APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This appeal challenges the chancery court’s subject matter jurisdiction to hear a will contest. The petitioner daughter filed a petition to probate the last will and testament of her father. Other siblings filed an objection to probate, alleging that their father did not have the requisite testamentary capacity to execute the will. After a hearing, the chancery court rejected the siblings’ claims and admitted the will to probate. Later, the siblings filed another petition contesting the will, again challenging testamentary capacity and, in addition, alleging undue influence. The chancery court certified the will contest to the circuit court. The circuit court granted summary judgment to the petitioner, finding that the issues raised by the siblings had been addressed in the former proceedings and were res judicata. The siblings then filed a Rule 60 motion in chancery court to set aside the order probating the will. The motion was denied. The siblings now appeal, arguing that the chancery court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear the will contest. We affirm, finding that the chancery court had concurrent jurisdiction with the circuit court to adjudicate a will contest.

This is an action to enroll a foreign judgment. A Tennessee resident was represented by a Kentucky lawyer in a Kentucky lawsuit. When the Kentucky lawyer pursued collection of his fees, the Tennessee client filed a bar complaint against him in Kentucky. The bar complaint was dismissed, and the Kentucky lawyer filed a malicious prosecution lawsuit in Kentucky against the client, and obtained a judgment. In this action, the Kentucky lawyer seeks to enroll the Kentucky judgment against the Tennessee client. The client asserts that the judgment should not be enrolled in Tennessee because it falls under the public policy exception to the full faith and credit clause of United States Constitution. The client bases this argument on Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, section 27.1, which prohibits any lawsuit based on a bar complaint, asserting that the enrollment of a foreign judgment based on this cause of action would violate Tennessee public policy. The trial court held that the Kentucky judgment was entitled to full faith and credit and domesticated the judgment. We affirm the decision of the trial court, finding that the enrollment of the foreign judgment does not violate Tennessee public policy.

This appeal concerns an order of the Williamson County Chancery Court finding William B. Cottingham in criminal contempt of court for failure to pay court-ordered child support and alimony. Mr. Cottingham appeals the order of the chancery court sentencing him to 170 days in jail for failure to comply with court orders concerning child support and alimony. We affirm.

This is an age discrimination case. In October 2001, a thirty-seven year old woman interviewed for a job position at the defendant’s Career Center. She was recommended for hire for the job. Subsequently, the defendant Career Center began accepting applications for a second job position, similar to the first. The forty-five year old aunt of the first applicant submitted an application for the second job position. The second job position was never filled. The forty-five year old job applicant filed a lawsuit, alleging that she was not hired due to age discrimination. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Career Center. We affirm, finding that the forty-five year old applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination.

The Petitioner, Jeremy Wayne Humphrey, appeals the trial court's dismissal of his petition for post conviction relief or in the alternative for habeas corpus relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court's denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner filed his petition outside the statute of limitations for post-conviction purposes. Further, the petitioner does not state any cognizable habeas corpus claims. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The appellant, Tracy Lynn Franks, pled guilty to aggravated assault, felony reckless endangerment, and felony evading arrest. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the appellant was sentenced to six years in the Tennessee Department of Correction for the aggravated assault conviction and four years each for the reckless endangerment and evading arrest convictions, with the sentences to be served concurrently. Additionally, the trial court imposed a $500.00 fine for the evading arrest conviction.  On appeal, the appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying him probation. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Appellant, Charles Mullins, proceeding pro se, appeals the Maury County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his motion to correct an illegal sentence. On appeal, Mullins argues that his effective thirty-two-year sentence for two counts of aggravated sexual battery is illegal because (1) the judgment forms provide for an improper release eligibility date and (2) the trial court failed to award pretrial jail credits on the judgment forms. Finding merit to the Appellant’s contentions, we remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The petitioner, Tony Hopkins, appeals the dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus, contending that, following his guilty plea, he was wrongfully sentenced to a fifteen-year sentence as a Range I offender on a Class B felony. After careful review, we affirm the dismissal of the petition.

I concur in the results and most of the analysis in the majority opinion. However, I believe the differences reflected in the search warrant affidavits in the record would justify suppression of the items seized pursuant to Rule 41(c), Tenn. R. Crim. P. Such a result, though, is not needed, because the record does not reflect that the copies of the affidavits in the record are thoserequired by Rule 41(c) to be identical. On the other hand, even if suppression were required, I believe many  of the defendant’s statements against interest could be admissible.

The defendant, Eric Matthews, was charged by the Shelby County Grand Jury in two separate indictments with especially aggravated kidnapping, a Class A felony, aggravated kidnapping, a Class B felony, and two counts of aggravated rape, a Class B felony, based on events involving the victim, V.T.,1 that occurred on August 14, 1999, in the Whitehaven area of Memphis. Following his 2003 trial,2 he was acquitted of the rape counts and convicted in both the especially aggravated and aggravated kidnapping counts of the lesser-included charge of kidnapping, a Class C felony.  Applying four enhancement and no mitigating factors, the trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range I, standard offender to concurrent terms of five years in the county workhouse. In a timely appeal to this court, the defendant challenges both the sufficiency of the evidence and the sentencing imposed. Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient to sustain the convictions but that the trial court erred by failing to merge the kidnapping convictions into a single judgment of conviction. We further conclude that three of the four enhancement factors were applied in error under the United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. ___, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), which was released after the sentencing was imposed in this case. Accordingly, we affirm the convictions, but order that they be merged into a single conviction and modify the sentence imposed from five to four years, to be served in the county workhouse.

Defendant, Steve A. White, appeals the trial court’s order amending Defendant’s judgment to grant restitution to the victim in his case. Because the trial court did not have jurisdiction to amend Defendant’s judgment, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for reinstatement of the judgment of conviction as originally entered.

Board of Education of the City of Memphis suspended tenured teacher and assistant principal without pay pending an investigation of child abuse by the Department of Children’s Services. After teacher was reinstated, he sought to recover lost wages under T.C.A. §49-5-511. Trial court found that teacher was entitled to recover but that such recovery should be offset by wages earned during the period of suspension. We affirm as modified herein.
 

James A. Bledsoe and wife, Nannie, sued Randall Buttry and Grange Insurance Company (uninsured motorist carrier) for damages sustained in a motor vehicle crash. The Bledsoe's claim the jury verdict was insufficient and that the trial court erred in certain evidentiary rulings. We affirm.

The Trial Court held that the confidential relationship between defendant and deceased voids the transaction because deceased did not have independent advice. On appeal, we reverse.

This matter is before the Court upon the State’s motion to affirm the judgment of the trial court by opinion pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner is appealing the trial court's denial of habeas corpus relief. A review of the record reveals that the Petitioner is not entitled to habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The defendant, Timothy Wade Davis, was convicted by a jury of four counts of rape of a child and one count of aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor. Sentences of twenty-two years were imposed for each child rape conviction and ten years for aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor. Three of the child rape convictions and the especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor were ordered to run consecutively for an effective sentence of seventy-six years at 100%. The defendant appeals his convictions and sentencing and alleges that the trial court erred in the following respects: (1) in failing to suppress the search warrant and the defendant’s statements; (2) by denying the defendant the right to represent himself; (3) by refusing to instruct the jury on insanity; (4) in finding the defendant competent to stand trial; and (5) in regard to sentencing. After review of the issues presented and the record as a whole, we conclude that no reversible error was present and affirm the convictions and sentencing.

The defendant, Garner Dwight Padgett, was convicted of first degree premeditated murder. The trial court imposed a sentence of life imprisonment. In this appeal of right, the defendant contends that the trial court erred by failing to grant a mistrial after two jurors observed him in custody, by failing to instruct on the lesser included offenses of aggravated assault and assault, and by failing to suppress his confession. He also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and argues that there was prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The petitioner, Corey Cartwright, 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 Class C felony conviction for possession of less than one-half gram of cocaine with intent to sell and resulting sentence of ten years in confinement. He contends that the post-conviction court erred in summarily dismissing his petition without appointing counsel, that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel, and that the trial court erred in sentencing. We affirm the trial court.

The defendant, Sheridan Armstrong, was convicted of felony murder and aggravated child abuse.  The trial court ordered concurrent sentences of life with the possibility of parole and twenty years, respectively. In this appeal of right, the defendant contends that the trial court erred by failing to suppress his statement to police and argues that the evidence supporting each conviction was insufficient. The judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

Bowdoin Grayson Smith (“Father”) and Ginger Lee Marenchin Smith (“Mother”) were divorced in 1996. Mother was granted sole custody of the parties’ four minor children, and Father was granted visitation and ordered to pay child support. Two years later, Father filed a petition for joint custody and later a petition to modify child support. After a hearing, the Trial Court found that Father had failed to prove a material change in circumstances and denied the petition for joint custody; modified the visitation schedule; granted Father telephone and e-mail contact with the children at specified times; found that Mother had proved monthly expenses of $7,500 were reasonably necessary to provide for the support and needs of the children, but that Father would be responsible for paying only $5,000 in monthly child support with Mother responsible for the remainder; and granted Mother attorney’s fees. Mother appeals claiming the Trial Court erred in finding that only $7,500 per month was reasonably necessary for the support of the children and in holding that Father would be responsible for only $5,000 of these expenses. Father raises additional issues claiming the Trial Court erred in dismissing the petition for joint custody and in awarding Mother attorney’s fees. We affirm, in part; modify, in part; vacate, in part; and remand solely for the collection of the costs below.
 

The petitioner, Anthony Randaul, appeals from the Dyer County Circuit Court’s dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for kidnapping, robbery, and sale of cocaine weighing less than one-half gram and resulting sentence of nine years. He contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, James Johnson, originally charged with first degree murder, was convicted of second degree murder. The trial court imposed a sentence of twenty-three years. In this appeal, the defendant asserts that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction; (2) the trial court erred by denying his motion for a preliminary hearing; (3) the trial court erred by permitting evidence of a California police chase involving the defendant; (4) the trial court erred in its instructions to the jury; (5) the cumulative effect of the errors at trial require reversal; and (6) the sentence is excessive.  Because the trial court misapplied certain of the enhancement factors, the sentence is modified to twenty-one years. Otherwise, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

I concur with the majority opinion on all issues except that portion which modifies the sentence to twenty-one years. I agree that the United States Supreme Court’s opinion in Blakely v. Washington, 542 US ____, 124 S.Ct. 2531 (2004), questions the validity of Tennessee’s sentencing scheme. I agree that prior to Blakely, this Court’s holding should be that enhancement factors (11) and (17) could not be applied, but that the remaining enhancement factors, (2), (6), and (10), would be applicable. However, under Blakely, it is clear that only evidence of prior convictions can be used to enhance a sentence without a jury making a determination of the existence of an enhancement factor, or where the jury determination is waived by the defendant, or where the application of another enhancement factor is “admitted” by the defendant. The term “admitted by Defendant,” while seemingly clear at first glance, has not been conclusively defined by judicial decision. The United States Supreme Court in Blakely may have meant “admitted” in the context of a judicial proceeding such as a guilty plea hearing with the solemnity of a guilty plea. Or, the Court possibly meant an admission by a defendant in testimony at a sentencing hearing. Thus, the meaning of the term “admitted by the defendant” is subject to debate, and is better left to appellate review when that precise issue has been squarely addressed by a trial court and thereafter raised on appeal.

Following Appellees’ default on promissory note secured by a deed of trust, Appellant Bank placed a hold on Appellees’ accounts and instigated foreclosure proceedings. Despite the fact that Appellees cured the default, Appellant Bank continued its hold on accounts and failed to stop publication of foreclosure notice. Although Appellees failed to prove damages, trial court found Bank negligent and awarded nominal damages to Appellees. We reverse.

The Petitioner, James Lee Perry, appeals the trial court's dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court's denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner fails to assert a cognizable claim for which habeas corpus relief may be granted. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.