State of Tennessee v. Lillie Fran Ferguson
W2002-00638-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge John Everett Williams
Trial Court Judge: Judge Roger A. Page

After entering a guilty plea, the defendant reserved certified questions for review: (1) whether the Terry search was justified, and (2) whether the incriminating nature of the contraband was immediately apparent. We hold that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to justify a Terry frisk and that the object felt was not immediately apparent as contraband. We reverse and dismiss the defendant's conviction.

Stella Keltner vs. Open Lake Sporting Club
W2002-00449-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Jon Kerry Blackwood
This is a dispute over ownership of the Right Hand Arm portion of Open Lake. The trial court awarded summary judgment to Open Lake Sporting Club. Having determined that there are genuine issues of material facts, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Ronald Crafton v. John Van Den Bosch, Jr.
W2002-00679-COA-R9-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Donald H. Allen

Wesley A. Clayton, Andrew v. Sellers, Jackson, For Defendants-Appellees, Joseph Scott Wadley
W2002-01994-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Donald H. Allen

State of Tennessee v. Calvin T. Barham
W2002-00246-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge John Everett Williams
Trial Court Judge: Judge Roger A. Page

Defendant pled guilty to possession of cocaine with intent to sell, a Class C felony. Defendant's motion to suppress evidence was denied by the trial court. Defendant claimed that evidence found on him was the result of an illegal search and should have been suppressed. The suppression issue was certified for review. We affirm the trial court and hold the evidence was properly admissible.

Hal Gerber v. Virginia Starr Segal
CH-00-0893-2
Trial Court Judge: Floyd Peete, Jr.

Hal Gerber v. Virginia Starr Segal
CH-00-0893-2
Trial Court Judge: Floyd Peete, Jr.

State of Tennessee v. Michael Douglas Willis
E2002-00769-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: Judge E. Shayne Sexton

The defendant, Michael Douglas Willis, was charged with DUI, violating the open container law, and violating the implied consent law. A jury convicted the defendant of violating the implied consent law but acquitted him of the other charges. The trial court subsequently overturned the jury's guilty verdict but nevertheless revoked the defendant's license for one year for violating the implied consent law. The defendant now appeals the trial court's revocation of his license. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Milton Lee Cooper v. State of Tennessee
E2001-01527-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: Judge Stephen M. Bevil

A Hamilton County jury convicted the petitioner of first degree felony murder and conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery. The petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder conviction and to eight years incarceration for the conspiracy conviction. This court affirmed the convictions, and the Tennessee Supreme Court denied permission to appeal. The petitioner then filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on direct appeal. Specifically, the petitioner alleged that counsel: (1) failed to request an alibi instruction at trial; (2) failed to raise the alibi instruction issue on direct appeal; and (3) failed to challenge an erroneous accomplice instruction at trial and on appeal. Also, the petitioner alleged that the trial court: (1) failed to instruct the jury on the defense of alibi, thus violating the petitioner's due process rights and his right to a jury trial; and (2) failed to instruct the jury on "the natural and probable consequences rule." Following a hearing, the post-conviction court denied the petition for post-conviction relief, and this appeal ensued. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Alma Haney v. Mabry Health Care, Inc.
M2001-02533-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Sp. J.
Trial Court Judge: Clara Byrd, Judge
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 award of permanent partial disability benefits based on 8 percent to the left leg. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the judgment should be affirmed. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e) (21 Supp.) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed. JOE C. LOSER, JR., SP. J., in which ADOLPHO A. BIRCH, JR., J., and TOM E. GRAY, SP. J., joined. Kirk L. Clements, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Mabry Health Care, Inc. William E. Halfacre, Cookeville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Alma Haney MEMORANDUM OPINION The employee or claimant, Alma Haney, commenced this civil action to recover workers' compensation benefits for injuries arising out of and in the course of her employment with the employer, Mabry Health Care, Inc. Specifically, the employee alleged that on or about November 18, 1998, she suffered injuries to her left leg, including reflex sympathetic dystrophy (RSD). After a trial on the merits, the trial court awarded the claimant, among other things, permanent partial disability benefits based on 8 percent to the left leg. The employer 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). The reviewing court is required to conduct an independent examination of the record to determine where the preponderance of the evidence lies.

Glenn Elizabeth Tefft v. Weakley County Ambulance
M2001-02270-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Sp. J.
Trial Court Judge: Allen W. Wallace, Judge
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 insists (1) the evidence preponderates against the trial judge's finding that the plaintiff sustained a back injury on September 13, 1999 from lifting a patient where the evidence shows the plaintiff never lifted a patient, (2) the evidence preponderates against the trial judge's finding that the plaintiff gave proper notice as required by Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-21 where, without a reasonable excuse for delay, plaintiff began treatment but did not inform defendant that plaintiff's alleged injury was work related until a month and fourteen days later, (3) the trial judge erred in admitting the plaintiff's entire deposition into evidence, over the objection of the defendant, when the plaintiff offered the same after excerpts of the deposition were properly offered by defendant pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 32.1, and (4) the trial judge erred in awarding the plaintiff medical expenses paid by the plaintiff's health insurance, a nonparty. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the judgment should be affirmed. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e) (21 Supp.) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed JOE C. LOSER, JR., SP. J., in which JANICE M. HOLDER, J., and JAMES L. WEATHERFORD, SR. J., joined. Sean Antone Hunt, Spicer, Flynn & Rudstrom, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellant, Weakley County Ambulance Service Charles L. Hicks, Camden, Tennessee, for the appellee, Glenn Elizabeth Tefft MEMORANDUM OPINION The employee or claimant, Ms. Tefft, initiated this civil action to recover workers' compensation benefits, as provided by Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-11 et seq, for injuries allegedly suffered in a work related accident on September 13, 1999. Following a trial on August 9, 21, the trial court awarded to her, among other things, permanent partial disability benefits based on 35 percent to the body as a whole. The employer, Weakley County Ambulance Service, has appealed. For injuries occurring on or after July 1, 1985, 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) (21 Supp.). The reviewing court is required to conduct an independent examination of the record to determine where the preponderance of the evidence lies.

Chester Gray Thompson v. Nashville Electric Service
M2001-02306-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Sp. J.
Trial Court Judge: John H. Gasaway, III, Judge
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 insists (1) the award of permanent partial disability benefits based on 37.5 percent to the body as a whole is excessive, (2) the trial court erred in finding that the employee suffered a back injury "in the scope and course of the employment," and (3) the trial court erred in commuting the award to a lump sum. The employee questions the admissibility of the treating physician's records because the records were neither admitted through a medical records custodian nor the deposition of the treating physician, and no C-32 form was submitted. As discussed below, the panel has concluded that any error in the admission of the medical records was harmless. We therefore affirm the judgment. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e) (21 Supp.) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed JOE C. LOSER, JR., SP. J., in which JANICE M. HOLDER, J., and JAMES L. WEATHERFORD, SR. J., joined. Mark A. Baugh and Eugene Ward, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Nashville Electric Service E. Guy Holliman and William Joseph Butler, Lafayette, Tennessee, for the appellee, Chester Thompson MEMORANDUM OPINION The employee or claimant, Mr. Thompson, initiated this civil action to recover workers' compensation benefits for injuries to his back and ankle allegedly resulting from a fall during a training exercise authorized by the employer, Nashville Electric Service. The trial court awarded permanent partial disability benefits based on 37.5 percent to the body as a whole and 5 percent to his ankle.1 Both parties have 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) (21 Supp.). The reviewing court is required to conduct an independent examination of the record to determine where the preponderance of the evidence lies.

Royal & Sunalliance v. Barbara Cooper
M2001-01580-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Sp. J.
Trial Court Judge: Robert Corlew, III, 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's insurer questions the trial court's finding that the employee's injury is causally related to her employment; and the employee questions the sufficiency of the award. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the judgment should be affirmed. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e) (21 Supp.) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed. JOE C. LOSER, JR., SP. J., in which ADOLPHO A. BIRCH, JR., J., and TOM E. GRAY, SP. J., joined. Diana C. Benson and Larry G. Trail, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, for the appellant, Royal and SunAlliance Keith Jordan, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Barbara Cooper MEMORANDUM OPINION The appellant initiated this civil action seeking a declaration of its rights and liabilities relative to the appellee's claim for benefits under the Workers' Compensation Law. By her answer and counterclaim, the employee or claimant, Barbara Cooper, demanded medical and permanent disability benefits for an injury allegedly arising out of and in the course of her employment by Nissan North America, Inc. After a trial on the merits, the trial court awarded lifetime medical benefits and permanent disability benefits based on 13 percent to the left leg. Both parties have 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). The reviewing court is required to conduct an independent examination of the record to determine where the preponderance of the evidence lies.

State of Tennessee v. Richard Lacardo Elliott
M2001-01990-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas T. Woodall
Trial Court Judge: Judge Michael R. Jones

Defendant, Richard Lacardo Elliott, appeals his convictions in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County for aggravated robbery and aggravated kidnapping. Defendant argues that his conviction for aggravated kidnapping may not stand pursuant to the Tennessee Supreme Court’s holding in State v. Anthony, 817 S.W.2d 299 (Tenn. 1991). He further contends that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support his convictions, and that the trial court should have granted a motion for mistrial based upon the State’s improper comments during closing argument. We disagree, and affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Hillsboro Plaza v. H.T. Pope Enterprises
M2001-02943-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Carol L. Mccoy
This cause of action involves damages resulting from the breach of a commercial lease agreement. The trial court awarded judgment to the landlord, including forfeiture damages, prejudgment interest and attorney's fees. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

State of Tennessee v. Daniel James Cosgrove
M2001-02127-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: Judge William Charles Lee
The defendant, Daniel James Cosgrove, pled guilty in the Bedford County Circuit Court to nineteen felonies and thirty-one misdemeanors. The trial court sentenced him to an effective sentence of twenty-one years and eleven months, twenty-nine days in confinement to be served consecutively to another sentence for which his probation was revoked. The defendant appeals, claiming that the trial court failed to apply and weigh mitigating factors properly and improperly ordered consecutive sentencing. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Quawn L. Lillard
M2001-02136-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge J. Curwood Witt, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Steve R. Dozier

The defendant, Quawn L. Lillard, appeals his Davidson County Criminal Court convictions for aggravated robbery and aggravated assault. On appeal, he insists that the convicting evidence is not legally sufficient to support his convictions, and he claims that the trial court should not have admitted the identification testimony of one of the victims. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. James Corey Edmiston
M2002-00059-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: Judge W. Charles Lee

A jury convicted the Defendant, James Corey Edmiston, of attempted second degree murder, especially aggravated robbery, especially aggravated burglary, aggravated assault, vandalism and resisting arrest. The trial court merged the aggravated assault conviction into the attempted murder conviction. The court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I offender to ten years for the attempted murder; twenty-four years for the especially aggravated robbery; ten years for the especially aggravated burglary; and eleven months, twenty-nine days for each of the two misdemeanor convictions. The trial court ordered the felony sentences to run consecutively to each other, with the misdemeanor sentences to run concurrently with the attempted murder sentence, for an effective sentence of forty-four years. The Defendant now appeals, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence for the attempted second degree murder conviction, and the trial court's imposition of consecutive sentences. We affirm the trial court's judgment.

State of Tennessee v. Felix M. Leach
M2001-02258-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Trial Court Judge: Judge Timothy L. Easter

A Williamson County grand jury indicted the defendant, Felix M. Leach, for possession with intent to sell or deliver cocaine, possession of marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia. In a negotiated plea agreement dated June 19, 2001, the defendant pled guilty as a Range II, multiple offender to each of the three counts of the indictment. The plea agreement specified that the three sentences would run concurrently and that all remaining sentencing issues would be determined by the trial court following a sentencing hearing. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the defendant to ten years for possession with intent to sell or deliver cocaine, eleven months and twenty-nine days for each of the other two counts, and ordered the sentences to be served consecutively to a previous sentence that he was on probation for at the time. The defendant raises two issues on appeal: (1) whether the ten-year sentence for possession with intent to sell or deliver cocaine was excessive; and (2) whether the three sentences should be concurrent or consecutive to the sentence for which he was on probation at the time. After reviewing the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Thomas Michael Shinavar
M2002-00598-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: Judge Michael R. Jones

A Montgomery County jury convicted the defendant, Thomas Michael Shinavar, of driving under the influence (DUI), his fourth offense and a Class E felony. On appeal, the defendant presents the following issues: (1) whether the indictment charging DUI failed to satisfy constitutional and statutory requirements; and (2) whether the indictment failed to provide adequate notice to the defendant that he was charged with a felony rather than a misdemeanor. After reviewing the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Krishina Leach v. Nashville and Davidson County
M2000-01487-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Per Curiam
Trial Court Judge: Thomas W. Brothers
This is a Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act case. A tow truck owned and operated by an employee of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County was traveling northwardly on Second Avenue South when it struck and killed Jacob Leach, age three, and seriously injured his mother, Krishina Leach. Jacob and his mother were walking southwardly on the sidewalk when Jacob broke free of his mother's restraint and darted into the path of the truck. The trial judge concluded that the driver of the tow truck was negligent because he "should have seen what was there to be seen." The judgment is reversed upon a finding that a motorist is under no duty to assume that an escorted child, in the restraint of an adult, will suddenly break free and run into traffic.

State of Tennessee v. Jason Allen Mobley
W2001-02022-CCA-MR3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: Judge Julian P. Guinn

The defendant, Jason Allen Mobley, appeals as of right from the Henry County Circuit Court's revoking his eight-year probation. The defendant contends that the trial court erroneously revoked his probation without sufficient proof that he was using drugs. We affirm the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Joe L. Jones
W2002-00168-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Trial Court Judge: Judge William B. Acree

The Appellant, Joe L. Jones, appeals from the sentencing decision of the Weakley County Circuit Court. After a trial by jury, Jones was convicted of casual exchange, a class A misdemeanor. Following a sentencing hearing, Jones received a split confinement sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days, with forty-five days to be served in the county jail followed by probation. The trial court also imposed a $500 fine. On appeal, Jones contends that the trial court erred in imposing a sentence of continuous confinement and that the fine was excessive. Finding no error, the judgment is affirmed.

James Killingsworth vs. Ted Russell Ford
E2002-01562-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Dale C. Workman
This is an action under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act that arises out of the sale of an SUV. James Killingsworth, and his wife, Kathy Killingsworth ("the purchasers"), sued Ted Russell Ford, Inc. ("the seller"), alleging that the seller failed to advise them about damage to the previously-unowned vehicle sold to the purchasers. At the conclusion of the trial below, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the purchasers, awarding them $2,500. The purchasers then moved for attorney's fees and discretionary costs, which the court granted, but only in the amount of $500. The purchasers appeal, arguing that the fees and expenses awarded by the trial court are unreasonably low. By way of separate issues, the seller argues that the purchasers' second reply brief should be stricken and that the trial court erred in granting any fees and costs to the purchasers. We vacate and remand.

Harper Enterprises vs. City of Bean Station
E2002-01734-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Richard R. Vance
The City of Bean Station ("the City") denied the application of the plaintiff ("the applicant") for a permit to sell beer for off-premises consumption. The applicant filed a petition for certiorari, naming the City and seeking a writ of mandamus to compel it to issue the requested permit. On cross motions for summary judgment, the trial court granted the City summary judgment. The applicant appeals. It contends that the City, "by actions and/or inaction," has caused its beer ordinance, which limits beer permits within the municipality to two, to be invalid. In the alternative, it contends that the City "has engaged in discriminatory, arbitrary and capricious application of the ordinance." We vacate the trial court's judgment and remand for further proceedings.