APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The defendant, John Willis Webb, was convicted by a jury in the Circuit Court for Rutherford County for driving on a revoked license, a Class B misdemeanor. He was sentenced to six months in the county workhouse, the suspension of his driving privileges for one year, and a fine of $200. On appeal, he claims the evidence was insufficient to convict him of driving on a revoked license. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Jason L. Hoback, was convicted in the Franklin County Circuit Court of driving on a revoked license, third offense, a Class A misdemeanor, and a violation of the seatbelt law, a Class C misdemeanor. He was subsequently sentenced to eleven months and twenty-nine days, with five months to be served in the county jail, for the driving on a revoked license conviction and was fined for the seatbelt violation. On appeal, the defendant raises the single issue of sufficiency of the evidence. Following review, the judgments of conviction are affirmed.

This dispute concerns the extent to which Appellant/Unnamed Defendant insurance carrier is liable for damages under Plaintiff/Claimant’s uninsured/underinsured motorist insurance coverage where Defendant’s motor vehicle insurance carrier became insolvent during the pendency of the appeal of the matter. The trial court held Appellant insurance carrier was liable for the judgment rendered in Plaintiff’s favor up to the amount of Plaintiff’s uninsured motorist coverage. We affirm.

Appellant, Richard Lee Nickens, pled guilty to four counts of theft of property valued at $500 or less, three counts of theft of property valued at over $500, possession of drug paraphernalia, trespass, three counts of burglary of a building, and two counts of theft of property valued at over $1,000 in exchange for an effective sentence of fourteen years. The trial court denied any form of alternative sentencing. Appellant appeals this denial. We determine that the trial court properly denied alternative sentencing.

The petitioner, Gerald Pendleton, was convicted of first degree felony murder, aggravated child abuse, aggravated child neglect, and perjury and sentenced to life imprisonment for the felony murder conviction and twenty years each for the aggravated child abuse and aggravated child neglect convictions, with all sentences to be served concurrently. He was also sentenced to eleven months, twenty-nine days for the perjury conviction, to be served consecutively to the aggravated child neglect conviction. He subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which the court denied. On appeal, the petitioner contends he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

A bystander in a parking lot was injured by a ricocheting bullet fired by a police officer. The officer and a fellow officer had been confronted in the parking lot by an armed assailant who fired his handgun at or towards the officers. The bystander, contending that one of the officers was negligent when he fired his weapon in self-defense, sued the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act. The trial judge dismissed the case on summary judgment. We find that the police officer acted reasonably under the circumstances confronting him, and we therefore affirm the trial judge.

The defendant, Luis Angel Cruz, was indicted by the Madison County Grand Jury on one count of aggravated child abuse based on injuries he caused to his five-month-old daughter, who was diagnosed with shaken baby syndrome. Following a jury trial, he was convicted of the lesser-included offense of reckless aggravated assault, a Class D felony, and sentenced by the trial court as a Range I offender to four years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence, arguing there was insufficient proof to show that he was aware he risked injuring the child by shaking her. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Mother appeals the Circuit Court’s finding her in criminal contempt for violation of a court order and the Circuit Court’s total suspension of contact between her and the child. Finding the criminal contempt to be proper, we affirm. Finding the total suspension of mother’s visitation was not the least drastic measure available, we reverse and remand for the court to determine whether the prior visitation schedule should be revised.

This is a post-divorce case where Father petitioned for modification of the child custody order based on alleged material change in circumstances. The Williamson County Circuit Court partially granted the petition finding a material change in circumstances, but that a change in custody from Mother to Father was in the best interest of only one of the children, leaving custody of the other child with Mother. Both Father and Mother assert error by the trial court. We affirm in part, reverse in part and remand this case for further proceedings.

The Shelby County Sheriff’s Department terminated the employment of Deputy Mark Lowe for violations of Department policies with respect to personal conduct, adherence to law, truthfulness, consorting with persons of bad or criminal reputation, and compliance with regulations regarding its code of ethics. The Civil Service Merit Board found Deputy Lowe guilty of the charges, but determined the punishment was excessive and modified it to a three-month suspension without pay followed by a one-year probationary period. Upon review, the chancery court affirmed the decision of the Civil Service Merit Board. The Sheriff’s Department appeals. We vacate the order of the chancery court for lack of jurisdiction and dismiss.

The Defendant pled guilty to theft of property in excess of $60,000, and the trial court sentenced her to ten years in prison and ordered her to pay $162,603 in restitution. The Defendant appeals, claiming that the restitution amount is excessive. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Troy Lee Weston, appeals the Lauderdale County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this court affirm the trial court’s dismissal pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Upon review of the record and the applicable authorities, we conclude the petitioner has failed to comply with the procedural requirements for habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, we grant the State’s motion and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Huey Strader, an inmate in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Corrections, filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari in Davidson County Chancery Court, seeking review of the decision of the Board of Probation and Paroles revoking his parole, alleging that the Board acted arbitrarily and illegally by relying on hearsay evidence and on a confidential witness statement, in violation of his constitutional rights to due process and rules applicable to parole revocation proceedings. The trial court denied relief. Finding no error, we affirm the decision of the Chancery Court.

This case comes to us as an intra-family dispute over the validity of a nonagenarian’s inter vivos gifts and will devises. After this Court held that there was a presumption that Defendants had unduly influenced the decedent, the trial court found upon remand that the Defendants had overcome this presumption and, therefore, upheld the will conveyances and inter vivos gifts to the Defendants. Because the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s finding that Defendants rebutted this presumption of undue influence, we affirm the trial court’s determinations.

Appellant, Alex Porter, was found guilty by a McMinn County jury of first degree murder and sentenced to life in prison. After the denial of a motion for new trial, Appellant seeks the resolution of the following issues on appeal: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction; (2) whether the accomplice testimony was sufficiently corroborated; and (3) whether the trial court erred by excluding the testimony of Valerie Ware and Mary White at trial. After a review of the evidence, we determine that the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction, that the accomplice testimony was sufficiently corroborated, and that the trial court did not err by excluding the testimony of Valerie Ware. However, we determine that the trial court erred by excluding the testimony of Mary White but conclude that the error was harmless. Consequently, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

This is a petition to modify alimony. In the parties’ divorce decree, the husband was ordered to pay the wife alimony in futuro based in part on the wife’s chronic, incurable health condition. About six years later, the husband filed this petition to reduce or terminate his alimony obligation, arguing that (1) the wife’s health condition had not declined as was originally anticipated, and (2) his income had decreased and the wife’s income had increased. The trial court denied the husband’s petition, concluding that a material change in circumstances had not occurred. The husband now appeals.  We affirm, concluding that the trial court did not err in finding that the husband did not prove a material change in circumstances and in denying his petition to modify his alimony obligation.

A terminated Nashville Electric Service employee filed a complaint with the Human Rights Commission of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County. NES filed a declaratory judgment action claiming the Metropolitan Charter prevented the Human Rights Commission from investigating the complaint. The chancery court agreed with NES. We affirm.

The petitioner, Rosenda Renya, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, he argues that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present a motion to suppress the evidence seized following a traffic stop. After careful review, we affirm the judgment from the  post-conviction court.

This appeal concerns a purchase option in a lease of a tract of land in Shelby County, Tennessee. Executed in 1950, the lease had an initial term of 50 years and six months. In 1953, the Lessee exercised its option to renew, allowing possession for an additional 50 years through 2050. In 2001, the Lessee attempted to exercise its option to purchase the leased property. Lessor then sought a declaratory judgment determining the validity of the purchase option, and if valid, the value to be paid for the Lessor’s interest in the property. The trial court found that the Lessee properly exercised the purchase option and that the value of the Lessor’s interest should be based upon the property as unencumbered by the remaining 50-year lease term. We affirm the trial court’s finding regarding the purchase option, but reverse its determination of the value of the Lessor's interest in the property.  Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.

Aggrieved by the denial of his 2007 petition for post-conviction relief from his 2005 Davidson County Criminal Court convictions for felony murder, especially aggravated robbery, and second degree murder, the petitioner, Ronnie Charleston, appeals. In this appeal, he contends that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Petitioner had entered a plea of delinquent to firing a weapon within the city limits and illegal possession of a firearm in Juvenile Court, and subsequently sought relief in a Post-Conviction Petition in the Trial Court. The Trial Court dismissed the Petition on the grounds that petitioner was not in custody of the Department of Children’s Services at the time he filed the Petition for Relief. On appeal, we affirm.

The petitioner, Willie L. Watkins, appeals from the Madison County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his guilty-plea convictions of three counts of sale of one-half gram or less of cocaine and resulting eight-year sentence. The petitioner contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel and that he did not knowingly and voluntarily enter into the guilty pleas. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Sevier County jury acquitted the Defendant, Lee Stanley Albright, of driving under the influence, second offense, but it found that the Defendant violated the implied consent law. The trial court revoked the Defendant’s driver’s license for two years. In this appeal, the Defendant contends: (1) the use of a criminal indictment to initiate proceedings against the Defendant for a violation of the implied consent law was improper; (2) the trial by jury of the violation of implied consent charge was improper; and (3) the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s finding of a violation of the implied consent law. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

The Defendant-Appellant, Jason Glenn Baggett (hereinafter “Baggett”), was convicted by an Obion County Circuit Court jury of forgery and criminal simulation and sentenced to concurrent  sentences of six years, as a career offender, in the Department of Correction. On appeal, Baggett argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The petitioner, James Carter, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for writ of error coram nobis, arguing that due process requires that the statute of limitations for filing the petition be tolled. The State has filed a motion requesting that we affirm the summary dismissal pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Because the petitioner filed his petition well outside the one-year statute of limitations and has not shown any reason that the limitations period should be tolled, we affirm the summary dismissal of the petition.