APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

In this expedited appeal, this Court is asked to decide two questions of first impression. The first question is whether a term limit provision contained in a county charter is authorized by Tennessee Code Annotated section 5-1-210(4). Like the lower courts, we answer this question in the affirmative. The second question before this Court is whether Tennessee Code Annotated section 5-1-210(4) violates Article VII, section 1, of Tennessee’s constitution to the extent that the statute authorizes a county with a charter form of government to impose term limits upon members of its legislative body. Unlike the Court of Appeals, we answer this question in the negative. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed. The judgment of the chancery court is reinstated.

The petitioner, Joseph Jackson, appeals the ShelbyCounty Criminal Court’s dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for two counts of attempted first degree murder and resulting twenty-year concurrent sentences. On appeal, the defendant claims that his convictions violate the Double Jeopardy provision of the federal constitution, that his indictments were constitutionally defective, and that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This is an appeal from the order of the trial court denying the Defendant’s motion to withdraw guilty pleas and motion to dismiss all charges. The Defendant, Clarice Perkins, was convicted of two counts of aggravated assault pursuant to entry of guilty pleas. She received an effective eight-year sentence to be served on probation. After sentencing, but before the judgments became final, the Defendant filed pro se motions to withdraw her guilty pleas and to dismiss all charges. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied both motions. On appeal, the Defendant raises two issues: the trial court erred in denying (1) the Defendant’s motion to withdraw her guilty pleas, and (2) the Defendant’s motion to dismiss all charges. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This appeal stems from a suit to partition real estate. In this appeal, we are asked to determine if the chancery court erred when it granted summary judgment and a judgment on the merits based on stipulated facts, evenly splitting the proceeds of the sale of property between joint tenants with rights of survivorship where one joint tenant paid more than her equitable share of the purchase money.  Specifically, the appellant contends that she was entitled to contribution from the appellee for the excess of the purchase price paid by her and that she did not make a gift of the excess. In addition, Appellant requests that she was entitled to a credit of $2,000 pursuant to an interim consent order disposing of numerous issues between the parties. The appellee has requested attorney’s fees incurred as a result of this appeal. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings. We decline to award attorney’s fees to the appellee.

This declaratory judgment action was filed by Donald R. Crull (“Husband”) on November 4, 2003.  It seeks primarily a declaration as to the rights of Husband’s former spouse, Marian L. Crull (“Wife”), in and to Husband’s United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) retirement benefits, a subject addressed in the parties’ judgment of divorce entered in the trial court some 14 years and 3 months earlier, i.e., on July 11, 1989. In addition, Husband’s complaint seeks to terminate his alimony obligation effective when he retires at some unspecified time in the future.  The trial court – interpreting the language of the judgment of divorce – held that the language mandates that Wife is entitled, without limitation, to one-half of Husband’s retirement benefits. The court, in its judgment, did not grant or deny Husband’s request for termination of his alimony obligation; but, in the incorporated memorandum opinion, the court did opine that Husband’s retirement, when it happens, would constitute a change in circumstances. Husband appeals, arguing that Wife’s entitlement with respect to the retirement benefits should be limited to a share of the benefits that accrued before the divorce. Wife, by way of a separate issue, contends that the trial court erred in stating that a retirement, which has not yet occurred, would constitute a change in circumstances when it takes place. We vacate this latter observation by the trial court but otherwise affirm the judgment.

The mother sued to enforce Agreement with the father to pay college expenses for adult child of the parties. The Trial Court refused to enforce the terms of the Agreement on the equitable grounds of unclean hands and the lack of cooperation and fair dealings by the mother. We affirm.

The petitioner, Javier Soto-Hurtado, has filed a pro se appeal of the post-conviction court's refusal to reopen an earlier post-conviction petition which had been dismissed. He claims that he is entitled to relief based upon the ruling in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004). The judgment is affirmed and the appeal dismissed.

The Defendant, James O. McCarson, Jr., was convicted of one count of stalking, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to eleven months and twenty-nine days, to be served on probation. On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction for stalking; and (2) the trial court erred when it denied him judicial diversion. Finding that there exists no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This is a divorce and child custody case. The husband and the wife were married in February 1998.  Throughout the marriage, they lived together with the husband’s mother. The parties’ relationship began to deteriorate soon after the wedding. The wife felt that the husband and his mother were controlling and oppressive, while the husband felt that the wife was unfit. One child was born of the marriage. In October 2000, the wife filed the instant petition for divorce. After a nine-day trial, the trial court granted a divorce to the wife on the ground of inappropriate marital conduct, and designated the wife as the primary residential parent of the parties’ child. The trial court also awarded the wife a portion of her attorney’s fees and discretionary costs. From that decision, the husband now appeals. We vacate a portion of the award of costs, and affirm as to the remaining issues, finding that the evidence preponderates in favor of the trial court’s opinion in all other respects. The cause is remanded for reconsideration of a portion of the award of costs for expert fees.

The Opinion filed by this Court on August 24, 2005, is hereby withdrawn, and a revised Opinion is being filed concurrently herewith.

The Defendant, Thomas Earl Bradshaw, pled guilty to one count of aggravated burglary and one count of especially aggravated robbery, and the trial court sentenced him as a multiple offender to an effective sentence of thirty-six years imprisonment. The Defendant filed a motion to withdraw his guilty pleas, which the trial court denied. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to withdraw his pleas. Finding that there exists no reversible error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Ricky Northern, appeals the lower court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus 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. The Petitioner has failed to allege any ground that would render the judgment of conviction void. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal.

The Petitioner, Darwin Theus, 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. Petitioner has failed to allege any ground that would render the judgments of conviction void. Accordingly, we grant the State's motion and affirm the judgment of the lower court.

A Madison County Circuit Court jury convicted the defendant, Michael Bills, of one count of possession with the intent to sell one-half gram or more of cocaine, a Class B felony, and one count of possession with the intent to deliver one-half gram or more of cocaine, a Class B felony, and the trial court merged the defendant’s convictions and sentenced him as a Range II, multiple offender to sixteen years in the Department of Correction. The defendant appeals, claiming the evidence is insufficient. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of one count of especially aggravated kidnapping, a Class A felony, two counts of aggravated kidnapping, a Class B felony, and one count of sexual battery, a Class E felony. The trial court merged Defendant’s two convictions for aggravated kidnapping into his conviction for especially aggravating kidnapping. The trial court sentenced Defendant as a Range II, multiple offender, to thirty-six years for his especially aggravated kidnapping conviction and four years for his sexual battery conviction. The trial court ordered the sentences to be served consecutively, for an effective sentence of forty years. Defendant does not challenge the imposition of consecutive sentencing. In his appeal, Defendant argues (1) that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions; (2) that the trial court erred in denying Defendant’s motion for a continuance; (3) that the trial court erred in classifying Defendant as a Range II multiple offender; and (4) that the trial erred in its application of enhancement factors.  After a thorough review, we affirm Defendant’s convictions of especially aggravated kidnapping and sexual battery. However, we remand the case to the trial court for resentencing in accordance with this opinion.

This is a workers' compensation appeal referred to and heard by the Special Workers'  Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 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 trial court erred in awarding the plaintiff a 25% permanent partial disability rating to both arms for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and right trigger thumb and ring finger. We disagree and therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, John C. Johnson, filed a petition for post-conviction relief and a petition for a writ of error coram nobis. After an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied the petition for post-conviction relief. The petition for writ of error coram nobis was dismissed without a full evidentiary hearing. In this consolidated appeal, the petitioner challenges the post-conviction court’s rulings on both petitions.¹ Upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the dismissal of the petition for a writ of error coram nobis. However, we reverse the denial of post-conviction relief and remand for a new trial.

The Appellant, Roger Alan Lawson, appeals the sentencing decision of the Sullivan County Criminal Court following the revocation of his suspended sentences. While on supervised probation, a violation warrant was issued alleging that Lawson had failed to obey the law by driving on a revoked license. After a revocation hearing, Lawson was found to be in violation of his probation, and his original effective eight-year sentence to the Department of Correction was reinstated. On appeal, Lawson argues that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering confinement of the eight-year sentence instead of reinstating his probation. After review, we find no error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In this appeal, we are asked to determine the validity of a consent judgment entered by the chancery court granting a divorce to the parties. At trial, the parties voluntarily submitted their case to mediation. At the conclusion of the mediation, the mediator dictated the settlement terms onto a tape recorder, and the parties acknowledged onto the tape recorder that these terms were the understanding of the parties. The chancery court found that this acknowledgment was a modification of the mediation agreement and that the parties entered into a settlement agreement. On appeal, the husband asserts that the chancery court erred finding a settlement agreement because the mediation agreement specifically required that the parties would not be bound unless a written, executed settlement agreement was entered into by the parties. Second, the husband contends that, even if an oral settlement agreement was effective against the parties in this case, he had properly repudiated the agreement to his wife and the chancery court before the chancery court entered its judgment. In addition, both parties have requested attorney’s fees on appeal. We reverse and remand for further proceedings and decline to award attorney’s fees to either party.

The Appellant, Michael Burnette, was convicted by a Roane County jury of aggravated robbery and sentenced to ten years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, Burnette raises two issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction; and (2) whether his sentence is excessive. After review, the judgment of conviction and resulting sentence are affirmed

The trial court determined a material change of circumstances had occurred which warranted modification of the parties’ child visitation scheduled. Father appeals. We affirm.

Defendant, Courtney Means, was convicted of three aggravated robberies and sentenced to twelve years in each case, with two of the sentences to be served consecutively. On appeal, he argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the convictions; the trial court erred in allowing the hearsay statement of a deceased victim to be admitted as an excited utterance; and the court erred in sentencing. Following our review, we affirm the judgments.

This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Tennessee Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the supreme court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court awarded plaintiff sixty (60) percent permanent, partial vocational disability to the right leg. On appeal, the employer contends that the employee's injury did not arise out of his employment and is therefore not compensable. The employer alternatively argues that the trial court's permanent, partial vocational disability award is excessive. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

I concur with the legal principles set forth in the majority opinion and particularly with the recognition of the importance of affording a parent an opportunity to request appointed counsel, and when appropriate, a hearing and due inquiry on the request for appointed counsel in dependent and neglect proceedings. I, however, respectfully dissent, believing the facts, particularly those demonstrating the irresponsible acts and omissions of David H. and Mary Ellen H. in seeking appointed counsel and then retaining separate counsel, are sufficient to affirm the trial court.

After a hearing, the Circuit Court declared seven children to be dependent and neglected and determined that their parents had committed severe child abuse. The parents claim on appeal that the court erred by refusing their request that counsel be appointed to represent them at the hearing.  After carefully reviewing the record, we find that the trial court failed to conduct a sufficient inquiry to determine whether or not the parents were financially able to retain their own counsel, and we accordingly vacate the order concluding that the children were dependent and neglected.