APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Defendant, a teacher, was indicted for three counts of assault against one of her students. She offered to enter a plea of nolo contendere on Count II in exchange for judicial diversion and the dismissal of the remaining two counts. The State rejected the Defendant's plea of nolo contendere and maintained that the Defendant would have to plead guilty in order to receive judicial diversion. The Defendant refused the offer and requested pretrial diversion. The State denied the Defendant's request. The Defendant filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the Knox County Criminal Court. The trial court denied the petition. The trial court then filed an order permitting interlocutory appeal to this Court. This Court granted the Defendant's application for interlocutory review. In this appeal, the Defendant argues that the State abused its discretion by denying the Defendant pretrial diversion. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The pro se appellant appeals from the summary dismissal of his petition for the writ of habeas corpus. Finding that summary dismissal was appropriate under the circumstances of this case, we affirm the judgment of the lower court.

Petitioner, Melvin E. Beard, appeals from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. In his appeal, Petitioner alleges that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel in connection with the negotiation and entry of Petitioner's best interest plea to the charge of sale and delivery of cocaine, that his best interest plea was involuntary, and that the factual basis presented by the State was insufficient to support his plea. After a careful review of the record in this matter, we conclude that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court's findings of fact. We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Issue: Whether the issuance of a capias tolls the expiration of a probationary sentence. Upon this record, we conclude it does not. We reverse the revocation of the defendant's probation, concluding his probationary sentence had expired.

The defendant, Mark Anthony Bales, pled guilty to attempted second degree murder. After accepting his plea, the trial court sentenced the defendant to serve eleven years as a Range I standard offender. The defendant now appeals his sentence arguing that the trial court erred (1) by finding that when the defendant committed the instant crime, he treated the victim with exceptional cruelty; (2) by giving insufficient weight to two applicable mitigating factors, the defendant's excellent social history and his lack of a criminal record; and (3) by sentencing the defendant to a term of years that made him ineligible for consideration for an alternative sentence. After a thorough review of the record, we find that none of the defendant's allegations merit relief and accordingly affirm his sentence.

Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, Defendant, Terrance W. Price, pled guilty to fifteen counts of money laundering, a Class B felony, and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering, a Class C felony. He pled guilty reserving the right to appeal a certified question of law pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2)(i) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure. The certified question of law on appeal is whether Tennessee Code Annotated sections 39-14-901, - 903, Money Laundering Act of 1996, violates Article XI, Section 8 or Article I, Section 8 of the Tennessee Constitution by exempting from its application violation of gambling laws, found in Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-501 et seq. After a careful review, we conclude that the statutes do not violate the Tennessee Constitution, and therefore affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 23, we accepted certification of questions of law from the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. We are asked by the federal district court to construe Rule 9, section 25 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Tennessee. Specifically, we are asked to determine whether Richard Roe, a layperson (i.e., a non-attorney), may be charged with contempt for disclosing that he filed a complaint with the Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility against an attorney in violation of the confidentiality provision embodied in Rule 9, section 25, and if so, by whom and before what tribunal? For the reasons given herein, we answer that the confidentiality requirement of Rule 9, section 25 applies to non-lawyers and lawyers alike. The appropriate sanction for a violation of Rule 9, section 25 is an action of contempt. Contempt proceedings may be initiated by the attorney against whom the complaint has been filed, the complainant, the Board of Professional Responsibility, or this Court. Finally, we hold that such a petition for contempt should be filed in this Court, whereupon assignment shall issue to a special master to conduct an evidentiary hearing. The record and findings of fact of the special master shall then be sent to this Court whereupon a determination of guilt and punishment, if any, will follow.

The defendant, Kenneth Jordan, entered pleas of guilt to aggravated burglary and aggravated assault. The trial court imposed Range I sentences of six years for each offense to be served concurrently. At the conclusion of a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a sentence of one year with split confinement. The defendant was given the choice of serving one year with work release and the balance on probation, or participating in a Lifeline Therapeutic Community Program with the opportunity to apply for early release. In this appeal of right, the defendant argues that the trial court failed to adequately consider the statutory guidelines and should have granted probation. The judgments of conviction are affirmed and the effective sentence is modified to require 90 days in jail with work release followed by supervised probation.

The appellant, Dennis Pylant, was found guilty in the Cheatham County Circuit Court of felony murder committed in the perpetration of aggravated child abuse. The appellant received a sentence of life imprisonment in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant raises several issues for our consideration, namely the sufficiency of the evidence, evidentiary issues, and a complaint regarding the jury instructions. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, John Wayne Gray, appeals the Franklin County Circuit Court's denial of post-conviction relief from his conviction for the sale of a Schedule II controlled substance. On appeal, the petitioner claims that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Following a review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The petitioner appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief, in which he alleged he received ineffective assistance of counsel at his community corrections revocation and resentencing. The post-conviction court found post-conviction relief was unavailable to one challenging a community corrections revocation proceeding. We conclude that although the post-conviction process may not be used to collaterally attack a probation revocation, it is available to attack a community corrections revocation/resentencing. Thus, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

The petitioner appeals after being denied post-conviction relief. She pled guilty to one count of aggravated burglary and ten counts of forgery. Pursuant to her plea agreement, she received an effective sentence of twenty years as a Range III offender. Her post-conviction relief petition alleged she received ineffective assistance of counsel and that she did not enter her plea knowingly and voluntarily. We conclude the evidence does not preponderate against the post-conviction court's findings. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Chancery Court of Sumner County declared the parties divorced, divided the marital property, and awarded the wife rehabilitative alimony. On appeal the wife argues that since her conservator executed her counterclaim for divorce, the court had no jurisdiction to award her a divorce. She also contests the amount and duration of the alimony awarded to her. We affirm the divorce, but we reverse the award for rehabilitative alimony and modify the award to alimony in futuro. We remand for a hearing as to the amount.