HARRY DOUGLAS LANE v. HARRY LANE, HENDERSON, HUTCHERSON, & McCULLOUGH,
PLLC., E. LADDELL McCULLOUGH, CPA, HARRY LANE NISSAN, INC., and
JEFFREY E. CAPPO
David L. Bacon, Knoxville, Tennessee for appellant.
Linda J. Hamilton Mowles, Knoxville, Tennessee, for appellee.
In this dispute over the plaintiff's share in the proceeds of the sale
of the business, the Trial Court awarded Judgment to plaintiff in the
amount of $571,453.00, plus interest based on the "sales price" as
found by the Judge. On appeal, we affirm.
RONALD IRVIN WATSON v. CYNTHIA (WATSON) CLARK
John R. Bradley of Hendersonville for Appellant, Ronald Irvin Watson
John Ray Phillips, Jr., of Gallatin for Appellee Cynthia (Watson)
In divorce proceedings between Appellant and Appellee, trial court
entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) making an
incorrect distribution of property as a result of misstatement by plan
administrator that his S401(k) savings account had no balance as of
the date of his marriage to former wife, when in fact it had a balance
of $27,571.59. As a result of the plan administrator's misstatement, a
distribution was made to former wife that included an overpayment of
$13,785.79. Husband filed motion to alter or amend QDRO, which was
denied by trial court. Husband appeals from trial court's order
denying motion to alter or amend QDRO. Finding that the trial court
erred, we reverse.
CLIFFORD WILSON v. GAY LYNN WILSON
John J. Hollings, Jr., Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant,
Warren Jasper, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Gay Lynn
This case involves a dispute over the proper amount of child support
to be paid for the parties' two minor children. Father requested a
child support adjustment due to the emancipation of the parties'
oldest child. He additionally requested a downward deviation of his
child support payments due to significant additional parenting time in
excess of that contemplated by the Tennessee Child Support Guidelines,
as well as, significant additional monies paid for private school and
other expenses for the children. The previous court order required
Husband to pay $4,100 per month for their three minor children based
on an income of $10,000 per month. The trial court determined that
Husband's new child support amount for the remaining two minor
children would be $3,700 per month. Father argued that the proper
amount after the emancipation of their oldest child should reduce his
child support to $3,200 per month. Father also argued that he should
be entitled to a downward deviation reducing his child support to
$1,000 per month for his two minor children. We agree with Father that
the trial court incorrectly modified his child support following the
emancipation of the parties' oldest child. Although Husband's current
income is in excess of $10,000 per month, Wife did not carry her
burden of proving that additional child support based on an amount
over $10,000 per month is reasonably necessary. Child support should
be set at 32% of $10,000, $3,200 per month. With regard to Father's
request for a downward deviation of his child support obligation, we
find that there has been no change of circumstances since the last
court order and that this issue could have and should have been
litigated at the time of the previous Order, so the matter is barred
by res judicata. Child support is set at $3,200 per month for the
remaining two minor children.
RANDALL BLAKENEY v. STATE OF TENNESSEE
Randall Blakeney, Pikeville, Tennessee, pro se.
Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Renee W. Turner,
Assistant Attorney General; Randall E. Nichols, District Attorney
General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.
The petitioner, Randall Blakeney, appeals the trial court's order
denying post-conviction relief. The state has filed a motion
requesting that this court affirm the trial court's denial of relief
pursuant to Rule 20, Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. R. The pleading is barred by
the statute of limitations and was properly dismissed. Accordingly,
the state's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is
DAVID JAMES CANTRELL v. STATE OF TENNESSEE
David James Cantrell, Pikeville, Tennessee, pro se.
Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Michelle Chapman
McIntire, Assistant Attorney General; James Michael Taylor, District
Attorney General; James W. Pope, III, Assistant District Attorney
General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.
The petitioner, David James Cantrell, appeals from the trial court's
order dismissing his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The state has
filed a motion requesting that this court affirm the trial court's
denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of
Criminal Appeals. The petition fails to establish a cognizable claim
for habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, the state's motion is granted
and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. WILLIAM O. EWERLING
William O. Ewerling, Pro Se.
Paul G.Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Jennifer L. Bledsoe,
Assistant Attorney General; Victor S. Johnson III, District Attorney
General; and Roger Moore, Assistant District Attorney General, for the
Appellee, State of Tennessee.
The Appellant, William O. Ewerling, proceeding pro se, appeals his
misdemeanor convictions by the Davidson County Criminal Court for
possessing a weapon in a public park, possession of a handgun while
under the influence of alcohol, and criminal trespass. On appeal,
Ewerling argues the trial court erred as follows: (1) improperly
admitted hearsay statements; (2) admitted nonrelevant evidence; (3)
permitted introduction of evidence from a witness who had no personal
knowledge of the matter; (4) improperly instructed the jury; and (5)
imposed excessive sentences. Additionally, Ewerling argues that the
evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. After review, we
conclude that issues (1), (2), (3), (4), and (5) are waived as the
record is insufficient to permit a review of these issues. With regard
to Ewerling's sufficiency argument, we conclude that the evidence is
legally sufficient to support his convictions for possessing a weapon
in a public park and possession of a handgun while under the
influence. However, we conclude that the evidence is legally
insufficient to support his conviction for criminal trespass.
Accordingly, the convictions and sentences for possessing a weapon in
a public park and possession of a handgun while under the influence
are affirmed; the conviction for criminal trespass is reversed and
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. CHARLES MICHAEL HALL
Paul D. Hessing, Paris, Tennessee, for the appellant, Charles Michael
Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; David H. Findley,
Assistant Attorney General; Robert Radford, District Attorney General;
and Steven L. Garrett, Assistant District Attorney General, for the
appellee, State of Tennessee.
A jury convicted the defendant, Charles Michael Hall, for a third
offense of driving under the influence of an intoxicant (D.U.I.), a
Class A misdemeanor, and for driving after having been declared a
habitual motor vehicle offender, a Class E felony. For the D.U.I.
conviction, he received a sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine
days in the county jail with a release eligibility at 75% and a $1500
fine. For the habitual motor vehicle offender offense, he received a
sentence of one year as a Range I standard offender to be served in
the Department of Correction. The sentences are to be served
consecutively. In this appeal as of right, the defendant argues: (1)
the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions; (2) the trial
court improperly denied charging a proposed jury instruction; and (3)
the trial court improperlycharged the jury. After reviewing the
matter, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JOHN H. PARKER
George M. Googe, District Public Defender, and Stephen P. Spracher,
Assistant Public Defender, for the appellant, John H. Parker.
Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; David E. Coenen,
Assistant Attorney General; James G.(Jerry) Woodall,District Attorney
General; and Alfred L.Earls, Assistant District Attorney General, for
the appellee, State of Tennessee.
The petitioner filed a "Writ of Certiorari and/or Writ of Habeas
Corpus and/or Motion for Post- Judgment Relief" in the trial court. On
appeal, the petitioner challenges the trial court's denial of both his
petition for writ of habeas corpus and his application for writ of
certiorari. Following our review, we affirm the denial of both forms
Constitutionality of Voting Center Legislation
Date: April 12, 2005
Opinion Number: 05-045
Greenbelt Rollback Liability upon Voluntary Transfer to a Governmental
Date: April 12, 2005
Opinion Number: 05-046