Charles Montague vs. State
E2000-00083-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Trial Court Judge: Lynn W. Brown
Charles Montague appeals the Washington County Criminal Court's summary dismissal of his pro se post-conviction petition challenging his conviction for first degree murder. The appellant's original and supplemental petitions with attached affidavit present a myriad of claims within the trial process. The post-conviction court dismissed all claims without a hearing, finding the original and supplemental petitions were not properly verified and that the petitions failed to assert a sufficient factual basis for relief. After review of the petition, we affirm the post-conviction court's dismissal of certain claims and vacate its dismissal as to others. The case is remanded to the post-conviction court for further review of the surviving claims.

State vs. Michael Christopher Adams and Jerry Holt
E1999-00446-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: Richard R. Vance
The defendants, Michael Christopher Adams and Jerry Holt, Jr., appeal their convictions by a Sullivan County jury. Adams was convicted of second degree murder and four counts of aggravated assault. He received a total sentence of forty-nine years. Holt was convicted of four counts of aggravated assault and received a total sentence of twenty years. Both defendants challenge the sufficiency of the evidence and the trial court's imposition of consecutive sentencing. Adams also challenges the trial court's application of enhancement factors and failure to apply mitigating factors. We hold that the evidence is sufficient, but we hold that the trial court erred in sentencing. Adams's sentence is modified to reflect a total sentence of forty years, and Holt's sentence is modified to reflect a total sentence of twelve years.

In Re: S.D., M.D., Sh.D., & Ma.S.
M2003-02672-COA-R3-PT
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Barry R. Brown
This case comes before the Court on appeal from the Sumner County Juvenile Court's termination of Appellant's parental rights as to four children. Each parent raises separate issues on appeal. We affirm the action of the trial court in all respects.

State vs. Henderson
W1998-00342-SC-DDT-DD
Authoring Judge: Justice William M. Barker
Trial Court Judge: Jon Kerry Blackwood

James Powell vs. M.P. Gurkin
W1999-00827-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Jon Kerry Blackwood
This is a personal injury action arising out of a slip-and-fall accident which occurred at a laundromat owned by the Gurkin Defendants. The fall was allegedly caused by a hole in the floor of the laundromat which was created by the Defendant Hardin in attempting to locate and repair a water leak in the laundromat. The Plaintiff fell while walking into the laundromat carrying his laundry basket. He brought the present suit claiming that the Defendants were negligent in failing to repair the hole or providing adequate warning of the dangerous condition. The Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment claiming that the Plaintiff failed to use reasonable care in confronting a known risk. After arguments of counsel, the trial court granted both Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment.

State vs. Henderson
W1998-00342-SC-DDT-DD
Authoring Judge: Justice William M. Barker
Trial Court Judge: Jon Kerry Blackwood

State vs. Morris
W1998-00679-SC-DDT-DD
Authoring Judge: Justice E. Riley Anderson
Trial Court Judge: John Franklin Murchison

John Watson vs. Mike Young
W1999-00683-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: R. Lee Moore Jr.
This appeal arises from a lawsuit filed by an inmate at the Northwest Correctional Complex. The complaint sought damages for personal injuries sustained as a result of an electrical shock allegedly caused by the Defendant's inactions. The Lake County Circuit Court dismissed the complaint finding that the plaintiff's claim sounded in negligence and the defendants, as state employees, enjoyed absolute immunity from negligence claims.

State vs. Jeffrey Wayne Adkisson
E1999-01316-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge John Everett Williams
Trial Court Judge: E. Eugene Eblen
The defendant, convicted of one count of D.U.I., argues that the evidence was insufficient and that a police report submitted as evidence was unfairly redacted. After review, we find no reversible error and therefore affirm the judgment from the trial court.

Brent Brown v. Continental Baking Company
W1999-02700-SC-WCM-CV
Authoring Judge: F. Lloyd Tatum, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Karen R. Williams, Judge
This case involves a work-related injury to the plaintiff's left shoulder on August 17, 1992. The trial court heard the evidence on July 2, 1998, and found that the plaintiff sustained a compensable 12.5 percent permanent partial disability to the left shoulder but that the injury he claimed to the right shoulder was not work-related. The trial court also rejected the plaintiff's argument that he did not have a meaningful return to work and found that the two and one-half (2.5) times cap in Tennessee Code Annotated _ 5-6-241(a) applied. The plaintiff appealed pro se and raised the following issues for our review: (1) whether the plaintiff's right shoulder injury was work-related; (2) whether the plaintiff should be compensated for a second surgery on the right shoulder and both feet; (3) whether the original complaint was not re-filed properly; (4) whether there should have been a court reporter present at the hearing; and (5) whether evidence was improperly withheld from the court in his case. After careful review, we find that we must affirm the trial court's judgment.

Glenda Click, as next of kin to Curtis Hugh Click, Deceased, v. Nelson J. Mangione, et al.
M1999-00129-COA-R3-CV-
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly Kirby Lillard
Trial Court Judge: Judge Walter C. Kurtz

This is a medical malpractice case. The paintiff’s husband died of a cardiac rupture while in the care of the defendant physicians. The plaintiff filed a wrongful death suit, asserting medical malpractice in the care of her husband. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant doctors, finding that the plaintiff’s expert’s testimony failed to show that a breach of the standard of care by the defendants caused the death of the plaintiff’s husband. The plaintiff appeals. We affirm, finding that the plaintiff did not present evidence that, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, a breach of the standard of care by the defendants caused the death of the decedent. Tenn. R. App. P. 3; Judgment of the trial court is affirmed
 

State of Tennessee vs. Douglas Bowers
M1999-00778-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry Smith
Trial Court Judge: Judge W. Charles Lee

A Lincoln County jury convicted the appellant, Douglas Bowers, of one (1) count of the delivery of 0.2 grams of cocaine, a Class C felony. The trial court sentenced the appellant as a Range II offender to nine (9) years and six (6) months incarceration. On appeal, the appellant contends that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction; (2) the trial court erred in denying the appellant's request to instruct the jury on the "procuring agent defense"; and (3) the sentence imposed by the trial court was excessive. After thoroughly reviewing the record before this Court, we conclude that the state presented sufficient evidence to sustain the appellant's conviction for delivery of a Schedule II controlled substance. Furthermore, because the "procuring agent defense" has been abolished by statute, the trial court did not err in failing to so instruct the jury. Finally, we conclude that the sentence imposed by the trial court was appropriate. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

State of Tennessee v. John H. Childress
M1999-00843-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: Judge Frank G. Clement, Jr.

The Defendant was found guilty by a Davidson County jury of driving with a blood alcohol concentration of .10 percent or more (D.U.I. per se) and driving on a revoked license. In this appeal as of right, he argues that the trial court erred by admitting the results of his breathalyzer test because the admission of this evidence in a D.U.I per se case violates a defendant's confrontation rights. We hold that the trial court did not err by admitting the Defendant's breath test results. Accordingly, we affirm the Defendant's conviction.

Frank Holiday v. State of Tennessee
M1999-01010-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge L. Terry Lafferty
Trial Court Judge: Judge Seth W. Norman

The appellant/petitioner, Frank Holiday, appeals as of right from a dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief by the Davidson County Criminal Court on the basis that the petition was barred by the statute of limitations. The petitioner, pro se, presents one appellate issue: Did the trial court err in failing to appoint counsel and conduct an evidentiary hearing in this matter, in view of the egregious failure of counsel to protect the petitioner's right to an appeal, and if not, is the petitioner entitled to a delayed appeal?

State of Tennessee v. Franklin Howard
W1997-00047-SC-R11-CD
Authoring Judge: Justice William M. Barker
Trial Court Judge: Judge Joseph B. Dailey

This is an appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County which convicted the defendant of premeditated first degree murder, especially aggravated robbery and conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery. The defendant filed a motion for a new trial and argued that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction for premeditated murder. The court overruled the motion, and the defendant appealed. The Court of Criminal Appeals concluded that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a finding that the defendant was the principal actor in causing the death of the victim. Nevertheless, the court found that his conviction could be sustained under a theory of criminal responsibility for premeditated murder because premeditated murder was a natural and probable consequence of aggravated robbery under the facts of the case. We then granted the defendant's application for permission to appeal. We hold that the natural and probable consequences rule can be used to sustain a defendant's conviction for first-degree premeditated murder based upon criminal responsibility for the conduct of a co-defendant. The jury, however, must be instructed on all elements of a charge of criminal responsibility, including the natural and probable consequences rule. Because the jury was not instructed on the natural and probable consequences rule, the defendant's conviction for first degree premeditated murder is reversed, and this case is remanded to the trial court for a new trial.

Richard Norman Redman. v. Donna Kay Redman
E1999-02588-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Judge D. Kelly Thomas, Jr.

A divorce decree was filed in 1993 with the marital assets being divided by agreement of these parties. The decree awarded Husband’s military retirement benefits to Wife “as a division of marital property.” The decree also provided that inasmuch as Wife was to receive that pension, she should be responsible for the support of the parties’ two minor children. In 1999, after the children reached majority, Husband filed this “Petition to Discontinue Child Support and Modify Final Judgment by Restoring Retirement Benefits.” The Trial Court held that the divorce decree ordered Husband to pay Wife his military pension as a division of marital property, not child support, and therefore declined to modify the original decree. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court.
 

Richard Norman Redman v. Donna Kay Redman - Concurring
E1999-02588-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge D. Kelly Thomas, Jr.

I agree with the majority’s conclusion that there is no basis for invalidating the 1993 award to Wife of Husband’s Air Force retirement -- an award made by the trial court “as a division of marital property.” As a part of an unappealed-from final judgment, the trial court’s division-ofproperty award is not subject to challenge in this proceeding, see Vanatta v. Vanatta, 701 S.W.2d 824, 827 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1985), in the absence of a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02 basis for relief, and I find no such basis in the meager record before us.

Ingram Industries, Inc. v. Carless Dyke Keller
E1999-00703-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Lafferty, Sr. J.
Trial Court Judge: Telford E. Forgety, Jr., 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 trial court awarded the plaintiff 24 percent vocational disability to the body as a whole. The defendant contends that the preponderance of the evidence does not support thetrial court's award. We affirm.

State vs. Nichols
M1997-00260-SC-R11-CD
Authoring Judge: Justice Adolpho A. Birch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Thomas H. Shriver

State vs. Jeffrey L. Hammons
M1999-00756-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: J. O. Bond

State vs. Jayson Soriano
M1999-00999-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: Seth W. Norman

State vs. Glenn A. Saddler
M1999-00934-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge John Everett Williams
Trial Court Judge: James O. Bond

State vs. DeJuan Jacques Scott
M1999-01672-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: Cheryl A. Blackburn

Durroccus D. Harris vs. State
M1999-02171-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Gary R Wade
Trial Court Judge: James K. Clayton, Jr.

State of Tennessee v. Christopher D. Thacker
M1999-01426-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Gary R Wade
Trial Court Judge: J. Curtis Smith