing him to serve 150 days instead of the statutory minimum of 120 days. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court in part, vacate in part, and remand this case to the trial court for entry of an amended judgment of conviction.

State vs. Antonio Kendrick
W1997-00157-SC-R11-CD
Authoring Judge: Justice E. Riley Anderson
Trial Court Judge: Arthur T. Bennett
We granted this appeal to determine whether the prosecution's failure to elect the particular offense of aggravated rape upon which it sought to convict the defendant constituted plain error and required a new trial. The main purpose of the election requirement is to preserve a defendant's right to a unanimous jury verdict under the Tennessee Constitution. A majority of the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the defendant's conviction for one count of aggravated rape without examining the election issue. After reviewing the record and controlling authority, we conclude that the prosecution's failure to elect the particular offense upon which it sought to convict the defendant failed to preserve the defendant's rights under the Tennessee Constitution and constituted plain error. The judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded to the trial court for a new trial.

State vs. Vincent Sims
W1998-00634-SC-DDT-DD
Authoring Judge: Justice Janice M. Holder
Trial Court Judge: Joseph B. Dailey

State vs. Vincent Sims
W1998-00634-SC-DDT-DD
Authoring Judge: Justice Janice M. Holder
Trial Court Judge: Joseph B. Dailey

State vs. James P. Stout
W1998-00079-SC-DDT-DD
Authoring Judge: Justice E. Riley Anderson
Trial Court Judge: Joseph B. Dailey

D&E Construction Co. vs. Robert J. Denley Co.
W1998-00445-SC-R11-CV
Authoring Judge: Justice William M. Barker
Trial Court Judge: Walter L. Evans
The contractor submitted to arbitration a contractual payment dispute with the project owner arising from a contract to build a subdivision in Collierville. The arbitrators found in favor of the contractor and included an award of attorney's fees. The trial court determined that the arbitration panel exceeded its authority in awarding attorney's fees and vacated the arbitration award. The Court of Appeals reversed, reinstating the entire award. We hold that when the arbitrators awarded attorney's fees, they exceeded their authority by awarding upon a matter not within the scope of the contract's arbitration provision. Therefore, we reverse in part the judgment of the Court of Appeals and vacate the award of attorney's fees.

James Becton v. Grisham Corporation
W1999-00183-SC-WCM-CV
Authoring Judge: George R. Ellis, Sp. J.
Trial Court Judge: Floyd Peete, Jr., Chancellor
This is an appeal by James E. Becton of a decision by the trial court that Becton did not show by a preponderance of the evidence that he had sustained an injury by accident arising out of and in the scope of his employment with Grisham Corporation. He presents three (3) issues for review: 1) whether the Chancellor erred in excluding from consideration the testimony of the claimant's treating physician.; 2) whether the opinion of the treating physician is entitled to greater weight than that of a consultant; and 3) whether the evidence of vocational disability preponderates in favor of an award of permanent partial disability and medical payments in this case.

Jonathan Duffy v. Tecumseh Products Co.
W1999-00766-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: W. Michael William Michael Maloan, Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: C. Creed Mcginley, Judge
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The defendant, Tecumseh Products Company (Tecumseh), appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of Henry County which ordered Tecumseh to pay medical expenses to the plaintiff, Jonathan Duffy (Duffy). For the reasons stated in this opinion, we find the trial court erred and reverse the judgment of the trial court.

Mary Alice Sloan v. Continental Casualty Company
W1999-00185-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: George W. Ellis, Sp. J.
Trial Court Judge: Joe C. Morris, Chancellor
This is an appeal by Continental Casualty Company of a judgment for 35% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole awarded to Mary Alice Sloan for an injury that she sustained while working for Goody's Family Clothing, Inc. on November 1, 1996. The appellant agrees that the worker sustained a compensable, work-related injury and that they had paid temporary total disability benefits and medical expenses. The only issue is whether the preponderance of the evidence supports the trial court's award to the plaintiff. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. The costs of this appeal are taxed to the defendant.

Jimmy L. Lane v. Schering-Plough Corporation,
E2000-00829-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Thayer, Sp. J.
Trial Court Judge: Jerri S. Bryant, Chancellor
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The State Second Injury Fund has appealed the trial court's ruling that it was not entitled to a credit or setoff for payment of temporary total disability benefits against that portion of the permanent disability award which it is responsible to pay. Judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Ingram Book Company v. Rebecca Rowland
M1999-01233-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Turnbull, Sp. J.
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle, Chancellor
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. _5-6-225(e)(3) (1999) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusion of law. In this case, the employee contends the trial court erred in finding no causal connection between her injury and employment and no permanent partial disability. As discussed below, the panel has concluded that the evidence preponderates against the trial court's findings and reverses its decision. Tenn. Code Ann. _5-6-225(e)(3) Appeal as of Right: Judgment of the Chancery Court Reversed and Remanded TURNBULL, SP. J., in which DROWOTA, J., and LOSER S. J. joined. D. Russell Thomas and Herbert M. Schaltegger, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, for the appellant, Rebecca Rowland. D. Brett Burrow and Delicia R. Bryant, Brewer, Krause & Brooks, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Ingram Book Company. MEMORANDUM OPINION Background Rebecca Rowland ("Rowland"), the employee-appellant, is a forty-two years old mother of two who has been married for twenty-three years. She dropped out of school in the tenth grade but obtained her GED in 1984. She has worked at various unskilled jobs: Working as a waitress, cook and cashier; cleaning apartments; working as a housekeeper and supervisor for a hotel. Rowland worked for Ingram Book Company [Ingram], the employer-appellee, from 1993 to 1999. She first worked as an order puller, scanning books and placing them on shelves, and then worked as a shagger, locating books that order pullers could not locate. Her last job, prior to her alleged injury, was a job in which she was required to do forceful repetitive hand motions in cutting open cardboard boxes as well as dust mopping with a wide mop. After working in this last job four weeks, she developed carpal tunnel syndrome in April of 1997. Rowland was also diagnosed as having hypothyroidismin November 1997 and has taken medication since December 1997. She returned to work after the surgery and worked for Ingram for one and a half years. Then she left Ingram because of her dissatisfaction with management practices. According to Rowland's own trial testimony, which is unimpeached and uncontradicted, she continued to have pain in her hands, wrists and arms and to have diminished strength in her hands with regard to gripping or twisting. The parties submitted two medical depositions: the testimony of Dr. Martin and Dr. Gaw. Dr. David Martin, a plastic surgeon with additional training in carpel tunnel syndrome, first saw Ms. Rowland on June 19, 1997. Based on her complaints of numbness and pain, his clinical evaluation and the E.M.G. studies of Dr. Richard Lisella, Dr. Martin diagnosed bilateral carpel tunnel syndrome, greater on the left than on the right. He immediately scheduled Ms. Rowland for surgery on her left wrist which was performed on June 27, 1997. He prescribed a wrist splint for her right wrist, also on June 19, 1997. Dr. Martin released the employee to return to one-handed work on July 9,1997. Although the left wrist and hand were improved by surgery, the right handed symptoms increased with the one-handed work, and Dr. Martin scheduled and performed carpel tunnel release surgery on the right wrist on August 12, 1997. She was again released to return to one-handed duties on August 22, 1997. Some thirty-nine days after Ms. Rowland returned to work, Dr. Martin, on October 1, 1997, found that ... "her symptoms have completely resolved. She has mild, residual, right peri-incisional sensitivity which continues to improve." He kept a ten pound weight restriction in force for one month and opined that Ms. Rowland would retain a % [zero] permanent impairment. Dr. Martin treated Ms. Rowland under workers compensation, was paid for his services by workers compensation benefits provided by Ingram, and never made any medical note, nor does the record reveal he expressed any opinion, that the injury was not work related until he gave his deposition on July 1, 1999. Dr. David Gaw, an orthopaedic surgeon, saw Ms. Rowland one time, February 2, 1998. His examination lasted thirty to forty-five minutes. At that time, Ms. Rowland was complaining of continued weakness, transient tingling, pain on repetitive use, and was found to have a positive Phalens test and slightly diminished perception to pin prick. Based upon the patient's history, Dr. Gaw expressed the opinion "most likely cause is the type of work she described down at Ingram Books." He further opined that there was "no real question as to causation" if her history is true. Dr. Gaw assigned a 1%impairment to each arm. Neither of the experts testified that the thyroid [2]

State vs. G'dongalay Berry and Christopher Davis
M1999-00824-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry Smith
Trial Court Judge: J. Randall Wyatt, Jr.
A jury convicted the defendants of first degree murder in the shooting death of Adrian Dickerson. For this offense, the defendants received life sentences. They now appeal their convictions bringing three issues each. More specifically, G'dongalay Berry contends (1) that the trial court erred by not granting his request for a severance while allowing testimony concerning Berry's co-defendant's solicitation of a witness to commit a separate murder four months after this event; (2) that the uncorroborated testimony of accomplices is insufficient to sustain his conviction; and, similarly, (3) that the evidence presented is "insufficient, as a matter of law, for a rational trier of fact to find the defendant guilty of first degree murder." In addition, Christopher Davis alleges (1) that the trial court committed prejudicial error by allowing testimony concerning gang activity and membership; (2) that the trial court's admission of testimony regarding Davis' aforementioned solicitation to commit murder four months after this crime occurred constituted prejudicial error; and, (3) that should this court deem these alleged errors harmless individually, the cumulative effect of such mistakes deprived him of due process by making the trial fundamentally unfair. Having reviewed all of these issues and finding that none provide a basis for relief to either defendant, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

Suzanne Burlew vs. Brad Burlew
M1998-01177-SC-R11-CV
Trial Court Judge: Floyd Peete, Jr.
The issue in this divorce case concerns the type and amount of alimony that should be awarded to the Wife. The trial court awarded her $220,000 of alimony in solido to be paid out in decreasing amounts over eight years, and declined to award her rehabilitative alimony. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's in solido award but remanded the case to the trial court to award rehabilitative alimony of at least $1,000 per month for a reasonable period of time. Before this Court, the Husband/appellee argues that rehabilitative alimony is unnecessary and that the alimony in solido award is excessive. The Wife/appellant counters that the in solido award was not excessive; indeed, she argues that she should have been awarded alimony in futuro. We hold that the trial court properly awarded alimony in solido rather than alimony in futuro. We also hold that the trial court did not err in denying the Wife's request for rehabilitative alimony. Thus, we affirm in part and reverse in part the decision of the Court of Appeals.

State vs. William "Butch" Osepczuk
M1999-00846-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Trial Court Judge: Stella L. Hargrove
William Osepczuk was convicted of criminal attempt to commit first degree murder and was sentenced to twenty-five years in the Department of Correction. He now appeals his conviction challenging the sufficiency of the convicting evidence based upon the non credible testimony of the victim and the erroneous admission of non relevant physical evidence. Finding the proof more than sufficient to support his conviction, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State vs. Carl Bolin
M1999-00849-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry Smith
Trial Court Judge: Robert W. Wedemeyer
The defendant, Carl Dean Bolin, was convicted by a Montgomery County Circuit Court jury of reckless homicide, a Class D felony. The trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range I, standard offender to four years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court erred in sentencing him to the maximum of four years and by ordering that his sentence be served in the Department of Correction. After a careful review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State vs. Larry Wilkins
M2000-01225-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: Donald P. Harris
The appellant, Larry Wilkins, pled guilty in the Williamson County Circuit Court to two counts of the class D felony of causing a computer system to be accessed for the purpose of obtaining $1,000 or more for himself or another by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises. For these offenses, the trial court imposed concurrent sentences of three years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction, suspending all but one year of the appellant's sentences and placing him on supervised probation for four years. Additionally, the trial court imposed fines amounting to $1,500 and ordered restitution amounting to $4,500. The appellant now appeals the trial court's sentencing determinations. Specifically, notwithstanding the trial court's imposition of alternative sentences of split confinement, the appellant contends that the trial court should have granted him either total probation or placement in a community corrections program. Following a review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm in part and reverse in part the judgments of the trial court, and we remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

State vs. Glenn Tidwell
M2000-00538-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry Smith
Trial Court Judge: Frank G. Clement, Jr.
The State of Tennessee appeals from the trial court's dismissal of an indictment for DUI against the appellee, Glenn Tidwell. The trial court determined that the indictment should be dismissed because Tidwell's right to a speedy trial had been violated. After a review of the record, we find that the appellee's right to a speedy trial was violated by the delay in bringing him to trial. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

State vs. Stephen T. Mays a/k/a Stephen T. Mayes
M2000-00602-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Trial Court Judge: Cheryl A. Blackburn
The Appellant, Stephen T. Mays, pled guilty to two counts of theft of property over $10,000 and received two concurrent five-year sentences. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed split confinement sentences and ordered the Appellant to serve a ninety-day period of confinement. The court also ordered restitution with scheduled payments over a ten-year period. On appeal, the Appellant argues (1) that the trial court erred in failing to grant the Appellant's request for total probation; and (2) that the trial court improperly established restitution. After review, the judgment of the Davidson County Criminal Court is affirmed.

State vs. Randal L. Cheek
M2000-00203-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Trial Court Judge: Timothy L. Easter
This appeal presents review of a certified question of law following the Appellant's guilty pleas to possession of marijuana with intent to sell and possession of drug paraphernalia. Pursuant to his negotiated plea agreement, the court imposed an effective sentence of one and one-half years, suspended after five days confinement followed by two years probation. Also, as part of the plea agreement, the Appellant explicitly reserved, with the consent of the trial court and the State, a certified question of law challenging the court's denial of the Appellant's motion to suppress. On appeal, the State contends that (1) the certified question of law is not contained in the final judgments nor is it incorporated by reference and (2) the question is not clearly stated so as to identify the scope and limits of the legal issue. After review, we find that the question of law presented fails to identify with sufficient clarity the scope and boundaries of the issue reserved. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed and this case is remanded to the trial court.

State vs. Anterrian Jutiki Gunn
M1999-02140-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry Smith
Trial Court Judge: John H. Gasaway, III
The State of Tennessee appeals from the trial court grant of the defendant's, Anterrian Juitiki Gunn, motion to suppress. We reverse the trial judge's decision and remand pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 12 (e) for a determination of the essential facts necessary to determine the propriety of the trial court's granting of the defendant's motion to suppress.

Michael Carlton Bailey vs. State
M1999-01065-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry Smith
Trial Court Judge: Robert E. Burch
The appellant, Michael Carlton Bailey, appeals from the trial court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, the appellant challenges the trial court's determination that (1) he received the effective assistance of counsel, and (2) that he was not denied due process by the alleged violation of Tennessee Rule of Evidence 615 by two State witnesses.

William Floyd vs. State
M2000-00318-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Trial Court Judge: J. S. Daniel
William Floyd appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. In 1998, Floyd pled guilty to two counts of rape and, under the terms of his plea agreement, was sentenced to twenty years imprisonment. In his petition for post-conviction relief, Floyd contends that his guilty pleas are involuntary because on the date his pleas were entered he was under the influence of prescribed psychotropic drugs. The petition was dismissed by the post-conviction court and this appeal follows. Finding that the evidence in the record does not support Floyd's claim, we affirm the lower court's dismissal.

State vs. William Clouse
M2000-00436-CCA-R9-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: J. Richard Mcgregor