APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The defendant, Doreen Jones, was convicted of second degree murder. The trial court imposed a Range I sentence of twenty-one years. In this appeal, the defendant asserts (1) that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction; (2) that the trial court erred in its instructions to the jury; (3) that the trial court erred by admitting into evidence certain photographs of the victim; (4) that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury regarding expert testimony provided by a defense witness; (5) that the trial court erred by admitting into evidence a videotape recording; (6) that the trial court erred by permitting the medical examiner to testify that the victim's death resulted from abuse and neglect and by refusing to redact this statement from the autopsy report; (7) that the trial court erred by permitting the state to read certain Social Security regulations; and (8) that the trial court erred by refusing to grant a change of venue. The defendant has also asked this court to review the propriety of the sentence in light of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. ___, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

We granted this appeal to determine whether evidence seized from the defendants’ residence
pursuant to a search warrant should be suppressed. Sheriff’s deputies entered the defendants’
residence without a warrant based upon an informant’s tip and the deputies’ recognition of the smell of anhydrous ammonia and ether. The deputies then detained the defendants while a warrant was obtained. We conclude that the deputies’ warrantless entry into the defendants’ residence was unlawful. However, the unlawful entry and any illegality in the subsequent detention did not taint the evidence seized pursuant to the search warrant, and the affidavit supporting the issuance of the warrant sufficiently established probable cause. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

This is an action for breach of contract filed by Plaintiff/Contractor against the State, together with a Counterclaim and a Third-Party Complaint against the surety company for Plaintiff/Contractor. The trial court granted partial summary judgment to Plaintiff as to liability because the State had failed to comply with the requirements of Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 56 in answering Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. After much procedural combat, the trial court adhered to its ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment, dismissed the Third-Party Complaint against the surety and the Counterclaim of the State against Plaintiff, held that Plaintiff had failed to prove any damages against the State, and sustained the Motion of the State for an involuntary dismissal of Plaintiff's entire claim, taxing the costs to Plaintiff. We find that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to Plaintiff as to liability without considering documentation and evidence submitted by the State subsequent to the initial non-final order granting partial summary judgment as to liability. It follows that the court also erred in dismissing the Counterclaim and the Third-Party Complaint against the surety. The grant of partial summary judgment as to liability is reversed, and the case is remanded to the trial court for trial on the merits.

The defendant appeals the sentence he received after a violation and revocation of his community corrections sentence. On appeal, the defendant contends that the sentence issued was illegal. Following our review, we affirm the sentence imposed by the trial court.

While Beatrice Harmon Montgomery ("Plaintiff") and Terry Lane Montgomery ("Defendant") never married, they lived together for many years beginning in 1969. Plaintiff and Defendant had one child, Brian Montgomery. During their relationship, Plaintiff and Defendant accumulated substantial assets and operated several businesses. Plaintiff filed this lawsuit seeking dissolution of her implied business partnership with Defendant. Brian Montgomery intervened claiming he also was a partner in two of the business ventures. The Trial Court concluded that Plaintiff and Defendant were equal partners in all of their business pursuits, and that Brian also was a partner in two of them. It is this ruling that forms the basis for most of the numerous issues raised on appeal. We reverse in part, vacate in part, affirm in part as modified, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.

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.

In this dispute, plaintiffs sought declaratory judgment as to use of their lake by defendant, payment of fees and injunctive relief. Defendant counter-claimed for a declaratory judgment as to its use of the lake, disputed any obligation to pay fees to the plaintiff, and sought monetary damages and attorney's fees. The Trial Court held that plaintiffs' owned the lake and the master deed provided for maintenance fee and membership fees, that defendant's members were required to pay. But if the defendants' members did not use the lake they would not be required to pay the fees. On appeal, we hold the Court correctly found that the lake was an amenity and that a lake use fee was required to be paid to plaintiffs pursuant to the master deed and exhibits. But the Court erred in holding that defendant owners could choose not to use the lake and not pay the fees. We otherwise affirm the Court's rulings on the issues raised on appeal.

This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with the Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of the findings of fact and conclusions of law. The issue in this case is whether the trial court's award of permanent total disability is supported by a preponderance of the evidence. We find no error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In this action to terminate father's parental rights, the Trial Court refused to appoint counsel for father, despite his claim of indigence. On appeal, we vacate the Judgment and remand for further hearing on the issue of indigency.

A Hardeman County jury found the defendant, Stephen Lynn Hugueley, guilty of first degree premeditated murder. Following a separate penalty phase, the jury found the presence of four statutory aggravating circumstances and that these aggravators outweighed any mitigating factors.  The jury subsequently imposed a sentence of death. On appeal, the defendant seeks review by this Court of both his conviction for first degree murder and his sentence of death. He presents the following issues for review: (1) whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant an individual and sequestered voir dire; (2) whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s objection to the State’s use of peremptory challenges based upon race and gender; (3) whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to excuse a potential juror for cause; (4) whether the indictment failed to charge a capital offense; and (5) whether the trial court failed to apply meaningful standards to ensure constitutionally adequate proportionality review.  Finding no error, we affirm the defendant’s conviction of first degree murder and sentence of death.

The majority concludes that modification of the defendant’s sentence is required in light of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. __, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). I must respectfully dissent.

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 of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The employee contends the trial court erred (1) when it held that the employee’s phlebitis did not arise out of and in the scope of her employment, (2) in finding that the employee’s torn rotator cuff was not timely reported, and (3) in finding that the employee’s torn rotator cuff did not arise out of and in the scope of her employment.  We affirm the trial court’s finding that the employee’s phlebitis did not arise out of her employment.  However, we reverse the trial court’s findings that the employee’s rotator cuff was not timely reported and did not arise out of and in the course of her employment.

The Appellant, Anthony Lee Hill, was convicted by a Scott County jury of nine counts of sexual battery and received an effective two-year split confinement sentence with service of six months in the county jail. On appeal, Hill raises two issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to support the nine convictions and (2) whether the statutory language of the phrase "can reasonably be construed as being for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification" improperly lessens the State's burden of proof and is, thus, unconstitutional. After review, the judgments of conviction are affirmed.

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.