State vs. Douglas Canady
M1999-02135-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: Timothy L. Easter
Defendant, Douglas Canady, appeals his conviction for aggravated robbery, for which he received a sentence of ten years in the Department of Correction. The sole issue in this appeal is whether the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict. Finding the evidence sufficient, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State vs. George O. Mears
M1999-01229-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: Don Ash
The appellant, George O. Mears, appeals his conviction in the Cannon County Circuit Court of driving under the influence of an intoxicant, second offense. Pursuant to the appellant's conviction, the trial court imposed a sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days incarceration in the Cannon County Jail, suspending all but six months of the appellant's sentence and placing him on probation. On appeal, the appellant presents the following issues for our review: (1) whether the trial court erred in permitting the prosecutor to comment to the jury about the appellant's failure to call a witness and in providing a "missing witness" instruction to the jury; (2) whether the evidence adduced at the appellant's trial is sufficient to support the jury's verdict of guilt; and (3) whether the trial court erred in sentencing the appellant. Following a review of the record and the parties' briefs, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this case for a new trial.

State vs. Damon Theodore Marsh
M1999-01879-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: W. Charles Lee
Defendant, Damon Theodore Marsh, appeals his conviction for second degree murder, for which he received a sentence of 23 years and 6 months. On appeal, the defendant raises the issue of sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction. We conclude that the issue raised by the defendant in this appeal is without merit. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

State vs. Michael A. Janosky
M1999-02574-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Trial Court Judge: Cheryl A. Blackburn
Michael Janosky appeals from his conviction of driving under the influence. In this direct appeal, he challenges his conviction based upon (1) erroneous admission of breath alcohol test results which he contends were involuntarily obtained and (2) the results of the breath test were not administered in accordance with the requirements of State vs. Sensing. As to issue (1), we hold that, absent a motorist's express refusal, consent to a breath test is deemed voluntary as a matter of law. With reference to issue (2), the improper administration of the breath test, we find this issue waived because it was not included in the appellant's motion for new trial. Tenn. R. App. P. 3(e). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment entered by the trial court.

S.E.A., Inc. vs. Southside Leasing Company and Moss W. Yater
E2000-00631-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: John F. Weaver
S.E.A., Inc. brought suit in Knox County Chancery Court seeking an injunction and alternatively, damages, against its lessor, Southside Leasing Company, and Southside's secured creditor, Moss W. Yater, regarding a non-disturbance agreement. Yater is also Southside's majority shareholder, president and director. S.E.A.sought to sublease a portion of the property. Pursuant to the terms of the lease between S.E.A. and Southside, Southside consented to the sublease and executed the requested non-disturbance agreement. However, Yater, Southside's secured creditor, refused to execute the non-disturbance agreement unless Southside received a portion of the rent from the sublease. Defendants filed motions for summary judgment which were granted by the Trial Court. S.E.A. appeals the Trial Court's granting of summary judgment to the Defendants. We affirm.

State vs. Richard Allan Frye
E1999-01564-CCA-R9-RL
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Trial Court Judge: Phyllis H. Miller
This appeal arises from the order of the Sullivan County Criminal Court upholding the district attorney general's refusal to accept the application of the defendant for pretrial diversion. The defendant asserts that the trial court erred in failing to determine that the district attorney general abused his discretion by relying on facts not supported by the evidence and by failing to consider all relevant factors. We conclude that substantial evidence was before the district attorney general to support the validity of each of the four factors relied on in denying pretrial diversion and that the district attorney general considered all relevant factors. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

State vs. Joy A. Stinson
E1999-02082-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Trial Court Judge: James B. Scott, Jr.
The defendant was convicted of one count of theft of property over $1,000 for her unauthorized charge of items at a retail store to her former employer's account. The trial court sentenced her to four years imprisonment, with three years suspended. On appeal, the defendant presents the issues of whether the trial court erred in allowing the State to introduce the testimony of an alibi rebuttal witness whom the State did not identify as a witness prior to trial, and in allowing the State to present evidence which she alleges tied her to an uncharged crime. Based upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State vs. Raymond Jackson Collins
E1999-00233-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge John Everett Williams
Trial Court Judge: R. Jerry Beck
The defendant appeals from his conviction of, and four-year sentence for, violation of a habitual traffic offender order, failure to stop for a red light, and violation of the seat belt law. He asserts that insufficient evidence supported the verdict, that the imposed sentence was excessive, and that the trial court improperly denied alternative sentencing. We affirm the convictions and sentence, holding that sufficient evidence supported the verdict and that the trial court properly sentenced the defendant.

Barry Robinson v. Donald Brooks
M2003-00185-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle
This case involves the sale by auction of certain real property in Davidson County. The buyers brought suit in Davidson County Chancery Court seeking specific performance or, in the alternative, damages for breach of contract. From the trial court's grant of summary judgment for the defendants, the plaintiff buyers appeal. We affirm.

State vs. Chris Wilson a/k/a Calvin Clark
M1998-00395-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Trial Court Judge: John H. Gasaway, III
Following a "best interest" plea to one count of aggravated burglary, the appellant was sentenced to a term of five years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he challenges (1) the length of the sentence and (2) the imposition of a sentence of total confinement. After review, we affirm.

Dudley vs. Dudley
M1998-00982-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Carol A. Catalano
In this divorce case, the trial court awarded the divorce to the Wife and divided the property. Husband appeals the award of the marital residence and its contents to Wife. We affirm.

Turner vs. Turner
M1999-00482-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Marietta M. Shipley
This is a divorce case. Following a bench trial, the court below (1) granted a divorce to wife; (2) divided the marital property; (3) awarded wife alimony in the form of a $1,640.55 monthly payment out of husband's retirement account; and (4) declared that the alimony award was to be secured by the husband's retirement account. Husband appeals the alimony award, the use of the retirement account as security for the payment of alimony, and the trial court's division of the marital property. Wife takes issue with the division of the parties' marital property. We affirm.

Turner vs. Turner
M1999-00482-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Marietta M. Shipley
This is a divorce case. Following a bench trial, the court below (1) granted a divorce to wife; (2) divided the marital property; (3) awarded wife alimony in the form of a $1,640.55 monthly payment out of husband's retirement account; and (4) declared that the alimony award was to be secured by the husband's retirement account. Husband appeals the alimony award, the use of the retirement account as security for the payment of alimony, and the trial court's division of the marital property. Wife takes issue with the division of the parties' marital property. We affirm.

Lassiter vs. Lassiter
M1999-00374-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Carol A. Catalano
This case involves a divorce ending a seven-year marriage. The divorce was awarded to the wife on grounds of the husband's inappropriate marital conduct. The trial court divided the property and debts according to the parties' stipulations. The court then awarded the wife alimony in futuro and ordered the husband to pay $750 of the wife's attorney fees. The husband appeals the awards of alimony and attorney fees. We affirm.

State Dept. of Children's Svcs. vs. L.S., In the Matter of D.S.
M1999-00847-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: John J. Maddux
The Trial Court removed minor child from the parental home on grounds child was dependent and neglected. We affirm.

Franklin Nat'l Bank vs. Prowell
M2000-00580-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Jeffrey S. Bivins
The Circuit Court of Williamson County refused to issue a writ of certiorari to review a judgment of the General Sessions Court of that county because the petition was untimely and the same issues were already pending in an action in Maury County. We affirm.

Moss vs. TN Board of Paroles
M2000-00128-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle
At the hearing where appellant's parole was revoked, the Hearing Officer admitted sworn statements of alleged victims. The Trial Court upheld the revocation. We affirm.

Joiner vs. Metro Gov't
M2000-00413-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Carol L. Soloman
The Trial Court entered consent Judgment over objection of defendant. We vacate Judgment and remand.

Wilson vs. So. Centr. Corr. Facility Disciplinary Bd
M2000-00303-COA-RM-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Jim T. Hamilton
An inmate in a privately operated prison filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari against the disciplinary board at that facility. The trial court dismissed his petition for failure to state a claim. We affirm

Paul Farnsworth, A/K/A Ronnie Bradfield v. Donita Moore,
01623-COA-R3-CV
Trial Court Judge: Thomas W. Graham

Tammy Elizabeth Hickman & Danny Ray Hickman vs. Eugenia Darlene Hickman
E2000-00927-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Jeffrey F. Stewart
Plaintiffs sued to terminate the mother's parental rights. The Trial Judge held plaintiffs failed to carry the burden of proof. We affirm.

Barry King v. City of Belle Meade, and
M1999-01432-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Turnbull, Sp. J.
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr., Chancellor
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. _5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this case, the employee contends the trial court erred in failing to award workers' compensation disability and/or medical benefits to the employee based upon his work-related hypertension and heart disease. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the trial court's dismissal of the employees workers' compensation claims should be affirmed. Tenn. Code Ann. _5-6-225(e)(3) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed Turnbull, Sp. J., in which Drowota, J., and Loser, Sp. J., joined. Daniel Carlton Todd, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Barry King. Teresa Reall Ricks, Farrar & Bates, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellees, City of Belle Meade and TML Risk Management Pool, Inc., Appellees. MEMORANDUM OPINION The employee, Barry King ("King"), was employed as a police officer for the City of Belle Meade from January 1988 to September 1997. The City of Belle Meade is insured by TML Risk Management Pool, Inc. On January 6, 1988, prior to his employment as a police officer for the City of Belle Meade, King underwent a physical examination which failed to reveal any presence of hypertension or heart disease. On August 12, 1995, King was diagnosed with an irregular heartbeat and high cholesterol. The following day, he was hospitalized with chest pains. King continued his duties as a police officer for the City of Belle Meade after his release from the hospital. Upon the advice of King's cardiologist nearly two years later, King was referred to and treated by Dr. Marcus C. Houston, M.D., for high blood pressure, high cholesterol, coronary heart disease, carotid artery obstruction, and a history of transient ischemic attacks since June 3, 1997. On September 4, 1997, Dr. Houston suggested to King that he no longer continue to work as a police officer because the stress related to King's job as a police officer constituted a danger to King's health. On September 5, 1997, King terminated his employment as a police officer and submitted his First Report of Work Injury. King claims workers' compensation disability and/or medical benefits based upon his work-related hypertension and heart disease. He argues that job stress caused high blood pressure which in turn caused his heart disease. The employee insists he suffers an occupational disease under Tenn. Code Ann. section 5-6-31[6]. Subsequent to King's filing for workers' compensation, an independent health examination was conducted by Dr. Hal M. Roseman, M.D., who evaluated King's medical records, checked the calibration of King's blood pressure monitor, performed a physical examination of King, and had a psychological test of King performed. Dr. Roseman concluded to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that King's medical condition was not proximately caused by his employment as a police officer. Neither Dr. Roseman nor Dr. Houston can be characterized as a professional witness who commonly testify in worker's compensation cases. Charles Vincent Perry, Jr., the Chief of Police for Belle Meade, testified that King's duties as a police officer for the City of Belle Meade consisted of general patrol duties, specifically as a DUI enforcement officer. King does not specifically claim that any particular incident or event in performing his duties as a police officer precipitated his hypertension or coronary heart disease. From the above summarized evidence, the trial judge found that sufficient medical evidence rebutted the presumption, supplied by Tenn. Code Ann. _7-51-21(a)(1), that King's hypertension and heart disease were "accidental injur[ies] suffered in the course of employment." The trial court held that the employee failed to cite to a specific event or occurrence that precipitated his hypertension and heart disease. ISSUES Did the trial court properly find and conclude that the employee's heart disease is not compensable? [2]

J.D. Hickman v. State of Tennessee
E1999-02756-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge J. Curwood Witt, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Lynn W. Brown

State vs. Tracy L. Fry
E1999-02758-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry Smith
Trial Court Judge: Lynn W. Brown
Tracy Fry, the Defendant and Appellant, pled guilty to driving under the influence, second offense. With the State's and trial court's agreement, however, she specifically reserved the right to appeal a dispositive question of law pursuant to Tenn. R. Crim. P. 37(b)(2)(1). The issue reserved for review is whether Officer Kyte "had reasonable suspicion based on specific and articulable facts, to approach and subsequently seize the defendant leading to the arrest of the defendant." We conclude that the initial encounter between Officer Kyte and the Defendant was not a seizure, that the encounter provided reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify an investigatory detention of the Defendant, and that sufficient probable cause to arrest the Defendant developed during the course of the brief investigatory detention. Thus, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Walter E. Everette, et al vs. Hubert G. Berry, et al
E2000-00461-COA-R3-CV
Trial Court Judge: Daryl R. Fansler
In this dispute over real estate, the Plaintiffs seek to have a quit claim deed conveying certain property to the Defendants declared spurious, as well as injunctive relief relative to rights-of-way adjacent to their property. The Chancellor granted the relief the Plaintiffs sought, resulting in this appeal. We affirm.