APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

In this divorce appeal the Husband challenges the distribution of the only significant marital asset, the Husband's retirement benefit. The trial court divided that benefit by ordering the Husband to pay $530.82 of each monthly payment to the Wife. We affirm.

The Petitioner, Darrell Watkins, 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. The Petitioner fails to assert a ground entitling him to habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The Trial Judge refused to onerate an individual associated with defendant corporation with an obligation of the corporation which had been discharged in bankruptcy. On appeal, we affirm.

The Petitioner, Corey Johnson, 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. Petitioner has failed to allege any ground that would render the judgment of conviction void. Accordingly, we grant the State's motion and affirm the judgment of the lower court.

Plaintiff's action for libel against defendants was dismissed on grounds the action was time-barred. We affirm.

The Defendant, Shamain Johnson, appeals from the trial court's denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Finding that denial of the petition was appropriate, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Plaintiff homeowners sued Defendant pest control operators for negligent misrepresentation and breach of warranty relative to the issuance by the Defendants of a wood destroying insect infestation inspection report pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 62-21-201 to 206. The trial court granted summary judgment to Defendants. Because civil liability is limited by section 62-21-202 and Plaintiffs allege no damages caused by the presence of wood-destroying insects, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
 

The Appellant, Christopher Robert Smith, was convicted by a Davidson County jury of possession with intent to deliver over 300 grams of cocaine, a class A felony. Following this conviction, he was sentenced to twenty-one years imprisonment. Smith appeals, arguing that (1) the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress and (2) the trial court improperly admitted evidence of prior criminal conduct. After a review of the record, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The petitioner, Anthony Darrell Hines, convicted of first degree felony murder and sentenced to death for a 1985 homicide, appeals from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that counsel were ineffective at his 1986 trial and 1989 resentencing hearing, that women were excluded from both juries, and that imposition of the death penalty violates his rights under the federal and state constitutions. The post-conviction court denied the petition after an evidentiary hearing. Following our review, we affirm the denial.

The narrow question presented by this appeal is whether Tennessee recognizes the tort of negligent misrepresentation by nondisclosure. While the Sears family’s complaint faces a daunting battle on other fronts, I would not extinguish it at this stage of the proceeding by holding as a matter of law that a professional person cannot supply the false information required by Restatement (Second) of Torts § 552 (1977) by silence.

 

Upon his plea of guilty, the Defendant was convicted of DUI. In this appeal, he attempts to present two certified questions of law pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2)(i). Because we conclude that this appeal does not properly present certified questions of law, we dismiss the appeal.

Following a bench trial appellant, Jason White, was found guilty of D.U.I. Second Offense in violation of T.C.A. 55-11-401. He was sentenced to eleven months and twenty-nine days with incarceration for forty-five days followed by probation for the balance of the sentence. The appellant appeals, contending that the evidence was not sufficient for a D.U.I. Second Offense conviction. After a review of the record we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Appellant, Emery Wells, pled guilty to two counts of aggravated assault and was sentenced to an effective eight-year sentence, with the sentence being suspended after service of ninety days in jail. A probation violation warrant was subsequently issued alleging violation of the following conditions: (1) failure to report to his probation officer; (2) failure to obey the laws of this state; and (3) failure to report a new arrest. Following a hearing, the trial court revoked Wells' suspended sentence and ordered his eight-year sentence to be served with community corrections, after service of an additional ninety-day period of jail confinement. Wells concedes that the violations occurred, but he argues that the revocation did not "aid the interest of both the public and the [Appellant]," as it will likely result in the loss of his employment.

A Bedford County Circuit Court jury convicted the defendant, Dywand Carlos Pettway, of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony, and possession of a Schedule II controlled substance, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced him as a Range II offender to twenty years in the Department of Correction for the aggravated robbery conviction and eleven months, twenty-nine days for the possession of a Schedule II controlled substance conviction, to be served consecutively. In this appeal, the defendant claims (1) that the evidence is insufficient to support his aggravated robbery conviction and (2) that his sentences are excessive. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, John Crawley, Sr., pled guilty to driving under the influence, first offense. As part of his plea agreement, he expressly reserved with the consent of the trial court and the State the right to appeal a certified question of law pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2)(i). The certified question of law stems from the trial court's denial of the Defendant's motion to suppress all evidence obtained as a result of a police officer stopping the Defendant's automobile. Because we find that the police officer did not have reasonable suspicion to stop the Defendant, we reverse the trial court's denial of the motion to suppress. This case is remanded for entry of an order of dismissal.

Because the record confirms that the appellant did not perfect an appeal from an adverse decision of the general sessions court within ten days of that decision, we affirm the trial court's dismissal of the late attempted appeal.

We granted this appeal to determine whether Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-1-113(g)(6), which provides for the termination of parental rights when a parent is imprisoned for at least ten years due to a criminal act and the child is under the age of eight when the sentence is imposed, also requires a showing of substantial harm to the child before a parent's rights may be terminated. Because we hold that a parent does not have standing to file a petition pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-1-113(g)(6), we lack subject matter jurisdiction to hear the merits of the appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss this case and vacate the judgments of the lower courts.

The Appellant, David I. Tucker, appeals the dismissal of his petition requesting DNA analysis pursuant to the Post-Conviction DNA Analysis Act. After review, we find no error and affirm the judgment of the Cannon County Circuit Court.

Defendant, Martin Stuart Hammock, was originally convicted of first degree murder following a jury trial. On appeal, this Court found that there was insufficient evidence of premeditation to support a conviction for first degree murder. Accordingly, we modified the judgment to reflect a conviction of second degree murder and remanded the case to the trial court for re-sentencing. State v. Martin Stuart Hammock, No. M2000-00334-CCA-R3-CD, 2001 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 824, (Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville, Oct. 12, 2001), no perm. to app. filed. Following a new sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Defendant to serve twenty-five years. Defendant appeals. After a review of the record, the briefs, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Walter R. Smith, Jr., was convicted by a jury of five counts of child rape. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed an effective sentence of forty years. In this direct appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and his sentences. We affirm the Defendant's five convictions for child rape. The trial judge erred by failing to state on the record the facts that support the imposition of consecutive sentences. However, the record clearly shows that consecutive sentencing was proper. Therefore, we affirm the Defendant's sentences.

The Appellant, Rodney Laron Covington, was convicted by a Davidson County jury of one count of rape of a child and two counts of aggravated sexual battery. Covington received a twenty-year sentence for rape of a child and ten-year sentences for each aggravated sexual battery conviction. The sentences were ordered to be served concurrently. On appeal, he presents three issues for our review: (1) whether testimony by a nurse practitioner violated the holding of State v. Ballard, 855 S.W.2d 557 (Tenn. 1993); (2) whether the State's recitation of the facts supporting the charge of rape of a child was "specific enough to ensure that the jury would reach a unanimous decision" and "sufficiently corresponded to the State's proof;" and (3) whether the proof established that the offense of rape of a child occurred after July 1, 1992, as required for 100% service of the sentence imposed under Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-523(b). After review of the record, we find no reversible error. Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

The petitioner, Alonzo Leonardo Gayden, appeals from the Rutherford County Circuit Court's denying him post-conviction relief from his 2001 conviction for theft of property valued at $1,000 or more, a Class D felony. He contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the trial court.

The defendant filed a delayed appeal, alleging error: (1) in denying the defendant the opportunity to file an amended motion for new trial; (2) in the failure to amend the indictment for attempted first degree murder to aggravated assault; (3) in the failure of the indictment for evading arrest to contain statutory language; and, (4) in admitting the defendant’s confession in violation of an in limine order during the second phase of a bifurcated trial. We conclude that no reversible errors were attendant and affirm the convictions.

The defendants appeal their convictions of possession of more than 0.5 grams of cocaine with intent to deliver. The defendants allege error in the trial court’s failure to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant and denial of their motions for judgment of acquittal. Upon review, we reverse the failure to suppress the search warrant and reverse and dismiss the convictions of both defendants. The conviction of Stacy Mack is reversed due to insufficiency of the evidence, and Martress Shaw’s conviction is reversed due to insufficiency of evidence after suppression of the search warrant.