Appellate court opinions will be posted only after they have been made accessible under federal ADA guidelines. If an opinion is not yet available, it is still undergoing the accessibility process. We appreciate your patience and are committed to ensuring that all users can access these documents.
State of Tennessee v. Thaddaeus Medford - Dissenting W2002-00226-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David H. Welles
Trial Court Judge: Judge Joseph H. Walker, III
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s holding that the evidence is not sufficient to support the Defendant’s conviction of possession of cocaine with intent to deliver. While the proof in this case is less than overwhelming, I would hold that the circumstantial evidence is sufficient for a reasonable juror to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant was the source of the cocaine found by the police officers. The only other explanation for the cocaine’s presence on the roadside is that some unknown person placed it there, either intentionally or accidentally. While I agree that an accused’s mere proximity to drugs is not alone sufficient to support a finding that the accused possessed them, there are additional circumstances in this case which are indicative of the Defendant’s guilt. As acknowledged by the majority, the facts and circumstances supporting a conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence “must be so strong and cogent as to exclude every other reasonable hypothesis save the guilt of the defendant.” State v. Crawford, 470 S.W.2d 610, 612 (Tenn. 1971) (emphasis added). I do not think that any other reasonable hypothesis explains the presence of the cocaine found in this case, other than the Defendant’s possession of it.
Lauderdale
Court of Criminal Appeals
State of Tennessee v. Thaddaeus Medford W2002-00226-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge James Curwood Witt, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Joseph H. Walker, III
Before us are the consolidated appeals of Thaddaeus Medford who, in his first trial, was convicted of Class E felony evading arrest. The jury in that trial deadlocked on the companion charges of cocaine possession with intent to deliver and drug paraphernalia possession. Upon retrial, the defendant was convicted of the two possession offenses. He appeals the legal sufficiency of his evading arrest and cocaine possession convictions, complains that testimony about the street value of cocaine and money found in his automobile was erroneously admitted, and argues that his constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures was violated. Based on our review of the record, the briefs of the parties, and applicable law, we affirm the defendant’s evading arrest conviction. As to the cocaine possession conviction, we affirm the trial court’s evidentiary rulings and rejection of the defendant’s motion to suppress, but we, nevertheless, reverse the conviction because the evidence is legally insufficient.
The pro se petitioner, Mitchell Tarver, appeals from the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We conclude that the circuit court erred in summarily dismissing the habeas petition under the peculiar circumstances presented in the instant case. We therefore reverse the judgment of the circuit court and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
The defendant was convicted of aggravated robbery, facilitating aggravated kidnapping, and aggravated burglary. He now appeals these convictions contending that the (1) evidence was not sufficient to support the convictions, (2) trial court erred in refusing to dismiss the charge of aggravated kidnapping or in refusing to merge the charge of aggravated kidnapping with his aggravated robbery charge, (3) trial court erred by denying him his right to effective cross-examination by stating that questions regarding the prior inconsistent statements of the victim would allow the admission of more damaging testimony against the defendant, and (4) trial court erred in sentencing. We hold that the trial court erred in applying enhancement factor four; however, the error was harmless. We affirm the judgments of the trial court in all other respects.
Madison
Court of Criminal Appeals
Department of Children's services vs. R.A.W. E2003-00847-COA-R3-PT
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Thomas J. Wright
R.A.W. ("Father") challenges the termination of his parental rights, claiming there was insufficient proof to establish grounds for termination or that it was in the best interest of the child to terminate the parent-child relationship. Father also claims the Juvenile Court erred when it refused to grant him visitation after the petition to terminate his parental rights had been filed. We affirm the decision of the Juvenile Court.
Greene
Court of Appeals
Dept. of Children's Services vs. K.G., et al In re: K.L.H. E2003-00437-COA-R3-PT
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Suzanne Bailey
The State of Tennessee, Department of Children's Services ("DCS") filed a petition seeking to terminate the parental rights of K.G. ("Mother"), and F.L.H., Jr. ("Father"), the biological parents of the minor child, K.L.H. ("the Child"). The trial court granted DCS' petition to terminate first Father's, and later Mother's, parental rights. Mother appeals. We vacate the order terminating Mother's parental rights and remand for a new termination decision.
Hamilton
Court of Appeals
In the Matter of D.L.B., A Minor W2001-02245-SC-R11-CV
Authoring Judge: Justice Janice M. Holder
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Kenny W. Armstrong
This appeal involves an action to terminate parental rights filed by the prospective adoptive parents of a child. The child’s father asserts that the chancery court erred in terminating his parental rights on the basis that he abandoned his child for the four-month period set forth in Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-1-102(1)(A)(i). To compute the four-month period, the chancery court used the date on which the Court Appointed Special Advocate (“CASA”) filed a petition in juvenile court to terminate the father’s parental rights. CASA’s petition was later dismissed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the chancery court’s termination of parental rights under Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-1-102(1)(A)(i) and found an additional ground for abandonment as defined by Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-1-102(1)(A)(iii). Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-1-102(1)(A)(iii) specifies that parental rights may be terminated if the father “willfully failed to make reasonable payments toward the support of the child’s mother during the four (4) months immediately preceding the birth of the child.” We granted permission to appeal. We hold that the commencement of the four-month period of abandonment under Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-1-102(1)(A)(i) is properly computed from the date on which the petition to terminate parental rights was filed in chancery court, not from the filing date of the earlier juvenile court petition. We further hold that the Court of Appeals erred in terminating the father’s parental rights based upon Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-1-102(1)(A)(iii). Accordingly, we reverse the Court of Appeals and remand this case to the trial court.
Shelby
Supreme Court
Ed Netherland, et al v. Bill Hunter, et al M2002-03094-COA-R9-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Walter C. Kurtz
In this matter we are asked to determine which statute controls the issue of venue for a claim filed under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, the venue provision of that act, Tennessee Code Annotated section 47-18-109, or Tennessee's general venue provision, section 20-4-101 of the Code. The trial court determined that section 47-18-109 controls venue in this action and denied Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue. We affirm the decision of the trial court.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
State v. Jerry Davidson M1998-00105-SC-DDT-DD
Authoring Judge: Justice Janice M. Holder
Trial Court Judge: Allen W. Wallace
Dickson
Supreme Court
State v. Jerry Davidson M1998-00105-SC-DDT-DD
Authoring Judge: Justice Janice M. Holder
Trial Court Judge: Allen W. Wallace
Dickson
Supreme Court
State v. Jerry Davidson M1998-00105-SC-DDT-DD
Authoring Judge: Justice Janice M. Holder
Trial Court Judge: Allen W. Wallace
Dickson
Supreme Court
LLoyd Williams vs. State E2003-01409-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Lloyd E. Williams ("Plaintiff"), who absconded while on bond, was tried, convicted, and sentenced on drug charges in absentia. Years later, Plaintiff was apprehended and placed in prison. Plaintiff sued the State of Tennessee ("the State") claiming that the trial and sentencing violated various statutory rights of his. The State filed a motion to dismiss. The Claims Commission ("the Commission") granted the State's motion to dismiss. Plaintiff appeals. We affirm.
The defendant, Mona Ray Cloud, pled guilty in the Blount County Circuit Court to aggravated burglary, a Class C felony; violating the Motor Vehicle Habitual Offender (MVHO) Act, a Class E felony; and criminal impersonation, a Class A misdemeanor. Pursuant to the plea agreement, she received four-year, one-year, and six-month sentences, respectively, with the one-year and six-month sentences to be served concurrently to each other but consecutively to the four-year sentence for an effective sentence of five years in the Department of Correction (DOC). The manner of service was to be determined by the trial court. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered the defendant to serve her sentences in confinement. The defendant appeals, claiming that she should have received alternative sentences. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.
Blount
Court of Criminal Appeals
In Re: Estate of Gloria Eleanor Franklin vs. W. Jess Waltman E2003-00926-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Telford E. Forgerty, Jr.
The Trial Court following an evidentiary hearing, held decedent's holographic will to be conditional and inoperative. On appeal, we reverse.
Cocke
Court of Appeals
Arthur Creech vs. Robert R. Addington E2003-00842-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Richard R. Vance
The plaintiffs leased land in Mississippi from D.C. Parker and Richard B. Flowers ("Defendants") for the purpose of building motels on the land. Plaintiffs claim they were told by Defendants' agent that financing was in place to build immediately and that this representation induced them to enter into the leases. Financing never materialized and the motels never were built. Plaintiffs sued Defendants, the parties expected to provide financing, and others. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which the Trial Court granted. Plaintiffs appeal. We vacate and remand.
Sevier
Court of Appeals
Mary Ann Gurganus Eure v. Barry Lynn Eure E2003-00745-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Lawrence H. Puckett
This is a post-divorce modification case involving the custody of, and support for, the parties' minor child, Matthew Chandler Eure (DOB: July 22, 1996) ("the child"). Mary Ann Gurganus Eure ("Mother") filed a complaint seeking custody of the child. Barry Lynn Eure ("Father"), the child's custodian, answered and filed a counterclaim seeking an increase in Mother's weekly child support obligation. Following a hearing, the trial court denied Mother's complaint. The court subsequently increased Mother's support obligation to $113 per week. Mother appeals, arguing, in so many words, that the evidence preponderates against both of the trial court's rulings. We affirm.
Bradley
Court of Appeals
Monte Bounds vs. Zella Cupp E2003-00692-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Sharon J. Bell
The appellees filed suit against the appellant, alleging that the appellees, Lawrence R. Bozeman and wife, Imogene Bozeman ("the appellees Bozeman"), owned a 12-foot wide easement accross the property of the appellant. The appellant filed an answer, relying upon "the affirmative defense of abandonment plus adverse possession by the [appellant]." Following a plenary trial, the court below found that the appellees Bozeman had an express easement across the property of the appellant and that they "ha[d] not taken action of clear and unmistakable character indicating an abandonment of the easement." The appellant contends on this appeal that the trial court erred in failing to find abandonment of the easement. Since there is no transcript or statement of the evidence in the record before us, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Knox
Court of Appeals
Hitchock Metal Sources vs. John D. Mulford E2003-00738-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Sharon J. Bell
Diane Hitchcock ("Mrs. Hitchcock") and Hitchcock Metal Sources, Inc. ("HMS") sued John D. Mulford, Jr. ("Mulford") and Mulford Enterprises, Inc. ("the defendant corporation") for breach of an oral contract between Mulford and Mrs. Hitchcock's deceased husband, James H. Hitchcock ("Mr. Hitchcock"). Mulford and the defendant corporation responded by filing a counterclaim against Mrs. Hitchcock and HMS, asserting, inter alia, breach of contract. At the conclusion of a bench trial, the court found in favor of Mrs. Hitchcock, awarding her damages of $87,896.74 jointly and severally against Mulford and the defendant corporation, and an additional amount of $8,855.93 against the defendant corporation. The trial court dismissed the counterclaim of Mulford and the defendant corporation, as well as the original claim of HMS. Mulford and the defendant corporation appeal the trial court's dual determinations that the parties' oral agreement did not prohibit either party from pursuing other business opportunities and that the defendant corporation converted Mrs. Hitchcock's steel by selling it without her knowledge or consent. In addition, the defendants contend that the trial court erred in failing to reform the parties' contract and in its calculation of damages. By way of a separate issue, Mrs. Hitchcock asserts that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to award her prejudgment interest. We affirm the trial court's judgment in toto.
Knox
Court of Appeals
In Re: Estate of Carl Myers & Commercial Bank E2002-01154-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Billy Joe White
The Trial Court voided agreements with Bank by Decedent creating survivorship accounts with his daughter on grounds of incompetency. On appeal, we affirm.
Union
Court of Appeals
Myra Pate vs. State E2003-00297-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Myra Pate ("Plaintiff") filed a claim with the Tennessee Division of Claims Administration after she slipped and fell on her way to class at Pellissippi State Technical Community College ("PSTCC"). When her claim was denied, Plaintiff filed a complaint in the Tennessee Claims Commission ("Commission") against the State of Tennessee ("the State"). The State filed a motion for summary judgment claiming Plaintiff had filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy and failed to disclose the existence of her claim against the State. The State argued Plaintiff was judicially estopped from pursuing this lawsuit and also that she lacked standing. When Plaintiff failed to file a timely response to the motion for summary judgment, the Commission granted the motion solely because no response had been filed. Plaintiff appeals. We vacate the grant of summary judgment and remand for further proceedings.
Court of Appeals
E2003-00501-COA-R3-JV E2003-00501-COA-R3-JV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Suzanne Bailey
Hamilton
Court of Appeals
Children's Services, vs. SJMW, In The Matter of: DJL E2003-00519-COA-R3-PT
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Herschel P. Franks
Trial Court Judge: Suzanne Bailey
The mother's parental rights were terminated by the Trial Judge. Mother has appealed. We affirm.
Hamilton
Court of Appeals
Ronald Loines vs. Kimberly Loines E2003-00526-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Samuel H. Payne
In this divorce case, the trial court awarded Ronald Keith Loines, Jr. ("Husband") a divorce from Kimberly Loines ("Wife") by judgment entered January 14, 2003. Wife filed her notice of appeal on February 25, 2003. Because the notice of appeal was not filed within 30 days of the entry of the judgment of divorce, we are without jurisdiction to consider the issues raised by Wife. Accordingly, Wife's appeal is dismissed.
Louis Laurent vs. Suntrust Bank E2003-01408-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Dale C. Workman
Louis A. Laurent and Barbara Laurent ("Plaintiffs") sued SunTrust Bank ("Defendant") for alleged defamatory statements made by Defendant's attorney in a separate lawsuit. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Trial Court granted the motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs appeal. We affirm.
