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
Home • Contact Us • PageFinder • What's New • Help
