APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

In this divorce case, Husband/Appellant appeals and raises issues involving the division of certain marital property. Finding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in making its division of the marital property, we affirm.

The Appellant, Karl Blake, was convicted by a Rutherford County jury of three counts of child rape and one count of aggravated sexual battery, resulting in an effective forty-year sentence. On appeal, Blake raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether the trial court erred in excluding a statement made by the victim at an in camera hearing; (2) whether the trial court should have granted a mistrial based on juror misconduct; (3) whether the trial court should have granted a new trial based on newly discovered evidence; and (4) whether his sentence violates Blakely v. Washington. After review of the record, we affirm.

This is a parental rights termination case. The father appeals the trial court's decision terminating his parental rights to his three children. The father argues, inter alia, that the evidence preponderates against the trial court's finding that grounds for termination exist and that termination is in the best interest of the children. We conclude that the evidence preponderates against the decision of the trial court and therefore, we reverse.

A Metropolitan Nashville police officer seeks judicial review of the Final Order of the Civil Service Commission of Metropolitan Government pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 4-5-322 following his termination from Metropolitan Government service. After reviewing the record, the Chancery Court of Davidson County determined that the decision of the Civil Service Commission was not arbitrary and capricious and was supported by substantial and material evidence. The judgment of the Chancellor is affirmed.

Following a jury trial, Defendant, Craig Everett Shears, was convicted of first degree felony murder and especially aggravated robbery. Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment for the first degree felony murder conviction. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Defendant as a Range I, standard offender, to twenty years for the especially aggravated robbery conviction, and ordered Defendant to serve this sentence concurrently with his life sentence. In this appeal, Defendant argues (1) that the trial court erred in denying Defendant's motion to suppress his statement to police officers and (2) that the evidence was insufficient to support Defendant's convictions. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Petitioner, Dexter Williams, was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. This Court affirmed his conviction on appeal.   State v. Dexter Lee Williams, No. 03C01-9312-CR-00390, 1995 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 9 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxville, Jan. 9, 1995).  A Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 11 application for permission to appeal was filed ten months later, but was dismissed as time-barred. Petitioner's pro se petition for post-conviction relief was also dismissed without a hearing. On appeal, this Court remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing. Dexter L. Williams v. State, No. E1999-00871-CCA-R3-PC, 2000 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 22 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxville, Jan. 11, 2000). On appeal to the Tennessee Supreme Court, the State argued that the petition was untimely and should have been dismissed. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Criminal Appeals and remanded the case to the trial court for a further evidentiary hearing to determine the circumstances surrounding Petitioner's untimely filing of his post-conviction petition, holding that due process concerns might prevent strict application of the statute of limitations. Williams v. State, 44 S.W.3d 464 (Tenn. 2001).  Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court again dismissed the petition for post-conviction relief.  After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Rodney J. Campbell, was indicted for premeditated first degree murder, felony murder, and especially aggravated kidnapping. He was convicted by jury of kidnapping and two counts of second degree murder. As a result of these convictions, he was sentenced to a total effective sentence of thirty-one years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant raises four issues for our review: (1) whether the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal; (2) whether the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions; (3) whether the trial court properly instructed the jury; and (4) whether the trial court erred in imposing an excessive sentence. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, Roosevelt Morris, was convicted by a jury of two counts of attempted first degree premeditated murder. The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I, standard offender to two consecutive terms of twenty-five years in the Department of Correction for an effective sentence of fifty years. In this direct appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and contends that his sentence is excessive. We affirm the Defendant’s convictions. We modify the Defendant’s effective sentence to forty-seven years.

The petitioner appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief in which he asserted various instances of ineffective assistance of counsel. Upon review, we conclude that the evidence does not preponderate against the findings of the post-conviction court. Therefore, we affirm.

In case number 7563, the petitioner, Steven Van Tucker, pled guilty in the Lauderdale County Circuit Court to theft of property valued between five hundred and one thousand dollars, and the trial court sentenced him to four years and six months in confinement. In case number 7577, the petitioner pled guilty to burglary, car burglary, theft of property valued more than one thousand dollars but less than ten thousand dollars, and two counts of misdemeanor theft, and the trial court sentenced him to an effective sentence of four years in confinement. The trial court ordered that the sentence in case number 7577 be served consecutively to the sentence in case number 7563 for an effective sentence of eight years and six months. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, claiming that he received the ineffective assistance of trial counsel and that his guilty pleas were not voluntarily and intelligently entered. The trial court denied the petition for post-conviction relief.  Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction
court.

Father appeals from a modification of the residential schedule for his three children which was triggered by Mother's move to another county and the resultant burden on the children of commuting to and from school. Because the evidence supports the trial court's decision, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

The appellant, United Imports, Inc. ("United") seeks relief from a circuit court's order on its appeal from a general sessions action brought by the late Moses Pieny. Pursuant to a Local Rule of Practice, the circuit court's order dismissed United's appeal and adopted the general sessions order in favor of the deceased plaintiff. We reverse the order of the trial court and remand the case to the circuit court for dismissal of the claim.

Former Fleet Manager of Davidson Transit Organization contends he was demoted because of his age in violation of the Tennessee Human Rights Act. Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-21-401(a)(1). The employer conceded the employee had presented a prima facie case of employment discrimination; however, it contended a prima facie case was insufficient when the employer presented a nondiscriminatory reason for its decision. The trial court agreed. The summary dismissal was based upon a finding the burden of proof had shifted back to the employee who was required to, but did not provide additional evidence of age discrimination. An employee’s prima facie case, combined with sufficient evidence to find the employer's stated reason for its employment decision false may permit the trier of fact to conclude the employer unlawfully discriminated. The employee provided evidence from which a jury could conclude the employer's stated reason for its employment decision was not credible, thus summary judgment was not appropriate. We, therefore, vacate the summary dismissal and remand for further proceedings.

The petitioner, Kenneth Gaines, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of post-conviction relief. Because we discern no error in the post-conviction court’s proceedings and because the record supports that court’s determinations, we affirm.

The Defendant, Michael Nash, was convicted by a jury of one count of aggravated robbery. After a hearing, the trial court sentenced him as a Range II, multiple offender to twelve years in the Department of Correction. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and contends that he should have been sentenced as a Range I, standard offender. We affirm the Defendant’s conviction. We reverse the order of the trial court sentencing the Defendant as a Range II, multiple offender. We remand this matter for a new sentencing hearing.

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The employer appeals, arguing that the trial court should have granted the employer’s Rule 60 motion for relief from judgment. The trial court considered testimony that a legal assistant was given incorrect information by the clerk’s office but held that the employer failed to show grounds for excusable neglect. The Panel has concluded that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.

In this consolidated appeal, the petitioners challenge the denial of post-conviction relief, contending that their respective trial counsel were ineffective in failing to advise them of authority that indicated that their conduct fell outside the scope of the statute. On appeal, the State concedes that the petitioners received ineffective assistance of counsel. Following thorough review, we agree. Therefore, we reverse the denial of post-conviction relief, set aside the judgments, and remand the matter to the trial court.

The Appellant, David B. Walker, appeals the sentencing decision of the Cocke County Circuit Court. Walker pled guilty to reckless vehicular homicide, a Class C felony, and was sentenced as a Range I standard offender to three years in the county jail. On appeal, Walker argues that the trial court should have imposed an alternative sentence. After review of the record, we find that the State has failed to rebut the presumption of Walker's entitlement to an alternative sentence. Accordingly, we remand the case to the trial court for the imposition of an appropriate alternative sentence.

Following his plea of guilty to aggravated burglary, the petitioner was sentenced to twelve years. After serving a period of time, the length of which is unclear from the record, he was paroled and, on February 19, 1999, was convicted in Alabama for trafficking cocaine. Apparently, a parole violation warrant was issued on January 25, 1999, for his Tennessee sentence, as to which he was declared on the same day to be delinquent. Presumably because the petitioner was incarcerated in Alabama, the warrant was not served on him until March 1, 2004. His parole was revoked on April 1, 2004, following a hearing that same day. He filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus on September 29, 2004, seeking relief because, by his analysis, his sentence had expired and the revocation hearing had not been timely. The trial court dismissed the petition and, following our review, we affirm the dismissal.

The appellant, Jeremy P. Smith, pled guilty in the Dickson County Circuit Court to arson and received a sentence of five years. The trial court granted the appellant community corrections. Subsequently, the trial court revoked the appellant's community corrections and ordered the appellant to serve one year in confinement before again being released into community corrections. On appeal, the appellant contests the revocation. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, the defendant, Darryl Eugene Watts, pled guilty to rape, furnishing alcohol to a minor, and exposing a minor to pornography. He was sentenced to an effective eight-year sentence in confinement. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying alternative sentencing. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The petitioner, Jeffrey Wayne Haithcote, appeals the trial court's denial of post-conviction relief. The single issue presented for review is whether the petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel. The judgment is affirmed.

The Petitioner, Ronald L. Davis, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for writ of error coram nobis. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court's denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. We find the State's motion has merit. Accordingly, the motion is granted and the appeal is affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

The petitioner appeals the denial of post-conviction relief, alleging various instances of ineffective assistance of counsel as well as a violation of his rights under the Confrontation Clause. Upon review of the claim under the Confrontation Clause, we conclude that counsel was not ineffective and that the statement did not prejudice the petitioner. We further conclude that the evidence does not preponderate against the post-conviction court's finding that counsel rendered effective assistance of counsel. Therefore, we affirm the post-conviction court's denial of relief.

The Appellant, Phillip W. Dailey, appeals the sentencing decision of the Blount County Circuit Court, which resulted in the imposition of an effective three-year sentence of incarceration. On appeal, Dailey challenges the trial court's denial of alternative sentencing. After review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.