Martin R. Craddock vs. State of Tennessee
01C01-9704-CR-00161
Authoring Judge: Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: Judge J. Randall Wyatt, Jr.

The petitioner, Martin R. Craddock, appeals as of right from the Davidson County Criminal Court’s denial of habeas corpus relief. He is presently in the custody of the Department of Correction serving a Range I sentence of ten years for his conviction of aggravated sexual battery in 1995. He contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that the judgment entered against him is void because the indictment for aggravated sexual battery fails to allege the mens rea for the offense. We affirm the dismissal of the petition.

State of Tennessee vs. Michael Brent Cook
01C01-9710-CR-00495
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas T. Woodall
Trial Court Judge: Judge Jane W. Wheatcraft

The Defendant, Michael Brent Cook, appeals as of right from the revocation of his probation by the Sumner County Criminal Court. He contends that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his proba tion. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Gardner v. Modine Mfg. Co.
03S01-9710-CV-00127
Authoring Judge: Roger E. Thayer, Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. James B. Scott, Jr., Circuit Judge

This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code3 Ann. § 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law.  The employer, Modine Manufacturing Company, Inc., has appealed from the action of the trial court in awarding the employee, Jamia B. Gardner, 80% permanent partial disability to each arm.  The trial court dismissed the case against the Second Injury Fund. On appeal the employer contends (1) there was no evidence of a permanent injury to the employee’s left arm, (2) the award of 80% to each arm was excessive and (3) the trial court was in error in dismissing the case against the Second Injury Fund.  The Second Injury Fund also contends the awards of disability are not supported by the evidence but insists the court was correct in holding it was not liable for payment of benefits.

Shin Yi (Sunny) Lien and wife Ann Lien, v. Ruth Couch, Individually and Big Ridge Emu Ranch, Inc. et al.
01A01-9609-CV-00398
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Bobby H. Capers

This appeal involves an interstate contract dispute over ten pairs of emu chicks. Two Tennessee residents declined to honor their contract to purchase the chicks after the Arkansas breeders attempted to substitute chicks different from those advertised for sale. The breeders filed a breach of contract suit in Arkansas against the purchasers seeking to recover the unpaid purchase price, and the purchasers filed suit in the Circuit Court for Wilson County seeking to recover their down payment as well as treble damages and attorney’s fees under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. After the breeders obtained a judgment in Arkansas against the purchasers, they moved to dismiss the purchasers’ Tennessee lawsuit on the ground that the Arkansas judgment was res judicata to the purchasers’ Tennessee claims. The trial court agreed and dismissed the purchasers’ claims. On this appeal, the purchasers assert that the Arkansas judgment should not have precluded them from pursuing their Tennessee Consumer Protection Act claims in Tennessee. We agree because the Arkansas court did not have the power to award the full measure of relief the purchasers are seeking in the Tennessee proceedings.
 

State of Tennessee vs. Sheryl Pendergrass
01C01-9708-CR-00359
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Gary R. Wade
Trial Court Judge: Judge Jane W. Wheatcraft

The defendant, Sheryl L. Pendergrass, appeals a certified question of law pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2)(I), Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure. In the Sumner County Criminal Court, the defendant pleaded guilty to three drug offenses, subject to reservation of the certified question. In her certified question, the defendant contends that law enforcement officers infringed on her rights to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures pursuant to the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and article 1, section 7 of the Tennessee Constitution. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee vs. Michael T. Keen
01C01-9710-CR-00454
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas T. Woodall
Trial Court Judge: Judge Jane W. Wheatcraft

Michael T. Keen, the Defendant, appeals as of right following his sentencing hearing in the Sum ner County Criminal Court. Defendant was indicted for vehicular homicide and DUI, second offense. In an agreement with the State, Defendant pled guilty to vehicular homicide, a Class B felony, and agreed to an eight (8) year sentence, with the trial court to determine the manner of service of the sente nce. Following his sentencing hearing, the trial court orde red Defendant to serve eight (8) years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. In his appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court erred in refusing to grant an alterna tive sentence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

O. Robert E. Mayers v. Miller Medical Group, An Affiliate of Baptist Healthcare Group; Russell D. Ward, M.D. and Michel Kuzur, M.D.
01A01-9802-CV-00101
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Judge Marietta M. Shipley

Plaintiff, Robert E. Mayers, acting pro se in this medical malpractice action, appeals the decision of the Circuit Court of Davidson County denying his application for relief under Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure 60.02 from a final summary judgment rendered in favor of the defendants.

James Rowland Moore v. Karen Owen Moore
01A01-9708-CV-00444
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Judge Muriel Robinson

After a 1996 divorce by the Circuit Court of Davidson County the husband filed an independent damages action in the chancery court, alleging that the wife fraudulently induced him to enter into the divorce settlement. The wife filed a Rule 60.02 motion in the divorce court seeking a declaration that she was not guilty of fraud. The divorce court ruled that the chancery court was bound by the circuit court’s judgment and that the husband must pay $2500 in attorney’s fees to the wife for services in the Rule 60.02 motion. We reverse.

Permanent General Assurance Corporation, v. Gilbert Waters, et al.
01A01-9712-CV-00720
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Judge Hamilton V. Gayden, Jr.

This case involves an exclusion in an automobile liability policy for a person operating the automobile without a reasonable belief that that person is entitled to do so. The Circuit Court of Davidson County dismissed the insurance company’s action for a declaratory judgment. We reverse, and declare that the exclusion precluded coverage by the company.

Walden v. New Life Ministries
03S01-9709-CH-00115
Authoring Judge: Roger E. Thayer, Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Earl H. Henley,
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. The employer, New Life Bible Church, Inc., has perfected this appeal from a ruling of the trial court in awarding the employee, William E. W alden, a judgment in the sum of $34,187.64 representing a recovery for unpaid medical expenses in the sum of $33,193.69 and for reimbursement of travel expenses in the sum of $993.95. The trial court found plaintiff's claim compensable and fixed an award of permanent partial disability at 5% to his right arm. In addition, the court allowed certain discretionary costs and fixed attorney's fees. On appeal there is no dispute concerning the 5% award, the allowance of discretionary costs or the award of attorney's fees. The sole issue relates to that portion of the judgment awarding plaintiff a monetary judgment for medical expenses incurred but remaining unpaid at the time of the trial. Defendant employer argues the judgment should have directed it to pay the various health care providers and it was error to allow the employee to recover same without having paid the medical expenses. In support of this contention, the employer cites and relies on the holdings of the Supreme Court in the case of Staggs v. National Health Corp., 924 S.W.2d 79 (Tenn. 1996); West Insurance Company v. Montgomery, 861 S.W.2d 23 (Tenn. 1993) and a Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel decision in the case of Moody v. Phelps Security, Inc., No. 2S1-959- CV- 8, filed August 3, 1996 at Jackson, and adopted and affirmed by the Supreme Court. On appeal plaintiff does not address the issue before the court in his brief but merely concedes awarding a monetary judgment for unpaid medical expenses was not proper and the brief alleges that the appeal of the case is frivolous as counsel agreed to modify the judgment conforming it to the relief sought by the appeal and that this occurred several months prior to the filing of the brief. Defendant has made no response to this allegation. 2

Patricia Jones v. Rosewood Manor, Inc.
01S01-9710-CH-00219
Authoring Judge: Per Curiam
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Jim T. Hamilton
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with

Crossett v. Babcock Inds., Faultless Caster Div. and The Ins.Co. of Pa.
01S01-9803-CV-00045
Authoring Judge: Per Curiam
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Thomas Goodall

Miller High v. Gf Office Furniture, Ltd.
01S01-9804-CH-00068
Authoring Judge: Per Curiam
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Thomas E. Gray

Jimmy Jones, Jr. vs. State of Tennessee
01C01-9804-CR-00162
Authoring Judge: Judge L. T. Lafferty
Trial Court Judge: Judge Jane W. Wheatcraft

The appellant, Jimmy Jones, Jr., appeals the dismissal of his pro se motion to reopen post-conviction petition or in the alternative a petition for habeas corpus relief by the Sumner County Criminal Court. In December, 1987, the appellant was convicted by a Sumner County jury on two counts of armed robbery and one count of burglary. The appellant received concurrent Range II sentences of forty-five years for the armed robbery convictions and fourteen years for the burglary conviction to run consecutively. On direct appeal, the appellant alleged trial errors as to (1) the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdicts, (2) whether the trial court erred in limiting production of police reports, and (3) whether his effective sentence of fifty-nine years was excessive. In January, 1989, this court affirmed the judgment of the trial court in State v. Jimmy Jones, Jr., Sumner County No. 88-58-III (Tenn. Crim. App., Nashville, January 11, 1989) per. app. denied (Tenn. 1989).

Dennis T. Crouse v. Charlane Allen Crouse
02A01-9712-CV-00312
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Judge Kay S. Robilio

This dispute concerns an award of alimony and attorney’s fees. Appellant, Dennis T. Crouse (Husband), appeals from the trial court’s order granting alimony in futuro and attorney’s fees to Appellee, Charlane Allen Crouse (Wife).

State of Tennessee v. Lorenzo Pfeifer
02A01-9811-CC-00307
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Judge William B. Acree

This appeal involves a juvenile delinquency proceeding. Appellant, Lorenzo Carlos Pfeifer, appeals from the order of the Circuit Court in Obion County which found him a delinquent child because he was guilty of the offense of aggravated burglary and theft of property over $1,000.00. Appellant was committed to the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services for an indeterminate term. The only issue presented for review is whether the evidence is sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Pfeifer committed the offense of aggravated burglary and theft of property over $1,000.00.

Chase Cavett Services, Inc., v. Brandon Apparel Group, Inc.
02A01-9803-CH-00055
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Floyd Peete, Jr.

Plaintiff Chase Cavett Services, Inc. (Chase) appeals an order of the chancery court granting a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction filed by Defendant Brandon Apparel Group, Inc. (Brandon). Because we find that the chancery court may exercise personal jurisdiction over Brandon, we reverse the ruling of the chancellor.

Edmund George Zagorski v. State of Tennessee
01S01-9711-CC-00240
Authoring Judge: Justice William M. Barker
Trial Court Judge: Judge Jane W. Wheatcraft

We granted this post-conviction appeal to determine whether there is ineffective assistance of counsel where, at the express instruction of a competent and fully informed defendant, defense counsel does not investigate or present mitigating evidence at the sentencing phase of a capital trial. For the reasons provided herein, we hold that there is not.

Billy R. Phillips v. Tennessee Technological University, State of Tennessee
01S01-9708-BC-00173
Authoring Judge: Justice Janice M. Holder
Trial Court Judge: Commissioner W.R. Baker

We granted this appeal to address whether the State may be liable for discretionary costs pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 54.04(2) in a workers' compensation case. We hold that the State may only be taxed for costs expressly permitted by either the Tennessee claims commission statute or the Workers' Compensation Act.

Billy R. Phillips v. State of Tennessee v. Tennessee Technological University, State of Tennessee
01S01-9708-BC-00173
Authoring Judge: Justice Janice M. Holder
Trial Court Judge: Commissioner W.R. Baker

We granted this appeal to address whether the State may be liable for discretionary costs pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 54.04(2) in a workers' compensation case. We hold that the State may only be taxed for costs expressly permitted by either the Tennessee claims commission statute or the Workers' Compensation Act.

Fay Thomas Nutt v. Champion International Corporation
01S01-9705-CH-00114
Authoring Judge: Justice Janice M. Holder
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Jim T. Hamilton

We granted this appeal to determine whether an employer is entitled to an offset of long-term disability payments against a workers’ compensation award for permanent total disability. A 1996 amendment to Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-114 permits offsets against workers’ compensation benefits for payments made to an employee under an employer-funded disability plan. The plaintiff’s injury pre-dated the effective date of the statute. We hold that the amendment is not retroactive and the employer is not entitled to an offset in this case.
 

Fay Thomas Nutt v. Champion International Corporation
01S01-9705-CH-00114

This cause came on to be heard upon the record on appeal from the Special Worker’s Compensation Appeals Panel, and the briefs and argument of counsel; and upon consideration thereof, this Court is of the opinion that the 1996 amendment to Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-114 of the Workers’ Compensation Act is not retroactive and the employer is not entitled to an offset against the worker’s compensation award in this case.

Baptist Hospital, et al., v. Tennessee Department of Health and Department of Finance and Administration
01S01-9711-BC-00249
Authoring Judge: Justice Janice M. Holder
Trial Court Judge: Commissioner W. R. Baker

We granted this appeal to determine whether the Tennessee claims commission has subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ challenge to certain Medicaid reimbursements paid to them by the State. Upon review, we hold that the Tennessee claims commission lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case. Because the plaintiffs’ challenge is based upon an assertion that a state Medicaid regulation is invalid under federal law, the Tennessee Department of Health was the agency with subject matter jurisdiction over this case pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-223 of the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act ("UAPA").

Baptist Hospital v. Tennessee Departments of Health and Finance and Administration
01S01-9711-BC-00249
Authoring Judge: Justice Janice M. Holder
Trial Court Judge: Commissioner W. R. Baker

We granted this appeal to determine whether the Tennessee claims commission has subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ challenge to certain Medicaid reimbursements paid to them by the State. Upon review, we hold that the Tennessee claims commission lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case. Because the plaintiffs’ challenge is based upon an assertion that a state Medicaid regulation is invalid under federal law, the Tennessee Department of Health was the agency with subject matter jurisdiction over this case pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-223 of the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act ("UAPA").

State of Tennessee v. Darrell Wentzel
01C01-9705-CC-00193
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry L. Smith
Trial Court Judge: Judge Donald P. Harris

On December 6, 1996, a W illiamson County jury convicted Appellant, Darrell Wentzel, of two counts of aggravated robbery, one count of aggravated burglary, and one count of aggravated kidnapping. After a sentencing hearing on January 31, 1997, Appellant was sentenced to twelve years for each count of aggravated robbery, twelve years for aggravated kidnapping, and six years for aggravated burglary, with all sentenc es to be served concurrently. On February 18, 1997, Appellant filed a motion for judgment of acquittal or, in the alternative, a motion for a new trial, claiming that the evidence was insufficient for a conviction, that the aggravating kidnapping conviction should be dismissed because it was incidental to the robbery, that several of the trial court’s evidentiary rulings were erroneous, and that the trial court had misapplied enhancement factors to arrive at maximum sentences on all four convictions.  The trial court denied the motion. Appellant challenges both his convictions and his sentence, raising the following issues:

1) whether the trial court comm itted plain error by adm itting the in-court identification of the Appellant by Mary Ethel Veach;

2) whether there was sufficient evidence to corroborate the accomplice testimony of Edward Mitchem;

3) whether Appellant’s convictions for two counts of aggravated robbery constituted dou ble jeopardy;

4) whether the trial court correctly rejected Appellant’s argument that he could not be convicted of aggravated kidnapping because it was only incidental to the robbery;

5) whether the trial court correctly sentenced the Appellant.

After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.