State of Tennessee v. Wendell Clarke Chambers
04-1303-CR-00
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Trial Court Judge: Judge Allen W. Wallace

Following a jury trial, the defendant was found guilty of first degree premeditated murder and reckless homicide. The reckless homicide conviction was merged with the murder conviction and the defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment. The defendant appeals, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and that the trial court erred in overruling his motions for judgment of acquittal and in allowing a videotape and photograph of the crime scene into evidence.  Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Amsouth Erectors, Llc v. Skaggs Iron Works, Inc.,
CH-01-0585-2
Trial Court Judge: Floyd Peete, Jr.

State of Tennessee v. David Wayne Fountain
E2002-01066-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge J. Curwood Witt, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Thomas W. Graham

David Wayne Fountain, who pleaded guilty to Class E felony attempted theft, appeals from the Rhea County Circuit Court's determination that he serve a two-year, split-confinement sentence for his crime. He claims that he should have received a minimum, one-year probationary sentence. We disagree and affirm the lower court's sentencing pronouncement. However, we modify the sentence imposed to the extent that it mandates day-for-day confinement.

The Oceanics Schools vs. Clifford Barbour, Jr.
E2002-00181-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
This matter is before us on the petition of the plaintiff for a rehearing pursuant to Tenn. R. App. P. 39.

Bobbie Jean Satterfield v. Lions Volunteer Blind
E2002-00969-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Thayer, Sp. J.
Trial Court Judge: Kendall Lawson, Circuit 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 trial court awarded the employee 75 percent disability to each arm. The employer has appealed insisting the award is excessive. The judgment is affirmed. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e) (1999) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court is Affirmed. THAYER, SP. J., in which ANDERSON, J., and BYERS, SR. J., joined. David J. Silvus, of Knoxville, Tennessee, for Appellant, Lions Volunteer Blind Industries. Danny M. Hryhorchuk, of Morristown, Tennessee, for Appellee, Bobbie Jean Satterfield. MEMORANDUM OPINION The employer, Lions Volunteer Blind Industries, has appealed from the trial court's awarding the employee, Bobbie Jean Satterfield, 75 percent permanent partial disability to each arm. Facts The facts of the case are not in dispute. At the trial the employee was sixty- eight years of age. She had completed the eleventh grade in school and later obtained a G.E.D. certificate. She had been working for this employer for about fifteen (15) years and was employed as a sewing machine operator. This work involved a lot of repetitive actions of the arms and hands and during September 1997, she developed severe problems with her hands and arms. She duly reported the problems to her employer, saw several doctors and ultimately came under the care of Dr. Robert E. Ivy. After undergoing surgery on each arm, she continued to have problems when she worked even though her employer accommodated her inability to perform her work duties normally. She has continued to work because she said she liked the people she works with and is afraid of becoming depressed if she stops work. She testified that her hands still hurt and cramp and sometimes tingle and become numb. She said she was not able to perform in the open labor market. Several company witnesses testified. One official stated she was an excellent employee and that her work load was lighter as they had attempted to accommodate her inability to perform normal functions of a sewing operator. Another company representative said she continued to work a normal schedule unless production was down. Dr. Robert E. Ivy, an orthopedic surgeon specializing in hand disorders, testified by deposition. He stated he first saw her on October 22, 1997 when she was complaining of numbness and tingling in her hands; his diagnosis was bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and he first tried treatment involving cortisone injections, writ splints and medication. This treatment did not help much and he performed surgery on the right arm on January 19, 1998 and on the left arm on October 28, 1998. The doctor was of the opinion she had a 5 percent medical impairment to each arm. He stated she should consider changing to a different type job and he did not specify any restrictions. He indicated he did not have any other treatment to offer her. Dr. Foster T. Hampton III, also an orthopedic surgeon, did an independent medical examination on April 18, 21 and testified by deposition. His testimony and/or written report indicated the employee (1) had recurrent carpal tunnel syndrome after surgery; (2) recurrent tendinitis flexor tendons of both wrists; (3) recurring problems with trigger thumbs bilaterally; and (4) some residual nerve loss. He gave a 5-1 percent medical impairment to each arm and also recommended she should find another type job which would avoid repetitive action of her arms. Dr. Julian Nadolsky, a vocational disability consultant, testified before the trial court and stated he did not think the employee had any transferable job skills as she was an unskilled worker and that he was of the opinion her vocational disability was 95 percent. He stated she could perform as an usher, ticket taker, greeter, gate tender, etc. Standard of Review We are required to review the case de novo with a presumption that the findings of the trial court are correct unless we find the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-255(e)(2). Analysis The employer contends the 75 percent award to each arm is excessive. The extent of vocational disability is a question of fact to be determined from all of the evidence, including lay and -2-

Patsy A. Holcomb v. Memorial Healthcare Systems, Inc.
E2002-01226-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Thayer, Sp. J.
Trial Court Judge: W. Frank Brown III, 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 awarded the employee 6 percent permanent partial disability to her right leg. The employer contends the award of disability is excessive. The judgment is affirmed. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e) (1999) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court is Affirmed. THAYER, SP. J., in which ANDERSON, J., and BYERS, SR. J., joined. James T. Williams and Lynda Motes Hill, of Chattanooga, Tennessee, for Appellant, Memorial Healthcare Systems, Inc. Harry Weill, of Chattanooga, Tennessee, for Appellee, Patsy A Holcomb. MEMORANDUM OPINION The employer, Memorial Healthcare Systems, Inc., has appealed from the trial court's ruling awarding the employee, Patsy A. Holcomb, 6 percent permanent partial disability to her right leg. Facts The employee, age fifty-two years, was employed at the defendant's hospital as a registered nurse with duties in the operating room as a circulating nurse. On May 11, 1999, she fell while working in the heart room and landed on her right knee, elbow and shoulder. Within a few days, she came under the care of Dr. Ballard who performed an arthroscopy procedure on her knee. She was off work about three weeks and upon returning was assigned to light duties involving paperwork. At the time of the trial below, she was working in the pretesting or pre- admission office. She testified that she was not able to return to work as a surgical nurse because she could not stand for long periods of time and because of other restrictions. She said she could not go up and down steps good and could not do her yard work anymore. She had been advised that she needs knee replacement surgery but she has not had that surgery because she is fearful of "too many things that can go wrong" and also because it would be something that would have to be repeated within five to twelve years. Dr. William T. Ballard, an orthopedic surgeon, testified by deposition and stated he performed an arthroscopy on her knee on May 14, 1999, which involved removing torn cartilage. His diagnosis was partial torn medial meniscus. He felt she reached her maximum medical improvement on about September 15, 1999 and said she should not be squatting or standing longer than ten (1) minutes an hour; that she should not climb more than five (5) steps at a time; that she had medium degenerative changes in her knee and the accident had aggravated this condition; and that she probably needed knee replacement surgery. He gave her a 2 percent medical impairment to her right leg. Dr. Edward D. Johnson, a general practitioner, appeared at the trial and testified and his deposition was also filed in evidence. He saw the employee on April 5, 21 and examined Dr. Ballard's records. He stated that if the patient's knee joint had basically stabilized after surgery, she would have a fairly normal joint and her impairment to the leg would be 2 percent. He was of the opinion her condition and impairment was not in that category. He said the tear had caused the knee joint to become unstable and the ligament was lax and not supported. The doctor indicated this condition caused abnormal motion in the knee joint and that her whole knee was deteriorating and would continue to get worse. He stated she needed a knee replacement and feared having it. He said her impairment was 2 percent to her leg and at a later point said it could be as high as 4-5 percent. He did not agree with Dr. Ballard that she had arthritis in the knee. Dr. Diana Boyd, a certified independent medical examiner specializing in occupation medicine, testified by deposition and said she examined the employee on January 8, 22 and reviewed the various reports of other doctors. She agreed with the 2 percent impairment rating but was of the opinion the injury did not aggravate her pre-existing degenerative joint disease. Dr. Sai H. Oh, a certified medical examiner, saw the employee on February 4, 22 and again at a later date. On the first visit, she felt the medical impairment was about 1 percent to the leg but on the second visit, she estimated the impairment at 2 percent due to abnormal motion of her knee. Standard of Review The review of the appeal is de novo accompanied by a presumption that the findings of the trial court are correct unless we find the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(2). -2-

State of Tennessee v. Jeffery Wayne Robertson
M2001-02131-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Trial Court Judge: Judge Jim T. Hamilton

The defendant was found guilty of first degree premeditated murder by a Lawrence County jury and sentenced to life imprisonment. In his appeal, he argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction, the trial court erred in allowing opinion testimony of a lay witness based on an experiment regarding the canning of green beans in a pressure cooker, and erred by allowing the statements of three witnesses to be read aloud by the witnesses to the jury and then become exhibits. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Jimmy Gene Blankenship
E2001-01372-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: Judge J. Curtis Smith

The Defendant was indicted for driving under the influence, driving on a revoked license, evading arrest, reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon, vehicular assault, and violation of the implied consent law. A Rhea County jury convicted the Defendant of driving under the influence, driving on a revoked license, reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon, and vehicular assault. The trial court merged the DUI and reckless endangerment convictions into the vehicular assault conviction. It sentenced the Defendant to four years for vehicular assault and to six months for driving on a revoked license, to be served concurrently. The trial court ordered that the Defendant serve one year in the county jail, perform one hundred hours of public service, pay $800 in restitution, and imposed a fine of $5,500. The Defendant now appeals, arguing the following issues: (1) whether the trial court properly allowed testimony about the Defendant's erratic driving in Hamilton County; (2) whether the trial court erred by allowing the results of a blood alcohol test into evidence; (3) whether the trial court erred by permitting witnesses to testify about the percentage of alcohol in the samples of blood tested; and (4) whether the trial court properly sentenced the Defendant. Finding no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Hugh Peter Bondurant v. State of Tennessee
M2002-00863-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: Judge Stella L. Hargrove

The Appellant was convicted in 1991 of second degree murder, and his conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. He subsequently filed a "PETITION FOR RELIEF FROM CONVICTION OR SENTENCE PURSUANT TO TENNESSEE CODE ANNOTATED 40-30-301 THROUGH 40-30-312," and the trial court summarily dismissed the petition relying upon the Post-Conviction Procedure Act. The Appellant now appeals the summary dismissal of his opinion. Our review of the complete petition filed by the Appellant reveals that, despite the statutory sections inappropriately cited in its title, the Appellant sought relief under the Post-Conviction DNA Analysis Act. We therefore reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand to the trial court for findings of fact pursuant to the Post-Conviction DNA Analysis Act.

State of Tennessee v. Tonya M. Jennings
M2002-01190-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: Judge Steve R. Dozier

A trial court found the Defendant not guilty by reason of insanity of the offense of stalking. Following judicial hospitalization in the Middle Tennessee Mental Health Institute, the Defendant filed a motion requesting the trial court to expunge all public records pertaining to the stalking offense. The trial court denied the Defendant's request. The Defendant now appeals, arguing that the trial court erred by denying the Defendant's request to expunge her records. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Robert E. Pugh v. State of Tennessee
W2001-02349-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry L. Smith
Trial Court Judge: Judge J. C. Mclin

A Shelby County grand jury indicted the petitioner on multiple offenses. At the conclusion of a trial on the indictment first prosecuted, a jury convicted the petitioner of aggravated robbery. See State v. Robert E. Pugh, No. W1999-01260-CCA-R3-CD, 2000 WL 298697, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Jackson, Mar. 17, 2000). For this offense he received a twelve-year sentence as a standard offender. Id. He subsequently pled guilty to ten additional charges. The trial court then sentenced him as a multiple offender for nine of these counts and as a violent offender for one count. His agreed upon sentences for these offenses in combination with the aforementioned twelve-year sentence resulted in an effective twenty-six-year sentence for all eleven convictions. However, the petitioner later filed a pro se post-conviction petition attacking his pleas by alleging that his counsel at that time provided him ineffective assistance. The trial court appointed counsel, who filed an amended petition also alleging ineffective assistance at trial. Following a hearing, the trial court found none of the petitioner's allegations meritorious and denied him relief. Through this appeal the petitioner continues to assert that he received ineffective assistance of counsel regarding his guilty pleas and the trial at issue. However, after reviewing the record provided and appropriate authorities, we affirm the trial court's denial of the post-conviction relief.

State of Tennessee v. Abebreellis Zandus Bond
W2002-00943-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: Judge C. Creed Mcginley

The Defendant, Abebreellis Zandus Bond, was convicted by a jury of two sales of cocaine. The trial court subsequently sentenced the Defendant to a nine-year term and an eighteen-year term for these convictions, to be served concurrently in the Department of Correction. The trial court also imposed the two $100,000 fines assessed by the jury. The Defendant now appeals as of right, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence; the admission of certain testimony; the trial court's failure to issue a missing witness instruction; the chain of custody; and the sentences and fines. We modify the Defendant's fines to $25,000 each. In all other respects, we affirm the trial court's judgments.

Ricky Harris v. State
E1999-02771-SC-R11-PC
Authoring Judge: Justice Frank F. Drowota, III
Trial Court Judge: R. Jerry Beck

Ricky Harris v. State
E1999-02771-SC-R11-PC
Authoring Judge: Justice Frank F. Drowota, III
Trial Court Judge: R. Jerry Beck

Ricky Harris v. State
E1999-02771-SC-R11-PC
Authoring Judge: Justice Frank F. Drowota, III
Trial Court Judge: R. Jerry Beck

State of Tennessee v. James Arthur Kimbrell
M2000-02925-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: Judge E. Shayne Sexton

On September 3, 1999, a Fentress County jury convicted the Defendant of four counts of rape of a child, a Class A felony; five counts of rape, a Class B felony; and thirteen counts of incest, a Class C felony. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of forty years. The Defendant now appeals arguing that ineffective assistance of counsel at trial, along with newly discovered evidence, prejudiced the Defendant to the point of depriving him of a fair trial with a reliable result. After a review of the record, we conclude that the Defendant was denied due process through ineffective assistance of counsel. We therefore reverse the Defendant's convictions and remand this case to the Fentress County Circuit Court for a new trial.

State of Tennessee v. Nathan Alex Weaver
M2001-00873-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: Judge Donald P. Harris

A Williamson County jury convicted the Defendant of attempt to possess with intent to sell or
deliver ten pounds or more of marijuana and conspiracy to sell or deliver between ten and seventy pounds of marijuana. The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a multiple offender to consecutive sentences of four years’ incarceration for attempt to possess with intent to sell or deliver ten pounds or more of marijuana and to two years’ incarceration for conspiracy to sell or deliver between ten and seventy pounds of marijuana. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant presents the following issues for our review: (1) whether the trial court erred by failing to suppress evidence obtained as a result of a search warrant; (2) whether the trial court improperly allowed testimony regarding statements made by Defendant after the search; (3) whether the trial court erred in allowing the State to proceed on one count from an original presentment and one count from a superceding presentment; (4) whether the trial court properly denied the Defendant’s motion for a judgment of acquittal; and (5) whether the trial court improperly allowed testimony concerning statements made by a non-testifying accomplice. Following oral argument, this Court ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefs concerning an additional issue: whether the Defendant was deprived of his right to confront a material witness and whether this was plain error. Having reviewed the record, we conclude that the Defendant’s confrontation rights were violated in this case, but that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. We therefore affirm the judgments of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Derick Bailey
M2001-02411-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: Judge Seth W. Norman

The appellant, Derick Bailey, was convicted by a jury in the Davidson County Criminal Court of one count of felony murder and one count of premeditated first degree murder. The trial court merged the convictions and sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment. On appeal, the appellant contends that the evidence was not sufficient to support the verdicts. Although we conclude that the evidence was not sufficient to support the conviction for premeditated murder, the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction of felony murder. Accordingly, we affirm the appellant's conviction for first degree felony murder.

Author R. Turner v. State of Tennessee - Order
M2002-00541-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes

The Appellant, Author R. Turner, appeals the order of the Davidson County Criminal Court summarily dismissing his pro se petition for post-conviction relief. In 1995, the Appellant pled guilty to aggravated robbery, especially aggravated kidnaping, and two counts of aggravated rape.  As a result of these convictions, he was sentenced to forty years imprisonment. In April 1996, the Appellant filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging as grounds ineffective assistance of counsel and improper imposition of consecutive sentences. This petition was dismissed, and this court affirmed the dismissal on appeal. Arthur R. Turner¹ v. State, No. 01C01-9707-CR-00274 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville, Sept. 23, 1998), perm. to appeal denied (Tenn. 1999). On January 7, 2002, the Appellant filed a second petition for post-conviction relief, which is the subject of this appeal, again alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and that his plea was involuntary because “. . . the State caused him to be influence (sic) by four mind-altering drugs.”

State of Tennessee v. Brian Antione Starks
M2002-00179-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Trial Court Judge: Judge Steve R. Dozier

The defendant, Brian Antione Starks, was convicted, by jury, of first degree felony murder and attempted especially aggravated robbery. The defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder conviction and eleven years as a Range I, standard offender for the robbery conviction, to be served consecutively to the life sentence. The defendant timely appealed, alleging that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions and that the testimony of his accomplices was not sufficiently corroborated. Based upon our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court but remand for entry of a corrected judgment in Count 2.

Connie Lee Arnold v. State of Tennessee
E2003-00691-CCA-RM-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Trial Court Judge: Judge Robert E. Cupp
The petitioner appealed from the criminal court’s dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief.  This court agreed with the determination of the post-conviction court that the petition consisted only of conclusory allegations without supporting facts, and, thus, affirmed the dismissal. See Connie Lee Arnold v. State, No. E2001-02526-CCA-R3-PC, 2002 WL 31512404 (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 13, 2002). On March 10, 2003, our supreme court granted the petitioner’s application for permission to appeal and remanded this case to us for reconsideration in light of Burnett v. State, 92 S.W.3d 403 (Tenn. 2002). Following our reconsideration, we affirm the post-conviction court’s dismissal of the petition.

Connie Lee Arnold v. State of Tennessee - Dissenting
E2003-00691-CCA-RM-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: Judge Robert E. Cupp
Even considering Burnett v. State, 92 S.W.3d 403 (Tenn. 2002), in which counsel was appointed and an opportunity to amend was provided, I believe the pro se petition in the present case adequately complies with the 1995 Post-Conviction Procedure Act and states a colorable claim for relief. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.

Ann Wing v. Estate of James Wing
M2001-01598-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Marietta M. Shipley
The Circuit Court of Davidson County ordered the husband involved in a divorce to pay $230 per week in support payments to the wife after the husband retired from the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County. When the husband retired he elected to receive guaranteed payments for 120 months and designated his daughter as the beneficiary to receive the payments if he died within the 120 month period. The court then modified its prior order to provide that the payments were a division of the husband's pension from the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County. After the husband's untimely death, the court ordered the Metropolitan Government and/or the husband's daughter who had been made the beneficiary of the pension to make the payments. Because we find that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over Metro and the daughter, we reverse the court's order and remand for further proceedings.

Maylene E. Ledbetter v. Bryan K. Ledbetter
E2004-00239-SC-S09-CV
Authoring Judge: Justice Adolpho A. Birch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: William E. Lantrip
In this interlocutory appeal, we must determine whether the trial court had the authority to enforce a mediated marital dissolution agreement when one of the parties repudiated its terms prior to court approval. Here, the parties, Maylene and Bryan Ledbetter, reached, through mediation, a marital dissolution agreement pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 31. Shortly after the mediation, and prior to presentation for court approval, Mr. Ledbetter repudiated the agreement. Mrs. Ledbetter then filed a motion to enforce the terms of the agreement. Following a hearing, the trial court overruled Mrs. Ledbetter's motion, ruling that the oral agreement reached in mediation was not binding and enforceable against the parties. After a thorough review of the record and relevant case law, we conclude that because Mr. Ledbetter repudiated the terms of the agreement prior to its presentation to the court, the trial court lacked authority to enter a judgment on the agreement. Further, because the agreement had not been reduced to writing and signed by the parties, it is not an enforceable contract. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Rodney Dimitri Caples v. State of Tennessee - Order
W2001-01976-CCA-MR3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: Judge Chris B. Craft

The Defendant, Rodney Dimitri Caples, was originally indicted for rape of a child. He subsequently entered a “best- interest” plea of guilty¹ to the lesser-included offense of aggravated sexual battery. He later filed for post-conviction relief, alleging that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel and that, as a result, his guilty plea was not knowing or voluntary. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied his petition. This appeal followed.