State of Tennessee v. Alan E. Monday, alias
E2001-01426-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: Judge Richard R. Baumgartner

The appellant, Alan E. Monday, was convicted by a Knox County Criminal Court jury of reckless homicide in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-215 (1997). He was sentenced as a career offender to twelve years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant contends (1) that the evidence was insufficient to convict the appellant of reckless homicide; (2) that the trial court erred in failing to require the prosecution to identify the reckless act upon which it relied; and (3) that the trial court erred in sentencing the appellant. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Donald C. McCary v. State of Tennessee
E2002-01106-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Gary R Wade
Trial Court Judge: Judge Carroll L. Ross

The petitioner, Donald C. McCary, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. In this appeal, he alleges (1) that he was not competent to enter pleas of guilty; (2) that he did not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently plead guilty; (3) that the trial court impermissibly participated in plea negotiations; (4) that he did not receive the effective assistance of counsel; and (5) that he is entitled to post-conviction relief because a presentence report was not prepared before the sentencing hearing. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Herbert Heinze vs. Patricia Severt
E2002-01184-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Thomas R. Frierson, II
In this appeal from the Chancery Court for Greene County the Appellant, Herbert Arthur Heinze, contends that the Trial Court erred in finding that a valid accord and satisfaction was entered into between him and the Appellee, Patricia Christine Severt (Heinze), with respect to the distribution of proceeds realized from the sale of the parties' marital residence pursuant to a divorce judgment. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court and remand for collection of costs and enforcement of the judgment.

John Doe vs. Randall Pedigo
E2002-01311-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Harold Wimberly

John Doe vs. Randall Pedigo
E2002-01311-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard

Wanda Shadwick vs. F.H. Shoemaker
E2002-01525-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Billy Joe White
Wanda Shadwick, individually, and as Executrix of the Estate of her common-law husband, Kenneth Lee Phillips, sued F. H. Shoemaker Distributors, Inc., and Floyd H. Shoemaker, II. The theory of the lawsuit is that the Defendants were guilty of abuse of process in connection with the sale of certain real estate and personal property owned by Kenneth Lee Phillips at the time of his death to pay a claim of the Corporation against his Estate. This claim, in the amount of $25,079.54, had been sustained by the Probate Judge. We find that neither the Corporation nor Mr. Shoemaker are liable for the misdeeds of Max Huff, the first attorney employed by them. Having so found, we reverse the judgment both as to compensatory damages in the amount of $156,000 which, incidentally, was higher than Ms. Shadwick's testimony as to the wholesale value of the personal property, and of punitive damages in the amount of $250,000, which was the amount of the ad damnum clause in the complaint. Mr. Shoemaker filed a counter-complaint seeking to recover the amount paid in delinquent taxes as to a house and lot he purchased at the purported sale, as well as delinquent taxes owed thereon. On this issue the jury found in favor of Ms. Shadwick and we affirm this determination.

State, et Rel. Robyn Russell vs. Jackson West
E2002-01667-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Thomas R. Frierson, II

State, et Rel. Robyn Russell vs. Jackson West
E2002-01667-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Thomas R. Frierson, II

Brenda Jones vs. David Jones
E2002-01684-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: G. Richard Johnson
In this post-divorce case, David Wayne Jones (Husband) filed a motion requesting the Trial Court to discontinue alimony payments. The sole basis for the motion was that Brenda Gail McNeeley Jones (Wife) was "currently residing with a male individual." Wife denied that a reduction in alimony was appropriate, due to her alleged continuing need and Husband's continuing ability to pay. Wife moved for an increase in alimony payments due to her "increased medical expenses, and vocational disability that [she] suffers by reason of the need for eye surgery." The Trial Court awarded Husband a reduction in the amount of alimony from $1,500 per month to $1,000 per month. On appeal, Husband argues that the Trial Court erred by refusing to eliminate the alimony payments, and Wife argues that the Court erred by reducing them. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court.

In Re: Petition of James F. Watson, General Sessions Court Judge
E2002-02480-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
This is a declaratory judgment action. Judge James F. Watson was, at all relevant times, the general sessions court judge for McMinn County. Prior to 2000, McMinn County was classified as a county of the second class and Judge Watson was paid in accordance with the statutory compensation scheme for such counties. As a result of the 2000 census, McMinn County became a county of the first class. Judge Watson filed a petition seeking a determination as to the proper calculation of his salary as a class one general sessions court judge. The trial court determined that Judge Watson was entitled to continue receiving the jurisdictional supplements to his salary that he had been receiving as a class two judge. We reverse.

Adarryl Devon Brooks v. State of Tennessee
W2002-01157-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: Judge William B. Acree

The petitioner, Adarryl Devon Brooks, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, which followed his jury convictions for possession of cocaine with intent to sell, criminal impersonation, and failure to appear. On appeal, the petitioner contends his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to adequately investigate his case and in failing to interview prospective witnesses. Upon review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

State of Tennessee v. John Richenberger
W2002-01788-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Gary R Wade
Trial Court Judge: Judge John P. Colton, Jr.

The defendant, John Richenberger, entered a plea of guilt to driving under the influence, fourth offense, a Class E felony. The trial court imposed a Range I jail sentence of one year, requiring a mandatory minimum of 150 days' service. There was a $3,000.00 fine. In this appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred by failing to order a sentence in the community corrections program. The judgment is affirmed and the cause remanded for consideration of correction of the length of the sentence.

State of Tennessee v. John L. Shelton
W2002-00127-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Trial Court Judge: Judge James C. Beasley, Jr.

The defendant, John L. Shelton, pled guilty to driving after having been declared a motor vehicle habitual offender, and was sentenced to one day in jail and a fine of one dollar. The State appealed, arguing that the sentence was illegal. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Jeffrey M. English v. State of Tennessee
M2002-00175-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas T. Woodall
Trial Court Judge: Judge Donald P. Harris

Petitioner, Jeffrey M. English, was charged with three counts of aggravated robbery and one count of aggravated assault. He entered open pleas of guilt to the three counts of aggravated robbery, and the State nolled the aggravated assault count. A sentencing hearing was conducted, and Petitioner received a sixteen year sentence for each of the three counts of aggravated robbery. Petitioner also received an eight year sentence for a probation violation, which Petitioner conceded. The trial court ordered all four sentences to be served consecutively, resulting in a total effective sentence of fifty-six years. Petitioner's sentence was affirmed by this court on direct appeal. State v. Jeffrey English, 2000 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 911, No. M1999-02495-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville, November 22, 2000) perm. to appeal denied April 9, 2001. Petitioner filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief, in which he alleged that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. Petitioner was appointed new counsel, and he subsequently filed an amended petition. An evidentiary hearing was conducted, and the trial court denied the petition. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Donald G. Brooks v. State of Tennessee
M2002-00386-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas T. Woodall
Trial Court Judge: Judge John H. Gasaway, III

Petitioner, Donald G. Brooks, filed a petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for first degree felony murder, especially aggravated robbery, theft of property over $1,000 and setting fire to personal property. In his petition, Petitioner alleged that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal. Following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court concluded that Petitioner's appellate counsel had rendered ineffective assistance when he failed to request a transcript of Petitioner's sentencing hearing on appeal. The post-conviction court found that all of the other grounds presented by Petitioner for post-conviction relief were without merit. After a careful review, we affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the post-conviction court.

In the Matter of: Conservatorship of Ellen Groves
M2000-00782-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Carol A. Catalano
This appeal involves the conservatorship of an elderly widow. Both the widow's brother-in-law and a niece filed petitions in the Chancery Court for Montgomery County requesting to be appointed her conservator. Following a bench trial, the trial court determined that the widow was "competent" and, therefore, dismissed both conservatorship petitions. The trial court also disapproved the brother-in-law's accounting of his expenditures on the widow's behalf and directed the brother-in-law and his wife to return the widow's real and personal property to her. On this appeal, the widow's brother-in-law asserts that the trial court erred (1) by refusing to appoint him conservator, (2) by refusing to approve reimbursing him for his expenses in caring for his sister-in-law, and (3) by directing him to return his sister-in-law's real and personal property. We have determined that the evidence preponderates against the trial court's conclusions that the widow is not disabled and that she does not need a conservator. However, we have also determined that the trial court properly declined to reimburse the widow's brother-in-law for his expenses in caring for her and properly ordered him to return her real and personal property.

Shirley Klein vs. David Klein
E2002-00867-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Ben K. Wexler
In this divorce proceeding the wife, Shirley Jean Klein, appeals the judgment of the Trial Court which held that Ms. Klein was not entitled to alimony. We affirm.

Robert M. Overholt, M.D., et al vs. Hugh Ray Wilson
E2002-01479-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Daryl R. Fansler
In this suit, Plaintiffs Robert M. Overholt, Joe W. Black, and Michael D. Price sue Defendant Hugh Ray Wilson, seeking possession of a portrait of long-time University of Tennessee football coach, General Robert R. Neyland. The suit also sought injunctive relief as to a proposed sale of the portrait by Mr. Wilson in connection with a bankruptcy sale of assets of a corporation owned by him. Mr. Wilson's sole defense of the suit was that it was barred by T.C.A. 28-3-105(2), the three-year statute of limitations for recovery of personal property. The trial court submitted to the jury a single question regarding the only material factual dispute, and upon receipt of the jury's finding held that the statute of limitations was not a viable defense and granted judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs. Mr. Wilson appeals and raises four issues, hereinafter set out, for our consideration. We find that they are without merit and affirm.

Jackson Rose vs. Rick Welch
E2002-02042-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: James B. Scott, Jr.
Attorney R. Jackson Rose ("Plaintiff") was hired by Rick Welch ("Defendant') to defend him on drug related criminal charges. The parties agreed to a flat fee of $25,000 for this legal representation. A retainer of $5,000 was paid up-front. Defendant signed a promissory note for the remaining $20,000. Defendant claims he lost confidence in Plaintiff's ability to adequately represent him after Defendant paid a total of $6,850 in attorney fees. Defendant discharged Plaintiff and obtained new counsel. Plaintiff sued for breach of contract. Defendant filed a counterclaim for legal malpractice and also claimed as a defense, inter alia, that Plaintiff's representation fell below the professional standard of care. The case was tried to a jury. After all of the proof was presented, the Trial Court directed a verdict for Plaintiff because Defendant had offered no expert proof to support his counterclaim or his defense to the breach of contract claim. We hold expert proof was not necessary in order for Defendant to prove he lost confidence in Plaintiff and discharged him with cause for that reason. We, therefore, reverse the entry of the directed verdict as to that issue only and remand the case for trial on the sole issue of termination for cause because of Defendant's "loss of confidence." We affirm all other aspects of the Trial Court's judgment.

Margaret Wightman vs. Truman Clouse
E2002-00318-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Vernon Neal
The Trial Court held plaintiff was entitled to use roadway across defendants' land. On appeal, we affirm.

Margaret Wightman vs. Truman Clouse
E2002-00318-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
The Trial Court held plaintiff was entitled to use roadway across defendants' land. On appeal, we affirm.

Zora Elsea vs. Frank Elsea
E2002-00387-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Jerri S. Bryant
In this divorce action, the Trial Court identified, valued and divided marital property and awarded wife alimony. Husband appeals. We affirm the Trial Court.

Steven Means v. David Ashby
M2002-00285-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Muriel Robinson
Current custodian of Minor Child petitioned the court for termination of parental rights of both parents. Petitioners are the brother and sister-in-law of Minor Child's mother. The parents of the Minor Child are divorced. Mother had no contact with Minor Child for over a year prior to the Petition, and Father has had no contact for approximately five years. We find that any failure to visit by the parents and failure to support by the Mother was not willful and affirm the trial court in dismissing the Petition to Terminate their parental rights. However, the trial court's custody determination is vacated, and that issue is remanded for further consideration.

Steven Means v. David Ashby
M2002-00285-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Muriel Robinson
Current custodian of Minor Child petitioned the court for termination of parental rights of both parents. Petitioners are the brother and sister-in-law of Minor Child's mother. The parents of the Minor Child are divorced. Mother had no contact with Minor Child for over a year prior to the Petition, and Father has had no contact for approximately five years. We find that any failure to visit by the parents and failure to support by the Mother was not willful and affirm the trial court in dismissing the Petition to Terminate their parental rights. However, the trial court's custody determination is vacated, and that issue is remanded for further consideration.

Sammy Miller v. Board of Probation and Paroles
M2002-00426-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle
The Board of Paroles declined to parole a prisoner in the custody of the Department of Correction. He claimed that the Parole Board violated the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws by following a different procedure to reach its decision than was in effect at the time of his crime. The trial court dismissed the prisoner's complaint for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted. We affirm the trial court.