APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Defendant, Mark Howard Russell, was indicted by the Hamilton County Grand Jury for the following misdemeanor offenses: possession of cocaine, possession of methamphetamine, possession of drug paraphernalia, and operation of a motor vehicle without properly operating stop lights. Defendant sought to suppress evidence seized by a police officer during a traffic stop. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied Defendant's motion to suppress evidence. Defendant subsequently entered guilty pleas to three of the four counts. Defendant did not plead guilty to possession of methamphetamine. The charge was dismissed because the laboratory report was negative for that substance. Defendant reserved the right to appeal, pursuant to Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2), the issue of whether the warrantless search was constitutional. We conclude that Defendant's Fourth Amendment rights were not violated and affirm the judgments of the trial court.

A Davidson County jury convicted the defendant, Brandy D. Forrest, of driving under the influence, first offense. The trial court imposed a sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days with twenty days incarceration followed by probation. On appeal, the defendant asserts the trial court erred by allowing irrelevant and prejudicial testimony and a videotape to be presented to the jury. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Defendant, Richard C. Rogers, appeals his convictions in the Lauderdale County Circuit Court for burglary of a vehicle, a class E felony, and theft of property in an amount over $1,000 and less than $10,000, a class D felony. Following a jury trial, Defendant was sentenced as a career offender to six years for his burglary conviction and twelve years for his theft conviction, to be served concurrently. In this appeal as of right, Defendant contends that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support his convictions beyond a reasonable doubt. After review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

A tenured professor successfully challenged his dismissal through a review in the Chancery Court of Davidson County. Subsequently he filed a claim against the state in the Claims Commission for breach of contract. The Commission dismissed the claim on jurisdictional grounds. We affirm the conclusion that the claim was not based on a "written contract."

The appellant, Walter Sanchez, Jr., pled guilty to violating an order declaring him to be an habitual motor vehicle offender. The plea agreement provided that the appellant would receive a sentence of two years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction and pay a $500.00 fine. The manner of service of the sentence was to be determined by the trial court. On appeal, the appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying him probation or some other form of alternative sentencing. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant was convicted of incest and rape of a child and sentenced to twenty-three years at 100% for the rape of a child conviction and eight years as a Range II, multiple offender for the incest conviction, the sentences to be served concurrently. The defendant was also fined $50,000 for the rape of a child conviction and $10,000 for the incest conviction. On appeal, the defendant presents the following claims: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; (2) the trial court erred in determining that the six-year-old victim was competent to testify and improperly vouched for the credibility of the child-victim; (3) the trial court erred in giving the expert witness instruction to the jury; and (4) the trial court denied the defendant a fair trial by refusing to let him conduct a voir dire examination of each juror individually and out of the presence of the other jurors. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court but remand for entry of corrected judgments to reflect that the defendant was convicted of Counts 3 and 4, rather than Counts 1 and 2, of the indictment and to reflect the defendant's fines which were omitted from the judgments.

The petitioner, Terrell Lawrence, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for second degree murder, aggravated assault, and carjacking, arguing that his guilty pleas were not knowing, understanding, and voluntary and that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel during the plea process. The post-conviction court denied the petition and, following our review, we affirm.

This appeal involves a patron at a Nashville night spot who was seriously injured by a broken glass tray left unattended on a table. In addition to the laceration on his leg, the patron fell and hit his face against the floor. The patron later filed suit against the night spot in the Circuit Court for Davidson County seeking damages not only for the laceration of his leg but also for internal derangement of his temporomandibular joint caused by his fall. The night spot conceded its negligence, and, after conducting a bench trial on the question of damages, the trial court awarded the patron $8,937.00 for his medical expenses, pain and suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life. On this appeal, the patron takes issue with the trial court's refusal to award him $1,133.00 in medical expenses and with the amount of the award for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life. We have determined that the trial court lacked any basis for declining to award the patron all his medical expenses and that the evidence does not preponderate against the award for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life.

The Circuit Court of Wilson County awarded custody of a minor child to the paternal grandmother. The child's mother, to whom custody had been awarded in the divorce, asserts that the facts do not support such a drastic remedy. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Mother petitioned the court for change of child custody. The trial court found no material change of circumstances justifying such change and dismissed the petition. We affirm.

This appeal arises from the trial court’s decision to award custody of the parties’ minor children to third party custodians. After finding each parent unfit, the chancellor awarded custody of the daughter to the mother’s aunt and the son was awarded to an unrelated third party. Parenting time was established every first and second weekend with the third party custodians having the third weekend. Holiday parenting time was also included. Most importantly the siblings were reunited during these times with their parents. Both parties were ordered to split the child support obligation owed to the third parties. The father filed this appeal. We affirm.

This is the fourth appeal regarding the sale of a 128-acre farm in Giles County. The sellers originally sued the buyers in the Chancery Court for Giles County in 1991, alleging that the buyers had breached the contract by defaulting on their payments. The buyers counterclaimed, asserting that the sellers had breached the contract by failing to provide city water to the property and that the sellers had committed fraud and violated the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. On the first appeal, this court affirmed the trial court's judgment rescinding the sale but remanded the case with directions to address the question of damages. The case was tried five more times and was appealed twice. In the sixth trial, a jury awarded the buyers $32,444.42. On this the fourth appeal, the buyers take issue with the trial court's exclusion of evidence regarding the sellers' alleged fraud, the jury's calculation of the increased value of the property, and the trial court's refusal to award them prejudgment interest. We affirm the judgment.

The defendant appeals from jury-trial convictions for multiple counts of rape of a child, rape, incest, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and attempted rape. In this appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence related to his rape and contributing to the delinquency of a minor convictions, alleges that the trial court committed reversible error in failing to sever the charged offenses, and complains that his effective 80-year sentence is excessive. Based on our review, we find insufficient evidence to support the rape convictions, dismiss those convictions without prejudice to further prosecution on lesser-included offenses, reverse one conviction of contributing to the delinquency of a minor and dismiss that charge, and remand for modification of the defendant's sentences on the remaining convictions.

The defendant appeals from jury-trial convictions for multiple counts of rape of a child, rape, incest, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and attempted rape. In this appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence related to his rape and contributing to the delinquency of a minor convictions, alleges that the trial court committed reversible error in failing to sever the charged offenses, and complains that his effective 80-year sentence is excessive. Based on our review, we find insufficient evidence to support the rape convictions, dismiss those convictions without prejudice to further prosecution on lesser-included offenses, reverse one conviction of contributing to the delinquency of a minor and dismiss that charge, and remand for modification of the defendant's sentences on the remaining convictions.

A Shelby County jury convicted the Defendant of escape, and the Defendant now appeals his conviction. The sole issue on appeal is the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. Concluding that the evidence is legally sufficient to support the Defendant’s conviction, we affirm the conviction.