Kenny Searcy v. Unipres U.S.A., Inc.,
M2002-00245-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Joe C. Loser, Jr., Sp .J.
Trial Court Judge: C. L. Rogers, 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. In this appeal, the employer insists (1) the trial court erred in concluding the plaintiff's impairment was the result of his work related injury and (2) the award of permanent partial disability benefits based on 35 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) (22 Supp.) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed JOE C. LOSER, JR., SP .J., in which FRANK F. DROWOTA, III, C. J., and JOHN K. BYERS, SR. J., joined. M. Clark Spoden and Irene L. Wolfe, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant Unipres U.S.A., Inc. Clinton L. Kelly, Hendersonville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Kenny Searcy MEMORANDUM OPINION The employee or claimant, Mr. Searcy, initiated this civil action against the employer, Unipres, to recover workers' compensation benefits for injuries suffered in an alleged work related accident occurring on July 2, 1999. By its late filed answer, the employer admitted liability but questioned the extent of its liability for permanent disability benefits. Following a trial on December 27, 21, the trial court awarded, among other things, permanent partial disability benefits based on 35 percent to the body as a whole. The employer has appealed. For injuries occurring on or after July 1, 1985, 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) (22 Supp.). The reviewing court is required to conduct an independent examination of the record to determine where the preponderance of the evidence lies.

Sylvester Young v. Nashville & Davidson County
M2000-02455-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Carol L. Soloman
A prisoner allegedly slipped and fell on a wet floor in the Davidson County Jail, injuring his back. He brought suit against the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County for deprivation of civil rights and negligence. The Chancery Court dismissed his civil rights claim on a Rule 12.02(6) motion, and transferred the negligence claim to Circuit Court. After a bench trial, the Circuit Court dismissed the negligence claim. We affirm.

State of Tennessee v. Chad Crabtree
E2001-02374-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Gary R Wade
Trial Court Judge: Judge Stephen M. Bevil

The defendant, Chad Crabtree, was convicted of three counts of rape of a child, Class A felonies. The trial court imposed concurrent twenty-five-year sentences. In this appeal, the defendant asserts (1) that the trial court erred by denying his access to certain records regarding the victim and the lead investigator; (2) that the evidence was insufficient to support one of his convictions; (3) that the trial court was not impartial; (4) that a witness for the state improperly bolstered the credibility of the victim; and (5) that the sentence was excessive. The judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

State of Tennessee v. James Anthony McCurry
W2002-00298-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: Judge Roy B. Morgan, Jr.

The Defendant pled guilty to possession of cocaine with intent to sell; reckless driving; two counts of driving with a suspended, cancelled, or revoked license; possession of cocaine; aggravated assault; and felony evading arrest. The trial court sentenced him to an effective sentence of twelve years and ordered him to serve his sentence on probation. The Defendant's probation officer subsequently filed a probation violation report, and following a probation revocation hearing, the trial court revoked the Defendant's probation. In this appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court improperly relied on rebuttal testimony as substantive evidence at the hearing and thus that the court improperly revoked his probation. Finding no error by the trial court, we affirm the trial court's decision to revoke probation in this case.

State of Tennessee v. Reginol L. Waters
M2001-02682-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: Judge Steve R. Dozier

A Davidson County jury convicted the defendant, Reginol L. Waters, of two counts of aggravated rape, one count of aggravated robbery, and one count of aggravated burglary. The trial court sentenced him as a Range I offender to twenty-three years for the first count of aggravated rape, twenty-five years for the second count of aggravated rape, ten years for aggravated robbery, and as a Range II offender to ten years for aggravated burglary. The trial court further ordered the two sentences for aggravated rape and the sentence for aggravated burglary be served consecutively and the sentence for aggravated robbery be served concurrently, for an effective sentence of fifty-eight years. In this appeal of right, the defendant raises the following issues: (1) whether the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress testimony regarding the "showup" identification of the defendant; (2) whether the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress the defendant's statements to the police; (3) whether the trial court erred in admitting the tape recording of the victim's telephone call to the police; (4) whether the state failed to establish a proper chain of custody for evidence found during a search of the defendant's vehicle; (5) whether the two convictions for aggravated rape should be merged; (6) whether the conviction for aggravated burglary violates due process because it was incidental to the offenses of aggravated rape and aggravated robbery; and (7) whether the sentences are excessive. Upon review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Anthony Tony Sandy
M2001-02376-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas T. Woodall
Trial Court Judge: Judge Robert L. Jones

Defendant, Anthony "Tony" Sandy, was indicted by the Lawrence County Grand Jury for first degree murder. Defendant was convicted by a jury of the lesser-included offense of voluntary manslaughter. The trial court sentenced Defendant, as a Range I standard offender, to serve four years and six months in the Tennessee Department of Correction and imposed a fine of $10,000, which was assessed by the jury. In this appeal as of right, Defendant argues that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that the trial court erred in sentencing Defendant. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Charles E. Delapp, Jr., a.k.a. Charles E. Jackson, Jr.
W2001-02370-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: Judge Joseph H. Walker, III

The defendant, Charles E. Delapp, Jr., a.k.a. Charles E. Jackson, Jr., appeals as of right his conviction by a Lauderdale County Circuit Court jury for reckless aggravated assault, a Class D felony, and the resulting five-year, six-month sentence. He contends (1) that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction and (2) that his sentence is excessive. We affirm the trial court's judgment of conviction.

Buford Barrett v. State of Tennessee
W2001-02862-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: Judge Jon Kerry Blackwood

The petitioner, Buford Barrett, appeals the McNairy County Circuit Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his conviction for rape of a child and resulting twenty-year sentence. He claims that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial attorney (1) refused to let him testify at trial; (2) failed to subpoena his cousin, who could have testified that the petitioner was not present when the alleged crime occurred; (3) failed to request a DNA test for the victim; and (4) failed to investigate the facts surrounding a statement that his wife gave to the police in which she admitted that she had sexually abused the victim. In addition, the petitioner contends that the cumulative effect of his attorney's deficiencies prevented him from receiving a fair trial. We affirm the trial court's denial of the petition.

Jerry Lytle v. Fru-Con, Inc.,
W2002-01337-WC-R3-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 trial court erred in accrediting the testimony of the plaintiff, (2) the trial court erred in accepting the expert opinion of an examining physician over that of a treating physician, and (3) the award of permanent partial disability benefits based on 2 percent to the body as a whole is excessive. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the trial court committed no reversible error and the evidence fails to preponderate against the trial court's findings.. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e) (22 Supp.) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed JOE C. LOSER, JR., SP. J., in which JANICE M. HOLDER, J., and JOHN K. BYERS, SR. J., joined. W. Stephen Gardner and Robert Joseph Leibovich, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellant, Fru-Con Pala Industrial, Joint Venture David Hardee, Jackson, Tennessee, for the appellee, Jerry Lytle MEMORANDUM OPINION This civil action was initiated by the employee or claimant, Mr. Lytle, to recover workers' compensation benefits for a work related injury by accident. At the conclusion of the trial on February 26, 21, the trial court awarded, among other things, permanent partial disability benefits based on 2 percent to the body as a whole. The employer-appellant 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) (22 Supp.). The reviewing court is required to conduct an independent examination of the record to determine where the preponderance of the evidence lies.

Dept of Children's Srvcs vs. A.N.G. & S.L.G
E2002-01114-COA-R3-JV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Thomas J. Wright
The State of Tennessee, Department of Children's Services ("State" or "DCS") obtained temporary custody of the three minor children of A.N.G. ("Mother") and S.L.G. ("Father")(collectively referred to as "Parents") after Parents' two year old son was found in a roadway near their home. DCS later sought to terminate Parents' parental rights. After a trial, the Juvenile Court determined there were sufficient grounds to terminate Parents' parental rights and doing so was in the best interests of the children. Parents appeal, claiming DCS failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that there were sufficient grounds to terminate their parental rights. Parents also claim DCS failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that termination of their parental rights would be in the best interests of the children. We affirm the judgment of the Juvenile Court.

State of Tennessee v. Scott L. Haycraft
E2001-02922-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry L. Smith
Trial Court Judge: Judge Phyllis H. Miller

The defendant pled guilty to violating a habitual traffic offender order and to a second offense of driving under the influence of an intoxicant. Pursuant to his plea agreement the defendant received a sentence of three years as a multiple offender for violating the habitual traffic offender order and eleven months and twenty-nine days for the second offense of driving under the influence. The trial court ordered these sentences to run concurrently. At the conclusion of a subsequent sentencing hearing, the trial court denied the defendant's request for probation or any other form of alternative sentencing. Through the instant appeal the defendant challenges this denial. After reviewing the facts and relevant caselaw, we find the denial appropriate concerning the violation of the habitual traffic offender judgment and, therefore, affirm the trial court's determination in this regard. We also affirm the denial of alternative sentencing with respect to the defendant's second offense of driving under the influence. However, because of a conflict between the transcript of the sentencing hearing and the judgment, we remand this case for correction of the judgment.

State of Tennessee v. Sammy D. Childers
W2002-00006-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Trial Court Judge: Judge C. Creed Mcginley

The Appellant, Sammy D. Childers, appeals his jury convictions for two counts of aggravated assault. Following these convictions, the Circuit Court of Hardin County sentenced Childers to concurrent sentences of five years, with ninety days to be served in confinement, followed by four years and nine months of supervised probation. On appeal, Childers raises one issue for our review; whether he is entitled to a new trial because of alleged juror misconduct. After reviewing the record before us, we find this issue to be without merit and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Don Woody McGowan
M2002-00542-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: Judge Thomas W. Graham

The Defendant was indicted for driving on a revoked license, driving on a revoked license second offense, evading arrest, and reckless driving. After the State presented its proof at trial, the trial court entered judgments of acquittal for the charges of evading arrest and reckless driving. At the conclusion of the trial, a Marion County jury convicted the Defendant of driving on a revoked license and assessed a fine of $500. The Defendant waived a jury as to the second offense driving on a revoked license, and the trial court found him guilty. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to eleven months and twenty-nine days for second offense driving on a revoked license and ordered that the sentence be served on probation except for thirty days to be served in the county jail. The Defendant now appeals, arguing that the trial court erred by admitting into evidence a Tennessee Department of Safety driving record as proof of the Defendant's prior conviction for driving on a revoked license. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Clazelle Jennings
W2001-01022-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: Judge John P. Colton, Jr.

A Shelby County jury convicted the defendant, Clazelle Jennings,1 of aggravated robbery and two counts of aggravated assault. The trial court sentenced him to concurrent sentences of ten years for aggravated robbery and four years for each of the aggravated assaults. On appeal, the defendant presents the following issues: (1) whether the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his statements to police; (2) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; (3) whether the convictions for aggravated robbery and aggravated assault upon the same victim violate double jeopardy; and (4) whether the sentence is excessive. Upon review of the record and the applicable law, we reverse and dismiss one of the aggravated assault convictions due to a double jeopardy violation. We remand for a clerical correction of the remaining aggravated assault judgment. We affirm in all other respects.

John Oliver Harper v. Cathy Lynn Harper
2002-01259-COA-R3-CV
Trial Court Judge: W. Dale Young

K.D.F., et al vs. J.F.
E2002-01117-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Thomas R. Frierson, II
This is a suit by K. D. F. and her present husband, R. J. F., Jr., seeking to terminate the parental rights of J. F. as to Z.T.J.F (d.o.b. June 8, 1998), preparatory to Mr. F. adopting the child in a future proceeding. Mr. F. appeals a determination by the Trial Court that his parental rights should be terminated, contending that the statutory grounds for such a determination were not met. We affirm.

L &Amp; L Tile v. Bruce Babb
E2001-02620-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Conrad E. Troutman, Jr.

State of Tennessee v. Marcus Webb
W2002-00614-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: Judge Carolyn Wade Blackett

The defendant, Marcus Webb, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of two counts of aggravated robbery. On appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and the trial court's jury instruction defining the mens rea of "knowing." We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Kenneth King
W2002-00938-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas T. Woodall
Trial Court Judge: Judge Chris B. Craft

Defendant, Kenneth King, was convicted of burglary of a building and was sentenced to twelve years in the Tennessee Department of Correction as a career offender. Defendant now appeals his conviction alleging that the trial court erred in refusing to grant a mental evaluation prior to trial to determine Defendant's competency to stand trial. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Louis Brooks v. Lee Creech
M2001-02355-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.
This matter involves a fraudulent transfer of real property and violation of Tennessee's Consumer Protection Act occurring as a result of Plaintiff's attempt to obtain a loan using his real property as collateral. In return for a loan of $4000.00, Plaintiff quit claimed his home as collateral and gave Defendant Creech physical possession of the promissory note in exchange for the loan. Defendant Stigall, who had office space in the same office, was listed as trustee of the property and payee on the promissory note. She then represented herself to First American Bank as owner of the property and wife of Defendant Creech, obtaining a loan for $42,000.00 and offering Plaintiff's property as collateral. The trial court found that Defendants Stigall and Creech were involved in a conspiracy and that they violated the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act and defrauded Plaintiff and First American Bank (now AmSouth Bank). The court reformed the Quitclaim Deed into a Deed of Trust, giving the bank a subrogation in the $4000.00 owed to Defendant Stigall. Only Defendant Stigall appeals. We affirm the trial court's decision in its entirety.

Wendy Layne v. Mark Layne
M2002-00670-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Thomas W. Graham
The divorced parents of a fourteen-year-old girl asked the trial court to sign an agreed order to enable her to live with her grandmother so she could attend school in Hamilton County. The trial judge refused to sign the order. While the decision to sign or not to sign such an order is within the sound discretion of the trial court, the court in this case erroneously believed that it lacked jurisdiction over the matter because the parties had not shown a change of circumstances since the prior decree. We find that the proof does show a change of circumstances and that the best interests of the child require the entry of the proposed order. Therefore we reverse.

State of Tennessee v. Jimmy Ray Cureton
E2001-01511-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry L. Smith
Trial Court Judge: Judge Ray L. Jenkins

The trial jury convicted the defendant, Jimmy Ray Cureton, of felony murder and attempted especially aggravated robbery. However, the trial court amended the defendant's attempted especially aggravated robbery conviction to attempted aggravated robbery based on the wording of the defendant's indictment. This Court subsequently reversed the trial court, finding that the indictment language was sufficient to allege attempted especially aggravated robbery. See State v. Cureton, 38 S.W.3d 64, 83-84 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000). We remanded the case for re-sentencing, and, upon remand, the trial court sentenced the defendant to serve ten years for his attempted especially aggravated robbery conviction consecutively to his life sentence for the felony murder conviction. The defendant now brings this direct appeal contending that his sentence is both (1) excessive and (2) improper because his indictment alleges that he merely committed attempted aggravated robbery. After reviewing the procedural history of this case and the record of the sentencing hearing, we find that neither of the defendant's allegations merits relief.

State of Tennessee v. Joshua S. Grubb
E2001-02205-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge James Curwood Witt, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge James B. Scott, Jr.

Joshua S. Grubb appeals from the Anderson County Criminal Court's imposition of incarcerative sentencing for his three aggravated burglary and three theft convictions. Contending that the lower court erroneously denied him probation, he asks us to reverse the sentencing orders entered below. We are, however, unpersuaded of the defendant's worthiness for probationary sentences and, therefore, affirm the lower court's judgments.

Michael D. Matthews vs. Natasha Story
E2002-00517-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: John K. Wilson
This case arises out of an automobile accident in which the plaintiff, Michael D. Matthews, was injured. The plaintiff sued Tammy Y. Morelock ("Morelock"), alleging that Morelock was a passenger in the vehicle the plaintiff was driving and that Morelock's negligence had caused his injuries. When the plaintiff later learned that Natasha Story ("Story") was the passenger in the vehicle and not Morelock, the plaintiff attempted to amend his complaint to add Story as a defendant. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's claim against Story, holding the statute of limitations barred such an amendment. The trial court also granted Morelock's motion for summary judgment, finding the family purpose doctrine inapplicable. We affirm.

David Andrew Nicholson, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
E2002-00573-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge James Curwood Witt, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Stephen M. Bevil

David Andrew Nicholson, Jr., appeals from the Hamilton County Criminal Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. He claims that he was not effectively represented by counsel at his trial and on direct appeal. He also claims that his due process rights were impaired at trial when the court interrupted a defense witness's testimony and played an audio recording of the defendant's statement to the police for the witness. Because the record supports neither allegation, we affirm the lower court's order denying relief.