contention doctrine in Tennessee

1998Co., 694 S.W.2d 327 (Tenn. App.1985) (The initial appeal did not establish the law of the case because the facts in the second appeal were not substantially the same as the facts in the prior appeal); Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605, 618, n. 8 , 103 S.Ct. 1382, 1391, n. 8 , 75 L.Ed.2d 318 (1983) (The doctrine does not apply if the court is “convinced that [its prior decision] is clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice.”); Sherley v. Commonwealth, 889 S.W.2d 794, 798 (Ky.1994) (The law of the case doctrine does not apply where there has been an intervening change of controllin

1998Co., 694 S.W.2d 327 (Tenn. App. 1985) (The initial appeal did not establish the law of the case because the facts in the second appeal were not substantially the same as the facts in the prior appeal); Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605, 618, n. 8 , 103 S.Ct. 1382, 1391, n. 8 , 75 L.Ed.2d 318 (1983) (The doctrine does not apply if the court is “convinced that [its prior decision] is clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice.”); Sherley v. Commonwealth, 889 S.W.2d 794, 798 (Ky. 1994) (The law of the case doctrine does not apply where there has been an intervening change of controll

1998Co., 694 S.W.2d 327 (Tenn. App.1985) (The initial appeal did not establish the law of the case because the facts in the second appeal were not substantially the same as the facts in the prior appeal); Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605, 618, n. 8 , 103 S.Ct. 1382, 1391, n. 8 , 75 L.Ed.2d 318 (1983) (The doctrine does not apply if the court is “convinced that [its prior decision] is clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice.”); Sherley v. Commonwealth, 889 S.W.2d 794, 798 (Ky.1994) (The law of the case doctrine does not apply where there has been an intervening change of controllin

1998Co., 694 S.W.2d 327 (Tenn. App.1985) (The initial appeal did not establish the law of the case because the facts in the second appeal were not substantially the same as the facts in the prior appeal); Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605, 618, n. 8 , 103 S.Ct. 1382, 1391, n. 8 , 75 L.Ed.2d 318 (1983) (The doctrine does not apply if the court is “convinced that [its prior decision] is clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice.”); Sherley v. Commonwealth, 889 S.W.2d 794, 798 (Ky.1994) (The law of the case doctrine does not apply where there has been an intervening change of controllin

2021First, we address the Defendant’s contention that his waiver could not have been knowing because he “did not have ‘any idea’ what Detective Spearman wanted to speak with him about.” This court has held that “the failure of law enforcement officials to inform a suspect of all the possible subjects of interrogation is not relevant to determining whether the suspect voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived his or her Fifth Amendment privilege.” State v. Green, 995 S.W.2d 591, 600 (Tenn. Crim.

2019Rather, the Ritter court held that Section 552’s language “obviously includes non-professionals involved in certain business activities or transactions” including construction managers, John Martin, 819 S.W.2d at 431 , accountants, Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Ernst & Whinney, 822 S.W.2d -7- 592, 595 (Tenn. 1991), the seller of a log home kit, Stamp v. Honest Abe Log Homes, Inc., 804 S.W.2d 455, 458 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1990), a landlord, Keller v. West-Morr Investors, Ltd., 770 S.W.2d 543, 547 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988), and a seller of real estate.

2019Rather, the Ritter court held that Section 552’s language “obviously includes non-professionals involved in certain business activities or transactions” including construction managers, John Martin, 819 S.W.2d at 431 , accountants, Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Ernst & Whinney, 822 S.W.2d -7- 592, 595 (Tenn. 1991), the seller of a log home kit, Stamp v. Honest Abe Log Homes, Inc., 804 S.W.2d 455, 458 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1990), a landlord, Keller v. West-Morr Investors, Ltd., 770 S.W.2d 543, 547 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988), and a seller of real estate.

2013By adopting this standard, we reject the Defendant’s contention that the presumption of reasonableness should not apply to consecutive sentencing because our holdings in Bise and Caudle only refer to a “presumption of reasonableness [for] within-range sentencing decisions that reflect a proper application of the purposes and principles of our Sentencing Act.” Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 707 (emphasis added); see also Caudle, 388 S.W.3d at 279 .

2013By adopting this standard, we reject the Defendant’s contention that the presumption of reasonableness should not apply to consecutive sentencing because our holdings in Bise and Caudle only refer to a “presumption of reasonableness [for] within-range sentencing decisions that reflect a proper application of the purposes and principles of our Sentencing Act.” Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 707 (emphasis added); see also Caudle, 388 S.W.3d at 279 .

2012We observed that the greater weight of authority requires a confidential relationship. -8- S.W.3d 530, 542 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004); Estate of Glasgow v. Whittum, 106 S.W.3d 25, 31 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002).

2003A waiver of the assistance of counsel "must not only be voluntary, but constitute a knowing and intelligent relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege, a matter which depends in each case 'upon the particular facts and circumstances surrounding that case, including the back-ground, experience and conduct of the accused.'" Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 482 (1981); see also Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 465 (1938); State v. Burkhart, 541 S.W.2d 365, 368 (Tenn. 1976); State v. Coleman, 519 S.W.2d 581, 583 (Tenn. 1975).

2003A waiver of the assistance of counsel "must not only be voluntary, but constitute a knowing and intelligent relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege, a matter which depends in each case 'upon the particular facts and circumstances surrounding that case, including the back-ground, experience and conduct of the accused.'" Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 482 (1981); see also Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 465 (1938); State v. Burkhart, 541 S.W.2d 365, 368 (Tenn. 1976); State v. Coleman, 519 S.W.2d 581, 583 (Tenn. 1975).

2003A waiver of the assistance of counsel "must not only be voluntary, but constitute a knowing and intelligent relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege, a matter which depends in each case 'upon the particular facts and circumstances surrounding that case, including the back-ground, experience and conduct of the accused.'" Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 482 (1981); see also Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 465 (1938); State v. Burkhart, 541 S.W.2d 365, 368 (Tenn. 1976); State v. Coleman, 519 S.W.2d 581, 583 (Tenn. 1975).

2003A waiver of the assistance of counsel "must not only be voluntary, but constitute a knowing and intelligent relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege, a matter which depends in each case 'upon the particular facts and circumstances surrounding that case, including the back-ground, experience and conduct of the accused.'" Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 482 (1981); see also Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 465 (1938); State v. Burkhart, 541 S.W.2d 365, 368 (Tenn. 1976); State v. Coleman, 519 S.W.2d 581, 583 (Tenn. 1975).

1980Wooten v. State, 203 Tenn. 473, 482, 483 , 314 S.W.2d 1 (1958).

1980Wooten v. State, 203 Tenn. 473, 482, 483 , 314 S.W.2d 1 (1958).

1966See also, McDonald v. Hudspeth, 129 F.2d 196, 199 , C.A. 10, cert. den., 317 U.S. 665 [ 63 S.Ct. 75 , 87 L.Ed. 535 ]; Moore v. Aderhold, 108 F.2d 729, 731 , C.A. 10.

1966“The contention at bar, that, because there had been no preliminary examination of the accused, he was thereby deprived of his constitutional guarantee to be confronted by the witnesses, by mere statement, demonstrates its error. ’ ’ Goldsby v. United States, 160 U.S. 70, 73 [ 16 S.Ct 216, 218 , 40 L.Ed. 343 ].

1966“The contention at bar, that, because there had been no preliminary examination of the accused, he was thereby deprived of his constitutional guarantee to be confronted by the witnesses, by mere statement, demonstrates its error. ’ ’ Goldsby v. United States, 160 U.S. 70, 73 [ 16 S.Ct 216, 218 , 40 L.Ed. 343 ].

1966See also, McDonald v. Hudspeth, 129 F.2d 196, 199 , C.A. 10, cert. den., 317 U.S. 665 [ 63 S.Ct. 75 , 87 L.Ed. 535 ]; Moore v. Aderhold, 108 F.2d 729, 731 , C.A. 10.

1966See also, McDonald v. Hudspeth, 129 F.2d 196, 199 , C.A. 10, cert. den., 317 U.S. 665 [ 63 S.Ct. 75 , 87 L.Ed. 535 ]; Moore v. Aderhold, 108 F.2d 729, 731 , C.A. 10.