Dept of Children's Srvcs vs R.M.M., Sr.
E2001-02678-COA-R3-JV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Carey E. Garrett

State of Tennessee v. Charles R. Deason
M2001-00315-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge John Everett Williams
Trial Court Judge: Judge Robert E. Burch

The defendant was convicted by a jury of DUI. After stipulating to two prior DUI convictions, he was sentenced for third offense DUI to eleven months and twenty-nine days, to be served in the county jail. We conclude that there is sufficient evidence to establish that the defendant was driving while intoxicated as charged in the indictment. Furthermore, the trial court permissibly ordered the defendant to serve eleven months and twenty-nine days in jail. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

State of Tennessee v. Sylvester Ford
W2000-01175-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry L. Smith
Trial Court Judge: Judge Roy Morgan

The defendant, Sylvester Ford, was tried by jury and found guilty of one count of rape of a child and one count of aggravated sexual battery. The trial court sentenced the defendant to serve twenty years as a Range I offender. The defendant filed a timely motion for new trial, which the trial court denied. The defendant now brings this appeal, alleging that he should receive a new trial because the trial court committed plain error by failing to require the state to elect which acts the jury should consider to support the defendant's indicted offenses. The defendant subsequently filed a writ of error coram nobis, and the trial court denied the defendant's petition, finding that the petition was untimely filed and did not allege information that would warrant a new trial. After reviewing the record, we find that the defendant's direct appeal claim has merit and warrants a new trial, and, therefore, we need not address the merits of the defendant's coram nobis petition.

Ronnie Bradfield vs. James Dukes
W2001-02067-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Martha B. Brasfield
Appellant is an inmate housed in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Corrections (TDOC). Appellant filed a writ of certiorari with the trial court asserting that the TDOC violated his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act and section 1983 of the U.S. Code. Appellant also claimed that the parole board refused to provide scheduled parole hearings in 1994 and 1995. The trial court dismissed the case ruling that a writ of certiorari was not proper in this case, that Appellant did not exhaust his administrative claims, and that the petition was not timely. For the reasons below, we affirm the trial court's dismissal of the case.

El Paso Pitts v. State of Tennessee
W2001-01563-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Gary R Wade
Trial Court Judge: Judge Chris B. Craft

The petitioner, El Paso Pitts, appeals the trial court's denial of post-conviction relief. In this appeal of right, the petitioner contends that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel and argues that the trial court erred by allowing his trial counsel to be present during the evidentiary hearing. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Andre Wilson v. State of Tennessee
W2001-02442-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: Judge Chris B. Craft
On November 27, 1995, the Petitioner, pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, pleaded guilty to six counts of aggravated robbery. The trial court sentenced the Petitioner to eighteen years incarceration for each count, to be served concurrently with each other and with a 1993 federal sentence of 137 months for armed bank robbery. On July 19, 2001, the Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief and/or a writ of coram nobis based on the decision of federal authorities not to award him credit for the time he served in state custody. The post-conviction court denied relief based on the statute of limitations. The Petitioner now appeals, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in denying him post-conviction relief. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Andre Wilson v. State of Tennessee - Dissenting
W2001-02442-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Trial Court Judge: Judge Chris B. Craft

I am unable to join with the majority in affirming dismissal of the petition upon grounds that it was time-barred.

State of Tennessee v. Tavarus Williams
W2000-03114-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: Judge Bernie Weinman

The Defendant was convicted in 1991 of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. After his conviction was affirmed on direct appeal, the Defendant filed a post-conviction petition, and the trial court denied relief. However, on post-conviction appeal, this Court determined that the Defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and therefore reversed the trial court's decision, vacated the Defendant's conviction, and remanded the case for a new trial. The Defendant was tried a second time in 2000 before a Shelby County jury, and on this occasion, the jury found the Defendant guilty of second degree murder. The trial court sentenced him to twenty years incarceration. The Defendant now appeals his conviction and sentence, arguing (1) that insufficient evidence was presented at trial to support his conviction, and (2) that he was improperly sentenced. We conclude that sufficient evidence supports the jury's verdict and thus affirm the Defendant's conviction. However, we conclude that the trial court erred in sentencing the Defendant and therefore we remand for re-sentencing in accordance with this opinion.

State of Tennessee v. Michael Raines
E2001-00996-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge John Everett Williams
Trial Court Judge: Judge R. Steven Bebb

The defendant was indicted for first degree murder. After a jury trial, he was convicted of the lesser-included offense of second degree murder and sentenced to twenty-two (22) years as a Range I standard offender. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support the second degree murder conviction. Although the defendant put on proof that he was acting in self-defense or that any irrational actions were the result of adequate provocation by the victim, both issues are questions for the jury and were resolved in favor of the State. The defendant failed to make an argument or cite to authority in support of his assertion that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the defendant's right to bear arms. In addition, there is no record of the defendant's request for such an instruction or the trial court's denial of such request. Therefore, the issue is waived. After a de novo review, we conclude that the trial court followed the correct sentencing procedure and applied the correct statutory enhancing and mitigating factors in sentencing the defendant to twenty-two (22) years. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

State of Tennessee v. Christopher Glenn Bell
E2001-01243-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: Judge James B. Scott, Jr.

In 1992, pursuant to a plea agreement, the Defendant pleaded guilty to possession with intent to sell a Schedule I controlled substance, received an eight-year sentence, and was granted full probation. In 1998, the trial court revoked the Defendant's probation and ordered the Defendant to serve the eight-year sentence in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The Tennessee Department of Correction subsequently placed the Defendant in the special alternative incarceration unit program, and upon the Defendant's successful completion of the boot camp program, released the Defendant on supervision. A warrant was issued on September 6, 2000, alleging that the Defendant had violated the terms of his release. The trial court revoked the Defendant's release and ordered the Defendant to serve the remainder of his sentence in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The Defendant now appeals, arguing that because more than eight calendar years had passed from the date of his original sentence on July 10, 1992 to the date of the violation of probation warrant that was filed on September 6, 2000, the original eight-year probated sentence had expired. We conclude that because the service of the Defendant's eight-year sentence began on April 3, 1998, when his probation was revoked and he was ordered to serve the sentence, the sentence had not expired, and the September 6 warrant was thus timely. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State vs. Florence Harrell
E2001-01710-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Billy Joe White
In this appeal from the Chancery Court for Union County the Petitioner/Appellant, the State of Tennessee ex rel. Thomas J. Harrell, contends that the Chancery Court erred in denying the State a judgment against the Respondent/Appellee, Florence E. Harrell, for retroactive child support and for reimbursement of AFDC benefits paid by the State on behalf of Mr. Harrell and his and Ms. Harrell's two minor children. We affirm the judgment of the Chancery Court.

Ronald E. Walker v. Sherry K. Walker
E2001-01759-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Samuel H. Payne

Effie Louise Hayes vs. Roger Strutton, et al
E2001-01765-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Jackie Schulten
Plaintiff/Appellant, Effie Louise Hayes, appeals the Hamilton County Circuit Court's judgment on the pleadings dismissing her complaint wherein she asserted that the Defendants/Appellees, Roger Strutton, Betty Strutton, Gary Lester and Mark Rothberger, defrauded her of real property. We affirm the judgment of the Circuit Court.

Dept of Children's Services vs. C.H.H. In Re: A.N.R.
E2001-02107-COA-R3-CV
Trial Court Judge: Carey E. Garrett
The State of Tennessee, Department of Children's Services ("DCS") filed a petition seeking to terminate the parental rights of C.H.H. ("Father"), the biological father of the minor child, A.N.R. ("Child"). The Trial Court granted DCS' petition to terminate Father's parental rights. Father appeals. We affirm as modified and remand.

Susan Jones vs. Steven Dorrough
E2001-02397-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Wheeler A. Rosenbalm
The origin of this appeal was a divorce proceeding between Steven Travis Dorrough and Susan Diane Jones. The question presented is the rights and responsibilities of the parties to a marital dissolution agreement incorporated in the final divorce decree as it relates to a piece of property located at 3003 Keller Bend Road in Knoxville, which had been the parties' marital residence. We affirm in part, vacate in part and remand.

Roy R. Ferguson v. State of Tennessee
2001-02158-COA-R3-CV

State of Tennessee v. Brandy McQueen
E2001-00033-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: Judge Lynn W. Brown
The appellant, Brandy McQueen, pled guilty in the Washington County Criminal Court to one count of facilitation of aggravated robbery, one count of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and one count of driving on a suspended license. The appellant received a total effective sentence of four years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant asserts that the trial court erred by denying her request to be placed in the community corrections program. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Pelilia San Juan-Torregosa, et al vs. Engracia Torregosa Garcia, et al.
E2001-02906-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Daryl R. Fansler
Patient in "chronic vegetative state" is on life support, i.e., nutrition by "percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy". The trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that patient would not want to be subjected to artificial nutrition. However, the court ruled since she had not executed a living will, the court had no authority to authorize discontinuance of the artificial nutrition. On appeal, we reverse.

State of Tennessee v. John Henry Sparrow, III
M2000-3238-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: Judge Allen W. Wallace

The Defendant, John Henry Sparrow, III, was convicted by a jury of attempted especially aggravated kidnapping, and sentenced to twelve years in the Department of Correction. In this direct appeal the Defendant raises three issues: whether the evidence is sufficient to support his conviction; whether
the trial court made an improper comment on the evidence in its instructions to the jury; and whether the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of attempted false imprisonment. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. John Henry Sparrow, III - Concurring
M2000-03238-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry L. Smith
Trial Court Judge: Judge Allen W. Wallace

For the reasons stated in my opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part in State v. Linnell Richmond, No. E2000-01499-CCA-R3-CD, 2001 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 830 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Knoxville, Oct. 15, 2001), I can only concur in the result reached by the majority in this case.

State of Tennessee v. Kevin Lane Farrar
M2001-01370-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Trial Court Judge: Judge Lee Russell
The defendant was convicted of reckless aggravated assault, a Class D felony, and sentenced as a standard, Range I offender to three years and six months in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Following the denial of his motion for a new trial, he filed a timely appeal to this court, raising three issues: (1) whether the trial court imposed an excessive sentence; (2) whether the trial court erred in allowing the State to impeach a defense witness with a prior misdemeanor conviction for failure to appear; and (3) whether the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction. Based upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. John R. Black
M2000-01286-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry L. Smith
Trial Court Judge: Judge Steve R. Dozier

A Davidson County grand jury indicted the defendant for one count of aggravated kidnapping, one count of aggravated rape, three counts of aggravated assault, and one count of assault. At the close of a jury trial, he stood convicted of aggravated kidnapping, two aggravated assaults, and one simple assault. He subsequently received a sixteen year sentence for the aggravated kidnapping; seven years each for the two aggravated assaults; and eleven months and twenty-nine days for the assault. The trial court also set count one to run consecutively to count five resulting in an effective sentence of twenty-three years.1 The case is presently before this Court following the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion for a new trial. Through this  appeal the defendant avers that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction for aggravated kidnapping; (2) the trial court erred in allowing the State to present photographic evidence to the  jury; and (3) the trial court erred by permitting the State to amend for a second time the indictment charging him with aggravated rape. After reviewing these issues, we find that none merit relief but remand the case for correction of the judgments.

State of Tennessee v. Keith A. Otey
M2000-01809-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry L. Smith
Trial Court Judge: Judge Cheryl A. Blackburn

The Defendant, Keith A. Otey, was convicted one count of driving on a revoked license and one count of possession of .5 grams or more of crack cocaine with the intent to sell or deliver. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I standard offender to ten days for the revoked license conviction and ten years and a $2,000 fine for the drug conviction. The sentences were to be served concurrently. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred in (1) denying the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized from and a statement made by the Defendant as a result of an illegal stop; (2) allowing the State to introduce evidence of a prior cocaine sale made by the Defendant; (3) allowing hearsay evidence regarding the Defendant's prior cocaine sale; and (4) ruling that a ten-year-old incident involving the Defendant giving a false name to a police officer could be used to impeach the Defendant if he chose to testify. We reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Eddie Fritz vs. Wanda Fritz
E2001-00145-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: John S. Mclellan, III
Eddie LaMartin Fritz ("Husband") filed for divorce alleging inappropriate marital conduct or, in the alternative, irreconcilable differences. Wanda Lorraine Williams Fritz ("Wife") counter-claimed seeking a divorce on the same grounds. The parties eventually agreed how to divide most of their personal property and stipulated to grounds for the divorce. Wife had opened two savings accounts into which she claims she placed funds for the college education of her two daughters from a previous marriage. The Trial Court concluded the funds in these accounts were not marital property, and Husband challenges this conclusion on appeal. Husband also challenges the Trial Court's holding that he be responsible for all of the credit card debt accumulated during the marriage. We modify the division of property, and affirm the judgment as modified.

State of Tennessee v. Christopher Lynch
E2001-00197-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge John Everett Williams
Trial Court Judge: Judge D. Kelly Thomas, Jr.

The defendant appeals the revocation of his probation. After a review of the record, we conclude that the defendant stipulated to the violation at the revocation hearing. Furthermore, the defendant had actual notice of an alleged violation based on two positive drug screens. Therefore, the court properly found a probation violation on that basis. Finally, the defendant's failure to pay court costs and restitution as ordered by the court was not due to an inability to pay but was a willful refusal to pay. As such, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking the defendant's probation. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.