APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The defendant, Gustavo Chavez, pled guilty to one count of aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony. After conducting a sentencing hearing, the trial court classified him as a Range I offender and imposed a ten year sentence at 100% service in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant challenges the length of the sentence imposed by the trial court. After reviewing the record and the applicable law, we affirm the defendant’s conviction. However, in light of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. ----, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), we modify the defendant’s sentence to an effective sentence of eight years at 100% service. We, therefore, remand the case for entry of a judgment that is consistent with this opinion.

The Defendant, Thomas D. Stanton, was convicted by a jury of one count of aggravated robbery, one count of carjacking, one count of aggravated burglary, one count of theft, one count of Class D felony evading arrest, and one count of misdemeanor evading arrest. The trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment for the robbery offense; twenty-five years for the carjacking, to run consecutively; twelve years for the burglary offense, to run consecutively; five years for the theft, to run concurrently; ten years for the felony evading arrest, to run concurrently; and eleven months, twenty-nine days for the misdemeanor evading arrest, to run concurrently; for an effective sentence of life plus thirty-seven years. In this direct appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence does not support his aggravated robbery conviction; that the trial court committed reversible error in failing to charge the jury on certain lesser-included offenses; that the trial court erred in permitting the State to impeach him on the basis of a prior conviction; and that his sentences are excessive. The State also filed a direct appeal, arguing that the Defendant's sentence of life imprisonment for the aggravated robbery conviction is illegal and should be modified to a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. We reverse and remand for a new trial the Defendant's conviction of Class D felony evading arrest. We modify the Defendant's sentence for his aggravated robbery conviction to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. We remand for a correction of the judgment reflecting the Defendant's carjacking conviction. In all other respects, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The petitioner appeals the trial court's dismissal of his pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, in which he contended that his sentence violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment because he was classified as both a Range II, persistent offender and a Class X offender. We conclude that the petitioner was properly sentenced based upon both the classification of the offense (Class X) and the offender classification (Range II, persistent). As such, we affirm the trial court's dismissal of the habeas petition.

This case involves a claim for personal injuries sustained in an automobile accident. The accident occurred when the vehicle in which the plaintiff was a guest passenger was forced off the road by an unidentified motorist. The plaintiff asserted a claim for uninsured motorist benefits under the provisions of an insurance policy issued to her former husband and his company. The issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment for the defendant insurance company after concluding the undisputed facts revealed that, under the circumstances of this case, the plaintiff was not insured under the policy. The Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of summary judgment. Upon appeal to this Court, we conclude that the undisputed facts in the record do not support the trial court's grant of summary judgment for the insurance company. After thoroughly reviewing the record, we conclude that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the plaintiff was insured under the automobile insurance policy at the time of the accident and therefore entitled to uninsured motorist coverage. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The defendant, Ronald Allen, was convicted of rape of a child. The trial court imposed a sentence of twenty-five years. In this appeal, he asserts (1) that the evidence is insufficient; (2) that the trial court erred by permitting the state to ask leading questions of the minor victim; (3) that the sentence is excessive under the terms of the 1989 Sentencing Act; and (4) that the sentence must be modified under the terms of Blakely v. Washington, 524 U.S. ___, 124 S. Ct. 2351 (2004). The sentence is modified to twenty-three years. Otherwise, the judgment is affirmed.

Appellants, who were represented in a lawsuit by Appellees, appeal the dismissal of their attorney malpractice suit against Appellees on the ground, among other things, that the Appellants did not file suit within the one-year statute of limitations for attorney malpractice actions. Finding no error, we affirm.

The defendant was convicted of theft under $500 and evading arrest, and was sentenced to two consecutive sentences of eleven months and twenty-nine days at 75% release eligibility. On appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, the failure to admit the testimony of a defense witness, and the length and consecutive nature of his sentences. Upon thorough review, we affirm the judgments and the sentences.

The appellants, Christopher L. Williams, Corey A. Adams, and Ortega Wiltz, appeal as of right from their convictions in the Davidson County Criminal Court. Following a jury trial, Appellant Williams was convicted of three counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, Appellant Adams was convicted of three counts of facilitation of especially aggravated kidnapping, and Appellant Wiltz was convicted of two counts of facilitation of especially aggravated kidnapping. Thereafter, the trial court sentenced Appellant Williams to a total effective sentence of seventy-five years incarceration. Appellant Adams was sentenced to a total effective sentence of thirty-six years incarceration, and Appellant Wiltz was sentenced to a total effective sentence of forty years incarceration. On appeal, the appellants challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain their convictions and the sentences imposed by the trial court. Appellant Adams also challenges the trial court's ruling that certain prior convictions were admissible for the purpose of impeaching a defense witness. Based upon our review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The petitioner, Michael Keith Kennedy, entered a plea of nolo contendere to numerous counts of burglary, theft, and vandalism arising out of events that occurred in Chester and Henderson Counties.  As a result, he was sentenced to fifteen (15) years for the Chester County convictions and twelve (12) years for the Henderson County convictions, to be served concurrently, for an effective sentence of fifteen (15) years. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the petitioner reserved the following certified question of law for appeal: “Did the defendant give an unequivocal, specific, intelligent, and voluntary consent to the warrantless search of his premises and vehicles, uncontaminated by duress or coercion?” This Court determined that the certified question was not dispositive as to three of the petitioner’s convictions, but determined the petitioner knowingly and voluntarily consented to the search as to the remaining convictions. See State v. Michael Kennedy, No. W2001-03107-CCA-R3-CD, 2003 WL 402798 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, Feb. 21, 2003), perm. app. denied (Tenn. May 27, 2003). Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging: (1) that he was denied effective assistance of counsel; (2) that the trial court erred by imposing restitution; (3) that the trial court erred by admitting his prior felony convictions; and (4) that the trial court erred by failing to appoint counsel. After a hearing on a motion to dismiss filed by the State, the trial court dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing. For the following reasons, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for an evidentiary hearing consistent with this opinion.

This case involves the interpretation of a portion of the Tennessee Public Records Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 10-7-503. The issue presented is whether the statutory exemption set forth in Tenn. Code Ann. § 10-7-503(d)(1) is available to the Appellee which is a nonprofit joint municipal-county economic development commission. The trial court granted the commission’s motion for summary judgment, finding that the exemption was applicable and the commission did not have to provide its records to the Appellant. We hold that the commission is entitled to the statutory exemption, but that there is a genuine question of material fact as to whether the commission is the functional equivalent of a public agency. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The petitioner, Terrence A. Sawyers, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The issue presented for review is whether the petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial. The judgment is affirmed.

In this workers' compensation action, the plaintiff sought compensation for a work-related injury which caused reflex sympathetic dystrophy in his left arm, a scheduled member for workers' compensation purposes. The plaintiff contended that reflex sympathetic dystrophy which affects only a scheduled member nevertheless entitles a claimant to body-as-a-whole compensation because the American Medical Association's Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment convert reflex sympathetic dystrophy to a rating for the body as a whole. Alternatively, the plaintiff contended that his condition extended beyond his arm because he was denied potential future treatment options for other, non-work-related injuries and because his arm's hypersensitivity and pain caused insomnia, chronic fatigue, and a diminished ability to concentrate. Holding that reflex sympathetic dystrophy must always be apportioned to the body as a whole, the trial court awarded the plaintiff permanent total disability benefits. Reversing the trial court, we hold that an award for reflex sympathetic dystrophy may be limited to the compensation for scheduled members as provided in Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-207(3)(A) to (D) (1999). Further, we hold that for reflex sympathetic dystrophy to be properly apportioned to the body as a whole under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-207(3)(F) (1999), the claimant's injury must affect a portion of the body not statutorily scheduled, affect a particular combination of members not statutorily provided for, or cause a permanent injury to an unscheduled portion of the body. Having so held, we determine that the preponderance of the evidence fails to show that the plaintiff's condition has extended beyond his arm as a scheduled member. Therefore, we vacate the trial court's award of permanent total disability benefits to the plaintiff and hold that the plaintiff's permanent disability award is limited exclusively to 200 weeks of benefits pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-207(3)(A)(ii)(m) (1999). We remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, as may be necessary.

The petitioner was convicted for assault in Shelby County. During the proceedings on these convictions, the trial court found the petitioner in contempt of court on two occasions. On appeal, we reversed the petitioner’s convictions for assault. Upon remand, the State moved to nolle prosequi the petitioner’s assault charges, and the trial court entered nolle prosequi on September 7, 1999, without cost, which dismissed the assault charges against the petitioner without prejudice. These charges were later expunged. On March 18, 2003, the petitioner filed two petitions to expunge the contempt judgments. The trial court denied the petitioner’s petition to expunge the contempt convictions in January of 2004. The petitioner filed a notice of appeal to this Court on February 20, 2004. The petitioner presents five issues for review: (1) whether the trial court erred under Tennessee’s Expungement Statute by refusing to expunge the petitioner’s contempt records and the related records in general sessions court; (2) whether the trial court clerk and the chief administrative official of the State violated petitioner’s due process rights and the provisions of Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-32-102 by not expunging petitioner’s contempt records within sixty days of filing an expungement petition; (3) whether the trial court and district attorney general violated the petitioner’s constitutional rights of due process and equal protection by causing petitioner to be held
in contempt; (4) whether the trial court improperly allowed petitioner to waive counsel on December 5, 1997, in case number 97-06150; and (5) whether the trial court had jurisdiction in case numbers 96-09407,-08 and 97-06150. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

I agree with the majority’s conclusion that the Commission is not entitled to summary judgment on the record presently before us. I disagree, however, with the majority’s rationale for that conclusion. Specifically, I disagree with the assertion that the public’s access to the Commission’s records depends upon whether, in the words of the majority, “[the Commission] is the functional equivalent of a governmental agency.” I believe this concept of “functional equivalen[cy],” as promulgated by the Supreme Court in Memphis Publ’g Co. v. Cherokee Children & Family Servs., Inc., 87 S.W.3d 67, 79 (Tenn. 2002), is not material to the issue now before us.

The petitioner, Alfio Orlando Lewis, appeals as of right from the dismissal of his petition for post- conviction relief by the Davidson County Criminal Court. He seeks relief from his convictions for two counts of attempted second degree murder and consecutive twelve-year sentences. The petitioner contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel at his trial and that his sentences are invalid under Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. ___, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Richard A. Emmitt, was convicted in 1984 of assault with intent to commit second degree murder, aggravated kidnapping, aggravated rape, armed robbery, and first degree burglary and received an effective sentence of 125 years. His convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. The petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief on January 21, 2004, which the post-conviction court dismissed as untimely. The petitioner appeals, claiming the statute of limitations was tolled. Following our review, we affirm the dismissal of the petition.

Petitioner, Willie E. Kyles, Jr., filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief, as amended after the appointment of counsel, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial.  Specifically, Petitioner contends that his trial counsel (1) failed to adequately investigate the facts surrounding Petitioner’s case or interview potential witnesses; (2) failed to file a motion to suppress; and (3) failed to challenge the chain of custody of the State’s evidence introduced at trial.  After review of the record in this matter, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal of Petitioner’s petition for post-conviction relief.

The defendant, Orson Wendell Hudson, pled guilty in Sumner County Criminal Court to possession with the intent to sell more than twenty-six grams of cocaine, a Class B felony, and the trial court sentenced him as a Range I, standard offender to eight years in the Department of Correction. The defendant appeals upon certified questions of law from the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a traffic stop. He claims the trial court should have granted his motion because (1) the arresting officer's stated justification for stopping his car was pretextual, (2) the officer did not have probable cause to stop his car for following too closely, (3) the officer's questioning transformed his detention into an unreasonable seizure, (4) the officer's questioning of his six-year-old daughter outside his presence was illegal, and (5) the officer coerced his consent to search. We affirm the trial court.

The defendant appeals the revocation of his probation after he left the state to participate in a religious activity, failed to complete the required psychosexual evaluation, and failed to obtain employment. The defendant contends that the trial court erred in (1) basing his revocation on an order that violated his right to free exercise of his religion, and (2) determining that he had failed to complete the psychosexual evaluation and obtain employment because his arrest in Texas prevented him from having an opportunity to comply with those conditions. Following our review, we affirm the trial court's revocation of probation.

Upon entering a "best interest"guilty plea, the Defendant, Jeremy Miller, was convicted of attempted aggravated child abuse, a Class B felony. The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I, standard offender to eleven years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant raises the issue of whether the trial court erred in ordering an excessive sentence by: (1) improperly weighing enhancement and mitigating factors; and (2) denying alternative sentencing. We modify the sentence of the trial court to comply with the dictates of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. ____, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). We remand for the trial court to consider the Defendant's suitability for probation.

The appellant, Randy L. Johnson, pled guilty in the Sullivan County Criminal Court to two counts of aggravated assault and one count of theft of property valued over $1,000. He received a total effective sentence of nine years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The trial court granted the appellant probation. Subsequently, his probation was revoked because of new offenses and a positive drug screen. The trial court ordered the petitioner to serve his sentences in confinement. On appeal, the appellant challenges the revocation of his probation. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant, Gary Wayne Young, appeals as of right the Davidson County Criminal Court's denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty pleas to two Class B felony drug offenses and its imposition of concurrent sentences of twenty-one years as a Range II, multiple offender. He contends that his guilty pleas were involuntary and unknowing because he was under the influence of narcotics when he entered them and that the sentences are illegal because they are outside of the range for a multiple offender convicted of a Class B felony. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The petitioner, Shirley Mason, appeals as of right the dismissal of her petition for post-conviction relief by the Bedford County Circuit Court. She seeks relief from her conviction for delivering less than one-half gram of cocaine and resulting sentence of eight years in confinement. The petitioner contends that she received the ineffective assistance of counsel which caused her to enter an involuntary guilty plea. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Shelby County jury convicted the Defendant, Stacy Johnson, of two counts of burglary of a building, two counts of theft of property over $1,000, and eight counts of burglary of a motor vehicle. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective sentence of thirty years. On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the consolidation of the Defendant’s indictments deprived him of a fair trial; (2) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions; (3) the State improperly used specific theft locations without proper foundation; and (4) the trial court improperly allowed security videotape recordings to be admitted into evidence. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

This is a direct appeal as of right from a conviction on a jury verdict of evading arrest by motor vehicle with risk of death or injury. The trial court determined that the Defendant, Daniel Livingston, was a career offender and sentenced him to twelve years for the felony evading arrest conviction and time served for a misdemeanor resisting arrest conviction. On appeal, the Defendant argues five issues: (1) the evading arrest statute is unconstitutional because it violates the "Caption Clause" of the Tennessee Constitution; (2) the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction for felony evading arrest with risk of death or injury; (3) the trial court erred in sentencing the Defendant as a career offender because the State's notice of enhanced punishment was defective; (4) the Defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial; and (5) the Defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial was violated because the trial court made findings of fact for sentencing purposes. We affirm the Defendant's conviction, but modify the sentence to four years to be served as a Range I standard offender.