Opinion Flash

August 27, 2004
Volume 10 — Number 166

Following this index are summaries of each case, including its name, first paragraph, author's name, and the names of attorneys for the parties of each opinion.

This Issue (IN THIS ORDER):
05 New Opinion(s) from the Tennessee Supreme Court
03 New Opinion(s) from the Tennessee Supreme Court Workers' Compensation Panel
00 New Document(s) or Proposed Rule(s) from the Tennessee Supreme Court
08 New Opinion(s) from the Tennessee Court of Appeals
07 New Opinion(s) from the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals
00 New Opinion(s) from the Tennessee Attorney General (PDF format)
00 New Judicial Ethics Opinion(s)
00 New Formal Ethics Opinion(s) from the Board of Professional Responsibility

TBA members can get the full-text versions of these opinions three ways detailed below. All methods require a TBA username and password. If you have forgotten your password, you can look it up on-line at http://www.tba.org/getpassword.mgi . If you are a TBA member, but do not have a username and password, you can receive one online at http://www.tba.org/signup.mgi. Here's how you can obtain full-text version.
Click the URL at end of each Opinion paragraph below. This option will allow you to download the original document.

Do a key word search in the Search Link area of TBALink. This option will allow you to view and save a plain-text version of the opinion.

Browse the Opinion List area of TBALink. This option will allow you to download the original version of the opinion.

Howard H. Vogel
Knoxville, Tennessee
Editor-in-Chief, TBALink


IN THE MATTER OF:  D.A.H., DOB 12/11/00, A CHILD UNDER EIGHTEEN (18)
YEARS OF AGE, ET AL.

Court:TSC

We granted permission to appeal to determine whether the amendment to
Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-1-113(g)(9)(A), effective June 2,
2003, applies retroactively to this parental termination case.  Prior
to the 2003 amendment, Tennessee Code Annotated section
36-1-113(g)(9)(A) (2001) provided as follows:  "[t]he parental rights
of any person who is not the legal parent or guardian of a child or
who is described in S 36-1-117(b) or (c) may also be terminated based
upon any one (1) or more of the following additional grounds . . . ." 
This Court explained in Jones v. Garrett, 92 S.W.3d 835 (Tenn. 2002),
that the grounds for termination of parental rights under the 2001
statute did not apply to persons who had established parentage prior
to the termination hearing.  This provision was, however, amended and
now reads as follows:

The parental rights of any person who, at the time of the filing of a
petition to terminate the parental rights of such person or, if no
such petition is filed, at the time of the filing of a petition to
adopt a child, is not the legal parent or guardian of such child or
who is described in S 36-1-117(b) or (c) may also be terminated based
upon any one (1) or more of the following additional grounds . . . .

Tenn. Code Ann. S 36-1-113(g)(9)(A) (Supp. 2003) (emphasis added).

Because the right of a legal parent to the care and custody of his or
her child had vested under the 2001 statute, construed in Jones, we
hold that the amended version of Tennessee Code Annotated section
36-1-113(g)(9)(A) may not be retroactively applied to this case. 
Thus, the 2001 statute applies.  Further, we conclude that the
allegations of abandonment in the petition for termination are without
merit.  Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals
vacating the trial court's order terminating the parental rights of
Timothy Wayne Cope.  The case is remanded to the Juvenile Court for
Shelby County for further proceedings.

http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TSC/dah.wpd 
								
CHRISTOPHER A. EADIE v. COMPLETE CO., INC., ET AL. Court:TSC Attorneys: James R. Tomkins, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellants-defendants, Complete Company, Inc. and Westfield Insurance Companies. Phillip R. Newman, Franklin, Tennessee, for the appellee-plaintiff, Christopher A. Eadie. Judge: HOLDER First Paragraph: We granted review in this case to consider whether an employee is barred from seeking workers' compensation benefits in Tennessee because the employee made a binding election of remedies by pursuing benefits for the same injury in another state. We hold that the employee's filing of a claim in South Carolina, his request for a hearing there, and the taking of depositions in that matter constitute affirmative acts to obtain benefits in another state sufficient to constitute a binding election of remedies that bars the employee's Tennessee claim. Therefore, we reject the conclusion of the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel on this issue and affirm the judgment of the trial court. http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TSC/eadiecaopn.wpd
BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY OF THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE v. H. OWEN MADDUX Court:TSC Attorneys: James A. Vick, Nashville, Tennessee, for the Appellant, Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee. Michael E. Callaway, Cleveland, Tennessee, for the Appellee, H. Owen Maddux. Judge: HOLDER First Paragraph: A hearing panel of the Board of Professional Responsibility found that H. Owen Maddux had wilfully and deliberately converted funds from his law firm. In addition to other sanctions, the hearing panel suspended Maddux from the practice of law for a period of thirty days. The Chancery Court for Hamilton County affirmed the judgment of the hearing panel but imposed additional sanctions. Disciplinary Counsel appealed to this Court, contesting only the sufficiency of the thirty- day suspension. We hold that the thirty-day suspension is appropriate. We affirm. http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TSC/madduxhoopn.wpd
BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY OF THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE v. EDWARD A. SLAVIN, JR. Court:TSC Attorneys: Edward A. Slavin, Jr., St. Augustine, Florida, and David A. Stuart, Clinton, Tennessee, for the appellant, Edward A. Slavin, Jr. Laura L. Chastain, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Board of Professional Responsibility. Judge: BIRCH First Paragraph: We have this case on direct appeal pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, section 1.3, from an order of the Chancery Court suspending Edward A. Slavin, Jr., Esq., from the practice of law for three years. Slavin appeals, raising the following issues: (1) whether Chancellor Richard E. Ladd erred in refusing to recuse himself; (2) whether Slavin's in-court speech is protected by the First Amendment; and (3) whether the sanctions imposed by the Chancellor are excessive. Upon careful review of the record and applicable authority, we conclude that Chancellor Ladd did not abuse his discretion in refusing to recuse himself and that the speech at issue does not fall within the protective ambit of the First Amendment. After a thorough examination of the sanctions, we impose a two-year suspension. Slavin may, however, apply for reinstatement pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, section 19.3, at the expiration of one year from date of this opinion. http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TSC/slavinedward.wpd
STATE OF TENNESSEE, EX REL. ANNE B. POPE v. UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL. Court:TSC Attorneys: Thomas L. Wyatt and Thomas Greenholtz, Chattanooga, Tennessee, for the appellants/intervening petitioners, Carlise Cagle, David Seale, Bradley Hatfield, Doug West, Sr., Richard Cole, James Workman, Silas Passmore, Jim T. Dickson and Eddie Hart, Sr. Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Michael E. Moore, Solicitor General; and Sarah Ann Hiestand, Senior Counsel, Financial Division, for the appellee, State of Tennessee, ex rel. Anne B. Pope. William L. Norton, III, and Eric W. Smith, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellee, United States Fire Insurance Company, Inc. John M. Gillum and Brett A. Oeser, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellee, United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company. William E. Godbold, III, and M. Andrew Pippenger, Chattanooga, Tennessee, for the appellee, Employers Reinsurance Corporation. Judge: BIRCH First Paragraph: We granted permission to appeal pursuant to Rule 11 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure to determine whether the liability of a surety company that issues bonds to self-insured employers under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-405(b) is limited to the penal amount listed on the face of each bond. Because section 50-6-405(b) requires that bonds be of a single, continuous term, we conclude that a surety company's liability is limited to the penal amount on the face of the bonds. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals. http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TSC/usfire.wpd
SANDRA W. DUNCAN v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Court:TSC - Workers Comp Panel Attorneys: Harry F. Burnette, Chattanooga, Tennessee, attorney for Appellant, Sandra W. Duncan. Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Michael E. Moore, Solicitor General; Dawn Jordan, Assistant Attorney General, for Appellee, State of Tennessee. Judge: INMAN First Paragraph: This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. S 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of Findings of fact and conclusions of law. The claim of the Appellant for workers' compensation benefits was rejected upon a finding that she was injured as the result of her own misconduct when she became embroiled in an altercation with a fellow employee. We hold that summary judgment is inappropriate and remand the case for a merit trial. http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TSC_WCP/duncans.wpd
THOMAS NEWT MOORE v. UNIVERSAL FURNITURE LIMITED Court:TSC - Workers Comp Panel Attorneys: Mary Dee Allen, Morristown, Tennessee, for the appellant, Universal Furniture Limited. James D. Hutchins, Dandridge, Tennessee, for the appellee, Thomas Newt Moore. Judge: CATE First Paragraph: This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann.S 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court its findings of fact and conclusions of law. The employer contends the trial court erred in finding circumstantial evidence of permanent physical restrictions on employee's ability to work; and in its determination that the employee sustained a 70 percent permanent partial disability to the body as a whole because it was excessive. We hold that the trial court was not in error in finding circumstantial evidence of permanent physical restrictions on the employee's ability to work, nor was its conclusion that the employee was 70 percent permanently partially disabled to the body as a whole excessive. http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TSC_WCP/mooretn.wpd
RACHEL STEPHENS v. JOHN MANVILLE INTERNATIONAL, INC. Court:TSC - Workers Comp Panel Attorneys: Linda J. Hamilton Mowles, Knoxville, Tennessee, attorney for appellant, Johns Manville International, Inc. Jimmy W. Bilbo, Cleveland, Tennessee, attorney for appellee, Rachel Stephens. Judge: INMAN First Paragraph: This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. S 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court awarded the Plaintiff an additional 5 percent for an injury to her left arm for which she had been compensated. This award was supported essentially by the Plaintiff's testimony. She was also awarded benefits for an injury to her right arm and neck. The award for an additional 5 percent to the left arm is vacated. Otherwise, the judgment is affirmed. http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TSC_WCP/stephensr.wpd
TAMMY BARKER v. VERNON BARKER Court:TCA Attorneys: William T. Winchester, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellant, Vernon Barker. Julie D. Byrd, Bartlett, Tennessee, for the appellee, Tammy Barker. Judge: KIRBY First Paragraph: This is a divorce case. The parties were married for three years prior to their separation, and two children were born during the marriage. The mother filed a petition for divorce, and the father filed a counterclaim for divorce. After a bench trial, the trial court entered a final decree of divorce and a parenting plan. In the plan, the father was permitted supervised visitation with the children, but was required to undergo a psychological evaluation in order to continue that visitation. The plan also provided that the children's guardian ad litem would be the "binding arbitrator" on all matters involving the father's visitation. The father now appeals, claiming that the trial court erred in requiring him to undergo a psychological evaluation and in appointing the guardian ad litem as the arbitrator on matters involving his visitation schedule. Because the father did not properly object to the issues raised on appeal, they are deemed to be waived. Therefore, we affirm. http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCA/barkert.wpd
KENNETH A. BRASEL, SR. v. JOHN STANLEY BRASEL, SR., ET AL. Court:TCA Attorneys: William G. Hardwick, II of Memphis for Appellant, Kenneth A. Brasel, Sr. J. Alan Hanover of Memphis for Appellees, John Stanley Brasel, Sr., and Bonnie Brasel Thomas Wayne Cook and Dorothy L. Cook, Appellees, pro se Judge: CRAWFORD First Paragraph: This is a child custody case. Father/Appellant appeals from the trial court's Order, which denied Father/Appellant's Petition to change custody from the minor child's grandparents to Father. Finding that there is not a material change in circumstances to warrant a change of custody and that Father is not entitled to the Superior Rights Doctrine, we affirm. http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCA/braselk.wpd
JAMES A. DRAKE, JR. v. JPS ELASTOMERICS CORP. Court:TCA Attorneys: Keith D. Frazier and Jonathan O. Harris, Nashville, Tennessee, for the Appellant, JPS Elastomerics Corporation. Larry K. Scroggs, Memphis, Tennessee, for the Appellee, James A. Drake, Jr. Judge: KIRBY First Paragraph: This case involves the breach of an employment compensation contract. Under the sales employee's compensation plan with his employer, he was to earn extra commission for any sales that exceeded his annual quota. In the compensation plan, the employer reserved the right to pay only the standard commission on "windfall" sales. For the fiscal year at issue, the sales employee exceeded his quota. The employer invoked the windfall provision of his compensation plan and paid him only the standard commission on the sales over his quota. The sales employee sued his employer, arguing that he was entitled to the extra commission on the sales over his quota. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the judge ruled in favor of the plaintiff sales employee. On appeal, the defendant employer argues that the "windfall provision" applies to all sales that were unbudgeted or unforecast and that the plaintiff sales employee's excess sales fall in that category. We hold that the defendant employer's interpretation conflicts with the plain meaning of the contract, and affirm the decision of the trial court. http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCA/drakeja.wpd
DONNIE WAYNE JOHNSON, JR. v. CITY ROOFING COMPANY Court:TCA Attorneys: Joseph R. Taggart, Jackson, TN, for Appellant Stephen W. Vescovo, Craig C. Conley, Memphis, TN, for Appellee Judge: HIGHERS First Paragraph: This case is an appeal from an order granting Appellee's motion for summary judgment. Appellant argues, as he did at trial, that this case involves genuine issues of material fact, rendering summary judgment inappropriate for this action. For the following reasons, we affirm. http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCA/johnsnd.wpd
SAM POSEY, DANNY TODD, WILLIAM "BILLY" A. CHITWOOD, JIMMY L. PORTER v. CITY OF MEMPHIS Court:TCA Attorneys: Mark Allen and Melissa L. Palo, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellants, Sam Posey, Danny Todd, William "Billy" A. Chitwood, and Jimmy L. Porter. Louis P. Britt, Charles V. Holmes, and Thomas J. Walsh, Jr., Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellee, City of Memphis. Judge: KIRBY First Paragraph: This is an equal protection case involving pension benefits for firefighters. The municipal charter and ordinance required that thirty-year firefighters be automatically promoted to fire captain and that their salaries and pensions be calculated accordingly. The defendant municipality reorganized the command structure of the fire division, forcing nearly half of the fire captains to retire. The position of fire captain was eliminated, and the remaining former captains were designated as battalion captains with expanded responsibilities. The fire captain position remained on the payroll for purposes of calculating pension benefits, as per the municipal charter and ordinance requirement. Following the reorganization, the salary for thirty-year firefighters was set at a fire captain's base pay, but thirty-year firefighters were no longer permitted to ascend the captain's pay scale and retire at the highest level of pay. In contrast, police officers, whose compensation and pensions were governed by the same charter and ordinance provisions, had an opportunity to reach the highest pay levels given thirty-year police officers. The firefighters filed this lawsuit alleging, inter alia, a violation of the equal protection provision of the United States Constitution. The trial court found no equal protection violation. We affirm, holding that the equal protection clause is not applicable because thirty-year firefighters and thirty-year police officers are not sufficiently similarly situated. http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCA/poseys1.wpd
JOE RANKIN AND WIFE, BRENDA RANKIN v. LLOYD SMITH Court:TCA Attorneys: Thomas H. Strawn, Dyersburg, Tennessee, for the appellant, Lloyd Smith. Timothy Boxx, Dyersburg, Tennessee, for the appellees, Joe Rankin and wife, Brenda Rankin. Judge: KIRBY First Paragraph: This is a breach of contract case. The plaintiffs entered into a contract to sell their home and farm to the defendant. On the scheduled closing date, the defendant refused to purchase the property. The plaintiffs sold the property to a third party for substantially less than the amount the defendant had agreed to pay. In April 2002, the plaintiffs filed the instant lawsuit against the defendant for breach of contract. The defendant argued that he was fraudulently induced into signing the contract, because the parties had a verbal understanding that the contract would not be enforced. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. The defendant now appeals. We affirm, finding that the defendant alleges promissory fraud, that evidence of the parties' verbal agreement is inadmissible under the parol evidence rule, and that the evidence submitted by the defendant does not create a genuine issue of material fact regarding fraudulent inducement. http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCA/rankinj.wpd
ST. PAUL REINSURANCE CO., LTD. v. ROBERT WILLIAMS and SHERROD JACKSON, Individually and d/b/a PURE PASSION; PURE PASSION, INC. and EUGENE PUGH Court:TCA Attorneys: Ron W. McAfee, Memphis, TN, for Appellant Gary H. Nichols, Jeffrey L. Lay, Dyersburg, TN, for Appellee Judge: HIGHERS First Paragraph: This case arises from events surrounding the shooting death of Decedent, Appellant's son. Appellee filed a motion for summary judgment claiming its policy of insurance did not apply to the circumstances of this case because Appellant's claim was specifically excluded from the insurance policy. The trial court granted Appellee's motion for summary judgment and, for the following reasons, we affirm. http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCA/stpaul.wpd
KYLE ANN WILTSE v. CHRISTOPHER ALLEN WILTSE Court:TCA Attorneys: Daniel Loyd Taylor, John N. Bean, Memphis, TN, for Appellant Mitchell D. Moskovitz, Adam N. Cohen, Memphis, TN, for Appellee Judge: HIGHERS First Paragraph: This case involves issues arising out of the parties' divorce. The trial court divided the parties' marital assets, awarded Appellee alimony in futuro, ordered Appellant to pay Appellee's attorney's fees, and ordered Appellant to pay for Appellee's health insurance premiums. For the following reasons, we affirm in part, modify in part, and remand for any further proceedings. http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCA/wiltse.wpd
WILLIAM G. ALLEN v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Court:TCCA Attorneys: Gregory D. Smith, Clarksville, Tennessee, for the Appellant, William G. Allen. Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Michael Moore, Solicitor General; Helena Walton Yarbrough, Assistant Attorney General; Victor S. (Torry) Johnson III, District Attorney General; and James Sledge, Assistant District Attorney General, for the Appellee, State of Tennessee. Judge: SMITH First Paragraph: The Appellant, William G. Allen, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, Allen argues that his seventy-eight-year sentence for first degree murder is "void and illegal," as the trial court lacked jurisdiction to sentence him under a statute that had been repealed. The trial court summarily dismissed the petition finding that: (1) this was not Allen's first petition for habeas relief; (2) Allen's sentences had not expired; and (3) this issue has been previously determined on direct appeal. After review, we conclude that, although the jurisdictional issue is without merit, Allen's sentence was not imposed in accordance with the applicable statute for first degree murder and it is, therefore, illegal. Accordingly, habeas corpus relief is granted, and this case is remanded for entry of a corrected sentence in accordance with this opinion. http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCCA/allenwilliamg.wpd
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. ANTHONY ANTONIO ANDERSON Court:TCCA Attorneys: Clifford McGown, Waverly, Tennessee (at trial and on appeal); George Morton Googe, District Public Defender and Stephen P. Spracher, Assistant Public Defender (on appeal), for the Appellant, Anthony Antonio Anderson. Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Michael Moore, Solicitor General; Jennifer L. Bledsoe, Assistant Attorney General; James G. (Jerry) Woodall, District Attorney General; and Jody S. Pickens, Assistant District Attorney General, for the Appellee, State of Tennessee. Judge: HAYES First Paragraph: The Appellant, Anthony Antonio Anderson, was convicted by a Madison County jury of rape and was sentenced to nine years in the Department of Correction as a violent offender. On appeal, he argues that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support the verdict. After review, we find no error and affirm the judgment of the trial court. http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCCA/andrsna.wpd
EARL E. HAYNES v. WAYNE BRANDON, WARDEN Court:TCCA Attorneys: Earl E. Haynes, Only, Tennessee, Pro Se. Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Brent C. Cherry, Assistant Attorney General; and Ronald L. Davis, District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee. Judge: RILEY First Paragraph: The petitioner, Earl E. Haynes, appeals the dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus relating to his felony murder conviction. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCCA/haynesearl.wpd
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. ROBERT PAGE Court:TCCA Attorneys: Larry Copeland and Paul Guibao, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellant, Robert Page. Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; David H. Findley, Assistant Attorney General; William L. Gibbons, District Attorney General; and Reginald Henderson, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee. Judge: WELLES First Paragraph: The Defendant, Robert Page, was convicted by a jury of the second degree murder of Roosevelt Burgess. The Defendant was subsequently sentenced as a Range II offender to thirty-eight years in the Department of Correction. In this direct appeal, the Defendant raises the following issues: 1) whether the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict; 2) whether the trial court improperly limited the impeachment of State witness Carrie Jones; 3) whether the trial court properly admitted a photograph of the victim; 4) whether the trial court committed error in providing supplemental jury instructions; 5) whether comments by the trial court compromised the Defendant's right to a fair trial; and 6) whether the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of facilitation to commit second degree murder. Because the trial court committed reversible error in omitting a jury instruction on facilitation of second degree murder, we reverse the Defendant's conviction and remand this matter for a new trial. http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCCA/pager_opn.wpd
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. ROBERT PAGE Court:TCCA HAYES CONCURRING IN PART; DISSENTING IN PART http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCCA/pager_dis.wpd
MICHAEL WAYNE PERRY v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Court:TCCA Attorneys: Harry A. Christensen, Lebanon, Tennessee, for the appellant, Michael Wayne Perry. Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Renee W. Turner, Assistant Attorney General; Tom P. Thompson, Jr., District Attorney General; and Robert N. Hibbett, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee. Judge: TIPTON First Paragraph: The petitioner, Michael Wayne Perry, appeals from the Wilson County Criminal Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his conviction for first degree murder and resulting sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole. He contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a continuance. We reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for further proceedings. http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCCA/perrymichaelwayne.wpd
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JAMES FRANKLIN REDDEN Court:TCCA Attorneys: Donna Leigh Hargrove, District Public Defender; and Andrew Jackson Dearing, III, Assistant District Public Defender, for the appellant, James Franklin Redden. Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Thomas E. Williams, III, Assistant Attorney General; William Michael McCown, District Attorney General; and Michael David Randles, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee. Judge: RILEY First Paragraph: A Bedford County jury convicted the defendant, James Franklin Redden, of theft of property valued over $1,000. The trial court sentenced him to eight years incarceration as a multiple offender. On appeal, the defendant contends the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. We dismiss the appeal due to the untimely filing of a notice of appeal. http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCCA/reddenjames.wpd
ROBERT D. WALSH v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Court:TCCA Attorneys: C. Michael Robbins (at trial and on appeal), Memphis, Tennessee, and William D. Massey (at trial), Memphis, Tennessee, for the Appellant, Robert D. Walsh. Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Michael Moore, Solicitor General; Jennifer L. Bledsoe, Assistant Attorney General; William L. Gibbons, District Attorney General; and Julie Mosley and Lee Coffee, Assistant District Attorneys General, for the Appellee, State of Tennessee. Judge: HAYES First Paragraph: The Appellant, Robert Walsh, appeals as of right from the judgment of the Shelby County Criminal Court denying his petition for post-conviction relief. Walsh was convicted in 1999 of aggravated sexual battery of a foster child who was in his care. On appeal, Walsh contends that: (1) he was denied the effective assistance of counsel based upon trial counsel's cross-examination of the victim and (2) his right to a fair and impartial jury was violated by a deputy sheriff's comments to the jury during deliberations. After review of the issues presented, the judgment is affirmed. http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCCA/walshr.wpd

PLEASE FORWARD THIS E-MAIL!
Feel free to forward this Opinion Flash on to anyone you know of with an e-mail address.

GET A FULL-TEXT COPY OF AN OPINION!
See the intrsuctions at the beginning of this edition of Opinion Flash.

JOIN THE TENNESSEE BAR ASSOCIATION!
While Opinion Flash is a free service of the Tennessee Bar Association, you must be a member of the Tennessee Bar Association in order to access the full text of the opinions or enjoy the many other features of TBALink.

To join the TBA go to: http://www.tba.org/join_bar.mgi

SUBSCRIBE TO OPINION FLASH!
Would you like to receive the TBALink Opinion Flash free each day by e-mail? Anyone, whether a TBA member or not, is welcome to subscribe ... it's free! Sign up for text or HTML version.

Visit the TBALink web site at: http://www.tba.org/op-flash.mgi

UNSUBSCRIBE TO OPINION FLASH? ... SURELY NOT!

But if you must, visit the TBALink web site at: http://www.tba.org/op-flash.mgi


HomeContact UsPageFinderWhat's NewHelp
© Copyright 2004 Tennessee Bar Association