### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT NAS HVILLE D ec em be r 15, 200 5 S es sio n TAMMY HOPK INS L INDSAY v . DWIG HT K ELL EY LI NDSAY

Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for Davidson County No. 00D-1778 C arol L. Soloman, Judge

No. M2004- 02267-COA-R 3-CV - F iled Janu ary 25, 2006

Th is p ri mary

iss ue on app e al is wh e the r D wi g ht K e lle y L ind sa y (“ Mr . Lind sa y ” ) w a s p ro pe rl y advised of his c onstitut ional rig ht to counsel before being found g uilty on twelve c ounts of criminal contempt for his failure to p ay co u rt order ed child support and he alth insurance reimburse ment pa y me nts . All pa

rt ie s to this ap pe a l now a g re e that Mr. L ind sa y wa s n ot a de qu a te ly

a dv ise d o f h is ri g ht t o c ou ns e l. T he jud g me nt o f the Tria l Co urt f ind ing Mr . Lind sa y

in c rimi nal con tem pt is vacated.
Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circuit Court

Vacat ed; Case R em anded.

D. M I CH A EL S WI NEY , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in w hich H ER SCH EL P. F RAN KS , P.J ., and S HAR ON G. LEE , J ., joined.

T r a c e y R o b i n s o n - C o f

f e e , N a s h v i l l e , T e n n e s s e e , f o r t h e A p p e l l a n tD w i g h tK e l l e y L i n d s a y.
Mary Arline Eva ns and Alan D. J ohnson, Nashville, Tennessee, for the Appellee Tammy Hopkins L i n d s a y.

Paul G. S umme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l a ndRe po rt e r, a ndStu art F . Wil so n- Pa tto n, Se nio r C ou ns e l, Nashville, Tenne ssee, f

or the Appe llee State of Te nnessee .Rul e 10 of t he R ul es of

t he C our t of

Ap pe als p ro vides : “ T hi s Co ur t , wi t h t he concu r r enc e of al l j udges 1 p art i ci p at i ng i n t he case, m ay af f i rm , r everse or mo d i f

y t he act i o ns o f

t he t ri al co urt by me m o randum op i ni o n when a formal opi ni on woul d hav e n o prece dent i al val ue. W hen a cas e i s deci ded b y memo r andum opi ni on i t s hal l be des i gn at ed

‘ M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N , ’ s hal l not be publ i s hed, an d s hal l not be ci t ed or r el i ed on for any r eas on i n a ny un r el at ed c a se .” -2- M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION 1
This appea l involves the Trial Cou r t’ s ju d g me n t that Mr. L indsay was g uiltyof twelve counts of criminal contempt based on his al l eged failure to make court orde red c hild support and health insuranc e re imbursement payments. Mr. Lindsay was sente nced to ten day s in jail on each of the twe lve counts. Mr. Lindsay appea led the finding of criminal contempt. The primary issue on appea l c enter s around whether Mr. L indsay wa s ap prised properly by the Trial Court of hi s constitutional rig ht to counsel. B oth Tammy Hopkins L indsay

and the State of Te nnessee now ac knowledg e on appea l that Mr. L insday was not adequately advised of his ri g ht t o c ou ns e l. A c c or din g to the brie f f ile d b y the Sta te of

Te nn ess ee and accep te d b y Ms. L indsay as her position: I n the abse nce of the required st atement of the rig ht to counsel from the court, any

inquiry as to indige ncy , or suffic ient evidenc e in the reco rd t o establish that there was a voluntary , knowing , and intelligent waiver of the rig ht to counsel, the trial court’s criminal contempt orde r ca nnot stand. Since all parties to this appeal now are in ag ree ment, as is this Court, t hat Mr. Lindsay was not advised pr operly of his constitutional right to counse l, the judgme nt of the Tria l Court f in d in g M r . L in d s a y

g u il ty o n tw e lv e c o u n ts o f

c r iminal contempt i s v a c a te d init s e n ti r e ty
. We express no opinion as to whether Mr . L indsay was g uiltyof criminal contempt. Th e re ma ini ng iss ue is Mr . L ind sa y ’s c la im that th e Tria l Co urt e rr e d insu mma ri ly reje cting his proposed Statement of the E vidence , but later a cce pting Mrs. Lindsay ’s Statement of the Ev ide nc e . B e c a us e bo th the a c c e pte d a ndre je c te d St a te me nts of th e Evid e nc e pe rt a in o nly to the Trial Court’s finding of criminal contempt, and beca use we have va cate d that finding , this iss ue is render ed moot.

E x e r c i s i n g o u r

d i s c r e t i o n , c o s t s i n c u rr e d o n ap p e a l ar e n o ta s s e s s e d a g a i n s ta n y p ar t y.

___________________________________ D. MI CHAEL

SW I NEY, JUDGE