APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The defendant, Doris M. Dennison, pled guilty in the Union County Criminal Court to five counts of aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the defendant received an eight-year sentence for each conviction with the issue of concurrent or consecutive sentencing to be determined by the trial court. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered that the defendant serve counts one through four consecutively to each other but concurrently with count five for an effective sentence of thirty-two years in the Department of Correction. The defendant appeals, claiming that the trial court improperly ordered consecutive sentences. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant was convicted by a Sequatchie County Circuit Court jury of first degree premeditated murder for shooting his wife's boyfriend to death outside a gasoline station and convenience store. Because the State did not seek either the death penalty or life without parole, the trial court automatically sentenced him to life imprisonment in the Department of Correction. In this appeal as of right, the defendant raises essentially three issues: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction; (2) whether the trial court erred in admitting into evidence enhanced versions of the store surveillance videotape of the shooting; and (3) whether the trial court erred in its jury instructions on intentionally and knowingly. Following our review, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient to sustain the defendant's conviction for premeditated murder, the trial court did not err in admitting the videotapes, and any deficiency in the jury instructions constituted harmless error. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

At a joint trial, a Hawkins County jury convicted each Defendant of numerous drug-related offenses. The same jury also convicted Defendant Wolfe of tampering with evidence and convicted Defendant Barnett of two theft offenses. Wolfe received an effective sentence of five years of incarceration, and Barnett's effective sentence was twelve years of incarceration. On appeal, both Defendants challenge the sufficiency of the convicting evidence and the propriety of the sentences imposed by the trial court. Finding no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The appellant, Albert D. Wilson, II, pled guilty in the Blount County Circuit Court to possession of a Schedule II controlled substance and was sentenced to eight years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The appellant reserved two certified questions of law relating to the propriety of the search of his motel room. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Defendant, Kenneth Nolan Humphries, appeals the trial court's revocation of probation. Defendant was separately indicted for three counts of Class D theft. On September 17, 1993, Defendant entered guilty pleas to all three charges, and the trial court sentenced him to serve three consecutive sentences of four years each and ordered him to pay restitution. Defendant's sentences were suspended, and he was placed on probation for twelve years. A probation violation warrant was filed and later amended. The revocation warrant was dismissed, and the trial court ordered Defendant to complete a drug and alcohol rehabilitation program. Subsequently, a second probation violation warrant was filed and later amended to include additional allegations. On April 16, 1997, Defendant pled guilty to two more charges of theft and received two six-year sentences to be served concurrently with each other and consecutively to Defendant's previous twelve-year sentence, for a total effective sentence of eighteen years. The trial court ordered that Defendant's sentence be supervised by the Community Alternatives to Prison Program (CAPP), to expire on April 16, 2015. A warrant for violation of CAPP was filed. Defendant was ordered to serve the remainder of his sentence on regular probation. A fourth probation violation warrant was filed. Following a hearing, the trial court found that Defendant had violated the conditions of probation and ordered Defendant to serve the remainder of his sentence in confinement. Defendant appeals the trial court's decision. After reviewing the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court in part and reverse in part.

A Sevier County jury convicted the Defendant of driving under the influence and failure to carry a driver's license. The trial court sentenced him to ninety days of incarceration, followed by supervised probation, and suspended his license for two years. He now appeals, claiming: (1) that the trial court erred in failing to suppress all evidence gained as a result of his traffic stop; and (2) that the trial court erred by admitting into evidence the results of his breathalyzer test. In the event that this Court finds that either the traffic stop was unconstitutional or the breathalyzer test was inadmissable, then, the Defendant contends, the remaining evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We granted review to determine whether the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in concluding that defense counsel's dual roles as part-time assistant district attorney and defense counsel in this case created a conflict of interest requiring removal of counsel. The trial court found that defense counsel must be disqualified under the facts of this case because a "perceived" conflict of interest existed that could not be waived by the defendant. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed on the ground that an actual conflict of interest existed. After reviewing the record, we conclude that counsel's dual roles as prosecutor and defense counsel created an actual conflict of interest that required disqualification. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.

The appeal involves a claim for property damages by Shirley Secrest ("Secrest" or "Plaintiff") against Kenneth Smith and Tera Haynes, who were driving separate vehicles involved in a multi-vehicle accident with a vehicle owned by Plaintiff. After a trial, the Trial Court concluded that while the driver of Plaintiff's vehicle was not at fault and that either one or both of the Defendants were at fault, the complaint nevertheless should be dismissed because: (1) Plaintiff failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Kenneth Smith was negligent; and (2) Plaintiff failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Tera Haynes was negligent. Plaintiff appeals, claiming the Trial Court was required to allocate fault to Smith and/or Haynes once it concluded that Plaintiff was not at fault and either one or both of the Defendants were at fault. We affirm.

A Hamilton County Criminal Court jury convicted the defendant, Ralph Lamar Williams, of four counts of aggravated rape, a Class A felony; one count of rape, a Class B felony; and one count of aggravated kidnapping, a Class B felony. The trial court sentenced him as a violent offender to life without parole for each conviction. The defendant appeals, claiming that the prosecutor improperly suggested to the jury during closing argument that the defense bore the burden of establishing the defendant's innocence. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Plaintiff initiated this action alleging breach of contract, interference with contractual relations, and pursuant to the Governmental Tort Liability Act. The trial court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim. We affirm.

Plaintiff filed a cause of action against several state employees for malicious prosecution. The trial court dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We reverse.

The appellant, James Ruben Conyers, was convicted by a jury in the Houston County Circuit Court of especially aggravated burglary, a Class B felony; especially aggravated robbery, a Class A felony; and attempted first degree murder, a Class A felony. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the appellant to an effective sentence of eighty years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant raises numerous issues relating to the sufficiency of the evidence, the admission of evidence, the sufficiency of the indictment, the jury instructions, and sentencing. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we find no merit to the appellant's contentions. However, we recognize as plain error that the appellant's conviction for especially aggravated burglary was prohibited under Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-14-404(d) (1997). Accordingly, we modify the conviction to aggravated burglary and reduce the appellant's sentence for this conviction to ten years incarceration, for a total effective sentence of eighty years.

Sharron Johnson brought suit against her former husband, Rodney Lockhart, alleging breach of an oral contract to pay equal shares of the college expenses for their son, Paul G. Lockhart. The Circuit Court of Sumner County entered judgment for Ms. Johnson, and Mr. Lockhart appeals. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Wilson County Grand Jury indicted the Defendant for one count of especially aggravated robbery, two counts of aggravated robbery, and two counts of aggravated assault. Following the trial court's denial of the Defendant's Motion to Suppress evidence, the Defendant pled guilty, reserving a certified question of law. The issues before us on appeal are: (1) whether the certified question of law is dispositive of this case; and, if so (2) whether police had reasonable suspicion to stop the Defendant's vehicle; and (3) whether the police had probable cause to take the Defendant into custody and to search the Defendant's vehicle. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

John McConkey ("Plaintiff") had a vasectomy performed by a state-employed doctor. Plaintiff experienced swelling and pain after the operation, which he claimed caused him to lose time at work and caused problems in his marriage. Plaintiff underwent two subsequent surgeries including the removal of his left testicle. Plaintiff brought this claim against the doctor who performed the vasectomy. Plaintiff had no expert witness at trial. After trial, the Claims Commission ("Commission") entered an order holding, inter alia, that Plaintiff did not carry his burden of proof to establish a res ipsa loquitur case. Plaintiff appeals. We affirm.

The Polk County Grand Jury indicted the Defendant for three counts of vehicular homicide, four counts of aggravated assault, and twelve counts of failure to stop a school bus at a railroad crossing. The Defendant filed an application for pretrial diversion, and the trial court ordered that a pretrial diversion report be completed. Upon completion of the report, the Assistant District Attorney General denied the application, and the Defendant appealed to the District Attorney General, who also denied the application. The trial court granted a writ of certiorari and, thereafter, affirmed the District Attorney General's decision. The Defendant sought, and was granted, permission to take an interlocutory appeal pursuant to Rule 9 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. We granted the Defendant's application for interlocutory review to address the Defendant's contention that the State abused its discretion by denying her application for pretrial diversion. After a thorough consideration of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In action against the State of Tennessee and a state employee, the Commissioner held he had no jurisdiction of the claims. On appeal, we affirm.

In this Estate dispute, the Trial Court dismissed claims of two claimants. We affirm, dismissal of claimant who died on grounds his Estate had no standing to proceed. We reinstate the action of the other claimant on grounds she is not estopped to maintain her action.

Defendant, Marcus Johnson, was convicted by a jury in the Shelby County Criminal Court of felony murder and two counts of especially aggravated robbery. Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment for the felony murder conviction and twenty years for each especially aggravated robbery conviction. The trial court ordered the twenty-year sentences to run consecutive to each other, and one twenty-year sentence to run concurrent with the life sentence, and the other to run consecutive with the life sentence. In this appeal as of right, Defendant argues that: (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress incriminating statements made by Defendant to the police; (2) the evidence at trial was insufficient to support his convictions beyond a reasonable doubt; and (3) the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury as to the weight to be given to the supplemental jury charge. After a review of the record, we affirm Defendant's conviction for felony murder. We conclude, however, that the constitutional protections against double jeopardy require reversal of one of Defendant's convictions for especially aggravated robbery. Accordingly, we affirm one of Defendant's especially aggravated robbery convictions. We modify the other especially aggravated robbery conviction to aggravated assault and remand for resentencing, for the reasons stated herein.

This appeal questions whether the Trial Court erred in its judgment against the Appellant/Defendant, Water and Light Commission of the Town of Greeneville, Tennessee, for personal injuries sustained by a Greeneville resident as a result of the smoking of sewer lines by the Appellant. We affirm This appeal questions whether the Trial Court erred in its judgment against the Appellant/Defendant, Water and Light Commission of the Town of Greeneville, Tennessee, for personal injuries sustained by a Greeneville resident as a result of the smoking of sewer lines by the Appellant. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court.
 

The Defendant, Gary S. Johnson, pled guilty to vehicular homicide, a Class B felony, on August 6, 1996. The trial judge originally sentenced him to twelve years of house arrest and community corrections. The State appealed, and this Court vacated the sentence because the Defendant was not eligible for community corrections. Upon re-sentencing the Defendant was ordered to serve ten years of incarceration. The Defendant did not immediately appeal, but filed a timely Motion for a Modification and/or Reduction of Sentence. Prior to the trial court ruling on the motion, the Defendant filed a Petition for Post Conviction Relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court denied both the Defendant's motion and the Petition for Post Conviction Relief on June 12, 2002. The sole issue for appeal is whether the trial court erred in denying the Defendant's Petition for Post Conviction Relief. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, John Lee Bellamy, pled guilty in the Sullivan County Criminal Court to reckless aggravated assault, a Class D felony; failure to appear, a Class E felony; driving under the influence, second offense, and leaving the scene of an accident, Class A misdemeanors; and driving on a revoked license, second offense, a Class B misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced him as a Range I, standard offender to an effective sentence of four years, eight months, twenty-nine days. The defendant appeals the trial court's ordering him to serve his two-year, nine-month-sentence for the reckless aggravated assault conviction and consecutive one-year sentence for the failure to appear conviction in confinement. He claims that he should have received alternative sentences or, at most, sentences of split confinement. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The petitioner appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his conviction for aggravated sexual battery. He argues that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because his divorce attorney, who thereafter became his initial trial attorney, failed to attend a polygraph examination and advise petitioner of the protocol, limitations, and requirements necessary to complete the examination. The petitioner further asserts that he was denied effective assistance of counsel by his second trial attorney because this attorney was unprepared to argue a motion to suppress and failed to adequately investigate factual allegations, review juvenile court records, call critical witnesses, pursue leads that would have established a conspiracy by the petitioner's wife to wrongfully prosecute him, and let the petitioner review the brief filed on direct appeal. Based upon our review, we affirm the post-conviction court's denial of the petition.

The trial court found the defendant, Tim Mattingly, violated the terms of his ten-year community corrections sentence. It ordered him to serve three years "day for day" in the county jail before serving the remainder of his ten-year sentence on community corrections. In this appeal, the defendant argues the trial court acted without authority in imposing this sentence. We conclude the trial court imposed an illegal sentence and remand for further proceedings.