APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This extraordinary appeal arises from the lower court's denial of Appellants' motion to dismiss under the doctrine forum non conveniens. The case is comprised of thirty-one lawsuits, based on automobile accidents in Mexico involving Ford and Firestone products, that are consolidated in Davidson County, Tennessee for pretrial purposes. Using the approach set forth by the Tennessee Supreme Court in Zurick v. Inman, the trial court found that dismissal of the case was not necessary. For the following reasons, we reverse the ruling of the lower court.

The defendant, Steve McKenzie, pled guilty to DUI, a Class A misdemeanor, and violation of the open container law, a Class C misdemeanor, and was sentenced, respectively, to concurrent sentences of eleven months, twenty-nine days, all suspended except for seven days, and thirty days, to be served on probation. As a condition of his guilty pleas, the defendant reserved two certified questions of law: (1) whether the trial court should have dismissed the charges or ordered another preliminary hearing because the tape recording of the initial hearing was inaudible; and (2) whether the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained as the result of his alleged illegal arrest. On appeal, the defendant pursued only the second question, which the State argues is not dispositive of the charges, resulting in this matter not properly being before the court. We agree that the certified question is not dispositive and, accordingly, dismiss the appeal.

The defendant, Jason D. Seiler, appeals from the Sullivan County Circuit Court's revoking his probation that he received for his guilty pleas to four counts of failure to appear. The defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his probation and sentencing him to confinement. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, David Jones, appeals the Claiborne County Criminal Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for attempted second degree murder and two counts of aggravated assault and resulting effective sentence of fifteen years. He claims that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial attorney failed to request a mental evaluation for him and that his guilty pleas were not knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily entered. We affirm the trial court's denial of the petition.

The defendant pled guilty to forgery and agreed to a sentence of eighteen months, with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court. The trial court denied her request for alternative sentencing based on her lack of potential for rehabilitation and her lack of honesty at the sentencing hearing. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The Cocke County Grand Jury indicted the Defendant for first degree premeditated murder pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-202 (1997). After a trial, the jury convicted the Defendant of the indicted charge and then sentenced him to life in prison with the possibility of parole. The Defendant appeals contending that: (1) the prosecutor made improper statements to the jury; (2) the trial court improperly admitted into evidence two pieces of evidence and statements of his co-defendants; (3) the trial court erred when it refused to grant his request for a continuance; (4) the trial court erred when it refused to grant him a judgment of acquittal; (5) the trial court erred when it instructed the jury; (6) the voir dire was improper; (7) the trial court erred when it refused the Defendant's request to change venue; (8) the trial court erred when it refused to admit drawings made by a key prosecution child-witness; (9) the trial court erred when it allowed two witnesses to remain in the courtroom for the duration of the trial; (10) the trial court erred when it refused to consider evidence regarding statements allegedly made by the jury foreman; (11) the trial court erred when it refused to allow a New York search warrant and affidavit to be admitted into evidence; (12) the trial court erred when it allowed a photograph of the deceased to be admitted into evidence; and (13) the trial court erred when it did not review the "TBI file." Finding no error in the judgments of the trial court, we affirm the Defendant's conviction.

A farming supply store brought suit against an account holder for money due on an unpaid account. The trial court found that the store failed to prove any monies were owed. The farming store appeals, arguing that the evidence preponderates against the trial court's decision. We affirm the decision of the trial court.

The defendant was charged with driving on a revoked license and misdemeanor evading arrest. The jury found him not guilty of driving on a revoked license and guilty of evading arrest. The defendant contends on appeal that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The defendant was convicted of aggravated child abuse of her seventeen-month-old daughter. The defendant contends on appeal that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction, and the trial court erred in allowing testimony by Dr. Lazar concerning the effects of acetone. We conclude that the evidence presented was sufficient to support the conviction, and any error in admitting the testimony of Dr. Lazar concerning the effects of acetone was harmless. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

A Hardin County jury convicted the appellant of four counts of aggravated assault and one count of felony reckless endangerment. The trial court imposed an effective twelve-year sentence. In this appeal, the appellant argues: (1) there is insufficient evidence to support his convictions; and (2) the trial court erred in sentencing him. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the appellant’s convictions and sentences for aggravated assault. However, because felony reckless endangerment is not a lesser-included offense of aggravated assault, the jury was improperly instructed on that offense. Accordingly, we reverse the appellant’s conviction for felony reckless endangerment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The Defendant, Timothy Wakefield, pled guilty to DUI, fourth offense, and was sentenced to two years in confinement, suspended after service of 150 days. The Defendant was placed on community corrections. A petition for the revocation of the Defendant’s community corrections sentence was subsequently filed and granted. The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred by not allowing the Defendant full credit for the time that the Defendant had served in the community corrections program. We conclude that the trial court erred and remand to the trial court to modify its judgment to reflect ninety-eight days of credit for time served.

Insured, Plaintiff/Appellant, filed suit under a policy of commercial insurance alleging a loss by theft that was covered by the policy. Defendant/Appellee filed a Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02(6) Motion to Dismiss based upon expiration of the two year period in which suit could be brought under the terms of the policy. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss, and we affirm the action of the chancellor.

The defendant, Calvin Reginald Edwards, entered a plea of guilt to simple possession of marijuana, explicitly reserving a certified question of law challenging the legality of an investigatory stop. See Tenn. R. Crim. P. 37(b)(2)(i). Because the stop was based upon a reasonable and articulable suspicion, the judgment is affirmed.

This case involves the constitutionality of Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-4-1425, which governs occupancy taxes on hotels and motels. After conducting a hearing on the matter, the lower court found the statute constitutional. For the following reasons, we affirm in part and reverse in part the finding of the trial court.

Capital defendant Detrick Cole appeals as of right his sentence of death resulting from the October 2000 murder of Santeife Thomas. A Shelby County jury found the defendant guilty of premeditated first degree murder. Following a separate sentencing hearing, the jury unanimously found the presence of one statutory aggravating circumstance, i.e., the defendant had previously been convicted of one or more violent felony offenses; determined that this aggravating circumstance outweighed any mitigating circumstances; and imposed a sentence of death. The defendant now appeals, presenting for our review the following issues: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to support premeditated first degree murder; (2) whether the trial court erred in permitting the state to introduce a photograph of the victim while he was alive; (3) whether the trial court erred in permitting the introduction of post-mortem photographs of the victim; (4) whether the fingerprinting of the defendant in the presence of the jury at the penalty phase was constitutional error; (5) whether the trial court erroneously prohibited the defendant from introducing hearsay evidence during the penalty phase; (6) whether the trial court's instructions to the jury as to the (i)(2) aggravating circumstance were contrary to the United States Supreme Court's holdings in Apprendi v. New Jersey and Ring v. Arizona; (7) whether there is a reasonable probability that the instruction on victim impact evidence coerced the death sentence from the jury; (8) whether the evidence is sufficient to establish the defendant had previously been convicted of one or more violent felony offenses; (9) whether the jury verdict form was clear as to whether the jury found the aggravating circumstance relied upon by the state; (10) whether the Tennessee death penalty statutory scheme is constitutional; and (11) whether the sentence of death imposed in this case is disproportionate. Upon review, we question, but need not determine, whether the trial court in the penalty phase had the authority under Apprendi and Ring to find the defendant's prior felony convictions were crimes of violence and to instruct the jury that these prior convictions were crimes of violence; however, we conclude that if there were error, any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, we discern no error of law requiring reversal. Accordingly, we affirm the defendant's conviction for first degree murder and the jury's imposition of the sentence of death.

Following a bench trial in the Circuit Court of Obion County, Defendant, Richard Dilling, was convicted of misdemeanor reckless endangerment. He was sentenced to serve 11 months and 29 days, with all but 30 days to be suspended. He now appeals, challenging both the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction and the sentence imposed by the trial court. After a careful review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Following a jury trial, Defendant, Jasper Turner, was convicted of identity theft, a Class D felony. He was sentenced to twelve years incarceration as a career offender. On appeal, Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction, argues that the trial court erred in sentencing him, and contends that it was plain error for the trial court to allow the State to refer to the victim being attacked at the time the victim’s wallet and credit cards were taken. After a thorough review of the evidence, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Carolyn Diane Brown, appeals the trial court's denial of post-conviction relief. In addition to a challenge of the sufficiency of the convicting evidence, the petitioner alleges that she was denied the effective assistance of counsel. The judgment is affirmed.

The defendant pled guilty to aggravated robbery and felony evading arrest. The trial court ordered the sentences for the offenses committed in Loudon County to be served consecutively to a sentence for robbery in Knox County. The defendant contends on appeal that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentencing. The trial court did not err in imposing consecutive sentencing because the defendant was on probation when the current offenses were committed. The judgments of the trial court are affirmed.