APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The petitioner, Kenneth Lamar Hopkins, pled guilty to one charge of misdemeanor assault. He received a suspended sentence of eleven months, twenty-nine days. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that: (1) his guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered; (2) his waiver of right to counsel was not knowing or voluntary; (3) his guilty plea violated due process; and (4) the district attorney general promised him that his parole would not be violated as a result of his guilty plea. After a post-conviction hearing, the post-conviction court denied the petition. The petitioner appeals, arguing that: (1) the post-conviction court erred when it allowed the inclusion of the expected testimony of the assistant district attorney as a stipulation at the post-conviction hearing; (2) the post-conviction court erred "when it sustained the contentions of the state in violation of the missing witness rule;" and (3) the post-conviction court's actions violated the petitioner's due process rights. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Appellant appeals from the trial court’s order imposing Tenn. R. Civ. P. 37 sanctions, which includes dismissal with prejudice of Appellant’s post-divorce “Motion for Rehearing of Child Support” and “Petition to Modify Custody and/or Visitation.” Finding no evidence on which to conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in applying these sanctions, we affirm the judgment of the trial court, and remand for determination of damages for the filing of a frivolous appeal.

The appellant, James Wayne Kimbrough, was convicted in the Davidson County Criminal Court of first degree premeditated murder, felony murder, and two counts of spousal rape. Following a capital sentencing hearing, the jury imposed a sentence of life imprisonment in the Tennessee Department of Correction without the possibility of parole for his felony murder conviction. Additionally, he received a sentence of fifteen years for each of his spousal rape convictions as a Range III, persistent offender. On appeal, the appellant contends that the trial court erred in failing to grant "all aspects" of his motions to suppress, that the evidence is not sufficient to support his convictions, and that the trial court made numerous errors during the sentencing phase of his trial. Upon our review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The appellant, Emmanuel S. Trotter, also known as "Batman," was indicted on charges of felony murder, first degree premeditated murder, especially aggravated burglary, and especially aggravated robbery. The appellant primarily represented himself at trial and was ultimately convicted by a jury of criminally negligent homicide, especially aggravated burglary, criminal attempt to commit especially aggravated robbery, and second degree murder. The trial court merged the criminally negligent homicide conviction with the second degree murder conviction and sentenced the appellant to an effective sentence of fifty-five years. The issues presented on appeal are whether: (1) the appellant made a knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to counsel; (2) the evidence sufficiently corroborated the accomplice testimony of Helen Trotter; (3) the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict; and (4) the State knowingly proffered false testimony. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This appeal involves a civil contempt sanction against a former husband for failing to make payments required by the parties' marital dissolution agreement. The former wife filed a petition in the Circuit Court for Williamson County seeking to hold her former husband in either criminal or civil contempt. Following a hearing, the trial court awarded the former wife a $26,378 judgment for the arrearage and a $2,000 judgment for attorney's fees. The trial court also found the former husband to be in civil contempt and ordered him incarcerated for six months or until he made the payments required by the martial dissolution agreement. The former husband appealed. We affirm the portions of the judgment awarding the former wife $28,378; however, we vacate the civil contempt judgment against the former husband because the trial court failed to make an affirmative finding that he was presently able to meet his financial obligations under the marital dissolution agreement.

The appellant, Jackie Samuel Finger, pled guilty to aggravated burglary and attempted rape. The plea agreement specified that he would receive a four-year sentence on each charge as a Range I, Standard Offender and that the sentences would run concurrently, for an effective sentence of four years. The manner of service of the sentence was to be determined by the trial court. After a hearing, the trial court denied alternative sentencing and ordered the appellant to serve the sentence in the Department of Correction in the Special Needs Facility. On appeal, the appellant challenges his conviction for aggravated burglary as void due to a mistake on the judgment form and the trial court's denial of alternative sentencing. Because the trial court corrected the judgment to reflect the proper conviction and properly denied alternative sentencing, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Appellant, Martin Jeffery Edwards, was convicted following a jury trial of two counts of delivery of a schedule II controlled substance, Class C felonies. On appeal, Edwards argues that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions and (2) the trial court erred in denying a severance of the two counts. After review, we conclude that these issues are without merit.  Accordingly, the judgment of the Lauderdale County Circuit Court is affirmed.

Paternal grandparents, the legal guardians of their granddaughter, filed a petition to terminate the mother’s parental rights and to adopt their granddaughter. The child’s father joined in the petition.  The trial court found that the mother had abandoned the child by her willful failure to provide financial support; however, the trial court denied the grandparents’ petition based on its finding that termination of the mother’s parental rights was not in the best interest of the child. Grandparents appealed. We affirm.

This is a direct appeal as of right from convictions on a jury verdict of rape of a child and assault. The Defendant, Timmie D. Boston, was sentenced as a Range I offender to twenty years' imprisonment for the rape conviction and six months for assault, with the two sentences to be served concurrently. The Defendant argues two issues on appeal: (1) that the evidence was insufficient to find the Defendant guilty of rape of a child, and (2) that the trial court erred in imposing a mid-range sentence. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Adhering to my longstanding view that a clear and convincing evidence standard is totally incompatible with a preponderance of the evidence standard both at the trial level and on appeal, I disagree with a portion of majority opinion dealing with such issue.

The Petitioner, Anthony Murff, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. 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. Because Petitioner has failed to allege a ground entitling him to habeas corpus relief, we grant the State's motion and affirm the judgment of the lower court.

We granted permission to appeal in this case pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 11 to determine whether the trial court properly denied the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained during the investigation of a shooting death. To resolve this issue, we must determine whether the investigators had probable cause to arrest the defendant and whether the delay in taking him before a magistrate for a judicial determination of probable cause should independently require the exclusion of the evidence obtained during the first few hours of his detention. Because we are of the opinion that the officers had probable cause to arrest the defendant, we conclude that the evidence recovered at the scene was not subject to suppression. As to the defendant’s claim of “unreasonable delay,” it is obvious that the defendant was not taken before a magistrate for a judicial determination of probable cause within a constitutionally reasonable time. However, the evidence the defendant sought to suppress was obtained during the first few hours of his arrest. Thus, these evidentiary items were not tainted by exploitation of the constitutional violation and are not, therefore, subject to suppression. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

The trial court terminated the parental rights of F.S.B. ("Father") with respect to his two minor children, K.L.B. (DOB: September 19, 1997) and S.L.B. (DOB: July 21, 1999). Father appeals, arguing, inter alia, that the evidence preponderates against the trial court's finding, stated to be by clear and convincing evidence, that grounds for termination exist. We affirm.

The petition sought judicial review by way of certiorari to review the Warden's action in terminating his wife's visitation for inappropriate behavior. We affirm the dismissal of the petition on grounds of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.

The Town of Cornersville filed suit against a local business seeking injunctive relief to require compliance with its zoning ordinance. During the pendency of the matter, the trial court found the local business in contempt on three separate occasions for failure to comply with orders of the court requiring compliance with the ordinance. At a hearing on the merits, the trial court found that since the property at issue was within the town limits, it was subject to the zoning ordinance. Furthermore, the court found the business in contempt for failure to comply with its prior orders and thus subject to a fine of fifty dollars ($50.00) per day. The business appeals insisting that part of the subject property is not within the town's zoning jurisdiction, that the trial court exceeded its statutory contempt authority, and that the town is estopped from raising any complaint regarding zoning noncompliance. We agree with the trial court and affirm its judgment.

We granted the Tenn. R. App. P. 9 application of the AIG defendants to review their claim that an order of the trial court entered December 31, 2003, nunc pro tunc December 22, 2003, pertaining to pre-trial discovery is "overly broad, unduly burdensome, and extraordinarily costly both in terms of human effort and financial expense, and that disclosure of the documents ordered by the trial court would violate the [federal] Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act." We have determined that the AIG defendants' application was improvidently granted. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. This case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings as outlined in this opinion.

The appellant principally alleges that she had a plea agreement with the State that if she pleaded guilty to the charge of vehicular assault, the punishment for which would run consecutively to prior sentences, she would be paroled after serving thirty percent of her sentence, and that the State, in effect, reneged on the agreement. She presented no evidence other than her own assertions of the plea, and her petition was denied.

This appeal involves a former husband's efforts to avoid paying spousal support. Less than one year after the parties' divorce, the husband filed a petition in the Circuit Court for Davidson County seeking to reduce his spousal support obligation because his income had decreased. He also unilaterally stopped paying spousal support. Following a bench trial, the trial court denied the former husband's petition to modify his support payments based on its conclusion that he was wilfully underemployed. The trial court also found the former husband to be in criminal contempt for wilfully failing to make five spousal support payments. The husband appeals. We affirm the trial court's conclusion that the former husband is wilfully underemployed and two of the five counts of criminal contempt.

The defendant, Brandon Wallace, was convicted by a jury of two counts of attempted first degree murder (Counts 1 and 2); attempted second degree murder (Count 3); attempted especially aggravated robbery (Count 4); especially aggravated burglary (Count 5); and felony reckless endangerment (Count 6). He was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to twenty-three years in the Department of Correction for Counts 1 and 2, to be served consecutively; ten years for Count 3, to be served concurrently with Counts 1 and 6; ten years for Count 4 which the trial court merged with Count 5, for which he also was sentenced to ten years, to be served consecutively to Count 1 and concurrently with Count 2; and two years for Count 6, to be served concurrently with Counts 1 and 3, for a total effective sentence of forty-six years. Additionally, the jury set fines totaling $138,000, which were reduced by the trial court to $1,000. The defendant raises two issues on appeal: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support his convictions, excluding his felony reckless endangerment conviction; and (2) whether the trial court erred in sentencing. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court but remand for resentencing and for entry of corrected judgments reflecting the offense date as July 1, 2002.

The Petitioner, Robert L. Smith, appeals from the trial court's dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. The trial court found the petition be barred by the applicable statute of limitations and that the Petitioner had filed previous petitions that were resolved on the merits. 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 defendant, Michael Lebron Anderson, was convicted of burglary of a building other than a habitation, a Class D felony, and was sentenced to twelve years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court erred by allowing hearsay statements of eyewitnesses to be introduced through the testimony of a police officer as an excited utterance, thereby violating his right to confront witnesses against him. After careful review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Appellant, Christopher Franklin Waddell, appeals the sentencing decision of the Sumner County Criminal Court which resulted in the imposition of an effective thirty-year sentence. Under the terms of a plea agreement, Waddell pled guilty to two counts of aggravated assault, four counts of attempted aggravated robbery, and three counts of coercion of a witness. On appeal, Waddell argues that the trial court erred: (1) in its application of enhancing factors with respect to his aggravated assault convictions; (2) in imposing consecutive sentences; and (3) in denying an alternative sentence. After review, we affirm.

The defendant, Aaron T. Binkley, pled guilty to forgery, a Class D felony, and was sentenced as a Range One standard offender to two years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying him alternative sentencing. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Joseph Barajar, originally charged with premeditated first degree murder, was convicted of second degree murder. The trial court ordered a twenty-five-year sentence in the Department of Correction. In this appeal of right, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, cites error in the admission of the evidence, and asserts that his sentence is excessive. See Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. __, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). The sentence must be modified to twenty-two years; otherwise, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

This appeal involves a customer who tripped over a floor mat while waiting in a cashier's line at a home improvement store. The customer filed suit against the store in the Circuit Court for Davidson County, and a jury returned a verdict for the store after determining that the customer was sixty-five percent at fault for his injuries. The customer asserts on this appeal that the evidence does not support the jury's verdict. We affirm the judgment.