Ella McCain, Conservator
W2000-02218-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Jon Kerry Blackwood
This is a personal injury case arising from a vehicle/pedestrian accident. A pedestrian wandered from the nursing home at which he resided and began walking alongside a roadway. The defendant driver saw the pedestrian as he was driving on the roadway. As the driver approached, the pedestrian suddenly stepped into the roadway and was struck by the defendant's truck. The pedestrian suffered significant injuries. The pedestrian's daughter, as his conservator, filed suit against the defendant driver. At the conclusion of the plaintiff's proof, the defendant driver moved for a directed verdict on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence that the defendant driver was negligent. The trial court granted a directed verdict for the defendant driver and the plaintiff now appeals. We affirm, finding that the plaintiff failed to adduce evidence from which a reasonable jury might conclude that the defendant driver was negligent.

Meloney Carr vs. Grady Carr
W2000-02420-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: George R. Ellis
This is a child custody case. The parties were separated in February 2000 and the father was awarded temporary custody of the parties' two minor children. After the trial, the mother was granted the divorce, but custody of the two children remained with the father. The father was required to pay rehabilitative alimony on the condition that the mother enroll in EMT classes. The mother appeals, asserting that the trial erred in denying a continuance when several of the mother's witnesses were unavailable to testify at the hearing, in awarding custody to the father, in making the rehabilitative alimony conditional on the mother enrolling in EMT classes and in the division of marital property. We reverse the award of custody to the father, modify the order on rehabilitative alimony, modify the division of marital property, and remand to the trial court to determine issues relating to child support.

James Moody vs. William Lea
W2000-02916-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: R. Lee Moore Jr.
This appeal involves a dispute over an oral contract to lease farming equipment. The agreement provided that the defendant could use the plaintiff's farming equipment for an amount to be determined by a formula. The defendant began farming his land, intending to plant cotton, when the Mississippi River rose and the backwater covered his property. Because the backwater remained on the land for such a long period of time, the defendant could no longer grow cotton; he had to grow soybeans instead. Subsequently, the defendant refused to pay the plaintiff the amount the plaintiff claimed under the contract, and the plaintiff sued. The trial court held that the contract was enforceable and that the defendant's performance was not excused by the doctrine of frustration of commercial purpose. The defendant appeals the ruling of the trial court. For the reasons below, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand the case to the trial court to modify the judgment.

Carrie Marsh vs. Christopher Sensabaugh
W2001-00016-COA-R3-JV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: J. Roland Reid
This is a child custody case involving the child's natural father and a third-party, the maternal aunt. The trial court held in favor of the maternal aunt, upon a determination the father was an unfit parent. The court based its decision on the father's previous charge of contempt for failure to pay child support, previous visitation practices, and lack of knowledge regarding the child's educational status, such as her teachers, grades and attendance at parent-teacher conferences. Father appeals the trial court's decision. For the reasons below, we affirm the ruling of the trial court.

Comm. DOT vs. Frances Patrick & Frank Duncan
W2001-00397-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: C. Creed Mcginley
This appeal involves the owner of an undivided five-sixths interest in property acquiring the remaining one-sixth interest from her co-tenants under the doctrine of title by prescription. The circuit court made finding of facts indicating that the prescriptive holder of the property held the property exclusively and uninterrupted for more than a twenty year period. Further, the circuit court found that no co-tenants were under a disability to assert their rights during the twenty year period and that no permission was given to the prescriptive holder to possess the property. Based on these findings of fact, the circuit court ruled that under the doctrine of title by prescription, the prescriptive holder had acquired full title in the property. For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of the circuit court.

Howard Zoldessy vs. Ingrid Davis, et al
E2000-02526-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: William E. Lantrip
Upon the application of Howard Zoldessy, a temporary injunction was issued by the trial court against the defendants, Ingrid Davis and Arthur Davis. The Davises are the parents of Zoldessy's deceased wife and the grandparents of Zoldessy's daughter, Rachel. The injunction in question prohibits the defendants "from coming about [Howard Zoldessy] and his daughter, Rachel Zoldessy, or contacting him in any manner whatsoever." Following a bench trial, the trial court found that both defendants had committed willful criminal contempt by "coming about [Zoldessy's] residence on October 4, 1999." Each defendant was sentenced to 48 hours imprisonment for their contempt. Mr. Davis was also found in contempt for sending letters to Zoldessy and was sentenced to an additional term of imprisonment of 48 hours. The defendants appeal the trial court's findings of contempt, as well as the sentences imposed. We affirm the finding of contempt as to the letters sent to Zoldessy; however, we reverse the finding of contempt for the defendants' purported "coming about" Zoldessy and his daughter.

Jeanne Alice Gabel vs. Todd Edward Gabel
E2000-02585-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Richard R. Vance
The trial court entered a default judgment against the defendant in this divorce case even though the defendant had filed an answer within the time frame set forth in Rule 12.01. We conclude that entry of the default judgment was not appropriate when the defendant timely filed an answer, and, therefore, vacate the judgment of the trial court.

In re: Estate of J. Crawford Murphy vs. Robert A. Murphy, et al.
E2001-01112-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Jeffrey D. Rader
In this case the Probate Court held that the personal representative of the Estate of Mae Thompson Murphy did not have authority to dissent from the will of her husband, J. Crawford Murphy, and thereby take an elective share of his estate. We find that T.C.A. 31-4-105 gives the personal representative this right and reverse the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. George E. Ratliff
E1999-01214-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas T. Woodall
Trial Court Judge: Judge Lynn W. Brown

The defendant, George E. Ratliff, was convicted by a jury of rape of a child. In this consolidated appeal, Defendant alleges various errors by the trial court, challenges his sentence, and appeals the dismissal of his petition for writ of error coram nobis on the ground of untimely filing. After a review of the record and applicable law, we reverse the trial court's summary dismissal of the petition for writ of error coram nobis based on the recent decision of our supreme court in Workman v. State, 41 S.W.3d 100 (Tenn. 2001). We remand this matter to the trial court for a hearing on the merits of the petition for writ of error coram nobis. Pursuant to State v. Mixon, 983 S.W.2d 661 (Tenn. 1999), appellate proceedings on Defendant's appeal as of right from his conviction are stayed, pending the trial court's ruling on the error coram nobis petition.

Philip Owens vs Bristol Motor Speedway, Inc.
E2000-02667-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Richard E. Ladd
In this putative class action suit, the plaintiff, Philip Owens, alleges that the defendant, Bristol Motor Speedway, Inc. ("Bristol Speedway"), engaged in a conspiracy to fix the prices of souvenirs sold at its racetrack. The trial court denied certification of the alleged class and granted Bristol Speedway's motion for summary judgment as to the plaintiff's individual claims. We affirm.

Barbara Gaskins vs. Roger Gaskins
E2000-02915-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Ben K. Wexler
This appeal from the Circuit Court of Greene County questions whether the Trial Court erred in awarding Ms. Gaskins alimony for a seven year period. Mr. Gaskins appeals the decision of the Circuit Court of Greene County. We affirm the decision of the Trial Court as modified and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We adjudge costs of the appeal against the Appellant, Roger Arthur Gaskins, and his surety.

Shepard Barbash vs. Monty Bruell & Anthony Smith
E2005-00387-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Howell N. Peoples

Elizabeth Hickman vs. Celia Jordan
W2000-03070-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Roger A. Page
This dispute stems from an accident in a restaurant parking lot in which a pedestrian, the plaintiff, was struck by a vehicle driven by the defendant, who was backing-up through the parking lot. The jury in this case found the defendant driver not at fault. We affirm.

Ricky Brown Sr. vs. C.O.I. Majors
W2001-00536-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Dewey C. Whitenton
This appeal arises from the dismissal of the Appellant's petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of disciplinary action and the confiscation of property. The Circuit Court of Hardeman County dismissed the Appellant's petition for writ of certiorari for the Appellant's failure to comply with section 41-21-801, et seq. of the Tennessee Code, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Appellant appeals the dismissal of his petition for writ of certiorari. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the trial court's decision.

Emmett Dunlap vs. Nancy Davis
W2001-00894-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Jon Kerry Blackwood
Plaintiff-inmate, acting pro se, filed a petition for writ of certiorari to review a judgment of the general sessions court dismissing his case. The trial court denied plaintiff's petition and he appeals. We affirm.

Charles Shelton v. State of Tennessee
E2000-02805-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry Smith
Trial Court Judge: Judge Lynn W. Brown

The appellant, Charles Shelton, appeals the dismissal of his habeas corpus petition by the Johnson County, Tennessee, Criminal Court. Following a review of the petition and the record herein we find that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED.

State of Tennessee v. Kelly A. Hancock - Order
M2000-02436-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry L. Smith

The appellant, Kelly A. Hancock appeals as a matter of right from her conviction for driving under the influence. She contends the evidence is insufficient to support the jury's verdict of guilt. After a review of the evidence we affirm the conviction pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

Charles Hayes v. State of Tennessee
M2000-02360-CCA-R3PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry L. Smith
Trial Court Judge: Judge W. Charles Lee

A Marshall County grand jury indicted the petitioner on two counts of aggravated burglary, two counts of theft, and one count of evading arrest. On October 29, 1997, the petitioner entered an open plea of guilt, reserving the determination of the length and manner of sentencing for the trial court.  Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the petitioner to a total of thirty-four years as a Range III persistent offender. In making its sentencing determination, the trial court ran several of the offenses consecutively. On direct appeal, the petitioner challenged his sentence as excessive.  State v. Hayes, No. 01C01-9804-CC-00176, 1999 WL 126650 at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville, March 11, 1999). Finding that the record supported the trial court’s sentence determination, this Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment. Id. at *2. The petitioner then unsuccessfully applied for
permission to appeal the trial court’s sentence determination to the Tennessee Supreme Court.  Thereafter, the petitioner filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that the trial court judge who imposed his sentence should have recused himself due to his personal knowledge of the facts of and victims in the case. The court
appointed counsel for the petitioner, and the petitioner’s newly appointed counsel then filed an amendment to the earlier petition, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel by both trial and appellate counsel. The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing on the petition and dismissed the petition for post-conviction relief. The petitioner now appeals the trial court’s dismissal of his petition, alleging that he received both ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel and that the trial judge erred in denying his motion for recusal. After the reviewing the record and applicable case law, we find these issues to be without merit and therefore affirm the trial court’s denial of the petition for post-conviction relief.

State of Tennessee v. Patrick Kossow
M2000-01871-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge L. Terry Lafferty
Trial Court Judge: Judge Charles D. Haston, Sr.

Defendant entered pleas of guilty to the rape of a child in Counts 1, 6, and 7 of the indictment and in Count 3, a plea of guilty to aggravated sexual battery. At the conclusion of a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed sentences of 24 years for each count of rape of a child and 12 years for the offense of aggravated sexual battery. The trial court ordered that the sentences be served consecutively, resulting in a sentence of 84 years. On direct appeal, Defendant asserts that the trial court erred in imposing an inappropriate sentence on each count and erred in imposing consecutive sentencing on all charges. After a review of the record, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

State of Tennessee v. Sheron Lampton
W2000-01583-CCA-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: Judge Roger A. Page

The Defendant was convicted of second offense driving under the influence and violation of the open container law. The trial court sentenced her to eleven months, twenty-nine days incarceration for the DUI conviction, suspended after service of ninety days, and to thirty days incarceration, suspended, for violation of the open container law. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant argues that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support her convictions. Having reviewed the record, we conclude that sufficient evidence was presented to support the jury’s findings of guilt and therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Charles Edward Mitchell v. State of Tennessee
E2001-00373-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Trial Court Judge: Judge Ray L. Jenkins

The petitioner appeals the denial of post-conviction relief on his second degree murder conviction, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in finding that he had effective assistance of trial counsel. Following his entry of a plea of guilty to second degree murder, the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, he alleged that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to thoroughly investigate and prepare his case, and that were it not for the deficiencies in counsel's representation, he would not have entered his plea of guilty. At the conclusion of an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court dismissed the petition, finding that the petitioner had failed to offer any proof to support his allegations. After a careful review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Mattie L. Scales v. City of Oak Ridge, Et Al.
E2000-00499-WCM-CV
Trial Court Judge: James B. Scott, Jr.

State of Tennessee v. Stella Rodifer
E2001-00034-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Gary R Wade
Trial Court Judge: Judge Robert E. Cupp

The defendant, Stella Rodifer, was convicted of forgery, a felony; six counts of worthless checks under $500.00, misdemeanors; and one count of worthless checks over $1,000.00, a felony. The defendant was sentenced to consecutive terms of two and four years, respectively, on each of the felonies. The trial court imposed concurrent sentences of 11 months and 29 days on each misdemeanor, two of which were ordered to be served consecutively for an effective sentence of seven years, 11 months, and 27 days. The trial court granted probation on the misdemeanors and sentenced the defendant to a Community Corrections program on the felonies. Four months later, the trial court revoked the alternative sentences and ordered the defendant to serve four years for forgery; eight years for felony worthless checks; and 11 months and 29 days (two consecutive) for each of the six counts of worthless checks, for an effective sentence of 13 years, 11 months, and 27 days. In this appeal of right, the defendant argues that the trial court erred by revoking her alternative sentences and by imposing lengthier, consecutive sentences. The judgments are affirmed.

State of Tennessee v. Bobby Gene Tucker
E2001-00017-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: Judge Lillie Ann Sells

The defendant, Bobby Gene Tucker, appeals from the revocation of his probation received for his conviction for driving under the influence of an intoxicant (DUI) after having served fifteen days in confinement. He contends (1) that the revocation warrant and affidavit are void, thereby voiding his probation revocation and (2) that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him to serve the maximum term of eleven months, twenty-nine days with credit for time served. We affirm the trial court.

William Martin vs. Douglas Sizemore, et al
M1997-00203-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle
This appeal involves a disciplinary proceeding against a licensed architect. Following a lengthy hearing, the Tennessee Board of Examiners for Architects and Engineers concluded that the architect had engaged in misconduct in the practice of architecture in connection with four projects and suspended his certificate of registration for three years. The architect appealed the Board's decision to the Chancery Court for Davidson County. The trial court reversed the Board's decision after determining that the decision was not supported by substantial and material evidence. On this appeal, the Board asserts that its suspension of the architect's certificate of registration has adequate evidentiary support. The architect renews his argument that the Board's proceedings violated his procedural due process rights because the attorney who prosecuted the State's case against him also served as the Board's lawyer in other matters. Except for a portion of the charges involving one project, we concur with the trial court's conclusion that the Board's decision lacked evidentiary support because the State failed to present expert testimony regarding the applicable standard of care. We have also determined that the architect has not carried his burden of demonstrating that the Board was actually biased against him because the lawyer who prosecuted the State's case also provided other, unrelated legal services to the Board. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment as modified herein and remand the case to the Board for further proceedings.