APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

State vs. Curtis Emery Duke

M2000-00350-CCA-R3-CD
The appellant, Curtis Emery Duke, was convicted in the Marshall County Circuit Court of two counts of the sale of crack cocaine, one count of possession of crack cocaine with the intent to sell, two counts of criminal impersonation, and one count of failure to appear. The trial court sentenced the appellant to a total effective sentence of thirty-nine years. On appeal, the appellant raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to sustain the appellant's convictions; (2) whether the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of simple possession; and (3) whether the trial court erred in sentencing the appellant. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court as modified.
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Originating Judge:William Charles Lee
Marshall County Court of Criminal Appeals 11/15/00
State vs. Timothy Tyrone Sanders

M2000-00603-CCA-R3-CD
The Appellant, Timothy Tyrone Sanders, was convicted by a Bedford County jury of possession of more than .5 grams of cocaine with intent to sell. The Appellant was sentenced to seventeen years six months as a range II offender. On appeal, he raises the following issues: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict; (2) whether the trial court erred by not instructing the jury on the lesser-included offense of simple possession; and (3) whether the trial court improperly sentenced the Appellant. After review, we conclude that the trial court erred in not instructing the jury on simple possession. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial.
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Originating Judge:William Charles Lee
Bedford County Court of Criminal Appeals 11/15/00
In re: Estate of Willette Bonita Carnahan

M1999-00494-COA-R3-CV
This appeal arises from a will contest in which the defendant has appealed from a jury verdict invalidating a will on the grounds of unsound mind and undue influence. The deceased executed two wills. The first will was executed in 1985 naming the plaintiff who was a friend, employee, and the son of the family who cared for her in her later years as the sole beneficiary. The second will was executed in 1993 naming the defendant, a man who share cropped tobacco on her farm and was paid to mow her lawn, as the sole beneficiary. The plaintiff alleged that at the time the latter will was executed, the testator was of unsound mind and had been unduly influenced by the defendant. At trial, the jury returned special findings that the deceased was not of sound and disposing mind on December 29, 1993, when the second will was executed and that she was unduly influenced by the defendant in making the last will and testament. On appeal, the defendant presents three issues: (1) whether there was material, substantial evidence to support the jury findings, (2) whether the trial judge erred in instructing the jury regarding a presumption of undue influence and the burden of proof on finding a confidential relationship, and (3) whether the trial court erred in assessing court costs against the defendant and not awarding him attorneys fees. We affirm the judgment.
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Originating Judge:Tom E. Gray
Sumner County Court of Appeals 11/15/00
Archie Lee Roberts vs. State

M1999-02462-CCA-R3-PC
The petitioner, Archie Lee Roberts, was found guilty by a jury in the DeKalb County Criminal Court of one count of first degree murder, for which he received a life sentence, and one count of attempted first degree murder, for which he received a sentence of twenty years incarceration. On direct appeal, we affirmed the petitioner's convictions. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, which petition was denied by the post-conviction court. On appeal, the petitioner raises the following issue for our review: whether the post-conviction court erred in denying his claim for relief. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Originating Judge:Leon C. Burns, Jr.
DeKalb County Court of Criminal Appeals 11/15/00
State of Tennessee v. James P. Stout

M1998-00079-SC-DDT-DD

Originating Judge:Joseph B. Dailey
Shelby County Supreme Court 11/15/00
State of Tennessee v. Mark A. Scarborough

M2000-01359-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Originating Judge:Timothy L. Easter
Hickman County Court of Criminal Appeals 11/15/00
Heatherly vs. Merrimack Mutual Fire Ins. Co.

M1998-00906-COA-R10-CV
This extraordinary appeal involves a dispute between two homeowners whose house was damaged by fire and the two insurance adjusting companies hired by the homeowners' insurance carrier to investigate their claim. Believing that their claim had been fraudulently processed, the homeowners filed suit in the Circuit Court for Sumner County against their insurance carrier and the two adjusting companies. The three defendants moved to dismiss the complaint as to the adjusting companies. After the trial court denied the motions and declined to grant an interlocutory appeal, the two adjusting companies petitioned for a Tenn. R. App. P. 10 extraordinary appeal. We granted the application and now reverse the trial court's denial of the motion to dismiss because the homeowners have conceded that they have no breach of contract claim against the adjusting companies and because we have concluded that the homeowners' claims are barred by the statute of limitations.
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Originating Judge:Thomas Goodall
Sumner County Court of Appeals 11/15/00
State vs. James P. Stout

W1998-00079-SC-DDT-DD
Authoring Judge: Justice E. Riley Anderson
Originating Judge:Joseph B. Dailey
Shelby County Supreme Court 11/15/00
D&E Construction Co. vs. Robert J. Denley Co.

W1998-00445-SC-R11-CV
The contractor submitted to arbitration a contractual payment dispute with the project owner arising from a contract to build a subdivision in Collierville. The arbitrators found in favor of the contractor and included an award of attorney's fees. The trial court determined that the arbitration panel exceeded its authority in awarding attorney's fees and vacated the arbitration award. The Court of Appeals reversed, reinstating the entire award. We hold that when the arbitrators awarded attorney's fees, they exceeded their authority by awarding upon a matter not within the scope of the contract's arbitration provision. Therefore, we reverse in part the judgment of the Court of Appeals and vacate the award of attorney's fees.
Authoring Judge: Justice William M. Barker
Originating Judge:Walter L. Evans
Shelby County Supreme Court 11/15/00
State of Tennessee v. Clyde Smith

M2002-2138-CCA-R3-CD

Originating Judge:John H. Gasaway, III
Robertson County Court of Criminal Appeals 11/15/00
State vs. Antonio Kendrick

W1997-00157-SC-R11-CD
We granted this appeal to determine whether the prosecution's failure to elect the particular offense of aggravated rape upon which it sought to convict the defendant constituted plain error and required a new trial. The main purpose of the election requirement is to preserve a defendant's right to a unanimous jury verdict under the Tennessee Constitution. A majority of the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the defendant's conviction for one count of aggravated rape without examining the election issue. After reviewing the record and controlling authority, we conclude that the prosecution's failure to elect the particular offense upon which it sought to convict the defendant failed to preserve the defendant's rights under the Tennessee Constitution and constituted plain error. The judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded to the trial court for a new trial.
Authoring Judge: Justice E. Riley Anderson
Originating Judge:Arthur T. Bennett
Shelby County Supreme Court 11/15/00
State vs. Vincent Sims

W1998-00634-SC-DDT-DD
Authoring Judge: Justice Janice M. Holder
Originating Judge:Joseph B. Dailey
Shelby County Supreme Court 11/15/00
State vs. Vincent Sims

W1998-00634-SC-DDT-DD
Authoring Judge: Justice Janice M. Holder
Originating Judge:Joseph B. Dailey
Shelby County Supreme Court 11/15/00
Mary Alice Sloan v. Continental Casualty Company

W1999-00185-WC-R3-CV
This is an appeal by Continental Casualty Company of a judgment for 35% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole awarded to Mary Alice Sloan for an injury that she sustained while working for Goody's Family Clothing, Inc. on November 1, 1996. The appellant agrees that the worker sustained a compensable, work-related injury and that they had paid temporary total disability benefits and medical expenses. The only issue is whether the preponderance of the evidence supports the trial court's award to the plaintiff. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. The costs of this appeal are taxed to the defendant.
Authoring Judge: George W. Ellis, Sp. J.
Originating Judge:Joe C. Morris, Chancellor
Madison County Workers Compensation Panel 11/14/00
Jimmy L. Lane v. Schering-Plough Corporation,

E2000-00829-WC-R3-CV
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 State Second Injury Fund has appealed the trial court's ruling that it was not entitled to a credit or setoff for payment of temporary total disability benefits against that portion of the permanent disability award which it is responsible to pay. Judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Authoring Judge: Thayer, Sp. J.
Originating Judge:Jerri S. Bryant, Chancellor
Knox County Workers Compensation Panel 11/14/00
Jonathan Duffy v. Tecumseh Products Co.

W1999-00766-WC-R3-CV
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 defendant, Tecumseh Products Company (Tecumseh), appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of Henry County which ordered Tecumseh to pay medical expenses to the plaintiff, Jonathan Duffy (Duffy). For the reasons stated in this opinion, we find the trial court erred and reverse the judgment of the trial court.
Authoring Judge: W. Michael William Michael Maloan, Special Judge
Originating Judge:C. Creed Mcginley, Judge
Henry County Workers Compensation Panel 11/14/00
James Becton v. Grisham Corporation

W1999-00183-SC-WCM-CV
This is an appeal by James E. Becton of a decision by the trial court that Becton did not show by a preponderance of the evidence that he had sustained an injury by accident arising out of and in the scope of his employment with Grisham Corporation. He presents three (3) issues for review: 1) whether the Chancellor erred in excluding from consideration the testimony of the claimant's treating physician.; 2) whether the opinion of the treating physician is entitled to greater weight than that of a consultant; and 3) whether the evidence of vocational disability preponderates in favor of an award of permanent partial disability and medical payments in this case.
Authoring Judge: George R. Ellis, Sp. J.
Originating Judge:Floyd Peete, Jr., Chancellor
Shelby County Workers Compensation Panel 11/14/00
Ingram Book Company v. Rebecca Rowland

M1999-01233-WC-R3-CV
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) (1999) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusion of law. In this case, the employee contends the trial court erred in finding no causal connection between her injury and employment and no permanent partial disability. As discussed below, the panel has concluded that the evidence preponderates against the trial court's findings and reverses its decision. Tenn. Code Ann. _5-6-225(e)(3) Appeal as of Right: Judgment of the Chancery Court Reversed and Remanded TURNBULL, SP. J., in which DROWOTA, J., and LOSER S. J. joined. D. Russell Thomas and Herbert M. Schaltegger, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, for the appellant, Rebecca Rowland. D. Brett Burrow and Delicia R. Bryant, Brewer, Krause & Brooks, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Ingram Book Company. MEMORANDUM OPINION Background Rebecca Rowland ("Rowland"), the employee-appellant, is a forty-two years old mother of two who has been married for twenty-three years. She dropped out of school in the tenth grade but obtained her GED in 1984. She has worked at various unskilled jobs: Working as a waitress, cook and cashier; cleaning apartments; working as a housekeeper and supervisor for a hotel. Rowland worked for Ingram Book Company [Ingram], the employer-appellee, from 1993 to 1999. She first worked as an order puller, scanning books and placing them on shelves, and then worked as a shagger, locating books that order pullers could not locate. Her last job, prior to her alleged injury, was a job in which she was required to do forceful repetitive hand motions in cutting open cardboard boxes as well as dust mopping with a wide mop. After working in this last job four weeks, she developed carpal tunnel syndrome in April of 1997. Rowland was also diagnosed as having hypothyroidismin November 1997 and has taken medication since December 1997. She returned to work after the surgery and worked for Ingram for one and a half years. Then she left Ingram because of her dissatisfaction with management practices. According to Rowland's own trial testimony, which is unimpeached and uncontradicted, she continued to have pain in her hands, wrists and arms and to have diminished strength in her hands with regard to gripping or twisting. The parties submitted two medical depositions: the testimony of Dr. Martin and Dr. Gaw. Dr. David Martin, a plastic surgeon with additional training in carpel tunnel syndrome, first saw Ms. Rowland on June 19, 1997. Based on her complaints of numbness and pain, his clinical evaluation and the E.M.G. studies of Dr. Richard Lisella, Dr. Martin diagnosed bilateral carpel tunnel syndrome, greater on the left than on the right. He immediately scheduled Ms. Rowland for surgery on her left wrist which was performed on June 27, 1997. He prescribed a wrist splint for her right wrist, also on June 19, 1997. Dr. Martin released the employee to return to one-handed work on July 9,1997. Although the left wrist and hand were improved by surgery, the right handed symptoms increased with the one-handed work, and Dr. Martin scheduled and performed carpel tunnel release surgery on the right wrist on August 12, 1997. She was again released to return to one-handed duties on August 22, 1997. Some thirty-nine days after Ms. Rowland returned to work, Dr. Martin, on October 1, 1997, found that ... "her symptoms have completely resolved. She has mild, residual, right peri-incisional sensitivity which continues to improve." He kept a ten pound weight restriction in force for one month and opined that Ms. Rowland would retain a % [zero] permanent impairment. Dr. Martin treated Ms. Rowland under workers compensation, was paid for his services by workers compensation benefits provided by Ingram, and never made any medical note, nor does the record reveal he expressed any opinion, that the injury was not work related until he gave his deposition on July 1, 1999. Dr. David Gaw, an orthopaedic surgeon, saw Ms. Rowland one time, February 2, 1998. His examination lasted thirty to forty-five minutes. At that time, Ms. Rowland was complaining of continued weakness, transient tingling, pain on repetitive use, and was found to have a positive Phalens test and slightly diminished perception to pin prick. Based upon the patient's history, Dr. Gaw expressed the opinion "most likely cause is the type of work she described down at Ingram Books." He further opined that there was "no real question as to causation" if her history is true. Dr. Gaw assigned a 1%impairment to each arm. Neither of the experts testified that the thyroid [2]
Authoring Judge: Turnbull, Sp. J.
Originating Judge:Ellen Hobbs Lyle, Chancellor
Davidson County Workers Compensation Panel 11/14/00
State vs. Anterrian Jutiki Gunn

M1999-02140-CCA-R3-CD
The State of Tennessee appeals from the trial court grant of the defendant's, Anterrian Juitiki Gunn, motion to suppress. We reverse the trial judge's decision and remand pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 12 (e) for a determination of the essential facts necessary to determine the propriety of the trial court's granting of the defendant's motion to suppress.
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry Smith
Originating Judge:John H. Gasaway, III
Robertson County Court of Criminal Appeals 11/14/00
State vs. William "Butch" Osepczuk

M1999-00846-CCA-R3-CD
William Osepczuk was convicted of criminal attempt to commit first degree murder and was sentenced to twenty-five years in the Department of Correction. He now appeals his conviction challenging the sufficiency of the convicting evidence based upon the non credible testimony of the victim and the erroneous admission of non relevant physical evidence. Finding the proof more than sufficient to support his conviction, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Originating Judge:Stella L. Hargrove
Lawrence County Court of Criminal Appeals 11/14/00
Suzanne Burlew vs. Brad Burlew

M1998-01177-SC-R11-CV
The issue in this divorce case concerns the type and amount of alimony that should be awarded to the Wife. The trial court awarded her $220,000 of alimony in solido to be paid out in decreasing amounts over eight years, and declined to award her rehabilitative alimony. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's in solido award but remanded the case to the trial court to award rehabilitative alimony of at least $1,000 per month for a reasonable period of time. Before this Court, the Husband/appellee argues that rehabilitative alimony is unnecessary and that the alimony in solido award is excessive. The Wife/appellant counters that the in solido award was not excessive; indeed, she argues that she should have been awarded alimony in futuro. We hold that the trial court properly awarded alimony in solido rather than alimony in futuro. We also hold that the trial court did not err in denying the Wife's request for rehabilitative alimony. Thus, we affirm in part and reverse in part the decision of the Court of Appeals.

Originating Judge:Floyd Peete, Jr.
Shelby County Supreme Court 11/14/00
State vs. Randal L. Cheek

M2000-00203-CCA-R3-CD
This appeal presents review of a certified question of law following the Appellant's guilty pleas to possession of marijuana with intent to sell and possession of drug paraphernalia. Pursuant to his negotiated plea agreement, the court imposed an effective sentence of one and one-half years, suspended after five days confinement followed by two years probation. Also, as part of the plea agreement, the Appellant explicitly reserved, with the consent of the trial court and the State, a certified question of law challenging the court's denial of the Appellant's motion to suppress. On appeal, the State contends that (1) the certified question of law is not contained in the final judgments nor is it incorporated by reference and (2) the question is not clearly stated so as to identify the scope and limits of the legal issue. After review, we find that the question of law presented fails to identify with sufficient clarity the scope and boundaries of the issue reserved. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed and this case is remanded to the trial court.
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Originating Judge:Timothy L. Easter
Williamson County Court of Criminal Appeals 11/14/00
State vs. Larry Wilkins

M2000-01225-CCA-R3-CD
The appellant, Larry Wilkins, pled guilty in the Williamson County Circuit Court to two counts of the class D felony of causing a computer system to be accessed for the purpose of obtaining $1,000 or more for himself or another by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises. For these offenses, the trial court imposed concurrent sentences of three years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction, suspending all but one year of the appellant's sentences and placing him on supervised probation for four years. Additionally, the trial court imposed fines amounting to $1,500 and ordered restitution amounting to $4,500. The appellant now appeals the trial court's sentencing determinations. Specifically, notwithstanding the trial court's imposition of alternative sentences of split confinement, the appellant contends that the trial court should have granted him either total probation or placement in a community corrections program. Following a review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm in part and reverse in part the judgments of the trial court, and we remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Originating Judge:Donald P. Harris
Williamson County Court of Criminal Appeals 11/14/00
State vs. Stephen T. Mays a/k/a Stephen T. Mayes

M2000-00602-CCA-R3-CD
The Appellant, Stephen T. Mays, pled guilty to two counts of theft of property over $10,000 and received two concurrent five-year sentences. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed split confinement sentences and ordered the Appellant to serve a ninety-day period of confinement. The court also ordered restitution with scheduled payments over a ten-year period. On appeal, the Appellant argues (1) that the trial court erred in failing to grant the Appellant's request for total probation; and (2) that the trial court improperly established restitution. After review, the judgment of the Davidson County Criminal Court is affirmed.
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Originating Judge:Cheryl A. Blackburn
Davidson County Court of Criminal Appeals 11/14/00
Michael Carlton Bailey vs. State

M1999-01065-CCA-R3-PC
The appellant, Michael Carlton Bailey, appeals from the trial court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, the appellant challenges the trial court's determination that (1) he received the effective assistance of counsel, and (2) that he was not denied due process by the alleged violation of Tennessee Rule of Evidence 615 by two State witnesses.
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry Smith
Originating Judge:Robert E. Burch
Dickson County Court of Criminal Appeals 11/14/00