State of Tennessee v. Wanda Hinson - Dissenting
M2000-02762-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: Judge Timothy L. Easter
I am unable to agree that the trial court’s error in admitting the victim’s hearsay statement is harmless error. I believe the error requires reversal of the conviction, and I therefore dissent.

State of Tennessee v. Wanda Hinson
M2000-02762-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry L. Smith
Trial Court Judge: Judge Timothy L. Easter
A Lewis County jury convicted the defendant, Wanda Hinson, of criminally negligent homicide, for which she received a one and a half year sentence, and especially aggravated burglary, for which she received a twenty-two year sentence. The trial court ordered the defendant to serve these sentences concurrently. The defendant now appeals her convictions, alleging (1) that the trial court erred by admitting a hearsay statement, (2) that the trial court erred by failing to grant a mistrial when the state improperly impeached the defendant’s only alibi witness, (3) that the evidence is insufficient to support her convictions, and (4) that the trial court erred by failing to grant the defendant a new trial based on the state’s failure to provide certain exculpatory evidence. For the reasons outlined below, we find that none of these allegations merit relief and accordingly affirm the decision of the trial court.

State ex Rel. Dorothy Phillips vs. James Phillips
E2001-02081-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Billy Joe White
This is a post-divorce case involving child support issues. James Daniel Phillips ("Father") appeals the order below, in which the trial court held that it lacked the authority to reduce the child support arrearage due Father's former spouse, Dorothy Ellen Phillips ("Mother"). Father argued below that he had recently discovered that one of his "children" is not actually his biological child. He contends that this entitles him to the requested relief. Father further challenges the trial court's refusal to declare his 1990 divorce judgment invalid on the ground that it was not signed by Father who was then proceeding pro se. We affirm.

Kelso Oil vs. East West Truck Stop
E2001-02090-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Sharon J. Bell
This main issue in this appeal involves an Unconditional Guaranty signed by Frank Webb ("Webb"), the president and owner of East West Truck Stop, Inc. In this document, Webb guaranteed the debt of the "buyer", which was identified as "Frank Webb d/b/a East West Truck Stop." The "buyer", however, was the corporate entity, East West Truck Stop, Inc. The Trial Court concluded the parties intended for the document to state the "buyer" was the corporate entity and entered judgment against Webb personally. Webb appeals, claiming the Trial Court improperly used parol evidence to supply an essential term of the Unconditional Guaranty (i.e. the identity of the "buyer") in violation of the Statute of Frauds. We affirm.

E2001-02326-COA-R3-CV
E2001-02326-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Billy Joe White

State ex rel. Anne Pope vs. United States Fire
E2002-01092-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: W. Frank Brown, III
This is a suit by the State of Tennessee, ex rel. Anne B. Pope, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Commerce and Insurance, against the following Defendants: United States Fire Insurance Company; United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company; Employers Reinsurance Corporation; Utica Mutual Insurance Company; Insurance Company of North America; and Safeco Insurance Company of America. The suit seeks to require the Defendant Corporations to deposit with a Receiver approved by the Chancery Court the principal amount of the last rider to a bond that they had executed to ensure payment of worker's compensation benefits that might be owed by North American Royalties, Inc., and its subsidiaries, Wheland Holding Company, Inc., Wheland Manufacturing Company, Inc., and Wheland Foundry, LLC. The suit was initiated because North American Realties, Inc., which sought bankruptcy protection, was self-insured pursuant to T.C.A. 50-6-405. A number of employees who contended they were entitled to benefits under the Worker's Compensation Statute intervened, insisting that the Companies which had executed the bonds were liable for the aggregate amount thereof, rather than the amount shown on the last rider issued as to the bonds in question. The Trial Court found in favor of the Insurance Companies. We affirm.

Steven Belford vs. J & J Plastering
E2001-02575-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Jacqueline E. Schulten
Steven R. Belford (Plaintiff") sued Danny W. Cox ("Cox") and J & J Plastering, Inc., ("Company") after he was rear-ended by a vehicle owned by the Company and driven by Cox. The jury returned a verdict for $9,000 in favor of Plaintiff. Plaintiff appealed to this Court without first filing a motion for new trial. Plaintiff raises four issues on appeal, all of which center around the exclusion or admission of evidence at trial. Because Plaintiff did not raise these issues in a motion for new trial, we deem them to be waived and dismiss this appeal.

Floyd Gabriel vs. Anna Hubbs
E2001-03102-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Billy Joe White
This is a will contest. Floyd Gabriel ("the contestant") filed this action contesting the validity of the purported last will and testament of his grandfather, Floyd A. Harmon ("the decedent") on the grounds of incapacity and undue influence. Following a bench trial, the court below declared the will invalid. Anna Faye Hubbs ("Hubbs"), the decedent's caretaker and the primary beneficiary under the will, appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in finding that she exercised undue influence over the decedent. In the alternative, Hubbs argues that any presumption of undue influence arising out of her relationship with the decedent was overcome by the clear and convincing proof that the decedent received independent advice before executing his will. We affirm.

State of Tennessee v. Cornelius Devon Hicks
W2002-00334-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Trial Court Judge: Judge Clayburn L. Peeples

The Appellant, Cornelius Devon Hicks, appeals the sentencing decision of the Humboldt Law Court enlarging his community corrections sentence following revocation. Hicks argues on appeal that it was error to increase his sentence from eight to ten years, when no proof was introduced at the revocation hearing supporting an increased sentence and the trial court made no findings to justify the ten-year sentence. After review, we agree. Accordingly, the trial court's re-sentencing order is reversed, and this case is remanded to the trial court for a new sentencing hearing.

State of Tennessee v. J. C. Bruce
M2001-02679-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Trial Court Judge: Judge Robert E. Burch

The Appellant, J.C. Bruce, was convicted after a trial by jury of robbery and, as a multiple offender, received a sentence of ten years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, Bruce raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict and (2) whether his sentence was proper. After a review of the record, the judgment of the Humphreys County Circuit Court is affirmed.

Kevin Shawn Taylor v. State of Tennessee
M2001-02203-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: Judge Charles D. Haston, Sr.

The petitioner, Kevin Shawn Taylor, pled guilty in the Warren County Circuit Court to one count of attempted aggravated sexual battery. He received a sentence of ten years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Subsequently, the petitioner  filed for post-conviction relief, alleging that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel and that his guilty plea was not knowing or voluntary. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. On appeal, the petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred in denying his petition. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Paul Summers v. Cherokee Children & Family Services
M2001-00880-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.
In this appeal, the Attorney General filed suit to dissolve two nonprofit public benefit corporations. Both the Attorney General and the nonprofit corporations filed motions for summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment for the Attorney General finding that the nonprofit corporations had abandoned their charitable purposes and devoted themselves to private purposes. The trial court ordered the appointment of a receiver to marshal and preserve the remaining assets. For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of the trial court.

Kenneth Nelson v. Metric Realty
M2000-03204-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.
Plaintiffs appeal the action of the trial court in converting a T.R.C.P. Rule 12.02 motion of those referred to as "affiliated defendants" into a T.R.C.P. Rule 56 motion and then granting it, and in sustaining a motion for summary judgment in favor of those described as "advisor defendants." The action against all Defendants asserted tortious interference with contract. Defendants appeal the trial court action in overruling their motion for summary judgment based upon the statute of limitations. We affirm the action of the Chancellor in granting summary judgment to the "affiliated defendants" and in granting the motion for summary judgment of the "advisor defendants." We further hold that the statute of limitations had expired as to all defendants. As modified, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Jerry Britt v. State of Tennessee
E2001-00864-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: Judge James Edward Beckner

The Petitioner was charged with one count of aggravated sexual battery; five counts of rape of a child; two counts of possession with intent to sell or deliver a controlled substance; and six counts of the delivery of a controlled substance. The Petitioner subsequently pled guilty to two counts of possession with intent to sell or deliver a controlled substance and to six counts of the delivery of a controlled substance. He also entered an Alford plea to three counts of attempted rape of a child. Pursuant to his plea agreement, the trial court sentenced the Petitioner to an effective sentence of forty-eight years. The Petitioner subsequently filed a timely petition for post-conviction relief which was heard and denied by the trial court. In this post-conviction appeal, the Petitioner contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when he entered his pleas; that his counsel's deficient performance rendered his guilty pleas unknowing and involuntary; and that he should be granted post-conviction relief because of newly discovered evidence. Concluding that the Petitioner received adequate representation when he entered his plea; that his pleas were entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently; and that the Petitioner is not entitled to post-conviction relief on the basis of newly discovered evidence, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Melissa D. Hayman
E2001-01600-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: Judge D. Kelly Thomas, Jr.

A jury convicted the Defendant, Melissa D. Hayman, of aggravated burglary, aggravated assault, and aggravated kidnapping. The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I standard offender to six years each for the burglary and the assault convictions, and to twelve years as a Range I violent offender for the kidnapping. The six year sentences were ordered to be served consecutively to the twelve year sentence and to each other, for an effective sentence of twenty-four years. All of the Defendant's sentences were ordered to be served in the Department of Correction. In this direct appeal the Defendant contends that the kidnapping conviction violates her constitutional rights under State v. Anthony, and further challenges the length and manner of service of her sentences. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Joseph Lantrip
W2001-01552-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge John Everett Williams
Trial Court Judge: Judge W. Fred Axley

Defendant pled guilty to aggravated rape and aggravated kidnapping. On appeal, defendant (1) asserts that the trial court erred in its application of enhancement factors to the sentences and (2) asserts that the imposition of consecutive sentences was improper. After reviewing the sentence de novo, we conclude that the trial court erred in sentencing defendant. We reverse and remand for resentencing.

State of Tennessee v. Jeremy White
W2001-02580-CCA-R9-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: Judge Arthur T. Bennett
On May 2, 2000, a Shelby County Grand Jury indicted the appellant, Jeremy White, for attempt to commit first degree murder, especially aggravated robbery, especially aggravated burglary, and especially aggravated kidnapping. The appellant retained an attorney, Mark McDaniel, to defend him against the State's prosecution in the Shelby County Criminal Court. However, in addition to maintaining a private practice, McDaniel was a "part-time prosecutor" for the Town of Collierville in Shelby County. Accordingly, the State filed a motion to disqualify McDaniel from representing the appellant due to a conflict of interest. Following a hearing, the trial court granted the State's motion. From the trial court's order, the appellant now brings this interlocutory appeal. Having thoroughly reviewed the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Freddie Dean Bledsoe
E2001-02085-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry L. Smith
Trial Court Judge: Judge Lillie Ann Sells

The appellant was convicted by a jury of the offense of aggravated assault. He was sentenced to a term of six years incarceration and the jury assessed a $10,000 fine. On appeal he contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict. After a careful review of the record we find that the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict and we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Evangeline Combs and Joseph D. Combs
E2000-02801-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas T. Woodall
Trial Court Judge: Judge R. Jerry Beck

 The Defendants, Joseph D. Combs and Evangeline Combs (husband and wife), were charged by presentment returned by a Sullivan County grand jury with numerous offenses: Joseph Combs was indicted for one count of especially aggravated kidnapping, two counts of aggravated assault, one count of aggravated perjury, one count of aggravated rape, and seven counts of rape. Evangeline Combs was indicted for one count of especially aggravated kidnapping, three counts  of aggravated assault, two counts of assault, and four counts of aggravated child abuse. Following the close of all proof, the trial court dismissed one count of aggravated assault in the presentment against both Defendants and three counts (one for aggravated assault and two for simple assault) against Evangeline, finding the offenses in these four counts were barred by the statute of limitations.  Following deliberation, the jury found Defendant Evangeline Combs guilty of especially aggravated kidnapping and four counts of aggravated child abuse, and not guilty of one count of aggravated assault. Defendant Joseph Combs was found guilty of especially aggravated kidnapping, aggravated assault, aggravated perjury, and aggravated rape, in addition to seven counts of rape. Evangeline Combs received a sentence of 65 years, and Joseph Combs received an effective sentence of 114 years. The Defendants, represented by different counsel, filed separate notices of appeal. Thereafter, the two cases were consolidated to form the instant appeal which presents the following issues: (1) whether the trial court properly conducted voir dire proceedings; (2) whether the trial court erred by allowing the State to amend the presentment for especially aggravated kidnapping; (3) whether the State properly complied with Defendants’ request for a bill of particulars regarding the charge of especially aggravated kidnapping; (4) whether the trial court improperly admitted evidence of prior bad acts; (5) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendants’ convictions; (6) whether the trial court’s instructions to the jury included all appropriate lesser-included offenses; (7) whether the trial court failed to fully and properly instruct the jury concerning the especially aggravated kidnapping charge; (8) whether the trial court erred by failing  to merge the convictions for certain offenses; and (9) whether the sentences imposed on both Defendants were proper. Defendant Joseph Combs additionally presents the issue of whether seven of his  eight rape convictions should be reversed because the State failed to allege sufficient facts in the presentment to properly toll the statute of limitations for these offenses. After a thorough review of the record, we reverse Defendant Joseph Combs’ conviction for aggravated perjury and remand the matter for a new trial on that charge. In all other respects, we affirm the judgments of the trial court as modified.

State of Tennessee v. Joseph and Evangeline Combs - Concurring
E2000-2801-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Gary R. Wade
Trial Court Judge: Judge R. Jerry Beck

While I concur in the results reached by the majority, it is my view that the failure to charge the lesser included offenses of facilitation of especially aggravated kidnapping and false imprisonment on the charge of especially aggravated kidnapping and reckless endangerment and assault on the charge of aggravated assault was, in fact, error. The majority implies that but does not so assert. I also believe that the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt as to each of those convictions. Most recently, in State v. Allen, 69 S.W.3d 181, 189 (Tenn. 2002), our supreme court established that a contextual analysis of the entire record was necessary in order to determine whether the failure to charge a lesser included offense qualified as harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. In my opinion, the Allen ruling negates any implication in State v. Williams, 977 S.W.2d 101, 106 (Tenn. 1998), that the failure to instruct on lesser included offenses will always be harmless when the jury returns a verdict two levels in excess of an omitted lesser included offense.

State of Tennessee v. Tyler Ward Enix
E2001-03111-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: Judge D. Kelly Thomas, Jr.

The defendant, Tyler Ward Enix, appeals from the Blount County Circuit Court's revoking his probation that was ordered for his sentences for harassing and stalking his estranged wife. The defendant contends that although he violated his probation, the trial court erred in sentencing him to confinement. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Nelson Keith Foster
E2002-00323-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: Judge R. Jerry Beck

The Defendant, Nelson Keith Foster, pled guilty to and was convicted of violating a motor vehicle habitual offender order. The Defendant was subsequently sentenced to three years, to be served on probation. The Defendant appealed to this Court from the trial court's denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. See State v. Nelson Keith Foster, No. E2001-01259-CCA-R3-CD, 2002 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 172 (Knoxville, Mar. 7, 2002). Pending the Defendant's appeal, he twice violated the terms of his probation. Still pending the outcome of the Defendant's appeal, the trial court revoked the Defendant's probation. The Defendant now appeals the trial court's revocation of his probation. We reverse the trial court's order revoking the Defendant's probation and remand this matter for further proceedings.

Matthew Poliak v. James Adcock
M2000-02325-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Barbara N. Haynes
This appeal involves a dispute between a father and his adult daughter's live-in boyfriend. The boyfriend filed a personal injury suit against his girlfriend's father in the Circuit Court for Davidson County after the father assaulted him with a piece of two-by-four. The father admitted that he had assaulted his daughter's boyfriend but asserted the defenses of self-defense, provocation, and defense of property. In response to the boyfriend's motion for partial summary judgment, the trial court determined that the father had failed to produce evidence to substantiate any of these defenses. The father perfected this appeal after the trial court certified its order as final in accordance with Tenn. R. Civ. P. 54.02. We have determined that the trial court was correct when it determined that the father's evidence regarding the circumstances surrounding the assault could not, as a matter of law, support his affirmative defenses. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court.

Issac Earl Edgin v. State of Tennessee
M2001-02667-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge L. Terry Lafferty
Trial Court Judge: Judge John H. Gasaway, III

Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, claiming: (1) the trial judge, at petitioner's original trial, should have recused himself from hearing the trial under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10, Canon 3(E); and (2) the public defender, at the original trial, rendered ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 9 of the Tennessee Constitution. At the conclusion of an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief. Based upon our review of the entire record and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

State of Tennessee v. Adrian Patterson
M2001-01991-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Trial Court Judge: Judge John H. Gasaway, III

The Appellant, Adrian Patterson, appeals the decision of the Montgomery County Circuit Court revoking his two community corrections sentences and resentencing him to the Department of Correction. On appeal, Patterson argues: (1) that his sentences were actually sentences of probation rather than community corrections and, as such, the trial court was without authority to enlarge his sentences; (2) that the evidence was insufficient to support two of the alleged violations of his Community Corrections Behavioral Contract; and (3) that allowing a cooperating individual to testify about Patterson’s drug activity in a pending federal drug case impaired his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination at the revocation proceeding. Finding no merit to Patterson’s claims, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.