WPCzY ; pbbHKc4XELIE%✗PId}p^/=ynz1@k`][  ZlP# wZT R?;jjDob!lWNP`6 ̻br.r PV^o}?[nD :?beemgo$:EV:ʅ15ݭy~|Nf2Va~Cъh=VYA=?ʈ;oǺpkȒ Bhpi ȠURpݶh)Z`gj$}|_xPIcއpEW|:6[$.vݟ؄L@#rYFA2FoZ{0'SUy?墾&ErgڹW'(`H_l Bpn %^  0U!Nw4 z  _ ma #x A I aN 0D+E>H@_:!x%:(:( 0U) 0p) 0Y* 0?+ 0", 0- 0- 0. 0/ 0Cd0 00 0~1 0R2 0#3b3 03 04 05 0Q6 0@7 0Q7 0%8 08 09 0: 0W; 0< 0< 00= 0<= 0> 0>> 0v? 0`y? 0`? 0`9@ 0`@ 0`@ 08YA 0A 02cB 0B 0:C 0YC 0_$D 0 D 0jE 0F B*{H D/H 0H 0I D/CK 0rK B@L 06]L 0L D57M D-lM 0KM 0M ASN?O 0P 0DP AP 0:Q 0^Q 0<0R 1elRU6RU>SU*ES 1uoS 72S<TFRVW(L1 (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularJE1b014c23|x C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt U\\IB01S01\CLERK1NAS,,,,0 Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 z R$      3    _McLendonslettertoCornett,datedJanuary30,2003,reads,inrelevantpart:    8 ` YoumightthinkthatIamangryduetobeingrippedoffbyMr.KenaumandMr.   Davisforabout$70,000includinglegalfeesandthepropertysoldformuchless L thanmarketvalue.Thenyouwouldberight.Ihopethatyourcontinuedbusiness  relationshipwiththeseindividualsdoescauses[sic]youtomakeaprofit,evenat X someoneelsesexpense.Isuspectthatyoumayfindyourselfwiththesamefate  thatIhavealreadyexperiencedinbeinginbusinesswith[the_Intervenors_].8@` x` x(#$  0    R$      4    _ԀMcLendonhadpreviouslyattemptedtofileanincorrecteasementwiththeRegisterofDeedsinanattempt  tolimittheeasementrightsofthesubsequentpurchaser._Kenaum_Ԁattemptedtochallenge_McLendon_sfailuretoremove H thepurportedeasementfromtheRegisterofDeeds.However,sincethecourtfoundtheissuewaspartof_McLendon_s   motiontoalteroramendthejudgmentalsoheardonthisdate,hewasnotincontemptwhentheissuewasstillbefore L thecourt. > R$      6    _McLendonalsoarguesthathisrequestforajurytrialonhismotiontoalteroramendwasimproperlydenied.  However,apartyisnotentitledtoajurytrialonamotion. U R$      7    _Tenn.R.Evid.802providesthat [_h]earsay_Ԁisnotadmissibleexceptasprovidedbytheserulesorotherwise  bylaw.Hearsayisdefinedas astatement,otherthanonemadebythe_declarant_Ԁwhiletestifyingatthetrialorhearing, H offeredinevidencetoprovethetruthofthematterasserted.Tenn.R._Evid_.801(c). 0 R$      8    _Followingthehearingonthecivilcontemptorder,McLendonwasinstructedtoremovethelockedgatesfrom  theeasement.McLendondidcomplywiththisorder. R$      1    _Ms._McLendon_Ԁwasnotapartytothecontemptproceedingsbelow.  R$      13    _Whilethismatterwaspendingbeforeus,theappelleesfiledamotionseekingtostrikecertainportionsofthe  appellantsreplybrief.Totheextentthatmotionaddressesmattersnotinevidence,itisgranted.Inresolvingthis H appeal,thecourthasonlyconsideredsuchevidenceasappearsintherecordtransmittedtousbythetrialcourtclerk.  R$      9    _Tenn.R.Civ.P.11.02reads,inpertinentpart,asfollows:    8 ` Bypresentingtothecourt...apleading,writtenmotion,orotherpaper,an H attorneyorunrepresentedpartyiscertifyingthattothebestofthepersons   knowledge,information,andbelief,formedafteraninquiryreasonableunderthe L circumstances,0` x` xxx   8 ` (1)itisnotbeingpresentedforanyimproperpurpose,suchastoharassortocause X unnecessarydelayorneedlessincreaseinthecostoflitigation;` x` x   8 ` (2)theclaims,defenses,andotherlegalcontentionsthereinarewarrantedby \ existinglaworbya_nonfrivolous_Ԁargumentfortheextension,modification,or   reversalofexistinglawortheestablishmentofnewlaw;h  ` x` x   8 ` (3)theallegationsandotherfactualcontentionshaveevidentiarysupportor,if ,   specificallysoidentified,arelikelytohaveevidentiarysupportafterareasonable  l  opportunityforfurtherinvestigationordiscovery;and 0 ` x` x   8 ` (4)thedenialoffactualcontentionsarewarrantedontheevidenceor,ifspecifically x  soidentified,arereasonablebasedonalackofinformationorbelief. n R$      11    _ThetestimonyregardingwhichMcLendonchargesthatthetrialcourtinterjecteditsopinionreads,inrelevant  part,asfollows: H   8 ` _YARBROUGH_:...thereareothertypesofgatesthatdontrequirelocksandfences L andgates.Youseetheminthecountryallthetime.` x` x 8   ` COURT:Sure,cattlegaps.    R$      2    __McLendon_sformerattorneywithdrewonMarch13,2003.*+ (_2623  ..*G+M (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *D+M (_24   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *A+M (_23  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *>+M (_22   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *;+M (_21   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *8+M (_20  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *5+M (_19   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *2+M (_18    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  * (_1723  Ԁ*GM (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *DM (_15   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *AM (_14  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *>M (_13   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  - -*;M (_12   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *8M (_11  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *5M (_10   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  (2M &_9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  ( &_823  (GM &_7   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  (DM &_6   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  (AM &_5  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  (>M &_4   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  (;M &_3   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  (8M &_2  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  (5M &_1   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  &2M $_    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      (&H2  (&H3  (&H4 XXX (&H5  (&H6  20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKf<6X9`(Courier NewKSg\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard Kf<6X9`(Courier NewKSg\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/Kf<6X9`(Courier NewKSg\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7Q(X7  ?h%2A`Arial?  Sg\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X7&  d dP)1dxd(|G2$ !.8Ydd8         0  A<:zTop of For7T(X7  ?h%2A`Arial?  Sg\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X7P)2dxd0KS.SampleKf<6X9`(Courier NewKSg\  `&Times New RomanS d0.Strong (|3f$ !.8Ydd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  8dl6TypewriterKf<6X9`(Courier NewKSg\  `&Times New RomanS^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3f$ !.8Ydd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  )*+,-/01 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)ii) 2 R$      5    _McLendonalsochallengesthecourtsdenialofhismotiontoalteroramendjudgment,inwhichherequested  thathereceivethesignaturecardforthebankaccountinNashvilletodemonstratethathisnamewasleftofftheaccount. H  However,thereisnoevidencethatthisdocumentwaseversubpoenaed,anditappearstobeirrelevanttothematters  beforethiscourt. < R$      10    _InrulingonMcLendonsmotiontoamend,thecourtgrantedittotheextentthattheordershoulddeletethe  requirementthatheremovethefencesalonghisproperty.  R$      12    _McLendonleviesseveralaccusationsatYarbroughandChancellorDaviesinhisreplybrief.Thefactual  predicateforthosechargesassetforthin_McLendon_sbriefarenotapartoftherecordcertifiedtousbythetrialcourt H clerk.Hence,wewillnotconsiderthem. !.8Ydd8     _  Y8T XXdd8  @  YINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#Y #Ԉ &   July8,2004Session L XT XY #YXXT #BETTY_EVONE_Ԁ_MCLENDON_v.JAMESEARL_MCLENDON_,etal.XT XY  J @@ AppealfromtheChanceryCourtforWilliamsonCounty  J @@No.26061R.E.LeeDavies,Chancellor  6 @@*AV) ` dE<} ` A ~  @@TTNo.M200301941_COA_ԄR3CVFiledOctober12,_2004_Ԁ y  AV) ` dE<P` A Q     ThetrialcourtsjudgmentgrewoutofapetitionforcriminalcontemptfiledbyJimmy_Kenaum_ L  ( _Kenaum_)andJerryDavis(collectively the_Intervenors_),againstJamesEarl_McLendon_ 8 ( _McLendon_)forviolationofanagreedorder( theagreedorder)inadivorceactionbetween $ _McLendon_Ԁandhisnowexwife,Betty_Evone_Ԁ_McLendon_._ #  1      _ԀTheagreedorderfocusedonproperty  ( theProperty)whichwasownedbyacorporation,_McLendon_Ԁ&Associates.Theagreedorder x provides,amongotherthings,that_Kenaum_Ԁwasgrantedaningress/egresseasementacrossthe d Property.Thetrialcourtfound_McLendon_Ԁincriminalcontemptfordisparagingthe_Intervenors_Ԁto P thirdpartiesandforplacingalockedcableover_Kenaum_swaterline._McLendon_Ԁappeals.We < affirm. ( , Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourt  Affirmed;CaseRemanded  p   #YXT #XT X.YCharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichHerschelP.Franks,P.J., H andD.MichaelSwiney,J.,joined. 4 JamesEarl_McLendon_,appellant,Nashville,Tennessee,ProSe.    A.Scott_Yarbrough_,Nashville,Tennessee,andElliott_Ozment_,Nashville,Tennessee,attorneysfor !`" appellees,Jimmy_Kenaum_ԀandJerryDavis. "L#   OPINION #YXXT #XT XY $$!% #YXXT #  XT XY@)I. &"'   The_Intervenors_,_McLendon_,andhisformerwife,wereequalshareholdersin_McLendon_Ԁ& X($) Associates,whosesoleassetwastheProperty,whichislocatedinWilliamsonCounty.Sincethe D)%* _McLendons_interestin_McLendon_Ԁ&Associateswasapartoftheirmaritalestate,thetrialcourt 0*&+ grantedthe_Intervenors_Ԁleavetointerveneinthedivorcesuitforthepurposeofassertingtheir +', _positionrelativetotheProperty.OnApril24,2002,theagreedorderwasenteredinthedivorcecase  providingforthesaleoftheProperty.Theagreedorderprovidesthatitisintendedtoresolve all p issuesandcontroversiesregardingtheIntervenors[sic]portionof[thedivorcelitigation]andto \ resolve [a]llclaimsrelatedtoMcLendon[&]Associates,Inc.Aspertinenttotheissuesbeforeus, H theagreedorderprovidesasfollows: 4   8 ` Thepartiesagreethattheyshallnotdisparageeachotherindividually   orasagroupinanywayfromthedateofexecutionoftheOrder; t` x` x @%***  L    8 ` Thepartiesagreetogrant[Kenaum]aningress/egresseasement  $  acrosstheMcLendonandAssociates,Inc.propertythroughMayfield   Roadandthepreviouslyconstructedroadtohisresidence;... ` x` x (Numberinginoriginalomitted).Followingtheentryoftheagreedorder,thetrialcourt,on X  December20,2002,enteredanotherorder,directingthesaleofthePropertytoJulianC.Cornett D ( Cornett).KenaumwasorderedtoexecutethedeedonbehalfofMcLendon&Associates.The 0 proceedsfromthesaleweretobedistributedbytheclosingattorney.Anydisputesrelativetothe  ingress/egresseasementwereordered placedonthedocketforfurtherhearingonanondomestic  date,ifnecessary. p   OnMarch5,2003,theIntervenorsfiledamotionseekingtosetasidetheagreedorderor,in H thealternative,askingforafindingofcivilcontemptagainstMcLendon.Insupportoftheirmotion, 4 theIntervenorscontendedthatMcLendonhad continuouslycarriedoutacourseofconductintended   tosubvert[thecourtsorder].TheyrelieduponthefactthatMcLendonhadphysicallyattacked   Kenaum,harassedtheIntervenorsandtheirguestsontheProperty,andembarkeduponacampaign | todisparagetheIntervenors.TheyalsoallegedthatMcLendonviolatedtheagreedorderbyplacing h alockedgateacrossKenaumseasement.McLendonrespondedwithamotionseekingtosetaside T theorderdecreeingthesaleofthePropertytoCornettor,alternatively,requestingthatthe @ Intervenorsbeheldincivilcontempt.McLendonbasedhispetitionforcontemptonallegationsthat , theIntervenorshadfailedtohonorcertainobligationsintheagreedorder,suchastheconstruction   ofcertainroads,andthatKenaumhadmadederogatorycommentsaboutMcLendon. !    ThetrialcourtconsideredthecompetingmotionsonApril9,2003.McLendonrepresented "X" himself. #  2      ׀KenaumtestifiedatthehearingthatMcLendonphysicallyassaultedhim;thatMcLendon #D # madedisparagingremarksabouttheIntervenorstothirdparties,namelyinaletterwrittentoCornett,  $0!$ thepurchaseroftheProperty #  3      ;andthatMcLendonplacedalockedgateacrossKenaumseasement,  whichbarredaccesstoutilitylinesandprecludedemergencyvehiclesfromreachinghisproperty. p Afterhearingtestimonyfrombothparties,thecourtdeterminedthattheallegedassaultwasamatter \ thatshouldbepursuedinaseparatetortorcriminalaction;thatMcLendonhaddisparagedKenaum H tothirdparties;andthatthegateerectedbyMcLendonviolatedtheagreedorder,therebyrendering 4 McLendoninwillfulcontemptofcourt.Consequently,thecourtorderedMcLendontoremovethe   lockonthegatewithin24hoursandremovethegatewithin30days.Thecourtsaidfailuretodo   sowouldresultinimmediateincarceration.ThecourtalsofoundMcLendonincontemptofthe  t agreedorderbaseduponhisdisparagingcommentsabouttheIntervenors.  `   FollowingtheApril9,2003,hearing,AttorneyScottA.Yarbrough,counselforthe  8  Intervenors,draftedanorder,whichwasostensiblybaseduponthecourtsrulingsfromthebench.  $  AlthoughacertificateofservicewasaffixedtothedraftorderindicatingitwassenttoMcLendon,   McLendontestifiedthatheneverreceivedit.ThecourtsignedandenteredthisorderonApril15,   2003.   l    ThepartiesappearedbeforethecourtagainonJune17,2003,toargueseveralmotions.The D motionsthatarerelevanttothisappealincludetheIntervenorspetitionforcriminalcontempt,filed 0 onMay16,2003,andMcLendonspetitionforsanctionsagainstAttorneyYarbrough,filedonJune  16,2003.TheIntervenorspetitionwasbased,inpart,onallegationsthatMcLendonfailedto  removefencingfromtheeasement,andcontinuedtodisparagetheIntervenorsinviolationofthe p courtsorders.TestimonyrevealedthatMcLendonhadcompliedwiththecivilcontemptorderby \ removingthelockandthegate,buthadplacedalockedcablespanningthewaterlineblocking H Kenaumsaccesstoit.KenaumalsotestifiedthatMcLendoncontinuedtodisparagetheIntervenors 4 tothirdpartiesand,infact,madecommentstotheBankofNashvillewhichpromptedthebankto   placeaholdontheaccountinwhichtheproceedsfromthesaleofthePropertyhadbeendeposited. #  4      ׀   ThecourtdeterminedthatMcLendonwasincriminalcontemptofcourtforplacingalockedcable | overthewaterline,therebyviolatingthespiritoftheagreedorderandthecivilcontemptorder,and h fordisparagingtheIntervenorsinamannerwhichresultedinaholdbeingplacedonthebank T account. @    `     h      ,   ThecourtalsoheardtestimonyonMcLendonspetitionforsanctionsagainstAttorney  YarbroughpursuanttoTenn.R.Civ.P.11.02.McLendonallegedthatYarbroughdraftedanorder p followingtheApril9,2003,civilcontempthearingthatincludedaprovisionrequiringhimto \ disassembleandremove anygatesandfencingencroachinguponthe[easements],when,infact, H asthetrialcourtlaterfound,McLendonhadonlybeenorderedtounlockandremovethegate 4 directlyimpactingKenaumsuseoftheeasement.Thecourtfoundnoevidenceofwillful   misconductonYarbroughspartanddeclinedtolevysanctionsagainsthim.     ThecourtfoundMcLendontobeincriminalcontempt,orderedhimincarceratedforfour  ` days,andsethisbailbondat$15,000.McLendonappealsandclaimsthatthetrialcourtcommitted  L  amyriadoferrorswhenitfoundhimincontemptandwhenitdismissedMcLendonsRule11  8  petitionagainstYarbrough.Healsoraisesissuesregardingthetrialcourtsconductattrial.  $  @)II.     Inacaseinvolvingafindingofcriminalcontempt,acourtsjudgmentwillnotbesetaside X  unlesstheevidenceisinsufficienttosupportthetrieroffactsfindingsbeyondareasonabledoubt. D Tenn.R.App.P.13(e).Sinceoneconvictedofcriminalcontemptloseshisorherpresumptionof 0 innocence,onappealitisincumbentupontheappellanttoovercomeapresumptionofguilt.   Thigpenv.Thigpen ,874S.W.2d51,53(Tenn.Ct.App.1993).Uponreview,thiscourtdoesnot  reviewtheevidencepresentedinthelightmostfavorabletotheaccused,andwillonlyreversethe p trialcourtsjudgmentwheretheevidenceislacking. Id.  \   McLendoncitesseveralerrorsrelativetothecriminalcontemptjudgment.Hearguesthat 4 thetrialcourtfailedtogranthimhisrights;thatthecourterredinrefusingtogranthimajurytrial;   thattheevidencedoesnotsupportafindingofcontempt,particularlyinviewofthefactthatthe   courtrelieduponinadmissiblehearsay;andthatthecourtviolatedthestatutoryprescriptionsfor | criminalcontemptbyaddinga$15,000cashbondtohispunishment.Weaddresseachcontention h inturn. T @vv(III. , @)A. !    McLendonsfirstsetofallegederrorsconcernthemannerinwhichthetrialcourtconducted "X" thecriminalcontempthearing,inparticularthecourtsfailuretorecognizeoradviseMcLendonof #D # hisrights.Therightsaffordedtooneaccusedofcriminalcontemptincludethefollowingassetforth $0!$ inTenn.R.Crim.P.42: %"%   8 ` Acriminalcontemptexceptasprovidedinsubdivision(a)ofthisrule x'#' shallbeprosecutedonnotice.Thenoticeshallstatethetimeand d($( placeofhearing,allowingareasonabletimeforthepreparationofthe P)%) defense,andshallstatetheessentialfactsconstitutingthecriminal <*&* contemptchargedanddescribeitassuch....(+'+` x` x  ,(, Tenn.R.Crim.P.42(b).Adefendantchargedwithcriminalcontemptisalsoentitledto  constitutionalprotectionsasifhewereunderindictment,includingapresumptionofinnocence,the p righttorequireproofbeyondareasonabledoubt,therightagainstselfincrimination,andthechance \ totestifyandcallwitnessesonhisorherbehalf. Fortsonv.Fortson ,C/ANo.03A019611CV H 00363,1997WL529001,at*2(TennCt.App.E.S.,filedAug.28,1997). 4   McLendoncontendsthathisrighttotestifywasimpairedwhenthetrialcourtsilencedhim   attheendofthetrial.McLendonnowcontendsthat,undertheTennesseeConstitution,hewas  t entitledtopresentclosingargumentandshouldhavebeenpermittedtospeak.Theprovisionsofthe  ` TennesseeConstitutionoutliningtherightsofacriminaldefendantprovideasfollows:  L    8 ` Thatinallcriminalprosecutions,theaccusedhaththerighttobe  $  heardbyhimselfandhiscounsel;todemandthenatureandcauseof   theaccusationagainsthim,andtohaveacopythereof,tomeetthe   witnessesfacetoface,tohavecompulsoryprocessforobtaining l  witnessesinhisfavor,andinprosecutionsbyindictmentor X  presentment,aspeedypublictrial,byanimpartialjuryoftheCounty D inwhichthecrimeshallhavebeencommitted,andshallnotbe 0 compelledtogiveevidenceagainsthimself.` x` x Tenn.Const.art.I,9.McLendonallegesinhisbriefthatthetrialcourterredindirectinghimto p bequiet,therebyprohibitinghimfrom ask[ing]questionsorpresent[ing]argumentsonconflicting \ statementsthatwouldnormallyhavebeenallowedofanAttorney. H   WhenAttorneyYarbroughcalledMcLendonasanadversewitnessinthecontempt   proceeding,thetrialcourtadvisedMcLendonofhisrightagainstselfincrimination.McLendon   assertedthisrightanddeclinedtotestify.Duringthecourtsrenditionofitsopinionfromthebench, | itrefusedtopermitMcLendontothenverballyinterjectevidencesincehehaddeclinedtotestify. h WefindthatthetrialcourtproperlyadvisedMcLendonofhisrightsanddidnoterrbyprohibiting T himfromspeakingduringthecourtsoralopinionfromthebench.WhenMcLendonassertedhis @ rightagainstselfincrimination,itwasproperforthecourttodenyhimanopportunityto present , evidencebywayoforalargumentduringthetimethecourtwasattemptingtorenderitsopinionfrom   thebench.ThetimeforsubmittingevidencehadpassedandMcLendonhadpreviouslychosennot !  totestify,whichwashisright.ThetrialcourtwascorrectinrefusingtoallowMcLendontogive !l! unverifiedtestimonyduringthecourseofthetrialcourtsopinionfromthebench. "X"   McLendonalsoraisesanissuerelativetohisright tohavecompulsoryprocessforobtaining $0!$ witnessesinhisfavor.Tenn.Const.art.I,9.Inparticular,hefaultsthetrialcourtforfailingto %"% compeltheattendanceofBettyDenaultoftheBankofNashville,whosestatementsweretestified &#& tobyKenaum.However,McLendonneversubpoenaedDenaultand,hence,cannotnowbeheard x'#' tocomplainabouttheabsenceofawitnesswhosepresencewasnotcompelledbysubpoena.k #  5      ׀ d($( Ї@)B.    McLendonalsocontendsthathewasentitledtoajurytrial,andthathehad,infact,penned \  JuryTrialRequestedonhisanswertotheIntervenorspetitionforcriminalcontempt. #  6      ׀Insupport H ofhisposition,McLendoncitesTenn.CodeAnn.211103(1994),whichprovidesthatapartyin 4 chanceryisentitledtoajuryuponapplication.However,Tennesseecourtshaveconsistentlyheld   thattherighttoajurytrialdoesnotextendtocriminalcontemptproceedings. Ahernv.Ahern ,15   S.W.3d73,82(Tenn.2000); Passv.State ,184S.W.2d1,3(Tenn.1944).Thepowertoaddress  t theseviolationsisentrustedtothecourts,andconsequentlyadefendantisnotentitledtoajury. Id.   ` WethereforefindthatthetrialcourtdidnoterrindecliningtograntMcLendonajurytrialonthe  L  petitionforcriminalcontempt.  8  @)C.     Inadditiontotheallegedproceduralerrorsdiscussedabove,McLendonchallengesthe l  sufficiencyofevidencetosupportthecourtsfindingthathewasincriminalcontempt.Inreviewing X  thesufficiencyoftheevidence,wereviewtheevidenceadvancedattrialtodetermineiftheproof D beforethetrialcourtissufficienttosupportafindingofguiltbeyondareasonabledoubt.Tenn.R. 0 App.P.13(e).  󀀀    TheIntervenorsallegedthatMcLendonviolatedtheagreedorderinthreeways:by p disparagingtheIntervenors;byinstallingacableononeoftheroads;andbyinstallingasecondcable \ thatcrossedKenaumswaterline.Atthecloseoftheevidence,thecourtdeterminedthat H McLendonsdisparagingremarkstothirdpartiesconstitutedthetypeofconductprohibitedbythe 4 order.Thecourtalsofoundthattherewasreasonabledoubtastowhetherthecabletraversingthe   roadblockedKenaumseasement,butfoundtheevidencedemonstratedbeyondareasonabledoubt   thatthecablestretchedacrossthewaterlineconstituted aviolationofthespiritofthe[agreed | order]. h   McLendonchallengesthesufficiencyofevidenceonthecourtsfindingthathedisparaged @ theparties.McLendoncontendsthatthecourtbaseditsfindingonKenaumstestimonyastowhat , aBankofNashvilleemployee,BettyDenault,toldKenaumaboutwhatMcLendonsaidthatresulted   intheholdbeingplacedontheBankofNashvilleaccount.Thecourtsfindingsonthispointstems !  fromthefollowingtestimonyattrial: !l!   8 ` YARBROUGH:Tellmealittlebitmoreaboutyourconversation #D # withBettyDenaultattheBankofNashvilledowntown.$0!$` x` x  %"%   8 ` KENAUM:BettyDenaultsaysthat[McLendon]camethereand  discussedthisparticularlawsuittosomedegree,thattherewasa p pendingcaseorhearingthat!tothepointthattheywereconcerned \ why!orsomeissuesastowhathehadsaidaboutmeandaboutthis H lawsuitthere,tothepointthattheyputaholdontheaccount.4` x` x @%***   8   ` COURT:Didtheytellyouwhathesaidspecificallyaboutyou? `     8 ` KENAUM:Notinspecificdetailofwhatshesaid.Shesaid,Jimmy,  8  Iwasconcernedthatthismanwasheretalkingaboutyoulikehewas,  $  andIsaid,well,letmeget[AttorneyYarbrough]onthephone,letme   get[BettyMcLendon]onthephone.AndIsatthereforovertwo   hoursgettingthissituationstraightenedoutandgettingthesepeople l  theirmoney,whichcostmeadditionaltime,additionalproblemsthat X  [McLendon]iscontinuous[sic]todo,andthisisridiculous.D` x` x McLendondidnotobjecttothistestimonyattrial,nordidhequestionKenaumaboutitoncross  examination.However,henowcontendsonappealthatthiswasinadmissiblehearsayand  consequentlycouldnotserveasabasisforthecourtsfindingthatMcLendondisparagedthe p Intervenors.SeeTenn.R.Evid.802. #  7      ׀ \   Generallyspeaking,whenapartyfailstoobjecttoimproperevidenceattrial,theadmission 4 ofthatevidenceisnotsubjecttoreviewonappeal,as [n]othing[intheRulesofAppellate   Procedure]shallbeconstruedasrequiringreliefbegrantedtoaparty...whofailedtotakewhatever   actionwasreasonablyavailabletopreventornullifytheharmfuleffectofanerror.Tenn.R.App. | P.36(a).Whenapartyisproceedingprose,thatpartyshouldbeaccordedthesametreatmentasthat h giventotherepresentedparty. Irvinv.CityofClarksville ,767S.W.2d649,652(Tenn.Ct.App. T 1988).However,theproselitigantisnotexcusedfromcomplyingwiththesameproceduresand @ substantivelawasthoseapplicabletotherepresentedparty. Id. Thiscourthasdeclinedtoreview , apartysallegederroronappealwhenheorshefailedtoproperlyobjectatthehearing.See Rayv.   Ray ,C/ANo.M200301158COAR3CV,2004WL1114578,at*20n.3(TennCt.App.W.S., !  filedMay18,2004).Consequently,wefindnoerrorinthetrialcourtsreceiptofthisunobjectedto !l! evidence. "X"   McLendonalsochallengesthecourtsfindingthatthecabletraversingthewaterlineviolated $0!$ theagreedorder.McLendonpresentsseveralfactsinhisbriefarguingthatthewaterlinewasnot %"% partoftheeasementgrantedtoKenaumintheagreedorder,andthatKenaumneverpaidforthe &#& easement.However,ourreviewisconfinedtotherecordcertifiedtousbythetrialcourtclerk.At x'#' trial,KenaumtestifiedondirectexaminationthatMcLendoninstalledacable,approximately50feet d($( long,thatrunsalongKenaumswaterlineandhindersaccesstomowingandmaintainingthewater  line.ThiscablehadalockonitandKenaumbelievedithadbeentherepriortoMcLendons p erectionofgatesontheeasement. #  8      ׀McLendon,oncrossexamination,focusedthemajorityofhis \ questionsonthedisbursementoffundsfromthesaleoftheland.Theonlyquestionspertainingto H thecableacrossthewaterlinedidnotaddresstheissueofwhetherthewaterlinewascontemplated 4 bytheoriginalagreementcreatingtheeasement.Wefindsufficientevidencebeyondareasonable   doubtthatMcLendonviolatedtheorderbyplacingalockedcablethatprecludedaccesstothewater   line.ThetranscriptofthecivilcontempthearingindicatesthatoneofthewaysinwhichKenaum  t usedthiseasementwastomaintainandrepairhiswaterline,whichheinstalledandwhichisjointly  ` ownedbytheIntervenorsandMcLendon.FactspresentedinMcLendonsbrief,whicharenot  L  shownintherecord,cannotbeconsideredbyus.  8  @)D.     McLendoncontendsthatthetrialcourtviolatedTenn.CodeAnn.299103(2000),by l  settinga$15,000cashbond.Thestatutelimitsthepunishmentthatmaybeimposedbyachancery X  courttoafineupto$50andimprisonmentnotexceedingtendays.However,thestatutedoesnot D prohibitatrialcourtfromsettingabond.Wefindnoerrorinthetrialcourtsdecisiontoseta 0 $15,000cashbond.  @ll)@@ll)IV. p     McLendonalsoseeksreviewofthetrialcourtsdismissalofhispetitionforsanctionsagainst H AttorneyYarbrough.WereviewatrialcourtsdecisiononamotionseekingRule11sanctions 4 underanabuseofdiscretionstandard,accordinggreatweighttothelowercourtsdecision. Krug   v.Krug ,838S.W.2d197,205(Tenn.Ct.App.1992).     h   EventhoughMcLendonspetitionfailstoexactlytrackthelanguageofTenn.R.Civ.P.  11.02 #  9      ,thetrialcourtaddressedthemeritsofhisargument,findingthatMcLendon didhisbestto p substantiallycomplywiththerequirementsoftherule.McLendonfirstallegedthatsanctionswere \ appropriatebecausetheorderthatYarbroughpreparedfollowingthehearingonApril9,2003,was H incorrectlydrafted.HecorrectlypointsoutthatthetrialcourtsorderdirectedMcLendontotear 4 downthefencesalongtheeasementwhilethecourthadonlyorderedfromthebenchthatMcLendon   takedownthelockedgateblockingtheeasement.Thecourtfoundthatsanctionswerenot   appropriate,notingthatsuchmistakesfrequentlyhappenandmayberemediedbyamotiontoalter  t oramend.Infact,thisiswhathappenedintheinstantcaseasMcLendonwassuccessfulonhis  ` motiontoalteroramend.l  #  10      ׀ThecourtfoundnowillfulimproprietyonthepartofYarbrough.  L    Second,McLendonallegedthatheneverreceivedacopyofthedraftorderwhichYarbrough  $  claimstohavemailedtohim.AccordingtoMcLendon,allotherdocumentssentbyYarbrough   throughoutthependencyoftheseproceedingsweresentbywayofcertifiedmail;theorder,however,   wassentfirstclassmail.Thecourtnotedthatitcouldnotmandatethatcorrespondencebesentby l  wayofcertifiedmail.ThecourtalsonotedthatanyinjuryfromMcLendonsfailuretoreceivethe X  draftorderwasremediedbyhisfilingamotiontoalteroramend,onwhichheprevailed.Wefind D noabuseofdiscretiononthepartofthetrialcourtindecliningtolevysanctionsagainstYarbrough. 0 @)V.    McLendoncontendsthatthetrialcourtsconductwassuchastowarrantactionbythiscourt. \ HeallegesthatthecourtmadedisparagingremarksthroughouttheproceedingsinviolationofTenn. H CodeAnn.175302(1994)(Supp.2003),whichcodesectionenumeratesthetypeofconductfor 4 whichajudgemaybedisciplined.Inparticular,McLendoncontendsthatthetrialcourtdisparaged    him,prohibitedhimfromcorrectingerroneousstatements,andinterjectedhisownopinionsduring   theproceedings. #  11      ׀Judgesarenotsubjecttodisciplineforthe appropriateexerciseofjudicial   discretion,andconsequently, [n]ecessaryjudicialindependencerequiresthatajudgenotbesubject p todisciplineforgoodfaithcommentsdirectedprimarilyandprincipallyatissuesproperlybeforethe \ court. InreBrown ,879S.W.2d801,806(Tenn.1994).Wefindthatthejudgedidnotengagein H anyconductwarrantingreversalorotherrelief.m #  12       4   @ll)VI.     McLendonseeksnumerousformsofinjunctiveandmonetaryrelief,includingtheexpense  ` oftranscriptsandcourtreportersfees.Healsorequeststhatthiscourtreversethetrialcourtsaward  L  ofattorneyfeestoIntervenorsandreturntohimhis$1,000cashbond.Additionally,McLendonasks  8  thiscourttoturnrelevantcourtdocumentsovertotheOfficeforProfessionalResponsibilityandthe  $  CourtofJudiciarysothattheymayreviewandimposenecessarysanctionsagainstAttorney   YarbroughandChancellorDavies,respectively.Wefindnobasisforgrantinganyoftherequested   relief. l  @MM(VII. D   Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmedandthismatterisremandedtothetrialcourtfor  enforcementofitsjudgmentandforcollectionofcostsassessedbelow,allpursuanttoapplicable  law.  #  13      ׀CostsonappealaretaxedagainstJamesEarlMcLendon. p @*   `     h     _______________________________      `     h     CHARLESD.SUSANO,JR.,JUDGE