The Defendant, Clorie L. Jackson, was convicted by a jury of forgery and money laundering. The trial court subsequently merged the forgery conviction into the money laundering conviction,1 and sentenced the Defendant to nineteen years in the Department of Correction. In this direct appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence in support of the money laundering conviction, as well as the trial court’s jury instructions on that offense. Because we find the evidence insufficient to support the money laundering conviction, we reverse that conviction and dismiss the charge. The conviction for forgery is reinstated. The case is remanded to the trial court for sentencing on the forgery conviction.
The Defendant, Jamie Lou Haneline, was convicted by a jury of one count of rape of a child. Following a sentencing hearing, he was sentenced to thirty-eight years in the Department of Correction. In this direct appeal, the Defendant raises three issues: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to support his conviction; (2) whether the trial court erred by admitting the testimony of a police officer regarding a statement made by the Defendant; and (3) whether the trial court erred by enhancing the Defendant’s sentence based upon the offense having been committed to gratify the Defendant’s desire for pleasure or excitement. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Petitioner, Charles Roy Cole, filed a petition for post-conviction relief in the Circuit Court of Madison County. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court dismissed the petition. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
In September 1998, the Petitioner pled guilty to attempted rape, three counts of reckless endangerment, three counts of forgery, and three counts of theft of property. The trial court sentenced the Petitioner to an effective sentence of nine years, with eleven months and twenty-nine days of confinement followed by eight years of probation. The Petitioner served approximately six months of his sentence in jail and was released on probation. In December 1999, the trial court revoked the Petitioner's probation on seven of the ten felony charges based upon the Petitioner's acquisition of new charges, failure to pay restitution, failure to attend counseling, and violation of curfew. The Petitioner did not appeal the trial court's revocation of his probation. In September 2002, the Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief. The post-conviction court dismissed the petition without a hearing, and this appeal ensued. Concluding that the Petitioner has failed to state a proper claim for post-conviction relief and that the post-conviction petition is barred by the applicable statute of limitations, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.
Hamilton
Court of Criminal Appeals
Michael David Palmer v. Minco, Inc. and Hartford E2002-01634-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Byers, Sr. J.
Trial Court Judge: Thomas R. Frierson, Ii, 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. The defendant appeals the trial court's decision to award a partial vocational disability of sixty-one percent to each hand. Specifically, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in finding the plaintiff had suffered a permanent anatomical injury and thus erred in awarding permanent disability benefits or alternatively that the evidence presented in the case does not support the award of permanent partial disability. We affirm the judgment of the Chancery Court. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e) (1999) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Greene County Chancery Court is Affirmed BYERS, SR. J., in which ANDERSON, J., and THAYER, SP. J., joined. Robert R. Davies, of Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Minco, Inc. John T. Milburn Rogers, of Greeneville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Michael David Palmer. MEMORANDUM OPINION Review of the findings of fact made by the trial court is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of the correctness of the finding, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(2). Stone v. City of McMinnville, 896 S.W.2d 548, 55 (Tenn. 1995). The application of this standard requires this Court to weigh in more depth the factual findings and conclusions of the trial courts in workers' compensation cases. See Corcoran v. Foster Auto GMC, Inc., 746 S.W.2d 452, 456 (Tenn. 1988). Facts The plaintiff (employee) is a right-handed male thirty-six years of age. He completed the eleventh grade and obtained his GED in 1984. He also attended Walter State for approximately eighteen months where he took some college courses. The plaintiff then attended "Vo Tech" in Greeneville in auto body collision and repair. Prior to working for the defendant, the plaintiff worked at Master Guard, his father's company, where he was employed in sales and service. The plaintiff testified that he knows how to install home fire and security alarms. He further testified that in regard to installing home security and fire alarms there are really no physical requirements involved in doing the job. The plaintiff also worked at W&R Paint and Supply as a paint technician, a job he testified that he could return to in his current condition. While working for the defendant the Plaintiff was an Operator B which means he assisted Operator A in keeping furnaces loaded with sand which was then turned into glass. On April 12, 1999, while climbing a ladder, the Plaintiff's foot missed the ladder and Plaintiff caught himself by grabbing a rung on the ladder with both hands to prevent him from falling. He testified that his hands began hurting immediately and felt like they were "numb and jammed". He testified that he also did not have any feeling in his fingers. He reported the injury to his supervisor who instructed him to see a doctor, which he did the next day. The plaintiff testified that he was treated by Dr. John Holbrook, who prescribed Vioxx for numbness and tingling in the plaintiff's hands. The plaintiff was later seen by Dr. William Kennedy for the purpose of an independent medical evaluation. The plaintiff was later examined by Dr. Norman Hankins and Dr. Rodney Caldwell, vocational disability experts, for the purpose of determining his vocational disability. The plaintiff subsequently quit his job with the defendant and began working for an automobile body repair shop, but he testified that he had to quit that job too because he could no longer work with his hands. Medical Evidence The medical evidence for the purpose of the issues raised in this trial was provided by the deposition testimony of Dr. John Holbrook and Dr. William Kennedy. Dr. Holbrook, an orthopedic surgeon in Johnson City, testified that he examined the plaintiff for the purpose of treatment on May 5, 1999. At that time, the plaintiff gave Dr. Holbrook a history that included the slip and fall incident on the ladder of April 12, 1999. Dr. Holbrook testified that his examination of the plaintiff on May 5 led him to believe that the plaintiff had stretched the volar -2-
Knox
Workers Compensation Panel
Darlene Sue Singleton v. Shelby Williams, Inc. E2002-01697-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Byers, Sr. J.
Trial Court Judge: Duane O. Slone, 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. The defendant appeals the trial court's decision awarding the plaintiff compensation of $85,228.8 for a sixty percent permanent partial disability to each arm. Specifically, the defendant argues that the trial court erred: in allowing the introduction of the standard medical report or deposition of Dr. William Gutch into evidence; in accepting the testimony and opinion of Dr. Gutch over that of the treating physician; and by awarding a sixty percent permanent partial disability to each arm. We affirm the judgment of the Circuit Court. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e) (1999) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Grainger County Circuit Court is Affirmed BYERS, SR. J., in which ANDERSON, J., and THAYER, SP. J., joined. Joseph J. Doherty, of Morristown, Tennessee, for the appellant, Shelby Williams, Inc. James M. Davis, of Morristown, Tennessee, for the appellee, Darlene Sue Singleton. MEMORANDUM OPINION Review of the findings of fact made by the trial court is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of the correctness of the finding, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(2). Stone v. City of McMinnville, 896 S.W.2d 548 (Tenn. 1995). The application of this standard requires this Court to weigh in more depth the factual findings and conclusions of the trial courts in workers' compensation cases. See Corcoran v. Foster Auto GMC, Inc., 746 S.W.2d 452 (Tenn. 1988). Facts The plaintiff is forty-six years of age and worked as an upholster for the defendant company for twenty-four years. She has a 7th grade education and has problems reading and writing. Her duties for the defendant require the use of staple gun, welt gun, scissors, and wire cutter. In January of 2, the plaintiff alleged repetitive use injuries to both arms. She testified that she provided notice of her injuries to her employer on June 8, 2. She was then referred to Dr. Philip Bickers, who referred her to Dr. Robert Ivy for treatment. In November of 2, Dr. Ivy performed surgery on the employee's left wrist; in January 21, he performed surgery on the employee's right wrist. The employee later saw Dr. William Gutch at the direction of her attorney. The plaintiff returned to work without restrictions six weeks later. She testified that she has not seen Dr. Ivy or any other doctor since her return to work. Medical Evidence The medical evidence for the purpose of the issues raised in this trial was provided by the deposition testimony of Dr. Robert Ivy and Dr. William Gutch. Dr. Ivy, an orthopedic surgeon in Knoxville, testified that he first saw the plaintiff on October 3, 2, when she was referred to him by her workers' compensation carrier. At that visit he evaluated her for complaints of pain and numbness in both of her hands. He took her history and performed a physical examination. Dr. Ivy testified that he diagnosed the plaintiff with severe bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and recommended release surgery, which he performed on November 17, 2 (left arm), and January 5, 21 (right arm). He testified that the plaintiff responded well to the surgeries and he placed her at maximum medical improvement on March 2, 21. He rated her at five percent permanent partial impairment to each upper extremity and returned her to work with no restrictions. Dr. Gutch, a retired orthopedic surgeon who currently uses his medical license chiefly for independent medical examinations for the purpose of litigation, testified that he examined the plaintiff on October 1, 21. He testified that he took a history from the plaintiff, reviewed her medical records (including those of Dr. Ivy,) and performed a physical examination, including tests of range of motion and grip strength. He estimated that this process took approximately one hour. Dr. Gutch testified that based upon her history and the results of his examination, he agreed with Dr. Ivy's diagnosis and treatment of the plaintiff, but he disagreed with Dr. Ivy's impairment rating. Dr. Gutch assigned the plaintiff a total impairment of eight percent to her left upper extremity and eight percent to her right upper extremity. He also restricted the plaintiff to avoid excessive and repetitive finger and wrist motion, pulling and tugging, and the use of vibratory tools. Discussion Although we are required to weigh the evidence in a case in depth to determine where the preponderance of the evidence lies, we are required to make such evaluation within the confines of -2-
The Defendant was indicted for one count of rape of a child and for two counts of child abuse and neglect. A jury convicted the Defendant of all three counts. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the Defendant to twenty-five years for rape of a child and to four years for each count of child abuse. The trial court ordered that the sentences run concurrently for an effective sentence of twenty-five years. The Defendant now appeals, arguing the following: (1) that insufficient evidence was presented to convict him of the charged offenses, (2) that the trial court erred by admitting a note found at the scene and attributing it to the Defendant, and (3) that the trial court erred in sentencing the Defendant. Finding no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.
The Defendant, Brandon Charles Cain, was convicted by a jury of attempted first degree murder, a Class A felony. In this direct appeal, the Defendant raises two evidentiary issues: (1) whether the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress statements he gave to law enforcement officers; and (2) whether the trial court erred by allowing the State to show the jury a videotape in which the victim's injuries were depicted. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Hamilton
Court of Criminal Appeals
State of Tennessee v. Rita Ellis E2002-02433-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: Judge R. Steven Bebb
The Defendant, Rita Ellis, was convicted upon a jury verdict of theft under the value of five hundred dollars, a Class A misdemeanor. She was sentenced to eleven months and twenty-nine days in the county jail, but her sentence was suspended, and she was placed on probation. She was fined two hundred and fifty dollars. The Defendant presents two issues for review, which she states as follows: (1) failure of counsel to request recording of proceedings denied right of effective appeal; and (2) appellant denied ability to properly argue that verdict was against the weight of the evidence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Monroe
Court of Criminal Appeals
Dpt. of Child. Services vs. DLSJ E2002-00241-COA-R3-JV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Carey E. Garrett
The Trial Court on petition of the Department, terminated the mother's parental rights to the child. On appeal, we affirm.
The Defendant, Kathryn L. Byrd, was convicted by a jury of one count of theft over $1,000. The trial court subsequently sentenced the Defendant to four years in the Department of Correction, to be served consecutively to a previous sentence. The Defendant now appeals, contesting the sufficiency of the evidence; claiming reversible error because the State was not required to elect the offense for which it was seeking a conviction; and contesting the trial judge's order of consecutive sentencing. We affirm the Defendant's conviction. We reverse the imposition of consecutive sentences and order the Defendant's sentences to run concurrently.
Washington
Court of Criminal Appeals
State of Tennessee v. Carvin Lamont Thomas M2002-01716-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas T. Woodall
Trial Court Judge: Judge Steve R. Dozier
The Davidson County Grand Jury returned an eight count indictment against Defendant, Carvin Lamont Thomas, as follows: count one, especially aggravated robbery of Darrell Roundtree; count two, aggravated burglary of a habitation; count three, aggravated burglary of a habitation; count four, especially aggravated kidnapping of William Swift; count five, especially aggravated kidnapping of Darrell Roundtree; count six, especially aggravated kidnapping of Derrick Salter; count seven, unlawful possession of a handgun at a place open to the public; and count eight, possession with the intent to sell .5 grams or more of cocaine, a Schedule II controlled substance.At the close of the State's proof, the trial court dismissed count three, aggravated burglary of a habitation, and count five, especially aggravated kidnapping of Darrell Roundtree. Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of counts one, two, four, seven and the lesser included offense of simple possession on count eight. The trial court declared a mistrial as to count six. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Defendant to ten years for the especially aggravated robbery conviction, six years for the aggravated burglary conviction, twenty-four years for the especially aggravated kidnapping conviction, eleven months and twenty-nine days for the possession of a handgun conviction, and eleven months and twenty-nine days for simple possession of a Schedule II controlled substance. The trial court ordered the sentences for especially aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary and especially aggravated kidnapping to run consecutively.Defendant’s sentences for possession of a handgun and possession of a controlled substance were ordered to run concurrently with his other sentences, for an effective sentence of forty years. In his direct appeal, Defendant challenges only his conviction for especially aggravated kidnapping alleging that (1) the trial court erred in not granting Defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal as to the charge of especially aggravated kidnapping; and (2) Defendant’s conviction for especially aggravated kidnapping violates due process principles as outlined in the Tennessee Supreme Court's decision in State v. Anthony, 817 S.W.2d 299 (Tenn. 1991). We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Davidson
Court of Criminal Appeals
State of Tennessee v. Carvin Lamont Thomas - Dissenting M2002-01716-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: Judge Steve R. Dozier
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion’s conclusions that State v. Anthony, 817 S.W.2d 299 (Tenn. 1991), is not implicated and that the especially aggravated kidnapping conviction withstands an Anthony analysis. I believe that the aggravated kidnapping conviction should be dismissed.
Davidson
Court of Criminal Appeals
Sherman Henderson v. Charles Traughber M2002-02358-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Carol L. Mccoy
Plaintiff denied parole by the Board of Probation and Parole filed appeal with Chancery Court which was denied. On appeal, we affirm.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
State v. Gonzalo Moran Garcia M2000-01760-SC-R11-CD
Authoring Judge: Justice William M. Barker
Trial Court Judge: Steve R. Dozier
Davidson
Supreme Court
State v. Gonzalo Moran Garcia M2000-01760-SC-R11-CD
Authoring Judge: Justice William M. Barker
Trial Court Judge: Steve R. Dozier
Davidson
Supreme Court
State v. Keena Mathes E2001-00753-SC-R11-CD
Authoring Judge: Justice Janice M. Holder
Trial Court Judge: Robert E. Cupp
In this appeal, the appellant asserts that the trial court erred in ordering that she legitimate her youngest child as a condition of probation. Having carefully reviewed the issues raised by the parties, we hold that the trial court erred in requiring the appellant to legitimate her child as a condition of probation. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals affirming the legitimation condition and remand the case for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
In this direct appeal, the defendant argues the trial court erred in revoking his probation and requiring him to serve his four-year sentence in the Department of Correction. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The defendant was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of especially aggravated robbery and criminal attempt to commit second degree murder for his role with a codefendant in robbing and shooting the owner of a Memphis jewelry store. He was sentenced by the trial court to consecutive terms of twenty-three years at 100% for the especially aggravated robbery conviction and twelve years at 30% for the attempted second degree murder conviction. In a timely appeal to this court, the defendant raises the following four issues: (1) whether the trial court erred by overruling his motion to suppress the victim's identification testimony; (2) whether the trial court erred by denying his request for a special jury instruction; (3) whether the trial court committed plain error in its instruction of the definition of "knowingly"; and (4) whether the trial court erred by ordering consecutive sentencing. Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.
The defendant was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of aggravated burglary, a Class C felony, and sentenced by the trial court as a Range III, persistent offender to fifteen years in the Department of Correction. In this appeal as of right, he raises two issues: whether the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction and whether the trial court committed reversible error by failing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of facilitation. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Shelby
Court of Criminal Appeals
State ex rel Moore & Assoc. v. Terrence Cobb M2002-00504-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.
This is an appeal of a denial of a writ of mandamus. Moore & Associates requested the lower court to require the Department of Codes Administration to issue an occupancy permit for the Hilton Garden Inn pursuant to the Metropolitan Code, Title 16, Chapter 36, Section 020(A). The Department of Codes Administration refused to issue the occupancy permit for the building because it felt that the landscape buffer yard did not comply with plans submitted. The trial court agreed with the Department and found that the term "building" includes the landscape buffer yard. For the following reasons, we reverse.
Patricia Conley v. State M2002-00813-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
This is an appeal from the Claims Commission. The Claims Commissioner dismissed both claims alleged by Ms. Conley on the motion of the State. Additionally, the Claims Commissioner found that the State is not a governmental entity for the purposes of Tennessee Code Annotated section 20-1-119(g). For the following reasons, we reverse and remand.
Court of Appeals
Cynthia Barnett v. Barbara Behringer M1999-01421-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle
This appeal involves a dispute between the owners of units in a duplex arising out of the plans of one owner's tenants to build a free-standing storage building on her lot. The owner who opposed the storage building filed suit in the Chancery Court for Davidson County seeking an injunction against violating restrictive covenants and zoning regulations, as well as damages for trespass. The trial court granted the defendant owner's and tenants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint. On this appeal, the owner who objected to the storage building asserts that material factual disputes should have prevented the trial court from granting the summary judgment and that her neighbor and her neighbor's tenants had not demonstrated that they were entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. We have determined, as a matter of law, that the proposed storage building does not violate the restrictive covenants or applicable zoning regulations and that the plaintiff is not entitled to injunctive relief. Accordingly, we affirm the summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
State v. Jerry Graves E2001-00123-SC-R11-CD
Authoring Judge: Justice E. Riley Anderson
Trial Court Judge: Richard R. Baumgartner
