Hamilton Herald Masthead

Editorial


Front Page - Friday, June 8, 2012

Tennessee Appellate Court Opinions




Harriet Tubman Development/CHA v. Reginald Locklin

Case Number: E2011-01068-COA-R3-CV

Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.

Originating Judge: Judge W. Neil Thomas, III

Date Filed: Thursday, May 31, 2012

The Chattanooga Housing Authority (“CHA”) evicted its tenant, Reginald Locklin (“the Tenant”), after two of his sons were involved in an incident with neighbors. The eviction was accomplished by order of the trial court giving CHA possession of the property. The Tenant appeals arguing that CHA, which is a public housing authority (“PHA”), made the decision to evict him and his family arbitrarily and without due process. We affirm.

State of Tennessee v. Terry Bonds

Appeal from the Criminal Court for Hamilton County

Case Number: E2011-01199-CCA-R3-CO

Authoring Judge: Judge Roger A. Page

Originating Judge: Judge Don W. Poole

Date Filed: Thursday, May 31, 2012

Appellant, Terry Bonds, appeals the trial court’s revocation of his probation, claiming that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to revoke his probation because his sentence had expired. Appellant also claims that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his probation. The State contends that this court should dismiss the appeal because the notice of appeal was untimely and deficient in form. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Edward Jerome Harbison v. State of Tennessee

Appeal from the Criminal Court for Hamilton County

Case Number: E2011-01711-CCA-R3-PC

Authoring Judge: Judge Roger A. Page

Originating Judge: Judge Jon Kerry Blackwood

Date Filed: Thursday, May 31, 2012

Petitioner, Edward Jerome Harbison, appeals the Hamilton County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for writ of error coram nobis seeking relief from his 1983 convictions for first degree murder, second degree burglary, and grand larceny. Petitioner claims that an order of a previous coram nobis court establishes a new predicate for review. Petitioner also claims that a statement of a prosecutor during a previous hearing constitutes “new evidence.” Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the error coram nobis court.

In Re The Matter of Cheetah Lounge, Inc., dba “The Cheetah Lounge” et al. v. Sarasota County

Appeal from the Chancery Court for Hamilton County

Case Number: E2011-02027-COA-R3-CV

Authoring Judge: Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.

Originating Judge: Chancellor W. Frank Brown, III

Date Filed: Thursday, May 31, 2012

After a subpoena duces tecum was served on Chattanooga attorney Scott D. Bergthold (“the Attorney”) requiring him to appear for a deposition in Hamilton County and to produce documents regarding ordinances enacted by Sarasota County, Florida (“the County”)pertaining to “adult businesses,” he filed this action as a motion for a protective order pursuant to the Uniform Interstate Depositions and Discovery Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 24-9-201, et seq. (Supp. 2011). The Attorney asserted, on behalf of himself and the County, that the information sought was protected by the attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine and that the discovery was overly broad and unduly burdensome.

The trial court granted the protective order and quashed the subpoena. The subpoena had been issued and served at the request of Cheetah Lounge, Inc., dba “The Cheetah Lounge” and Sarasota Eateries, LLC (“the Adult Clubs”) as a part of their discovery in a Florida case wherein they challenged the constitutionality of the subject ordinances. The Adult Clubs appeal. While this matter was pending oral argument before us, the County filed motions asking that this Court consider dual facts, i.e., (1) that, following the entry of the trial court’s judgment, the Florida court dismissed the underlying case and (2) that court later denied the Adult Clubs’ motion to rehear. We directed the parties to brief the issue of whether this ancillary matter is rendered moot by the dismissal of the underlying action. We now hold that this case is moot. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.