APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The defendant appeals his dual convictions for possession of marijuana with intent to sell and with intent to deliver. We affirm the sufficiency of the evidence and the denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress. We remand for merger of the offenses as the dual convictions are violative of double jeopardy. Further, we modify the sentence to two years in our de novo review, due to error in failure to make findings of fact in sentencing.

The petitioner appeals from the dismissal of his Post-Conviction DNA Analysis Petition. Dismissal followed an unfavorable result for the petitioner after DNA analysis of a portion of the evidence. Upon review, we affirm the dismissal.

Defendant appealed from the Trial Court's Judgment in favor of plaintiff. On appeal, appellant argues the Trial Court erred in ruling for appellee and appellee should be estopped from gaining possession of the property in dispute. We affirm.

In this appeal, the defendants argue that the trial court erred in the amount of money it awarded the plaintiffs for damages incurred by the plaintiffs when a truck owned by the defendants and operated by the defendants’ employee struck the plaintiffs’ garage. The sole issue at trial was the proper amount of damages the plaintiffs should receive for injuries to their property. The plaintiffs introduced evidence showing that the market value of their property as a whole - their residence, garage and acreage - depreciated as a result of the fact that the color of brick necessary to restore the garage to its original condition is no longer available. Considering this evidence, the trial court awarded the plaintiffs a judgment in the amount of $8,000.00. The defendants contend that the trial court erred in its award and that the proper measure of damages should have been solely the cost of repairing the garage, which the defendants’ expert estimated to be approximately $2,000.00. We affirm the judgment of the trial court and remand.

This appeal involves the effect of a highway improvement project on ancient Native American graves. After discovering the graves during construction, the Tennessee Department of Transportation filed petitions in the Chancery Courts for Williamson and Davidson Counties seeking permission to disinter the remains and reinter them in another location. Despite prevailing in protracted litigation with Native American organizations and individuals, the Department voluntarily dismissed both petitions after deciding to bury the remains in place, to encapsulate them in reinforced concrete, and to continue construction on top of the encapsulated graves. A Native American organization and several Native American individuals filed this suit in the Chancery Court for Davidson County asserting that the Department's actions violated their equal protection and due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The trial court dismissed the complaint on the ground that it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and the Native American parties appealed. Construction continued while the appeal was pending because the Native American parties failed to request the trial court or this court to stay the construction during the appeal. Before oral argument in this appeal, the Department completed the construction project, including the reinterment of the remains and encapsulation of the graves in concrete. In light of these later developments, we have determined that this appeal is now moot and should be dismissed.

The Appellant, Jerry Bell, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of two counts of theft of property under $500, one count of aggravated burglary, two counts of kidnapping, and two counts of rape.  As a result of these convictions, Bell received an effective sentence of fourteen years, eleven months, and twenty-nine days. On appeal, Bell raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to support his convictions, (2) whether the trial court’s ruling permitting introduction of his juvenile record was error, (3) whether the fines imposed by the trial court are excessive, and (4) whether he was sentenced in violation of Blakely v. Washington. After review of the record, we affirm.

This is an appeal by the former wife from the denial of her Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02 Motion to Strike or Modify a Marital Dissolution Agreement relative to marital property. We modify and affirm the action of the trial court.

In these consolidated cases, certain property owners in Hickman County, Tennessee, challenged the way Hickman County imposed and administered solid waste disposal fees, asserting the improper use of disposal fees to retire debt incurred in closing a previous landfill and further asserting collection of fees beyond what was necessary for the operation of the solid waste department. Judge R.E. Lee Davies granted a partial summary judgment to the County, and following trial on the merits on the remaining issue, Judge Timothy Easter rendered judgment for Defendant, Hickman County. We affirm the actions of both of the trial judges.

The Defendant, Terry Wayne Mitchell, pled guilty to burglary of an automobile and theft of property over $500.00, in case number 5504, and possession of a schedule IV controlled substance, in case number 5505. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to three years and six months, as a Range II offender, for each of the convictions in case 5504, and it sentenced the Defendant to eleven months and twenty-nine days for the conviction in case 5505. The trial court further ordered that the two sentences in case 5504 would be served consecutively, and the sentence in 5505 would run concurrently. On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the trial court erred by not recusing itself; and (2) the trial court erred when it sentenced the Defendant. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the Defendant's convictions and sentences.

The defendant, Shonda Kay Garcia, pled guilty to child abuse and neglect of a child six years of age or less, a Class D felony, in exchange for a two-year sentence as a Range I, standard offender, with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. Finding that the defendant lacked remorse and that a pattern of child abuse and neglect had been established, the trial court denied the defendant’s request for alternative sentencing and ordered that she serve her sentence in the Department of Correction. The defendant appeals the denial of alternative sentencing. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

I write separately to further address the trial court’s judgment with respect to the
jurisdictional issue raised by Wife.

The petitioner, Sammie Netters, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief from his conviction for aggravated robbery, a Class B felony. He claims that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to investigate his case adequately. We affirm the trial court.

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to 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 trial court awarded the employee 50 percent disability to the body as a whole based upon a 20 percent impairment. The employer contends the award was excessive because the trial court failed to allocate impairment to a preexisting spondylolisthesis. Judgment is modified to find impairment to be 11 percent from last injury and recovery is limited to two and one-half times impairment rating.

This is a divorce case about dissipation of marital assets and custody. Throughout the marriage, the wife took care of the children while the husband provided financial support. The husband was the owner and operator of several automobile businesses. After the wife filed for divorce, the husband’s automobile businesses failed, resulting in the husband’s father purchasing the businesses. After a lengthy trial, the trial court found that the husband intentionally dissipated marital assets, including the automobile businesses. The wife was designated the children’s primary residential parent. The husband appeals. We affirm, finding that the evidence supports the trial court’s finding that the husband dissipated the businesses by failing to preserve them, and the designation of the wife as primary residential parent.
 

The defendant, Anthony D. Parr, was convicted by a Dyer County jury of the sale of over .5 grams of a Schedule II controlled substance, cocaine, a Class B felony, and was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to ten years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he asserts: (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction; (2) the State failed to establish evidentiary chain of custody; and (3) the prosecutor made prejudicial comments in the State’s opening arguments.  Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Billy Gene Robertson (“Defendant”) listed property for lease with Jeanette Jenkins, the listing agent, and Eilene1 McInturff, the broker, (“Plaintiffs”) of Realty World-Barnes Real Estate. Defendant signed a contract agreeing to pay a 10% commission to the broker. Plaintiffs located a party who leased Defendant’s property. Defendant made some commission payments to Plaintiffs, but then stopped making payments claiming, in part, that the time period for making commission payments under the contract was unclear. Ms. McInturff, as the broker, attempted to assign her rights under the contract to Ms. Jenkins and Ms. Jenkins sued Defendant for the commissions. Defendant objected that Ms. Jenkins did not have standing because she was not the broker. The Trial Court allowed joinder of Ms. McInturff, and the case proceeded to trial. After trial, the Trial Court entered an order holding, inter alia, that Defendant owed Plaintiffs commissions over the life of the lease and also that Plaintiffs were entitled to a judgment against Defendant in the amount of $37,688.35,  which included the award made on Plaintiffs’ claim for commissions owed to the date of the judgment, an award of attorney’s fees, and an award of discretionary costs. Defendant appeals. We affirm.

This action involves claims brought regarding the decedent Jewell Ingram against Wood Presbyterian Home, Inc., alleging that Ingram was injured while in defendant's care, and also that her treatment by defendant ultimately contributed to her death. Plaintiff proposed a jury form which asks that the jury determine whether defendant was guilty of negligence which caused Ingram's death, but also asked the jury to find whether defendant was guilty of negligence which caused injury to Ingram. The jury form submitted by the Trial Judge, however, asked whether defendant was at fault for the death of Ingram, and directed that if the answer to that question was no, the jury should return a verdict for defendant. The jury answered the question in the negative, and announced a defendant's verdict. Plaintiff has appealed. We affirm the Trial Court's Judgment for defendant as to the wrongful death claim, but remand for a new trial on the issue of damages for injuries sustained prior to decedent's death.

In this divorce case, the wife raises the issues of whether the trial court erred in ruling it had jurisdiction based on the husband’s domicile in Bledsoe County, Tennessee; whether the trial judge erred in refusing to recuse himself from the trial of the case; and whether the court erred by failing to equitably divide the marital estate. The husband argues on appeal that the trial court should have classified certain assets that it held to be marital property as his separate property. We modify the division of marital property to increase the amount awarded to the wife, and affirm the court’s judgment in all other respects. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Trial Court Affirmed as Modified; Case Remanded
 

The petitioner, James William Parsons, Jr., filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that he pled guilty to an illegal sentence. The trial court denied the petition, and the petitioner now appeals. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Linda June Cross, was convicted by a jury in the Cumberland County Criminal Court of first degree murder. She was sentenced to life imprisonment in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that because her trial counsel had an actual conflict of interest in representing her, counsel was therefore ineffective. The post-conviction court denied the petition, and the petitioner now appeals. Upon our review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The petitioner, Anthony Norfleet, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his aggravated robbery conviction, 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 petitioner, Albert Smith, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief as time-barred.  He contends that Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. ___, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), announced a new rule of constitutional law that applies retroactively to his case, thereby creating an exception to the one-year statute of limitations for filing a post-conviction petition. He further contends that the post-conviction court should have held an evidentiary hearing to determine the reason for his late filing of the petition. We conclude that the petitioner has not demonstrated that a valid exception to the one-year statute of limitations exists in his case or that the post-conviction court erred by denying the petition without an evidentiary hearing. Accordingly, we affirm the post-conviction court’s summary denial of the petition.

On February 2, 1999, the petitioner, Montez Antuan Adams, filed a petition for post-conviction relief to challenge his 1997 Madison County Circuit Court convictions of first degree felony murder, especially aggravated burglary, conspiracy to commit especially aggravated burglary, and theft over $500, all of which were affirmed on appeal. See State v. Montez Antuan Adams, No. 02C01-9709-CC-00352 (Tenn. Crim. App., Jackson, Sept. 1, 1998). The post-conviction court  appointed counsel, and after conducting an evidentiary hearing, it denied relief. The petitioner appealed in a timely manner. Following our review upon the record, we affirm the order denying post-conviction relief.

The defendant, Donald Blevins, was convicted for contributing to the delinquency of a minor. The trial court imposed a sentence of 11 months and 29 days. On appeal, the defendant asserts that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on the defenses of necessity and duress. The conviction and sentence are affirmed; the case is remanded for entry of an amended judgment to correct a clerical error.

The petitioner, Jimmy Jennett, Jr., appeals the trial court's dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. In this appeal, he asserts that the trial court erred by dismissing the petition because he is "restrained of his liberty" by virtue of a 1977 Tennessee conviction that was used to increase his sentence for a 1985 Mississippi conviction. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.