APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The defendant, James David Alder, was convicted of attempted second degree murder, aggravated assault and reckless endangerment. He was sentenced as a Range III Persistent Offender to twenty (20) years for the attempted second degree murder, eleven (11) months and twenty-nine (29) days for assault, and three (3) years for reckless endangerment. His sentences were ordered to run concurrently to each other, but consecutively to the sentence ordered in a case for which the defendant was on bail at the time he committed the present offenses. On appeal, he argues: (1) the trial court erred in allowing the jury to hear expert testimony concerning the extent of the victim's injuries, the length of her hospital stay and the number of surgeries she had; (2) the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction for reckless endangerment; and (3) the trial court failed to follow the sentencing guidelines and improperly ordered consecutive sentencing. After a review of the law and the briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Davidson County jury found Donald Lee Reid guilty of driving under the influence, first offense. The trial court imposed a sentence of 11 months and 29 days, suspended after service of 15 days confinement, and a fine of $500.00. Reid challenges his conviction, his sentence, and his fine. He raises the following issues on appeal: (1) whether the trial court erred in not conducting a jury-out hearing on the defendant's motion in limine regarding the admissibility of the defendant's BAC test results; (2) whether the trial court erred in allowing the results of the BAC test into evidence; (3) whether the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on driving while impaired as a lesser-included offense of driving under the influence; (4) whether the defendant's sentence is excessive; and (5) whether the trial court unconstitutionally imposed a fine of $500.00 since the defendant did not waive his right for the jury to assess the fine. After a careful review of the record, we remand for a jury to assess the fine but affirm in all other respects.

The defendant appeals his conviction of theft of property valued at $1,000 or more, but under $10,000. He contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress a showup identification of him at the crime scene. He further contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and that the trial court erred by instructing the jury on flight. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Kenneth Chambly, appeals his convictions for three charges of aggravated sexual battery for which he received an effective sentence of ten years without parole. He raises various issues on appeal. We reverse the convictions and remand the case for a new trial because of the failure of the state to elect offenses and the failure of the trial court to instruct the jury regarding the need for offense unanimity in the verdict. We also conclude that the trial court imposed an improper sentence of ten years for one of the convictions.

After pleading guilty to felony theft of identity, a Class D felony, and to violating her probation, the trial court ordered the defendant to serve one year confinement and one year probation with rehabilitation as a result of violating her probation. In addition, the trial court ordered her to serve an additional three years of probation for the felony theft of identity conviction, to run consecutive to the sentence resulting from the probation violation. The defendant appeals and asserts that the trial court erred in sentencing her on the probation violation, erred in sentencing her to three years of probation for the felony theft of identity, and erred in ordering the two sentences to be served consecutively. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Grundy County jury convicted the defendant, James Larry Cox, for the attempted second degree murder of Jimmy Sweeton. Subsequently, the trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range I offender to ten (10) years of incarceration. On appeal, the defendant questions whether he was denied a fair trial due to the trial court's exclusion of evidence relating to the victim's reputation for violence, and whether he was improperly denied the right to question the victim about a prior conviction. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Defendant, Richard L. Thompson, was accused by the Wilson County grand jury of incest of his stepdaughter, in three counts, all occurring between May and August 1999. On January 13, 2000, defendant agreed to plead guilty to one count of incest for a sentence of six (6) years in the Department of Correction. As part of the plea agreement, defendant requested a sentencing hearing for the trial court to consider an alternative sentence and probation. At the conclusion of the sentencing hearing, the trial court denied defendant's request for an alternative sentence and probation and confined Defendant in the Department of Correction for six (6) years. On direct appeal, defendant raises five (5) issues: (1) Whether the trial court improperly considered a 1989 Pennsylvania conviction for an undetermined offense in finding defendant was not an appropriate candidate for full probation or split confinement; (2) Whether the trial court erred by finding certain statutory enhancement factors applicable to the determination of how the sentence should be served, where length of sentence was determined in the guilty plea; (3) Whether the trial court erred in finding that the sentence of confinement was necessary to avoid depreciating the seriousness of the offense; (4) Whether the trial court erred in failing to consider whether measures less restrictive than confinement had been applied to this offender; and (5) Whether the trial court erred in failing to consider defendant's special needs into consideration as a factor that made alternative sentencing (community corrections) particularly appropriate in this case. Upon a review of the record, legal arguments, the briefs of the parties, and applicable law, we find no error. Thus, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

This appeal involves a dispute among neighbors arising out of a couple's decision to place a double-wide mobile home on their property. After one of their neighbors blocked the access road to their property to prevent them from setting up their mobile home, the couple who owned the mobile home filed suit in the Chancery Court for Perry County seeking injunctive relief and damages. In response, two of the neighboring property owners requested the trial court to establish the boundary lines, to enjoin the couple from encroaching on their property, and to award actual and punitive damages for the damage that the couple's encroachment had caused to their property. Following a bench trial that continued past midnight and a series of post-trial motions requesting various corrections in the judgment, the trial court eventually established the disputed boundary line and awarded the couple a $6,110.50 judgment against one of their neighbors to compensate them for the damages stemming from the delay in setting up their mobile home. The two neighboring property owners have appealed. They take issue with (1) the trial court's decision to hold court past midnight, (2) the manner in which the trial court considered and disposed of their post-judgment motions, (3) the trial court's decision regarding the location of the southern boundary line of the couple's property, and (4) the trial court's failure to reduce the $6,110.50 judgment by the amount of the damages the couple's encroachment had caused. We have concluded that the trial court did not commit reversible error during either the trial or the post-trial proceedings and that the trial court's decision to award the couple $6,110.50 is supported by the evidence. However, we have also concluded that the evidence preponderates against the trial court's decision regarding a portion of the couple's southern boundary line. Accordingly, we remand the case for the sole purpose of correcting the error regarding a portion of this boundary line.

As the result of an altercation with the manager of a fast food restaurant, the defendant was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault, a Class C felony; assault, a Class A misdemeanor; unlawful possession of a handgun while under the influence, a Class A misdemeanor; and the unlawful possession of a weapon with the intent to go armed, as a Class C misdemeanor. He was sentenced by the trial court to an effective sentence of four and one-half years, with 150 days in confinement, and the remainder of his time on intensive probation. Following the denial of his motion for a new trial, the defendant filed a timely appeal to this court, raising the issues of whether the evidence was sufficient to support his convictions of possession of a weapon with the intent to go armed and possession of a handgun while under the influence, and whether the trial court erred in enhancing his aggravated assault sentence to four and one-half years and sentencing him to intensive probation. Based on a careful review, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support the defendant's convictions, and that the trial court did not err in enhancing the defendant's sentence for aggravated assault. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Petitioner appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief which alleged that the charges against him were untrue, that the statutes of limitations as to the charges had expired before he was charged, and that his counsel was ineffective. The post-conviction court determined that the allegations contained in the petitioner's pro se petition did not entitle him to habeas corpus relief. After careful review of the record, we affirm the dismissal of the petition.

Following a police search of their home pursuant to a warrant, the defendants, mother and son, were each indicted on one count of possession of marijuana with the intent to manufacture, sell, or deliver, a Class E felony, and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor. At the conclusion of their joint trial, the son was found guilty of both counts as charged in the indictment. The jury found the mother guilty of simple possession of marijuana, a Class A misdemeanor, and possession of drug paraphernalia. The trial court denied their motions for new trials, and the defendants filed timely appeals to this court. On appeal, the defendants challenge the sufficiency of the evidence in support of their respective convictions. The State raises the additional issue of whether the defendants may properly be represented by the same appellate counsel when the record is silent concerning whether the trial court addressed the possible conflict created by the joint representation. After a careful review of the record and an analysis of applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The appellant, Randall Keith Smith, appeals from the denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized in his residence during the execution of a search warrant. A written "motion to suppress" was filed with the clerk on the day prior to Smith's scheduled trial for drug charges. On the date of trial, following the close of all proof in the case, Smith's trial counsel orally moved to suppress the evidence seized as a result of the search, based upon the grounds recited in the written motion. The trial court denied the motion, finding that (1) there was no factual basis to support suppression; and (2) the motion was untimely. The jury found Smith guilty of manufacturing methamphetamine, a Class C felony, and he received a three-year community corrections sentence. After review, we find the Appellant's suppression motion untimely. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

The appellants sued the appellees for claims connected with the death of the appellants' twin fetuses. The jury found in favor of the appellees, and, in addition, after the jury verdict, the trial court granted appellee Dr. Caldwell's motion to dismiss on the ground that the statute of limitations had run before he was sued. The appellants argue that this court should reverse the trial court's order dismissing Dr. Caldwell and overturn the jury's verdict. We reverse the trial court's order dismissing Dr. Caldwell, but affirm the jury verdict in his favor and in favor of the other appellee.

I concur in the majority’s conclusion that Tenn. R. App. P. 54.02 does not provide this court
with jurisdiction in this case for the reasons set out in the majority opinion. I would, however, treat
this appeal as an interlocutory appeal under Tenn. R. App. P. 9. Bayberry would allow us to waive
the finality requirement of Tenn. R. App. P. 3(a) if we found good reason to suspend that
requirement.

This case involves the termination of parental rights of the mother of four children who were removed from the mother's home by the Department of Children's Services in 1998 and placed in foster care. DCS devised a Plan of Care for the mother, which, among other things, required her to address her drug and alcohol addictions. During the two and one-half years between the removal of the children from the home and the hearing on the petition to terminate parental rights, the mother made token efforts to improve her situation, but her substance abuse continued. The trial court terminated the mother's parental rights on multiple grounds, including the ground that the conditions that led to the children's removal continued to persist with little likelihood of remedy. Because DCS has established grounds for termination and has established that termination is in the best interest of the children, we affirm.

Petitioner, John Clark Garrison, filed a petition for post-conviction relief attacking his two convictions for theft of property over the value of $10,000.00 but less than $60,000.00. Petitioner was represented by counsel who filed the petition for post-conviction relief on his behalf. The State filed a response to the petition. The trial court dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing, finding that all of the issues were either previously determined, waived, insufficient to assert specific allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel, or presented no question of constitutional deprivation. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner appeals from the post-conviction court's summary dismissal of his post-conviction relief petition for failing to be properly verified under oath. The issue is whether a petition for post-conviction relief must be verified under oath and whether the petitioner's "affidavit and sworn statement" was sufficient to satisfy that requirement. We conclude that the post-conviction court was correct in summarily dismissing the petition for failing to be properly verified under oath.

The Davidson County Grand Jury indicted the Petitioner for one count of rape and one count of assault. The Petitioner's first trial ended with a hung jury. Following a second trial, the Petitioner was convicted of rape and assault, and sentenced to an effective thirty years of incarceration. His convictions and sentences were upheld on direct appeal. See State v. George D. Fitzpatrick, No. 01C01-9709-CR-00398, 1998 WL 775665 at *1, Davidson County (Tenn. Crim. App., Nashville, Nov. 4, 1998), perm. to appeal denied (Tenn. 1999). Subsequently, the Petitioner filed a timely petition for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel at his trial. After a hearing the court below dismissed the petition, from which ruling the Petitioner now appeals. Upon our review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.