APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

In 1964, Mr. and Mrs. Woodard executed a Joint Last Will and Testament (the "Joint Will") which provided that the survivor would receive the decedent's entire estate in fee simple. The Joint Will further provided that, upon the death of the survivor, the survivor's estate would be divided in equal one-fourth shares among George D. Woodard ("Plaintiff"), Mr. Woodard's son from a previous marriage, and Mr. and Mrs. Woodard's three daughters. Mrs. Woodard executed a new will in 1998 (the "1998 Will"), approximately twenty years after Mr. Woodard's death. Pursuant to the terms of the 1998 Will, Plaintiff was to receive $10,000, with the remainder of Mrs. Woodard's estate to be divided equally among her three daughters. Mrs. Woodard's three daughters sought to probate the 1998 Will after she passed away. Plaintiff then filed this lawsuit claiming, among other things, that the Joint Will created a contractual obligation on the part of Mrs. Woodard to distribute her estate in accordance with the terms of the Joint Will and, therefore, Plaintiff was entitled to one-fourth of Mrs. Woodard's estate. Plaintiff sued Mrs. Woodard's estate as well as his three half-sisters, Sandra Norton, Martha Scissom, and Barbara Lambert (collectively referred to as "Defendants"). The Trial Court granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment. We conclude there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether there existed a contractual obligation on the part of Mrs. Woodard to distribute her estate according to the terms of the Joint Will. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the Trial Court and remand for further proceedings.

Defendant, Jonathan M. Light, pled guilty to two counts of Class D felony burglary, one count of Class D felony theft, and one count of Class E felony theft. Pursuant to the negotiated plea agreement, he received sentences of two years for each of the Class D felonies, and one year for the Class E felony, all to be served concurrently with each other for an effective sentence of two years. Pursuant to the agreement, the manner of service of the sentence was to be determined by the trial court following a sentencing hearing. Defendant requested to serve his sentence in the Community Corrections program, but the trial court ordered the entire sentence to be served by incarceration. Defendant has now appealed this decision by the trial court. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The appellant, Arthur Buford III, was convicted by a jury of two counts of first degree murder. After being sentenced to two consecutive life sentences, the appellant presents the following issues or our review: (1) whether the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the introduction of photographic evidence of the crime scene; (2) whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain the convictions; and (3) whether the trial court properly sentenced the appellant. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Shelby County jury convicted the defendant, Cornelius Richmond, of one count of robbery and three counts of forgery. The trial court ordered the defendant to serve an effective sentence of thirtythree years as a career offender. On appeal, the defendant contends: (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his statement to the police; (2) the evidence is insufficient to support his robbery conviction; and (3) the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on facilitation as a lesser-included offense. Upon review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This appeal involves a state prisoner who desires to change his name for religious reasons. Even though the prisoner's petition was uncontested, the Davidson County Probate Court declined to permit the prisoner to change his name solely because he had been convicted of a felony. While we have determined that the probate court erred by denying the prisoner's petition solely because he had been convicted of a felony, we have determined that the petition was properly dismissed.

On September 6, 2002, Melody Lynn Michael ("Wife") filed suit against her husband, John William Michael, Jr. ("Husband"), seeking a divorce, custody of the couple's minor child, and ancillary relief. The complaint reflects that Husband is an active-duty member of the United States Air Force. Service of process on Husband was attempted through the Secretary of State "by certified or registered mail" directed to Husband at his acknowledged address in Waldorf, Maryland. The Secretary of State notified the clerk of the trial court that his correspondence to Husband was returned by the United States Postal Service with the notation that it was "refused." When there was no response filed by Husband to Wife's complaint, Wife, on November 25, 2002, filed a motion for default judgment. The motion was heard and granted on January 6, 2003, and subsequently memorialized in a default judgment and judgment of divorce entered January 24, 2003. A motion to set aside the default judgment and judgment of divorce was filed by Husband on February 14, 2003. Following a hearing on April 7, 2003, the trial court entered an order on May 6, 2003, denying the motion. Husband appeals. We affirm.

This case involves Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant committed legal malpractice while representing
Plaintiff in certain bankruptcy proceedings. The Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment,
alleging that the applicable statute of limitations bars the malpractice action, as does the doctrine of res judicata. The trial court granted Defendant’s motion, and Plaintiff filed the instant appeal. For
the following reasons, we affirm the ruling of the lower court.

I agree with the majority opinion in all respects with one exception. The majority opinion concludes the failure of the trial court to charge the lesser-included offense of facilitation of felony murder as to Defendant Bond was not harmless error. I respectfully disagree with this conclusion.

This case arose out of a labor dispute. In October 1999, the defendant union began a labor strike at the plaintiff trucking company's Nashville facility. The company filed a petition in the lower court seeking to enjoin the union from engaging in violence and intimidation in connection with the strike. The company later amended its complaint to include a claim against the union for intentional interference with business relations. Between October 1999 and January 2000, the trial court entered five injunctions against the union, each more restrictive than the one before, enjoining the union from engaging in the alleged unlawful violence and intimidation. In August 2000, the trial court issued a show cause order, citing 128 alleged violations of the injunctions, requiring the union to show cause why it should not be held in civil contempt. In March 2002, the trial court determined that the company's petition for civil contempt was moot because, by that time, the contemptuous conduct had ceased. In August 2002, the trial court dismissed the company's claim for intentional interference with business relations for failure to state a claim. The plaintiff trucking company now appeals. We reverse the dismissal of the civil contempt petition, finding that the company may seek damages caused by conduct in violation of the injunctions, and affirm the dismissal of the intentional interference claim.

The Appellant, Carlos Salvador Angel, Jr., was convicted of aggravated sexual battery by a Davidson County jury and sentenced to ten years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, Angel argues that: (1) the admission of testimony by his former girlfriend, who was not the victim in this case, was irrelevant and unduly prejudicial and (2) the ten-year sentence imposed was excessive. After review of the record, the judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.

A Montgomery County jury convicted the Appellant, David G. Housler, of four counts of felony murder. Housler's convictions stem from the robbery of a Clarksville Taco Bell and the execution-style murders of four of its employees. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed four consecutive life sentences. Housler appeals, presenting the following issues for our review: (1) Whether his confessions were properly admitted into evidence when the State and the trial court knew the confessions were false and unreliable; (2) Whether the State committed prosecutorial misconduct by using the recanted testimony of Robert Eastland, Robert Dawson, and Michael Miller and by failing to inform defense counsel or the trial court that Jeremy Thompson had recanted his statement; (3) Whether he is entitled to a new trial based upon the newly recanted testimony of Larry Underhill; (4) Whether the trial court erred in denying a new trial when a juror fell asleep during the trial; (5) Whether the Mathews time-line proves his innocence; (6) Whether the State prosecuted Housler and Courtney Mathews under inconsistent theories; and (7) Whether consecutive sentencing was proper. After review, we find no error of law requiring reversal. Accordingly, we affirm Housler's convictions and the imposition of four consecutive life sentences.

The defendant pled guilty to possession of marijuana with intent to sell or deliver, a Class E felony, and simple possession of cocaine, a Class A misdemeanor. The Rutherford County trial court imposed an effective one-year sentence with ninety days incarceration followed by probation. On appeal, the defendant raises two issues: (1) whether the trial court erred in denying judicial diversion; and (2) whether the trial court erred in denying full probation. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Tanikia Yolanda Boone (“the tenant”) sued Houston Gibson, Jr. (“the landlord”), seeking damages and other relief for wrongful eviction and for the wrongful withholding of her personal possessions, pursuant to the Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (“the URLTA”), Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-28-101, et seq. (1993 & Supp. 2003). The tenant attempted service on the landlord by having the landlord’s process served on Donna Gibson, the landlord’s former wife. After the landlord failed to respond to the complaint, the tenant filed a motion for default judgment. The trial court granted the motion and awarded the tenant damages of $20,000 and attorney’s fees and costs totaling $3,500. Approximately two years later, in response to the tenant’s efforts to execute on her judgment, the landlord filed a motion to dismiss the default judgment on the ground that the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over him. Following a hearing on the landlord’s motion, the trial court held that the landlord’s former wife had authority as his agent to accept service of process on his behalf. We affirm.
 

The Petitioner, Roger Lynn Perry, appeals the trial court's denial 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. Because Petitioner has failed to allege a ground for relief which would render the judgment void, we grant the State's motion and affirm the judgment of the lower court.

After nineteen years of marriage, Myrtle Marie Stagner (“Wife”) sued Lloyd Otis Stagner (“Husband”) for divorce. After trial, the Trial Court ordered, inter alia, the marital home sold and awarded Wife sixty percent of the proceeds with ten percent being alimony in solido in lieu of any other alimony. The Trial Court also characterized as Husband’s separate property the appreciation of Husband’s separate pre-marital property. Wife appeals as to both the alimony and the property division. We affirm, in part, and vacate, in part, and remand.

Defendant, Thomas Marion Hardin, entered "open" pleas of guilty to two counts of sale of cocaine in an amount of 0.5 grams or more, and one count of conspiracy to sell cocaine in an amount of 0.5 grams or more. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Defendant to serve ten years as a Range I standard offender for each Class B felony conviction for sale of cocaine, and to four years to serve as a Range I standard offender to the Class C felony conviction for conspiracy. The sentences for the sale of cocaine convictions were ordered to be served concurrently with each other, and the conspiracy charge was ordered to be served consecutively to the convictions for sale of cocaine. Therefore, the effective sentence was fourteen years of confinement. In his sole issue on appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court erred by not ordering his sentence to be served in the Community Corrections Program, rather than by incarceration. After a review of the briefs of the parties and the entire record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

I concur in the majority opinion. I write separately to further address the majority’s treatment of the Illinois farm. I agree with the majority that the use of the parties’ joint accounts – to which both parties contributed – to pay “real estate taxes, insurance premiums, repairs and maintenance on the farm” during the parties’ 19-year marriage is clear evidence that “each party substantially contributed to [the Illinois farm’s] preservation and appreciation.” See Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-4- 121(b)(1)(B). This means that the entire “increase in value [of the Illinois farm] during the marriage,” see id., is marital property. Obviously this does not end the inquiry, because the trial court on remand must decide how to make an equitable division of the marital property portion of the present value of the farm in the context of an overall division of the total marital property estate. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-4-121(c)(1)-(11).

On March 23, 1998, The petitioner pled guilty to six (6) counts of attempt to commit incest and six (6) counts of attempt to commit rape. He was sentenced to six (6) years for each count, all to be served concurrently to each other. On March 20, 2002, he filed a Petition for Post-Conviction Relief. He based his petition on two grounds of relief, attorney misrepresentation and DNA analysis under Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-30-403. The trial court dismissed the petition as time-barred on the attorney misrepresentation issue and as not meeting the statutory requirements on the DNA issue. The petitioner appeals the trial court's decision. We affirm the trial court.

The plaintiff filed suit for repayment of $25,000 which he purportedly loaned to the defendant. The defendant contended that the money was not a loan, but was placed with him for a specific investment. Since the investment ultimately failed, the defendant claimed that he did not owe anything to the plaintiff. The trial court noted that the documents evidencing the transactions at issue were “replete with ambiguities,” but found that they were nonetheless sufficient to establish an enforceable loan contract. The court accordingly rendered a plaintiff’s judgment for $25,000 plus interest. We reverse.

The Appellant, Ricky Hill Krantz, appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief by the Davidson County Criminal Court. Krantz is currently incarcerated as a result of his jury convictions for first degree felony murder and aggravated assault. On appeal, Krantz raises the single issue of whether he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. After review of the issue, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed.

The petitioner was indicted on three counts of rape of a child, a Class A felony, and pled guilty to one count of incest, a Class C felony, in exchange for an eight-year sentence as a Range II, multiple offender. Following his conviction, he filed a timely motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to Rule 35 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure. After conducting a hearing, the trial court denied the motion, and the petitioner appealed to this court. We agree that the petitioner should be allowed to withdraw his plea of guilty, although for a different reason than he argues. Incest, to which he pled guilty, is not a lesser-included offense of rape of a child, and the record on appeal does not reflect that the indictment was amended to charge incest. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of conviction and remand this matter to the trial court.

I agree on both counts. The “loan agreements” are poorly drafted, and they do not reflect
sound business judgment on Mr. Caldwell’s part. So what? When competent parties have bargained in good faith and have entered into a written contract, it is not the courts’ prerogative to rewrite the contract or to relieve either party from the burdensome effects of their agreement. Vargo v. Lincoln Brass Works, Inc., 115 S.W.3d 487, 492 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003). Whether considered by themselves or in conjunction with the parties’ separate “consulting agreements,” the fact of the matter is that Mr. Caldwell’s “loan agreements” are precisely that – loan agreements. I would affirm the trial court.

Defendants Andrew Thomas and Anthony Bond appeal as of right their convictions for the first degree felony murder of Loomis Fargo employee, James Day, during the perpetration of a robbery. Following a separate sentencing hearing, the jury found, as to each defendant, that the proof supported one aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt, that is, the defendant had been previously convicted of one or more violent felonies. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-204(i)(2). With respect to Defendant Thomas, the jury further determined that the aggravating circumstance outweighed any mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt, and sentenced Defendant Thomas to death. As to Defendant Bond, the jury found that the aggravating circumstance did not outweigh the mitigating circumstances and imposed a sentence of life without the possibility of parole. The trial court approved the sentencing verdicts. In this appeal as of right, Defendant Thomas raises the following issues for this Court’s review: (1) the sufficiency of the evidence; (2) whether the trial court erred by denying various pre-trial motions; (3) whether the trial court erred by failing to continue the case after the events of September 11, 2001; (4) whether the trial court erred by excusing prospective juror Pannell for cause; (5) whether the trial court erred by admitting photographs of the victim; (6) whether the trial court erred by admitting items from Defendant’s prior federal trial arising out of the robbery; (7) whether the trial court erred in restricting the Defendant’s impeachment of Angela Jackson; (8) whether the trial court erred in failing to voir dire a prospective witness regarding her relationship with defense witness Russell Carpenter; (9) whether the trial court erred in sustaining an objection to the testimony of John Hibbler; (10) whether the trial court erred in permitting testimony regarding fingerprints despite stipulation; (11) whether the trial court erred in the admission of expert testimony; (12) whether the trial court erred by failing to charge lesser-included offenses of felony murder; (13) whether the trial court erred by failing to charge the jury with an accomplice instruction; (14) whether it was plain error for the State to refer to Thomas and Bond as “Greed and Evil” in opening statement and closing argument; (15) whether the trial court erred in permitting the State to argue that the jury had a job to find the Defendants guilty; (16) whether the trial court erred by not instructing on specific mitigating factors; (17) whether the trial court erred by permitting the State to cross-examine the Defendant’s mother regarding disciplinary actions taken against the Defendant while in prison; (18) whether the verdict 2 of the jury was against the weight of the evidence; (19) whether the indictment failed to charge a capital offense; (20) whether the death penalty violates international treaties ratified by the United States; (21) whether the Tennessee death penalty scheme is unconstitutional; and (22) whether the sentence is proportionate. Defendant Bond raises the following issues: (1) whether it was error for the trial judge to fail to recuse himself for failure to follow Local Rule 4.01; (2) whether the trial court erred by overruling Bond’s objection to the testimony of Dr. Smith; (3) whether the trial court erred by declaring Dr. Smith an expert in firearms identification; (4) whether the trial court erred by permitting the prosecution to engage in improper argument; (5) whether the trial court erred by permitting the prosecution to elicit testimony from Angela Jackson regarding her attendance at trial; and (6) whether the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury as to lesser-included offenses of felony murder. After review of the record and the applicable law, we find no errors of law requiring reversal as to Defendant Thomas. Accordingly, we affirm the jury’s verdict finding Defendant Thomas guilty of first degree murder. Additionally, we affirm the jury’s imposition of the sentence of death as to Defendant Thomas. However, with respect to Defendant Bond, we are unable to conclude that the failure of the trial court to instruct the jury as to the lesser-included offenses of felony murder was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, we vacate Defendant Bond’s conviction for felony murder and accompanying sentence of life without the possibility of parole. With respect to Defendant Bond, this matter is remanded to the trial court for a new trial.