State of Tennessee v. Howard Duty, Jr.
E2002-01772-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge J. Curwood Witt, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge R. Jerry Beck

Convicted by a jury of assault and aggravated stalking, the defendant, Howard Duty, Jr., appeals. In addition to claiming that his convictions are not supported by sufficient evidence, he claims it was error for the trial court to enhance a charge of misdemeanor stalking to the felony of felony stalking. The lower court imposed the felony stalking conviction based upon a previous conviction of stalking that was adjudicated after the commission of the offense in the present case. Based upon our review, we conclude that sufficient evidence supports the stalking conviction; however, the aggravation of the stalking offense to a felony was improper. Thus, the lower court's actions are reversed in part and affirmed in part.

Clement Bernard vs. Sumner Regional Health System
M2002-02962-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Tom E. Gray
This case was dismissed by the trial court on summary judgment for res judicata. Plaintiff had previously filed an action against the same defendant for actions of defendant surrounding a sexual harassment allegation. The previous action was for procurement of breach of contract and defamation. A final judgment has been rendered in that case. The current action is for failure to follow internal procedures resulting in breach of contract. The issue to be decided on appeal is whether these two cases involve the same "cause of action" necessary for a finding of res judicata. We find that they do involve the same "cause of action" and affirm the trial court's decision.

Erik Maasikas vs. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County
M2002-02652-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle
Appellant, a former Metropolitan Nashville police officer, appeals an adverse judgment of the Chancery Court of Davidson County wherein that court affirmed the decision of the Metropolitan Civil Service Commission imposing a two-day suspension for a disciplinary infraction. We affirm the trial court.

Thomas G. Hyde vs. Ishikawa Gasket America
M2002-02653-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Robert E. Corlew, III
This case involves the breach of a contract when defendant refused to pay fees to which plaintiff claims an entitlement. The trial court below found that, under the facts of the case, the contract did not apply and, therefore, refused to award plaintiff its fees. Instead, the trial court awarded plaintiff a lesser amount under the theory of quantum meruit. Plaintiff timely appealed that decision and, for the reasons stated below, this Court reverses the ruling of the lower court.

Alice Hale vs. Wayne Culpepper
M2002-01955-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: L. Craig Johnson
Following the death of a child's mother, the maternal grandmother filed a petition to establish grandparent visitation with her grandson. After a hearing where the trial court heard testimony and after an independent psychological report, the trial court awarded visitation to the grandmother. The father appeals, arguing that the evidence preponderates against the trial court's decision. Because the record contains no evidence of danger of substantial harm to the child, we reverse the decision of the trial court.

Alan Reece Cunningham vs. Sylvia Delain Cunningham
M2002-01659-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Nolan R. Goolsby
The case involves the dissolution of a marriage of seven years. The trial court granted the divorce to the wife, divided the marital property between the parties in roughly equal proportions, found that the wife was not economically disadvantaged, and declined to award her any form of alimony. The wife appeals the court's alimony decision. We find the wife is entitled to alimony because, contrary to the trial court's finding, we believe the evidence shows that she is economically disadvantaged when compared to her former spouse. We modify the judgment to award her alimony in solido.

Michael C. Adams v. State of Tennessee
E2003-00658-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Trial Court Judge: Judge R. Jerry Beck

The petitioner, Michael C. Adams, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his conviction for second degree murder and four counts of aggravated assault. He argues that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel failed to properly advise him of his right to testify and failed to properly communicate a plea offer and recommended that he proceed to trial. Following our review, we affirm the post-conviction court's denial of the petition.

State of Tennessee v. David Jennings
E2003-00633-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Trial Court Judge: Judge Phyllis H. Miller

The defendant, David Jennings, pled guilty to burglary, a Class D felony; theft over $1,000, a Class D felony; vandalism, a Class D felony; simple possession of marijuana, a Class A misdemeanor; and possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor. He was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to an effective sentence of three years, fined a total of $400, and ordered to pay restitution. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in denying alternative sentencing. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Donald P. McGuire
E2003-00384-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge J. Curwood Witt, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge R. Jerry Beck

The defendant appeals the trial court's revocation of his community corrections placement. Because the record supports the trial court's ordering the defendant to serve the balance of his original sentences, we affirm.

State of Tennessee v. Sharon J. Breeden
E2003-01237-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: Judge D. Kelly Thomas, Jr.

The defendant, Sharon J. Breeden, appeals the revocation of her probation. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Jason M. Weiskopf v. State of Tennessee
W2002-01675-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas T. Woodall
Trial Court Judge: Judge J. C. Mclin

Petitioner, Jason M. Weiskopf, was convicted of first degree premeditated murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment. This Court affirmed Petitioner’s conviction. State v. Jason M. Weiskopf, No. W2000-02308-CCA-RM-CD, 2000 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 787 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Jackson, October 11, 2000). Petitioner timely filed a petition for post-conviction relief. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied post-conviction relief. In this appeal, Petitioner raises one issue for our review: whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present evidence of Petitioner’s diminished capacity. After a careful review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Taurys K. Walls v. State of Tennessee
W2002-01330-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas T. Woodall
Trial Court Judge: Judge Arthur T. Bennett

Petitioner, Taurys K. Walls, appeals from the trial court's dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. Petitioner argues that his confession was coerced in violation of the United States and Tennessee constitutions. Additionally, petitioner argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on direct appeal. After a careful review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

State of Tennessee v. Gene Shelton Rucker Jr.
E2002-02101-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge J. Curwood Witt, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Douglas A. Meyer

A Hamilton County Grand Jury indicted the defendant, Gene Shelton Rucker, Jr., for felony murder and aggravated arson in connection with a fire that took the life of an individual who resided in the apartment structure that was burned. Following a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of the lesser-included offense of criminally negligent homicide and aggravated arson, as charged. The defendant now appeals his convictions and sentence. Specifically, the defendant argues (1) that the trial court erred by instructing the jury on criminal responsibility for the conduct of another; (2) that setting fire to personal property is a lesser-included offense of aggravated arson and should have been included in the charge to the jury; (3) that the instruction on the knowing mens rea element of aggravated arson was incorrect; (4) that the state violated the defendant's due process rights by advancing impermissibly inconsistent positions relative to the defendant and an indicted co-defendant; (5) that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; and (6) that his sentence should not have been enhanced on the basis of prior convictions that were not proven by certified copies of the underlying judgments. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the defendant's convictions and sentence.

State of Tennessee v. Grady Paul Daverson
E2003-00596-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: Judge Rebecca J. Stern

A jury convicted the defendant, Grady Paul Daverson, of driving under the influence, fourth or subsequent offense. In this appeal, the defendant argues his arrest was illegal; therefore, the trial court erred by not suppressing the evidence against him. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Govindaswamy Nagarajan vs. Sandra Scheick
M2000-02323-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle
This appeal is an outgrowth of complaints filed by a group of Tennessee State University students regarding the performance of their physics professor. After the students complained to the university, the professor filed a pro se complaint in the Chancery Court for Davidson County against the Tennessee Board of Regents, the university, four university administrators, and twenty-four students, alleging breach of contract, defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and discrimination based on age, race, and national origin. The trial court dismissed the professor's complaint in its entirety in response to motions to dismiss filed by the university defendants and a number of the student defendants. The professor then filed serial "motion[s] to vacate the order of dismissal for just cause." The trial court denied the first motion and, treating the second motion as a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02(2) motion, also denied the second. On this appeal, the professor seeks to raise twelve issues regarding the merits of his claim. However, the only matter properly before us is the denial of his second "motion to vacate the order of dismissal for just cause." We have determined that the trial court properly denied this motion. We have also determined that this appeal is frivolous.

State vs. Clarence W. Carter
M2000-02230-SC-R11-CD
Authoring Judge: Justice William M. Barker
Trial Court Judge: Judge Steve R. Dozier

The defendant, Clarence W. Carter, was tried and convicted of conspiracy to sell cocaine and possession of cocaine with intent to manufacture, deliver or sell, and the defendant was sentenced as a Range Two multiple offender to consecutive sentences of thirty-six and sixteen years. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed both the convictions and sentences. Although there are several issues in this case, we granted permission to appeal primarily to determine whether the trial court committed reversible error in sentencing the defendant as a Range Two multiple offender when the only notice of intent to seek enhanced punishment filed by the State was in relation to an indictment that was superseded by the indictment upon which the defendant was tried. Additionally, the defendant argues on appeal that the indictment for possession with intent to deliver was insufficient to charge anything more than simple possession because it failed to contain the language that the defendant possessed the cocaine "with intent to deliver." Upon review, we conclude that the notice of intent to seek enhanced sentencing was sufficient as to the possession charge, but was not sufficient as to the conspiracy charge because conspiracy was not charged in the original indictment for which notice was given. We also hold that the indictment was sufficient to charge the offense of possession with intent to deliver. Finally, we hold that the defendant's remaining arguments regarding the sufficiency of the evidence and length of sentence are without merit. The case is therefore remanded to the trial court for re-sentencing on the conviction for conspiracy to sell cocaine.

Betty Frazier v. Saturn Corporation
M2002-01564-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Sp. J.
Trial Court Judge: Robert L. Holloway, Judge
In this appeal, the employee insists the trial court erred in determining the date of her injury for the purpose of determining her average weekly wage and that the evidence preponderates against the trial court's findings as to the extent of her permanent disability. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the judgment should be modified with respect to the worker's compensation rate.

Lewis Langley vs. Sarah Langley
M2002-02278-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Sr. Judge William H. Inman
Trial Court Judge: Marietta M. Shipley
Husband's proposed division of marital assets was adopted by the trial court. Wife received more than one-half of the assets, amounting to one and one-quarter million dollars, mostly liquid. Husband was nevertheless ordered to pay substantial alimony, both in solido and in futuro, together with attorney fees and certain expenses, including the maintenance of a three-quarter million dollar policy of life insurance with Wife as beneficiary. The alimony in solido award is affirmed, and the remaining awards are vacated.

Stanley Gunter vs. Labcorp, et al
M2002-00600-SC-R11-CV
Authoring Judge: Justice Adolpho A. Birch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Thomas W. Brothers

We granted permission to appeal to determine the applicable statute of limitations in this action against a laboratory that analyzes blood for purposes of providing evidence in paternity cases. The trial court ruled that the case was "governed by the applicable one year statute of limitations" in Tennessee Code Annotated sections 28-3-104 and 29-26-116, which refer to injuries to the person and medical malpractice claims, and dismissed the action because the suit was filed outside the one-year limitation. The intermediate court applied the three-year statute of limitations applicable to suits for recovery of monetary damages for injuries to personal property and, thereby, reversed the trial court's ruling. We conclude that this action sounds in negligence rather than medical malpractice. Further, we conclude that the economic loss sustained by the plaintiff is an injury to property rather than to the person. Thus, we hold that the three-year statute of limitations for injury to personal property applies. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Kenneth Robert Daniels v. Howard Carlton, Warden
E2003-01063-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: Judge Lynn W. Brown

The petitioner, Kenneth Robert Daniels, appeals as of right the Johnson County Circuit Court's dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief. In this pro se appeal, the petitioner contends that he should be granted habeas corpus relief because his judgment of conviction for especially aggravated robbery is void. The state contends that the trial court properly dismissed the petition for failure to state a claim. We affirm the trial court's dismissal of the petition.

State of Tennessee v. James Hewlett Smith
W2003-00915-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: Judge C. Creed McGinley

The Defendant, James Hewlett Smith, was convicted at a bench trial of DUI. In this direct appeal, the Defendant challenges the legality of his arrest and the sufficiency of the evidence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Joy Nelson
W2003-00798-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: Judge L. Terry Lafferty

The Defendant, Joy Nelson, appeals from the trial court’s denial of her motion to correct an illegal sentence. The Defendant pled guilty to second degree murder, a Class A felony. She was classified as a Range I offender. She agreed to a sentence of forty years, which is outside the range of a Range I offender, Class A felony. We find that the sentence is proper because the Defendant knowingly and voluntarily agreed to it.

Ricky Lynn Frazier v. State of Tennessee
W2003-01380-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Gary R Wade
Trial Court Judge: Judge Roy B. Morgan, Jr.

The petitioner, Ricky Lynn Frazier, appeals the trial court's dismissal of his post-conviction petition. In this appeal, he argues that the Department of Correction has failed to properly apply the jail credits he earned prior to the entry of his guilty plea. Because the proper avenue for review of the application of sentence reduction credits is the Administrative Procedures Act, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Michael Pittman v. State of Tennessee
W2002-02752-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: Judge James C. Beasley, Jr.

The petitioner, Michael Pittman, appeals the denial of his post-conviction relief petition after his conviction for aggravated robbery. On appeal, the petitioner contends he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

State of Tennessee v. James Curtis Westbrook
W2003-00163-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: Judge Clayburn L. Peeples

A Gibson County jury convicted the defendant, James Curtis Westbrook, of possession of .5 grams or more of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver. The trial court sentenced him to twelve years as a Range II multiple offender to be served consecutively to a prior sentence. On appeal, the defendant contends: (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to require the state to reveal the identity of its confidential informant; (2) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction; (3) the trial court erred in permitting law enforcement officers to testify regarding footprint comparisons; (4) the trial court erred in permitting the state to treat a witness as a hostile witness; and (5) his sentence is improper. We remand for the empaneling of a jury to fix the fine. We otherwise affirm the judgment of the trial court.