State vs. Timothy Bradley
01C01-9804-CC-00165

State vs. Leland Ray Reeves
01C01-9711-CR-00515
Trial Court Judge: J. O. Bond

State vs. Leland Ray Reeves
01C01-9711-CR-00515
Trial Court Judge: J. O. Bond

State vs. Michael Allen Price
01C01-9803-CC-00126

State vs. Lauren E. Leslie & Janie Whitehead
03C01-9804-CR-00125
Trial Court Judge: R. Steven Bebb

State vs. Johnny Martin
03C01-9711-CR-00520
Trial Court Judge: R. Steven Bebb

State vs. Madkins
02S01-9805-CR-00046
Trial Court Judge: W. Fred Axley

State vs. Vincent Burris
02C01-9703-CC-00087

State vs. Neal Jackson
02C01-9708-CR-00322

State vs. Russell Barnes
02C01-9805-CC-00133
Trial Court Judge: C. Creed Mcginley

State vs. Ricky Keele
02C01-9805-CC-00139

State vs. Tarrell Lowe
02C01-9812-CC-00386

State vs. Jasper Stewart
W2000-01752-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: Joseph H. Walker, III
A Tipton County jury convicted the defendant of first degree felony murder, especially aggravated robbery, and theft under $500. The trial court sentenced the defendant to concurrent sentences of life with the possibility of parole for first degree felony murder, 20 years for especially aggravated robbery, and 11 months and 29 days for theft. In this appeal, the defendant contends: (1) the trial court erroneously admitted his tape-recorded telephone calls from the jail and items seized from his residence; (2) the state failed to turn over all tape recordings of his telephone conversations pursuant to his discovery request; (3) the trial court erroneously permitted a state witness to respond to an "open-ended" question in narrative form; and (4) the trial court erroneously neglected to instruct the jury concerning the definition of specific intent. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Mack Transou v. State of Tennessee (Cherry Lindamood)
W2005-01935-CCA-R3-HC
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Trial Court Judge: Roy B. Morgan, Jr.

Mack Transou v. State of Tennessee
W2008-02713-CCA-R3-HC
Authoring Judge: Judge Camille R. McMullen
Trial Court Judge: Roy Morgan

State vs. James Moore
02C01-9511-CC-00337
Trial Court Judge: Robert W. Wedemeyer

State vs. Edward Davis
02C01-9712-CC-00480
Trial Court Judge: Jon Kerry Blackwood

State vs. Issac Williams
02C01-9802-CR-00049
Trial Court Judge: Joseph B. Dailey

State vs. Rodney Ayers
02C01-9805-CR-00149
Trial Court Judge: Carolyn Wade Blackett

State vs. Walter Gaines
02C01-9806-CC-00172

State vs. Anthony Holt
02C01-9809-CC-00272

Kimberly Diane Ramsey vs. Elmer Cole Ramsey
E1999-00577-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Ben K. Wexler
On March 4, 1999, the Plaintiff filed for a divorce. The Defendant was served on March 5, 1999. At the trial court's regular docket sounding held on March 19, 1999, the divorce hearing was set for July 20, 1999. The Defendant filed an answer on April 14, 1999. Neither counsel for the Defendant nor the Defendant appeared at the hearing. After being unable to contact the Defendant's attorney, the trial court heard the evidence and entered an order granting the Plaintiff a divorce, and custody of the child, setting child support, and dividing the marital property. Subsequently, the Defendant filed a motion to vacate the order averring he had no notice of the hearing and that Defendant's counsel had other business which kept him away from the hearing. The motion was denied by the trial court. The Defendant appealed. We affirm the decision of the trial court.

West v. Maytag
03S01-9803-CH-00026
Authoring Judge: William H. Inman, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Earl H. Henley,
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.

Herron v. Hornady Truck
03S01-9807-CH-00072
Authoring Judge: William H. Inman, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Earl Henley,
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

Kotouc v. Star Knitwear
03S01-9807-CH-00076
Authoring Judge: William H. Inman, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. How E L L N. P E Op L E S
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. Th e p la in tiff in ju re d h is le ft a rm in a n in d u s tria l a c c id e n t o n A ugus t 4, 1995. He w as t r ea t ed by N ei l H . Spi t al ny, or t hopedi c s ur geon, w ho di agnos ed t he pr obl em as a par t i al bi ceps m uscl e t ear . C on ser vat i ve t r eat m ent w as r ecom m end ed, w hi ch e s sent i al l y i nv ol ved bri ef i m m ob i l i t y o f t he arm . F urt her tre a tm e n t w as in d ic a te d bec aus e t he pl ai nt i f f cont i nued t o com pl ai n of pai n on ro ta tio n of hi s ar m . E xam i nat i ons by ot her s pec i al i s t s convi nce d D r . Spi t al ny t hat th e p la in tiff w a s s u ff e rin g f r om a c om pr es s i on of an ul nar ner ve, fo r th e c o rr e c tio n of w hi ch he per f or m ed a s ur gi ca l r el ea s e on A ugus t 27, 1996. Th e s ur gi ca l pr oce dur e w as onl y pa r t i al l y s ucc essfu l. T h e p la in tiff cont i nued t o ex peri ence p ai n ca u se d by c ont r ac t i ons of m us cl e, w i t h s om e di s com f or t at t rib u ta b l e t o a c er vi ca l pr obl em unr el at ed t o t he A ugus t 4, 1995 pr obl em . He r eached m axi m um m edi ca l i m pr ovem ent on Febr uar y 7, 1997, w i t h a m e d ica l i m p a irm e n t ratin g o f ten p e rc e n t t o h is a rm . Th e C h a n c e ll o r fo u n d th a t t h e p lain ti ff h a d a d is a b ility " w ith in th e m e a n in g of t he w or ker s ' com pens a tio n la w " o f 7 5 p e rc e n t to h is le ft a rm . T h e e m p lo y e r ap p ea l s, in s is tin g th a t th e a w a rd o f 7 .5 tim e s th e im p a irm e n t ra tin g is ex ce ssi v e and is not s uppor t ed by t he pr oof . E m pl oye r al s o com pl ai ns t hat t he C hanc el l or f ound th a t D r. S p ita ln y d id n o t c o rr e c tly in te rp re t th e A M A G u id e lin e s and r el i ed upo n hi s per sonal anal ysi s of t he G u id e lin e s . 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 2