NEW TENNBARU ONLINE ETHICS COURSE:
Identifying the Pitfalls of Practicing in Cyberspace
NEW TENNBARU ONLINE ETHICS COURSE:
Identifying the Pitfalls of Practicing in Cyberspace

As use of the Internet grows, so does the evidence that lawyers need
to take a fresh look at the methods by which they are practicing law
and communicating with clients and prospective clients to be certain
that they are not unintentionally crossing the ethical line and
potentially harming both clients and non-clients.

Register now or find out more at http://www.tennbaru.com

Today's Opinions: December 10, 2004
Volume 10 — Number 237
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.
00 New Opinion(s) from the Tennessee Supreme Court
00 New Opinion(s) from the Tennessee Supreme Court Workers' Compensation Panel
00 New Document(s) or Proposed Rule(s) from the Tennessee Supreme Court
01 New Opinion(s) from the Tennessee Court of Appeals
03 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 or need to obtain a password, you can look it up on-line at http://www.tba.org/getpassword.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


THOMAS W. GILLAND v. JANET FAYE GILLAND

Court:TCA

Attorneys:                          

D. Scott Parsley and Joshua G. Strickland, Nashville, Tennessee, for
the appellant, Janet Faye Gilland.

Andrew M. Cate, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Thomas W.
Gilland.

Judge: CLEMENT

First Paragraph:

The parents in this child support proceeding have three children -
twins conceived during their marriage and one child conceived after
their divorce.  Because of pre-2003 jurisdictional restraints,
proceedings to set child support were simultaneously pending in both
the Circuit Court for Davidson County and the Juvenile Court for
Davidson County.  The juvenile court awarded the mother a $23,273.50
judgment for retroactive child support for the youngest child and
based the father's prospective child support obligation on his ability
to earn $40,000 per year.  The circuit court, without considering the
juvenile court's order, calculated the father's child support for the
twins based on $25,761, the imputed annual income in the Child Support
Guidelines, and then increased the amount because of extraordinary
medical expenses of one of the twins.  The mother has appealed the
circuit court's decision to base the father's child support for their
two older children on $25,761 per year rather than on $40,000 per
year.  The father has appealed both judgments.  He asserts that the
juvenile court erred by basing his child support for the parties'
youngest child on a $40,000 annual income and by failing to grant him
requested credits against his retroactive child support. He also
complains that the circuit court erred by increasing his child support
because of the medical expenses of one of the twins and the combined
effect of the two judgments which require him to pay 53% of his net
income in child support, rather than 41% as provided in the Child
Support Guidelines.  We have determined that the juvenile court's
judgment for retroactive child support should be vacated because the
father is entitled to credit for his voluntary child support payments.
 We have also determined that the father's child support obligation
for all three children should be based on $40,000 per year and that
the combined amount of child support obligation should be 41% of his
net income, with an upward adjustment for the extraordinary medical
expenses of one of the twins.  Finally, based on the 2003 statutes
affecting the jurisdiction of the juvenile and circuit courts, we have
determined that the proceeding in the juvenile court should be
transferred to the circuit court and that all future matters regarding
these children should be adjudicated in the circuit court.

http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCA/gillandthomas.wpd

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. CRAIG S. COOK

Court:TCCA

Attorneys:                          

Frank Lannom, Lebanon, Tennessee, for the Appellant, Craig S. Cook.

Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Michael Moore,
Solicitor General; Helen Walton Yarbrough, Assistant Attorney General;
Jerry Hunt, Assistant District Attorney General, for the Appellee,
State of Tennessee.

Judge: HAYES

First Paragraph:

The Appellant, Craig S. Cook, presents for review a certified question
of law.  See Tenn. R. Crim. P. 37(b)(2)(i).  Cook pled guilty to
Driving Under the Influence (DUI), first offense, and was sentenced to
eleven months, twenty-nine days jail confinement, to be suspended
after service of ten days.  As a condition of his guilty plea, Cook
explicitly reserved a certified question of law challenging the denial
of his motion to suppress the results of a blood alcohol test
administered by a private hospital in the course of medical treatment.
Cook argues that the procedures utilized to obtain the results of the
test violated both his  constitutional right to privacy and due
process.  On appeal, the State asserts that the question presented is
not dispositive and, thus, this court is without jurisdiction to hear
this appeal.  After review, we agree that the certified question is
not dispositive.  Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCCA/cookcraigs.wpd

JERMAINE IVORY and JAMES IVORY v. STATE OF TENNESSEE 

Court:TCCA

Attorneys:                          

Dwight E. Scott and Michael Colaveccio, Nashville, Tennessee, for the
appellants, Jermaine Ivory and James Ivory.

Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Kathy D. Aslinger,
Assistant Attorney General; Victor S. Johnson, District Attorney
General; and Ryan Brown, Assistant District Attorney General, for the
appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge: WELLES

First Paragraph:

Defendant Jermaine Ivory was convicted by a jury of three charges
involving the sale of cocaine.  For these crimes, the trial court
sentenced Jermaine Ivory to an effective sentence of thirty-six years
in the Department of Correction.  Codefendant James Ivory was
convicted by the same jury of one of the same charges;  James Ivory
subsequently pled guilty to another cocaine offense, two marijuana
offenses, and one count of felony possession of a firearm.  For all of
these offenses, James Ivory was sentenced to an effective sentence of
twenty years in the Department of Correction.  The consolidated direct
appeal of these two Defendants was denied.  See State v. James Lee
Ivory, No. M2000-02145-CCA-R3-CD, 2003 WL 76980 (Tenn. Crim. App.,
Nashville, Jan. 10, 2003).  Both Defendants subsequently filed for
post-conviction relief.  Jermaine Ivory alleged ineffective assistance
of counsel in conjunction with his trial, claiming that his lawyer
failed to adequately investigate his case, failed to adequately advise
him about his case, and failed to investigate and/or pursue issues
involving his mental health.  James Ivory alleged that his trial
counsel was ineffective at trial in failing to object to inadmissible
evidence, and in failing to file a motion for new trial, thereby
waiving a suppression issue.  James Ivory also alleged that, due to
his lawyer's ineffective assistance, his later guilty pleas were not
knowing and voluntary.  After a hearing, the trial court denied relief
to both Defendants and this direct appeal followed.  We affirm the
judgments of the trial court.

http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCCA/ivoryjermaine.wpd

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. SHEILA ANN JONES

Court:TCCA

Attorneys:                          

Donna Leigh Hargrove, District Public Defender; and Andrew Jackson
Dearing, III, and Michael Collins, Assistant District Public
Defenders, for the Appellant, Sheila Ann Jones.

Paul G. Summers, Attorney General & Reporter; John H. Bledsoe,
Assistant Attorney General; William Michael McCown, District Attorney
General; and Michael D. Randles and Ann L. Filer, Assistant District
Attorneys General, for the Appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge: WITT

First Paragraph:

The defendant, Sheila Ann Jones, appeals the Bedford County Circuit
Court's denial of alternative sentencing following her guilty plea to
attempt to commit aggravated child abuse.  Because the record supports
the trial court's judgment, we affirm.

http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCCA/jonessheilaann.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

TBALink HomeContact UsPageFinderWhat's NewHelp

© Copyright 2004 Tennessee Bar Association