1

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

August 5, 2003 Session

JASON REAVES v. STATE OF TENNESSEE

Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County

No. GS-01000 Arthur T. Bennett, Judge

No. W2002-02540-CCA-R3-CD - Filed September 12, 2003

The Defendant was convicted in general sessions court of Driving While Under the Influence and

“Refusal to Submit.” He appealed his convictions and sentences to the Criminal Court for Shelby

County. The Defendant failed to appear for his initial court hearing in criminal court, and a capias

was issued for his arrest. The Defendant was arrested on the capias, posted bond, and subsequently

appeared one hour late for a hearing in criminal court. The criminal court dismissed the appeal and

remanded the case to general sessions court for the execution of the original judgments. This appeal

ensued, in which the Defendant argues (and the State concedes) that the criminal court erred by

dismissing the appeal and remanding the case to general sessions court. We agree and reverse the

judgment of the criminal court. 

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Criminal Court Reversed

ROBERT W.WEDEMEYER,J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which THOMAS T.WOODALL and

NORMA MCGEE OGLE, JJ., joined.

Joseph S. Ozment, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellant, Jason Reaves.

Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Michael Moore, Solicitor General; J. Ross Dyer,

Assistant Attorney General; William L. Gibbons, District Attorney General; Lee Coffee, Assistant

District Attorney General; and W. Chris Scruggs, Assistant District Attorney General, for the

appellee, State of Tennessee.

OPINION

The Defendant, Jason Reaves, was arrested on May 18, 1999, on charges of Driving While

Under the Influence, Public Intoxication, Driving without a Driver’s License, Refusal to Submit, and

Leaving the Scene of an Accident. On September 30, 1999, having waived his right to a jury trial,
2

the Defendant pled not guilty and was tried in general sessions court. Following the trial the

Defendant was convicted of Driving While Under the Influence and Refusal to Submit. On

November 9, 1999, the Defendant was sentenced, and he immediately appealed his conviction to

criminal court and demanded his right to a jury trial. A bond arraignment held on December 13,

1999, and the Defendant failed to appear. The court ordered that a capias be issued.

The Defendant was arrested on the capias and proceeded with the appeal of his case. The

State filed a motion to dismiss and remand the case based on the Defendant’s failure to appear in

court on December 13, 1999. At the hearing held on the motion to dismiss, the Defendant appeared

one hour late, and the court dismissed the Defendant’s appeal due to his tardiness, remanding it back

to the general sessions court. The Defendant is before this Court appealing the trial court’s order.

The State concedes that the trial court erred when it remanded the case back to general

sessions court. In our view, the following excerpt from the State’s brief accurately sets forth the law

applicable to this issue:

Tennessee Code Annotated § 27-5-108 provides for an appeal by a defendant in a

criminal case from a general sessions court judgment to the circuit or criminal court.

Section (c) states that all appeals “shall be heard de novo in the circuit court.” Tenn.

Code Ann. § 27-5-108(c). In a de novo review, “the parties are entitled to a

reexamination of the whole matter of law and fact.” State v. Cunningham, 972

S.W.2d 16, 18 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998) (quoting Richards v. Taylor, 926 S.W.2d

569, 570 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996)). The circuit court should not be concerned with

what took place in the lower court. The matter must be tried as if no other hearing

has ever been heard. Ward v. Meharry Medial College, 898 S.W.2d 181 (Tenn.

1995); see also Hohenberg Bros. Co. v. Missouri Pac. R.R. Co., 586 S.W.2d 117,

119 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1979). The court is required to try the matter and render

judgment as if no judgment had previously been passed. Cunningham, 972 S.W.2d

at 18.

The issue presented in this case was previously addressed by this Court in State v.

Winebarger, 70 S.W.3d 99 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000). In Winebarger, the defendant

was an hour late to criminal court for the announcement of her appeal. The court

dismissed the appeal for “failure to prosecute” and remanded the case to the general

sessions court for execution of the original sentence. Id. at 99. Ultimately , the Court

in Winebarger concluded that “an appeal by a defendant in a criminal case from

general sessions court is of such significance that it should not be dismissed merely

because a defendant is one hour late for court.” Id. at 102. 

Based on the aforementioned reasoning, the State conceded “that the trial court erred in

dismissing the defendant’s de novo appeal. The ruling of the circuit court should be reversed, and

the defendant’s appeal to the circuit court should be heard.” We find that the State’s reasoning is

sound and, therefore, reverse the trial court on these grounds. 
3

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is REVERSED, and this case is remanded to the

Criminal Court of Shelby County for de novo proceedings consistent with Cunningham and

Winebarger.

___________________________________ 

ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, JUDGE