APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This appeal involves a boundary line dispute between neighbors. The trial court found in favor of the plaintiffs' boundary line description, and defendants appeal. We affirm the decision of the trial court.

Plaintiff filed suit asserting that she was the owner by adverse possession of four acres of farmland in Maury County. Defendants, who purchased adjoining property in 2001, assert that they are by deed the true and rightful owners of the disputed parcel. The trial court ruled that Plaintiff was the owner of the property by adverse possession based on a finding that she and her predecessors in interest had possessed the property visibly, exclusively, actually, continuously, openly, and notoriously for twenty years. We affirm.

This is an appeal from denial of post-conviction relief. The Defendant, Martin Palmer Jones, was convicted of two counts of first degree felony murder upon entry of best-interest guilty pleas. He was sentenced to two terms of life imprisonment, which were to be served consecutively. The Defendant's sentences were affirmed on direct appeal. See State v. Martin Palmer Jones, No. 03C01-9803-CR-00084, 1999 WL 93144 (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, Feb. 25, 1999). On petition for post-conviction relief, the Defendant claimed he received ineffective assistance of counsel in conjunction with his guilty pleas. The trial court denied the petition, and the Defendant appealed to this Court. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Lydia Ann Bishop Watkins ("Wife") filed for divorce from William C. Watkins, Jr., ("Husband") after thirty-five years of marriage. The Trial Court awarded Wife a divorce and distributed the marital property. The Trial Court also concluded that Wife was not economically disadvantaged and refused to award her any alimony. The Trial Court ordered each party to be responsible for his or her attorney fees. Wife appeals claiming the Trial Court's distribution of the marital property was inequitable, the Trial Court erred by not awarding her alimony in futuro, and the Trial Court erred by not requiring Husband to pay her attorney's fees. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court.

The petitioner, Eric Thomas, appeals as of right from the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief by the Shelby County Criminal Court. He seeks relief from his Class C felony conviction for robbery and resulting sentence of eight years and one day in confinement. He contends that the post-conviction court erred in dismissing his petition and that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Defendant, Charles Jackson, Jr., entered a plea of guilty to possession of cocaine of over 0.5 grams with intent to sell, a Class C felony. The trial court imposed the recommended sentence of eight years as a Range II multiple offender. As a part of the plea agreement, Defendant reserved two certified questions of law under Rule 37(b)(2)(i) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure arguing that the trial court erred in not suppressing items found during a search of his vehicle. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner, James W. Taylor (aka Lutfi S. Talal), filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking relief from an allegedly void judgment, which the trial court dismissed. The Petitioner now appeals contending that the trial court erred when it dismissed his petition because: (1) his presentments were fatally defective which deprived the trial court of proper jurisdiction; (2) the trial judge violated his constitutional rights; (3) the trial court erred when it ordered that the Petitioner's sentences run consecutively; (4) the trial court erred when it found that the Petitioner was a Range II offender; (5) the trial court erred when it approved an illegal judgment of conviction; and (6) the habeas corpus court erred when it denied the Petitioner a right to respond to the State. Finding no error in the judgment of the trial court, we affirm the trial court's dismissal of the Petitioner's petition for habeas corpus relief.

The defendant, Larry E. Shannon, appeals the trial court's order extending his probation by an additional eighteen months. He contends that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because his sentence expired before the probation revocation warrant was issued. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The chancery court reversed the Assessment Appeals Commission and held that Youth Programs, a charitable organization, is entitled to a property tax exemption on real property in Shelby County used in conjunction with the FedEx/St. Jude Classic golf tournament. The trial court determined the disputed property is used exclusively for a charitable purpose and that an unusable area is used constructively and is likewise exempt. The Shelby County Assessor of Property and the State appeal. We affirm.
 

This case involves a custody dispute between the parents of one daughter. Mother lives in Belgium, and Father, the primary residential custodian, currently lives in Lewis County, Tennessee, although he has also lived with his daughter in Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington State at various times since the parties' separation in 1998. Father has refused to allow most of Mother's visitation since the divorce became final, has interfered with communication between Mother and Daughter, and has convinced Daughter to falsely accuse her maternal grandfather and stepfather of sexual abuse. The trial court found that these occurrences amounted to a material change in circumstances and found that it would be in the best interest of Daughter to make Mother her primary residential custodian and to allow Daughter to move to Belgium with Mother. We affirm the trial court.

Plaintiff-Appellant instituted a detainer action in general sessions court seekingpossession of property owned by Plaintiff-Appellant. From an adverse judgment in general sessions court, Plaintiff-Appellant appealed to the circuit court for a trial de novo. Defendant-Appellee filed a counter-claim in circuit court, alternatively requesting that if she is forced to vacate the premises, she should be awarded damages for improvements made to the premises. The trial court entered judgment for possession to the Defendant-Appellee. Plaintiff-Appellant appeals. We reverse.

I concur with Judge Smith’s lead opinion; however, I am writing separately for two reasons.  First, I have reconsidered, and upon further reflection, retreat from my earlier position that sentences found to be in violation of Blakely should be remanded for a new sentencing hearing in the trial court. Until such time as there is clear authority for our courts to deal with Blakely issues, whether by case law or by statute, judicial economy and sentencing considerations, including uniformity of application of sentencing factors, dictates that most sentences found to be in violation of Blakely should be modified, if at all, by the appellate courts. Clearly, the appellate courts have been given the authority to do so by the legislature Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401(c).

Laurie Ann Searcy sought, by post-divorce Petition, a modification of the child custody and visitation privileges provided by the divorce decree. The trial court held that no change of circumstances had occurred “with a negative impact upon the child” and denied modification. We hold that the trial court applied an improper standard for determining the change of circumstances issue. We hold, however, that no change of circumstances has occurred under Cranston v. Combs, 106 S.W.3d 641 (Tenn. 2003) and Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-101(a)(2)(B) and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The majority concludes that modification of the appellant’s eleven-year sentence is required in light of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. __, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). I must respectfully dissent.

This case presents the issue of whether the trial court properly dismissed the Plaintiffs' action where there was an identical lawsuit, filed prior to this Circuit Court action, pending in General Sessions Court. We hold that the trial court correctly dismissed this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the doctrine of prior suit pending.

This is an appeal of the trial court's order terminating the mother's parental rights to her six children. The mother, who had appeared at earlier hearings, did not appear at the termination hearing. A motion for default judgment was neither filed nor served on the mother. The trial court granted a default judgment based upon the mother's failure to appear at the termination hearing. We find that the mother's failure to appear did not constitute grounds for a default judgment in this case. We find that the State did not comply with Rule 55 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. The judgment of the trial court is vacated and the cause is remanded.

The petitioner appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for writ of error coram nobis. Particularly, he avers that the court abused its discretion in summarily dismissing his petition solely on the lack of credibility of the affiant supporting the petition. We remand the matter to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing.

The defendant, Roderick Davis, was convicted by a ShelbyCountyCriminal Court jury of especially aggravated robbery, for which he received a sentence of 24 years, and especially aggravated burglary, for which he received a sentence of eleven years. The trial court imposed the sentences to run consecutively. On appeal, the defendant claims that the convicting evidence is insufficient and that the trial court erroneously excluded alibi evidence, instructed the jury, and sentenced him. Upon review, we affirm the conviction of especially aggravated robbery, reverse the conviction of especially aggravated burglary and modify it to aggravated burglary, and modify the sentences.

The majority concludes that modification of the defendant’s sentences for especially aggravated robbery and aggravated burglary is required in light of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. __, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). I must respectfully dissent.

The Petitioner, Lawrence Allen Hodge, 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 show either that his sentence has expired or that the trial court was without jurisdiction, we grant the State's motion and affirm the judgment of the lower court.

The defendant, James Michael Moffitt, appeals from the Hamblen County Criminal Court's imposition of a conviction of rape and a sentence of ten years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence and the propriety of a ten-year sentence. Because the conviction is unsupported by sufficient evidence establishing the corpus delicti, we reverse the conviction and dismiss the indictment.

The Defendant, Dennis Eugene Evans, pled guilty to robbery and aggravated kidnapping. The Defendant was sentenced as a Range I standard offender to concurrent terms of three and eight years, respectively. The original judgments indicated that the Defendant would be eligible for parole after having served thirty percent of his sentence. The trial court subsequently corrected the judgment for the Defendant's aggravated kidnapping conviction to reflect that the sentence was to be served at one hundred percent. The Defendant subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief to set aside the corrected judgment. The trial court summarily denied relief, and this appeal followed. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In June of 2001, the appellant, Ricky Grover Aaron, was convicted by a jury of especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor and false imprisonment. As a result of his convictions, the trial court sentenced the appellant to eleven (11) years for the conviction for especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor and eleven months, twenty-nine days on his conviction for false imprisonment. The trial court further ordered that the appellant’s sentences be served concurrently to each other, but consecutively to a federal sentence he was already serving.

On July 8, 2004, this Court affirmed both the appellant’s convictions and the sentence imposed by the trial court. See State v. Ricky Grover Aaron, No. M2002-02288-CCA-R3-CD, 2004 WL 1533825 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville, Jul. 8, 2004). On July 14, 2004, the appellant filed a petition to rehear, urging this Court to consider the impact of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. ___, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), delivered on June 24, 2004, on his sentence. Finding the position well-taken due to the potential impact of the Blakely decision upon the current Tennessee Sentencing Act, this Court granted the petition to rehear on August 2, 2004. The parties filed supplemental briefs fully addressing their view of the impact of Blakely on the appellant’s sentence. After a thorough review, we conclude that in light of Blakely, the trial court impermissibly considered certain enhancement factors to arrive at the appellant’s sentence for especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor. Therefore, we modify the appellant’s sentence for especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor from eleven (11) years to nine (9) years. Accordingly, the portion of the previous opinion of this Court affirming the appellant’s sentence is vacated. All other portions of this Court’s previous opinion are affirmed.

This is an appeal as of right from a denial of post-conviction relief. The Defendant, John Henry Sparrow, III, was convicted by jury verdict of attempted especially aggravated kidnaping and received a twelve year sentence. This Court upheld the Defendant's conviction on direct appeal. See State v. John Henry Sparrow, III, No. M2000-03238-CCA-R3-CD, 2002 WL 560958 (Tenn. Crim. App., Nashville, April 16, 2002) (not for citation). The Defendant subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which was denied. The Defendant now appeals to this Court, raising the single issue of ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Defendant, Cedric Anthony, was indicted in count one for the aggravated robbery of Teresa Stegall, in count two for the aggravated robbery of Regina Davis, in count three for the aggravated robbery of Antoinette Hubbard, and in count four for the aggravated robbery of Leslie Ross. Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of all four counts of aggravated robbery and sentenced to eight years for each offense. The trial court ordered Defendant’s sentences for counts two, three, and four to be served concurrently, and his sentence for count one to be served consecutively to the other counts for an effective sentence of sixteen years. Defendant does not appeal the sufficiency of the convicting evidence but argues that his aggravated robbery convictions in counts three and four violate the principles of double jeopardy. Defendant does not argue on appeal that his conviction in count two of the aggravated robbery of Ms. Davis raises double jeopardy concerns. Defendant also argues that the trial court erred in ordering his sentence for count one, aggravated robbery, to be served consecutively to the other sentences. Since the filing of the briefs, Defendant has also asked us to consider the impact of the ruling in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. ___, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004) on his sentences. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm Defendant’s convictions for aggravated robbery in counts one and two. Because the facts and circumstances supporting the offenses in counts one, three, and four support only one conviction for aggravated robbery, we modify Defendant’s convictions for aggravated robbery in counts three and four to aggravated assault. We remand Defendant’s convictions in counts three and four for resentencing during which the trial court may only consider Defendant’s prior convictions as an enhancement factor under Blakely. We affirm Defendant’s convictions for aggravated robbery in counts one and two, and affirm the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentencing.