APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Diana Ruth Brown ("the defendant") was stopped by a City of Oak Ridge police officer and cited for speeding. Following an adverse decision in municipal court, the defendant appealed to the trial court. The trial court ruled that the defendant could not pursue, in the trial court, her assertion and defense that the posted speed limit of 45 mph was not legally established. Subsequently, that court found her guilty of speeding and imposed its judgment. The defendant appeals. Both sides raise issues. We vacate and remand for further proceedings.

We granted review in this workers' compensation case to determine whether the trial court erred in awarding benefits to the injured employee for the period prior to the date the employee notified the employer of his gradually-occurring injury. The Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel held that the trial court correctly determined that the employee had timely notified the employer of his injury, but reversed the trial court's determination that the injury was compensable prior to the date of notification. After reviewing the record and applicable authority, we affirm in part and reverse in part the decision of the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel. We hold that the notice was timely, that the employee is entitled to temporary total disability benefits for the period he was off work following his surgery, and that the trial court correctly determined that the employee sustained a 70% vocational disability, affirming the trial court on the separate grounds set forth herein.

Defendant, Felix Tyrone Smith, pled guilty to one count of aggravated assault and one count of possession of more than 0.5 grams of cocaine with intent to sell. Defendant was sentenced to an effective eight-year sentence on supervised probation. In 2002, Defendant was found to be in violation of the conditions of his probation but the trial court reinstated Defendant's probation. Approximately two years later, after the filing of another probation violation warrant, the trial court revoked Defendant's probation and ordered Defendant to serve the original eight-year sentence in confinement. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court erred by relying on evidence not included in the record when revoking Defendant's probation. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The appellant, Brian Eric McGowen, a.k.a. Brad Lee O'Ryan, was convicted by a jury in the Davidson County Criminal Court of first degree felony murder, especially aggravated robbery, and attempted especially aggravated robbery. The trial court sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment in the Tennessee Department of Correction for his murder conviction, to forty years incarceration for his especially aggravated robbery conviction, and to twenty years incarceration for his attempted especially aggravated robbery conviction. On appeal, the appellant raises numerous issues for our review, including the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions, evidentiary issues, jury instructions, and sentencing. Upon our review of the record, we merge the appellant's conviction for attempted especially aggravated robbery into his conviction for especially aggravated robbery. We affirm the judgments of the trial court in all other respects.

This is a direct appeal from a conviction on a jury verdict of driving under the influence of an intoxicant (DUI), third offense, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced the Defendant, Timothy Lloyd, to eleven months and twenty-nine days, with 120 days to be served in the county jail. The Defendant now appeals, contending that the evidence submitted at trial was insufficient to support his DUI conviction. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

With respect to the defendant’s issue (2), whether the trial court erred in not charging lesser offenses, I join in the result, but for reasons other than those reached by the majority.

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 of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this appeal, the employee asserts that the trial court erred in finding that the employee suffered no permanent impairment and no vocational disability as the result of an injury sustained during the course of her employment with Dana Corporation. We conclude that the evidence presented supports the findings of the trial judge and, in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated §50-6-225(e)(2), affirm the judgment of the trial court.

I join Judge Hayes in concurring in the result regarding the trial court’s failure to instruct on lesser included offenses. I believe that an analysis of various jury instructional errors suggests that the legislature was empowered to enact the 2001 amendment (effective 2002) to Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-18-110.

A Cocke County jury found the defendant, Mitchell Presnell, guilty of aggravated robbery. The trial court sentenced the defendant to twenty (20) years as a Range II multiple offender. In this appeal the defendant claims that: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction; (2) the trial
court erred when it failed to instruct on the lesser-included offenses of  ssault and aggravated assault; (3) the trial court erred in applying enhancement factor (3), that the defendant was a leader in the offense; and (4) the defendant was denied his right to a speedy trial. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Damion Carrick, appeals the trial court’s order summarily dismissing his petition for habeas corpus relief. In that petition, the petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus to release him from his sentences for two (2) counts of especially aggravated robbery based on the United States Supreme Court decision in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. ___, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). We are persuaded that the trial court was correct in summarily dismissing the habeas corpus petition and that
this case meets the criteria for affirmance pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

This appeal involves protracted litigation over a parcel of land conveyed by the City of New Johnsonville, Tennessee, to a member of the New Johnsonville City Council. The mayor, on behalf of the city, subsequently filed suit against the councilman seeking to nullify the transaction. During the pendency of that litigation, several taxpayers filed their own suit against the councilman alleging the same causes of action set forth in the city’s complaint. The city and the councilman ultimately settled their lawsuit. The taxpayers’ lawsuit continued, ultimately naming the city as a defendant.  The trial court partially granted the defendants’ motions for summary judgment by ruling that the taxpayers did not have standing to contest the land transaction between the city and the councilman.  The court ruled that the taxpayers did have standing to continue with their other causes of action concerning allegations that the councilman engaged in illegal business transactions with the city.  The taxpayers subsequently took a voluntary nonsuit on their remaining claims and filed an appeal to this Court to contest the trial court’s grant of summary judgment on their claim regarding the land transaction. We vacate the trial court’s decision regarding the land transaction, and we remand for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

In this divorce case, husband argues that the trial court erred in awarding wife rehabilitative alimony and attorney's fees and contends that a post-judgment change in circumstances warrants termination of alimony. Because husband failed to submit a transcript or statement of evidence, failed to support his argument with citations of authority and appropriate references to the record, and failed to raise the issue of post- judgment change of circumstances prior to appeal, we affirm the judgment of the trial court and remand.

Petitioner, Anthony Lamont Singleton, appeals from the post-conviction court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. In his appeal, Petitioner argues that his Alford pleas in case No. S45,328 and case No. S47, 632 were involuntarily entered into, that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in connection with the negotiation and entry of his Alford pleas, and that the trial court improperly appointed trial counsel to represent him in case No. 47,632. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

I agree with the careful reasoning in the majority opinion, with clarification on the remedy ultimately available. Here, ouster of the public official alleged to have engaged in self-dealing, Handley, is likely a moot issue, since the record apparently indicates that his term of office as Councilman ended the day before the settlement with the City. The settlement, however, left the Handleys with a handsome profit from the land transaction at issue, profit that the Taxpayers apparently allege should be disgorged as the product of the wrongdoing.

The Appellant, Michael W. Smith, proceeding pro se, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Smith was convicted of rape in Shelby County and received an eight-year Department of Correction sentence, to be served consecutively to a three-year Department of Correction sentence in a separate case. On appeal, Smith argues that the trial court erred in dismissing the petition because his eight-year sentence has expired.  After review, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the petition on grounds that Smith has failed to establish that his sentence has expired.

The Appellant, Harold Holloway, Jr., was convicted by a Hamilton County jury of second degree murder, attempted theft over $10,000, attempted aggravated robbery, and attempted carjacking. After a sentencing hearing, Holloway was sentenced to an effective forty-year sentence in the Department of Correction. On appeal, Holloway raises seven issues for our review: (1) whether the trial court erred in refusing to hear an ex parte motion for the appointment of a forensic psychiatrist and a neuropsychological examiner; (2) whether the convictions for attempted aggravated robbery and attempted theft over $10,000 violate double jeopardy principles; (3) whether the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction for attempted carjacking; (4) whether the court erred in failing to instruct the jury on any lesser included offenses of carjacking; (5) whether the court erred in allowing the State to question a defense expert in addiction medicine regarding prior bad acts committed by Holloway which were enumerated in reports relied upon by the expert; (6) whether the State improperly impeached a defense witness by questioning the witness regarding prior convictions which were not admissible under Tenn. R. Evid. 609; and (7) whether the trial court properly sentenced Holloway. After review of the record, we conclude that the convictions for attempted aggravated robbery and attempted theft over $10,000 violate principles of double jeopardy. The Appellant's remaining issues are without merit. Accordingly, the judgments of conviction and resulting sentences for second degree murder, attempted aggravated robbery, and attempted carjacking are affirmed. The judgment of conviction for attempted theft over $10,000 is merged with the Appellant's conviction for attempted aggravated robbery, and the sentence for attempted theft is vacated.

A Hamilton County Criminal Court Jury convicted the defendant, David Gene Hooper, of rape, a Class B felony, and incest, a Class C felony, and the trial court sentenced him to concurrent terms of eight years for the rape and three years for the incest to be served on community corrections after serving eleven months and twenty-nine days in the county workhouse. The defendant appeals, claiming the trial court erred (1) in failing to grant a mistrial based upon the state's failure to disclose exculpatory evidence until the middle of trial and in prohibiting him from cross-examining the victim concerning the exculpatory evidence; (2) in repeatedly admitting testimony which bolstered the victim's complaint through multiple witnesses; (3) in allowing testimony from various witnesses concerning the fact that victims of sexual abuse frequently delay reporting an attack; (4) in allowing the state to cross-examine the defendant concerning his possession of marijuana on the day he was arrested, approximately two years after the crime; and (5) in failing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offenses of attempted rape, attempted sexual battery, and assault pursuant to State v. Burns, 6 S.W.3d 453 (Tenn. 1999). We conclude that although the trial court should have allowed the defendant to cross-examine the victim concerning the evidence the state failed to disclose until trial, the error was harmless. We affirm the trial court.

The Trial Court held appellant's retirement was not a material change of circumstances so as to enable appellant to reduce his alimony payments. On appeal, we reverse.

Defendant, Roger Knoblock, was convicted, following a jury trial, of aggravated sexual battery. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred by allowing evidence of a prior conviction for aggravated sexual battery to be introduced during Defendant's testimony on cross-examination. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Petitioner, Patrick Deshun Paris, filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which was subsequently amended. Following an evidentiary hearing, the petition for post-conviction relief was dismissed. On appeal, Petitioner argues that the post-conviction court erred in not stating its findings of fact and conclusions of law in its order denying Petitioner post-conviction relief. Petitioner also alleges that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal because his counsel (1) failed to request the removal of juror, Daisy Foster; (2) questioned Marco Brooks about his family's criminal history to the detriment of Petitioner's case; (3) failed to adequately investigate Petitioner's case and prepare for trial; and (4) failed to object to the prosecutor's leading questions during Mr. Brooks' direct examination. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Plaintiff was injured in a fall and the jury returned a verdict for damages against defendant which was approved by the Trial Court. On appeal, we affirm.

Cathy L. Chapman, Brandon Chapman, Kaylan L. Chapman, and Dana L. Chapman (“Plaintiffs”) retained attorney Rick J. Bearfield ("Defendant") to represent them in a medical malpractice action. During the course of this representation, Defendant filed an amended complaint repudiating a theory of the case originally alleged. Plaintiffs later hired new counsel and filed a legal malpractice action against Defendant. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, which the Trial Court granted on the grounds that Plaintiffs' expert's affidavit was deficient technically and did not comply with the locality rule. We vacate the grant of summary judgment.

Following a revocation hearing, the trial court revoked the probation of Defendant, Dana Lynn Armstrong, and ordered him to serve the remainder of his sentence in confinement. In his appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court erred in finding that he had violated the terms of his probation, and in revoking his probation and ordering that the sentence be served by incarceration. After a review of this matter, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This matter is before the Court upon the State’s motion to affirm the judgment of the trial court by order pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The petitioner is appealing the lower court’s denial of habeas corpus relief.

This case is about nuisance and infliction of emotional distress. The plaintiff homeowners and their minor child lived in a house in a subdivision. The defendant landowner owned a house next door to the plaintiffs’ home. The defendant landowner rented his house to tenants. The tenants allegedly began to engage in disturbing conduct, including illegal drug use, discharging firearms, and harassment. The plaintiffs sued the tenants and the defendant landowner for nuisance and for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The defendant landowner filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that the plaintiffs had no medical evidence of their emotional distress. Counsel for the plaintiffs did not respond to the motion for summary judgment and did not notify the plaintiffs of the pending motion. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the landowner. The plaintiffs later got a new attorney and filed a motion to set aside this judgment. The trial court set aside the grant of summary judgment, to enable the plaintiffs to file a response. After the plaintiffs filed a response, the trial court again granted summary judgment in favor of the landowner. We affirm the grant of summary judgment as to the claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, and reverse as to claims of nuisance and negligent infliction of emotional distress.