Jorge Ariel Sanjines, M.D. v. Ortwein and Associates, P.C., William H. Ortwein, J. Cris Helton, and John R. Morgan

• Court: Court of Appeals of Tennessee
• Decided: June 5, 1997
• Docket: 3A01-9702-CV-00060
• Status: Published

Opinion

I N THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

EASTERN SECTI ON FILED June 5, 1997

Cecil Crowson, Jr. J ORGE ARI EL SANJ I NES, M D. , . ) C/ A NO. 03A01-Appellate C ourt Clerk 9702- CV- 00060 ) Pl a i nt i f f - Appe l l a nt , ) HAM LTON CI RCUI T I ) v. ) HON. DOUGLAS A. M EYER, ) J UDGE ORTW N AND ASSOCI ATES, P. C. , ) EI SI TTI NG BY I NTERCHANGE W LLI AM H. ORTW N, J . CRI S I EI ) HELTON, AND J OHN R. M ORGAN, ) VACATED ) AND De f e nda nt s - Appe l l e e s . ) REMANDED

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

E. BLAKE M OORE, SPEARS, M OORE, REBM AN & W LLI AM I S, Cha t t a noo g a , f o r De f e nda nt - Appe l l e e , J ohn R. M ga n. or

SAM UEL R. ANDERSON a nd SHANE USARY, LUTHER- ANDERSON, PLLP, Ch a 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. , W l l i a m H. Or t we i n, a nd J . Cr i s He l t on. i

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

a c t i o n a ga i ns t h i s a t t or ne ys f or a l l e ge d ma l pr a c t i c e i n

r e p r 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 n a 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 n d

s u mma 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 b y

t he Tr i a l J udge . Pl a i nt i f f ha s a ppe a l e d. Upon r e vi e wi ng t he r e c or d, we c onc l ude i t i s

n e 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 h e

p r o c 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

g r o u n d 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 M y a 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 e a a nd s e nt e nc e due t o t he i ne f f e c t i ve a s 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 nt i f f h a 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 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 2 8 , 1996.

Th e 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

p e r t i n e nt pa r t :

W t h r e s pe c t t o pl a i nt i f f ’ s mot i on t o s t a y i 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 o o d by c ouns e l f or t he s e de f e nda nt s . Shoul d t ha t be t h e c a s e , h owe ve r , i t i s obs e r ve d t ha t pl a i nt i f f i s t he 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 h e 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 .

W a r 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 e

v i e w o f t he r e c or d on b e ha l f of t he oppone nt of t he mot i on f o r

s u mma 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

p o s s i bi l i t y t ha t pl a i nt i f f ma y be pr e j udi c e d i f t he c i vi l

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

r el i ef .

2 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 o n ,

a n d 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 h e p e 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

p l a i nt i f f ’ s r i ght t o f i l e bot h t he c i vi l a c t i on a nd t he a c t i on

f o r r e l i e f f r om t he c r i mi na l c onvi c t i on. W be l i e ve f a i l ur e e

t o g r a nt a s t a y i n t hi s c a s e r e s ul t s i n pr e j udi c e t o t he

j u d i c i a l p r oc e s s , a nd we a c c or di ngl y va c a t e t he s umma r y

j u d g me nt s . Se e Rul e 3 6, 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 o n v i c t i on p e t i t i on, t h e s t a y wi l l be l i f t e d a nd t he pa r t i e s

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

The c os t o f t he a ppe a l i s a s 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:

_ _ _ _ _ __________________ ____ Do n T. M M r a y, J . c ur

_ _ _ _ _ _ _________________ ____ Ch a r l e s D. Sus a no, J r . , J .