The petitioner, Darrell Lamar Fritts, filed in the Davidson County Criminal Court a petition for habeas corpus relief, alleging that the plea bargain process employed by the State of Tennessee is unconstitutional per se, thus rendering two of his convictions, which resulted from guilty pleas, void. The trial court denied the petition and the petitioner timely appealed. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The defendant, Bobby Earl Ferrell, Jr., appeals as of right the sentences imposed by the Bedford County Circuit Court following the defendant's guilty pleas to aggravated burglary, a Class C felony, and theft of property valued between $1,000 and $10,000, a Class D felony. He contends that the trial court should not have ordered him to serve his effective four-year sentence consecutively to a prior Rutherford County sentence. We affirm the sentences imposed by the trial court.
Bedford
Court of Criminal Appeals
State of Tennessee v. Kevin Martin M2002-01496-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: Judge Donald P. Harris
The Defendant, Kevin Martin, pled guilty to one count of obtaining prescription drugs by fraud, one count of possession of drug paraphernalia, two counts of forgery, one count of telephone harassment, one count of reckless endangerment, and one count of assault. The negotiated plea agreement resulted in an effective sentence of five years and six months. Pursuant to the agreement, service of two of the years was suspended, and the manner of service for the remaining three and one-half years was to be determined by the trial court. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered the Defendant to serve the sentences totaling three and one-half years in confinement. It is from this order that the Defendant now appeals as of right. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Williamson
Court of Criminal Appeals
Michael Harrington v. Grant Smith M2002-00840-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Carol L. Mccoy
Defendant appeals a grant of summary judgment against him on a promissory note and an additional judgment against him for breach of contract. We affirm the action of the trial court.
The Appellant, Wilmore Hatfield, was indicted for attempted first degree murder, aggravated assault, felony possession of a weapon, and driving under the influence (DUI). Following a jury trial, Hatfield was found guilty of felony reckless endangerment, as a lesser-included offense of aggravated assault, and DUI. He was sentenced to concurrent sentences of two years for the felony reckless endangerment conviction and eleven months, twenty-nine days for the DUI conviction. On appeal, Hatfield raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether felony reckless endangerment is a lesser-included offense of aggravated assault as charged in the indictment; (2) whether the trial court's DUI instruction was proper; (3) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the verdicts; and (4) whether his sentences were excessive. We hold that felony reckless endangerment is not a lesser-included offense of aggravated assault committed by intentionally or knowingly causing bodily injury to another by use or display of a deadly weapon. Therefore, the felony reckless endangerment conviction must be reversed and remanded for a new trial on the lesser charge of misdemeanor assault. Regarding Hatfield's DUI conviction, we conclude that the trial court properly charged the jury and the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict. However, we find that the trial court erred by ordering Hatfield to serve his entire eleven-month and twenty-nine-day sentence in the county jail. Accordingly, his DUI conviction is affirmed; however, his sentence is modified to reflect a sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days, with all time suspended except forty-eight hours to be served in the county jail.
Fentress
Court of Criminal Appeals
Thomas Dougherty v. Joyce Parry M2002-00757-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: C. L. Rogers
A divorced father petitioned the court to transfer custody of his two children from his former wife to himself. The trial court dismissed the petition, finding that the father had not met the threshold requirement for change of custody by proving a material change of circumstances. We find that there has been such a change of circumstances, and we remand this case to the trial court with instructions to determine the best interest of the children.
Sumner
Court of Appeals
Smith County v. Dave Enoch M1999-00063-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Charles K. Smith
Smith County filed this action to enjoin the maintenance of an automobile junkyard within one thousand (1,000) feet of a county road pursuant to the authority of Private Acts. The defendant admitted his violation of the Private Acts, but pleaded (1) the asserted lack of standing of the County to file the action, and (2) the asserted unconstitutionality of the Acts. The Chancellor sustained both defenses. We reverse.
Smith
Court of Appeals
Ray Dunnagan v. Foamex W2001-03076-SC-WCM-CV
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Sp. J.
Trial Court Judge: Joe C. Morris, 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 insists (1) the action is time barred, (2) the evidence preponderates against the trial court's finding that the employee's restrictive lung disease was caused by exposure to silica at work and (3) the award of permanent partial disability based on 65 percent to the body as a whole is excessive. 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 JANICE M. HOLDER, J., and W. MICHAEL MALOAN, SP. J., joined. Joseph M. Crout, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellant, Foamex Ricky L. Boren, Jackson, Tennessee, for the appellee, Ray Dunnagan MEMORANDUM OPINION The employee or claimant, Ray Dunnagan, initiated this civil action on April 5, 21 to recover workers' compensation benefits for an alleged occupational disease resulting from exposure to chemicals at work. By its answer, the employer denied liability. After a trial on the merits, the trial court resolved the issues in favor of the employee, awarding, among other things, permanent partial disability benefits based on 65 percent to the body as a whole. 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) (21 Supp.). The reviewing court is required to conduct an independent examination of the record to determine where the preponderance of the evidence lies.
Madison
Workers Compensation Panel
Deborah Griffin v. Ace USA W2002-01433-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: John K. Byers, Sr. J.
Trial Court Judge: Joe C. Morris, 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 trial court found the plaintiff had sustained a 4 percent permanent partial impairment to her body as a whole as a result of an injury to her left arm,1 which aggravated a previous impairment to her right arm. The employer appeals the trial court's judgment. The employer contends that the plaintiff's injury was to a scheduled member, not to the body as a whole, and that the evidence did not preponderate in favor of the amount of the trial court's award. We conclude that the plaintiff may recover only for the injury to her left arm, a scheduled member, and we modify the plaintiff's award to 5 percent permanent partial disability to the left arm. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e) (1999) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed as Modified and Remanded JOHN K. BYERS, SR. J., in which JANICE M. HOLDER, J. and JOE C. LOSER, SP. J., joined. P. Allen Phillips, Jackson, Tennessee, for the appellant, Ace USA. Jack Manhein, Jr., Jackson, Tennessee, for the appellee, Deborah Griffin. MEMORANDUM OPINION At the time of trial, the plaintiff, who is married and is the mother of a child, was forty years of age. She has a twelfth-grade education. The plaintiff's work history is, for the most part, that of 1 The trial judge and the testifying physicians refer to the plaintiff's injuries as being to the "upper extremities." However, the Workers' Compensation Act refers to "arms." a food service worker. In 1991, the plaintiff's right arm was broken in an automobile accident. The accident was not job-related. As a result of that injury, the plaintiff has a metal plate in her right arm. On March 22, 2, the plaintiff received a work-related injury to her left ring finger, resulting in amputation of the finger, for which she received compensation based upon a 25 percent loss of use of her left arm. On March 14, 21, while working as a crust stacker for the defendant, the plaintiff's left arm was caught by mechanical flippers on a production line. Her radius and ulnar bones were severely fractured. The plaintiff testified that as a result of the left arm injury she is unable to bend her wrist, that she cannot perform household chores because of the loss of grip, that her left arm is weaker, and that she has pain in her left arm. She further testified that as a result of the injury to her left arm she has to use her right arm more often, which has caused her right shoulder to hurt. The physician who was treating the plaintiff's arm fracture released her to return to work on July 1, 21, without any restrictions. However, the plaintiff was still under restrictions as a result of the March 2 injury. The plaintiff was doing a light-duty job at the time of trial. On July 21, 21, the plaintiff submitted a resignation letter to Aurora Foods, Inc. The plaintiff reported to Aurora that she resigned because she was having pain in both of her arms due to the two accidents she had while working at Aurora. The trial court found that the plaintiff's injury to her left arm aggravated and exacerbated the prior injury to her right arm, resulting in a 4 percent permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. Medical Evidence Dr. W. Randolph Fly, an orthopedic surgeon, saw the plaintiff immediately after the left arm injury2 and performed surgery that consisted of opening the arm and placing plates on the broken bones. Dr. Fly continued to see the plaintiff over a period of several weeks and testified that she progressed normally in the healing process, which included pain and weakness in her arm during the time of treatment. Dr. Fly stated on May 8, 21, that the plaintiff could return to work with restrictions of no lifting over 5 to 1 pounds, no fine manipulation with her left hand, and limited hours of work. On July 1, 21, Dr. Fly found that she had reached maximum medical improvement. He fixed no restrictions on her as a result of the injury to her left arm. He testified the previous restrictions for the injury to her fingers were still in effect. Dr. Fly testified he only 2 Dr. Fly's notes on the date of the plaintiff's injury indicate that the plaintiff reported pain in her left shoulder. Th ere wa s no furth er me ntion o f left should er pa in by D r. Fly. -2-
Madison
Workers Compensation Panel
Rebecca McMurry v. Metro Government of Nashville M2000-02902-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Hamilton V. Gayden, Jr.
This appeal is brought by an employee of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County who slipped and fell while working and, as a result, injured her knee. The employee brought suit pursuant to the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act to recover damages for her lost earning capacity, pain and suffering, and expenses. Prior to this suit, Metro paid the employee's medical expenses and compensated her for the work that she missed during her recovery. The trial judge awarded the employee $24,000, finding that Metro was at fault, but that the employee's injury was merely the exacerbation of a previous knee injury. The trial court also awarded the employee $2,858.30 in discretionary costs, but disallowed a $900 charge for the trial preparation fee of the employee's expert. The employee appeals the trial court's final order. We affirm the trial court in all respects.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Paul Rector v. Elizabeth Halliburton M1999-02802-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Hamilton V. Gayden, Jr.
The residence owned by Mrs. Halliburton had no access owing to highway construction. She acquired a driveway easement from the adjoining landowner, who later sold the property to Mr. Rector. An electric service line extended across the front of Mr. Rector's property which was relocated. Mr. Rector's efforts to purchase the Halliburton property were unavailing, and he began a policy of harassment presumably to acquire the property. He claimed, inter alia, that the easement terminated because it was improperly maintained, and that NES moved the service line without his permission and hence was guilty of trespass. Mrs. Halliburton filed a counterclaim for damages, charging Mr. Rector with trespass and outrageous conduct. Mr. Rector's suit was dismissed, and the counterclaim of Mrs. Halliburton was sustained. The dismissal of Mr. Rector's suit is affirmed; the award of attorney fees to Mrs. Halliburton is reversed; the case is remanded for a determination of the damages sustained by Mrs. Halliburton, including punitive damages.
The State appeals the ruling of the Cocke County Circuit Court modifying the sentence of the Appellee, Bradley Ryan Webb, pursuant to Rule 35, Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure. Under the terms of a plea agreement, Webb received an effective six-year Department of Correction (DOC) sentence, which stemmed from six theft convictions in Cocke and Jefferson counties. The plea agreement provided that the six-year DOC sentence would be served concurrently with a federal sentence Webb was serving. Following a timely filed Rule 35 motion, the trial court modified Webb's DOC sentences to "time served" and ordered removal of the state detainer warrant lodged against Webb. The trial court found that modification was necessary to effectuate the intent of the plea agreement. The State argues that the trial court's ruling was improper because Webb's sentences were imposed as a result of an "agreed plea," and any post-sentencing developments complained of by Webb were not unforeseen. After review, we conclude that Webb's sentence was improperly modified. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and this case is remanded for reinstatement of the judgments of conviction as originally entered.
Cocke
Court of Criminal Appeals
Kenneth Hinton vs. Estate of John Knowles, Jr. E2002-02493-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: W. Frank Brown, III
Estate appealed Trial Court's Judgment that plaintiff was the son of decedent. We affirm.
The defendant, Jesse Wayne Baker, pled guilty to introduction of a controlled substance into a penal institution, a Class C felony. The trial court sentenced the defendant to four years to be served consecutively with a previous sentence. On appeal, the defendant argues that his sentence is excessive and the trial court erred in denying alternative sentencing and in imposing consecutive sentencing. Based upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The defendant entered "open" guilty pleas to eight counts of aggravated robbery and two counts of attempted aggravated robbery. The trial court imposed an effective forty-year sentence. On appeal, the defendant argues: (1) his sentences are excessive; and (2) the trial court erred in imposing partial consecutive sentencing. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.
Madison
Court of Criminal Appeals
Cathy Anderton v. Gerald Anderton M1998-00950-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Don R. Ash
Rutherford County -The trial court awarded rehabilitative alimony to wife who, in her complaint, did not seek alimony but who testified at discovery that she was indigent and needed financial assistance. Husband argues that absent a pleaded request for alimony, the trial court was powerless to award it. The trial court disagreed. We affirm. Husband's petition alleging that wife was in criminal contempt for failing to allow visitation with the child of the parties was dismissed, and husband appeals. An acquittal of criminal contempt cannot be appealed.
Rutherford
Court of Appeals
Stephanie Marie Stephens v. Bekaert Steel Wire W2002-00341-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: John K. Byers, Sr. J.
Trial Court Judge: Martha B. Brasfield, 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 trial court found the plaintiff sustained an 8 percent permanent partial disability to the body as a whole as a result of an industrial injury while employed by the defendant.1 The defendant says the plaintiff cannot recover because the plaintiff had a previous injury which was aggravated by the accident, and further says the award is excessive. The medical evidence, however, shows the plaintiff suffered a new and distinct injury. Furthermore, we do not find the evidence preponderates against the finding of the trial judge regarding the amount of the award. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e) (1999) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed JOHN K. BYERS, SR. J., in which JANICE M. HOLDER, J. and JOE C. LOSER, SP. J., joined. Paul C. Peel, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellants, Bekaert Steel Wire Corporation and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. Jeffrey A. Garrety and Joseph R. Taggart, Jackson, Tennessee, for the appellee, Stephanie Marie Stephens. MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 The trial judge ordered a 6 percent set-off against the award because of payment of long-term disability benefits on an insurance policy paid for by the defendant. There is no appeal on this matter. At the time of trial the plaintiff, the mother of five children, was twenty- nine years of age. She has a high school education and has performed manual labor during most of her adult life. In 1995, the plaintiff received an injury to her back from which she had a 9 percent anatomical impairment and received an award of 19 percent to the body as a whole for the injury. On January 11, 2, the plaintiff fell and injured her back in the course of working for the defendant. The plaintiff testified that as a result of the 2 injury she has constant low back pain which increases with activity, burning pain in her back, and pain and numbness in her legs. She also testified that the injury has affected her ability to carry out her daily activities at home. The plaintiff does several exercises on a daily basis and walks as recommended by her doctor. The work that the plaintiff did for the defendant required lifting, standing and twisting. The plaintiff testified that she is no longer able to do this because of her injury. Medical Evidence Dr. Stephen M. Waggoner, an orthopedic surgeon, saw the plaintiff on February 24, 2, on referral from Dr. Riley Jones, who had been seeing the plaintiff since her 2 injury. Dr. Waggoner found the plaintiff had a pre-existing spondylolisthesis at the L5-S1 level which had been aggravated by the work injury. After a period of treatment, Dr. Waggoner did surgery on the plaintiff and placed a "cage" in the area of the injury to immobilize the vertebra. He testified the need for surgery was caused by the fall of 2. He testified that the fall of 2 caused new symptoms which led him to do surgery on the plaintiff's back. He testified the surgery produced new anatomical changes on the plaintiff's back. Dr. Waggoner testified the plaintiff now has limitations on a permanent basis that she did not have before the injury of January 2. He further testified the plaintiff now had permanent restrictions which she did not have prior to the injury of January 2. Dr. Waggoner placed limitations on lifting and prohibited repetitive bending or stooping. He found the plaintiff suffered a 13 percent anatomical impairment as a result of the January 2 injury. Dr. Joseph C. Boals, III, an orthopedic surgeon, saw the plaintiff in April 21, for the purpose of evaluation. Dr. Boals, for the most part, confirmed Dr. Waggoner's findings as to causation and effect. He was of the opinion that the plaintiff suffered a 23 percent impairment to the body as a whole. Dr. Boals was also of the opinion that the injury of January 2 was a new injury and that the plaintiff suffered new pain and new disablement from the injury. Brenda Dailey, a vocational rehabilitation expert, testified that she examined the medical evidence concerning the plaintiff's injury, her physical imitations, her education, etc., and concluded the plaintiff could perform between 1 and 12 percent of the jobs available in the country. -2-
Lauderdale
Workers Compensation Panel
Henry Watson vs. L.B. Ball E2002-00072-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Jerri S. Bryant
A Chancery Court judgment was entered in 1980, providing Henry Watson and Evelyne Watson ("the Watsons") an easement across land currently owned by L.B. Ball and Wilma Rose Ball ("the Balls"). The judgment held the Watsons had acquired an easement "for the purpose of providing ingress and egress for farm equipment only and for no other purpose." The Watsons did not use the easement or take any steps to prepare it for use for nearly twenty years. In 1999, the Watsons began construction of a road within the easement. Joe Browder and Gail Browder ("the Browders"), owners of adjoining property, placed a gate across the easement. The Watsons sued for injunctive relief. Trial was held and an order was entered on May 14, 2001, holding, inter alia, the easement had not been abandoned and that the Balls were not entitled to damages for destruction of trees within the easement. In response to the Balls' motion for additional findings of fact, an order was entered on November 13, 2001, that provided a definition of "farm equipment." The Balls appeal. We affirm.
Polk
Court of Appeals
Ronnie Lee Houck v. State of Tennessee E2002-00642-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge J. Curwood Witt, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Richard R. Baumgartner
The Knox County Criminal Court denied petitioner Ronnie Lee Houck post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. The petitioner challenged his 2000 conviction of aggravated sexual battery on the grounds that his guilty plea to that offense was unknowing and involuntary and the product of ineffective assistance of counsel. From the denial of post-conviction relief, the petitioner appeals. We find no error and affirm the lower court's judgment.
Knox
Court of Criminal Appeals
Ronnie Lee Houck v. State of Tennessee E2002-00642-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge J. Curwood Witt, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Richard R. Baumgartner
The Knox County Criminal Court denied petitioner Ronnie Lee Houck post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. The petitioner challenged his 2000 conviction of aggravated sexual battery on the grounds that his guilty plea to that offense was unknowing and involuntary and the product of ineffective assistance of counsel. From the denial of post-conviction relief, the petitioner appeals. We find no error and affirm the lower court's judgment.
The defendant contends the trial court erred in denying her judicial diversion and full probation following her guilty plea for identity theft, a Class D felony. The trial court sentenced her to two years in split confinement, with ninety days to be served in weekend confinement, and the balance served on probation. The trial court ordered the defendant to pay one thousand dollars ($1000) in restitution. Because the trial court failed to place its findings on the record, we remand for a new sentencing hearing.
The petitioner, Edward Dean Mullins, appeals the trial court's denial of post-conviction relief. The issues presented for review are (1) whether the petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel; (2) whether the petitioner's guiltypleas were knowingly and voluntarily entered; (3) whether the trial court erred by denying the petitioner's claim of prosecutorial misconduct; (4) whether the trial court erred by denying the petitioner's motion for severance; and (5) whether the trial court erred by ruling that the indictment need not include the applicable aggravating circumstances. The judgment is affirmed.
The petitioner, Edward Dean Mullins, appeals the trial court's denial of post-conviction relief. The issues presented for review are (1) whether the petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel; (2) whether the petitioner's guilty pleas were knowingly and voluntarily entered; (3) whether the trial court erred by denying the petitioner's claim of prosecutorial misconduct; (4) whether the trial court erred by denying the petitioner's motion for severance; and (5) whether the trial court erred by ruling that the indictment need not include the applicable aggravating circumstances. The judgment is affirmed.
The defendant, Stacy R. Dowell, appeals as of right his conviction, following a bench trial before the Johnson County Criminal Court, for driving while his blood alcohol concentration was .10 or greater, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced the defendant to eleven months, twenty-nine days with forty-eight hours to be served in the county jail and the remainder on probation. The defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence relative to his blood alcohol concentration. We affirm the trial court's judgment.
The defendant, Stacy R. Dowell, appeals as of right his conviction, following a bench trial before the Johnson County Criminal Court, for driving while his blood alcohol concentration was .10 or greater, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced the defendant to eleven months, twenty-nine days with forty-eight hours to be served in the county jail and the remainder on probation. The defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence relative to his blood alcohol concentration. We affirm the trial court's judgment.
