APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Defendant was indicted for carjacking in count one; for theft of property over $10,000 but less than $60,000 in count two; for unlawful possession of a weapon in count three; for felony possession of an unlawful weapon in count four; for evading arrest while operating a motor vehicle in count five; for misdemeanor evading arrest in count six; for resisting arrest in count seven; for driving with a revoked license in count eight; and for criminal trespass in count nine. Prior to trial, the State dismissed counts three, eight and nine, and the remaining counts were renumbered accordingly. Following a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of the lesser included offense of misdemeanor theft (as renumbered) in count one; guilty of Class C felony theft of property in count two; not guilty of possession of an unlawful weapon in count three; guilty of Class D felony evading arrest in count four; guilty of misdemeanor evading arrest in count five; and guilty of resisting arrest in count six. The trial court merged Defendant's conviction for misdemeanor theft in count one into his conviction for Class C felony theft of property in count two. The trial court sentenced Defendant as a Range II multiple offender to ten years for the theft conviction, eight years for the felony evading arrest conviction; eleven months, twenty-nine days for the misdemeanor evading arrest conviction; and eleven months, twenty-nine days for the resisting arrest conviction. The trial court ordered all of Defendant's sentences to be served consecutively for an effective sentence of 19 years, 10 months and fifty-eight days. On appeal, Defendant argues (1) that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction for felony evading arrest in count four; (2) that the trial court erred in not merging Defendant's convictions for felony evading arrest and misdemeanor evading arrest in counts four and five; (3) that the trial court erred in determining the length of Defendant's sentences; and (4) that the trial court erred in ordering the sentences to be served consecutively. Defendant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support his felony theft or misdemeanor resisting arrest convictions. After a thorough review of the record, we modify Defendant's conviction for evading arrest from a Class D felony to a Class E felony, and impose a sentence of four years. We merge Defendant's misdemeanor evading arrest conviction with his Class E felony evading arrest conviction. We affirm Defendant's conviction and sentence for his Class C theft offense and his misdemeanor resisting arrest offense, and the trial court's imposition of consecutive sentencing, for an effective sentence, as modified, of fourteen years, eleven months and twenty-nine days.

The appellant, Bruce Warren Scarborough, was charged in the Knox County Criminal Court with four counts of aggravated rape. He filed a motion to suppress DNA evidence linking him to the crimes, and the trial court denied the motion. From the trial court's order, the appellant now brings this interlocutory appeal, arguing that the DNA evidence was obtained in violation of his right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures as provided by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 7 of the Tennessee Constitution. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The trial court increased Husband’s alimony obligation pursuant to the parties’MDA. It also denied Husband’s petition to modify alimony and increased Wife’s child support obligation retroactive to June 1, 2003. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

I must respectfully dissent from the majority’s holding that there should be no increase in alimony upon the younger child reaching the age of majority. As the majority states, the various provisions of the contract must be construed together, and we should seek to ascertain the intention of the parties based upon the usual, natural, and ordinary meaning of the language employed. Reading the provisions of the MDA, it is my interpretation that the intention of the agreement is clearly set out that “as each child reaches 18 years of age or graduates from high school or should have done so, whichever is the last to occur, the defendant will have to begin an additional alimony in futuro payment as herein before calculated.” (Emphasis added). This provision, coupled with the express provision of the MDA stating “furthermore, this obligation or these payments are to be made regardless of who the child is living with or who may have custody of the children when the child reaches or should have reached 18 years of age or graduates from high school,” indicates to this member of the Court that the obligation for additional alimony is not governed by whether Mr. Buettner would have any child support obligation payable but is governed by what he would have an obligation for in the way of child support based upon the guidelines.

This is a custody dispute. The trial court granted the father's petition to modify custody and changed primary custody of the parties' two minor children from the mother to the father, based on findings of a material change of circumstances and the best interests of the children. On appeal, we reverse the trial court's modification of custody finding there has not been a material change of circumstances justifying a change of custody and that the children's best interests are served by remaining with Mother.

Plaintiff National Bank of Commerce filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that its agreement with Defendant Universal Transaction Consultants, Inc. was null and void for Defendant’s failure to perform a condition precedent. Defendant counter-claimed for breach of contract and tortious interference with contract. The trial court determined that Universal Transaction Consultants had failed to prove damages and dismissed the claims of both parties. We affirm.

The state has appealed the Knox County Criminal Court's suppression of statements made to police by the defendant, Thomas Dee Huskey, and of items found and seized from his home. The state contends that (1) the trial court erred as a matter of law in suppressing the statements and (2) the trial court erred in suppressing the items found at the home (a) because the police arrested the defendant in good faith reliance upon a capias which subsequently was declared void and (b) because the defendant's father consented to a search of the defendant's room. The defendant asserts that if the state's appeal is successful, then he contends that the trial court erred in prior rulings denying suppression of his statements and the items seized from his home on other myriad grounds raised by the defendant. We affirm the trial court.

A Davidson County jury convicted the Defendant, Larita Lyons, of robbery, and the trial court sentenced her to serve five years in the workhouse. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain her conviction. Finding no reversible error, we affirm 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 to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this appeal, the employer asserts that the trial court erred in finding that the employee suffered any permanent partial disability and in awarding to the employee sixty-four (64%) percent permanent partial disability to the body as a whole as a result of an injury sustained during the course of her employment with Trinity Industries, Inc. 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.

The defendant, Randall D. Bennett, appeals the revocation of his probation, arguing that the trial court erred in revoking his probation based on the uncorroborated testimony of the defendant's probation officer. Following our review, we affirm the order of the trial court.

The Defendant, LaBryant King, pled guilty in 1998 to one count of selling over .5 grams of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school, a Class A felony. The Defendant agreed to be sentenced as a Range I offender to fifteen years. The Defendant subsequently filed for post-conviction relief raising challenges to his indictment, conviction and sentence. After a hearing the trial court denied relief, and this appeal followed. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Tony Evans, pled guilty to unlawful possession of .5 grams or more of cocaine with the intent to sell. He was sentenced to six years in a community corrections program but was later placed on probation. Thereafter, the trial court revoked the defendant’s probation and ordered him to serve the remainder of his six-year sentence. On appeal, the defendant challenges the trial court’s revocation of his probation. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Clarence W. Carter, was tried and convicted of one count of conspiracy to sell cocaine and one count of possession of cocaine. He was sentenced as a Range II, multiple offender to consecutive sentences of thirty-two years for the conspiracy conviction and sixteen years for the possession conviction. This Court affirmed the Defendant's convictions and sentences on direct appeal. See State v. Clarence W. Carter, No. M2000-02230-CCA-R3-CD, 2002 WL 31370469 (Tenn. Crim. App., Nashville, Oct. 21, 2002). The Tennessee Supreme Court granted review, and upheld the Defendant's convictions and sentence on the possession conviction, but determined the trial court committed error in sentencing the Defendant as a Range II offender for his conspiracy conviction when he did not receive notice of intent to seek enhanced punishment by the State in the superceding indictment under which he was tried. See State v. Carter, 121 S.W.3d 579 (Tenn. 2003). Upon remand, the Defendant was re-sentenced on his conspiracy conviction as a Range I, standard offender to twenty-five years imprisonment to be served consecutively to his prior sentences. In this appeal the Defendant raises two issues, claiming that upon re-sentencing the trial court erred by: 1) imposing an excessive sentence for his conspiracy conviction, and 2) imposing consecutive sentencing. We affirm 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 to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this appeal, the employer asserts that the trial court erred in awarding to the employee a 30% vocational disability to her upper left extremity and 70% vocational disability to her upper right extremity as a result of her employment with Trane Unitary Products. We conclude that the evidence presented supports the findings of the chancellor and, in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated §50-6-225(e)(2), affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This is a will construction case. The testator died in 1912, leaving a holographic will. In the will, the testator left his real estate to his children for life, then to his grandchildren for life, then to his great-grandchildren until they became of age, then to be divided “as law directs.” In 1992, after the last grandchild had died, the great-grandchildren of the testator petitioned the trial court to interpret the will and set out the rights of the parties. The trial court concluded that the testator intended to leave the remainder interest in his property to the great-grandchildren per stirpes. The appellant great-grandchild filed the instant appeal, claiming that the trial court should have construed the devise as being per capita, not per stirpes. We affirm, concluding that the trial court’s finding of a per stirpes division of the property is consistent with the laws of intestate succession in Tennessee.

The petitioner appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his conviction for delivery of .5 grams or more of a Schedule II controlled substance, cocaine, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in finding he received effective assistance of trial counsel. Following our review, we affirm the denial of the petition.

The defendant, William Ferris, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, a Class A felony; two counts of aggravated burglary, a Class C felony; and one count of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony. The trial court sentenced him as a violent offender to twenty-five years for each of the especially aggravated kidnapping convictions and as a Range II, multiple offender to ten years for the aggravated burglary convictions and twenty years for the aggravated robbery conviction. The court merged the two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping and the two counts of aggravated burglary and ordered that the kidnapping, burglary, and robbery sentences be served consecutively to each other for an effective sentence of twenty-five years in the Department of Correction. The defendant raises essentially three issues on appeal: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain his convictions; (2) whether the trial court erred by not declaring a mistrial sua sponte upon admission of testimony about the defendant’s pending indictment for attempted second degree murder; and (3) whether the trial court erred in ordering consecutive sentencing. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Petitioner, an inmate in custody of the Tennessee Department of Correction, appeals from the order of the trial court dismissing his petition for common law writ of certiorari as being untimely filed. We affirm.

The petitioner was convicted of possession of twenty-six (26) grams or more of cocaine with intent to deliver. He appealed this conviction. We affirmed his conviction in State v. Bigsby, 40 S.W.3d 87 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000). The petitioner then filed a petition for post-conviction relief. The trial
court denied the petitioner’s petition. On appeal, we remanded the petition for the trial court to enter findings of fact. Frank Robert Bigsby v. State, No. M2002-02260-CCA-R3-PC, 2003 WL 22927139 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Dec. 11, 2003). The trial court entered its findings, and we now address the appeal on the merits. The petitioner’s sole issue in his appeal from the trial court’s denial of his post-conviction petition is that he was offered ineffective assistance of counsel. We have reviewed the record in this case and conclude that the trial court’s denial of the petitioner’s petition was proper. Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s decision.

The petitioner appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that he should have been appointed post-conviction counsel and given an evidentiary hearing. Following our review, we remand this matter to the post-conviction court to determine whether the petitioner’s right to due process of law requires that the petition be considered regardless of its untimeliness.

The petitioner, Michael Braxton, was convicted by a jury in the Davidson County Criminal Court of aggravated rape and aggravated assault. He received a total effective sentence of twenty-three years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which petition the post-conviction court summarily dismissed as being untimely. The petitioner appeals the dismissal, arguing that his petition was not barred by the statute of limitations. Upon our review of the record and the parties' briefs, we reverse the judgment of the post-conviction court and remand for a hearing on the timeliness of the petitioner's petition.

I concur with the majority opinion on all issues raised except the final issue of enforceability of the contract, having only been signed by Flanary.

Gary Flanary filed suit against Carl Gregory Dodge of Johnson City, LLC (“the dealership”) and alleged that the dealership, without negotiation and without his consent or knowledge, had charged him an “administrative fee” in connection with his purchase of a vehicle. Flanary claimed that this practice violated, inter alia, the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act (“the TCPA”). He sought class action certification. The dealership filed a motion for summary judgment, relying upon the arbitration agreement (“the Agreement”) signed by Flanary to support its position that Flanary was required to arbitrate his claims. The trial court stated that it personally did not believe an agreement to arbitrate under the circumstances of this case was fair; but, nevertheless, it opined that it felt compelled by the current state of the law to hold that arbitration was mandated by the terms of the Agreement. Flanary appeals the trial court’s order requiring him to submit to arbitration. We affirm the judgment below to the extent the trial court, albeit reluctantly, held that the Agreement, on its face, is enforceable. However, based upon our determination that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether there was mutuality with respect to the obligation to arbitrate, we vacate so much of the trial court’s judgment as holds that the parties entered into a contract to arbitrate. Accordingly, we remand for further proceedings on Flanary’s complaint.

The Petitioner, Domingo Ponce, filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis, which the trial court summarily dismissed. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the trial court erred when it dismissed his petition. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Kenneth Strickland, was convicted by a jury of possession of .5 grams or more of cocaine with the intent to sell or deliver, and sentenced to twelve years in the Department of Correction. The judgment against the Defendant was affirmed on direct appeal. See State v. Kenneth Strickland, No. M2002-00543-CCA-R3-CD, 2003 WL 21997739 (Tenn. Crim. App., Nashville, Aug. 22, 2003). The Defendant subsequently filed for post-conviction relief claiming that he had been denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial. After an evidentiary hearing the trial court denied relief and this appeal followed. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.