State vs. Letivias Prince
M1998-00005-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry Smith
Trial Court Judge: Donald P. Harris
The defendant, Letivias Prince, was convicted of first degree murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal, the defendant argues that the jury pool did not adequately represent the racial makeup of the community; that pre-trial publicity deprived him of a fair trial; that the trial court erred by permitting eight peremptory challenges in jury selection; that the trial court erred by allowing the state to either call a rebuttal witness or receive a missing witness instruction; that the trial court erred by instructing the jury regarding the order of consideration of offenses; and that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

State vs. Cecil L. Groomes, et al
M1998-00122-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Trial Court Judge: Donald P. Harris
The defendants were convicted in Williamson County of especially aggravated robbery from an incident occurring at the Cool Springs Mall. Defendant Akins was sentenced to twenty years and fined $1,000, while defendant Groomes was sentenced to twenty-two years and fined $4,000. Both timely appealed, raising as issues whether Akins should have been transferred from juvenile court and tried as an adult, whether the prosecutor improperly excused a potential juror and made prejudicial statements in closing argument, whether the court properly instructed the jury, whether the evidence was sufficient, whether the victim's family and friends had improper contact with the jurors, and whether the defendants received appropriate sentences. Based upon our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Jerry Hardcastle v. State of Tennessee
M1999-00598-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: Jane W. Wheatcraft

State vs. Frederick Gonzalez
M1999-00165-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: Henry Denmark Bell
The Defendant appeals as of right from his conviction of simple possession of cocaine. He argues that the trial court erred in failing to suppress the evidence used to convict him because the evidence was the fruit of an unlawful seizure. We agree; accordingly, we reverse the Defendant's conviction and dismiss the case against him.

State vs. Anthony David Tapp
M1999-00414-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Gary R Wade
Trial Court Judge: James K. Clayton, Jr.
The defendant, Anthony David Tapp, was convicted of vehicular homicide as a result of intoxication. The trial court imposed a Range I sentence of 10 years. In this appeal of right, the defendant contends that the trial court erred by allowing into evidence pretrial statements which had been made by him but which had not been provided by the state in advance of the trial. The judgment is affirmed. Instructions by the defendant to witnesses of an accident not to speak to police did not qualify as discoverable material within the terms of Rule 16 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure. In consequence, the defendant is not entitled to a new trial.

State vs. David B. Gardner
M1999-02337-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: John H. Gasaway, III
The Defendant was indicted for seven counts of forgery. He was subsequently tried by a Robertson County jury and found guilty of all counts, and the trial court sentenced him as a career offender to an effective sentence of twenty-four years. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred by concluding that the evidence establishing venue was sufficient to support his convictions and by sentencing him improperly. We hold that the State carried its burden of proving venue by a preponderance of the evidence and that the trial court properly sentenced the Defendant. Accordingly, we affirm the conviction.

State vs. James Ellison Rouse
M1999-01807-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge John Everett Williams
Trial Court Judge: Jim Travis Hamilton
The defendant was convicted of two counts of first degree murder and two counts of attempted first degree murder as the result of a shooting spree at Richland High School. The defendant, then seventeen, was tried and convicted as an adult, and sentenced to two consecutive life without the possibility of parole terms plus fifty years. The additional fifty-year term is modified to forty-two years. We affirm the two consecutive life without the possibility of parole terms holding that if a jury unanimously finds the existence of at least one aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt, then in its considered discretion, the jury may sentence the defendant to either life imprisonment or life without the possibility of parole absent a showing of "gross abuse of discretion."

Tommy Ray Warren vs. State
M1999-1319-CCA-R3-PC
Trial Court Judge: Jim T. Hamilton
On April 12, 1993, the petitioner, Tommy Ray Warren, pled guilty in the Wayne County Circuit Court to two counts of first degree murder. The trial court imposed a life sentence for each count of murder and further ordered consecutive service of the life sentences. The petitioner subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that his guilty pleas were not knowing and voluntary because he was not aware that his possible mental retardation could render him ineligible for the death penalty. The petitioner also alleged that trial counsel's failure to pursue a mental retardation hearing constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court dismissed the petition, finding that the petitioner's pleas were knowing and voluntary and that the petitioner had received effective assistance of counsel. The petitioner now appeals the court's denial of relief. Following a review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

In Re: Estate of Bernie Riggs
W1999-01905-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Lee Moore
This appeal arises from a dispute over the disposition of the assets of Bernie F. Riggs ("Husband"). Plaintiff Julia Mae Riggs ("Wife") filed suit, alleging that Defendant Campbell ("Daughter") had used undue influence and had improperly disposed of Husband's assets through a power of attorney. The trial court found in favor of Daughter, holding that all transactions were valid and in accordance with Husband's wishes. Wife appeals.

State vs. Kevin Washington
W2000-02736-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
The Appellant, Kevin Washington, appeals from the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief by the Madison County Circuit Court. On appeal, the Appellant contends that trial counsel never informed him that his "packaged" plea agreement included a plea of guilty to Class C theft of property and, therefore, his plea was involuntarily entered. We find this contention without merit. The judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals.

LeCroy-Schemel vs. John Cupp, Sheriff
E2000-00024-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Douglas A. Meyer
An attorney was found in contempt by the Chattanooga City Court Judge during proceedings relating to the attorney's client's conviction for violation of a municipal ordinance. The Judge ordered a ten-day jail sentence for the attorney, who was taken into custody and locked in a holding cell. The attorney was able to secure a writ of habeas corpus from the Hamilton County Criminal Court. After the attorney was released, the City Court Judge filed an Order to Appear and Show Cause why the attorney should not be jailed for contempt. The Criminal Court held a hearing at which it heard testimony of the attorney and another witness, and found that the City Court had exceeded its statutory authority by confining the attorney for contempt, that the City Court had not followed procedural requirements for punishing contempt, declared a section of the Chattanooga City Charter null and void, and dismissed the City Court's Order to Appear and Show Cause. The City of Chattanooga appealed the orders of the Criminal Court. We affirm the actions of the Criminal Court relating to the writ of habeas corpus, affirm the finding that the City Court was without authority to punish criminal contempt by confinement or fine in excess of ten dollars, and modify the judgment to reflect the holding of this Court in Poole v. City of Chattanooga.

Judd's Inc. vs. Dors L. Muir, et al
E1999-01836-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Telford E. Forgerty, Jr.
In this appeal Doris and Allan Muir insist that the Chancellor was in error in not allowing their homestead exemption as to certain funds realized from the sale of real estate to satisfy a judgment previously entered against them. Their attorney, W. Richard Baker, Jr., insists that the Chancellor was in error in not enforcing a lien for his attorney fees that he claimed was properly perfected as to the same funds. We affirm.

Dickson County, Tennessee, v. H. Clyde Jennette, et al.
M1999-00054-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Judge Allen W. Wallace

This case involves the use of certain property in Dickson County in light of a 1988 zoning ordinance which provides that mining and quarrying on this property are permitted as a special exception only. When the county attempted to enjoin the property owners from mining or quarrying their property, the property owners argued that their property was being used as a quarrying operation prior to October 1988 when the city passed the zoning ordinance. Thus, it is the property owners' position that their quarrying operation constitutes a pre-existing nonconforming use and may continue pursuant to both the Dickson County zoning ordinance and Tennessee Code Annotated section 13-7-208(b). In addition, the county enjoined the property owners from hauling rock in violation of a fifteen-ton weight limit on local roads. The property owners argued below that the enforcement of this local rule against them constitutes selective enforcement. The trial court found that the property owners had failed to show a nonconforming use, and it dismissed their claim for selective enforcement. On appeal, we find that the trial court was correct in its conclusion that the property owners' operation was not a nonconforming use at the time of the adoption of the zoning ordinance. In light of that finding, the temporary injunction regarding the fifteen-ton weight limit is dissolved, and the selective enforcement issue does not need to be addressed.

JoeTrammell and Karen Trammell v. George W. Pope, Jr., Individually and d/b/a Achieva Homes
M1999-00886-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Chancelor Russ Heldman

This appeal arises out of a default judgment rendered against the Appellant. The underlying cause of action was for the breach of a  construction contract. After the Appellant did not answer the complaint or otherwise defend the action, the Chancery Court of Williamson County  granted the plaintiffs’ motion for default and entered judgment accordingly.  A subsequent damage hearing was held at which the Appellant did not  appear. The Appellees obtained a judgment for $918,073.15. The  Appellant filed an application to set aside the default judgment which was  denied by the trial court.

William Andrew Dixon v. Donal Campbell, Commissioner Tennessee Department of Correction
M1999-02122-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Carol L. McCoy

A prisoner serving a life sentence petitioned the court to order the Department of Correction to restore sentence reduction credits it had deleted from his record after determining that his sentence was to be served without the possibility of parole. The trial court dismissed the petition. We affirm the trial court.

Willie Perry v. Cold Creek Correctional Facility Disciplinary Board, et al.
M1999-01898-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Ellen Hobbs Lyle

This case arises from the decision of the Cold Creek Correctional Facility Disciplinary Board finding the Appellant guilty of attempting to intimidate an employee and being under the influence of alcohol. The Appellant filed a Petition for Common Law and Statutory Writ of Certiorari with the Chancery Court of Davidson County challenging the Disciplinary Board's decision. The trial court affirmed the decision of the Board and dismissed the Appellant's claim.

South Central Tennessee Railroad Authority, et al., v. Andre Harakas, et al.
M1999-00567-COA -R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Donald P. Harris

Plaintiffs, the owner and lessee of property on which a railroad track was located, obtained a temporary injunction prohibiting Defendants, owners of adjacent property, from building a house on what Plaintiffs alleged was their right-of-way. After Defendants presented evidence that Plaintiffs possessed only an easement as needed for railroad operations, rather than a right of-way, the court dissolved the temporary injunction and denied a permanent injunction. Defendants then filed a motion to assess damages and enforce liability of surety on injunction bond pursuant to Tenn.R. Civ. P. 65.05, seeking recovery for the losses resulting from the issuance of the temporary injunction. Defendants appeal the trial court's denial of their motion. We reverse. Tenn. R. App. P. 13 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Reversed and Remanded.
 

Nancy D. Bracken, v. Richard Earl, D/B/A Financial Services Company
E2000-00202-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Judge Harold Wimberly

Plaintiff sued to recover monies paid to defendant. Defendant defended on the grounds that the monies were paid to a trust fund for which he was not liable. The Trial Court held the trust had no validity and entered judgment against the defendant. We affirm.

State of Tennessee v. Ricky Raymond Bryan
M1999-00854-CCA-R9-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge John Everett Williams
Trial Court Judge: Judge James K. Clayton, Jr.

The defendant, facing a third trial for first degree murder, has filed this interlocutory appeal. The defendant alleges that the trial court erred in disqualifying his counsel because of an appearance of impropriety. We affirm.

State of Tennessee v. Sherman Dunlap
M1999-00325-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: Judge John W. Rollins

Sherman Dunlap appeals his sentence after pleading guilty in the Coffee County Circuit Court to facilitation of theft over $10,000, a class D felony. The trial court sentenced the appellant, as a Range II multiple offender, to four years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction, requiring the appellant to serve one year of his sentence in continuous confinement. On appeal, the appellant presents the following issue for review: whether the trial court erred in denying him full probation or, in the alternative, in denying him an opportunity to serve his sentence in periodic confinement. Following a review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Sherman Dunlap - Concurring
M1999-00325-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry L. Smith
Trial Court Judge: John W. Rollins

While I concur fully in the judgment of the Court denying the appellant full probation, I do so because the record reflects the appellant has received probation for a number of previous offenses, but has yet to be rehabilitated. Thus, “measures less restrictive than confinement have frequently or recently been applied unsuccessfully to the [appellant].” See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-35-103(c).  This reason alone amply justifies the denial of probation in this case.

State of Tennessee vs. David Lee and Treva Lee
M1999-02471-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Trial Court Judge: Judge Leonard W. Martin

In this appeal, defendants challenge the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. The defendants were convicted by a Dickson County jury of criminal trespass and fined $50. Upon a review of the record, we find the evidence is sufficient to sustain the convictions. Thus, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

State of Tennessee v. Kenneth D. Melton
M1999-01248-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: Judge Jane W. Wheatcraft

The appellant, Kenneth D. Melton, was convicted by a jury in the Sumner County Criminal Court of disorderly conduct, a class C misdemeanor. The trial court imposed a sentence of thirty days incarceration in the Sumner County Jail. The court then suspended all but five days of the appellant's sentence, placing the appellant on unsupervised probation for the remainder. On appeal, the appellant presents the following issues: (1) whether the indictment provided adequate notice to the appellant of the charged offense; and (2) whether the evidence adduced at trial supports his conviction of disorderly conduct. Following a review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee vs. James A. Shively
M1999-01072-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge John Everett Williams
Trial Court Judge: Judge Henry Denmark Bell

Having pled guilty to various counts of aggravated burglary, robbery, auto theft, and theft, the defendant appeals from his sentences. He argues that the trial court improperly imposed consecutive sentences and that his effective twelve-year sentence is therefore excessive. After a de novo review, we affirm the sentences as imposed.

State of Tennessee v. Aaron McFarland - Concurring
W1999-01410-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Trial Court Judge: Judge Arthur T. Bennett

The majority finds the defendant's suppression issue non meritorious under Fifth Amendment analysis. While I do not disagree with the analysis, I believe the factual scenario presented requires review under Sixth Amendment analysis. At both the suppression hearing and at trial, the interviewing officer testified that the defendant "had been arrested the night before by uniformed officers and was in juvenile court." The defendant was interviewed the following morning around 11:00 a.m., after the officer "checked him out of juvenile court" and transported him to the police department's homicide division. I can only assume from these facts that, at the time of the police questioning, the defendant had been charged with the homicide of Terrell Deon Bullard. If this assumption is correct, then adversarial proceedings had been initiated and the defendant's Sixth Amendment, rather than his Fifth Amendment right to counsel, had attached.