FILED

June 5, 1997

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate Court Clerk

 I N THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

EASTERN SECTI ON

J ORGE ARI EL SANJ I NES, M. D. , ) C/ A NO. 03A01- 9702- CV- 00060

)

Pl a i ntif f - Appe lla nt , ) HAMI LTON CI RCUI T

)

v. ) HON. DOUGLAS A. MEYER,

) J UDGE

ORTWEI N AND ASSOCI ATES, P. C. , ) SI TTI NG BY I NTERCHANGE

WI LLI AM H. ORTWEI N, J . CRI S )

HELTON, AND J OHN R. MORGAN, ) VACATED

) AND

De f e nda nt s - Appe l l ees . ) REMANDED

J . ARI EL SANJ I NES, M. D. , pr o s e .

E. BLAKE MOORE, SPEARS, MOORE, REBMAN & WI LLI AMS, Cha t t a nooga ,

f or De f e nda nt - Appe l l e e , J ohn R. Mor ga n.

SAMUEL R. ANDERSON a nd SHANE USARY, LUTHER- ANDERSON, PLLP,

Cha t t a nooga , f or De f e nda nt s - Appe l l e e s , Or t we i n & As s oc i a t e s ,

P. C. , William H. Or t we i n, a nd J . Cr i s He lton.

O P I N I O N

Fr a nks . J .

Pl a i nt i f f , i nc a r c e r a t e d i n pr i s on, br ought t hi s

act i on aga i ns t hi s at t or ne ys f or al l e ge d ma l pr act i ce i n

r e pr e s e nt i ng hi m i n t he c ha r ge s br ought a ga i ns t hi m f or

c r i mi na l c onduc t .

De f e nda nt s f i l e d mot i ons f or s umma r y j udgme nt s a nd

s umma r y j udgme nt s we r e gr a nt e d on be ha l f of a l l de f e nda nt s by

t he Tr i a l J udge . Pl a i ntif f ha s a ppe a l e d.
2

Upon r e vi e wi ng t he r e c or d, we c onc l ude i t i s

ne c e s s a r y t o a ddr e s s onl y one i s s ue , t ha t i s , whe t he r t he

Tr i a l J udge s houl d ha ve gr a nt e d pl a i nt i f f ’ s mot i on t o s t a y t he

pr oc e e di ngs pr i or t o t he e nt r y of t he s umma r y j udgme nt s . A

gr ound s e t f or t h i n pl a i nt i f f ’ s mot i on i s :

Pl a i nt i f f a l s o ha s pe ndi ng be f or e t he Cr i mi na l

Cour t , a pe t i t i on f or pos t - c onvi c t i on r e l i e f whi c h

wa s f i l e d on Fe br ua r y 12, 1996 a nd a me nde d on Ma y

31, 1996, a nd i s s c he dul e d f or a n e vi de nt i a r y

he a r i ng on Augus t 28, 1996. Pl a i nt i f f ’ s pe t i t i on

f or pos t - c onvi c t i on r e l i e f s e e ks va c a t i on of hi s

pl ea and s e nt e nce due t o t he i ne f f ect i ve as s i s t a nc e

of c ouns e l , a nd he wi l l be r e qui r e d t o pr e s e nt

e vi de nc e t o t he Tr i a l Cour t of hi s c l a i m of

i ne f f e c t i ve ne s s of c ouns e l i n t he upc omi ng

e vi de nt i a r y he a r i ng.

. . .

Pl a i ntif f ha s a c onf lic t be t we e n the c i vil a nd

c r i mi na l pr oc e e di ngs pe ndi ng, a nd ma y be pr e j udi c e d

i n t he c r i mi na l pr oc e e di ngs s c he dul e d f or Augus t 28,

1996.

The r e s pons e f i l e d by de f e nda nt s t o t hi s mot i on s t a t e s , i n

pe r t i ne nt pa r t :

With r e s pe c t to pl a i ntif f ’ s motion to s t a y

pr oc e e di ngs , he poi nt s out t ha t he ha s a pos t -

c onvi c t i on r e l i e f he a r i ng s c he dul e d on Augus t 28,

1996. He poi nt s out t ha t he ha s a c onf l i c t be t we e n

t he c i vi l a nd c r i mi na l pr oc e e di ngs , a nd t ha t he ma y

be pr e j udi c e d, a c ont e nt i on whi c h i s not unde r s t ood

by c ouns e l f or t he s e de f e nda nt s . Shoul d t ha t be t he

c a s e , h owe ve r , it is obs e r ve d tha t pl a i ntif f is the

a ut hor of a ny s uc h a l l e ge d mi s f or t une , a nd t ha t he

wa s who i ni t i a t e d e a c h of t he t wo j udi c i a l

pr oc e e di ngs .

We ar e r e qui r e d t o t a ke t he s t r onge s t l e gi t i ma t e

vi e w of t he r e c or d on be ha l f of t he oppone nt of t he mot i on f or

s umma r y j udgme nt , a nd de f e nda nt s e s s e nt i a l l y c onc e de t he

pos s i bility tha t pl a i ntif f ma y be pr e j udi c e d if the c i vi l

a c t i on i s t r i e d a he a d of t he pe t i t i on f or pos t - c onvi c t i on

r e lie f .
3

I n our vi e w, t he Tr i a l J udge a bus e d hi s di s c r e t i on,

a nd s houl d ha ve s t a ye d t he c i vi l a c t i on unt i l t he a c t i on on

t he pe t i t i on f or pos t - c onvi c t i on r e l i e f wa s c onc l ude d. I t wa s

pl a i ntif f ’ s r i ght to f ile bot h the c i vil a c tion a nd the a c tion

f or r e lie f f r om the c r i mi na l c onvi c tion. We be lie ve f a ilur e

t o gr a nt a s t a y in thi s c a s e r e s ults in pr e j udi c e to the

j udi c i a l pr oces s , and we accor di ngl y vacat e t he s umma r y

j udgme nt s . See Rul e 36, T. R. A. P.

Upon r e ma nd, a s t a y wi l l be e nt e r e d i n a c c or da nc e

wi t h t hi s opi ni on. Upon f i na l r e s ol ut i on of t he pos t -

c onvi c tion pe tition, the s t a y will be lif t e d a nd the pa r tie s

ma y pr oc e e d wi t h t hi s a c t i on. 

The cos t of t he appeal i s as s e s s e d t o de f e nda nt s .

________________________

He r s c he l P. Fr a nks , J .

CONCUR:

___________________________

Don T. Mc Mur r a y, J .

___________________________

Cha r l e s D. Sus a no, J r ., J .