The defendants, Matthew DeLoss Larsen and Andrew Lee Matthews, were indicted for aggravated robbery and aggravated assault. Pursuant to negotiated plea agreements, the defendants pled guilty to robbery, Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-401, and aggravated assault, Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-102, both Class C felonies. The defendants also agreed to serve consecutive sentences, with the manner of service and length of their sentences to be determined by the trial court. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed five-year sentences for each felony conviction and denied any form of alternative sentencing, which resulted in effective sentences of ten years confinement for both defendants. In this appeal, Larsen and Matthews separately challenge their sentences on similar grounds, essentially alleging that the trial court erred by (1) finding no mitigating factors were applicable in their respective cases, and (2) denying both defendants any form of alternative sentencing. Our de novo review reveals that the trial court erred in its application of enhancement factors. After a thorough review of applicable law and all relevant facts and circumstances in the record, we modify the trial court’s sentencing determination concerning the length of the defendants’ sentence for aggravated assault and affirm all other aspects of the judgment of the trial court.
Sumner
Court of Criminal Appeals
Eileen Dunloy v. Brian Dunloy M2000-03103-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Lee Russell
Marshall
Court of Appeals
Eileen Dunloy v. Brian Dunloy M2000-03103-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Lee Russell
Marshall
Court of Appeals
M2001-00095-COA-R3-CV M2001-00095-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Frank G. Clement, Jr.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Charles Moore v. Clyde Green M2000-03203-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge John J. Maddux, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Frank G. Clement, Jr.
This appeal involves a dispute concerning the estate of Nellie K. Ellis. The plaintiffs, Charles W. Moore, Linda Moore Maggart (Executrix of the estate of Herschel Moore, deceased), Ray Swing, Juantia Swing Sircy, Jeane S. Pennington, and James E. Swing, contested the decision to admit the will to probate. Their position is that the will is invalid because of a train of circumstances which shows the will was (1) not properly executed, (2) the testator lacked sufficient mental capacity, or (3) the beneficiary exercised undue influence over the testator. The trial court granted the defendant Clyde Green summary judgment, holding that the will was properly executed and that the plaintiffs did not adequately prove undue influence or lack of mental capacity. We affirm the trial court's decision.
The Defendant, Jerry W. Jordan, was convicted of second degree murder in the Criminal Court of Davidson County. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I offender to twenty-two years of imprisonment. In his appeal as of right pursuant to Rule 3(b) of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, the Defendant argues that (1) the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support a verdict of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, (2) the Defendant’s Due Process and Equal Protection rights were violated when the State excluded four African-American jurors, (3) the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury as to reckless homicide as a lesser-included offense, and (4) the trial court erred in sentencing the Defendant to twenty-two years. We reverse the Defendant’s second degree murder conviction due to the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury regarding reckless homicide as a lesser-included offense to first degree murder.
I agree with the majority opinion in all respects except for the failure to charge the lesser included offense. Although I agree with the majority’s conclusion that the failure to charge reckless homicide was error, I would find the failure to charge the lesser offense harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Davidson
Court of Criminal Appeals
James E. Gunter v. U.C.H.R.A. and Kristi A. Poore M1999-01591-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Conrad E. Troutman, Jr.
In this appeal, the appellant, Mr. Gunter, filed a claim for personal injury and property damages against a local governmental entity in general sessions court. The governmental entity orally moved to dismiss citing the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, which grants exclusive jurisdiction over these cases to the circuit court. The general sessions court denied the motion and transferred the case to circuit court, and that court dismissed the action based on the statute of limitations. Mr. Gunter now appeals the dismissal of his case by the circuit court.
Fentress
Court of Appeals
Rene Mercer, et al vs. HCA Health Services of TN, Inc. M2000-02785-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Barbara N. Haynes
A widow claimed that her husband's suicide was caused by the negligence of the defendant hospital and the defendant psychiatrist in releasing him prematurely from involuntary commitment. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding that the hospital was obligated to release the patient when ordered to do so by the psychiatrist, and that the psychiatrist was entitled to absolute immunity for actions undertaken under the involuntary commitment statutes. We reverse the trial court.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
BellSouth Publishing v. Ruth Johnson, Commissioner of Revenue M2000-03091-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Claudia C. Bonnyman
The State Commissioner of Revenue imposed a use tax on the cost price of telephone directories produced in Alabama and distributed in Tennessee by BellSouth Advertising and Publishing Company ("BAPCO"). BAPCO claimed a credit for sales taxes it paid in Alabama when it purchased the photocompositions used to print the directories. The Chancery Court of Davidson County granted summary judgment to the Commissioner. We affirm the lower court's decision because BAPCO did not show that it was entitled to the credit and the Tennessee use tax in this case does not violate the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Oliver Randolph, et al vs. Coffee County Beer Bd. M2001-00077-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge J. S. Steve Daniel
Trial Court Judge: John W. Rollins
This is an appeal by the Coffee County Beer Board from a decision of the Coffee County Circuit Court ordering the Beer Board to issue permits to Oliver Randolph and Susan Nichols. The trial court concluded that the Coffee County Beer Board regulation prohibiting the issuance of a beer permit to an applicant within two thousand feet of a school or church was void because of discriminatory application of this regulation. The County has appealed this decision insisting that it had uniformly enforced its distance rule including a grandfather provision which authorized the reissuance of permits to nonconforming locations who had enjoyed such a privilege prior to the readoption of the county resolution in 1980. For the reasons stated in this opinion, we affirm the trial court's decision and remand the case.
State v. David Black M2000-02935-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Clara W. Byrd
The State has petitioned this court to rehear its decision in this case. The state also requested, and was twice granted, additional time to supplement or correct the appellate record to include an amended judgment reflecting the details of Mr. Black's 1997 conviction and sentencing. The State has now filed this amended judgment properly certified by the trial court which heard Mr. Black's petition for restoration of citizenship. The amended judgment was introduced at the hearing on the restoration petition but was not included in the record in the appeal. Because the trial judge has certified that the amended judgment was introduced and considered in the hearing, we grant the State's motion to supplement the record.
Sumner
Court of Appeals
Kenneth Varney v. Heather Roemer M2000-03234-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Arthur E. Mcclellan
This is a post-divorce custody case in which Father alleged a change of circumstances due to step-father disciplining the two minor children in an inappropriate manner, Mother not being able to provide a stable and consistent home and school environment, the children experiencing emotional problems while in Mother's home, and Mother voluntarily relinquishing custody. The trial court found that Father failed to demonstrate a change of circumstances warranting change of custody. Although the two children had been living with Father, the court refused to change the initial award of custody to Mother. We find that the evidence preponderates against the trial court's determination regarding changes in circumstances and that, by focusing on one alleged incident of inappropriate discipline, the court failed to consider other circumstances relevant to the inquiry.
Sumner
Court of Appeals
Thomas Harrison, et al. v. Earl Laursen, et al. M2001-00073-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Robert L. Jones
This appeal involves pre-judgment interest on unpaid attorney's fees. The defendants owed the law firm attorney's fees alleged to be in the amount of $16,544.52 that accrued between November 1990 to April 1993. In 1996, the parties orally agreed to a lesser payment of $7,000.00 in settlement of the larger debt. The defendants paid $1,500.00 but failed to pay the remaining balance owed. The trial court ordered Defendants to pay pre-judgment interest on the unpaid fees and Defendants appeal. We affirm.
Kurt Seraphine v. Aqua Bath M2000-02662-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Claudia C. Bonnyman
This is an appeal from the grant of Appellees' motion for summary judgment. Appellant, a former employee of Appellee company, brought various claims against the company, and the company's top executives. Against the company, Appellant sought damages and specific performance based on an alleged breach of a stock option agreement and damages for breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing. Against the individual defendants, Appellant sued on claims of statutory and common law inducement to breach. Appellees counterclaimed for a declaratory judgment that Appellant had no option to purchase shares in the company because the option expired when his employment terminated. Summary judgment was granted on Appellees' declaratory judgment claim and Appellant's claims were dismissed. We reverse the trial court's holding that the stock option expired with termination of employment, but find Appellant has not demonstrated a breach of the stock option agreement or his right to any remedy thereunder. We affirm the trial court's grant of summary judgment on the breach of duty of good faith and intentional interference claims.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Thomas Roache vs. Justine Bourisaw M2000-02651-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Carol A. Catalano
This case involves a non-custodial parent's petition for change of custody. The original marital dissolution agreement granted the mother full custody of the child and the father alternate weekends and holidays and two weeks each summer. The mother later moved to Missouri, and the parties adjusted visitation accordingly. Later, the father filed and was granted a contempt motion due to the mother's failure to allow him to see the child. He subsequently filed a motion for change of custody which was also granted. The court found that the circumstances warranted the change of custody. The mother appeals. We affirm the trial court's change of custody.
Montgomery
Court of Appeals
Raymond Workman, et ux v. Wal-Mart Stores East, Inc. M2001-00664-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge J. S. Steve Daniel
Trial Court Judge: Robert L. Holloway
This is an appeal by Wal-Mart, Inc., from a jury verdict and a judgment totaling $30,000 in favor of Raymond D. Workman and Nola Ann Workman, for damages caused by a slip and fall Mr. Workman suffered at Wal-Mart's store. Wal-Mart, Inc. has appealed this judgment insisting that the trial court erred by not setting aside the jury verdict and directing a verdict in their favor, or not granting a new trial. For the reasons stated in this opinion, we affirm the trial court's decision and remand the case.
Maury
Court of Appeals
City of Lebanon vs. Raymond Harris M1999-01025-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Clara W. Byrd
This case involves the zoning and sign ordinances of Lebanon, Tennessee. Mr. Harris had placed small outdoor insulated metal storage buildings at several properties within the city of Lebanon. The buildings had on the sides information advertising his company and a phone number to contact him for information to buy or rent one of these buildings. He was fined for violations of the City of Lebanon ordinance allowing only one principal building and its customary accessory buildings on a lot and for violation of the sign ordinance. The circuit court reversed the city court's fines and held that the buildings were not principal buildings and that they were not portable signs. For the reasons below, we affirm the circuit court's decision in part and reverse in part.
A Madison County jury convicted the Defendant of misdemeanor theft of property, and the trial court sentenced her to eleven months and twenty-nine days of incarceration. The judgment of the trial court specified that the Defendant must serve seventy-five percent of the sentence prior to eligibility for work release, furlough, trusty status, and rehabilitative programs. The Defendant now appeals, challenging both the sufficiency of the evidence and the sentence that was imposed. Finding that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and that the sentence was properly imposed, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Following a trial, a Hamilton County jury convicted the defendant of rape, and the trial court sentenced him to ten years imprisonment. In this appeal, the defendant alleges (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction, and (2) his sentence was excessive. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The defendant, Timothy Clark Newson, appeals from his conviction for aggravated kidnapping, contesting the sufficiency of the evidence. We affirm the judgment of conviction.
Hamilton
Court of Criminal Appeals
Carrier of G.Ub.M K. Constru Ctors v. Bobb Y E. Stil Es v. Jim E2000-01092-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Howell N. Peoples, Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: W. Dale Young, Circuit Judge
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated _ 5-6- 225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The employee appeals an award of twenty percent permanent partial disability as inadequate. We modify the award. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e) (1999) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Blount County Circuit Court Modified and Remanded. HOWELL N. PEOPLES, SP. J., in which WILLIAM M. BARKER, JUSTICE, and JOHN K. BYERS, SR. J., joined. J. Bartlett Quinn, Chattanooga, Tennessee, for the Appellant Bobby E. Stiles E. Blaine Sprouse, Nashville, Tennessee, for the Appellee Jim Farmer, Director of Division of Worker's Compensation, Tennessee Department of Labor. MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 FACTS Plaintiff Argonaut Insurance Company (Argonaut) brought this declaratory judgment action against Defendant Bobby E. Stiles (Stiles) to determine its liability to Stiles under the Tennessee Workers' Compensation Act for a May 1998 injury. Argonaut is the workers' compensation insurer for G.UB.MK Constructors. Stiles then filed a counter-complaint against Argonaut and Jim Farmer, Director of the Division of Workers' Compensation, Tennessee Department of Labor (Second Injury Fund). Stiles was born January 1, 1941 and attended elementary school through the fifth grade. His work history consists of numerous positions as an unskilled manual laborer. In 198, Stiles was injured while working as a miner. Due to this injury, Stiles filed a workers' compensation action, which was settled with Stiles receiving an award of 9.9 percent disability to the body as a whole. On December 2, 1999, this case came to trial before the Circuit Court for Blount County. The trial consisted of the testimony of three witnesses, Stiles, Ms. Dorothy Edwards1, a vocational expert, and Lester F. Littell, III, M.D., Stiles' authorized treating physician, who testified by deposition. Stiles testified that besides the 198 and 1998 injuries, he also suffered a 1995 injury to his lower back which required surgery. He testified that although the 1995 injury was work-related, he did not notify Argonaut or G.UB.MK of this injury. In describing the effects of the 1998 injury, Stiles testified that he suffers from neck pain, headaches, and numbness in his right arm and hand. Additionally, Stiles testified that these symptoms were not present before the 1998 injury. As an example of his changed circumstance, Stiles testified that mowing his yard with the assistance of a riding lawn mower used to take him less than two hours but now takes all day. His daughters do his housework, and he takes his meals with his daughters or his brother, who lives nearby. He stated he has trouble driving long distances _ 2 to 3 miles. This testimony was uncontroverted. Ms. Edwards testified that due to his age, education, and physical restrictions, Stiles was 1 percent vocationally disabled with no access to the labor market. She also testified that Stiles has no transferable job skills. No other expert evidence was offered on the issue of vocational disability. Dr. Littell assessed Stiles as having a 15 percent medical disability to the body as a whole resulting from the 1998 injury. Dr. Littell also testified that Stiles has the following permanent medical restrictions: 1) Able to sit for only 15 minutes at a time; 2) Able to stand/walk for only 2 minutes at a time; 1 Incorrectly identified as "Ms. Morris" in the trial judge's memorandum of March 15, 2, though this error was corrected in the Judgment entered April 28, 2. 2
Knox
Workers Compensation Panel
Martha Fritts v. Bradley Healthcare and E2000-00822-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Howell N. Peoples, Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Lawrence Puckett, Circuit Court Judge
This Workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The employer appeals and contends the trial court erred (1) in granting an award because the employee failed to establish causation by medical proof, and (2) in accepting the independent medical examiner's impairment rating. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e) (1999) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Bradley County Circuit Court is Affirmed. HOWELL N. PEOPLES, SP. J., in which WILLIAM M. BARKER, JR., JUSTICE, and JOHN K. BYERS, SR. J., joined. Fred C. Stantum, III, Nashville, Tennessee, for the Appellant Bradley Healthcare & Rehabilitation M. Drew Robinson, Cleveland, Tennessee, for the Appellee Martha Fritts 1 MEMORANDUM OPINION Facts Martha Fritts, a certified nursing assistant, began caring for elderly patients in 1985 and has worked for Bradley Healthcare and Rehabilitation since 199. She testified that she injured her right shoulder on April 3, 1998 while attempting to move a patient. She was treated by Dr. Alan Clifton Odom, who performed arthroscopic surgery upon her right shoulder on December 17, 1998. Dr. Odom testified that she has permanent restrictions on lifting patients and will need assistance with pushing, pulling and lifting patients. Because Dr. Odom does not do impairment ratings, she was referred to Dr. McKinley Snipes Lundy for assignment of a permanent impairment rating. Dr. Lundy assigned a 14 percent permanent impairment to the body as a whole. She returned to work at her pre- injury rate of pay, and continues to perform the pre-injury duties, except she now has help changing patients. Standard of Review Review of the findings of fact made by the trial court is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of the correctness of the findings, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(2). Stone v. City of McMinnville, 896 S.W.2d 548, 55 (Tenn. 1995). The application of this standard requires this Court to weigh in more depth the factual findings and conclusions of the trial courts in workers' compensation cases. Corcoran v. Foster Auto GMC, Inc., 746 S.W.2d 452 456 (Tenn. 1988). Discussion Bradley Healthcare and Rehabilitation contends that the proof failed to establish a causal connection to the employment. Causation and permanency of a work injury must be shown in most cases by expert medical evidence. Tindall v. Waring Park Ass'n, 725 S.W.2d 935, 937 (Tenn. 1987). Causation in this case is established through the deposition of McKinley Snipes Lundy, M.D., who wrote: "It is my opinion, based on a reasonable degree of medical certainty, utilizing the AMA Guides to Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 4th ed. (American Medical Association, Chicago, IL, 1993), that Martha Fritts has 24% permanent impairment to the right upper extremity (which equates to 14% whole person permanent impairment) as a direct result of injuries sustained while performing duties working for her employer on May 1, 1998." (Depo. of Dr. Lundy, Ex. 2) Bradley Healthcare also contends the trial court erred in accepting the independent medical examiner's (Dr. Lundy) impairment rating because the majority of the impairment was based on loss of range of motion measurements which were contradicted by the treating 2
