Tennessee Division of the United Daughters of the Confederacy, v. Vanderbilt University
M2003-02632-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.

This appeal involves a dispute stemming from a private university’s decision to change the name of one of its dormitories. An organization that donated part of the funds used to construct the dormitory filed suit in the Chancery Court for Davidson County asserting that the university’s decision to rename the dormitory breached its seventy-year-old agreement with the university and requesting declaratory and injunctive relief and damages. Both the university and the donor filed motions for summary judgment. The trial court, granting the university’s motion, determined that the university should be permitted to modify the parties’ agreement regarding the dormitory’s name because it would be “impractical and unduly burdensome” to require the university to continue to honor the agreement. The donor organization appealed. We have determined that the summary judgment must be reversed because the university has failed to demonstrate that it is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Furthermore, based on the essentially undisputed facts, we have determined that the donor is entitled to a partial summary judgment because the university has breached the conditions placed on the donor’s gift and, therefore, that the university should be required to return the present value of the gift to the donor if it insists on renaming the dormitory.
 

State of Tennessee v. Michael Lee Hogan
M2003-02830-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: Judge George C. Sexton

The Defendant, Michael Lee Hogan, pled guilty to one count of selling less than .5 grams of a schedule II controlled substance, cocaine. In accordance with the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced the Defendant to twelve years in prison, as a Range II offender at thirty-five percent. The Defendant filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, which the trial court denied. The Defendant now appeals, contending that: (1) the trial court erred when it denied his motion to withdraw his guilty plea because his guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered; and (2) his sentence is illegal. Because the trial court erroneously determined that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the Defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea and, therefore, summarily denied the motion, we reverse and remand to the trial court for further proceedings.

Chris Haire v. State of Tennessee
E2004-00827-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge James Curwood Witt, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Carroll L. Ross

The petitioner, Chris Haire, appeals the McMinn County Circuit Court's dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm.

Rearno Vaughn v. State of Tennessee
M2004-00544-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: Judge Jane W. Wheatcraft

The Petitioner, Rearno Vaughn, was convicted of one count of first degree murder, two counts of attempted first degree murder, two counts of attempted second degree murder, and one count of reckless endangerment, and the trial court sentenced him to an effective sentence of life plus twenty-two years. This Court affirmed the convictions and sentences on appeal. The Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which the post-conviction court dismissed after a hearing. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred because he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

State of Tennessee v. Timothy D. Prince
M2004-01262-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry L. Smith
Trial Court Judge: Judge Russell Heldman

The appellant, Timothy D. Prince, was indicted by the Williamson County Grand Jury for one count of possession of marijuana. Prior to trial, the appellant filed a motion to suppress the evidence. The trial court denied the motion and found the appellant guilty of possession of marijuana after a bench trial. As a result, the trial court sentenced the appellant to serve eleven (11) months and twenty-nine (29) days in the county jail. After the denial of a motion for new trial and an amended motion for new trial, the appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. On appeal, the appellant challenges: (1) the trial court's denial of the motion to suppress; (2) the sufficiency of the evidence despite the possibility of missing evidence; and (3) the sentence imposed by the trial court. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Vanessa Sircy v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County
M2004-00405-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Judge Walter C. Kurtz

This is a breach of contract action involving employment with a government municipality. In this case, the defendant municipality offered the plaintiff a job as a dispatcher at an annual salary of approximately $30,000, and the plaintiff accepted the position. Meanwhile, the defendant underwent job reclassifications and salary restructuring. On the second day of the plaintiff's employment with the defendant, she was informed that she would be paid an annual salary of approximately $24,000. After working for approximately five and one-half months for the defendant, the plaintiff resigned, citing the uncertainty regarding whether the defendant would adjust her salary, as they had suggested. Following her resignation, the plaintiff brought this action. Following a bench trial, the trial court determined that the defendant had made promises of employment at a certain salary that induced the plaintiff to resign her position at her former employment, and the defendant had breached those promises. As a result, the trial court found that the plaintiff had suffered damages in the amount of $16,500. The defendant has appealed the judgment of the trial court. Because we conclude that the trial court erroneously calculated damages, we modify the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Derrick Le'mon Goode
M2004-01368-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge John Everett Williams
Trial Court Judge: Judge Lee Russell

On appeal, the defendant challenges the revocation of his probation; specifically, he contends that the trial court erred in revoking his probation based on the new charge of possession of prohibited weapons (sawed-off shotguns) when the weapons were not entered into evidence and their length was only estimated but never measured. Upon our review, we conclude that the deputy's estimation of the length of the weapons is sufficient to support revocation. Moreover, it is uncontroverted that the defendant had an outstanding payments owed to the court, which constitutes an additional ground for revocation. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Patsy Hill Oakley v. James Spencer Oakley
W2004-00344-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Judge George H. Brown

This is a divorce case about division of marital assets, on appeal for the second time. Initially,
the trial court divided the marital assets by granting each party approximately half. The husband
appealed, arguing, inter alia, that the wife should not receive a share of his separately owned
business or a share of the appreciation in value of his separately owned securities. This Court
held that the wife was not entitled to a share of the appreciation in value of the husband’s
separately owned securities. As to the business, this Court held that the wife was entitled only to
a share of any appreciation in its value, and remanded to the lower court for a determination of
the amount of any such appreciation in the value of the business. On remand, the trial court
eliminated the wife’s award of a share of the increase in value of the securities, as ordered by
this Court, and found that there was no evidence of any increase in the value of the business. No
other changes were made to the division of marital property, with the result being that the wife’s
award, while smaller in value, was proportionally larger than the husband’s award. The husband
appealed a second time, arguing that this new division was inequitable. We affirm.
Rule 3 Appeal; Judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed
 

State of Tennessee v. Holly Lynn Perryman
M2003-03012-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Trial Court Judge: Judge W. Charles Lee

The defendant, Holly Lynn Perryman, was found guilty by a Marshall County jury of facilitation of aggravated robbery, a Class C felony, and was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to four years and six months, with nine months to be served in the county jail and the remainder on probation, the first year of which was to be in community corrections. She raises two issues on appeal: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain her conviction; and (2) whether her sentence is excessive. Following our review, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction but that her conviction for this offense, which is a crime of violence, makes her ineligible for community corrections. Accordingly, we vacate her sentence and remand for resentencing.

Donald Moore v. Tennessee Board of Probation and Parole
M2003-03110-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Carol L. McCoy

Following a hearing in October of 2000, three out of seven members of the Board of Paroles voted to parole a prisoner who was serving a life sentence for murder. Because of a 1997 statute that requires four members of the Board to concur on the parole of prisoners convicted of certain grave offenses, parole was denied. The prisoner did not seek review of that decision. Parole was again denied after a March 2003 hearing, with only two Board members voting for parole. The prisoner filed a petition for common law writ of certiorari, contending that the Board's refusal to release him after the 2000 Board vote violated the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto enactments. He argued that he was entitled to the benefit of an earlier statute which allowed prisoners to be paroled, regardless of offense, if they could obtain the positive votes of three members of the Board. The trial court dismissed the petition, holding that it was untimely, and that in any case, the application of the 1997 statute did not implicate any ex post facto concerns. We affirm the trial court.

James Allen Bowers v. State of Tennessee
E2004-01734-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Gary R. Wade
Trial Court Judge: Judge Thomas W. Graham

The petitioner, James Allen Bowers, appeals the post-conviction court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. In this appeal, the petitioner alleges (1) that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal; (2) that the state failed to disclose evidence favorable to his defense in violation of the requirements of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); and (3) that the post-conviction court erred by refusing to allow expert testimony on the issue of the performance of his trial and appellate counsel. The judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed.

State of Tennessee v. Neil M. Friedman
E2004-01198-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: Judge Phyllis H. Miller

The appellant, Neil M. Friedman, pled guilty to misdemeanor assault and was sentenced to eleven months and twenty-nine days to be served on probation. While serving his sentence, the appellant pled guilty in the Sullivan County Criminal Court to aggravated assault and violating his probation. For the aggravated assault conviction, the trial court sentenced him to three years and granted his request for full probation. The trial court also revoked his misdemeanor probationary sentence and ordered him to serve his original sentence as ninety days in jail and the remainder on probation. Subsequently, a probation violation warrant was filed, and the trial court revoked probation and ordered the appellant to serve both sentences in confinement. On appeal, the appellant argues that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to revoke his misdemeanor probationary sentence because the sentence expired before the revocation warrant was issued. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court but remand for entry of a corrected judgment as to the aggravated assault.

State of Tennessee v. Rose Mary Adams
W2004-01650-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge J. C. McLin
Trial Court Judge: Judge William B. Acree

After the trial court denied her motion to suppress, the defendant, Rose Mary Adams, entered a best interest guilty plea to possession with intent to deliver a Schedule II controlled substance, methamphetamine, a Class C felony, and to possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor. After conducting a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the defendant to four years in the Community Correction program after four months of service in the county jail and fined the defendant $2,000 for the possession with intent to sell conviction. For the possession of drug paraphernalia conviction, the defendant received a concurrent sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days with all but four months suspended. The defendant now appeals a certified question of law challenging the trial court’s denial of her motion to suppress the evidence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Brad Everett Jones v. State of Tennessee
W2004-02674-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Trial Court Judge: Judge Joseph H. Walker, III

The petitioner appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for felony evading arrest, possession of a Schedule VI controlled substance, and driving on a revoked license, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in finding that his guilty pleas were knowing and voluntary and that he received the effective assistance of trial counsel. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition.

Robert Warner v. Barney Potts d/b/a Potts Roofing and Realm National Insurance Company
M2003-02494-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Senior Judge Jerry Scott
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Robert E. Corlew

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated § 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In determining whether the appellant was an employee or an independent contractor, the trial court evaluated the factors listed in Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(10) distinguishing between employees and independent contractors and considered the evidence to be inconclusive. The trial court based its determination of independent contractor status on a Form I-18, Election of Non-Coverage by Sub-Contractor, filed by the appellate almost two years prior to the accident. The appellant contends that the trial court erred by determining he was an independent contractor. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse the holding of the trial court and remand for a determination of degree of disability.

Margie Pillers v. Josten's Printing & Publishing and Travelers Insurance Company
M2003-02919-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Senior Judge Jerry Scott
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Carol Ann Catalano

This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated § 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this appeal, the injured employee insists the award of twenty-five percent vocational disability to the body as a whole, based on a ten percent permanent medical impairment rating offered by the treating physician, is inadequate.  The employee contends that the trial court erred in setting the impairment rating at ten percent and that the evidence preponderates for a finding of twenty-five percent medical impairment rating, subject to a multiplier of two and one-half. We hold that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court's findings as to the extent of anatomical and vocational disability. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Wanda Ely v. Deroyal Industries, Inc., and Dina Tobin, Director of the Division of Workers' Compensation, Tennessee Department of Labor, Second Injury Fund
E2004-00865-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Special Judge Howell N. Peoples
Trial Court Judge: Judge John D. McAfee

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated § 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law.  The trial court found the employee failed to prove her claims of occupational disease or aggravation of pre-existing condition. We affirm.

State of Tennessee v. Lyle Van Ulzen and Billy J. Coffelt
M2003-02066-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge John Everett Williams
Trial Court Judge: Judge J. Randall Wyatt, Jr.

The defendants, inmates at Riverbend Penitentiary, successfully temporarily escaped from custody while being transported to a court appearance. At trial, Defendant Van Ulzen was convicted of two counts of aggravated robbery (Class B felony), two counts of aggravated assault (Class C felony), four counts of false imprisonment (misdemeanor), one count of theft (misdemeanor), and pled guilty to one count of felony escape (Class E felony). Defendant Coffelt was convicted of one count of aggravated assault (Class C felony), three counts of theft (misdemeanor), four counts of false imprisonment (misdemeanor), and one count of felony escape (Class E felony). On appeal, Defendant Van Ulzen appeals his convictions and sentence. Defendant Coffelt appeals aspects of his convictions. Upon review of Defendant Van Ulzen's appeal, we reverse and dismiss one count of aggravated assault as violative of double jeopardy. All other convictions and judgments as to both defendants are affirmed. We remand for correction of judgments as to Defendant Coffelt.

Dorothy Tucker v. Sierra Builders, et al. - Dissenting
M2003-02372-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel Pickens Franks
Trial Court Judge: Judge Clara W. Byrd

The majority’s analysis of the Consumer Protection Act is just excellent, however, I respectfully disagree with the majority’s opinion that All American did not violate the Act in its representations made to this plaintiff. I agree with the majority’s detailed history of the TCPA and that it is much broader in scope than common-law fraud, that it must be construed liberally to protect consumers, and that the plaintiff must prove an “unfair” or “deceptive” act by the defendant. I also agree that “the essence of deception is misleading consumers by a merchant’s statements, silence, or actions.” I disagree with the majority’s conclusion, however, that All American did not act deceptively in its dealings with Ms. Tucker, and I believe that the majority opinion overlooks certain key facts in this regard. The majority neither accords the Trial Court the presumption of correctness in its fact finding as required by Rule 13(d), nor does it defer to the Trial Court on the issue of the credibility of the witnesses.¹

Dorothy Tucker v. Sierra Builders, et al.
M2003-02372-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Clara W. Byrd

This appeal involves a dispute stemming from the shoddy construction of a modular house. The property owner filed suit in the Circuit Court for Wilson County against the contractor who constructed the house and the manufacturer of the house modules. The trial court granted a default judgment against the contractor and, following a bench trial, awarded the homeowner a $49,506.94 judgment against the manufacturer. The manufacturer has appealed. We have determined that the trial court erred when it held that the manufacturer engaged in unfair or deceptive trade practices in violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act and that the manufacturer was vicariously liable for the negligence of the contractor.

State of Tennessee v. Joseph Vermeal
M2004-00046-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: Judge Larry B. Stanley, Jr.

The appellant, Joseph Vermeal, was convicted by a jury in the Warren County Circuit Court of aggravated sexual battery and was sentenced to nine years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant alleges that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, and he contends that the trial court erred in refusing to permit his expert witness to testify. Upon our review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

William T. Terrell and Martha M. Terrell v. United Van Lines, Inc., Kwick-Way Transportation Company, and Vanliner Insurance Co.
E2004-00407-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel Pickens Franks
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Daryl R. Fansler

The Trial Court entered Judgment for plaintiffs for damages, but refused to permit plaintiffs to amend the complaint to claim defendants violated the Consumer Protection Act, and disallowed plaintiffs’ Rule 11, Tenn. R. Civ. P. Motion for Sanctions. On appeal, we affirm.

William T. Terrell and Martha M. Terrell vs. United Van Lines, Inc., Kwick-Way Transportation Company, and Vanliner Insurance Co. - Concurring
E2004-00407-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Daryl R. Fansler

I agree with the result reached by the majority. With respect to the motion to amend, I believe the trial court should have entered an order allowing the amendment; after which it could have entered its order dismissing the plaintiffs’ claim. I believe this is the better practice under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 15. However, since the trial court addressed the merits of the complaint, as if it had been amended, any error in refusing to formally allow the amendment is harmless in nature. See Tenn. R. App. P. 36 (b).

State of Tennessee v. Leon James Anderson
M2004-00965-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry L. Smith
Trial Court Judge: Judge Timothy L. Easter

The appellant, Leon James Anderson, was indicted by the Williamson County Grand Jury for driving under the influence ("DUI"), speeding, driving with a revoked license, and fourth offense DUI. The appellant was convicted by a jury on the first three counts, and waived his right to a jury for the fourth offense DUI charge. The trial court found the appellant guilty of fourth offense DUI. The appellant was sentenced by the trial court to two (2) years for the driving under the influence fourth offense, thirty days for speeding, and six months for driving on a revoked license, all to be served concurrently. After the denial of a motion for new trial, this appeal ensued. On appeal, the appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and contends his sentence is excessive. Because the evidence is sufficient to support the convictions and the sentence is not excessive, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. However, we remand the matter to the trial court for the limited purpose of correcting errors in some of the judgments.

In Re: W.B. IV
M2004-00999-COA-R3-PT
Authoring Judge: Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Judge Alfred L. Nations

In a single proceeding, the juvenile court terminated the parental rights of a mother to her three children and the parental rights of the father of one of those children, ruling that they had abandoned the children. The mother and the father filed separate appeals, which we have consolidated for decision. We reverse because the proof at trial did not rise to the level required to establish abandonment as defined by applicable statutes.