APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Following a conviction for DUI, third offense, after entering a guilty plea, Defendant James H. Thompson appeals, asserting that he has presented a certified question of law for review. Because we conclude that the question of law, even if properly reserved at the guilty plea hearing, is not dispositive of the case, we dismiss the appeal.

The appellant, Sidney Joseph Ogle, pled guilty in the Knox County Criminal Court to aggravated assault. The trial court sentenced the appellant as a Range I standard offender to three years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The trial court denied the appellant's request for probation and the appellant timely appealed. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Sullivan County grand jury indicted Defendant Woodrow Gifford, Jr. for possession of over 0.5 grams of cocaine, a Schedule II drug, and possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor. The Sullivan County grand jury indicted Defendant Carl Monk for possession of over 26 grams of cocaine, a Schedule II drug, and possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor. Following the trial court's denial of the Defendants Motions to Suppress evidence, the Defendants both pled nolo contendere to possession with intent to sell drugs, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated Section 39-17-417, and possession of drug paraphernalia, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated Section 39-17-425. Both Defendants reserved the right to appeal a certified question of law regarding the trial court's denial of their Motions to Suppress. Finding no error in the trial court's judgment, we affirm.

The defendant appeals the trial court's revocation of his probation, arguing that his due process rights were violated because (1) the trial court allowed the State to amend the revocation petition to include as additional grounds his subsequent convictions for theft and criminal impersonation, without providing him prior written notice; and (2) the trial court failed to issue adequate findings of fact in support of its decision. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant appeals the trial court's dismissal of his motion for correction of an illegal sentence. Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, the defendant entered a nolo contendere plea to a Class B felony and was sentenced by the trial court as a Range I, standard offender to ten years, two years above the presumptive minimum sentence in the range. Subsequently, the defendant filed a pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that the trial court violated the requirements of the 1989 Sentencing Reform Act by failing to state enhancement factors to support the increase in his sentence from the presumptive minimum eight-year sentence. The trial court dismissed the motion, and the defendant appealed to this court. Finding no error, we affirm the trial court's dismissal of the defendant's motion to correct illegal sentence.

Petitioner, Kena Hodges, appeals from the dismissal of her petition for post-conviction relief. After a review of the record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Appellant, Tommy Dickerson, appeals from the trial court's summary dismissal of Appellant's second petition for post-conviction relief. After a review of the record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner appeals from the post-conviction court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. He claims he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. After careful review, we affirm the post-conviction court's denial of relief.

The petitioner, Dedric D. Phillips, appeals the Lauderdale County Circuit Court’s denial of his post-conviction relief petition. The petitioner entered guilty pleas to possession with intent to deliver less than .5 grams of cocaine and simple assault, and the trial court imposed an effective sentence of ten years as a Range III persistent offender. On appeal, the petitioner contends: (1) he received ineffective assistance of counsel; and (2) his guilty pleas were unknowingly and involuntarily entered. Upon review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The petitioner, Glen Bernard Mann, appeals the trial court's denial of post-conviction relief. In 1994, the petitioner was sentenced to death by a jury for the premeditated first degree murder of Anne Lou Wilson, a sixty-two-year-old widow. He was also convicted and sentenced to twenty-five years for aggravated rape and six years for aggravated burglary of the same victim. The convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal by both this Court and the Tennessee Supreme Court. The petitioner is seeking post-conviction relief for, inter alia, ineffective assistance of counsel at both the guilt and penalty phase of his trial. The post-conviction court, after a hearing, found the petitioner failed to carry his burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that his trial counsel was ineffective. After review, we affirm the post-conviction court's denial of post-conviction relief.

A Shelby County jury convicted the Defendant of first degree felony murder, and the trial court sentenced the Defendant to imprisonment for life with the possibility of parole. The Defendant now appeals, contending the following: (1) that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress his statement to police; (2) that the trial court erred when it denied his motion for mistrial based upon a witness's non-responsive statement; (3) that the trial court erred in permitting the prosecution to assert matters not in evidence during closing arguments; and (4) that the trial court committed plain error by incorrectly instructing the jury with respect to the culpable mental state of "knowingly." Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

On May 3, 2002, a Sevier County jury convicted the defendant, Rodney M. Spurgeon, of arson and the burning of personal property. For these offenses the jury levied fines of $10,000 and $2,500, respectively. After denying the defendant's motion for new trial, the trial court sentenced him to ten years for the arson conviction and four years for setting fire to personal property. These convictions are to run concurrently as a Range II offender. The defendant appeals these convictions. His sole argument on appeal is whether unfair prejudice resulted from the trial court's failure to comply with the strict guidelines of Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b). We find no reversible error and therefore affirm the convictions.

The defendant pled guilty to theft under $500 and was sentenced to eleven months, twenty-nine days in the county jail at zero percent work release eligibility, to be served consecutively to a two-year sentence in a separate case. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying him probation. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The sole determinative issue on appeal is whether an agreement which mandates arbitration in the event of claims or disputes "arising out of or relating in any way to the relationship of the parties or this Agreement, or the breach thereof," requires arbitration of tort claims including acts arising after the parties' contractual relationship ended. We hold that arbitration of claims of tortious interference with contracts or business relations is required under the terms of the parties' agreement and reverse the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Fred Taylor Smith, entered pleas of guilt to driving under the influence and driving under the influence per se. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-10-401(a)(1)-(2). The trial court merged the two convictions and imposed a sentence of 11 months and 29 days with a requirement of service of 75%. As a part of the plea agreement, the defendant reserved a certified question of law challenging the validity of the investigatory stop. The judgment is affirmed.

Following a jury trial, Defendant, Brian Larice Cureton, was convicted of one count of first degree felony murder and one count of aggravated child abuse. The trial court sentenced Defendant to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole for the felony murder conviction. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Defendant to twenty-five years imprisonment for the aggravated child abuse conviction as a Range I offender and ordered the sentence for aggravated child abuse to run concurrently with Defendant's life sentence. Defendant now appeals his convictions and sentencing alleging (1) that the evidence is insufficient to support Defendant's convictions for first degree felony murder and aggravated child abuse beyond a reasonable doubt; (2) that the trial court erred in not allowing Defendant to cross examine Kinoltra Ewing about her willingness to take a polygraph test; (3) that the trial court erred in not redacting portions of Defendant's statement to the police; (4) that the trial court erred in not instructing the jury on facilitation of aggravated child abuse and felony murder as lesser included offenses; (5) that the trial court erred in permitting the State's expert witness to offer opinions outside her area of expertise; and (6) that Defendant's sentence for aggravated child abuse was excessive. After a thorough review of the record and the arguments and briefs of counsel, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant, Lonnie Walter Hurd, appeals from his Sullivan County Criminal Court jury convictions of driving under the influence (DUI) and possession of cocaine. On appeal, he claims that the convicting evidence is insufficient, that certain evidence was improperly admitted, that the testimony of a state's witness violated the witness sequestration rule, and that the trial court erred in permitting a defense witness to be cross-examined about her prior drug convictions. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.