IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

Assigned on Briefs February 2, 2017

CITY OF CHURCH HILL v. ROGER ELLIOTT

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hawkins County

No. 2016CV124 Alex E. Pearson, Judge

___________________________________

No. E2016-01915-COA-R3-CV

___________________________________

Because defendant was charged and found guilty of violating a state statute, rather than a 

municipal ordinance, we conclude that we are without subject matter jurisdiction to 

consider this appeal. Therefore, we must transfer this case to the Tennessee Court of 

Criminal Appeals in accordance with Rule 17 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate 

Procedure for further adjudication.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Case Transferred to the Tennessee Court of 

Criminal Appeals

J. STEVEN STAFFORD, P.J.,W.S., delivered the opinion of the court, in which D. MICHAEL 

SWINEY, C.J., and ANDY D. BENNETT, J., joined.

Roger Elliott, Church Hill, Tennessee, Pro Se.

William E. Phillips, Rogersville, Tennessee, for the appellee, City of Church Hill, 

Tennessee.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

 

1

Rule 10 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals of Tennessee provides:

This Court, with the concurrence of all judges participating in the case, may affirm, 

reverse or modify the actions of the trial court by memorandum opinion when a formal 

opinion would have no precedential value. When a case is decided by memorandum 

opinion it shall be designated “MEMORANDUM OPINION,” shall not be published, and 

shall not be cited or relied on for any reason in any unrelated case.

02/17/2017
- 2 -

BACKGROUND

On December 20, 2015, at approximately 9:55 p.m., Officer K. Grigsby of the 

Church Hill Police Department issued a citation to Appellant/Defendant Roger Elliott. 

Mr. Elliott was charged with “improper passing” and was summoned to appear in the 

Municipal Court of Church Hill. The matter was heard on March 16, 2016, and Mr. Elliot 

was found guilty of “improper passing.” 

Following this conviction, Mr. Elliott prosecuted an appeal to the Hawkins County 

Circuit Court, and a de novo bench trial was conducted.

2

 By order of September 19, 

2016, the circuit court judge found Mr. Elliott guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt” of a 

violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-8-118(b) by “failing to safely pass a 

stopped vehicle[] at the intersection of Main Street and Central Avenue[.]” Mr. Elliott 

then appealed to this Court.

ISSUES

In his appellate brief, Mr. Elliott raises one issue for our review: 

1. Is passing right of a stopped, left-turn-signaling vehicle unlawful 

because it, or any other vehicle, could suddenly turn toward the passing-onthe-right vehicle?

The City of Church Hill raises two additional issues:

2. Is the record on appeal sufficient to reverse the decision of the trial 

court?

3. Did [Mr. Elliot] improperly pass a motor vehicle on the right on a city 

street within the corporate limits of Church Hill, Tennessee; thus violating 

the provisions of [Tennessee Code Annotated section] 55-8-118(b)?

DISCUSSION

Pursuant to Rule 13(b) of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, we must 

begin our discussion by first considering whether we have subject matter jurisdiction over 

this case. Tenn. R. App. P. 13(b) (“The appellate court shall also consider whether the 

trial and appellate court have jurisdiction over the subject matter, whether or not 

presented for review[.]”); Person v. Kindred Healthcare, Inc., No. W2009-01918-COAR3-CV, 2010 WL 1838014, at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 7, 2010) (“[W]e must begin our 

discussion by first determining whether we have jurisdiction to adjudicate this appeal.”).

 

2

It is unclear from the record when the de novo trial was held. The City’s brief, however, states 

that the de novo bench trial was held on March 24, 2016.
- 3 -

“Subject matter jurisdiction refers to a court’s authority to adjudicate a particular case or 

controversy and ‘depends on the nature of the cause of action and the relief sought.’” In 

re Baby, 447 S.W.3d 807, 837 (Tenn. 2014) (quoting Chapman v. DaVita, Inc., 380 

S.W.3d 710, 712 (Tenn. 2012)). Based on our review of the record, we conclude that the 

underlying matter is criminal in nature and therefore is properly appealed to the Court of 

Criminal Appeals rather than this Court. In reaching this conclusion, we note that the 

record on appeal does not indicate that Mr. Elliott was charged with violating a municipal 

ordinance such that the appeal could be deemed civil in nature. See generally State v. 

Tubwell, No. W2012-01385-CCA-R3-WM, 2012 WL 6476097, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App. 

Dec. 13, 2012) (noting that the nature of appellate jurisdiction is dependent on whether 

the defendant was charged with violating a municipal ordinance as opposed to a state 

statute). Instead, the record indicates that Mr. Elliott was charged only with “improper 

passing” on the citation. The first mention in the record of any code violation is 

contained in the September 19, 2016 order finding Mr. Elliot guilty of violating 

Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-8-118(b), a state law. See City of La Vergne v. 

LeQuire, No. M2016-00028-COA-R3-CV, 2016 WL 6124117, at *5 (Tenn. Ct. App. 

Oct. 19, 2016) (noting that if “the defendant is charged with violating a state statute, the . 

. . Court of [Criminal] Appeals has jurisdiction” but that if the “defendant is charged with 

violating a municipal ordinance, [then] this Court has jurisdiction”). As such, we must 

transfer this matter to the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals for further resolution in 

accordance with Rule 17 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

CONCLUSION

Based on the forgoing, we hereby transfer this matter to the Tennessee Court of 

Criminal Appeals for further resolution of the case. An order transferring the case will 

be entered contemporaneously with the filing of this Opinion. 

_________________________________

J. STEVEN STAFFORD, JUDGE