Opinions

Stephenson vs. Carlton
E1998-00202-SC-R11-CD
Authoring Judge: Justice E. Riley Anderson
Trial Court Judge: Lynn W. Brown
We granted this appeal to determine whether the appellant's sentence of life without parole for first- degree murder was an illegal sentence and, if so, whether the appellant was entitled to habeas corpus relief. The trial court dismissed the petition for habeas corpus and the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. We conclude, and the State concedes, that the sentence of life without parole was not a statutorily authorized punishment at the time the appellant committed the offense of first-degree murder and that the illegal sentence was properly challenged in a habeas corpus petition. We reverse the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

Wilson Pharmacy, Inc., vs. General Computer Corp.
E2000-00733-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Thomas J. Seeley, Jr.
The origin of this appeal is a complaint filed by Plaintiff Wilson Pharmacy, Inc., against Defendant General Computer Corporation, seeking damages for allegedly furnishing defective computer hardware and software programs pursuant to contracts entered into between the parties. The Trial Court found that the provision providing suit must be brought within one year after accrual of the action barred Wilson Pharmacy's claim. Wilson Pharmacy appeals, contending the contract they entered into was one of adhesion, rendering the contract limitation period ineffective. We affirm.

Betty L. Fox vs. Food Lion, Inc., Store #539
E1911-00015-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Harold Wimberly
Betty L. Fox sued Food Lion, Inc., Store #539, seeking damages for personal injuries sustained when she fell in an aisle of the defendant's store. The trial court approved the jury's verdict for the plaintiff and entered judgment in her favor for $112,000. The defendant appeals, raising three issues, which we restate as follows: (1) whether there is material evidence that the defendant had actual or constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition that caused the plaintiff's fall; (2) whether the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff; and (3) whether there is material evidence to support the jury's allocation of fault. We affirm.

Brenda D. Estes, et al vs. Sandra H. Peels, et al
E1999-00582-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Ben W. Hooper, II
This case arises out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred when a vehicle exited a manufacturing plant's parking lot and collided with the plaintiff's vehicle on a public highway. Brenda D. Estes and her husband sued the owner of the plant for negligence. The trial court granted the plant owner summary judgment. We hold that, under the circumstances of this case, the plant owner did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff and therefore affirm the grant of summary judgment.

State vs. Hooper
M1997-00031-SC-R11-CD
Authoring Judge: Justice William M. Barker
Trial Court Judge: Allen W. Wallace
The single issue in this appeal is whether the proof introduced at the sentencing hearing is sufficient to support a denial of probation based solely upon the need for deterrence. The Court of Criminal Appeals initially affirmed the sentence and held that proof of deterrence was not needed because drug use and possession cases are "deterrable per se." Upon the defendant's petition to rehear, however, the intermediate court reversed itself, holding that a "per se" rule of deterrence is inconsistent with the holding of this Court in State vs. Ashby, 823 S.W.2d 166 (Tenn. 1991). The State appealed to this Court. For the reasons given herein, we hold that the proof in this case is sufficient to justify denial of probation on the sole ground of deterrence. The judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals granting an alternative sentence is reversed, and the defendant's original term of incarceration is reinstated.

Marvin Catron v. State of Tennessee
W2007-02408-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Trial Court Judge: John T. Fowlkes, Jr.

American Indemnity vs. Foy Trailer
W2000-00397-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: D. J. Alissandratos
American Indemnity Company sought a declaratory judgment that its commercial general liability (CGL) policy did not cover claims made by Ms. Johnson against the Appellants in her federal court complaint and that it did not have a duty to defend Appellants in the federal action. The Chancery Court for Shelby County held that there was no coverage and no duty to defend. Appellants appealed. We affirm.

Denley Rentals vs. Howard Etheridge
W2000-00189-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: D. J. Alissandratos
This case involves the assignability of a chose in action. The plaintiffs are two related limited liability companies and the person who was the owner/manager of both. The owner/manager contracted to purchase real property from the defendants, and later assigned his interest under the contract to one of the limited liability companies. The first limited liability company closed the transaction with the defendants. After the transaction was closed, the first company discovered a landfill located on the property that had not been disclosed by the defendants. The first company then transferred the property to the second limited liability company for de minimis consideration. The owner/manager of both companies made a "mental assignment" of the chose in action from the first company to the second company, and the second company incurred the cost of clearing the landfill debris. The plaintiffs jointly sued the defendants for breach of contract, fraud, and misrepresentation. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that there was not a valid assignment of the chose in action, that the first company was precluded from recovery because it suffered no damages, and that the second company was precluded from recovery because it took the property with full knowledge of the defect. On appeal, we reverse and remand, finding that the chose in action was validly assigned.

The Pointe vs. Lake Mgmt.
W2000-00211-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Walter L. Evans
This appeal arises from a declaratory judgment action to determine rights in a privately-owned lake. Plaintiffs purchased land adjacent to the artificially-created lake for the purpose of developing residential lots. Subsequent to the sale of the property, Plaintiffs' grantor conveyed title to the lake to Defendant. Defendant claims it has the right to control use of the lake and that Plaintiffs have no right to lake access without Defendant's permission. The trial court granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment on the grounds that: (1) the lake is unnavigable, and no riparian rights can therefore flow to adjoining landowners; (2) the Defendant, as owner of the land subjacent to the lake, has a right to the unimpeded use and control of the property; and (3) any use of the lake by the adjoining property owners without Defendant's consent would constitute a trespass. Plaintiffs appeal.

Matter of Fannie Barnhill
W2000-00289-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Martha B. Brasfield
Will contestant voluntarily dismissed chancery court proceeding to contest will. Subsequently, contestant filed another notice to contest the will. The trial court, on motion, dismissed the proceeding as barred, because it had previously been dismissed, and such an action is within an exception to Tenn.R.Civ.P. 41.01 (1). Contestant has appealed.

Cunningham vs. Cunningham
W1999-02054-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Joe C. Morris
This appeal involves a divorce after seven years of marriage. The trial court granted the wife a divorce, divided the property, awarded the wife rehabilitative alimony and alimony in solido, awarded child support for the parties' minor child, established an educational trust fund, and ordered the husband to maintain life insurance for so long as he is obligated to pay child support. On appeal, husband takes issue with all of the above and also raises the constitutionality of the child support guidelines. In addition, wife takes issue with the failure of the trial court to award her litigation expenses. We have determined that the trial court's judgment should be affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.

Edward F. Curtis vs. Stephen T. Nash, et al
E1999-01135-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Dale C. Workman
This appeal arises in the Knox County Circuit Court from a grant of a motion for summary judgment. Edward F. Curtis appeals the grant of summary judgment. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court and remand for such further proceedings as may be necessary consistent with this opinion. We adjudge costs of appeal against Mr. Curtis and his surety.

E1999-01909-R3-CV
E1999-01909-R3-CV
Trial Court Judge: James B. Scott, Jr.

Jerry Wayne Terry vs. Donna Brazier Terry
E2000-00825-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Steven C. Douglas
This appeal from the Cumberland County Probate and Family Court concerns whether the Trial Court erred in making an equitable division of the marital estate of Jerry Wayne Terry, the Appellant, and Donna Brazier Terry, the Appellee. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court and remand for such further proceedings as may be necessary. We adjudge costs of appeal against Mr. Terry and his surety.

Scott Yother vs. Laine Yother
E2000-01046-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Jacqueline E. Schulten
In this post-divorce case, Elaine Hines Yother ("Mother") appeals from an order awarding primary residential custody of the parties' minor child, Avery Raechelle Yother (DOB: April 2, 1995), to the child's father, Scott Christopher Yother ("Father"). Mother argues (1) that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to modify the custodial arrangement decreed in the parties' divorce judgment; and, alternatively, (2) that the evidence preponderates against the trial court's judgment changing custody. Because we find that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to address the issue of custody, we reverse the judgment below.

Whittington-Barrett vs. Johnson
E2000-00700-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Jean A. Stanley
This is a suit between two inmates of the State of Tennessee. The Plaintiff, a transsexual, seeks a declaratory judgment "to establish the rights of the Plaintiff," and damages, attorney fees and costs against the Defendant because of sexual harassment. The cause of action alleges violation of various sections of the Constitutions of the State of Tennessee and the United States of America and of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Trial Judge dismissed the complaint because there was "no claim of state action in Plaintiff's complaint, nor is this an employer/employee situation." We affirm.

Kenneth L. Storey vs. David J. Poss
E1999-00192-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Daryl R. Fansler
Plaintiff/Appellant is an inmate at West Tennessee High Security Prison in Hennig, Tennessee, pursuant to a conviction for aggravated rape. Defendant, a Tennessee attorney, was appointed by the General Sessions Court to represent Plaintiff at a preliminary hearing on that charge. After that hearing, Plaintiff was bound over to the grand jury for trial. Plaintiff asked the Criminal Court to dismiss Defendant as his counsel and to appoint another attorney. The Criminal Court granted Plaintiff's request and appointed new counsel on April 18, 1996. On August 29, 1997, Plaintiff filed this legal malpractice action against Defendant in Chancery Court asking for damages of $730,000. Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment asserting that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the one-year statute of limitations for attorney malpractice claims bars Plaintiff's claim. The Chancellor granted Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed Plaintiff's Complaint. We affirm.

State v. Charles Ray Allen
M1999-00818-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: J. Randall Wyatt, Jr.
The Defendant was convicted by a jury of first degree premeditated murder and criminal attempt to commit voluntary manslaughter. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder, and to a consecutive four year term for the attempted manslaughter. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence; the trial court's exclusion of proof about the victim's prior violent conduct; the trial court's instruction to the jury about the penalties for first degree murder; and his sentencing. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

State vs. Anthony Roberts
M1999-00750-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: Frank G. Clement, Jr.
Defendant appeals his conviction by a Davidson County jury of DUI second offense. He raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress based upon the lack of probable cause to arrest; (2) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction; (3) whether the prosecutor committed misconduct during final argument, and (4) whether records pertaining to his prior DUI conviction were properly admitted. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Anthony Ewing vs. State
M1999-01079-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: Steve R. Dozier
On February 12, 1998, the petitioner, Anthony Ewing, entered a best interest guilty plea in the Davidson County Criminal Court to one count of attempt to sell over .5 grams of cocaine, a class C felony. The trial court imposed a sentence of six years incarceration in the Davidson County Workhouse. The trial court further ordered this sentence to be served concurrently with sentences the petitioner was already serving. The petitioner filed a post-conviction petition for relief, alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that his best interest guilty plea was not made knowingly or voluntarily. The post-conviction court denied the petition, finding that the petitioner had received effective assistance of counsel and that the best interest guilty plea had been made knowingly and voluntarily. The petitioner now appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. Pursuant to a review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

State vs. Kenneth Ray Jarman
M1999-01382-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: John H. Gasaway, III
The appellant, Kenneth Ray Jarman, pled guilty in the Montgomery County Criminal Court to one count of driving under the influence (hereinafter "DUI"), fourth offense or over, a class E felony; one count of driving on a revoked license, sixth offense, a class A misdemeanor; and one count of violating the open container law, a class C misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced the appellant to two years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction for the DUI conviction, and imposed a $3000 fine. The trial court also sentenced the appellant to eleven months and twenty-nine days incarceration in the Montgomery County Jail for the driving on a revoked license conviction, and imposed a $350 fine. The trial court further sentenced the appellant to thirty days incarceration in the Montgomery County Jail for the violation of the open container law. Additionally, the trial court ordered the appellant's sentences to be served concurrently. The appellant raises the following issues for review: (1) whether the enhancing factors applied by the trial court were inapplicable to this case; and (2) whether the trial court erred in sentencing the appellant to serve the full term of his two-year sentence in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm in part and modify the judgment of the trial court.

State vs. Jerry Belew
M1999-02143-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: Robert L. Jones
The defendant was convicted by a Maury County jury of attempted second degree murder and aggravated assault. The trial court sentenced defendant to consecutive sentences of nine years for attempted second degree murder and three years for aggravated assault. In this appeal defendant alleges that the trial court: (1) improperly limited defense counsel's closing argument; (2) improperly denied his requested jury charges; and (3) improperly sentenced him to consecutive sentences. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Antonia Regina Rose v. Emerson Motor Company
W1999-02705-SC-WCM-CV
Authoring Judge: J. Steven Stafford, Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: George R. Ellis, Chancellor
This is an appeal by the defendant/employer. The only issue presented is whether the evidence preponderates against the trial court's award of 35% permanent partial disability to each of the plaintiff's arms. We find it does not and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Ernestyne M. Webb v. Shoe City, Inc.,
W1998-00741-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: F. Lloyd Tatum, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Karen R. Williams, Judge
This case involves a back injury sustained in 1995 by Ernestyne M. Webb, an employee of Shoe City, Incorporated. The employee brought suit against the employer and its insurer, The Traveler's Insurance Company. The trial court found that the employee had sustained a herniated disk at the L-4 level of her spine and suffered a 15 percent anatomical impairment rating as a result. The court awarded benefits based upon 67.5 percent disability to the body as a whole. The court also found that the employee was not returned to work and declined to apply the two and one-half (2.5) times cap in Tennessee Code Annotated _ 50-6-241(a). The defendants have presented the following issues on appeal: (1) whether the evidence preponderates against the trial court's finding that the plaintiff was not returned to work as required by Tennessee Code Annotated _ 50-6-241(a); and (2) whether the evidence preponderates against the court's finding that the plaintiff suffered a 15 percent anatomical impairment to the body as a whole. We find that we must affirm the trial court's judgment as modified.

State vs. James D. Brazelton
M1999-02477-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: Cheryl A. Blackburn
The appellant, James D. Brazelton, was convicted by a jury in the Davidson County Criminal Court of one count of possession of marijuana, over 10 pounds but less than 70 pounds, with the intent to deliver, a class D felony. The trial court sentenced the appellant, as a Range II offender, to seven years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The appellant raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether the jury's verdict was supported by the evidence; and (2) whether the sentence imposed by the trial court was excessive. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.