THE ALISON GROUP, INC. v. GREG ERICSON, Individually d/b/a ERICSON &
ASSOCIATES, ET AL.
Prince C. Chambliss, Jr., Memphis, TN, for Appellants
Bruce D. Brooke, Memphis, TN; William C. Hearon, Miami, FL, for
This appeal arises out of an action filed by Appellee to confirm an
arbitration award. Appellants contest whether Appellee, as a foreign
corporation without a certificate of authority, may avail itself of
the Tennessee judicial system to enforce the arbitration award. The
trial court determined that Appellee was exempted from the requirement
of obtaining a certificate of authority and confirmed the arbitration
award in favor of Appellee. Additionally, the trial court denied
Appellee's request for attorney's fees incurred to collect the
arbitration award. For the following reasons, we affirm.
ROBERT BEAN ET AL. v. PHIL BREDESEN ET AL.
OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING
The parties challenging the constitutionality of Tenn. Code Ann. S
70-4-403(4)(B) (2004) have filed a petition for rehearing pursuant to
Tenn. R. App. P. 39 requesting this court to reconsider portions of
its May 2, 2005 opinion. The petition asserts that we have ignored
material facts and misunderstood the statutes and rules relating to
cervidae in Tennessee. We have carefully considered the points raised
in the petition and have determined that the petition raises no new
factual or legal matters that we have not already considered.
OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING
CLINTON WILLIAM CLARNEAU v. ANGELA DAWN CLARNEAU (NOW ATWOOD)
Lance B. Mayes, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Angela Dawn
Clarneau (now Atwood).
Jason Ryan Reeves, Shelbyville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Clinton
This is a custody dispute. The trial court granted the father's
petition to modify custody and changed primary custody of the parties'
two minor children from the mother to the father, based on findings of
a material change of circumstances and the best interests of the
children. On appeal, we reverse the trial court's modification of
custody finding there has not been a material change of circumstances
justifying a change of custody and that the children's best interests
are served by remaining with Mother.
RUBY ANGELO SMITH and CHARLES SMITH v. SAMMIE L. SHAW
Barry L. Gardner, Brentwood, and Roland M. Lowell, Nashville, for
plaintiff/appellants Ruby Angelo Smith and Charles Smith.
John H. Dotson, Memphis, for defendant/appellee Sammie L. Shaw
This case is about a motion to set aside an order of dismissal. In
1997, the plaintiff sued the defendant for damages resulting from a
1996 car accident. On February 18, 2002, the trial court signed an
order dismissing the lawsuit for failure to prosecute. That order was
not filed by the court clerk until two years later, on February 18,
2004. During the two years between the time the dismissal order was
signed until it was filed, both parties continued discovery and
negotiation. After discovering the dismissal in 2004, the plaintiff
asserted that neither party had received notice of the dismissal. The
plaintiff then filed motions under Rules 59 and 60 of the Tennessee
Rules of Civil Procedure, asking the trial court to set aside the
order of dismissal. The motions were denied, and the plaintiffs
appeal. We reverse, finding that under the circumstances of this case,
the order of dismissal should have been set aside.
RICHARD L. ELLIOTT v. STATE OF TENNESSEE
Jeffry S. Grimes, Clarksville, Tennessee, for the Appellant, Richard
Paul G.Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Seth P. Kestner,
Assistant Attorney General; and C. Daniel Brollier, Assistant District
Attorney General, for the Appellee, State of Tennessee.
On March 2, 2004, the Montgomery County Circuit Court, after
conducting an evidentiary hearing on the claims presented, entered an
order dismissing Richard L. Elliott's petition for post-conviction
relief. On March 5, 2004, Elliott filed an "Amended Petition" alleging
that because his postconviction counsel failed to raise a requested
claim for relief at the evidentiary hearing, he was entitled to a
hearing on the omitted claim. Elliott's "Amended Petition" was
summarily dismissed by the post-conviction court. After review, we
affirm the trial court's dismissal of the amended petition for
EDWARD JEROME JOHNSON V. STATE OF TENNESSEE
Michael A. Colavecchio, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant,
Edward Jerome Johnson.
Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Rachel E. Willis,
Assistant Attorney General; Victor S. (Torry) Johnson III, District
Attorney General; and Amy H. Eisenbeck, Assistant District Attorney
General, for the appellee, the State of Tennessee.
Petitioner, Edward Jerome Jones, filed a pro se petition for
post-conviction relief, as amended after the appointment of counsel,
arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel in
connection with the negotiation and entry of Petitioner's best
interest plea. Specifically, Petitioner alleges that his trial counsel
failed to advise him of the evidence against him or allow him to
listen to certain audio tapes, and that trial counsel failed to file a
motion to dismiss the charges against Petitioner. After a review of
the record in this matter, we affirm the trial court's dismissal of
Petitioner's petition for post-conviction relief.
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. LUCIAN HENRY MARSHALL, III
William N. Ligon, Gallatin, Tennessee, for the appellant, Lucian Henry
Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Lizabeth A. Hale,
Assistant Attorney General; Lawrence R. Whitley, District Attorney
General; and Dee Gay, Assistant District Attorney General, for the
appellee, State of Tennessee.
The appellant, Lucian Henry Marshall, III, appeals the order of the
Sumner County Criminal Court, signed by appellant's counsel, agreeing
to the disposition of money and his vehicle which had been seized
pursuant to a forfeiture warrant. Alleging he was not properly
informed of the procedure for recovering his seized assets, the
appellant asks us to void the agreed order. We affirm the order of the
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. ROBERT GENE MAYFIELD
Timothy R. Wallace, Clarksville, Tennessee, for the Appellant, Robert
Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Jennifer L. Bledsoe,
Assistant Attorney General; and Lance Baker, Assistant District
Attorney General, for the Appellee, State of Tennessee.
The Appellant, Robert Gene Mayfield, presents for review a certified
question of law. See Tenn. R. Crim. P. 37(b)(2)(i). Mayfield pled
guilty to felony possession of over .5 grams of cocaine with the
intent to sell and felony possession of over one-half ounce of
marijuana with the intent to sell. He was subsequently sentenced to an
effective eight-year sentence to be served on probation. As a
condition of his guilty plea, Mayfield explicitly reserved a certified
question of law challenging the denial of his motion to suppress
evidence found during the execution of a search warrant at his
residence. Mayfield argues that the affidavit given in support of the
warrant was insufficient to establish probable cause. After review of
the record, we affirm the judgment of the Montgomery County Circuit
Court denying the motion to suppress.
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JOANN WHITE POGUE
Gregory D. Smith, Clarksville, Tennessee, and Michael J. Collins,
Shelbyville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Joann White Pogue.
Paul G.Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; and Brent C.Cherry,
Assistant Attorney General; William Michael McCown, District Attorney
General; and Weakley E. Barnard, Assistant District Attorney General,
for the appellee, State of Tennessee.
The appellant, Joann White Pogue, pled guilty in the Marshall County
Circuit Court to five counts of delivery of morphine and five counts
of selling morphine, Class C felonies. The trial court merged each
delivery conviction into a conviction for selling morphine and
sentenced the appellant to an effective nine-year sentence in the
Department of Correction (DOC). On appeal, the appellant claims the
trial court improperly enhanced her sentences and improperly concluded
that she was not entitled to the presumption that she was a favorable
candidate for alternative sentencing. We agree that the trial court
improperly applied enhancement factors and that the appellant was
entitled to the presumption. Upon review of the record and the
parties' briefs, we conclude that the trial court erred in its
sentencing determinations and remand for resentencing.
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. PAUL DENNIS REID, JR.
Thomas F. Bloom and James A. Simmons, Nashville, Tennessee, for the
appellant, Paul Dennis Reid, Jr.
Paul G.Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Michael E. Moore,
Solicitor General; and Angele M. Gregory, Assistant Attorney General,
for the appellee, State of Tennessee
Defendant Paul Dennis Reid, Jr., was found guilty by a jury of three
counts of premeditated murder, three counts of felony murder, one
count of attempted murder, and one count of especially aggravated
robbery. The felony murder convictions were merged into the
premeditated murder convictions. Thereafter, the jury sentenced
Defendant to death based upon the finding of four aggravating
circumstances: the defendant had previously been convicted of one or
more felonies, other than the present charge, the statutory elements
of which involve the use of violence to the person; the murders were
committed for the purpose of avoiding, interfering with or preventing
a lawful arrest or prosecution of defendant or another; the murder was
knowinglycommitted, solicited, directed or aided by the defendant,
while the defendant had a substantial role in committing or attempting
to commit, or was fleeing after having a substantial role in
committing or attempting to commit robbery; and the defendant
committed "mass murder," which was defined at the time of the
commission of these offenses as the murder of three or more persons
within the State of Tennessee within a period of forty-eight months,
and perpetrated in a similar fashion in a common scheme or plan. Tenn.
Code Ann. S 39-13-204(i)(2), (6), (7), and (12)(Supp. 1996). The trial
court sentenced Defendant to 25 years imprisonment for the attempted
murder conviction and 25 years imprisonment for the especially
aggravated robbery conviction, to be served consecutively to each
other and to Defendant's other non-death sentences. On appeal,
Defendant presents forty-seven issues. We affirm Defendant's
convictions and sentences.