State vs. Kelly A. Hancock
01C01-9804-CC-00191
Trial Court Judge: Donald P. Harris

State vs. George Redd
W2000-01620-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: Joseph B. Dailey
Following a jury trial, the defendant, George Redd, was convicted of burglary. He was sentenced as a career offender to twelve years incarceration. In this appeal as of right, the defendant asserts that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his conviction and that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offenses of burglary. We hold that the evidence was sufficient to support the defendant's conviction but that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offenses of burglary. Because we conclude that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Larry Sneed vs. State
01C01-9803-CC-00117
Trial Court Judge: Jim T. Hamilton

State vs. Donnie Sisk
01C01-9803-CC-00143
Trial Court Judge: J. Curtis Smith

Robert Belch vs. Delisa Alsup
02A01-9806-CH-00165
Trial Court Judge: Joe C. Morris

Charles Belk vs. Obion Co.
02A01-9807-CV-00189
Trial Court Judge: William B. Acree

The Realty Shop vs. RR Westminster Holding
01A01-9609-CH-00418

X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
X2010-0000-XX-X00-XX
Trial Court Judge: Floyd Peete, Jr.

Greg L. Baine vs. State
03C01-9806-CR-00201

State vs. William B. Thurbley
03C01-9709-CC-00414
Trial Court Judge: Rex Henry Ogle

Gordon Peters vs. Sharon Peters
02A01-9810-CH-00283
Trial Court Judge: Joe C. Morris

State vs. William Cox vs. A.C. Gilless
02A01-9806-CR-00154
Trial Court Judge: W. Fred Axley

State vs. Galmore
02S01-9804-CR-00033
Trial Court Judge: Joseph B. Dailey

Annette Willis Clay v. Kerry Clay
02A01-9803-CV-00059
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Judge D'Army Bailey

Annette Clay (“Wife” or “Appellant”) appeals the judgment of the trial court which granted a divorce to Annette Clay and Kerry Clay (“Husband” or “Appellee”), awarded to Husband $17,270.00 of Wife’s total retirement benefit, awarded to Wife $212.00 of Husband’s $28,460.80 workers’ compensation settlement, and failed to award any amount of Husband’s workers’ compensation settlement as child support for the parties’ children.

Quality First Staffing Services, v. Chase-Cavett Services, Inc., and Personnel Plus, Inc.
02A01-9807-CH-00205
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor C. Neal Small

James Richardson (“Richardson”) and James Taylor (“Taylor”), officers and agents 1It is not nec essary tha t the perso n who is c harged with conte mpt b e a party to the underlying proceeding. Tennessee Code Annotated §29-9-102(3) states that a court can inflict punishments for contempts of court for “the willful disobedience or resistance of an y officer of the said courts, party, juror, witness, or any other person to any lawful writ, pro cess, o rder, rule, de cree, or command of sa id courts .” (em phasis added). It is also not necessary that the proceedings out of which the contempt arose be complete. A judgment of contempt fixing punishment is a final judgment from w hich app eal will lie. Hall v . Hall, 772 S.W.2d 432, (Tenn.App. 1989 ); Rules App.Proc., Rule 3(a). 2 of Personnel Plus, Inc. (“Personnel”) appeal the ruling of the trial court holding them in contempt for failure to pay Sixty Seven Thousand Dollars ($67,000.00) owed by Personnel to Quality First Staffing Services (“Quality”) into the Registry of the Chancery Clerk.

Jimmy Sills vs. State of Tennessee and Jack Morgan, Warden
01C01-9810-CC-00434
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: Judge Timothy L. Easter

The Defendant, Jimmy Sills, appeals the trial court’s summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. In his pro se brief to this C ourt, Defendant argues that his convictions for first degree murder and for use of a firearm during commission of a felony violate double jeopardy because the use of a firearm is an essential element of first degree murder. For the same reasons this issue was previously determined to be without merit, we affirm the judgment of the trial cou rt.

James Gordon Coons, III vs. State of Tennessee
01C01-9801-CR-00014
Authoring Judge: Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: Judge Ann Lacy Johns

I concur with the majority opinion. I note, though, that the case upon which the opinion relies to conclude that the statute of limitations may not be raised for the first time on appeal was decided under the former post-conviction procedure act. I am hesitant to say that such a total bar exists under the 1995 Post-Conviction Procedure Act, given the affirmative duty of the trial court to assess the timeliness of the petition regardless of whether it is raised by the state as a defense and the apparent jurisdictional effect of the running of the statute.

John C. Tomlinson v. Tennessee Department of Correction - Concurring
01A01-9804-CH-00204
Authoring Judge: Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.

In this appeal, a state prisoner appeals the trial court’s dismissal of his action in which he contends that he is entitled to the benefit of the 1989 Sentencing Reform Act’s allegedly lesser sentences for armed robbery, aggravated rape and aggravated kidnaping rather than the sentences imposed upon him at the time of his convictions in 1983. He also contends he is entitled, as a matter of law, to certain sentence reduction credits. Finally, he contends that, taken together, the downward adjustments of his sentence on the basis of these two contentions would entitle him to immediate release from custody. We affirm the dismissal of the prisoner's petition because it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Louis Sullivan (King), v. Allison Grant King, Jr.
01A01-9803-CV-00116
Trial Court Judge: Judge Muriel Robinson

This case involves a mother's post-divorce petition to modify custody. The trial court dismissed the petition and awarded attorney fees to the father's attorney. The mother asserts that circumstances have changed such that it is now in the children's best interests to live with her. We do not find that the mother has made the requisite showing of changed circumstances, and, accordingly, we affirm the decision of the trial court.

George Weatherby Sickler, III v. Cletus Joy Sickler
01A01-9710-CV-00571
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Judge Henry D. Bell

This appeal involves the division of property and the award of alimony as between parties who were married for many years. On appeal, the appellant is challenging the trial court's characterization of certain property as marital property, the trial court's division of the marital estate, and the trial court's failure to award both periodic alimony as well as attorney fees and costs to the wife. The decision of the trial court is affirmed with regard to certain matters and reversed with regard to others.

Willie Perry, v. Robert Conley, et al.
02A01-9812-CV-00369
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Judge Joseph A. Walker

Willie Perry ("Perry" or "Appellant") appeals the judgment of the trial court granting summary judgment to Appellees Robert Conley, et al. ("Appellees").

.

Da Vi D A . Roett Ger,
03S01-9801-CV-00011
Authoring Judge: William H. Inman, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. John B. Hagler,
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 plaintiff alleged that he injured his low back while lifting on February 14, 1996 in a job-related accident. After receiving the testimony by deposition of Dr. David Hague, the trial judge found that the plaintiff's back problems were congenital and not attributable to his employment. The complaint was dismissed and the plaintiff appeals. Our review of the findings of fact made by the trial court is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of the correctness of the finding, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(2); Stone v. City of McMinnville, 896 S.W.2d 548, 55 (Tenn. 1995). The restated issue is whether the preponderance of the evidence supports the finding that the work-related accident did not accelerate or otherwise change the pre-existing spondylolisthesis. Dr. Hague testified that an MRI scan revealed a congenital grade one spondylolisthesis with bilateral pars defects which he treated with epidural blocks and a brace. He "presumed" that the disc protrusion with nerve root compression was due to the work injury, but was unable to confirm this presumption clinically. The diagnosis of spondylolisthesis was initially made in 1985 when the plaintiff was treated for injuries sustained in an automobile accident. He opined that the plaintiff had an unoperated grade one spondylolisthesis with medically documented injury andmedically documented pain and muscle spasm that would give him a seven percent impairment to the 2

In the matter of: Bianca Arneshe Askew, Dorothy Lewis v. Julie Donoho
02S01-9901-CV-00006
Authoring Judge: Justice Frank F. Drowota, III
Trial Court Judge: Judge Jon Kerry Blackwood

In this child custody case involving Bianca Arneshe Askew, now age eight years and nine months, we consider the competing claims between the child’s natural mother, Julie Donoho, and Dorothy Lewis, who presently has physical custody of the child. The lower courts found that a prior court order had granted custody to Ms. Lewis and that Ms. Donoho had failed to satisfy her burden of proving that custody should be restored to her. Because we find that Ms. Donoho’s constitutional right as a parent has been abridged, due to the absence of a showing of unfitness or of substantial harm, we reverse the decisions of the lower courts.

Marybeth Hogan v. George Lawson Yarbro
02A01-9905-CH-00119
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly Kirby Lillard
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Joe C. Morris

This is a post-divorce action. The mother filed a petition to enforce the provisions of the marital dissolution agreement. The agreement provided for payment of attorney’s fees and costs for legal action to enforce the marital dissolution agreement. The trial court denied the mother’s request for attorney’s fees and costs. We reverse and remand.

William Lee Henderson vs. State
01C01-9808-CR-00338