APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This appeal involves the termination of the parental rights of a biological mother who is serving a lengthy prison sentence. Following years of drug abuse, criminal conduct, periodic incarceration, and inconsistent attention to the needs of her two children, the mother pled guilty to charges of especially aggravated kidnaping and aggravated robbery and was sentenced to serve concurrent terms of fifteen and twelve years in prison. Following her incarceration, the fathers of both children filed petitions to terminate her parental rights. The juvenile court consolidated these petitions with the mother’s petition for visitation and appointed guardians ad litem for the children. The guardians ad litem later filed a joint petition to terminate the mother’s parental rights, and the fathers voluntarily dismissed their termination petitions. Following a bench trial, the juvenile court entered orders terminating the mother’s parental rights to both children on three grounds. The mother has appealed.  We have determined that the record contains clear and convincing evidence to support terminating the mother’s parental rights on two of the three grounds relied upon by the court and to support the court’s conclusion that terminating the mother’s parental rights is in the children’s best interests.

The Cumberland County Bank (“the bank”) filed an unlawful detainer action in general sessions court against Dee Downs Eastman. The bank sought to obtain possession of real property conveyed to it following the bank’s foreclosure of deeds of trust securing promissory notes executed by Ms. Eastman. The general sessions court entered judgment for possession “for which a Writ of Possession may issue.” Ms. Eastman appealed to the trial court and, along with the Dee Downs Eastman Revocable Trust (“the trust”), filed in that court a counterclaim that essentially challenged the validity of the foreclosure sale by which the bank acquired its title to the subject property. The trial court granted the bank summary judgment as to all issues. Ms. Eastman and the trust appeal.  We affirm.

The Robertson County Circuit Court convicted the defendant, Larry Dale Driver, of assault, a Class A misdemeanor, following a bench trial. The trial court imposed a sentence of eleven months, twenty-nine days, with probation following 180 days in jail. On appeal, the defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and that the trial court erred by denying him judicial diversion. We affirm the trial court.

Following a jury trial, Defendant, Lawrence Ralph, Sr., was convicted of failure to display a driver's license, a Class C misdemeanor; resisting arrest, a Class B misdemeanor; and simple possession of a Schedule III controlled substance, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced Defendant to concurrent terms of thirty days for his failure to display a driver's license conviction, six months for his resisting arrest conviction, and eleven months, twenty-nine days for his simple possession conviction, for an effective sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days. The trial court suspended all but 120 days of Defendant's effective sentence, and placed Defendant on probation. Defendant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction for simple possession. On appeal, Defendant argues that: (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress; (2) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions for resisting arrest and failure to display a driver's license; and (3) the trial court erred in determining the percentage of Defendant's effective sentence which must be served in confinement. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant, Samuel T. Cravens, was convicted by a Fentress County jury of two counts of vehicular assault and one count of assault. The defendant argues on appeal that the evidence fails to support the convictions because the witness testimony upon which the convictions are based is inherently impossible and irreconcilable with the physical evidence and because the state failed to prove that the defendant's intoxication was the proximate cause of the victims' injuries. After thoroughly reviewing the record and applicable authorities, we find sufficient evidence to support the convictions and, therefore, affirm the trial court's judgments.

The defendant, John Dillihunt, was convicted of delivery of less than .5 grams of cocaine within 1000 feet of a school, a Class B felony, for which he was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender, to eight years in the Department of Correction to be served at 100% and fined $7500. On appeal, although the defendant raises four issues, we believe they can be condensed into one: whether the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court but remand for entry of a corrected judgment.

Petitioner, C.S.O. Norvell, Jr., filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, attacking his conviction for second degree murder in the Tipton County Circuit Court. The petition was summarily dismissed by the trial court without an evidentiary hearing. Petitioner has appealed, arguing that his conviction is void because he received an illegal sentence. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this appeal, the employee asserts that the trial court erred in finding he was not entitled to reimbursement for medical expenses for unauthorized physicians and in finding he sustained only a 5% permanent partial disability to the whole person as the result of an injury occurring during the course of the appellant's employment with the Davidson Transit Organization. We conclude that the evidence presented supports the findings of the trial judge and, in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-225(e)(2), affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This case is about parental relocation and child custody. The parents of a minor child divorced in 2001. Both parents lived in Lexington, Tennessee, and, at the time of the divorce, agreed to joint custody. The child alternated daily between the parents’ homes. In 2002, the mother remarried and moved to Murfreesboro, Tennessee. The mother petitioned the court to designate her as primary residential parent and allow her to move the child with her to Murfreesboro. The father opposed the petition and asked the court to designate him as the primary residential parent. The trial court found that it was in the child’s best interest to move to Murfreesboro with the mother, and designated her as primary residential parent. The father appealed. We affirm, finding that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s decision to designate mother as primary residential parent and permit the child to move with her.

The petitioner, Wilson H. Tucker, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Hardeman County Circuit Court. The trial court summarily dismissed the petition, and the petitioner timely appealed.  Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court.

I concur in the majority opinion, but I believe one issue deserves further
discussion–sequential offense consideration jury instructions in cases involving a question of second degree murder or voluntary manslaughter. The defendant’s concern is that requiring the jury to acquit on the greater offense before considering the lesser offense can cause a problem when it involves second degree murder and voluntary manslaughter. I agree.

The appellant, Earnest Gwen Humphrey, was convicted by a jury in the White County Criminal Court of second degree murder. The trial court imposed a sentence of twenty-two years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant raises multiple issues for our review, including challenges to the voir dire of the jury, the sufficiency of the evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, and the jury instructions. Upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner challenges the denial of his post-conviction petition, which asserted various instances of ineffective assistance of counsel. Upon review, we conclude that the evidence does not preponderate against the post-conviction court’s findings; therefore, we affirm.

Father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his two minor children, arguing that Petitioner, the children's maternal grandmother, did not show by clear and convincing evidence that Father had abandoned his children. Father also asserts that because there is no transcript or audio recording of the trial court's hearing this court is unable to conduct an adequate appellate review. We agree with Father and find that due to the lack of a transcript or audiotape of the evidence presented at the termination hearing, we are unable to determine whether clear and convincing evidence supported the termination of his parental rights. Consequently, Father has been deprived of an effective review on appeal. We therefore vacate the judgment of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights and remand for further proceedings.

Petitioner, Lloyd Earl Williams, filed his second petition for writ of habeas corpus relief in the Lake County Circuit Court, attacking judgments of conviction entered against him in the Washington County Criminal Court. In 1993, Petitioner was convicted and sentenced in abstentia, following a jury trial, of sale of cocaine, one count of possession of cocaine with intent to sell, and one count of conspiracy to sell cocaine, with an effective sentence of fifty-four (54) years. He was taken into custody in 2001. A petition for post-conviction relief was dismissed for not being filed within the applicable statute of limitations. His first petition for writ of habeas corpus attacked the convictions based upon his being tried and sentenced in abstentia. Dismissal of that petition was affirmed on appeal. See Lloyd Earl Williams v. State, No. W2003-02348-CCA-R3-HC, 2004 WL 948370 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, April 29, 2004), perm. to appeal denied (Tenn. September 2, 2004). In this second petition for habeas corpus relief, Petitioner alleges that he is entitled to habeas corpus relief because the sentences were imposed, both as to length and consecutive service, by a judge and not the jury in violation of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 125 S. Ct. 2531, 159 L. Ed. 2d 403 (2004) and Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S. Ct. 2348, 147 L. Ed. 2d 435 (2000). The trial court summarily dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This is an appeal from the trial court’s reversal of an administrative decision. The plaintiff police officer was involved in a one-car collision while driving a police van. At the time, he was on sick leave and was not authorized to be driving the van. The van contained numerous high-powered police weapons. After the accident, the officer locked the van and left it at the accident scene overnight. The next day, the officer notified the police department about the accident. The officer was later terminated for his conduct arising out of the accident. The officer appealed his termination to the Civil Service Commission, which upheld the termination. The officer then filed the instant lawsuit in the lower court, seeking a review of the Commission’s decision. The trial court reversed  the Commission, holding that no material evidence supported its decision to uphold the termination.  From that decision, the City now appeals. We reverse the decision of the trial court and uphold the Civil Service Commission’s decision to terminate the plaintiff officer, finding material evidence in the record to support the Civil Service Commission’s decision.

In this extended post-divorce battle over child support, alimony, property division and various other imaginative issues, the trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant. The judgment of the trial court is vacated, and the cause is remanded for trial of specific issues.

Petitioner/Appellant is an inmate in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Correction.  This appeal arises from the Appellant’s filing of the underlying pro se petition for common-law writ of certiorari, seeking review of the Warden’s decision to move him from one housing unit to another.  The trial court dismissed Inmate’s case based upon its determination that the Warden’s decision was administrative, as opposed to judicial, in nature and that, as such, the common-law writ of certiorari was not the proper vehicle for review. Inmate appeals. We affirm.

Defendant, Marlon Avery Bussell, was indicted for first degree felony murder in count one, and for attempted especially aggravated robbery in count two. Following a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of the lesser included offense of criminally negligent homicide, a Class E felony, in count one, and of the lesser included offense of attempted robbery, a Class D felony, in count two. The trial court sentenced Defendant as a Range I, standard offender to two years for his criminally negligent homicide conviction and four years for his attempted robbery conviction, and ordered the sentences to be served concurrently. The trial court denied Defendant's request that he be granted alternative sentencing, and ordered Defendant to serve his sentences in confinement. On appeal, Defendant challenges the length of his sentences and the trial court's denial of alternative sentencing. He does not challenge the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. Following a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This case involves a divorce and the validity of a postnuptial agreement. Mr. and Ms. Stutz were married more than twenty years. During most of the marriage, they wanted to have children but were unsuccessful. When a child became available for adoption, Ms. Stutz was elated and aggressive in her actions to secure the adoption of the child, but Mr. Stutz was opposed to the adoption of the child. Over the course of several weeks, Ms. Stutz attempted to change Mr. Stutz's mind regarding the adoption. Finally, she suggested that in exchange for his consent to the adoption, they would enter into an agreement dividing the marital estate and in the event Mr. Stutz was unhappy being a father they would divorce and follow the agreement previously determined. The result was a lengthy postnuptial agreement, which among other things, divided the marital estate giving most of the marital property to Mr. Stutz. Within a few years of the signing of the postnuptial agreement and the adoption, Ms. Stutz filed for divorce. The trial court upheld the validity of the postnuptial agreement with the exception of a section which attempted to waive and/or significantly limit Mr. Stutz's child support obligation. The trial court also granted a divorce to the parties upon Mr. Stutz's motion without conducting an evidentiary hearing. Ms. Stutz appeals. We hold that the postnuptial agreement is invalid as it is contrary to public policy. We further hold that the trial court erred in granting a divorce to the parties in the absence of a stipulation to or proof of grounds for divorce. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's decision and remand this case for a trial on the division of the marital estate, alimony, divorce, and any remaining issues.

The petitioner, Willie L. Hicks, appeals from the trial court's order dismissing his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The state has filed a motion requesting that this court affirm the trial court's denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The petitioner has failed to establish that he is entitled to habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, the state's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The Appellant, Michelle Tipton, was convicted by a Sevier County jury of the first degree felony murder and second degree murder of Pamela Hale. The trial court merged the second degree murder conviction with her first degree felony murder conviction, resulting in a sentence of life imprisonment. On appeal, Tipton raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the verdicts; (2) whether the District Attorney General's office should have been disqualified from prosecuting the case based upon Appellant's co-counsel's subsequent employment with the State; (3) whether the testimony of two witnesses should have been excluded due to disclosure violations; (4) whether the trial court abused its discretion in admitting into evidence certain photographs of the deceased and a portion of the deceased's skull; (5) whether the State's closing argument was proper; (6) whether the trial court erred in admitting her co-defendant's statement; and (7) whether the trial court should have instructed the jury with regard to parole eligibility. After a review of the record, we reverse Tipton's conviction for second degree murder based on the trial court's failure to instruct the jury concerning the natural and probable consequences rule. However, a review of the issues raised on appeal reveals no error. Accordingly, Tipton's conviction and sentence for first degree felony murder are affirmed.

The father filed a Petition to change custody of minor son from mother to father. Upon hearing evidence, the Trial Court held there had been a material change of circumstances and it was in the child's best interest to award custody to the father. On appeal, we affirm.

The petitioner challenges the denial of his post-conviction petition, in which he contended, inter alia, that counsel was ineffective in failing to object to the composition of the jury pool. Upon review, we conclude that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the venire was violative of his Sixth Amendment rights. As such, he has likewise failed to prove that counsel’s failure to object to the venire amounted to deficient performance or resulted in prejudice to him. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

In 1992, a jury convicted the Petitioner, Leroy Hall, Jr., of first degree premeditated murder and aggravated arson, and it sentenced him to death for the first degree murder conviction. The trial court imposed a consecutive twenty-five year sentence for the aggravated arson conviction. On direct appeal, the Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the Petitioner's convictions and sentences. See State v. Hall, 958 S.W.2d 679 (Tenn. 1997), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 941 (1998). The Petitioner filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief, which was subsequently amended by appointed counsel. After an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court dismissed the petition. The Petitioner appeals that judgment, contending that: (1) his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance at trial; (2) the post-conviction court erroneously denied the Petitioner's request for an expert attorney to establish his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; and (3) the death sentence violates the Petitioner's rights under the federal and State constitutions and international law. After throughly reviewing the record and the applicable law, we conclude that there exists no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.