APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

A Davidson County jury convicted the Defendant, Derrick Sloan Taylor, of attempted especially aggravated robbery and attempted first degree murder, and the trial court sentenced him to an effective sentence of thirty-three years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the trial court erred when it admitted evidence about him firing a gun on another occasion; and (2) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions. After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

The Defendant, Montgomery Koons, pled guilty to three counts of aggravated statutory rape, a Class D felony. See T.C.A. § 39-13-506(c) (2010). He was sentenced to four years each for the first count and second count as a Range I standard offender and six years for the third count as a Range II standard offender, with all sentences to be served concurrently. The trial court denied judicial diversion and ordered the defendant to serve one year of incarceration and five years of probation. On appeal, the defendant contends that (1) the trial court denied his due process right of compulsory process when it quashed his subpoena for the minor victim to testify at the sentencing hearing, (2) the trial judge abused his discretion by declining to recuse himself from the sentencing hearing, (3) the trial court erred by denying his application for diversion based on an erroneous application for certification of eligibility, (4) the trial court erred by denying him full probation, and (5) the trial court erred by entering a Probation Order for six years of probation after one year of incarceration. Because the defendant was denied his due process right to compulsory process at the sentencing hearing and because the denial of judicial diversion was based on an inadvertently submitted preliminary draft of the application, we reverse the judgments of the trial court and remand for a new hearing, at which the trial court shall consider judicial diversion and if diversion is denied, the manner of service of the defendant’s sentences.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, the Defendant, Samuel Jacob Webb, pled guilty to one count of sexual exploitation of a minor, and the trial court sentenced him to eight years in the Department of Correction. The Petitioner filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming that he understood that he would be placed on parole for his eight-year sentence and returned to federal custody to serve his federal sentence for another charge. The trial court denied relief after a hearing, and the Defendant now appeals. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Plaintiff was injured when Defendant Madden drove his vehicle at a high speed and in the wrong direction on an exit ramp of I-40/240 and collided head-on with plaintiff’s vehicle. Plaintiff filed a negligence action against Defendant Madden and against the City of Memphis pursuant to the Governmental Tort Liability Act. In his complaint, plaintiff asserted Memphis City police negligently pursued Defendant Madden, and that this negligence proximately caused plaintiff’s injuries. The trial court found plaintiff’s injuries were caused solely by the acts of Defendant Madden and entered judgment in favor of the City of Memphis. We affirm.

The petitioner, Lawrence Earl Wade, pled guilty pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement to first degree murder and especially aggravated robbery. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the petitioner agreed to a sentence of fifteen years for the robbery charge and to a life sentence for the murder charge. On appeal from the post-conviction court’s denial of relief, the petitioner argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel failed to investigate his mental history and that he did not knowingly and voluntarily enter his guilty pleas. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Defendant-Appellant, Paul William Perry, Sr., appeals the revocation of his community corrections sentence. He originally pled guilty in the Circuit Court of Hardeman County to aggravated assault, a Class C felony, and vandalism between $1,000 and $10,000, a Class D felony. Perry was granted an alternative sentence of four and a half years with the Corrections Management Corporation. Perry admits that he violated the terms of his sentence; however, he argues that the trial court erred by revoking the sentence and ordering confinement. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

On August 18, 2008, the petitioner, Ricky Lynn Hill, pled guilty to DUI, leaving the scene of an accident, and attempted tampering with evidence; he also pled nolo contendere to vehicular assault. After holding that the petitioner could not be convicted of DUI for double jeopardy reasons, the circuit court sentenced the petitioner to an effective sentence of five years, eleven months, and twenty-nine days. The petitioner subsequently filed a petition for habeas corpus relief. The petitioner now appeals the judgment of the Chester County Circuit Court dismissing his petition for habeas corpus relief. After review, we affirm the judgment denying habeas corpus relief.

The defendant, Charles Cox, stands convicted of aggravated burglary, a Class C felony, and theft of property under $500, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced him to 11 months, 29 days in the county jail for the misdemeanor and to eight years as a Range II, multiple offender in the Tennessee Department of Correction for the felony, to be served concurrently. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

A Davidson County Criminal Court jury convicted the defendant, Brian Wesley Lacey, of 12 counts of the rape of a child, two counts of aggravated sexual battery, and one count of sexual battery. The trial court imposed sentences of 20 years for each rape of a child conviction, eight years for both aggravated sexual battery convictions, and one year for the conviction of sexual battery and ordered partially consecutive sentencing for an effective sentence of 60 years’ incarceration to be served at 100 percent. In this appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court erred by admitting an audio recording into evidence without first conducting a hearing outside the presence of the jury as required by Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b) and by imposing consecutive sentences. We discern no error in the defendant’s convictions but do find that the trial court erroneously ordered the defendant to serve 100 percent of his convictions of aggravated sexual battery in counts one and nine as a “child rapist.” The case is remanded to the trial court for the entry of a corrected judgment for those counts. The remainder of the defendant’s sentences are affirmed, and the correction of these judgments does not alter the total effective sentence.

The Defendant, Lawrence D. Ralph, was convicted of driving under the  influence (DUI), fourth offense; DUI per se, fourth offense; driving on a revoked driver’s license, fifth offense; violation of the habitual traffic offender status; and two counts of evading arrest. The trial court merged the DUI per se conviction with the first count and merged the driving on a revoked license conviction with the habitual traffic offender conviction. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to four years each for the DUI, fourth offense conviction; the habitual traffic offender status conviction; and the felony evading arrest conviction, to be served consecutively for an effective 12-year sentence. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends (1) that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of DUI, fourth offense and (2) that the trial court’s sentence was excessive. Following our review, we  affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This appeal arises out of a complaint to dissolve a partnership. The plaintiff alleged that she and the defendant, an unmarried couple, acquired real property through joint efforts. She further alleged that she contributed to the improvement of the property and an increase in its value, giving rise to a partnership for profit and a right to a distribution of the partnership’s assets following dissolution. The defendant denied that a partnership existed and counterclaimed for damages and attorney’s fees arising out of the plaintiff’s refusal to vacate the property following their break-up. At the ensuing bench trial, the defendant moved for a directed verdict on the plaintiff’s claims. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the plaintiff’s claims, specifically finding that the plaintiff was unable to prove the existence of an express or implied partnership for profit between the parties. We affirm.

The defendant, Randy Parham, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of attempted first degree premeditated murder, a Class A felony; aggravated robbery, a Class B felony; theft of property valued at $1000 or more, a Class D felony; and domestic assault causing bodily injury, a Class A misdemeanor. He was sentenced by the trial court as a Range II offender to thirty-five years at 100% for the attempted first degree murder conviction, fifteen years at 100% for the aggravated robbery conviction, six years at 35% for the theft conviction, and eleven months, twenty-nine days for the misdemeanor assault conviction. Finding the defendant to be a dangerous offender, the trial court ordered that the sentences for his felony convictions be served consecutively to each other, for a total effective sentence of fifty-six years in the Department of Correction. The defendant raises essentially three issues on appeal: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain his felony convictions; (2) whether the trial court erred by not merging the aggravated robbery conviction with the theft conviction and the attempted murder conviction with the assault conviction; and (3) whether the trial court erred in sentencing. Based on our review, we
conclude that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions but that the defendant’s domestic assault conviction should have been merged into the conviction for attempted first degree murder. We further conclude that the trial court did not make adequate findings in support of the sentences imposed. We, therefore, merge the domestic assault conviction into the conviction for attempted first degree murder and remand for resentencing and for the entry of corrected judgments to reflect the merger and the fact that the defendant was convicted in count four of theft of $1000 or more, rather than theft of $10,000 or more as erroneously marked on the judgment.

This is an appeal from the trial court’s grant of the father’s petition to be named the minor child’s primary residential parent. Finding that the father met his burden to show a material change in circumstances sufficient to warrant the requested modification and that the change was in the child’s best interest, we affirm.

The defendant, Terence Alan Carder, appeals the order entered against him by the McNairy  County Circuit Court, ordering that he pay $80,000 in restitution. The defendant pled guilty to theft of property over $1000, a Class D felony, and was sentenced to two years of probation following the service of sixty days in jail. Additionally, the court ordered the defendant to pay $80,000 in
restitution at a rate of $1000 per month. On direct appeal, a panel of this court affirmed the  sentence but remanded the case to the trial court for reconsideration of the amount of restitution in light of the defendant’s ability to pay. On remand, the trial court, while acknowledging that the defendant would not be able to pay the entire $80,000 in restitution during the term of his sentence, nonetheless, entered an order that the amount of restitution ordered would remain at $80,000. However, the court did modify the terms of repayment to $100 per month. On appeal, the defendant again contends that, given his financial resources and ability to pay, the trial court erred in ordering him to pay $80,000 in restitution. We agree. Because it is unclear from the record exactly how many months the defendant has remaining on his sentence in light of his recent incarceration for a separate crime, we must again remand the case to the trial court with instructions to enter an order of restitution reflecting a total amount of $100 times the months remaining on the defendant’s sentence in which he is expected to pay.

Plaintiff foreclosed on defendant's property and filed suit in Sessions Court to obtain possession of the property. Defendant appealed the Judgment for possession to Circuit Court, which granted plaintiff summary judgment. Defendant has appealed to this Court and we affirm the Judgment of the trial court, awarding possession of the property to plaintiff.

The defendant, Charles Hall, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of two counts of alternate theories of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony. The court merged the second count into the first count and sentenced the defendant as a repeat violent offender to life without the possibility of parole. On appeal, the defendant argues that: (1) the pretrial photographic identification by the victim was overly suggestive and the trial court erred in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing or rule on his motion to suppress the identification; (2) the trial court erred in allowing evidence that a small child was present during the commission of the robbery; (3) he was dissuaded from testifying because of the comments of the prosecutor and trial court; (4) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions; (5) the trial court erred in determining that he was a repeat violent offender; and (6) the trial court erred in ordering consecutive sentences. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The trial judge ruled against defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment because there were disputed issues of material fact. The trial court authorized an interlocutory appeal, which we granted. Upon consideration of the case, we conclude, as did the trial judge, there are disputed issues of material fact, affirm the Judgment of the trial court and remand.

A Marshall County Circuit Court jury convicted the appellant, Huedel Sparkman, of one count of possession of .5 grams or more of cocaine with the intent to sell and one count of possession of .5 grams or more of cocaine with the intent to deliver, class B felonies. At sentencing, the trial court merged the convictions and imposed a sentence of 25 years’ incarceration to be served as a Range III, persistent offender, consecutively to any unserved sentence. In this appeal as of right, the appellant argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions and that the trial court imposed an excessive sentence. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Petitioner filed to establish his parentage of the child born to defendant, Lori Jane Martin. He asked to have his parentage established, that he share parenting time, and expressed the desire to provide child support, as well as pay half the medical expenses for the mother and child. He also asked that the child then bear his last name. In a series of motions, the mother moved to relocate to Hawaii, which the trial court denied. She then moved the Court to allow her to move to North Carolina to allow her to pursue a graduate degree. The trial court then allowed this move, and entered a series of orders relating to visitation, travel, etc. The mother appealed to this Court and we remand to the trial court because the remaining issues that the petitioner raised in his Petition have not been ruled upon by the trial court. The appeal was premature.  Case remanded.

This appeal involves a doctor’s challenge to disciplinary charges brought against him by the Department of Health, Division of Health Related Boards. After the trial court denied the doctor’s request for a temporary injunction prohibiting the defendant from proceeding with a hearing on the disciplinary charges, the doctor filed a notice of appeal to this court. Because the order appealed does not resolve all the claims raised by the doctor, we dismiss the appeal for lack of a final judgment.

The defendant, Veronica Lynn Floyd, pled guilty in the Bedford County Circuit Court to three counts of theft of property over $10,000, Class C felonies, and one count of theft of property over $1000, a Class D felony. She was sentenced as a Range I offender to five years on each of the theft over $10,000 convictions, with two of the counts to be served concurrently and one count consecutively to the others, and three years on the theft over $1000 conviction, to be served consecutively to the other counts, for a total effective sentence of thirteen years. The defendant was ordered to serve nine months of her sentence in the county jail with the remaining term on community corrections. On appeal, she argues that the trial court imposed an excessive sentence. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Petitioner, Luis Castanon, filed a petition pursuant to the Post-Conviction DNA Analysis Act of 2001, Tennessee Code Annotated sections 40-30-301-313. Petitioner sought DNA testing of evidence in the trial resulting in his convictions for four counts of aggravated rape and one count of aggravated burglary. The State filed a response in opposition to the petition, and the trial court summarily dismissed the petition, concluding that Petitioner had not satisfied the statutory requirements to authorize DNA testing. In this appeal, Petitioner asserts that the trial court erred by summarily dismissing the petition and by failing to require the State to submit proof that “DNA evidence” no longer existed. After a thorough review of the record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

After Husband and Wife filed cross petitions for orders of protection, they entered Consent Injunctions restricting communications between them. Subsequently, the parties filed competing petitions for contempt, alleging violations of the Consent Injunctions. On appeal, Husband argues that the Consent Injunctions were improperly entered, and therefore, that the trial court’s criminal contempt conviction, which was based upon violations of such injunctions, cannot stand. We affirm the decision of the chancery court, and finding the appeal frivolous, we remand for a determination of damages.

The defendant, Jermario Divine Warfield, pled guilty in the Davidson County Criminal Court to aggravated burglary, a Class C felony, in exchange for a three-year sentence with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered that the defendant serve his sentence in confinement, which he now appeals. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

After eighteen years of marriage, Jennie F. Ingraham (“Wife”) sued Patrick Garrett Ingraham (“Husband”) for divorce. After a trial, the Trial Court entered its Final Judgment on December 7, 2009, inter alia, granting Wife a divorce and dividing the marital property. Husband appeals to this Court raising issues regarding the valuation and distribution of the marital property. Wife raises additional issues concerning the property distribution and attorney fees. We affirm as to the Trial Court’s valuation of items of marital property, the determination that the Exxon stock is Husband’s separate property, and the denial of an award to Wife of attorney’s fees. We, however, remand this case for proof on the issue of whether Husband’s combined SEP and IRA fall under the definition contained in Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-4-121(b)(1)(B) pursuant to our Supreme Court’s Opinion in Snodgrass v. Snodgrass, 295 S.W.3d 240 (Tenn. 2009).