State of Tennessee v. Jerry O. Summers
M2001-01358-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: Judge Timothy L. Easter

The defendant, Jerry O. Summers, appeals from the Williamson County Circuit Court’s revoking his probation that was ordered for his sentence for aggravated burglary. 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. Daryl Lee Madden and Marty Dale Williams
M2000-02227-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: Judge Cheryl A. Blackburn
A Davidson County Grand Jury returned a three-count indictment alleging the defendants committed felony murder during the perpetration of a robbery, especially aggravated robbery, and premeditated first degree murder. A Davidson County jury convicted the defendants of felony murder, especially aggravated robbery, and second degree murder. The second degree murder was merged into the felony murder by the trial court. Madden received an effective sentence of life plus 25 years; Williams received an effective sentence of life. In this appeal, both defendants contend the evidence was insufficient to sustain their convictions for felony murder and especially aggravated robbery, and their sentences were excessive. Defendant Madden additionally contests his conviction for second degree murder and the trial court's certification of the trial transcript. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Bank/First Citizens Bank v. Citizens And Associates
E2000-02545-SC-R11-CV
Authoring Judge: Justice William M. Barker
Trial Court Judge: Russell E. Simmons, Jr.

State vs. William Torres
E1999-00866-SC-DDT-DD
Authoring Judge: Justice Frank F. Drowota, III
Trial Court Judge: Ray L. Jenkins
The defendant, William Pierre Torres, was convicted of first degree murder by aggravated child abuse for the killing of his son, fifteen- month-old Quintyn Pierre James Wilson. Following a sentencing hearing, the jury found two aggravating circumstances: (1) "the murder was committed against a person less than twelve (12) years of age and the defendant was eighteen (18) years of age, or older" and (2) "the murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel in that it involved torture or serious physical abuse beyond that necessary to produce death." Finding that these aggravating circumstances outweighed mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury imposed a sentence of death for the first degree murder conviction. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed both the conviction and sentence. The case was docketed and argued in this Court, and after carefully reviewing the record and the relevant legal authorities, we affirm the defendant's conviction of first degree murder. Because the trial court erred by giving the jury an instruction pursuant to Kersey v. State, 525 S.W.2d 139 (Tenn. 1975), rather than accepting the jury's report of a deadlock, the sentence of death is reversed and the case is remanded to the trial court for a new sentencing hearing at which the jury shall only consider the sentences of imprisonment for life without possibility of parole and imprisonment for life.

State of Tennessee v. Edward Lucas
M2001-01989-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: Judge John H. Gasaway, III

The appellant, Edward Lucas, was convicted in the Montgomery County Circuit Court of two counts of selling cocaine and one count of possession of marijuana with the intent to sell. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of six years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction, sixty days of which were to be served in confinement with the remainder to be served on probation. Subsequently, the trial court found the appellant guilty of violating his probation and ordered the appellant to serve his sentence in confinement. The appellant raises the following issues on appeal: (1) whether the allegation set forth in the violation of probation warrant states a violation of the conditions of probation; (2) whether the allegation set forth in the violation of probation warrant complies with due process requirements of the United States and Tennessee Constitutions; and (3) whether the evidence is sufficient to support the probation revocation. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Delaney E. Marcum
M2001-02257-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Trial Court Judge: Judge Donald P. Harris

The Appellant, Delaney E. Marcum, appeals from the sentencing decision of the Williamson County Circuit Court. Marcum entered guilty pleas to one count of aggravated burglary, a class C felony, and one count of theft of property over $1,000.00, a class D felony. Under the terms of the agreement, Marcum received concurrent sentences of five years for aggravated burglary and four years for theft. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered that Marcum's sentences be served in the Department of Correction and, additionally, he was ordered to pay restitution on both counts. On appeal, Marcum contends that the trial court erred in (1) not sentencing him to probation or any other alternative to incarceration, and (2) ordering restitution in conjunction with total confinement. Finding no error, the judgment of the Williamson County Circuit Court is affirmed.

State of Tennessee v. Ricky Lynn Earls
M2001-00112-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge John Everett Williams
Trial Court Judge: Judge Lee Russell
Defendant appeals the sentences he received from convictions for two counts of forgery and one count of theft. The trial court found defendant to be a career offender and sentenced defendant to serve two sentences of six years each, to be served consecutively for an effective sentence of twelve years. Defendant contends that the sentences are excessive and that the trial court should have ordered the sentences to be served concurrently. We disagree and affirm the trial court's judgment.

State of Tennessee v. Philip R. Haven
M2001-00332-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry L. Smith
Trial Court Judge: Judge Timothy L. Easter

A Williamson County grand jury indicted the defendant on alternative counts of driving under the influence of an intoxicant and of driving with a .10% or more alcohol concentration in his blood or breath. At the conclusion of the proof, the trial jury convicted the defendant of the latter offense and assessed a fifteen hundred dollar fine. At sentencing, the trial court approved the fine assessed and further sentenced the defendant to six months to be suspended after the service of thirty days, day for day. Additionally, the court placed the defendant on supervised probation for eleven months and twenty-nine days during which time, among other conditions, the defendant was to complete alcohol safety school. Subsequently, the defendant filed a motion for a new trial or judgment of acquittal, which the trial court denied. Through this appeal the defendant contends that the trial court erred in 1) not excusing four jurors for cause; 2) permitting the prosecutor to make ingratiating statements to the jury during voir dire; 3) overruling counsel's objection to the prosecutor's comment in opening statement that the defendant was "drunk, way too drunk to drive"; 4) finding that the involved forensic scientist for the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation was the custodian of the alcohol report, thereby allowing the admission of the report into evidence; 5) concluding that "adult driving while impaired" was not a lesser included offense of driving under the influence; 6) refusing to dismiss count two of the indictment as a nullity; and 7) sentencing the defendant to more than the seven-consecutive-day minimum sentence applicable here. After reviewing each of these assertions, we find that none merit relief and, therefore, affirm the defendant's conviction and sentence. However, in reviewing the case, we have observed an error in the judgment form and, therefore, remand the matter for entry of a corrected judgment.

State of Tennessee v. Rhonda Patricia Mayes
M2001-00423-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge John Everett Williams
Trial Court Judge: Judge William Charles Lee

Defendant was convicted of two counts of possession of cocaine with intent to sell and two counts of simple possession of cocaine. The trial court merged the two counts of possession of cocaine with intent to sell into one count and merged the two counts of simple possession of cocaine into one count. The trial court sentenced the defendant to concurrent sentences of eight years and eleven months and twenty-nine days, respectively, thus imposing an effective eight-year sentence. Defendant appealed on four grounds: (1) there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction for possession with intent to sell cocaine; (2) a search warrant failed to state sufficient facts to establish probable cause to search defendant's apartment; (3) the indictment was multiplicitous; and (4) the trial court erred in ruling that the State could use defendant's prior conviction to show intent. We conclude that all convictions should merge into a single judgment of conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to sell; thus, we vacate the sentence relating to simple possession of cocaine, although this will not change the effective eight-year sentence.

State of Tennessee v. Jason Brian Hargrove
M2001-01579-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: Judge William Charles Lee

The appellant, Jason Brian Hargrove, pled guilty in the Marshall County Circuit Court to numerous counts of theft and burglary. He received a total effective sentence of twenty years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant raises the following issue for our review: whether the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences. After reviewing the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Robert Chagrasulis v. Board of Medical Examiners
M2001-01595-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.
Appellant lost his license to practice medicine in the State of Maine. He later relocated to Tennessee and filed an application for a license to practice medicine. The Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners (the "Board") denied his application based on the disciplinary action taken against him in the State of Maine. The Davidson County Chancery Court affirmed the Board's decision. Appellant now appeals the Davidson County Chancery Court's decision to this court and asserts that the Board's decision was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion. We affirm the trial court's decision.

Deadrick M. Pigg v. State of Tennessee
M2000-03233-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry L. Smith
Trial Court Judge: Judge Cheryl A. Blackburn

A Davidson County grand jury indicted the defendant on one count of felonious unlawful possession of a weapon and one count of misdemeanor evading arrest. Following a jury trial, the defendant was acquitted of the weapons offense but convicted of evading arrest. At the conclusion of a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the defendant to eleven months and twenty-nine days for this conviction. The court also ordered this sentence to run consecutively to another sentence stemming from a separate arrest. The defendant next unsuccessfully filed a motion for a judgment of acquittal or, in the alternative, a new trial. Through this appeal he continues to assert that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. However, after reviewing the record, we find that this issue lacks merit and, therefore, affirm the defendant's conviction for evading arrest.

State of Tennessee v. Debra Kay Thomas
W2001-02039-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: Judge Julian P. Guinn

The defendant, Debra Kay Thomas, appeals the Henry County Circuit Court's resentencing her upon revocation of her community corrections sentence. She claims that the trial court erred in failing to give her credit for the time she served in confinement and in the community corrections program under her original sentence. The state agrees. We hold that the defendant was improperly sentenced and remand the case for resentencing.

Eva M. Lemeh, Trustee v. Emc Mortgage Corporation
2002-00223-SC-R23-CQ
Trial Court Judge: Keith M. Lundin

Consumer Advocate Div. v. Tennessee Regulatory Authority
M1997-00238-COA-R3-CV
The principal issue in this case is whether telephone directory assistance service is basic or non-basic under the statutory scheme. Secondary issues involve the practice of grandfathering existing customers when a new tariff is approved, the exemptions to directory assistance charges, and whether the Tennessee Regulatory Authority was authorized to transfer a contested case to another docket. We affirm.

Earnest Peeler v. Tempro Services, Inc.
W2001-00922-SC-WCM-CV
Authoring Judge: L. Terry Lafferty, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Martha Brasfield, Chancellor
Appellant/Defendant asserts that trial court erred in awarding permanent partial disability for seventy percent (7%) of plaintiff's right hand and forty-five percent (45%) of his left hand. As discussed below, this Panel affirms the trial court's judgment.

Lewis Yunker v. Travelers Insurance
E2001-02089-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Howell N. Peoples, Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: D. Kelly Thomas, Judge
The employer's carrier appeals awards of temporary total disability benefits, 5 percent permanent partial disability to the body as a whole, and medical expenses. We affirm.

Kimberly Haas v. Albert Haas
M2000-02850-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Don R. Ash
Trial Court Judge: Muriel Robinson
In this appeal from the Davidson County Circuit Court, the Appellant, Kimberly Lynn Haas, questions whether the trial court erred in granting her an absolute divorce and rendering a final disposition of the parties' marital property, whether the trial court erred in denying the appellant's motion for judgment on the pleadings, whether the trial court erred in refusing to bifurcate the issues of liability and damages to the appellee's two antique chairs, whether the trial court erred in its division of the appellant's 401K Deferred Compensation Plan, whether the trial court erred in permitting the appellee to assert the Fifth Amendment on the issues of dissipation of marital assets and adultery, whether the trial court erred in refusing to meaningfully consider the appellant's gift of $25,000 to the appellee in dividing the parties' property, whether the trial court erred in awarding the appellee the Toyota 4-Runner, whether the trial court erred in awarding the appellee the rosewood antique table, whether the trial court erred in awarding the appellee the $2,500 General Motors Cash Rebate, whether the trial court erred in not requiring the appellee to assume any of the outstanding marital debt on the Honda Accord, whether the trial court erred in its division of the General Motors credit card debt, and the method of payment of such marital debt. We affirm the judgment of the trial court in part, reverse in part and remand as consistent with this opinion. Costs of this appeal shall be split between the parties.

Team Design v. Anthony Gottlieb
M1999-00911-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Barbara N. Haynes
This appeal raises important issues regarding the permissible range of court-annexed alternative dispute resolution procedures available under Tenn. S. Ct. R. 31. The case began in the Davidson County General Sessions Court as a dispute over payment for artwork and graphic design for a country music album. All the parties were dissatisfied with the general sessions court's disposition of their claims and perfected de novo appeals to the Circuit Court for Davidson County. When a dispute arose over the inability of two of the parties to be present on the agreed-upon trial date, the trial court, with all parties' agreement, entered an order referring the case to "binding mediation." The trial court conducted separate, off-the-record discussions with each of the parties and then entered an order finally adjudicating their claims. One of the parties filed a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 59.04 motion objecting to the order on the ground that it had not agreed to waive its right to a trial if the outcome of the mediation was unsatisfactory. After the trial court denied its motion, the moving party perfected this appeal. We have determined that the trial court lacked authority to conduct binding mediation or to finally adjudicate the parties' claims. Accordingly, we vacate the final order.

State of Tennessee v. Jack Roger Norton
E2001-01903-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas T. Woodall
Trial Court Judge: Judge Robert E. Cupp
The State has appealed from the trial court’s order granting the Motion to Suppress filed by Defendant, Jack Roger Norton. Defendant is the owner of a tavern in Washington County, which was the subject of a valid search warrant. It is undisputed that the officers did not “knock and announce” prior to their entry into the building to execute the warrant. This failure was the basis of the trial court’s ruling. After a thorough review of the record, the applicable law, and based upon the specific, narrow issue presented, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Jack Roger Norton - Concurring
E2001-01903-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry L. Smith
Trial Court Judge: Judge Roger E. Cupp
Although based on the narrow issue presented in this appeal, I agree fully with the decision reached by the Court in this appeal, I am compelled to write separately in order to express my astonishment and dismay over the manner in which the Washington County SWAT team treated the innocent patrons of the tavern searched in this case. While the actions of the SWAT team do not mandate the suppression of evidence seized from the defendant, those actions as they relate to the bar patrons do merit the condemnation of anyone who believes that this country is not, at least for the moment, a police state.

State of Tennessee v. Ricky Lee Hall
M2001-01874-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge John Everett Williams
Trial Court Judge: Judge Frank G. Clement, Jr.

The defendant contests the trial court's revocation of his probation, more specifically its failure to dismiss the probation revocation warrant. We conclude the trial court did not err in not dismissing the warrant. We affirm the judgment of the trial court with instructions to enter a formal order revoking probation.

State of Tennessee v. Wade P. Tucker
M2001-02298-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge J. Curwood Witt, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge J. Curtis Smith
The defendant, Wade P. Tucker, appeals from his Franklin County Circuit Court convictions of especially aggravated robbery and aggravated burglary. These convictions resulted from a bench trial in which the facts were stipulated by the defendant and the state. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. We conclude that sufficient evidence supports the conviction of especially aggravated robbery; however, we hold that the conviction of aggravated burglary is infirm because the defendant, as an owner of the property, effectively consented to his entry into the house where the crime took place. Accordingly, we reverse and vacate the conviction of aggravated burglary but affirm the conviction of especially aggravated robbery.

State of Tennessee v. Daryl Keith Holton
M2000-00766-CCA-R3-DD
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: Judge William Charles Lee

The appellant, Daryl Keith Holton, was convicted by a jury in the Bedford County Circuit Court of four counts of first degree premeditated murder. The same jury imposed a sentence of death for each count of murder. The appellant now appeals both his convictions and sentences, presenting the following issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence adduced at trial is sufficient to support the jury's verdicts; (2) whether the statute setting forth the defense of insanity in Tennessee is violative of the United States Constitution in the context of a prosecution for first degree premeditated murder; (3) whether under the United States Constitution inadequate acoustics in the courtroom during his trial denied the appellant his right to a fair trial; (4) whether under the United States and Tennessee Constitutions the imposition of a sentence of death violates a criminal defendant's fundamental right to life; (5) whether the evidence adduced during the guilt/innocence and sentencing phases of the appellant's trial supports the jury's imposition of sentences of death; and (6) whether the appellant's sentences of death are comparatively disproportionate. Following a thorough review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Jerry Seymour v. Tomisa Sierra
M2001-02278-COA-R9-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Buddy D. Perry
The only question involved in this appeal is whether an insured may proceed directly against its uninsured motorist carrier when the tortfeasor is in fact insured but service of process is returned "not to be found." The Circuit Court of Franklin County allowed the suit to proceed and we granted the insurance company's motion for an interlocutory appeal under Rule 9, Tenn. R. App. P. After briefing and oral argument, we affirm the trial court.