Opinions
Lee Nora Hunter v. Williams-Sonoma Direct, Inc. et al.
This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated § 50-6-225(e)(3) for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The employee, Lee Nora Hunter, alleged that she sustained a compensable neck injury resulting in permanent disability. The employer, Williams-Sonoma Direct, Inc., admitted that an injury occurred, but denied that it caused permanent disability. Ms. Hunter represented herself at trial. She introduced no medical evidence. The trial court granted Williams-Sonoma’s motion for involuntary dismissal. Ms. Hunter has appealed. We affirm the judgment. |
Shelby | Workers Compensation Panel | |
State of Tennessee v. Steven Ray Tallent
The defendant, Steven Ray Tallent, pleaded guilty to a charge of domestic assault and was sentenced in the Blount County Circuit Court to a sentence of 11 months and 29 days, which was suspended to supervised probation. On May 30, 2007, the court revoked the probation and ordered the defendant to serve 11 months and 29 days in confinement. From that order, the defendant appeals and claims a lack of evidence. Upon review, we affirm the judgment below. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William Floyd Cartwright
A Putnam County jury convicted Appellant, William Floyd Cartwright, of first degree premeditated murder. He was sentenced to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. On appeal, Appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction because the State did not prove that he acted with premeditation. We affirm the judgment of the trial court because the evidence sufficiently supports the conviction. |
Putnam | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Ronald L. Stief v. Madaris Exteriors, Inc. et al.
This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. This is an action for workers’ compensation benefits brought by the Appellant, Ronald L. Stief. The trial court granted summary judgment to Appellees, Madaris Exteriors, Inc. and Builders Mutual Insurance Company, on the ground Mr. Stief was an independent contractor, and dismissed the case. Mr. Stief has appealed. We find that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment and, therefore, reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this matter for further proceedings. |
Van Buren | Workers Compensation Panel | |
State of Tennessee v. Charles Edward Stanley
The defendant, Charles Edward Stanley, was convicted by a Cumberland County criminal court jury of rape, a Class B felony, and was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to nine years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant contends that the evidence is not sufficient to support his conviction and that the trial court erred in sentencing him. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Cumberland | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Terrell Antron Greer
The Defendant, Terrell Antron Greer, was convicted upon a jury verdict of one count of the sale or delivery of less than .5 grams of cocaine, a Class C felony, and he was sentenced to five years or that conviction. He was likewise convicted of two counts of the sale or delivery of more than .5 grams of cocaine, Class B felonies, and he was sentenced to eleven years for each of those convictions. All of his sentences were ordered to be served concurrently in the Department of Correction as a Range I, standard offender. In this appeal, he asserts that the evidence was not sufficient to support his convictions and that his sentences are excessive. Following our review of the appellate record, the parties’ briefs, and applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Madison | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Mark A. Skidmore v. Darlean McDougal, et al.
The November 7, 2006 Hendersonville election for alderman in Ward 3 is the subject of this litigation. The margin of victory was a mere 18 votes. The losing candidate, Mr. Skidmore, challenged the election results. The chancellor held against him. Mr. Skidmore appeals, maintaining that a sufficient number of illegal votes were cast to require that the election be voided. We affirm the chancellor. |
Sumner | Court of Appeals | |
Rex Brown v. United Parcel Service, Inc. And Liberty Mutual Insurance Company
This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-225(e)(3) for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Appellant suffered a stroke while performing his job as a package car driver for his Employer. The stroke occurred while he was being trained to take over a new delivery route. The Employee sought workers’ compensation benefits, alleging that the stroke was precipitated by stress associated with his job, particularly with the adjustment to the new route. In preparation for trial, the Employer took discovery depositions of two medical experts identified as potential witnesses by its Employee. The Employee did not take evidentiary depositions of those witnesses, but sought to introduce their discovery depositions as evidence at trial. The trial court admitted the depositions into evidence over the objection of the Employer. The trial court found that the Employee’s stroke was the result of an occupational disease, precipitated by work-related stress, and awarded permanent total disability benefits. The Employer has appealed, contending that the trial court erred by admitting the discovery depositions into evidence, and finding that the Employee’s stroke was a compensable event. We find that the depositions should not have been admitted into evidence, in accordance with Rule 32.01(3) of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. After a review of the record without consideration of the depositions, we reverse the judgment of the trial court awarding permanent disability benefits for the stroke and dismiss the portion of the complaint relating to the stroke. The award for an injury to the Employee’s shoulder is not questioned and that portion of the judgment is affirmed. |
Maury | Court of Appeals | |
Sandra Deller v. Federal Express Corporation
This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-225(e)(3) for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Employee sustained an injury to her lower back in the course of her employment as a pilot. Her treating physician placed permanent restrictions upon her activities which prevented her from returning to that job. While recovering from her injury, she obtained three licenses concerning sale and appraisal of real estate in California. She testified that she was unable to work in that field because the physical demands conflicted with her restrictions. The trial court awarded permanent total disability benefits. The trial court also declined to grant Employer a set-off pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-114(b) for payments made pursuant to its long-term disability plan. Employer has appealed, contending that the trial court erred in awarding permanent total disability and also in declining to grant a set-off. We agree and modify the judgment accordingly. |
Shelby | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Troy Sepulveda v. Western Express, Inc. and Sue Ann Head, Administrator of the Division of Workers' Compensation for the State of Tennessee
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Troy Sepulveda ("Employee") sustained an injury to his lower back while sleeping in the cab of his truck while waiting to make a delivery. The trial court found that he was a "traveling employee," found the injury to be compensable and awarded permanent partial disability benefits. Western Express, Inc. ("Employer") has appealed, contending that the injury did not arise from the employment. We affirm the judgment. |
Marion | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Ida Cummings v. M-Tek, Inc., et al.
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. On appeal, M-Tek, Inc. ("Employer") contends that the trial court erred in finding that Ida Cummings ("Employee") sustained a compensable permanent partial right shoulder disability. In the alternative, Employer contends that the trial court erred in relying on the evaluating physician's impairment rating instead of the rating given by the treating physician, and in awarding Employee a 27.5% impairment to the body as a whole. Because the evidence does not preponderate against the findings, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Grundy | Workers Compensation Panel | |
Nancy J. Strong v. John H. Baker, III, Esq., et al.
In this legal malpractice action, the trial court denied the former client’s motion to stay proceedings and granted summary judgment in favor of the attorney. The former client asserts on appeal that summary judgment was not proper because the underlying case in which the malpractice allegedly occurred is still pending, and therefore, damages cannot be established. We affirm the decision of the trial court. |
Lincoln | Court of Appeals | |
Larry Thornton vs. Joe Marcum and wife, Mona Marcum
Plaintiff and defendants entered into a verbal agreement wherein plaintiff would purchase two lots from the defendants at an agreed price. Plaintiff made payments as agreed over a period of time, but before the lots were completely paid for defendants sold one of the lots to a third party. Plaintiff brought this action for specific performance and the Trial Court ruled that the verbal agreement violated the Statute of Frauds. However, the Trial Court invoked the theory of equitable estoppel against defendants, ordered specific performance, and awarded damages for the lot sold, which was part of the purchase agreement. On appeal, we affirm. |
Campbell | Court of Appeals | |
Mike Parsons, et al. v. James Wells, et al.
Following a hearing, the trial court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment where Plaintiffs failed to respond to Defendants’ motion prior to the hearing. Plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or amend, asserting that they had received notice of the hearing but did not receive a copy of Defendants’ motion itself. The trial court found the motion had been mailed with the notice of hearing, and that Plaintiffs failed to respond timely. Plaintiffs appeal; we affirm. |
Tipton | Court of Appeals | |
Kenneth Paul Dykas v. David Mills, Warden
The Petitioner, Kenneth Paul Dykas, was convicted by a jury of first degree premeditated murder, especially aggravated robbery, and conspiracy to commit especially aggravated robbery and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole plus twenty-four years. This Court affirmed those judgments on direct appeal. 1 He filed a petition for post-conviction relief claiming he failed to receive the effective assistance of counsel because counsel allegedly failed to properly strike a juror, failed to prepare him for trial, and failed to prepare a witness for examination. The post-conviction court dismissed the petition, and we affirmed that decision. 2 The Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for habeas corpus relief, again claiming that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to properly strike a juror and for failing to object to a jury instruction. The habeas court dismissed the petition, and, after a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the habeas court. |
Morgan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Christopher James Dodson v. State of Tennessee
The Petitioner, Christopher James Dodson, pled guilty to facilitation of robbery, a class D felony. The trial court sentenced the Petitioner, a Range I offender, to four years to be served at thirty percent. The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief in which he alleged that the parties and the trial court agreed at sentencing that the Petitioner should receive thirteen months of jail credit, which he was not given by the Tennessee Department of Correction. Because he was not given this jail credit, the Petitioner alleged he was entitled to post-conviction relief because his guilty plea was not voluntarily entered, and he had received the ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court dismissed the petition after a hearing. The Petitioner appeals that dismissal, and we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Williamson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
James C. Gekas, M.D. v. Seton Corporation, d/b/a Baptist Hospital
The plaintiff physician sued the defendant hospital for breach of contract after the hospital declined to promote him to a permanent position on its medical staff. He claimed that the hospital’s bylaws were part of his employment contract, and that the manner in which the hospital reached its decision violated those bylaws. The trial court granted summary judgment to the hospital. We agree that the bylaws formed part of his contract, but since the record clearly shows that the hospital substantially complied with its bylaws we affirm the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Cooper
The defendant, Christopher Cooper, pleaded guilty to a charge of theft of property worth $10,000 or more but less than $60,000 and was sentenced in the Blount County Circuit Court to a sentence of four years, with 30 days to be served incarcerated on consecutive weekends and the balance to be served through supervised probation. On April 16, 2007, the court revoked the probation and ordered the defendant to serve six months in confinement and extended his subsequent probation period by one year. From that order, the defendant appeals and claims a lack of evidence to support revocation. Upon review, we affirm the judgment below. |
Blount | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Martha Ann Freeman
A Davidson County jury convicted the Defendants, Martha Ann Freeman and Rafael DeJesus Rocha-Perez, of the first-degree murder of Martha Freeman’s husband. On appeal, Freeman alleges that the trial court erred by: (1) admitting a nude photograph of Rocha-Perez; (2) refusing to allow Freeman to play a recording of a 911 call; and (3) refusing to grant her motion to sever. Rocha-Perez alleges the trial court erred by allowing a police officer to testify concerning a statement Freeman made in violation of the Confrontation Clause. Both Defendants allege there was insufficient evidence to support their convictions. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Claudell Watkins Carpenter
Following a jury trial, the defendant, Claudell Watkins Carpenter, was convicted of second degree murder, first degree murder in the perpetration of a burglary, especially aggravated burglary, and aggravated assault. Additionally, the defendant pled guilty to evading arrest. Pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 29, he filed a motion for judgment of acquittal, which the trial court subsequently granted as to certain of the convictions, reducing the second degree murder conviction to voluntary manslaughter and dismissing the first degree murder and aggravated assault convictions. The defendant then was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to six years for the voluntary manslaughter conviction, twelve years for the especially aggravated burglary conviction, and eleven months, twenty-nine days for the evading arrest conviction, with all sentences to be served concurrently. Thereafter, the State appealed the trial court’s ruling on the motion for judgment ofacquittal. Rule 29, pursuant to which the defendant filed the motion for judgment of acquittal, requires that, before a judgment is entered following the granting of a motion for judgment of acquittal, the court first should rule on the motion for new trial. Accordingly, we remand this matter to the trial court for disposition of the motion for new trial so that a single appeal will result from the defendant’s trial. Since judgments were entered prematurely following the court’s granting the motion, they are set aside, and the jury verdicts for second degree murder (Count 1), first degree murder in the perpetration of a burglary (Count 2), and aggravated assault (Count 4) are reinstated. Because the State’s appeal is premature, it is dismissed. |
Weakley | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
BMC Enterprises, Inc. D/B/A Bond Memorial Chapel v. City of Mt. Juliet, et al.
Plaintiff has operated a funeral home on its property since 1997. In this zoning dispute, the City of Mt. Juliet Board of Zoning Appeals (“the Board”) refused to allow plaintiff to establish a crematory as an expansion of plaintiff’s funeral home services. The funeral home had been a legal nonconforming use of plaintiff’s property since the City’s zoning ordinance was amended in 1998. The Board refused to allow plaintiff to operate a crematory on the same property because crematories are not permitted in the zoning district for plaintiff’s property. Plaintiff filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Trial Court for judicial review of the Board’s decision. The Trial Court granted the writ and found that the Board’s decision was arbitrary, illegal, and capricious. The Trial Court reversed the Board’s decision and ordered defendants to allow plaintiff to build and operate the proposed crematory on its funeral home property. The Trial Court also granted plaintiff $10,000 in attorney fees and costs. Defendants appeal. We affirm. We also hold that BMC is entitled to its reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred during this appeal, not to exceed $10,000, pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-37-101, et seq. Therefore, we remand to the Trial Court for a determination of the proper amount of attorney fees and costs to be awarded to BMC and for collection of costs below. |
Wilson | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee ex rel, Peggy Doreen (Hunn) Flatt v. Jerry Keith Flatt
This appeal involves a child support obligation. The mother and father had three minor children. When the parties divorced, they entered into a marital dissolution agreement and a permanent parenting plan, which were approved by the divorce decree. Relevant to this appeal, the parties owned a newer residence, which was their marital home, and also an older residence, which had been listed for sale. The permanent parenting plan provided that it would not become effective until the older residence was sold. The parties agreed that the mother and the three children would be allowed to continue living with the father in the newer residence after the divorce until the older residence was sold. The father would be paying several marital debts until the older home sold, including the mortgage on the older home. However, the parenting plan provided that the father’s obligation to pay child support would not begin until the older home was sold. The mother and children soon moved out of the marital home and into the older residence. Pursuant to the agreement, the father had no obligation to pay child support because the older residence had not been sold. Six weeks after the final divorce decree was entered, the mother filed a motion to set aside the divorce decree and parenting plan, claiming that the parties were not abiding by the decree and the father was not paying any child support. The mother began receiving public assistance benefits, and the State of Tennessee Department of Human Services filed a petition on her behalf seeking to modify the father’s child support obligation, claiming that the agreement relieving him of his duty to pay child support was void and that a significant variance existed between his current obligation and the Child Support Guidelines. The trial court entered a default order requiring the father to pay child support directly to the mother, but later set it aside, leaving the father with only his obligation, pursuant to the marital dissolution agreement, to pay the marital debts until the older residence sold. The State appeals. We reverse and remand. |
McNairy | Court of Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Bryan Matthew Willis
Bryan Matthew Willis appeals his convictions in the Circuit Court of Henry County. He was convicted by a jury of three (3) counts of aggravated burglary and three (3) counts of theft of property. On appeal, he argues that the evidence was insufficient for the convictions based on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Henry | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Devito S. Polk v. State of Tennessee
The appellant, Devito Polk, pled guilty to second degree murder1 and was sentenced to 35 years as a Multiple Range II offender. His sentence was to be served concurrently with seven pending aggravated robbery charges. He, thereafter, filed a post-conviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and an unknowing and involuntary plea. He appeals the denial of the petition. He raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether he knowingly and intelligently entered his plea of guilty; and (2) whether he received ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Michael Anthony Pike
The Appellant, Michael Anthony Pike, appeals as of right his sentences for simple possession of marijuana, possession of marijuana with intent to sell, and possession of drug paraphernalia. He argues on appeal that the trial judge erred by not placing him in community corrections or, in the alternative, by not giving him the minimum statutory sentences. After a careful review of the record on appeal, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. |
Henry | Court of Criminal Appeals |