The Honorable Hamilton v. Gayden, Judge
01A01-9809-CV-00492
Trial Court Judge: Hamilton V. Gayden, Jr.

Leroy Smith v. Ronald Gourley
M2002-00044-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Tom E. Gray
The Chancery Court of Sumner County denied enforcement of a lease with an option to purchase. On appeal the lessee argues that the chancellor erred in refusing to allow a copy of the lease/option to be introduced into evidence after he testified that the original had been lost. We find that the chancellor refused to allow the lease/option into evidence because of a lack of trustworthy proof regarding its execution. Therefore, we affirm.

Department of Human Serv.: In the Matter of Kubra Satterfield
03A01-9810-JV-00341

Michael Phillips vs. Morrill Electric, Inc.
03A01-9901-CH-00030

Willie Jean Cherry Johnson, v. James Franklin Johnson
A01-9603-GS-00056
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Judge Robert L. Childers

Plaintiff Willie Jean Cherry Johnson (Wife) appeals the trial court's judgment denying her petition to modify a final divorce decree previously entered by the court in December 1996. We affirm the trial court's judgment based upon our conclusion that the disposition of this case is controlled by this court's decision in Gilliland v. Stanley, No 0WL180587 (Tenn . App . Apr .16 , 1997)  ( no perm. app. filed ) .

01A01-9812-CH-00652
01A01-9812-CH-00652
Trial Court Judge: Robert E. Corlew, III

01A01-9903-CH-00185
01A01-9903-CH-00185
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.

01A01-9904-CH-00209
01A01-9904-CH-00209
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle

Stephens vs. Henley's Supply & Industry
01S01-9712-CH-00277

State vs. Timothy Dewalt
W2001-00168-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Gary R Wade
Trial Court Judge: Julian P. Guinn
The defendant, Timothy Tereze Dewalt, was indicted for selling a controlled substance, a Class C felony. After his plea of guilty, the trial court imposed a standard Range I sentence of four years. In this appeal of right, the defendant contends (1) that he was denied the right to counsel and (2) that his sentence is excessive. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Ivey vs. Trans Global Gas & Oil
03S01-9804-CH-00037

State vs. Jimmy Ferguson
01C01-9809-CR-00359
Trial Court Judge: Frank G. Clement, Jr.

State vs. James E. Jackson
01C01-9809-CR-00358
Trial Court Judge: Steve R. Dozier

State vs. Richard Smith
02C01-9903-CC-00101
Trial Court Judge: Roy Morgan

State vs. Shawn R. Cotton
01C01-9805-CR-00209
Trial Court Judge: Frank G. Clement, Jr.

Brett Allen Patterson vs. State
01C01-9805-CC-00221

State vs. Eric B. Howard
01C01-9805-CR-00198

State vs. Brian Milam
01C01-9712-CC-00557
Trial Court Judge: Robert L. Jones

Mickey A. Brown v. Tennessee Department of Correction
01A01-9808-CH-00437
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Ellen Hobbs Lyle

A Tennessee prison inmate filed a Petition for a Declaratory Judgment, insisting that he was entitled to be immediately released because of the earlier expiration of a concurrent Florida sentence. The trial court dismissed the petition for failure to state a claim. We affirm.

State vs. Kenneth Lee Kendrick
03C01-9810-CR-00374
Trial Court Judge: R. Jerry Beck

Alfred Lee Mauldin v. Mark Luttrell, Warden, et al.
02A01-9902-CH-00065
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. farmer
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor D. J. Alissandratos

Alfred Lee Mauldin appeals from the order of the chancery court dismissing his petition for writ of habeas corpus on the basis that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.

Randall Allen Cantrell vs. State
01C01-9902-CR-00050
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Trial Court Judge: Judge Jane W. Wheatcraft

The appellant, Randall Allen Cantrell, appeals the order of the Sumner County Criminal Court dismissing his pro se petition for post-conviction relief. In this appeal, the appellant raises multiple issues which collectively challenge the trial court’s summary dismissal of the petition as being time-barred.

Randall Allen Cantrell vs. State of Tennessee
01C01-9902-CR-00050
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Trial Court Judge: Judge Jane W. Wheatcraft

The appellant, Randall Allen Cantrell, appeals the order of the Sumner County Criminal Court dismissing his pro se petition for post-conviction relief. In this appeal, the appellant raises multiple issues which collectively challenge the trial court’s summary dismissal of the petition as being time-barred.

State of Tennessee vs. Betty W. Norman
01C01-9805-CC-00230
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry L. Smith
Trial Court Judge: Judge Charles Lee

The appellant, Betty W . Norman, was convicted by a Moore County jury of two (2) counts of reckless endangerment, a Class E felony, and one (1) count of harassment, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced the appellant as a Range I offender to consecutive terms of one (1) year and three (3) months and one (1) year and two (2) months for the reckless endangerment convictions. The appellant received a concurrent sentence of six (6) months for her conviction for harassment. The trial court ordered tha t the appellant serve her sentences in confinement. On appeal, the appellant presents the following issues for our
review:

(1) whether the trial court erred in limiting the appellant’s crossexamination of a state w itness reg arding the trajectory of a bullet and by subsequently instructing the jury to disregard the witness’ testimon y regardin g the trajec tory of the bullet;
(2) whether the trial court erred in failing to allow the appellant to question the victims, Robert and Loretta Norman, regarding anydomestic problems between them;
(3) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the a ppellant’s convictions beyond a reasonable doubt;
(4) whether the trial court imposed excessive sentences;
(5) whether the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences; and
(6) whether the trial court erred in denying probation.

After a thorough review of the record before this Court, we conclude that theappellant was erroneously convicted of two (2) co unts of reckless endangerment arising out of the same course of conduct. Therefore, the appellant’s conviction for reckless endangerment in Count One is merged with her conviction for reckless endangerment in Count Two. In all other respects, however, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

C.L. Randolph v. Virginia Henley Randolph
03S01-9510-CV-00119
Authoring Judge: Justice E. Riley Anderson
Trial Court Judge: Special Judge M. Drew Robinson

We granted this appeal to clarify the statutory standard by which the validity of antenuptial agreements should be judged. The trial court in this case held the antenuptial agreement invalid, finding the wife did not “knowledgeably” sign the agreement, as required by statute1. The Court of Appeals, in a split decision, reversed, finding the totality of the circumstances established that the wife possessed sufficient knowledge of the husband’s business affairs and financial status at the time she signed the agreement to meet the statutory requirement of "knowledgeably" executing the agreement and that the agreement was therefore enforceable. We interpret the statutory requirement that an antenuptial agreement is enforceable only if entered into "knowledgeably" to mean that the spouse seeking to enforce an antenuptial agreement must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, either that a full and fair disclosure of the nature, extent and value
of his or her holdings was provided to the spouse seeking to avoid the agreement, or that disclosure was unnecessary because the spouse seeking to avoid the agreement had independent knowledge of the full nature, extent, and value of the proponent spouse’s holdings.