IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

Assigned on Briefs December 2, 2014

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. ELKE BABETTE PASTER

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Fayette County

No. 13-CV-87 J. Weber McCraw, Judge

No. W2014-00606-CCA-R3-CD - Filed January 28, 2015

The Defendant, Elke Babette Paster, was charged with multiple Tennessee Code Annotated

traffic offenses. These charges were initially set for adjudication in Somerville City Court

but were later transferred to Fayette County General Sessions Court, where that court found

the Defendant guilty of speeding. Upon her appeal to the Fayette County Circuit Court from

the General Sessions Court’s judgment, the Circuit Court granted the Defendant’s motion to

dismiss, declaring the General Sessions Court order void and reinstating the City Court’s

adjudication of her charges. She now appeals challenging the jurisdiction of the City Court,

the authority of that court to transfer the case to the General Sessions Court, and the Circuit

Court’s reinstatement of the City Court’s adjudication. Following our review, we reverse the

order of the Circuit Court dismissing the case and remand to that court for further

proceedings consistent with this opinion.

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

Reversed; Case Remanded

D. KELLY THOMAS, JR., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which JAMES CURWOOD

WITT, JR., and ROGER A. PAGE, JJ., joined.

Elke Babette Paster, Bethel Springs, Tennessee, pro se.

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; and Rachel E. Willis, Senior Counsel,

for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

OPINION

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On July 15, 2013, the Defendant was cited for three separate traffic violations in

Somerville, Fayette County, Tennessee: speeding in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated
section 55-8-152; failure to change the address on her license in violation of Tennessee Code

Annotated section 55-50-333; and failure to comply with the financial responsibility

requirements of Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-12-139. These charges were set for

disposition in Somerville City Court on November 5, 2013. On that day, the disposition box

of guilty on the Somerville Police Multiple Offense Citation was checked for all three

charges. However, despite the notation of disposition, the citation form also reflected a

notation transferring the case from Somerville City Court to Fayette County General Sessions

Court: “11/5/13 - Transferred from Somerville Traffic Court to Fayette County General

Sessions Court.” Thereafter, the General Sessions Court entered an order on November 7,

2013, finding the Defendant guilty of speeding and dismissed the other charges. According

to this order, the case was transferred because the Defendant’s husband “was arrested during

city court for disorderly conduct.”

Subsequent to the General Sessions Court’s adjudication, the Defendant appealed to

the Fayette County Circuit Court. In the Circuit Court, the Defendant moved to have the case

dismissed because of lack of jurisdiction, official misconduct, and ex parte communications

in the City Court and because the case was improperly transferred to the General Sessions

Court “ignoring due process.” However, that motion was denied, and the case was set for

trial.

1

On the date of the scheduled trial, March 24, 2014, the Circuit Court reconsidered the

Defendant’s motion to dismiss “[u]pon review of the entire matter” and declared that the

2

order of the General Sessions Court was void because the “General Sessions Court did not

have authority to adjudicate the traffic citations. . . . The City Court of the Town of

Somerville had jurisdiction to adjudicate the traffic offenses and did so on November 5,

2013.” In addition to reinstating the order from the City Court, the Circuit Court granted the

Defendant additional time to file an appeal from the City Court’s decision in order to avoid

any injustice resulting from the General Sessions Court’s intervention.

From this action, the Defendant now appeals challenging the jurisdiction of the City

Court, the authority of that court to transfer the case to the General Sessions Court, and the

Circuit Court’s reinstatement of the City Court’s adjudication. The State contends that the

It appears that the Defendant was “heard in open court” on this date. However, the Defendant was charged 1

with only misdemeanor offenses, and there is no proof that a court reporter was present. See State v. Jason

Peter Meeks, No. M2011-01134-CCA-R3-CD, 2012 WL 3085563, at *1-3 (Tenn. Crim. App. July 31, 2012)

(holding that a defendant charged with only misdemeanor offenses has no right to a verbatim transcript of

the proceedings).

 It is not apparent from the record whether any additional argument took place before the Circuit Court’s 2

dismissal. The Defendant states that she was “not allowed to address the Circuit Court.”

-2-
Circuit Court properly vacated the judgment of the General Sessions Court and remanded the

case to the City Court for the Defendant to perfect her appeal. However, we disagree with

all parties.

While ordinarily the jurisdiction of municipal courts is limited to cases involving

violations of municipal ordinances, it may be extended by the General Assembly to include

other cases arising under Tennessee law. See, e.g., City of Chattanooga v. Davis, 54 S.W.3d

248, 276-77 (Tenn. 2001); Hill v. State ex rel. Phillips, 392 S.W.2d 950, 952 (Tenn. 1965);

Moore v. State, 19 S.W.2d 233, 233 (Tenn. 1929). Accordingly, the General Assembly has

provided that certain municipal courts have original jurisdiction of Tennessee criminal

offenses. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-1-107 (providing that “[o]riginal jurisdiction of

criminal actions is committed to the . . . city judges of certain towns and cities”). Those

municipal courts that exercise jurisdiction over criminal offenses are usually accorded

concurrent jurisdiction with general sessions courts for offenses committed within the city

limits. See, e.g., City of White House v. Whitley, 979 S.W.2d 262, 263 (Tenn. 1998) (noting

authority of White House Municipal Court “to exercise jurisdiction concurrent with courts

of general sessions in all cases involving the violation of the criminal law of the State within

the corporate limits of the city”); State v. Jeremy White, No. W2001-02580-CCA-R9-CD,

2002 WL 31259496, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 25, 2002) (noting that Collierville

Municipal Court was vested with concurrent jurisdiction and authority with court of general

sessions). Because the Defendant’s multiple Tennessee Code violations were initially set to

be adjudicated in Somerville City Court, the record clearly indicates that Somerville City

Court is such a court having concurrent jurisdiction with Fayette County General Sessions

Court over Tennessee Code Annotated traffic offenses committed inside the city limits of

Somerville.

The General Sessions Court’s order stated that the case was transferred from City

Court because the Defendant’s husband “was arrested during city court for disorderly

conduct.” Thus, it appears that the City Court judge transferred the matter to the General

Sessions Court, a court with concurrent jurisdiction, due to the unruly actions of the

Defendant’s husband and his subsequent arrest in the City Court. Moreover, the Defendant

alleged official misconduct and wrongdoing of the City Court in her motion to dismiss filed

in the Circuit Court.

The Circuit Court’s reasoning for voiding the General Sessions Court’s judgment and

reinstating the City Court’s adjudication is not entirely clear. In the order, the Circuit Court

judge determines that the “General Sessions Court did not have authority to adjudicate the

traffic citations. . . . The City Court of the Town of Somerville had jurisdiction to adjudicate

the traffic offenses and did so on November 5, 2013.” Although not specifically stated, the

Circuit Court’s conclusion indicates that the General Sessions Court did not have jurisdiction

-3-
over the traffic offenses and that the City Court had entered a final disposition in the matter.

However, as previously noted, the General Sessions Court has concurrent jurisdiction over

the Tennessee Code Annotated traffic offenses and, thus, has the authority to rule on the

Defendant’s citations. The Defendant was not cited for violations of municipal ordinances.

In fact, the Somerville Police Multiple Offense Citation lists both the City Court and the

General Sessions Court as possible places for adjudication of certain violations, and the

police officer checks the appropriate box.

Moreover, we think the City Court is in the best position to determine whether its

adjudication of the Defendant’s charges was final. Despite the disposition boxes being

checked on the citation form, the City Court clearly did not consider its adjudication to be

final in light of the events as they unfolded in that court and the subsequent transfer of the

case. In accordance with the foregoing, the General Sessions Court’s judgment of speeding

was proper, and any appeal from that decision properly lies with the Circuit Court. See Tenn.

Code Ann. § 27-5-108. Therefore, the Circuit Court’s order of dismissal is reversed, and the

case is remanded to that court for a trial on the Defendant’s speeding charge.

________________________________

D. KELLY THOMAS, JR., JUDGE

-4-