Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Robert Burton v. Kent Gearin
Citation: Not availableDocket: W1999-01022-COA-R3-CV
Court: Court of Appeals of Tennessee; October 18, 2000; Tennessee; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Robert J. Burton was convicted of rape and incest against his thirteen-year-old daughter in Weakley County and represented by counsel during his criminal trial. After his conviction was affirmed by the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals and the Tennessee Supreme Court denied further review, Burton filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. Kent F. Gearin was appointed to represent him in this proceeding, which was ultimately denied by the circuit court and affirmed on appeal. Subsequently, Burton, acting pro se, filed a legal malpractice claim against Gearin, asserting ineffective assistance in the post-conviction relief process. He also requested that the case be held in abeyance until his release from prison. Gearin sought summary judgment, arguing that Burton did not provide expert testimony to support his malpractice claim and that he had not secured post-conviction relief before initiating the malpractice lawsuit. The trial court granted Gearin's summary judgment motion, concluding Burton did not meet the elements required for his claim and failed to address the abeyance motion. On appeal, the court cited a similar Tennessee Supreme Court case, Logan v. Winstead, which involved a pro se inmate's legal malpractice claim against his defense attorney where the trial court also failed to rule on an abeyance motion. The appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Mr. Winstead, a decision upheld by the court of appeals. However, the supreme court accepted Mr. Logan's appeal regarding the issue of abeyance. It ruled that incarcerated plaintiffs do not have an absolute right to stay civil proceedings or be present during litigation. The court established guidelines for granting an abeyance, which should be considered reasonable based on factors such as the length of the prisoner’s sentence, the challenges in presenting evidence, the court's docket burden, the challenges of delayed litigation, and the defendant’s rights to timely adjudication. The supreme court determined that the trial court erred by not ruling on Mr. Logan's abeyance motion and highlighted the necessity for a clear order detailing the reasons for granting or denying such motions. Consequently, it reversed the trial court's and court of appeals' judgments and remanded the case for further proceedings. Similarly, in Mr. Burton's case, the trial court also failed to rule on his abeyance motion, leading to the reversal of the summary judgment granted to Mr. Gearin and a remand for consideration of Mr. Burton's abeyance request. If the trial court decides against granting the abeyance, it may then proceed to rule on Mr. Gearin's summary judgment motion. Additionally, the supreme court overruled prior case law (Whisnant v. Byrd) to the extent it suggested otherwise. Costs of the appeal are to be borne by the Appellee, Kent F. Gearin.