Opinions

State vs. Matthew Leonard & Bernie Evans
E1999-02724-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: Lynn W. Brown
The appellants, Matthew W. Leonard and Bernie J. Evans, each pled guilty in the Criminal Court for Washington County to three counts of kidnapping, a class C felony, three counts of aggravated assault, a class C felony, one count of escape, a class E felony, and one count of theft over $10,000, a class C felony. The appellants requested that the trial court grant them full probation. After a probation hearing, the trial court denied the appellants' request. The appellants present the following issue for our review: whether the trial court erred in denying the appellants full probation. After a review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Marcus Askew
98-07544-45-46
Trial Court Judge: Joseph B. Dailey

American Cable Corp. vs. ACI Management, Inc., et al
M1997-00280-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr.
This appeal involves a legal dispute arising out of a contract to install television cable in Alabama and Mississippi. After the corporation that installed the cable did not receive full payment for its work, it filed suit in the Chancery Court for Davidson County Tennessee against the corporation and partnership that hired it and the president of the defendant corporation. The trial court granted a summary judgment dismissing the claims against the defendant corporation's president, and the installer took a default judgment against the corporation for $1,059,743. On this appeal, the installer takes issue with the summary judgment dismissing its claims against the defendant corporation's president. We have determined that the trial court properly granted the summary judgment because the installer failed to demonstrate that it will be able to prove all the essential elements of its tort claims against the defendant corporation's president.

Levenhagen vs. Levenhagen
M1998-00967-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Lee Russell
Husband appeals the trial court's refusal to vacate its order divorcing the parties, claiming the order is void because it failed to include an affirmative finding that the parties made adequate provision by written agreement for the custody and maintenance of their children. In addition, Husband contends that the trial court violated his due process rights by suspending his visitation with the couple's children until he received counseling, and then ordering supervised visitation. He also maintains that the trial court improperly based its finding that he was guilty of criminal contempt for failure to pay child support on insufficient evidence. Husband claims he was entitled to a jury trial on the contempt issue. We affirm the trial court in all respects.

Henderson vs. Henderson
M1999-00912-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Donald P. Harris
This appeal involves a dispute over the Trial Court's valuation and division of marital property in this divorce action. Mrs. Henderson contends that the Trial Court undervalued the marital business, Quality Systems, Inc. Additionally, Mrs. Henderson asserts the Trial Court erred in dividing the marital assets and liabilities, denying alimony and attorney's fees and in ordering her to refund alimony pendente lite payments. We affirm the Trial Court's order, except for the denial of alimony. We vacate the Trial Court's determination on the issue of alimony and remand for a determination of the proper type and amount of alimony to be awarded to Mrs. Henderson.

Henderson vs. Henderson
M1999-00912-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Donald P. Harris
This appeal involves a dispute over the Trial Court's valuation and division of marital property in this divorce action. Mrs. Henderson contends that the Trial Court undervalued the marital business, Quality Systems, Inc. Additionally, Mrs. Henderson asserts the Trial Court erred in dividing the marital assets and liabilities, denying alimony and attorney's fees and in ordering her to refund alimony pendente lite payments. We affirm the Trial Court's order, except for the denial of alimony. We vacate the Trial Court's determination on the issue of alimony and remand for a determination of the proper type and amount of alimony to be awarded to Mrs. Henderson.

Ofman vs. Woodford
M1999-00736-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Timothy L. Easter
This is a suit by an attorney for breach of an oral contract relative to the professional services of an expert witness. Suit was instituted by civil warrant in the general sessions court. Following a default judgment in favor of the plaintiff, an appeal was perfected by the defendant to the circuit court where the case was tried de novo, non-jury and resulted in a judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $2,500.00. The defendant appealed, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Blaylock vs. Nash
M1999-00568-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: John A. Turnbull
This negligence action arises out of a collision between a cow and a car driven by the plaintiff. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant, the alleged owner and operator of a stockyard from which the cow supposedly escaped. We affirm the trial court's decision finding that the plaintiff presented no evidence that the defendant breached his duty of care. However, we do not find that the plaintiff's appeal of the trial court's decision was frivolous.

Fillmore vs. Fillmore
M1999-00714-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Carol A. Catalano
This appeal arises from a dispute between Appellant Stephen Douglas Fillmore and Appellee Karen Leigh (Anderson) Fillmore regarding the terms of their divorce. The court issued a Final Decree of Divorce, divided the parties' marital property and debts, and awarded Ms. Anderson alimony in solido. In addition, the court awarded custody of the one minor child to Ms. Anderson and set a child support amount based on the appropriate guidelines. On appeal, Mr. Fillmore argues that the trial court erred in its valuation of certain marital property, improperly awarded alimony in solido, and failed to include as a marital debt a pre-marital debt of Mr. Fillmore. In addition, Mr. Fillmore argues that the trial court improperly calculated his child support obligation based on his current income. We affirm the ruling of the trial court.

Holley vs. Haehl
M1999-02105-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Jim T. Hamilton
Landowner sued adjoining landowner and timber cutter in general sessions court for trespass and the cutting of timber on her land. From an adverse judgment, landowner appealed to the circuit court. After a trial de novo, the trial court held that adjoining landowner owned the land involved by adverse possession and entered judgment for defendants. Landowner has appealed.

Smith v. Safety Kleen Corporation
E1999-01123-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Byers, Sr. J.
Trial Court Judge: Howell N. Peoples, Chancellor
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The plaintiff, Everett Alan Smith, filed various motions in this case, all of which were denied by the trial court. The plaintiff appeals from the trial court's: (1) refusal to award temporary total benefits from the date of injury until time of medical improvement rating by physician or from the date of injury until trial; (2) denial of a lump sum payment of attorney fees because the request was in the form of a motion rather than in the form of a petition; (3) denial of motion requiring the defendant to pay for medication and authorized physician benefits because the plaintiff sought these by motion rather than by petition. The plaintiff also raises the issue of whether the trial court erred in refusing to pay certain pharmacy charges. We affirm the judgment of the trial court in part, reverse the judgment in part, and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

Steven Porreca v. Chili's Inc., & Liberty Mutual
E1999-00961-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: John K. Byers, Sr. J.
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Howell N. Peoples, Chancellor
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 to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The plaintiff was burned while working for the defendant restaurant. The defendant did not dispute that the plaintiff suffered a compensable injury but did argue the award of fifty percent permanent partial disability was excessive and also contended the trial court should have allowed an offset for overpayment of approximately two weeks of temporary total disability. We affirm.

State vs. Henry Marshall Jr.
W1999-01159-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas T. Woodall
Trial Court Judge: Roy B. Morgan, Jr.
Defendant Henry Marshall, Jr. was convicted of reckless aggravated assault following a jury trial in the Madison County Circuit Court. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Defendant as a Range I Standard Offender to a term of two years, with the Defendant to serve eleven months and twenty-nine days in the local jail, and the remaining one year and one day on supervised probation. The Defendant challenges his conviction and his sentence, raising the following issues: (1) whether the trial court erred in denying Defendant's request for an instruction on self-defense, (2) whether the trial court erred in denying Defendant's request for an instruction on the lesser-included offense of simple assault and (3) whether the trial court correctly sentenced the defendant. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court as modified herein.

State vs. Willie Boyland
W1999-00634-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas T. Woodall
Trial Court Judge: Jon K. Blackwood
Following a jury trial in the Hardeman County Circuit Court, Defendant was convicted of the offense of casual exchange of marijuana. On appeal, Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction. He also asserts that the trial court erred by prohibiting Defendant from questioning a state witness about a civil warrant and judgment against the witness and that the trial court erred by overruling his objection to the State eliciting testimony from its primary witness regarding the witness' employment. We have reviewed the record on appeal and the briefs of the parties and find no reversible error. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

State vs. John Palmer
W1999-01310-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas T. Woodall
Trial Court Judge: Dick Jerman, Jr.
Defendant, John David Palmer, was convicted of voluntary manslaughter and especially aggravated robbery following a jury trial in Gibson County Circuit Court. He was sentenced to serve three years for voluntary manslaughter and twenty years for especially aggravated robbery with the sentences to be served concurrent with each other. He does not appeal the voluntary manslaughter conviction or sentence. However, regarding the conviction for especially aggravated robbery, Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction and argues that the trial court committed reversible error by not instructing the jury on the lesser-included offense of theft and unauthorized use of a vehicle, i.e., joyriding. After review, we reverse and remand for a new trial on the offense of especially aggravated robbery.

State vs. Ronnie Bradfield
W1999-02344-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas T. Woodall
Trial Court Judge: James C. Beasley, Jr.
Petitioner, Ronnie Bradfield, was convicted by a jury in the Shelby County Criminal Court of three counts of attempt to commit second degree murder, which this Court affirmed on direct appeal. Petitioner subsequently filed a pro se petition together with an amended and supplemental petition for post-conviction relief alleging, primarily, ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction judge denied relief following an evidentiary hearing which took place over numerous days. Petitioner now appeals the judgment of the post-conviction court denying his petition. We affirm.

State vs. Edward Mitchell
W1999-01314-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas T. Woodall
Trial Court Judge: Carolyn Wade Blackett
The defendant, Edward Mitchell, appeals as of right from his conviction by a jury in the Shelby County Criminal Court for two counts of aggravated assault, a Class C felony. His sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred by denying him a continuance because of the unavailability of a witness. After a review of the record, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for a new trial.

Michael Alger vs. Corrections Corp.
W2000-00500-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Jon Kerry Blackwood
An inmate sued Corrections Corporation of America and various individuals alleging failure to provide dental and medical care. The trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The judgment of the trial court is reversed in part and affirmed in part.

State vs. Joshua Dailey
E1999-01342-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas T. Woodall
Trial Court Judge: D. Kelly Thomas, Jr.
The Defendant, Joshua Dailey, pled guilty to two counts of the Class E felony offense of violation of the Habitual Motor Vehicle Offender Act. The trial court sentenced Defendant to two years for each conviction, to be served consecutively. Furthermore, the trial court ordered the first sentence to be served in split confinement, with 300 days incarceration in the county jail followed by placement in Community Corrections. The Defendant appeals, challenging the length of the total effective sentence and arguing that he should serve the entire sentence in Community Corrections. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State vs. James M. Loveday
E1999-02072-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas T. Woodall
Trial Court Judge: Richard R. Vance
Following a jury trial, Defendant, James M. Loveday, was convicted of one count of attempted first degree murder, four counts of aggravated assault, and two counts of reckless endangerment. The trial court sentenced him to twenty-five (25) years for the attempted first degree murder conviction, six (6) years for each of the four aggravated assault convictions, and two (2) years for each of the reckless endangerment convictions. The sentences were ordered to be served consecutively to each other for a total sentence of fifty-three (53) years. On appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the convictions of attempted first degree murder and aggravated assault, and argues that the trial court erroneously admitted testimony of prior bad acts, improperly considered victim impact letters in the presentence report, and argues that the sentences are excessive and that the trial court erred by ordering consecutive sentencing. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court as modified herein.

Johnny L. Frye v. Athens Products
03S01-9904-CV-00043
Authoring Judge: John K. Byers, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. John B. Hagler
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 to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. 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 finding, 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. See Corcoran v. Foster Auto GMC, Inc., 746 S.W.2d 452, 456 (Tenn. 1988). The plaintiff appeals from the trial court finding that he had failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that he had sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of his work. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. There is little need to go into significant detail concerning the facts in this case. There are significant discrepancies between the testimony of the plaintiff at trial and in the statements he made to medical providers concerning whether he sustained an injury on June 1, 1998, or whether he experienced pain on the prior Sunday while walking in the mall, or whether he sustained an injury at work on June 2nd. The plaintiff gave the only evidence concerning an alleged accidental injury. The determination of the trial judge was, by necessity, based upon his assessment of the evidence and his ruling based upon the testimony of the plaintiff. The trial court found that the plaintiff did not tell the defendant of any work- related accident until June 28th but found that he did notify the physician and especially the nurse practitioner on June 2nd that he sustained a work-related injury on June 1. The court found this unusual and ruled that the two histories cancelled out each other, thus causing the plaintiff to fail in carrying his burden of proof. 2

State vs. John Hampton
W1999-00983-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Gary R Wade
Trial Court Judge: Jon Kerry Blackwood
The defendant, John Lee Hampton, who was charged with two counts of rape, was convicted of two counts of statutory rape. The trial court imposed two concurrent one-year sentences, with all but sixty days suspended. In this appeal as of right, the defendant asserts that the evidence was insufficient. He also argues that the trial court erred by admitting certain photographs into evidence, by rehabilitating a juror, by denying his motion in limine to exclude evidence of uncharged sexual offenses involving the victim, by permitting the victim to testify in rebuttal regarding an uncharged sexual offense, and by refusing to suspend his entire sentence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State vs. Billy Thompson
W1999-01001-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Trial Court Judge: James C. Beasley, Jr.
In 1995, Billy Thompson, a Mississippi resident, was convicted in Shelby County of driving under the influence, resulting in suspension of his driving privileges in this state for one year. Fifteen months later, Thompson was again charged and convicted of driving under the influence, sixth offense, reckless driving and driving while revoked, being the instant offenses before this court. On the date of the latter offenses, Thompson possessed a valid Mississippi driver's license, however, he had not complied with the statutory requirements for reinstatement of his driving privileges in this state. Thompson appeals his convictions contending the trial court erred (1) by failing to sever the charge of driving while license revoked from the remaining counts and (2) by failing to grant his motion for judgment of acquittal as to the charge of driving while license revoked. We conclude that all charges were properly joined pursuant to Tenn. R. Crim. P. 8(a). Moreover, we hold that a nonresident motorist, although possessing a valid out-of-state license, may not operate a motor vehicle in this state following this state's revocation of his driving privileges until the motorist complies with Tennessee's reinstatement procedures. Because we find the proof sufficient to support the challenged conviction, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

State vs. Jenniefer Oakley
W1999-00850-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Trial Court Judge: Bernie Weinman
Jennifer E. Oakley entered guilty pleas to three counts of misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia. The manner of service, including the request for judicial diversion, was submitted to the trial court. The trial court denied a grant of judicial diversion based upon the circumstances of the offenses and the inherent dangerous effect of drugs to our communities. After review, we conclude that the record supports the trial court's denial of diversion. The judgment, accordingly, is affirmed.

James Karls vs. Percy Pitzer, et al
W1999-01107-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Jon Kerry Blackwood
This is an appeal from the trial court's order dismissing a petition for writ of habeas corpus for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. We affirm the ruling of the trial court.