APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This is a governmental tort liability case arising out of an automobile collision. Defendants, James P. Mixon; Gene Barksdale, Sheriff of Shelby County, Tennessee, and Shelby County, Tennessee, appeal from the judgment of the trial court awarding plaintiff, Lisa Griggs damages for personal injury. Under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act as it existed in 1985, governmental entities could not be tried by a jury, T.C.A. § 29-20-307. Subsequently, prior to the 1994 trial, the case was bifurcated to allow the nongovernmental defendant a jury trial. Thus, Worsham is not a party to this appeal.

The plaintiff, Scarlett Lay Love, appeals from the denial of her motion to dismiss, the motion being predicated upon the alleged failure of the defendants, College Level Career Services, Inc., and Nursing Careers, Inc., to perfect an appeal from the general sessions court to the circuit court within the ten-day period provided for in Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-5-108. The sole issue for our determination is as follows: whether a facsimile (fax) transmission of a notice of appeal and appeal bond, sent by the defendants to the clerk of the general sessions court on the final day on which an appeal could be taken, is sufficient to perfect the appeal. For the following reasons, we conclude that the facsimile transmission was not sufficient to perfect the appeal; therefore, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
 

In this post-divorce action for modification of alimony the appellant asserts that the appellee failed to prove that she had experienced a material change of circumstances since the original award. We agree and reverse the order modifying the award.

The defendant, Derek C. Denton, appeals as of right from his convictions by a jury in the Shelby County Criminal Court for aggravated burglary and aggravated assault, Class C felonies, and criminally negligent homicide, a Class E felony. As a Range I, standard offender, he received six-year sentences and was fined $10,000 for each of the aggravated burglary and aggravated assault convictions and a two-year sentence and $2,500 fine for the criminally negligent homicide conviction. The defendant was ordered to serve each sentence consecutively, for an effective sentence of fourteen years, in the local workhouse. The defendant presents the following issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the defendant's convictions; (2) whether the trial court properly charged the jury on circumstantial evidence; (3) whether the trial court properly charged the jury on the prosecution's burden of proof; and (4) whether the defendant's sentence was excessive.  We conclude that the trial court erred in ordering the defendant to serve his sentences consecutively. The trial court did not make sufficient findings, and the record does not support consecutive sentences. There is no indication from the circumstances surrounding the offenses that consecutive sentencing is necessary to protect society from the defendant or that upon release he will be unwilling to lead a productive life and resort to criminal activity. See id; Gray v. State, 538 S.W.2d 391, 393 (Tenn. 1976). In consideration of the foregoing, the defendant's convictions and sentences for aggravated burglary and criminally negligent homicide are affirmed. His conviction for aggravated assault is modified to assault, and a sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days with a seventy-five percent release eligibility date imposed. All three sentences, though, shall be served concurrently to each other.

This suit was originated by a petition for certiorari to review the administrative order of the Metropolitan Board of Housing Code Appeals requiring the demolition of substandard improvements on six tracts belonging to Plaintiffs. The Trial Court reversed the order as to three of the tracts which are not involved in this appeal. The Trial Court affirmed the demolition order as to three of the tracts, and Plaintiffs appealed and have presented the issues for review in the following form:

Petitioner, David Randall Safer, and respondent, Micki Jo O'Fiel Safer, divorced in January 1994 after eleven years of marriage. The court granted respondent the divorce on the ground of irreconcilable differences. The parties had entered into a Marital Dissolution Agreement ("MDA") which the Final Decree of Divorce incorporated. The MDA provided that petitioner and respondent would have joint custody of their two minor children, Joseph ("Tyler") age five and Samuel age two, and that the primary placement of the children would be with respondent.

The appellant, Terry Bowen, was convicted of theft over $1,000, a Class D felony, by a jury of his peers. The trial court found that the appellant was a multiple offender and imposed a Range II sentence consisting of confinement for eight (8) years in the Department of Correction. This sentence is to be served consecutively with the sentences imposed in three prior cases.

I concur in the results reached and most of the reasoning used in the majority opinion. However, although I agree that the collateral fact rule essentially remains viable through Rule 403, Tenn. R. Evid., I question its use in this case relative to the appellant’s attempt to impeach Mr. Farrar’s testimony through extrinsic evidencethat Farrar’s son had previously been charged with the appellant and that his son’s charges had been retired on motion of the state.

A Davidson County Criminal Court jury found Appellant John V. Woodruff guilty of felony murder, especially aggravated robbery, especially aggravated kidnapping, and first degree murder. Appellant received a life sentence for each murder conviction and a twenty year sentence for both the especially aggravated robbery conviction and the especially aggravated kidnapping conviction. The life sentences were ordered to run consecutive to each other, and the sentences for robbery and kidnapping were ordered to run concurrent with each other and with the life sentence for first degree murder. In this appeal as of right, Appellant presents the following issues for review:(1) whether the trial court erred in allowing the introduction of evidence of sexual assault upon one of the victims; (2) whether the trial court erred in denying a request for a jury instruction on the lesser included offense of criminal attempt to commit especially aggravated robbery; (3) whether the evidence presented at trial is legally sufficient to sustain convictions for especially aggravated robbery and first degree murder; and (4) whether the trial court erred in ordering consecutive life sentences.