State of Tennessee v. James Andrew Nichols
M2000-02758-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: Judge Charles D. Haston, Sr.

The Defendant pled guilty to three Class C felony drug offenses. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed sentences of five years in the Tennessee Department of Correction for each offense and ordered that the sentences be served consecutively for an effective sentence of fifteen years. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the lengths, the manner of service, and the consecutive nature of the sentences. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Charles Berry Bourne, Jr.
M2001-00196-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: Judge Michael R. Jones

Defendant appeals his conviction by a jury for the offense of arson and the resulting five-year sentence. The issues presented for our review are: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict; (2) whether the trial court erred in allowing an investigator to testify as an expert in arson investigation; (3) whether the trial court erred in not dismissing the indictment based upon the state's failure to provide proper discovery; and (4) whether the trial court erred in applying a sentencing enhancement factor. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Frank Michael Vukelich - Dissenting
M2001-01184-CCA-R3-CO
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Trial Court Judge: Judge Cheryl A. Blackburn

With all due respect to my colleagues, I must dissent. After review of the record, I find that the Davidson County Chancery Court never obtained jurisdiction of the approximately $102,000 seized by the Drug Task Force and deposited with the Metro Trustee. The following chronological history is critical to this finding:

State of Tennessee v. Frank Michael Vukelich
M2001-01184-CCA-R3-CO
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: Judge Cheryl A. Blackburn

The defendant appeals the order of the Davidson County Criminal Court directing the clerk of that court to apply the defendant's funds, which were obtained through an attachment directed to the Metro Trustee, to the defendant's fines and court costs. We conclude the state improperly sought to enjoin enforcement of the chancery court's order relating to the distribution of these funds by seeking an injunction in the criminal court. We further conclude the funds were held by the Metro Trustee in custodia legis for the chancery court and were not subject to attachment.  Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the criminal court.

Harold Wayne Nichols v. State of Tennessee
E1998-00562-SC-R11-PD
Authoring Judge: Justice E. Riley Anderson
Trial Court Judge: Judge D. Kelly Thomas, Jr.

The petitioner, Harold Wayne Nichols, filed post-conviction petitions seeking relief from his conviction for felony murder, his sentence of death, and his numerous convictions for aggravated rape, first degree burglary, and larceny upon the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel, as well as other legal grounds. After conducting several evidentiary hearings, the trial court denied relief as to the felony murder conviction and sentence of death, but granted partial relief by ordering new sentencing hearings as to the remaining convictions. The Court of Criminal Appeals concluded that the trial court erred by allowing the petitioner to assert his right against self-incrimination during the post-conviction proceedings, yet upheld the trial court’s judgment in all other respects. After reviewing the record and applicable authority, we conclude: (1) that the petitioner was not denied his right to the effective assistance of counsel based on the failure to investigate and challenge his confessions as false; (2) that the petitioner was not denied his right to the effective assistance of counsel based on the failure to challenge the legality of his arrest; (3) that the petitioner was not denied his right to the effective assistance of counsel at the sentencing phase of his capital trial based on the failure to present additional mitigating evidence; (4) that the petitioner was not denied his right to the effective assistance of counsel at the sentencing phase of his capital trial based on the failure to object to misconduct by the prosecution; (5) that the petitioner was not denied his right to the effective assistance of counsel at the sentencing phase of his capital trial based on the failure to request mitigating instructions; (6) that the petitioner was not denied his right to the effective assistance of counsel at the sentencing phase of his capital trial based on the failure to raise issues regarding the constitutionality of capital punishment; (7) that the petitioner was not denied his right to the effective assistance of counsel at the sentencing phase of his capital trial based on the failure to object to the discovery of notes prepared by a defense psychologist on self-incrimination grounds; (8) that the Court of Criminal Appeals did not err in refusing to remand the case for additional DNA testing; (9) that the Court of Criminal Appeals erred by addressing the issue of whether the petitioner had a right against self-incrimination in this post-conviction proceeding but the error had no effect on the outcome; and (10) that the trial court’s findings were not clearly erroneous and cumulative -2- error did not require the reversal of the petitioner’s convictions. Accordingly, we affirm the Court of Criminal Appeals’ judgment. Tenn. R. App. P. 11 Appeal by Permission; Judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals Affirmed
 

Harold Wayne Nichols v. State of Tennessee - Concurring/Dissenting
E1998-00562-SC-R11-PD
Authoring Judge: Justice E. Riley Anderson
Trial Court Judge: Judge D. Kelly Thomas, Jr.

I fully concur in the conclusion of the majority that Nichols's convictions should be affirmed. To the extent, however, that the petitioner's allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel may be interpreted to include the failure to object to the method of proportionality review, I continue to adhere to the views expressed in a long line of dissents beginning with State v. Chalmers, 28 S.W.3d 913, 923-25 (Tenn. 2000) (Birch, J., concurring and dissenting), and elaborated upon in State v. Godsey, 60 S.W.3d 759, 793-800 (Tenn. 2001) (Birch, J., concurring and dissenting). Those dissents suggest, essentially, that the comparative proportionality review protocol currently embraced by the majority is inadequate to shield defendants from the arbitrary and disproportionate imposition of the death penalty. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-206(c) (1997). Accordingly, while I concur in the affirmance of Nichols's convictions, I cannot, for the reasons above stated, concur in the imposition of the death penalty in this case.

State of Tennessee v. Tommy Henry
E2002-00166-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: Judge R. Jerry Beck

The Sullivan County Grand Jury charged the defendant with one count of possession of a Schedule II controlled substance with intent to sell or deliver and with two counts of possession of drug paraphernalia. The defendant subsequently entered an Alford plea to one count of possession of a Schedule II controlled substance and to one count of possession of drug paraphernalia. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced the defendant to eleven months and twenty-nine days for each offense and ordered that the sentences run consecutively. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered that the defendant serve his sentence for possession of a Schedule II controlled substance in the county jail followed by service of his sentence for possession of drug paraphernalia on supervised probation. The defendant appeals the denial of alternative sentencing with regard to his sentence for possession of a Schedule II controlled substance. Finding no error in the record before us, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Erwin Scott Patterson
E2001-02652-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Gary R Wade
Trial Court Judge: Judge Stephen M. Bevil

The defendant, Erwin Scott Patterson, entered pleas of guilt to three counts of vehicular assault, reckless endangerment, and violation of the driver's license law. A charge of driving under the influence of an intoxicant was dismissed. The trial court imposed a sentence of four years for one count of vehicular assault, two years for the remaining vehicular assault convictions, two years for reckless endangerment, and 30 days for violation of the driver's license law. An application for alternative sentencing was denied. In this appeal, the defendant contends that the four-year sentence for vehicular assault was excessive and that the trial court erred by denying an alternative sentence. The judgments are affirmed as modified.

State of Tennessee v. Bobby Shellhouse, Jr.
E2001-01604-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge John Everett Williams
Trial Court Judge: Judge Rex Henry Ogle

The defendant contests his conviction and sentence for aggravated sexual battery. We conclude the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, the seven-year-old victim was competent to testify, venue was properly established, proper chain of custody for the DNA evidence was established, and the amendment of the indictment was proper. Accordingly, we affirm the defendant's conviction. A review of the defendant's sentence reveals the trial court misapplied enhancing factor (8). There being two enhancing factors and one mitigating factor applicable to the defendant's sentence, the judgment is modified from the maximum of twelve years to eleven years.

State of Tennessee v. James L. Carrethers
M2001-01503-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge J. Curwood Witt, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge J. Randall Wyatt, Jr.

James L. Carrethers appeals his second-degree murder conviction. He was found guilty of that offense by a Davidson County Jury. He is presently serving an eighteen-year sentence in the Department of Correction for the crime. In this direct appeal, he claims that the evidence does not sufficiently support the conviction and that the lower court erred in denying a motion to suppress his inculpatory, pretrial statements. Because we are unconvinced of error in either respect, we affirm.

State of Tennessee v. Michael George Medina
M2001-02412-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Trial Court Judge: Judge J. O. Bond

The Appellant, Michael George Medina, appeals his conviction by a Smith County jury finding him guilty of first-degree murder. On appeal, Medina challenges (1) the sufficiency of the convicting evidence, as it relates to the element of premeditation, and (2) the trial court's ruling which he asserts interfered with the defense's order of proof, thus, "forcing a premature election on defendant's right to testify." After review, we find no error. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

State of Tennessee v. Christopher Duwan Robertson
M2001-00976-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: Judge Cheryl A. Blackburn
The defendant, Christopher Duwan Robertson, appeals as of right from his conviction by a jury in the Davidson County Criminal Court of first degree, premeditated murder. The defendant received a sentence of life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. He contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction, (2) the trial court erroneously failed to instruct the jury to determine whether witnesses Karen Mullins and Michael Simpson were accomplices as a matter of fact, and (3) the trial court should have granted a mistrial after the victim's mother testified that the defendant had committed another murder. We affirm the trial court's judgment of conviction.

Andrade Bruce Williams, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
M2002-00357-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: Judge Seth W. Norman

Petitioner appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. He was originally convicted of felony murder and attempted especially aggravated robbery and received an effective life sentence. He now contends he received ineffective assistance of counsel at his jury trial. We conclude otherwise and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Lonnie Keith Dishner
E2001-00870-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry L. Smith
Trial Court Judge: James E. Beckner
The appellant was convicted at a jury trial of the offense of felonious reckless endangerment. He was sentenced to a term of one year imprisonment in the Greene County workhouse. In this appeal the appellant claims that the indictment is defective, that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict, and that the prosecution improperly commented in closing argument that the appellant should have produced a certain tape recording. After a review of the record we are of the opinion that the indictment and evidence are constitutionally sufficient to support the verdict. We are also of the opinion that the appellant has waived any error concerning closing argument by failing to include the transcript of the arguments in the record. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

State of Tennessee v. Treca Finchum
E2001-01072-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: Judge Richard R. Vance
A Sevier County jury convicted the Defendant of theft of property valued over $500 and of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I, standard offender to two years for the theft conviction and to eleven months and twenty-nine days for the contributing to the delinquency of a minor conviction, to run concurrently. The trial court also ordered sentences of split confinement, with the Defendant to serve ninety days in jail, "day for day," and the balance of each sentence to be served on supervised probation. The Defendant now appeals, arguing the following: (1) that insufficient evidence was presented at trial to convict her of theft and of contributing to the delinquency of a minor; (2) that the admission into evidence of a list of items stolen from Wal-Mart was inadmissible hearsay; (3) that the trial court committed reversible error by excluding a statement against interest from an unavailable witness; and (4) that the trial court erred in sentencing her. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court as modified.

State of Tennessee v. Ralph Taylor Hopson
E2001-02113-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas T. Woodall
Trial Court Judge: Judge E. Shayne Sexton
Defendant, Ralph Taylor Hopson, was indicted by the Grand Jury of Claiborne County for one count of second degree murder and one count of attempted second degree murder. Prior to trial, Defendant stated his desire to waive his right to representation by counsel and requested to proceed pro se. Four days later, the trial court conducted an inquiry into Defendant’s ability to represent himself and granted his request. Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of the offenses charged. The trial court subsequently sentenced Defendant to twenty-five years for the second degree murder conviction and ten years for the attempt conviction, to be served concurrently. In this appeal, Defendant challenges both convictions on the ground that the waiver of his right to counsel was not knowingly and intelligently made. In addition, Defendant contends that his sentence for the second degree murder conviction is excessive. After a review of the record and applicable law, we conclude that Defendant did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to counsel and that the trial court erred in determining Defendant’s sentences. Accordingly, we reverse the judgments of the trial court and remand this matter for a new trial.

Clayton Eugene Turner v. State of Tennessee
E2001-02476-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: Judge Phyllis H. Miller

The Defendant, Clayton Eugene Turner, brings this appeal from the trial court's denial of post-conviction relief. The Defendant was convicted by a jury of rape of a child, incest, and assault. He argues two issues in this appeal: (1) that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial, and (2) that the trial court erred by denying the Defendant's post-conviction request for the appointment of experts in the fields of DNA analysis and the transmission of infectious diseases. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Larry Parrish vs. Robert Marquis
E2004-00875-COA-RM-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Dale C. Workman
In this malicious prosecution case the Appellants, Larry E. Parrish and Larry E. Parrish, P.C., contend that the Knox County Circuit Court erred in granting motions for summary judgment filed by the Appellees, Robert S. Marquis and Ronald C. Koksal. We reverse the Circuit Court's judgment of dismissal as to Mr. Koksal and we affirm the Circuit Court's judgment of dismissal as to Mr. Marquis on alternative grounds.

Floyd Woody vs. Joy Woody
E2001-02078-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Thomas R. Frierson, II
In this case from the Chancery Court of Hamblen County the Appellant, Floyd Michael Woody contends that the Trial Court erred in amending a final judgment for divorce to include one half of his pension fund as part of the marital property to be awarded the Appellee, Joy Darlene Woody. The judgment of the Trial Court is affirmed as modified.

Dept. of Children's Srvcs vs. T.M.K.
E2000-02840-COA-R3-JV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: John B. Hagler, Jr.
The State of Tennessee, through the Department of Children's Services, seeks to terminate the parental rights of T.M.K. and G.L.K., as to their children, E.K. (d.o.b. 1/3/88), C.K. (d.o.b. 1/17/90), and twin daughters, A.K. and E.K. (d.o.b. 5/4/92). The Trial Court found the State had carried the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence as to grounds for termination, as well as the best interest of the children. We affirm.

Natasha W. Cornett v. State of Tennessee
E2002-00034-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Gary R Wade
Trial Court Judge: Judge James E. Beckner

The petitioner, Natasha W. Cornett, appeals the trial court's denial of post-conviction relief. The issues presented for our review are (1) whether the petitioner properly waived her right to a jury trial at sentencing; (2) whether her guilty pleas to three counts of first degree murder, one count of attempted first degree murder, two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, two counts of aggravated kidnapping, and one count of theft over $1,000 were knowingly and voluntarily entered; and (3) whether the petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel. The judgment is affirmed.

Larry Parrish vs. Robert Marquis
E2002-01131-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Dale C. Workman
In this appeal from the Circuit Court for Knox County the Appellants, Larry E. Parrish and Larry E. Parrish, P.C., contend that the Trial Court erred in dismissing their cause of action upon grounds that it was not timely filed under T.C.A. 28-1-105(a). We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court.

State vs. Steven Arrington
E2002-00249-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: James E. Beckner
In this case from the Greene County Criminal Court the Appellant, Steven Keith Arrington, a juvenile, contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that he was guilty of aggravated kidnaping. Mr. Arrington also asserts that, assuming his conviction was proper, the Trial Court erred in failing to sentence him to an indeterminate commitment. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court and remand.

Alvin Mays vs. Helen Mays
E2001-02630-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Thomas R. Frierson, II
In post-divorce action, the Trial Court changed from the mother to the father, the role as primary custodian of the minor child. On appeal, we affirm.

State of Tennessee v. Jonathan Thornton
E2001-02491-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Gary R Wade
Trial Court Judge: Judge James Edward Beckner

The defendant, Jonathan Thornton, was convicted of one count of theft of property valued at more than $1,000 but less than $10,000 and one count of theft of property valued at less than $500. The trial court imposed concurrent sentences of two years and 11 months and 29 days, respectively. In this appeal of right, the defendant asserts (1) that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions, (2) that the trial court erred in its instructions to the jury, and (3) that the trial court erred by denying an alternative sentence. Because the trial court erred by denying an alternative sentence, the defendant's sentence is modified to a sentence of split confinement with nine months to be served in confinement and the balance to be served on probation.