APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Weston Tucker and Mary Louise Tucker ("the defendants") subdivided and sold land in Roane County for residential use. Roane County filed a declaratory judgment action against the defendants contending that the defendants "have failed to have a subdivision plat approved by the Regional Planning Commission" and that the new road/easement constructed by the defendant is unpaved and "approximately thirteen (13) feet wide", and "drainage has generated a complaint by a neighboring property owner." Roane County asked the court to, among other things, declare that the land in question is subject to the Roane County Subdivision Regulations ("the regulations"); grant injunctive or other relief; enforce the regulations; and declare the rights and/or liabilities of each party under the regulations. In their answer, the defendants contend that an official in the Roane County Zoning Office represented to them that the subdivision of land into parcels of more than 5 acres does not need approval from the Roane County Planning Commission ("the planning commission"). The trial court dismissed the case, finding, among other things, that Roane County's actions in attempting to prosecute the defendants civilly and criminally were "discriminatory, arbitrary and capricious."

This is an appeal by the appellant-father from an order awarding the appellee-mother child support arrearage and setting prospective child support obligations. Because the support orders appear to deviate from the child support guidelines without specific findings by the trial court, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

This is a divorce case. The trial court granted Mary R. MaGill ("Wife") a divorce based upon the inappropriate marital conduct of her spouse, Mitchell Lloyd Magill ("Husband"); awarded Wife rehabilitative alimony of $600 per month for four years, plus attorney's fees of $600; and divided the parties' marital property. Husband appeals the trial court's award of rehabilitative alimony. In a separate issue, Wife contends that the trial court failed to divide marital assets in the form of two businesses, i.e., MaGill Electric and C&M Lounge. She also seeks an award of damages for a frivolous appeal. We affirm.

The petitioner, Kenneth Lamar Tucker, plead guilty to one count of rape of a child in exchange for a fifteen-year sentence at 100%. In this post-conviction appeal, the petitioner argues that: (1) he did not knowingly and voluntarily enter his plea of guilt; (2) he was denied effective assistance of counsel; (3) he was denied the right to a trial by jury; (4) the state withheld exculpatory evidence; (5) the newly discovered exculpatory evidence entitles him to relief; and (6) the post-conviction court erred in refusing to admit trial counsel’s case file into evidence. For the following reasons, we affirm the dismissal of the post-conviction petition.

When the parties divorced in 1999, they entered into a marital dissolution agreement that was incorporated into the final divorce decree. That agreement acknowledged that the alimony payments agreed to "more than likely may have to be modified" if Husband lost his job or his insurance license. In this modification of alimony proceeding, the trial court found Husband had lost his job and was unable to find employment with comparable income. The court interpreted the MDA as authorizing it to reduce the amount of monthly payments but not to reduce the total amount due. We interpret the agreement as allowing modification of the total obligation and remand for reconsideration in light of this holding.

This case arises from the discovery of an extramarital affair. The Appellants brought suit against
Appellee, seeking damages on theories of outrageous conduct and interference with a contract.
Appellee filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. After a hearing on the motion, the trial court granted Appellee’s motion to dismiss and this appeal followed. For the following reasons, we affirm.

Defendant, Janice Michele Walker, was charged in a four-count presentment with theft over $10,000, forgery over $10,000, computer fraud, and money laundering. Defendant pled guilty as a Range I standard offender to theft and forgery, both Class C felonies, and the other charges were dismissed. Pursuant to the negotiated plea agreement, Defendant was sentenced to four years for each offense, to be served consecutively, and she was ordered to pay restitution. The trial court determined the manner of service of Defendant's sentence. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered Defendant to serve her effective eight-year sentence in confinement. Defendant appeals the trial court's denial of full probation. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The petitioner, Anthony C. Long, appeals the Lake County Circuit Court’s dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief. We reverse the dismissal and order habeas corpus relief.

A Montgomery County jury convicted the Defendant, Matthew Kirk McWhorter, of three counts of aggravated sexual battery, and the trial court imposed an eight-year sentence for each conviction, to be served consecutively. On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) insufficient evidence exists in the record to support his convictions; (2) the trial court erred by not requiring the State to elect the offenses it wished to submit to the jury; (3) the trial court improperly admitted a law enforcement officer's testimony about the Defendant's uncharged conduct; (4) the trial court erred by permitting a law enforcement agent to testify about a recorded recollection; (5) the trial court erred by denying the Defendant's motion to prohibit testimony of the victim; (6) reversible error occurred when the State failed to disclose, preserve and turn over a law enforcement official's notes made during the Defendant's initial interrogation; (7) the trial court erred by allowing the State to submit an insufficient Bill of Particulars and to deviate from its Bill of Particulars; (8) the trial court erred in denying the Defendant's motion to suppress his written and oral statements made to law enforcement officials in Florida; (9) the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on child abuse as a lesser-included offense; (10) the State's closing arguments were so improper that they infected the trial with unfairness and denied the Defendant due process; (11) the trial court erred by interrupting the natural flow of jury deliberations to give supplemental instructions; and (12) the trial court erred in ordering the Defendant to serve his sentences consecutively. After thoroughly reviewing the record, we conclude that the trial court erred by failing to require the State to elect which incident of sexual touching the State intended for the jury to consider for Count 1, aggravated sexual battery. Accordingly, we reverse the conviction and the sentence in Count 1. We affirm the remaining convictions and sentences.

The Appellant, Jeffery Brian Parks, appeals from the sentencing decision of the Lincoln County Circuit Court. In 2003, Parks pled guilty to two counts of sexual battery by an authority figure, two counts of incest, and two counts of statutory rape. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Parks, as a Range I standard offender, to six years for each count of sexual battery by an authority figure and incest, both class C felonies, and to two years for each count of statutory rape, a class E felony. These sentences were ordered to be served concurrently in the Department of Correction. In this appeal as of right, Parks argues that the trial court erred in imposing excessive sentences with respect to each sentence and by ordering a sentence of total confinement rather than a less restrictive alternative. The State, on appeal, asserts that consecutive sentencing should be imposed by this court following de novo review. Because the trial court failed to impose a sentence in accordance with our statutory sentencing scheme, we remand the case to the trial court for a new sentencing hearing to determine the length of the Appellant’s sentences, the appropriateness of consecutive sentencing, and the Appellant’s suitability for an alternative sentence.

I believe the sentencing in the instant case is controlled by State v. Marshall, 888 S.W.2d 786 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994), and Rule 4(H)(2) of the Rules of the Supreme Court require it be followed. To the extent that the majority opinion holds this trial judge fashioned an improper sentence, I disagree. The two holdings in Marshall which apply to the instant cases are as follows:

The defendant entered guilty pleas to two counts of vehicular homicide by intoxication and was sentenced to consecutive twelve-year terms of imprisonment. The defendant appealed the imposition of maximum sentences and the order to serve the terms consecutively. After this, our second review, we again remand for a new sentencing hearing in light of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. ___, 124 S. Ct. 2531, 159 L. Ed. 2d 403 (2004), and the trial court's failure to find specific findings justifying the necessity for consecutive sentencing.

Ron Colquette (“Plaintiff”) sued Peter Zaloum (“Defendant”) claiming, in part, that Defendant made fraudulent misrepresentations in connection with the sale of his business and the lease of his land to Plaintiff, and that Defendant violated the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. After a bench trial, the Trial Court entered a Final Judgment holding, inter alia, that Plaintiff was entitled to damages in the amount of $70,054.35, plus pre-judgment interest; that Plaintiff was entitled to punitive damages in the amount of $15,000; and that the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act was not applicable to this case. Defendant appeals, and Plaintiff raises additional issues concerning the applicability of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act to the facts of this case, and the amount of punitive damages awarded to him. We affirm.

The Claim Commissioner held Commission was without jurisdiction to entertain claim on appeal. We vacate Judgment and remand.

Beneficiary of will appeals the order of the chancery court awarding attorney fees, executor fees, and other expenses. Both factual and legal objections are made to the awards made by the court. The legal objections are without merit, and the factual objections are not well-taken, because there is no transcript or statement of the evidence. We affirm.

The petitioner, Rodney McKinney, appeals the trial court’s summary dismissal of his claim for writ of habeas corpus. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

A typewritten document and a handwritten document prepared later in time were offered for probate. The Trial Court rejected the handwritten document and admitted the typewritten document to probate as the Last Will and Testament of Deceased. On appeal, we reverse.