Understanding the New Limited Liability Company Act
June 29 - Tennessee Bar Center, Nashville (rescheduled from May 18)

An all new Limited Liability Company Act is moving its way through the
Tennessee General Assembly. The new act will make sweeping changes to
Tennessee's current LLC laws.  Attend an in-depth seminar conducted by
the TBA committee that drafted the new act to learn how it will affect
LLC practice here in Tennessee.

Today's Opinions: May 23, 2005
Volume 11 — Number 097
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.
01 New Opinion(s) from the Tennessee Supreme Court
00 New Opinion(s) from the Tennessee Supreme Court Workers' Compensation Panel
01 New Document(s) or Proposed Rule(s) from the Tennessee Supreme Court
06 New Opinion(s) from the Tennessee Court of Appeals
15 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. We recommend you download the Opinions to your computer and then open them from there. • Click the URL at end of each Opinion paragraph below. This should give you the option to download the original document. If not, you may need to right-click on the URL to get the option to save the file to your computer. • 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


LILLIAN E. GRIFFIS, ET AL. v. DAVIDSON COUNTY METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT
d/b/a DAVIDSON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION

Court:TSC

Attorneys:                          

Karl F. Dean, J. Brooks Fox, and John L. Kennedy, Nashville,
Tennessee, for the appellant Metropolitan Government of Nashville and
Davidson County.

John W.Barringer, Jr. and Justin D.Wear, Nashville, Tennessee, for the
appellees Lillian E. Griffis, Nellie Wheeler, and Audrey Griffis.

Randall G. Bennett and Vickie P. Hall, Nashville, Tennessee, for
amicus curiae Tennessee School Boards Association.

Judge: DROWOTA

First Paragraph:

In 1908, a fee simple determinable estate in real property was
conveyed to the Davidson County Board of Education and its successors
("Metro"). The deed required the property to be used "for school
purposes" and to be "devoted exclusively to the cause of education."
The deed further provided that the property would revert to the
grantors or their heirs should the property be "abandoned" for these
purposes. In July 2000, the defendant Metro ceased using the property
for classroom instruction and administration but continued to maintain
the property, to use it to store surplus food service equipment, and
to hold it in reserve for possible use in the indefinite future. In
April 2001, heirs of the grantors brought suit against Metro, claiming
that the property had been abandoned for school purposes, thereby
triggering reversion to them. Concludingthat there had been no
abandonment, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of
Metro. However, the Court of Appeals concluded that the limitations
"for school purposes" and the "cause of education" are satisfied
solely by classroom instruction. The Court of Appeals thus not only
held that Metro had abandoned the property for these limitations, but
also granted summary judgment in favor of the nonmovants, the heirs of
the grantors. We vacate the Court of Appeals' holding that "school
purposes" and the "cause of education" require classroom instruction
alone. We hold that these limitations permit any use that directly
benefits and enhances the process of learning and instruction or that
directly advances the objective of instructing, training, and rearing.
Further, we hold that in a fee simple determinable where the term
"abandon" is not otherwise defined, the common law definition of
abandonment applies; a complainant therefore must show both intent to
abandon for the stated limitations and some external act or omission
by which the intent to abandon is effectuated. Whether abandonment has
occurred is predominantly a factual determination based upon all the
relevant circumstances. In the proceedings below, the parties lacked
the benefit of our holding today concerning the legal standard for
abandonment; consequently, the factual record relevant to this
standard has not been sufficiently developed. We thus vacate the Court
of Appeals' grant of summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and
remand this case to the trial court to allow the parties the
opportunity to litigate the case in accord with the legal standard
adopted herein.

http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TSC/2005/griffisl52305.pdf

State of Tennessee Justice Information Tracking System State List for
Permission to Appeal

Court:TSC - Rules

http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TSC_Rules/2005/certList052305.pdf

ALFONZO SILVESTRE ARZE v. MARY ANNE BRACKEN ARZE
WITH DISSENTING OPINION

Court:TCA

Attorneys:                          

Mark D. Slagle, Johnson City, Tennessee, for the Appellant Alfonzo
Silvestre Arze.

M. Stanley Givens, Johnson City, Tennessee, for the Appellee Mary Anne
Bracken Arze.

Judge: SWINEY

First Paragraph:

Alfonzo Silvestre Arze ("Father") and MaryAnne Bracken Arze ("Mother")
were divorced in 2000. The divorce was based upon stipulated grounds
of irreconcilable differences, and the parties submitted a marital
dissolution agreement ("MDA") to the Trial Court for approval. The
terms of the MDA were agreed upon through mediation. At the time of
the divorce, Father was employed as a physician with gross earnings of
approximately $150,000. Mother was unemployed. Due to the significant
disparity in income, Father agreed to pay Mother $2,000 in child
support even though he was not obligated legally to do so since he was
the primary residential parent for the parties' four children. When
the oldest child turned eighteen, Father reduced his child support
payments by twenty-five percent, $500. After Mother challenged
Father's unilateral reduction in child support, the Trial Court
entered an order which required Father to pay child support in an
amount consistent with the Child Support Guidelines ("Guidelines"). We
conclude that because Father was not legally obligated under the
Guidelines to pay any child support, the payment of $2,000 was purely
a contractual obligation which was not governed by the Guidelines.
Wealso conclude that Father was within his contractual rights when he
reduced the child support payments by $500 when the oldest child
became emancipated.

http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCA/2005/arzea52305.pdf

DISSENTING OPINION
http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCA/2005/arzea_dis52305.pdf

JOHN JAY HOOKER v. SENATOR LAMAR ALEXANDER, ET. AL.

Court:TCA

Attorneys:                          

John Jay Hooker, Nashville, Tennessee, Pro Se.

Janet Kleinfelter and W.Scott Sims, Nashville, Tennessee, for the
appellees, Lamar Alexander, Paul Summers and the Lamar Alexander for
Senate Committee.

Judge: CAIN

First Paragraph:

Appellant was an independent candidate for election to the United
States Senate in the November 5, 2002, election in which he was
defeated by the present incumbent Lamar Alexander. He seeks to have
the election declared void on the basis that Alexander used his own
money and accepted campaign contribution in support of his candidacy.
He alleges that such self financing arrangements and campaign
contributions financing violate the qualifications clauses and the
equal protection and due process clauses of both the Federal and State
Constitutions. Named as defendants were Lamar Alexander, Attorney
General Paul Summers and the Lamar Alexander for Senate Committee. All
defendants filed Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02(6) motions to
dismiss, which motions were granted by the trial judge. We affirm the
actions of the trial court.

http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCA/2005/hookerj52305.pdf

DOUGLAS McPHERSON v. SHEA EAR CLINIC, P.A.

Court:TCA

Attorneys:                          

Douglas McPherson, Pro Se.

Jeffrey A. Land, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellee, Shea Ear
Clinic, P.A.

Judge: FARMER

First Paragraph:

The trial court granted Defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Having reviewed the
complaint, we disagree and reverse.

http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCA/2005/mcphersond52305.pdf

BILLY K. POMEROY v. ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY

Court:TCA

Attorneys:                          

Harold W. McLeary, Jr., and W. Bradley Gilmer, Memphis, Tennessee, for
the appellant, Illinois Central Railroad Company.

M.Dykes Barber, Jr., Birmingham, Alabama, and Stephen R. Leffler,
Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellee, Billy K. Pomeroy.

Judge: FARMER

First Paragraph:

Plaintiff, a switchman/brakeman for Illinois Central Railroad Company,
filed a claim for damages arising from injuries allegedly caused by
the railroad's failure to maintain a track switch. The jury allocated
100% fault to the railroad and awarded Plaintiff $500,000 in damages.
The trial court denied the railroad's motion for a directed verdict,
remittitur, or new trial. We affirm.

http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCA/2005/pomeroyb52305.pdf

ROGER M. RALPH, ET AL. v. ROBERT R. PIPKIN, ET AL.

Court:TCA

Attorneys:                          

James L. Robertson, Jackson, Mississippi and DavidM.Livingston,
Brownsville, Tennessee, for the appellants, Roger M. Ralph and Kem L.
Ralph.

J. Kimbrough Johnson, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellees, Robert R.
Pipkin and Pipkin Insurance Agency.

Gary R. Wilkinson and C. Michael Becker, Memphis, Tennessee, for the
appellee, Grange Mutual Casualty Company.

Judge: FARMER

First Paragraph:

Plaintiffs in this action, Roger Ralph and Kem Ralph, were sued in
federal court for patent infringement and breach of contract. Their
farmer's liability insurance carrier, Grange Mutual, denied coverage
and refused to defend. Plaintiffs filed a complaint in the Lauderdale
County Chancery Court against Grange Mutual seeking a declaratory
judgment, a judgment for breach of contract, and specific performance.
They also filed a complaint for professional negligence and breach of
contract against their insurance agent, Pipkin Insurance Agency/Mr.
Robert Pipkin. The trial court granted Grange Mutual's motion to
dismiss and awarded the Pipkin Insurance Agency/Mr. Pipkin summary
judgment. We affirm.

http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCA/2005/ralphr52305.pdf

JUSTIN L. THURMAN v. JUSTIN E. HARKINS, ET AL.

Court:TCA

Attorneys:                          

Paul Campbell, III, Chattanooga, TN, for Appellant Great River
Insurance Company

Jason G. Whitworth, Lyle Reid, Covington, TN, for Appellee Justin
Thurman

Judge: HIGHERS

First Paragraph:

This case involves a question of whether an insurance policy covers
the injuries sustained by the plaintiff under the facts of this case.
The original suit filed by plaintiff against Justin Harkins, Andrew
Keon, and James Keon was settled out of court, leaving Great River
Insurance Company, an unnamed defendant. After granting the
plaintiff's motion for declaratory and partial summary judgment on
whether the plaintiff was a covered insured under the policy, the
parties agreed to send the matter to arbitration. The arbitrator
returned an award in favor of the plaintiff, and the trial court
confirmed the award but reduced the amount, accounting for the
insurance policy's limit. The trial court also awarded the plaintiff
pre-judgment interest but stated that the total award to the plaintiff
could not exceed the limit in the insurance policy. Great River
Insurance Company appealed to this Court, and the plaintiff filed a
cross-appeal. For the following reasons, we affirm.

http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCA/2005/thurmanj52305.pdf

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. RAYMOND BAILEY

Court:TCCA

Attorneys:                          

C. Anne Tipton, Memphis, Tennessee, Attorney for the Appellant,
Raymond Bailey.

Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Rachel E. Willis,
Assistant Attorney General; William L. Gibbons, District Attorney
General; and Betsy Carnesale, Assistant District Attorney General, for
the Appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge: HAYES

First Paragraph:

The Appellant, Raymond Bailey, was convicted by a Shelby County jury
of especially aggravated kidnapping and carjacking. Following a
sentencing hearing, Bailey was sentenced to consecutive sentences of
twenty-eight years for especiallyaggravated kidnapping and twelve
years for carjacking. On appeal, Bailey raises the following issues:
(1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the verdicts; (2)
whether the trial court erred in allowing the introduction of
undisclosed evidence; (3) whether the trial court erred in allowing
the State to present evidence of his drug possession at the time of
his arrest; (4) whether Bailey's sentences violate Blakely v.
Washington; and (5) whether the cumulative errors require a new trial.
After review of the record, we conclude that issues (1), (2), (4), and
(5) are without merit. With regard to issue (3), we conclude that the
trial court erred in admitting the evidence but conclude that the
error was harmless. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is
affirmed.

http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCCA/2005/baileyr52305.pdf

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. KORIE BATES

Court:TCCA

Attorneys:                          

C. Anne Tipton, Memphis, Tennessee (on appeal), and Robert Wilson
Jones, District Public Defender, and Phyllis Aluko and Kindle Nance,
Assistant Public Defenders (at trial), for the appellant, Korie Bates.

Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Rachel E. Willis,
Assistant Attorney General; William L. Gibbons, District Attorney
General; and Paul Goodman and Paul Hagerman, Assistant District
Attorneys General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge: WILLIAMS

First Paragraph:

The defendant appeals his convictions for attempted second-degree
murder and aggravated robbery. Specifically, he avers that, (1) the
evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts; (2) the State's
failure to disclose the statement of an unindicted co-conspirator
constitutes a Brady violation and entitles him to a new trial; (3) the
sentence was issued in error, in light of Blakely v. Washington; and
(4) the cumulative effect of all errors merits a new trial. Following
our review, we affirm the convictions and the sentences imposed.

http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCCA/2005/batesk52305.pdf

JAMES C. BREER v. STATE OF TENNESSEE

Court:TCCA

Attorneys:                          

Gary J. Swayne, Paris, Tennessee, for the Appellant, James C. Breer.

Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Preston Shipp,
Assistant Attorney General; Robert "Gus" Radford, District Attorney
General; and Steven L. Garrett, Assistant District Attorney General,
for the Appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge: HAYES

First Paragraph:

The Appellant, James C. Breer, appeals the Henry County Circuit
Court's dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. On
appeal, Breer argues that trial counsel was ineffective for (1)
failing to investigate and prepare for trial, and (2) failing to
advise him of his right to testify at trial in violation of Momon v.
State, 18 S.W.3d 152 (Tenn. 1999). After review, we conclude that
issue (1) is without merit. However, with regard to issue (2), we
conclude that the record does not support the trial court's finding
that Breer personally waived his right to testify as required by
Momon. Moreover, because the procedural guidelines adopted in Momon
for determining whether the error was harmless were not followed, we
find it necessary to remand for resolution of this issue.

http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCCA/2005/breerj52305.pdf

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. SYRUS MAURICE COLEMAN

Court:TCCA

Attorneys:                          

Noel H. Riley, II, Dyersburg, Tennessee, for the appellant, Syrus
Maurice Coleman.

Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Preston Shipp,
Assistant Attorney General; C. Phillip Bivens, District Attorney
General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge: MCLIN

First Paragraph:

A Dyer County jury convicted the defendant, Syrus Maurice Coleman, of
possession of .5 grams or more of cocaine with the intent to sell or
deliver, a Class B felony. The trial court sentenced the defendant as
a multiple offender to fourteen years in the Department of Correction.
On appeal, the defendant argues that the evidence is insufficient to
support his conviction. Upon our review of the evidence, we affirm the
judgment of the trial court.

http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCCA/2005/colemans52305.pdf

ERVIN DAVIS v. WARDEN GLENN TURNER AND STATE OF TENNESSEE

Court:TCCA

Attorneys:                          

Ervin Davis, Hardeman County Correctional Facility, Whiteville,
Tennessee, Pro Se.

Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; David E. Coenen,
Assistant Attorney General; and Elizabeth T. Rice, District Attorney
General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge: MCLIN

First Paragraph:

The petitioner appeals from the trial court's summary dismissal of his
pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus. Following our review, we
affirm the trial court's judgment.

http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCCA/2005/davise52305.pdf

KENYA DAVIS v. STATE OF TENNESSEE

Court:TCCA

Attorneys:                          

Albert Newman, Jr., Knoxville, Tennessee, for the Appellant, Kenya
Davis.

Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Renee W. Turner,
Assistant Attorney General; Randall E. Nichols, District Attorney
General; Zane Scarlett, Assistant District Attorney General, for the
Appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge: WITT

First Paragraph:

The petitioner, Kenya Davis, 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 petitioner has failed to establish that he is entitled to
habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, the state's motion is granted and
the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCCA/2005/davisk52305.pdf

HOWARD DUTY, JR. v. STATE OF TENNESSEE

Court:TCCA

Attorneys:                          

Gene G. Scott, Jr., Johnson City, Tennessee, for the appellant, Howard
Duty, Jr.

Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; William G. Lamberth,
II., Assistant Attorney General; H. Greeley Wells, Jr., District
Attorney General; and B. Todd Martin, Assistant District Attorney
General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge: MCLIN

First Paragraph:

The petitioner, Howard Duty, Jr., appeals from the post-conviction
court's denial of post-conviction relief. On appeal, he contends that
the post-conviction court erred in finding that he received the
effective assistance of counsel. Followingour review, we affirm the
denial of post-conviction relief.

http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCCA/2005/dutyh52305.pdf

COLLIER V. HARRIS v. STATE OF TENNESSEE

Court:TCCA

Attorneys:                          

Juni S. Ganguli, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellant, Collier V.
Harris.

Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Michael Markham,
Assistant Attorney General; WilliamC.Gibbons, District Attorney
General; and Lee Coffee, Assistant District Attorney General, for the
appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge: MCLIN

First Paragraph:

The petitioner appeals from the post-conviction court's denial of
post-conviction relief. On appeal, he contends that he received the
ineffective assistance of counsel when his trial counsel failed to
properly investigate and prepare his case for trial. Following our
review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court denying
post-conviction relief.

http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCCA/2005/harrisc52305.pdf

MATTHEW MELTON JACKSON v. STATE OF TENNESSEE

Court:TCCA

Attorneys:                          

William F. Kroeger, Springfield, Tennessee, for the appellant, Matthew
Melton Jackson.

Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Michael Markham,
Assistant Attorney General; John Wesley Carney, Jr., District Attorney
General; and B. Dent Moriss, Assistant District Attorney General, for
the appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge: TIPTON

First Paragraph:

The petitioner, Matthew Melton Jackson, appeals as of right the
dismissal of his petition for postconviction relief by the Robertson
County Circuit Court. He seeks relief from his convictions for two
counts of aggravated rape, one count of aggravated kidnapping, one
count of aggravated robbery, and effective sentence of twenty-five
years. The petitioner contends that he received the ineffective
assistance of counsel and that his guilty pleas were not voluntary or
knowing. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCCA/2005/jacksonm52305.pdf

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JOHNNY MAXWELL

Court:TCCA

Attorneys:                          

Brett B.Stein, Memphis,Tennessee (on appeal), and James O.Marty,
Memphis, Tennessee (at trial), for the appellant, Johnny Maxwell.

Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; David H. Findley,
Assistant Attorney General; William L. Gibbons, District Attorney
General; and Karen Cook and Dean DeCandia, Assistant District
Attorneys General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge: TIPTON

First Paragraph:

A Shelby County Criminal Court jury convicted the defendant, Johnny
Maxwell, of five counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, a Class A
felony, and one count of aggravated robbery, a Class Bfelony. The
trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range I, standard offender to
concurrent terms of twenty-four years for each especially aggravated
kidnapping conviction, to be served at one hundred percent, and to
eleven years for the aggravated robbery conviction, to be served
consecutively to the other sentences for an effective sentence of
thirty-five years. On appeal, the defendant contends that (1) his
especially aggravated kidnapping convictions cannot stand under State
v. Anthony, 817 S.W.2d 299 (Tenn. 1991), because the victims'
detention was incidental to the aggravated robbery; (2) the trial
court improperly commented on the evidence during the jury
instructions; and (3) his sentences are improper in light of Blakely
v. Washington, 542 U.S. __, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). We affirm the
judgments of the trial court.

http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCCA/2005/maxwellj52305.pdf

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. OTIS MILLER, III

Court:TCCA

Attorneys:                          

Emma Rae Tennent, (on appeal), and Jonathan F. Wing, (at trial),
Assistant Public Defenders, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant,
Otis Miller, III

Paul G. Summers, Attorney General & Reporter; Brent C. Cherry,
Assistant Attorney General; Victor S. Johnson, District Attorney
General; Bernie McEnvoy and Jennifer Tackett, Assistant District
Attorneys General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge: SMITH

First Paragraph:

The appellant, Otis Miller, III, pled guilty to four (4) counts of
aggravated sexual battery. As a result of the guilty plea, the trial
court sentenced the appellant to ten (10) years on each conviction and
ordered the first two counts to be served concurrently and the last
two counts to be served concurrently. The trial court ordered that the
first two counts be served consecutively to the remaining two counts,
for an effective sentence of twenty (20) years. On appeal, the
appellant challenges the trial court's application of certain
enhancement factors in violation of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S.
___, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), and the trial court's decision to order
consecutive sentences. Because our supreme court recently determined
that Blakely has no application in Tennessee, we have reviewed the
appellant's sentence de novo. Despite the trial court's improper
application of several enhancement factors, we affirm the appellant's
sentence because we determine that the existence of enhancement factor
(16) justifies enhancement of the sentence from eight (8) to ten (10)
years. We also affirm the trial court's decision to order consecutive
sentences.

http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCCA/2005/millero52305.pdf

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JERRY L. SANDRIDGE

Court:TCCA

Attorneys:                          

William Dan Douglas, Jr., for the appellant, Jerry L. Sandridge.

Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Michael Markham,
Assistant Attorney General; Elizabeth T. Rice, District Attorney
General; and Tracey Brewer, Assistant District Attorney General, for
the appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge: MCLIN

First Paragraph:

The defendant, Jerry L. Sandridge, was convicted by a jury of two
counts of aggravated robbery. On direct appeal, this Court modified
one of the convictions to aggravated assault and remanded for
re-sentencing. State v. Franklin, 130 S.W.3d 789 (Tenn. Crim. App.
2003). At a subsequent sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced
the defendant as a career offender to fifteen years in the Department
of Correction. In this appeal, the defendant presents the single issue
of whether the trial court properly classified him as a career
offender. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCCA/2005/sandridgej52305.pdf

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JOHNNY EUGENE STUBBLEFIELD

Court:TCCA

Attorneys:                          

Larry Joe Hinson, Jr., Hohenwald, Tennessee (on appeal), and Stacy M.
Brackeen, Franklin, Tennessee (at trial), for the appellant, Johnny
Eugene Stubblefield.

Paul G.Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Jennifer L. Bledsoe,
Assistant Attorney General; Ronald L.Davis, District AttorneyGeneral;
and Jeffrey L.Long, Assistant District Attorney General, for the
appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge: WILLIAMS

First Paragraph:

Following a jury trial, the defendant was found guilty of two counts
of sale of a Schedule III controlled substance (Lortab), a Class D
felony, and sentenced as a Range I, standard offender, to concurrent
four-year sentences. He appeals to this Court contending that: (1) the
evidence presented was insufficient to show that the defendant acted
knowingly; (2) the evidence presented was insufficient to show that
the transaction constituted a sale; (3) the trial court erred in
finding that the dispensing of prescription drugs creates a high risk
of harm to human life; and (4) the trial court erred in denying
alternative sentencing. Followingour review, weaffirm the defendant's
convictions and sentences.

http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCCA/2005/stubblefieldj52305.pdf

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JOSEPH D. TAYLOR

Court:TCCA

Attorneys:                          

N. Andy Myrick, Jr., Fayetteville, Tennessee, for the appellant,
Joseph D. Taylor.

Paul G. Summers, Attorney General & Reporter; Preston Shipp, Assistant
Attorney General; Mike McCowen,District Attorney General;
WeakleyE.Barnard, Assistant District Attorneys General, for the
appellee, State of Tennessee

Judge: SMITH

First Paragraph:

The appellant, Joseph D. Taylor, was convicted of attempted rape,
attempted sexual battery, and aggravated kidnapping. After a
sentencing hearing, the appellant was sentenced as a career offender
to fifteen (15) years for attempted rape, eleven (11) months and
twenty-nine (29) days for attempted sexual battery, and twelve (12)
years as a violent offender for aggravated kidnapping. On direct
appeal, this Court affirmed the conviction for attempted rape and
reversed the other two convictions. See State v. Taylor, 63 S.W.3d 400
(Tenn. Crim. App. 2001). The appellant filed a petition for
postconviction relief, which was denied by the trial court after a
hearing. On appeal, this Court set aside the appellant's sentence for
attempted rape because he was improperly sentenced as a career
offender. See Joseph D. Taylor v. State, No. M2003-00138-CCA-R3-PC,
2004 WL350641, at *11 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Feb. 20, 2004).
On remand, the trial court sentenced the appellant to fifteen (15)
years as a Range III offender. A timely notice of appeal was filed.
The appellant challenges his sentence, arguing that his sentence
violates Blakelyv. Washington, 542 U.S. ___, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004),
because the trial court improperly applied enhancement factors that
were not admitted by the appellant or determined by a jury. After a
review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court
pursuant to Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20.

http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCCA/2005/taylorj52305.pdf

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. HENRY FORD WILLIAMS, JR.

Court:TCCA

Attorneys:                          

Edward Dewerf (at trial) and Gregory D.Smith (on appeal), Clarksville,
Tennessee, for the appellant, Henry Ford Williams, Jr.

Paul G. Summers, Attorney General & Reporter; Michael Markham,
Assistant Attorney General; and Dent Morriss, Assistant District
Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge: WADE

First Paragraph:

The defendant, Henry Ford Williams, Jr., entered a plea of guilt to
the unlawful possession of a firearm. Tried by a jury on a charge of
possession of .57 grams of cocaine with intent to sell within one
thousand feet of a school and simple possession of cocaine, the
defendant was convicted on each count. The trial court merged the two
illegal drug convictions. Concurrent sentences of three years for the
firearm conviction and thirty-two years, six months, for the cocaine
conviction were imposed upon the defendant. The single issue presented
for review is whether the evidence was sufficient. The judgments are
affirmed.

http://www.tba.org/tba_files/TCCA/2005/williamsh52305.pdf

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 2005 Tennessee Bar Association