APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

On December 17, 2001, Defendant, Jason D. Walker, entered a guilty plea in the Blount County Circuit Court to statutory rape. Defendant was sentenced as a Range I offender to two years to be suspended on supervised probation. Defendant was ordered, as a condition of his probation, to attend a sex offender treatment program, establish paternity of the child resulting from the offense, and pay child support. A probation violation warrant was issued. Following a revocation hearing, Defendant was sentenced to serve thirty days of his sentence in confinement and the remainder on probation. Additional probation violation warrants were subsequently issued. Following another revocation hearing, the trial court revoked Defendant's probation and ordered that Defendant serve the balance of his original sentence in confinement. Defendant appeals the trial court's revocation of probation. After reviewing the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This appeal involves a petition filed by the Department of Children’s Services to terminate the parental rights of Mother to two of her minor children. The trial court granted the petition and Mother appeals the decision. Because we find there was not clear and convincing evidence of a ground for termination, we reverse the judgment.

I concur in the judgment that grounds for termination of parental rights in this case are not
established by clear and convincing evidence.

The petitioner appeals the denial of her post-conviction relief petition relating to her guilty plea to felony murder for which she received a life sentence. On appeal, the petitioner contends: (1) she received ineffective assistance of counsel; and (2) her guilty plea was unknowingly and involuntarily entered. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The defendant, Christopher Kevan Hein, was charged with the first degree murder of his girlfriend and convicted by a Knox County Criminal Court jury of the lesser-included offense of criminally negligent homicide, a Class E felony. He was sentenced by the trial court as a Range I, standard offender to two years in the Department of Correction, which had already been served by the conclusion of the trial. In this timely filed appeal as of right, he raises the following five issues: (1) whether the trial court erred in precluding the defense from introducing taped statements that an unavailable witness, Thomas Hendrix, made to an undercover informant and to a Tennessee Bureau of Investigation ("TBI") agent in which he described his participation in the burning of the victim's body and stated that the murder was committed by George Cate; (2) whether the trial court erred in precluding the defense from introducing Cate's statements to law enforcement officers; (3) whether the trial court erred in allowing an officer who was not qualified as an expert witness to express his opinion regarding the tendency of suspects during interrogation to minimize their involvement in crimes; (4) whether the trial court erred in precluding the defense from calling an expert witness to rebut the officer's opinion; and (5) whether the trial court erred in allowing the State to present evidence of the defendant's application for food stamps, in contravention of state and federal law. Having reviewed the record and found no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Plaintiff filed suit alleging Defendant breached its employment contract by failing to provide Plaintiff with phantom units when Plaintiff was terminated without cause. Defendant denied that Plaintiff's phantom units had vested, and therefore, Plaintiff was not entitled to any phantom units at the time of his termination. The trial court found that the letter memorializing the Defendant's offer of employment was sufficiently definite and met the other requirements for a valid contract, including mutual assent. The trial court also found that the terms of the employment contract did not include any vesting requirements for Plaintiff's phantom units. As a result, the trial court found that Defendant had breached its employment contract and awarded Plaintiff the value of his phantom units contained in the employment agreement plus pre-judgment interest dating back to Plaintiff's termination. Defendant appeals. We affirm.

Appellee purchased Appellant’s overdue Note from FDIC, who was receiver of The Bank
of Alamo. Appellee sought to enforce the Note and trial court entered Judgment for Appellee.
Appellant contends that Appellee had no right to enforce the Note because Appellee was not a holder in due course. Since no defenses to enforcement were raised by Appellant, the question of whether Appellee is a holder in due course is irrelevant. We affirm.
 

This is an appeal from the grant of Appellee's Motion for Summary Judgment, involving the interpretation of a 1908 Deed, which created a fee simple determinable with a possibility of reverter. Finding that the reversionary language was triggered upon the property ceasing to be used as a classroom facility, we reverse and grant summary judgment to the non-moving Appellants.

The petitioner, Aaron McFarland, appeals the judgment of the Shelby County Criminal Court denying his petition for post-conviction relief from his conviction for first degree murder. The petitioner contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

This appeal concerns a complaint of negligence filed by the appellants Raymond and Sharon Rollins against the Electric Power Board of Metropolitan Nashville and Davidson County (NES). The alleged negligence involved the cutting and removal by NES of three trees on the appellants' property. The Rollins appeal the trial court's final order in favor of NES. We affirm.

Appellant filed petition seeking credit against child support arrearage for necessaries provided to minor children. The trial court granted Appellant $10,236.50 in credit toward his support arrearage. Appellant appeals asserting that the trial court erred in giving a percentage of necessaries provided. Finding that the Appellant did not meet his burden of proof in his claim for necessaries and that the evidence in record preponderates against the trial court’s findings, we reverse in part, affirm in part and remand.

The petitioner, Mack A. O’Baner, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of the offense of first degree murder. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. On direct appeal this Court affirmed the convictions. See State v. Mack A. O’Baner, No. W2001-00815-CCA-R3-CD, Shelby County, (filed March 15, 2002, at Jackson). On February 6, 2003, the petitioner filed a post-conviction petition alleging that his due process rights were violated by a jury instruction on second degree murder which failed to specify that second degree murder committed through a “knowing killing of another” was strictly a “result-of-conduct offense.” See State v. Page, 81 S.W.3d 781, 790 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2002). The petition also alleged that his trial and appellate counsel were ineffective in failing to challenge the jury instructions given as being violative of the holding in Page. The trial court summarily dismissed the petition finding inter alia that, because he was convicted of first degree murder the petitioner could not establish prejudice as a result of his claims. After a review of the record and the applicable authorities we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Demetrius Currie, pled guilty in the Tipton County Circuit Court to two counts of especially aggravated robbery and one count of especially aggravated burglary. The petitioner received a total effective sentence of sixteen years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Subsequently, the petitioner filed for post-conviction relief, alleging that because counsel failed to correctly inform him of his release eligibility percentage, counsel was ineffective and the petitioner’s guilty pleas were not knowingly and voluntarily made. After a hearing, the  postconviction court denied the petition, and the petitioner appeals. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

This appeal involves a petition for writ of certiorari filed by a state prisoner. The prisoner was found guilty of money laundering by the prison Disciplinary Board, and placed in punitive segregation for ten days, ordered to pay a $5.00 fine, and was recommended him for involuntary administration segregation. The prisoner filed a petition for common law writ of certiorari in the Chancery Court of Lauderdale County alleging that the Disciplinary Board committed multiple violations of its own disciplinary procedures. The trial court issued an order granting certiorari, and respondents filed a certified copy of the disciplinary record for the prisoner with the trial court. After reviewing the record, the trial court held that the Petitioner had failed to prove that the Disciplinary Board exceeded its jurisdiction or acted illegally, fraudulently or arbitrarily, and quashed the petition. Prisoner appeals. We affirm.

The appellants, Nathaniel Lee Jackson and Kenneth Juqan Jones, both minors, were tried as adults in a non-jury trial and found guilty of aggravated kidnapping, evading arrest and aggravated robbery. Following a sentencing hearing, each received an effective sentence of twelve years. Both appellants argue that the juvenile court erred in transferring the case to circuit court. Appellant Jackson seeks a determination as to whether the judgment is void due to the failure of the trial court to have a detention hearing. Appellant Jones presents the following additional issues: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient on the charges of aggravated kidnapping and aggravated robbery; and (2) whether the trial court failed to adhere to applicable sentencing guidelines. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the decision of the trial court.

A Shelby County jury convicted the Appellant, Ronald Dotson, of two counts of aggravated robbery. Following a sentencing hearing, Dotson was found to be a repeat violent offender and sentenced to two consecutive sentences of life without parole. On appeal, Dotson argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for continuance based upon (1) the State’s failure to provide pre-trial discovery and (2) the court’s ruling which permitted impeachment under Tennessee Rules of Evidence 609. As a second issue, Dotson argues that the evidence is legally insufficient to support his convictions. Finding no reversible error, the judgments of conviction are affirmed.

The trial court imposed sanctions on Plaintiff, who undisputedly spoiled evidence and lied in a sworn deposition, and dismissed Plaintiff’s cause of action. On appeal, Dr. Alexander argues that dismissal was improper. We affirm.
 

This is a proceeding to terminate the parental relationship between father and son. The mother's relationship had been previously terminated at her request. The trial court terminated the father's parental relationship on statutory grounds of non-support, non visitation, and best interests. Father essentially argues that his son, who was born February 12, 1996 in Texas, was hidden from him, thereby frustrating his efforts to support or visit him. The trial court found that the Respondent had little credibility, that he had no permanent address, and that he failed to keep anyone apprised of his address for the last four years. Judgment affirmed.

The defendant, Tony Levelle Ford, entered guilty pleas to aggravated burglary and conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery. The Blount County trial court ordered the defendant to serve concurrent five-year sentences in confinement as a Range I standard offender. On appeal, the defendant contends his sentences are excessive. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The appellant, Roy Chisenhall, was convicted by a jury of aggravated sexual battery. After a sentencing hearing, he was sentenced to eight years and nine months and, as recommended by the jury, assessed a $25,000 fine. The trial court denied his motion for new trial. In this direct appeal, the appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, the jury instruction on flight, the jury instruction on aggravated sexual battery, and the absence of a jury instruction on corroboration of accomplice testimony. After a review of the record and applicable authorities, we affirm the decision of the trial court.

The appellant, Cornell Marley Hyder, also known as Cornbread, was convicted by a jury of one count of rape of a child, one count of rape, one count of aggravated sexual battery, and one count of sexual battery, for which he received an effective seventeen-year sentence. In this direct appeal, the appellant presents the following issues for review: (1) whether the trial court erred in refusing to allow testimony pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Evidence 412; (2) whether the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress; (3) whether the trial court erred in denying the motion for directed verdict; (4) whether the trial court erred in failing to charge the jury on election of offenses; (5) whether the evidence established the venue of the offense on the charge of rape; and (6) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict. We affirm the convictions and sentences, but remand for correction of the judgment forms.

Father of minor child appeals the trial court’s order finding him in contempt of court, assessing arrearages of child support and attorney fees on the ground that the court lacked personal jurisdiction in the original divorce action and all subsequent proceedings. We affirm.
 

Wife filed for divorce alleging irreconcilable differences or, in the alternative, that Husband was guilty of inappropriate marital conduct. The trial court granted Wife an absolute divorce on the basis of Husband's stipulated inappropriate marital conduct. The trial court further ordered a distribution of marital property and debt, awarded wife alimony in futuro and attorney's fees, and required Husband to maintain a life insurance policy to secure his alimony obligation. Husband appeals. We affirm the award of alimony in futuro, distribution of marital property and debt, and the award of attorney's fees as alimony in solido. However, we vacate the requirement to provide life insurance and remand.