APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Defendant, Kenneth Workman, pled guilty in the Giles County Circuit Court to aggravated burglary, Class D felony theft, and Class D felony vandalism. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed an effective four-year sentence to be served in the Department of Correction and ordered restitution in the amount of $5000.00. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant argues that the amount of restitution is excessive. After a review of the record, restitution is reduced from $5000.00 to $2750.00. Otherwise, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

The Petitioner, Fredrick L. Brown, Jr., appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Petitioner claims that the concurrent life sentences he is serving for two first degree murder convictions are illegal and void because the second offense was committed while he was out on bail for the first offense and that, under these circumstances, Tennessee law mandates consecutive sentencing. A recent decision of the Tennessee Supreme Court compels our conclusion that summary dismissal was proper. The judgment of the Bledsoe County Circuit Court is affirmed.

The defendant, Charles A. Green, was convicted on his guilty pleas of three counts of aggravated assault, a Class C felony. The defendant, a Range I offender, received four-year sentences, with two counts to be served consecutively, for an effective sentence of eight years. The effective sentence involved split confinement of one year in jail and seven years on probation. The trial court later found that the defendant had violated his probation by committing a new offense and revoked his probation. The defendant appeals, arguing that substantial evidence does not support that determination. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The appellant, Artis Reese, was indicted on four counts of aggravated robbery, one count of possession of marijuana, and one count of aggravated criminal trespass. After a jury trial, the appellant was convicted of four counts of aggravated robbery and one count of aggravated criminal trespass. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court merged two of the aggravated robbery convictions into the other two aggravated robbery convictions and imposed consecutive eight-year sentences on the resulting two convictions for aggravated robbery. The trial court sentenced the appellant to a concurrent sentence of six months for aggravated criminal trespass, resulting in an effective sentence of sixteen years. After the denial of a motion for new trial, this appeal followed in which the appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. Because the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This appeal concerns the process for appointing a new justice to become the fifth member of the Tennessee Supreme Court. The issues in this case involve the proper interpretation of sections 17-4- 101 to 17-4-118 of the Tennessee Code Annotated (“the Tennessee Plan”) and matters of constitutional law. For the reasons stated below, we hold that: (1) the first list of nominees certified to the Governor under the Tennessee Plan was not rendered invalid upon one nominee’s subsequent withdrawal from consideration for appointment; (2) an individual listed on a panel of nominees certified to the Governor by the Tennessee Judicial Selection Commission (“the Commission”) which has been rejected by the Governor may not be included on the second panel of nominees certified to the Governor under the Tennessee Plan; (3) the Governor’s rejection of Lewis and Gordon did not violate the Tennessee Human Rights Act (“THRA”) because a nominee or applicant to fill a judicial vacancy is not an “employee” for purposes of the THRA; (4) the equal protection challenge to the Governor’s rejection of the first panel is a non-justiciable political question; (5) the equal protection challenge to the Governor’s rejection of the first panel is otherwise without merit; (6) the Governor's letter rejecting the first list of nominees did not encroach on the powers assigned to the Commission by the Tennessee Plan; and (7) the trial court erred in its determination of the appropriate remedy.

The Defendant, Tarrean Nuby, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of attempted first degree murder and aggravated robbery. On appeal, he alleges there was insufficient evidence for any rational jury to convict him of attempted first degree murder. Finding no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Chico McCracken, was convicted of one count of murder in the perpetration of a felony and one count of aggravated robbery. He petitioned for post-conviction relief claiming that he had received the ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. The post-conviction court dismissed the post-conviction petition, and we affirm that judgment.

A Franklin County Circuit Court jury convicted the appellant, Jimmy Dale Pickett, of first degree premeditated murder and especially aggravated robbery, and the trial court sentenced him to concurrent sentences of life and twenty years, respectively. On appeal, the appellant claims (1) that he is entitled to a retrial because the State violated the rule of sequestration; (2) that the trial court erred by denying his motions to suppress his confessions; (3) that the trial court erred by allowing the jury to use a transcript, which had not been introduced into evidence, during deliberations; (4) that the trial court erred by refusing to give the jury a corpus delicti instruction; and (5) that the State committed prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments. Finding no errors requiring reversal, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant, Barry Brown, was convicted of three counts of aggravated robbery, Class B felonies.Two of the counts of aggravated robbery were merged, and the trial court imposed a thirty-year sentence on each conviction, to be served consecutively to each other for an effective sixty-year sentence in the Department of Correction as a persistent offender. The defendant appeals claiming that: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict; (2) the trial court erred in failing to suppress pretrial statements made by the defendant; and (3) the trial court erred by granting the State’s motion to consolidate. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Andre Neely, appeals the lower court’s denial of his petition for postconviction relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. After a review of the pleadings, the lower court’s order and the applicable law, this Court concludes that the lower court properly determined that the Petitioner’s claims were waived and properly dismissed the petition. Accordingly, we affirm the court’s dismissal.

The Petitioner, Pierre Andre Brown, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court's denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner fails to assert a cognizable claim for which habeas corpus relief may be granted. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

In this action for a judgment for fees for legal services rendered, the Trial Court entered Judgment for plaintiff and defendants appealed. We affirm.

The Petitioner, Eric Carter, appeals the trial court's order denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The State has filed a motion requesting that this court affirm the trial court's judgment pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The petition fails to establish a cognizable claim for habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The trial court terminated the parental rights of F.R.G. (“Mother”) and R.K.B. (“Father”) with respect to their minor child, C.G.B. (“the child”) (DOB: December 31, 2003), upon finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that grounds for terminating their parental rights existed and that termination was in the best interest of the child. Mother appeals, arguing procedural defects in the trial court’s termination of her parental rights. We affirm.

Pursuant to Rule 39 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, the State of Tennessee, through the Attorney General, requested rehearing of the opinion filed in this case on January 17, 2007, which reversed the trial court’s summary dismissal of the petition for writ of habeas corpus and remanded the case for the appointment of counsel and an evidentiary hearing related to the allegation that the petitioner’s sentence was illegal due to an improper offender classification.

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court our findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this appeal, the employer, Saturn Corporation (Saturn), asserts that the forty-five percent permanent, partial disability to the body as a whole, awarded the employee, Robert Gill, by the trial court, was excessive. We conclude that the evidence presented does not preponderate against the findings of the trial court and affirm.

This is a workers' compensation appeal referred to and heard by the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. _ 50-6-225 (e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The defendant contends that the court erred in finding a 13% anatomical impairment rating to be the appropriate anatomical impairment suffered by plaintiff and that a concomitant 90% vocational disability award for a back injury was excessive. The Tennessee Department of Labor, Second Injury Fund, adopts defendant's arguments and urges reversal of the trial court's decision. For the reasons set forth below we disagree and therefore, affirm the decision of the trial court.

The Appellant, Anthony Bonds , was convicted by 1 a Shelby County jury of attempted especially aggravated robbery and sentenced to ten years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, Bonds raises the single issue of sufficiency of the evidence. Following review of the record, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of conviction.

The appellant, Donnie Glenn Thompson, was indicted on one count of stalking his ex-wife. The appellant applied for pretrial diversion, and this request was denied by the district attorney general.  The trial court denied the appellant’s petition for writ of certiorari, holding that the district attorney general had not abused his discretion by denying pretrial diversion. This Court accepted the appellant’s application for interlocutory appeal and issued a judgment in which we reversed the trial court’s decision and remanded the issue for further consideration by the district attorney general.  The district attorney general denied the appellant’s application for pretrial diversion a second time.  The appellant filed a second petition for writ of certiorari, which the trial court again denied. We have accepted the appellant’s second application for interlocutory appeal. Because the district attorney general considered the proper criteria when evaluating the appellant’s application for pretrial diversion, including evidence favorable to the defendant and because he articulated sufficient grounds for denying the appellant’s request for pretrial diversion, we affirm the trial court’s conclusion that the district attorney general did not abuse his discretion

The State appeals the Hamilton County Criminal Court’s granting the petitioner’s request for postconviction relief from his convictions for two counts of second degree murder and one count of attempted second degree murder and effective sixty-two-year sentence. In this appeal, the State claims that the trial court erred by concluding (1) that the petitioner received the ineffective assistance of trial counsel and (2) that the petitioner did not voluntarily and knowingly waive his right to a twelve-member jury verdict. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the trial court erred by granting the petitioner’s request for post-conviction relief and reverse the judgment of the trial court.

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. On this appeal, the employer, Stone & Webster Construction, Inc. (Stone & Webster), alleges the trial court erred by failing to cap the recovery of the employee, Cletus Lee Harvey, Jr., at 2.5 times the medical impairment as required by Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-241(a)(1) and in awarding Mr. Harvey a vocational disability of fifty percent of the body as a whole. Finding the evidence does not preponderate against the findings of the trial court, we affirm.

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated §50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The employer contends that the trial court erred by (1) finding that the Plaintiff suffered a compensable work-related injury and (2) finding that the Plaintiff was entitled to an award of 23% vocational disability apportioned to her two feet. We affirm the trial court in all respects. Finally, we conclude that the appeal is not frivolous

This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 5-6-225(e) (3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. On this appeal, the sole issue presented is whether the trial court erred by failing to cap the recovery of the employee, Holly Young, at 2.5 times the medical impairment as required by Tennessee Code Annotated section 5-6-241(a)(1). In this case, Ms. Young sustained a shoulder injury to her right shoulder resulting in surgery. Following the first surgery, Ms. Young was returned to work performing light duty for her employer, Cumberland County Medical Center (CCMC). She resigned that employment due to progressively intense pain. Thereafter, Ms. Young underwent a second surgery. She was not offered employment by CCMC following her second surgery or after she had reached maximum medical improvement. The trial court determined Ms. Young's anatomical impairment to be fifteen percent to the body as a whole, held the statutory cap of benefits contained in Tennessee Code Annotated section 5-6- 241(a)(1) did not apply, and awarded benefits based upon a fifty percent disability to the body as a whole. We affirm.

This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court our findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this appeal, the employer asserts that the trial court erred in failing to apply the two-and-one-half times impairment cap set forth in Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-241(a)(1) and that the forty-two percent permanent, partial disability to the body as a whole, awarded by the trial court, was excessive. We conclude that the evidence presented does not preponderate against the findings of the trial judge and affirm the trial court.

I concur with the court’s opinion. However, I have prepared this separate opinion to point specifically to the provisions of Mr. Smith’s employment agreement that undermine the summary judgment in this case.