In the Matter of B.E.D.
W2003-02026-COA-R3-JV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Judge Kenneth A. Turner

The biological, custodial parent of a minor child appeals the juvenile court’s award of visitation rights to the child’s adult half-sister. We find no authority granting an adult sibling visitation rights to a minor child. We accordingly vacate the juvenile court’s order.
 

State of Tennessee v. Chris Cawood
E2000-02478-SC-R11-CD
Authoring Judge: Justice Adolpho A. Birch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Buddy D. Perry

The controversy here concerns certain audio and videotapes which were introduced in a bench trial and marked as exhibits. Following this Court's rejection of the State's application for Rule 11 review, the Court of Criminal Appeals, on motion of the appellee, entered an order returning this evidence to the "permanent possession" of the appellee. The issue framed and briefed by the parties requires us to determine whether the Court of Criminal Appeals' order returning the tapes to the appellee was consistent with statutes and regulations applicable to the retention and disposal of such evidence. At the threshold, however, we are confronted by an issue neither raised nor briefed by the parties: whether the Court of Criminal Appeals had subject matter jurisdiction to hear and decide the motion in the first place. Upon consideration, we hold that the Court of Criminal Appeals was without subject matter jurisdiction to hear and decide the motion for the following reasons: 1. The Supreme Court was the last court to exercise jurisdiction (prior to the motion) in its rejection of the State's Rule 11 application; 2. The case was not remanded; and 3. The mandate had issued. Additionally, in response to the issue raised and briefed by the parties, we hold that Tennessee Code Annotated section 18-3-111 and Records Disposition Authorization (RDA) Number 1672, which control the disposition of the evidence at issue here, do not authorize the method of record disposition sought to be accomplished in the case under review. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is vacated.

Charles Crenshaw, pro se., v. State of Tennessee
W2003-01868-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Trial Court Judge: Judge W. Fred Axley

This matter is before the Court upon the State’s motion to affirm the judgment of the trial court
pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner, Charles Crenshaw,
appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion for arrest of judgment. Finding that the instant
petition is not proper as either a motion in arrest of judgment, petition for post-conviction relief,
or application for writ of habeas corpus relief, we affirm the dismissal of the trial court.

Reginald D. Hughes, pro se., v. David Mills, Warden
W2003-02486-CCA-R3-HC
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Trial Court Judge: Judge Joseph H. Walker, III

This matter is before the Court upon the State’s motion to affirm the judgment of the trial court by opinion pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner is appealing the trial court's denial of habeas corpus relief. A review of the record reveals that the Petitioner is not entitled to habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Richard Jolly v. Lynette Jolly
W2001-00159-SC-R11-CV
Authoring Judge: Justice Janice M. Holder
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Martha B. Brasfield

This appeal arises out of divorce proceedings brought in the District Court of Johnson County, Kansas, and the Chancery Court of McNairy County, Tennessee. In dividing the parties' real property, the chancery court reduced Husband's share by the amount of the child support arrearage and discovery-related sanction assessed by the Kansas court in its decree of divorce. We granted permission to appeal. We conclude that the chancery court erred in enforcing a decree that was not properly registered under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act. Therefore, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded to the chancery court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Larry E. Parrish et al. v. Robert S. Marquis et al.
E2002-01131-SC-R11-CV
Authoring Judge: Justice Janice M. Holder
Trial Court Judge: Judge Dale C. Workman

We granted this appeal to determine whether the one-year statute of limitations for filing a new action under Tennessee Code Annotated section 28-1-105(a) commenced on the date of the appellate court's judgment remanding the cause to the trial court for further proceedings or on the date of the trial court's order of dismissal following the remand. We hold that the statute of limitations commenced on the date of the trial court's order of dismissal and that the plaintiffs' re-filing of their action was therefore timely under the savings statute. Accordingly, we reverse the Court of Appeals' judgment and remand this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration of issues pretermitted by its ruling.

State of Tennessee v. Michael W. Maples
E2002-02691-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: Judge D. Kelly Thomas, Jr.

A Blount County Circuit Court jury convicted the defendant, Michael W. Maples, of two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, a Class A  felony. The trial court sentenced him to concurrent twenty-five-year sentences for the two convictions. In this appeal, the defendant claims (1) that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions and (2) that his sentences are excessive. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

In Re: UpperCumberland Development District, Conservator for Alvie Puckett, Gloria Evins v. Helen Puckett
M2002-02208-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Vernon Neal

Administrator Ad Litem for estate of deceased-grantor appeals trial court's finding that deceased grantor was competent at the time he executed a deed of real property to his daughter, and that he was not acting under undue influence at the time of execution. We affirm.

Joyce Hardaway, et al., v. Board of Education of the Hamilton County Schools
E2003-01547-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Sr. Judge William H. Inman
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor W. Frank Brown, III

The City of Chattanooga abolished its school system which was then integrated into the Hamilton County system. Two and one-half years later the Plaintiffs, who were administrators in the City system, filed this action claiming that under Tennessee law their compensation was unlawfully reduced by the Board of Education of Hamilton County. The County insisted that the Commissioner of Education of Tennessee approved the Personnel Plan proposed by the Superintendent of Education of Hamilton, as required by law, and that the Plaintiffs were paid in accordance with the Plan. Moreover, the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the City and its teachers expired concurrently with the abolition of the school system, and the Plaintiffs’ salary agreement also expired. Further, the salary of Ms. Hardaway, paid by the City, was in excess of the negotiated amount, and the duties of Ms. Settles were substantially less burdensome in her new position.
 

Craig Stephen Bourne v. State of Tennessee
E2003-00462-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: Judge R. Jerry Beck

The petitioner, Craig Stephen Bourne, appeals the Sullivan County Circuit Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for especially aggravated kidnapping, attempted second degree murder, and aggravated burglary and effective thirty-two-year sentence. The petitioner claims that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorneys (1) failed to raise the issue of double jeopardy; (2) failed to raise the issue of the trial court's interference during plea negotiations; (3) failed to raise the issue that the trial court gave the jury inaccurate instructions on release eligibility dates; (4) failed to challenge a jury instruction on a crime that was not included in the indictment in his motion for a new trial; and (5) failed, in the petitioner's motion for a new trial, to challenge the trial court's denial of trial counsel's motion to withdraw before trial. We affirm the trial court's denial of the petition.

James Howard Davis v. State of Tennessee
W2003-01403-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Trial Court Judge: Judge C. Creed McGinley

The Appellant, James Howard Davis, appeals the Benton County Circuit Court’s dismissal of his
petition for post-conviction relief. Davis pled guilty to driving under the influence (“DUI”) eighth
offense and violation of the Motor Vehicle Habitual Offenders Act. On appeal, he asserts that he
was denied the effective assistance of counsel. Finding no error, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed.

State of Tennessee v. Bill L. Williams
W2003-00785-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas T. Woodall
Trial Court Judge: Judge Bernie Weinman

Following a jury trial, Defendant, Bill L. Williams, was convicted of theft of property over $10,000 in value, a Class C felony. He was sentenced as a Range II multiple offender to serve six years in the Shelby County Workhouse. In his sole issue on appeal, Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his conviction. After a thorough review of the record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Eddie Howard Pittman v. State of Tennessee
W2002-02892-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Gary R Wade
Trial Court Judge: Judge Roger A. Page

The petitioner, Eddie Howard Pittman, appeals from a judgment denying post-conviction relief. As grounds for a new trial, the petitioner asserts that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial and that there was error in the instructions to the jury. The judgment is affirmed.

Eddie Howard Pittman v. State of Tennessee - Dissenting
W2002-02892-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: Judge Roger A. Page

Although I agree with many of the conclusions set forth in the majority opinion, I respectfully disagree with its primary conclusion that the petitioner did not establish ineffective assistance of counsel. In my view, he established deficiency and prejudice. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984).

In Re: C.LaC. and D.L.
M2003-02164-COA-R3-PT
Authoring Judge: Judge Frank Clement, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Samuel E. Benningfield, Jr.

Mother appeals the decision of the trial court which terminated her parental rights on two statutory grounds, abandonment and failure to comply with the permanency plan, and upon the finding that termination was in the best interest of the children. Mother claims the evidence was insufficient to satisfy the clear and convincing evidentiary standard necessary to prove the statutory grounds for termination and that termination was in the best interest of the children. We affirm.

In Re: C.LaC. and D.L. - Concurring
M2003-02164-COA-R3-PT
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Judge Samuel E. Benningfield, Jr.

WILLIAM B. CAIN, J., concurring. I concur in the judgment that clear and convincing evidence establishes abundant grounds for the termination of the parental rights of the mother in this case and further establishes that it is in the best interests of the children to terminate her parental rights

State of Tennessee v. John Chris Elrod
M2003-01600-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Trial Court Judge: Judge Larry B. Stanley, Jr.

The defendant, John Chris Elrod, was indicted by the Warren County Grand Jury on one count of aggravated kidnapping, a Class B felony, and one count each of assault and vandalism under $500, both Class A misdemeanors. He pled guilty to the Class A misdemeanors of false imprisonment, assault, and vandalism under $500 and was sentenced to eleven months, twenty-nine days at 75% on each count with counts one and two consecutive and count three concurrent with count one. In this appeal as of right, the defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing consecutive sentences for two misdemeanors arising from the same episode. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Peggy Bailey, et al. v. Dr. John J. Tasker
E2003-00844-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge John S. McLellan, III

Peggy Bailey and her husband, Gary Bailey, sued Dr. John J. Tasker for wrongful conduct in connection with two separate surgeries, one on April 10, 1997, and another on June 24, 1999. The trial court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding that the material filed by the parties fails to reflect a genuine issue of material fact and that the record before it demonstrates conclusively (1) that the defendant did not violate the applicable standard of care, and (2) that the plaintiffs' claims were filed outside the period of the applicable statutes of limitations and of repose. The plaintiffs appeal. We affirm.

State of Tennessee v. Sherman T. Mason, Jr.
E2003-01037-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry L. Smith
Trial Court Judge: Judge Ray L. Jenkins

The trial court revoked the probation of the appellant, Sherman T. Mason, Jr., as a result of his second probation violation warrant. Consequently, he was ordered to serve the balance of his effective twenty-year sentence. On appeal, the appellant argues that the trial court erred in revoking his probation and ordering him to serve out the remainder of his sentence in confinement. We affirm the decision of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Tammy Boyd, Tosha Lovell, Sandra Culps and Kenneth Culps
W2003-02444-CCA-R9-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge John Everett Williams
Trial Court Judge: Judge Roger A. Page

In this Rule 9 interlocutory appeal, the State appeals the circuit court’s ruling that the defendants are entitled to the underlying search warrant affidavit at the general sessions level. We conclude that the defendants are entitled to the affidavit at the preliminary hearing in order to effectively challenge probable cause. The judgments of the circuit court are affirmed.

Paul G. Summers, in his capacity as Attorney General and Reporter for The State of Tennessee v. Estate of James W. Ford., M.D.
W2003-00159-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Judge Robert S. Benham

This is an appeal from the order of the probate court on a claim filed against an estate by the Tennessee Attorney General pursuant to the authority granted by the Nonprofit Corporation Act. The probate court denied the claim in part and granted the claim in part by various rulings concerning the existence of a nonprofit public benefit corporation for operation of child daycare centers, the ownership of assets thereof, and continued operation of the centers. The estate appeals and the Attorney General appeals. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand with directions.
 

Marcina Jelks v. The Travelers Insurance Co.
W2003-00927-SC-WCM-CV
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Sp. J.
Trial Court Judge: George R. Ellis, 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. In this appeal, the employer questions the trial court's findings as to permanency and extent of vocational disability. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the evidence fails to preponderate against the findings of the trial court. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e) (22 Supp.) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed JOE C. LOSER, JR., SP. J., in which JANICE M. HOLDER, J., and JOE H. WALKER, III, SP. J., joined. Kevin J. Youngberg and Zach C. Luttrell, Allen, Kopet & Associates, Jackson, Tennessee, for the appellant, The Travelers Insurance Company David Hardee, Hardee & Martin, Jackson, Tennessee, for the appellee, Marcina Jelks MEMORANDUM OPINION The employee or claimant, Ms. Jelks, initiated this civil action to recover workers' compensation benefits for a work related injury. The Travelers Insurance Company, insurer of the employer, denied liability. After a trial on the merits, the trial court resolved the issues in favor of the claimant and awarded, inter alia, permanent partial disability benefits based on 25 percent to the body as a whole. Travelers has appealed. Appellate review is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of correctness of the findings of fact, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(2). This tribunal is not bound by the trial court's findings but instead conducts an independent examination of the record to determine where the preponderance lies. Galloway v. Memphis Drum Serv., 822 S.W.2d 584, 586 (Tenn. 1991). Where the trial judge has seen and heard the witnesses, especially if issues of credibility and weight to be given oral testimony are involved, considerable deference must be accorded those circumstances on review, because it is the trial court which had the opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor and to hear the in- court testimony. Long v. Tri-Con Ind., Ltd., 996 S.W.2d 173, 178 (Tenn. 1999). The appellate tribunal, however, is as well situated to gauge the weight, worth and significance of deposition testimony as the trial judge. Walker v. Saturn Corp., 986 S.W.2d 24, 27 (Tenn. 1998). Conclusions of law are subject to de novo review on appeal without any presumption of correctness. Nutt v. Champion Intern. Corp., 98 S.W.2d 365, 367 (Tenn. 1998). The claimant was working at a food processing plant on November 17, 1999, when she slipped and fell on a wet floor, injuring her low back, neck, right knee and right hip. She had immediate pain, which persists. She was conservatively treated by Dr. Keith Douglas Nord for a cervical and lumbo-sacral back strain. Dr. Nord recommended restricted duty, ordered a nerve conduction study and made a return appointment. The doctor continued seeing the claimant at least until January 15, 21, but testified that she had long since reached maximum medical improvement. He estimated her permanent impairment to be none for the back and neck injury, but conceded she was permanently impaired in her right knee and shoulder. On March 7, 21, Ms. Jelks visited another orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Robert Barnett, who had evaluated her following a previous injury, to be evaluated for her present injury. As part of his examination, Dr. Barnett viewed x-rays taken following the November 1999 accident, compared them with earlier x-rays and determined that there had been anatomic changes in the claimant's low back. Based on his findings, Dr. Barnett assigned an impairment rating of 5 percent to the whole person for the low back injury. The injury was superimposed on her previous injury. The appellant first contends there should be no award of permanent disability benefits because the claimant merely suffered increased pain with no anatomic change, relying solely on Dr. Nord's testimony that there was no anatomic change in the claimant's neck or low back. The argument ignores the doctor's testimony concerning the claimant's right knee and right shoulder. It ignores Dr. Barnett's testimony altogether. The trial court did not err in considering Dr. Barnett's testimony that there was an anatomic change. Moreover, the argument overlooks the long standing principle that an employer takes an employee as the employee is, with all defects and diseases, and assumes the risk of having a weakened condition aggravated by an injury which might not affect a normal person. Modern Upholstered Chair Co. v. Russell, 518 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tenn. 1974). From a fair interpretation of Dr. Barnett's testimony, the injury aggravated and worsened a pre-existing condition. The argument is without merit. The appellant next argues the trial court erred in awarding the equivalent of five times Dr. Barnett's medical impairment rating without making specific findings of fact. For injuries occurring -2-

State of Tennessee v. William Burt Smith
M2002-02988-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge John Everett Williams
Trial Court Judge: Judge Buddy D. Perry

The defendant was found guilty of one count of selling a Schedule II controlled substance, a Class C felony, and sentenced to eight years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The defendant contends on appeal that the trial court erred in not appointing another attorney and requiring the defendant to proceed pro se at the motion hearing and trial after several attorneys were allowed to withdraw. We conclude that the defendant has failed to provide this Court with a record of all relevant court dealings. Therefore, we presume that the whole record justifies the trial court's decisions. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

State of Tennessee v. William James Wheeler
M2002-02905-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Trial Court Judge: Judge Leon C. Burns, Jr.

The Appellant, William James Wheeler, appeals the sentencing decision of the White County Circuit Court. Under the terms of the plea agreement, Wheeler pled guilty to reckless homicide, a class D felony, and arson, a class C felony, and received an agreed six-year sentence. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered that the six-year sentence be served in the Department of Correction. On appeal, Wheeler argues that he should have received a non-incarcerative sentence. After review, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

State of Tennessee v. Amy Jo Blankenship
M2002-01878-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry L. Smith
Trial Court Judge: Judge John W. Rollins

The appellant, Amy Jo Blankenship, entered pleas of guilty to counts of burglary, theft, and failure to appear. After the trial court imposed sentences on each guilty plea, the appellant filed a motion to set aside the judgments claiming that she was coerced into pleading guilty. She later filed a motion to withdraw the guilty pleas under Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(f). The trial court denied both motions. This appeal follows. We affirm the decision of the trial court.