APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The parties were divorced based on stipulated grounds. Husband appeals the award of property to Wife. We reverse and remand.

The petitioner appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition, in which he asserted that trial counsel was ineffective in: (1) failing to secure an independent mental evaluation; and (2) failing to demand a speedy trial. Upon review, we conclude that the evidence does not preponderate against the findings of the post-conviction court; therefore, we affirm.

The petitioner, Anthony Leon Moore, appeals from the post-conviction court’s denial of post-conviction relief. On appeal, he contends that the post-conviction court erred in finding that he received the effective assistance of counsel. Following our review, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.

The defendant, Larry W. Timberlake, appeals his probation revocation and imposition of his original seven-year sentence. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The appellant, Jerry Bell, was convicted by a jury in the Shelby County Criminal Court of two counts of aggravated robbery and one count of aggravated burglary. The appellant received a total effective sentence of twenty years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions and the sentences imposed for those convictions. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant, Ronnie Woodall, was convicted of rape of a child by a Shelby County jury and sentenced as a violent offender to twenty-two years in the Tennessee Department of Correction at one-hundred percent. On appeal, the defendant challenges: (1) the sufficiency of the convicting evidence, and (2) the trial court’s application of a sentencing enhancement. Following our review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

An Obion County jury found the defendant, Shirley Annette Rudd, guilty of facilitating the manufacture of methamphetamine, possession of methamphetamine with intent to sell or deliver, and conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-11-403, -12-103, -17-417 (2003). Pretrial, the defendant had moved to suppress methamphetamine seized from her person. The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing and concluded that the evidence had been legally seized. The defendant challenges that ruling on appeal. After reviewing the record, applicable authorities, and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Appellant, Christopher Jerome Taylor, appeals the Fayette County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, Taylor argues that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel. After review of the record, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.

This appeal involves a dispute between a country music songwriter and a music publishing company arising out of an "exclusive co-publishing agreement" relating to the song "Riding with Private Malone" and other works. Because of the parties' dispute, ASCAP declined to release royalties for "Riding with Private Malone" to either the songwriter or the publisher. The songwriter filed suit in the Chancery Court for Davidson County seeking a determination that the publishing company had breached the agreement and that he was entitled to receive the royalties held by ASCAP because all the rights to "Riding with Private Malone" had reverted to him. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. The trial court concluded that the songwriter was not entitled to the withheld royalties. After the trial court denied his motion to amend his complaint to seek money damages, the songwriter appealed. We have concluded that the trial court erred by holding that the songwriter was not entitled to the withheld royalties and that the trial court properly denied the songwriter's motion to amend his complaint.

Robert Hugh Benson ("Father") sued Deborah Watkinson ("Mother") for divorce. The parties have two minor children. The Trial Court granted the parties a divorce and designated Father as the primary residential parent with Mother to have no overnight visitation due to a finding of her alcohol abuse. Mother appeals to this Court. We modify the judgment only to order Father to attend and complete an anger management course, and affirm as so modified.

The Appellant, Karl Blake, was convicted by a Rutherford County jury of three counts of child rape and one count of aggravated sexual battery, resulting in an effective forty-year sentence. On appeal, Blake raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether the trial court erred in excluding a statement made by the victim at an in camera hearing; (2) whether the trial court should have granted a mistrial based on juror misconduct; (3) whether the trial court should have granted a new trial based on newly discovered evidence; and (4) whether his sentence violates Blakely v. Washington. After review of the record, we affirm.

This appeal involves an alimony award granted by the trial court to Plaintiff Sonya Ausley. While the divorce in this case was pending, the trial court ordered Defendant to pay $17,000 to the Clerk and Master of the court after Defendant willfully refused to pay temporary support and further disposed of a $34,000 social security disability settlement in violation of court order. The trial court later granted Plaintiff $5775 from the funds as temporary support. In the final divorce decree, the trial court awarded Plaintiff the remaining $11,225 balance as lump sum transitional alimony.  Defendant appeals, arguing that 1) the trial court erred in failing to classify Defendant’s social security benefits as marital or separate prior to ordering its division, 2) the trial court’s order that Defendant pay half of his social security benefits into the Clerk and Master constituted in improper presumption that such benefits were marital property, and 3) that Defendant’s social security benefits were exempt from garnishment under Tenn. Code Ann. § 26-2-111. We affirm.

The petitioner, William Patrick Roberson, appeals from the post-conviction court’s denial of post-conviction relief. On appeal, he contends that his statements to police were taken in violation of his constitutional rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the postconviction court denying post-conviction relief.

In this divorce case, Husband/Appellant appeals and raises issues involving the division of certain marital property. Finding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in making its division of the marital property, we affirm.

The defendant, Rodney J. Campbell, was indicted for premeditated first degree murder, felony murder, and especially aggravated kidnapping. He was convicted by jury of kidnapping and two counts of second degree murder. As a result of these convictions, he was sentenced to a total effective sentence of thirty-one years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant raises four issues for our review: (1) whether the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal; (2) whether the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions; (3) whether the trial court properly instructed the jury; and (4) whether the trial court erred in imposing an excessive sentence. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This is a parental rights termination case. The father appeals the trial court's decision terminating his parental rights to his three children. The father argues, inter alia, that the evidence preponderates against the trial court's finding that grounds for termination exist and that termination is in the best interest of the children. We conclude that the evidence preponderates against the decision of the trial court and therefore, we reverse.

The petitioner appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief in which he asserted various instances of ineffective assistance of counsel. Upon review, we conclude that the evidence does not preponderate against the findings of the post-conviction court. Therefore, we affirm.

The Defendant, Roosevelt Morris, was convicted by a jury of two counts of attempted first degree premeditated murder. The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I, standard offender to two consecutive terms of twenty-five years in the Department of Correction for an effective sentence of fifty years. In this direct appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and contends that his sentence is excessive. We affirm the Defendant’s convictions. We modify the Defendant’s effective sentence to forty-seven years.

Following a jury trial, Defendant, Craig Everett Shears, was convicted of first degree felony murder and especially aggravated robbery. Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment for the first degree felony murder conviction. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Defendant as a Range I, standard offender, to twenty years for the especially aggravated robbery conviction, and ordered Defendant to serve this sentence concurrently with his life sentence. In this appeal, Defendant argues (1) that the trial court erred in denying Defendant's motion to suppress his statement to police officers and (2) that the evidence was insufficient to support Defendant's convictions. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

A Metropolitan Nashville police officer seeks judicial review of the Final Order of the Civil Service Commission of Metropolitan Government pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 4-5-322 following his termination from Metropolitan Government service. After reviewing the record, the Chancery Court of Davidson County determined that the decision of the Civil Service Commission was not arbitrary and capricious and was supported by substantial and material evidence. The judgment of the Chancellor is affirmed.

Petitioner, Dexter Williams, was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. This Court affirmed his conviction on appeal.   State v. Dexter Lee Williams, No. 03C01-9312-CR-00390, 1995 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 9 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxville, Jan. 9, 1995).  A Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 11 application for permission to appeal was filed ten months later, but was dismissed as time-barred. Petitioner's pro se petition for post-conviction relief was also dismissed without a hearing. On appeal, this Court remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing. Dexter L. Williams v. State, No. E1999-00871-CCA-R3-PC, 2000 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 22 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxville, Jan. 11, 2000). On appeal to the Tennessee Supreme Court, the State argued that the petition was untimely and should have been dismissed. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Criminal Appeals and remanded the case to the trial court for a further evidentiary hearing to determine the circumstances surrounding Petitioner's untimely filing of his post-conviction petition, holding that due process concerns might prevent strict application of the statute of limitations. Williams v. State, 44 S.W.3d 464 (Tenn. 2001).  Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court again dismissed the petition for post-conviction relief.  After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Father appeals from a modification of the residential schedule for his three children which was triggered by Mother's move to another county and the resultant burden on the children of commuting to and from school. Because the evidence supports the trial court's decision, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

The appellant, United Imports, Inc. ("United") seeks relief from a circuit court's order on its appeal from a general sessions action brought by the late Moses Pieny. Pursuant to a Local Rule of Practice, the circuit court's order dismissed United's appeal and adopted the general sessions order in favor of the deceased plaintiff. We reverse the order of the trial court and remand the case to the circuit court for dismissal of the claim.

Former Fleet Manager of Davidson Transit Organization contends he was demoted because of his age in violation of the Tennessee Human Rights Act. Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-21-401(a)(1). The employer conceded the employee had presented a prima facie case of employment discrimination; however, it contended a prima facie case was insufficient when the employer presented a nondiscriminatory reason for its decision. The trial court agreed. The summary dismissal was based upon a finding the burden of proof had shifted back to the employee who was required to, but did not provide additional evidence of age discrimination. An employee’s prima facie case, combined with sufficient evidence to find the employer's stated reason for its employment decision false may permit the trier of fact to conclude the employer unlawfully discriminated. The employee provided evidence from which a jury could conclude the employer's stated reason for its employment decision was not credible, thus summary judgment was not appropriate. We, therefore, vacate the summary dismissal and remand for further proceedings.

The petitioner, Kenneth Gaines, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of post-conviction relief. Because we discern no error in the post-conviction court’s proceedings and because the record supports that court’s determinations, we affirm.