Marilou Gilbert v. Don Birdwell and wife, Christine Birdwell
M2009-01743-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: J. Steven Stafford, J.
Trial Court Judge: Jeffrey L. Stewart, Chancellor
This case arises from a boundary line dispute. Appellants appeal the trial court's denial of their petition to reopen proof after the court rendered its decision, establishing the disputed boundary in accordance with the Appellee's survey. Finding no error, we affirm.

Grundy Court of Appeals

Dock Walker v. Henry Steward, Warden
W2009-00989-CCA-R3-HC
Authoring Judge: Judge D. Kelly Thomas, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Joseph H. Walker, III

The pro se Petitioner, Dock Walker, appeals as of right from the Lauderdale County Circuit Court's summary dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The habeas corpus court denied the petition for failure to state a cognizable claim. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court.

Lauderdale Court of Criminal Appeals

State of Tennessee v. Roy Rowe, Jr.
M2009-00943-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: Judge Robert Crigler

The Defendant, Roy Rowe, Jr., pled guilty to seventeen counts of sale of a controlled substance, and, after merging several of the counts, the trial court sentenced him as a Range I offender to an effective sentence of six years. The trial court imposed a split sentence, ordering that the Defendant serve 365 days in the county jail, with the remainder of his sentence to be served on probation. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it enhanced his sentence to the maximum within the range. After reviewing the record and applicable authorities, we affirm the trial court's judgments.

Marshall Court of Criminal Appeals

State of Tennessee v. Johnny L. Sapp
E2008-00663-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: Judge J. Curtis Smith

The appellant, Johnny L. Sapp, was found guilty of one count of possession of a motor vehicle from which the serial number has been removed in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-5-111 and two counts of altering the serial number on a motor vehicle in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-5-112. He received a total effective sentence of two years. On appeal, the appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; that his convictions for possession of a motor vehicle from which the serial number had been removed and altering the serial number on a motor vehicle violate double jeopardy; and that the trial court erred in denying judicial diversion or probation. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Bledsoe Court of Criminal Appeals

State of Tennessee v. Teddy Ray Mitchell - Dissenting
E2008-02672-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: Judge John Dugger, Jr.

Hamblen Court of Criminal Appeals

State of Tennessee v. Teddy Ray Mitchell
E2008-02672-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge D. Kelly Thomas, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge John Dugger, Jr.

The Defendant, Teddy Ray Mitchell, appeals from his jury conviction in the Criminal Court of Hamblen County for disorderly conduct, a Class C misdemeanor, for which he received a sentence of thirty days in jail. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends (1) that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction, (2) that his conviction violates his First Amendment right to free speech, and (3) that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of an altercation with another police officer that was contemporaneous to the offense. Following our review, we conclude that the evidence is insufficient to support the Defendant’s conviction of disorderly conduct. Accordingly, the Defendant’s conviction is reversed, and the case is dismissed.

Hamblen Court of Criminal Appeals

Thomas E. Crowe v. Bradley Equipment Rentals & Sales, Inc.
E2008-02744-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge John W. McClarty
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Jerri S. Bryant

Plaintiff filed this lawsuit alleging malicious prosecution, abuse of process, false arrest, false imprisonment, outrageous conduct, violation of Article 1, Section 18 of the Tennessee Constitution, and various violations of 11 U.S.C. § 362, and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985. After removal of the lawsuit to federal court, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee dismissed the federal claims and remanded the state law claims back to the state trial court. The trial court subsequently granted a motion for summary judgment and dismissed the remaining claims. We affirm.

Bradley Court of Appeals

Beth Proffitt v. Smoky Mountain Woodcarvers Supply, Inc.
E2009-00667-COA-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge John W. McClarty
Trial Court Judge: Judge W. Dale Young

The plaintiff filed this action seeking to review the business records of the defendant, asserting under oath that she is a 25 percent shareholder of the defendant corporation. The defendant moved to dismiss. The trial court found that the plaintiff had complied with the requirements of Tenn. Code Ann. §48-26-104(a) – the corporate records statute – and ordered the defendant to comply with the request to inspect and/or copy corporate records. The trial court also ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff’s attorney fees. We reverse.

Blount Court of Appeals

Christenberry Trucking & Farm, Inc. v. F&M Marketing Services, Inc.
E2009-01325-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor John F. Weaver

Christenberry Trucking & Farm, Inc., initiated this litigation against F&M Marketing
Services, Inc., with a complaint seeking a declaration that Christenberry had not contracted
to pay F&M a commission on loads Christenberry hauled for UPS/Dell Computer (“the
UPS/Dell account”). F&M filed an answer and counterclaim asking for a determination that
there was a contract with respect to the UPS/Dell account under which Christenberry was
obligated to pay F&M a commission of 6%. F&M’s counterclaim also asked for an
accounting and attorney’s fees. The case was tried without a jury, after which Christenberry
was allowed to amend its pleadings to allege that if there was a contract it was illegal and
unenforceable because F&M is not licensed as a broker by the Interstate Commerce
Commission (“the ICC”). The trial court found that there was a contract between
Christenberry and F&M, but that the contract was rendered illegal and unenforceable because
of F&M’s lack of a broker’s license. F&M hired new counsel who filed a notice of appeal
that did not contain the signature of its trial counsel. Christenberry filed a motion with the
trial court to strike the notice of appeal. Six days later, F&M filed an amended notice of
appeal which bore, in addition to the signature of its new appellate counsel, the signature of
its counsel of record in the trial court. F&M argues on appeal that it was not required to be
licensed and, alternatively, that the contract should not be nullified for its lack of a license,
even if one was required. Christenberry argues that the notice of appeal is ineffective. We
vacate the judgment of the trial court and remand for further proceedings.

Knox Court of Appeals

Regina Day v. Zurich American Insurance
W2009-01349-WC-R3-WC
Authoring Judge: Senior Judge Donald P. Harris
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor James F. Butler

In this workers’ compensation action, the employee, Regina Day, sustained compensable injuries to both of her shoulders. She returned to her pre-injury job, but the holding company which owned her employer had been sold to another entity. The employer, which had been a corporation, became a limited liability company (LLC). The trial court, applying existing case law, held that she had not returned to work for her pre-injury employer and awarded permanent partial disability benefits in excess of the statutory cap contained in Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-241(d)(1)(A). Her employer has appealed, contending that the trial court erred by failing to apply the cap or, in the alternative, that the award is excessive. We affirm the judgment.

Madison Workers Compensation Panel

State of Tennessee v. Willie Lewis
W2008-02636-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: Judge Chris Craft

A Shelby County jury convicted the Defendant, Willie Lewis, of aggravated robbery. The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a career offender to thirty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction ("TDOC"). On appeal, the Defendant contends: (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction; and (2) the trial court erred when it imposed an excessive sentence. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

Shelby Court of Criminal Appeals

Keith Dotson v. State of Tennessee
W2008-01666-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge D. Kelly Thomas, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Paula L. Skahan

The Petitioner, Keith Dotson, filed a petition for post-conviction relief attacking his conviction of aggravated burglary on the basis of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief based upon its finding that the Petitioner had failed to prove his allegations by clear and convincing evidence. In this appeal as of right, the Petitioner contends that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to investigate and prepare adequately for the fingerprint evidence presented at trial. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Shelby Court of Criminal Appeals

State of Tennessee v. Willie Lewis
W2008-02636-CCA-R3-CD
Trial Court Judge: Chris B. Craft

Shelby Court of Criminal Appeals

John Allen Construction, LLC v. Jerome Hancock, Sandra Hancock, and Carroll Bank and Trust
W2008-02785-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Ron E. Harmon

This is a construction case. The defendant landowners entered into an oral contract with the
plaintiff contractor to construct a house. When the house was substantially completed, the
homeowners terminated the builder, citing defective work. At the time of termination, there
were two unpaid invoices. After filing a notice of lien on the landowners’ property, the
contractor filed suit for breach of contract and to enforce the lien. The landowners
counterclaimed for breach of contract and sought damages stemming from the defective
work. After a trial, the trial court entered judgment for the contractor and awarded a portion
of the amount sought. The trial court’s order did not address enforcement of the contractor’s
lien. The landowners appeal. Because the trial court’s order does not address, among other
things, enforcement of the lien, it is not a final judgment, and this Court does not have
jurisdiction over the appeal. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal and remand the case to the
trial court for further proceedings.

Benton Court of Appeals

Madison Co. Sheriff's Dep. and The Madison Co. Civil Service Commission for Madison Co. Sheriff's Dep.
W2009-00099-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Holly M. Kirby
Trial Court Judge: Judge Allen W. Wallace

This appeal involves the termination of a sheriff’s department employee. The employee was terminated and appealed the termination to the county civil service commission. The termination was upheld by the commission, based solely on expert testimony. The employee then sought judicial review. The motion for summary judgment filed by the employer sheriff’s department was granted, and the employee’s petition was dismissed. The employee now appeals. We find that the expert testimony on which the commission relied is incongruent with the undisputed facts in the record. Therefore, we conclude that the commission’s decision is not supported by substantial and material evidence and is arbitrary and capricious. We reverse the grant of summary judgment in favor of the employer and remand for entry of judgment in favor of the employee.

Madison Court of Appeals

Harrison Kerr Tigrett v. John E. Linn, M. D, et al.
W2009-00205-COA-R9-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge J. Steven Stafford
Trial Court Judge: Kay S. Robilio

This is a Tenn. R. App. P. 9 appeal of the denial of a motion for summary judgment in a
medical malpractice case. The trial court denied Appellants/Defendants’ motions for
summary judgment, finding that the statute of repose, Tenn. Code Ann.§29-26-116(a)(3), was
tolled as a result of fraudulent concealment on the part of Appellants/Defendants. Finding
that there are material issues of fact in dispute, we affirm the trial court’s denial of
Appellants’ motions for summary judgment. We, however, vacate any decision that the
statute of limitations was tolled as a result of fraudulent concealment.

Shelby Court of Appeals

Scott Campbell, et al. v. William H. Teague, et al.
W2009-00529-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge J. Steven Stafford
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor James F. Butler

This is a construction case. Appellants/Builders appeal the trial court’s award of damages
to Appellees/Homeowners pursuant to the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, and arising
from Appellants/Builders’ breach of warranty and contract. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Henderson Court of Appeals

State of Tennessee ex rel., Carla S. (Nelson) Rickard v. Douglas Taylor Holt
M2009-01331-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge J. Steven Stafford
Trial Court Judge: C. L. Rogers

Sumner Court of Appeals

Donald Simmons vs. KC Construction and Consulting, Inc., et al.
E2009-01005-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Telford E. Forgerty, Jr.

Plaintiff brought this action for breach of contract. The issues were referred to a Special Master, and the plaintiff on the hearing date, acting pro se, asked for a continuance which the Master denied. The defendant moved to confirm the Master's report and a hearing was set on the Motion. The plaintiff, again acting pro se, asked for a continuance, which was again denied. The plaintiff, acting pro se, moved to set aside the Judgment because he did not get a full ten days to file objections, and the court set aside the Judgment and set another hearing date. After hearing plaintiff's objections, the Court affirmed the Special Master's report and entered Judgment. Plaintiff, on appeal, raises the issues of whether the Trial Court erred in not sustaining objections to the Master's report, whereby the Master allowed defendant to interview witnesses and exhibits at the hearing without compliance with local rules that require the parties to exchange names of witnesses in advance of trial, and whether the Trial Court erred in denying plaintiff's motion for continuance. We affirm the Judgment of the Trial Court.

Sevier Court of Appeals

Stanley Harvill v. State of Tennessee
W2009-00594-CCA-R3-HC
Authoring Judge: Judge J. C. McLin
Trial Court Judge: Judge Joseph H. Walker, III

The petitioner, Stanley Harvill, appeals the circuit c 1 ourt’s order summarily dismissing his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Following our review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the court’s order.

Hardeman Court of Criminal Appeals

State of Tennessee v. Arealie Boyd
W2009-00762-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge J. C. McLin
Trial Court Judge: Judge James M. Lammey

The defendant, Arealie Boyd, pled guilty to forgery over $1,000, a Class D felony, on March 30, 2009. After a hearing, the trial court sentenced her to a two-year sentence in the Shelby County Correctional Center, suspended all but thirty days of the sentence, and placed her on probation for six years. On appeal, the defendant challenges the length and manner of her sentence. Specifically, she contends that the trial court should have sentenced her as an especially mitigated offender to either full probation or judicial diversion. Additionally, the defendant contends that the trial court erred in allowing hearsay testimony at the sentencing hearing. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Shelby Court of Criminal Appeals

Frank Garrett, et al. v. City of Memphis et al.
W2009-01506-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Walter L. Evans

This appeal concerns the discretion of the Memphis Police Department to fill vacant civil
service positions with temporary, “acting” personnel prior to the expiration of an active
promotion roster. The trial court concluded the Memphis City Charter does not mandate
permanent promotion of the next eligible employee from an active promotion roster simply
because a vacancy exists. The court further concluded that no charter provision or city
ordinance prohibits the use of acting appointments; rather, the proof showed that the use of
officers in an acting capacity is a longstanding policy within the police department and every
other division of city government. As a result, the court held that the department did not
violate civil service laws when it declined to permanently promote the plaintiffs. Finding no
error in the decision below, we affirm.

Shelby Court of Appeals

In Re: Tristan J.K.S.
E2009-00703-COA-R3-JV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Judge Jeffrey D. Rader

The appellee filed a Petition for Contempt against respondent for failing to pay child support. The Trial Court found respondent in contempt, entered Judgment for back child support, but later purged the Judgment for incarceration. The respondent has appealed, arguing that the Trial Court erred in finding him in civil contempt, and it was not appropriate to incarcerate him to enforce the Court's orders. On appeal, we affirm the Judgment of the Trial Court.

Sevier Court of Appeals

State of Tennessee v. D'Angelo Barnes and Monterrio Watson
W2009-00081-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry Smith
Trial Court Judge: Judge Chris B. Craft

Appellants, Monterrio Watson and D’Angelo Barnes, were both convicted by a Shelby County Jury of two counts of aggravated robbery. Appellants were both juveniles at the time of the offenses but were transferred to criminal court for trial as adults. Appellant Barnes was sentenced by the trial court to serve ten years for each conviction. The sentences were ordered to be served concurrently. Appellant Watson was ordered to serve eight years and six months for each conviction, to be served concurrently. Both Appellants filed timely motions for new trial. The trial court denied both motions and these appeals ensued. The appeals were consolidated by this Court. On appeal, the following issues are presented for our review: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to support the convictions; and (2) whether the trial court properly denied Appellant Watson’s request for an acceptance hearing in criminal court after the transfer from juvenile court. After a review of the record, we determine that Appellant Watson waived the issue related to the transfer from juvenile court for failing to provide an adequate record on appeal. Moreover, Appellant Watson failed to file a motion for an acceptance hearing within ten days of the transfer order as required by Tennessee Code Annotated section 37-1-159(d). Further, we determine that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for aggravated robbery. Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.
 

Shelby Court of Criminal Appeals

State of Tennessee v. Oscar Joe Garcia
W2009-00592-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E. Glenn
Trial Court Judge: Judge Roy B. Morgan, Jr.

Following a jury trial, the defendant, Oscar Joe Garcia, was convicted of four counts of facilitation of attempted second degree murder, four counts of facilitation of aggravated assault, one count of felony reckless endangerment, and one count of possession of a weapon with intent to employ during the commission of an offense. The trial court merged the facilitation of aggravated assault convictions into the facilitation of attempted second degree murder convictions and sentenced the defendant, as a Range I standard offender, to six years for each of the facilitation convictions, two years for the felony reckless endangerment conviction, and eleven months, twenty-nine days for the weapon conviction. The court ordered the six-year sentences to be served consecutively and the remaining sentences to be served concurrently, for a total effective sentence of twenty-four years. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences and in denying his motion to correct and/or reduce his sentence. Based upon our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Madison Court of Criminal Appeals