APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The defendant, Euel Franklin Lockhart, pled guilty to possession of less than .5 grams of methamphetamine with the intent to distribute, a Class C felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-417. Pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37, the defendant reserved as a certified question of law the issue of whether the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The petitioner, William Kirk Riley, appeals the trial court's summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. The issue presented for review is whether the petition was properly dismissed without any opportunity to amend, without the appointment of counsel, and without an evidentiary hearing. The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for an evidentiary hearing.

The Davidson County Grand Jury indicted the defendant for first degree premeditated murder. A Davidson County jury found the defendant guilty as charged, and the trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment. The defendant now appeals, claiming that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to sustain the verdict, and in particular, that the evidence was insufficient to prove premeditation. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Campbell County Jury convicted the Defendant of theft of property valued over $10,000, evading arrest, reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon, and simple possession of marijuana. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective sentence of eight years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The Defendant now appeals, alleging (1) that insufficient evidence identifying the Defendant as the perpetrator of the felony offenses was presented at trial, and (2) that the trial court erred in its sentencing determinations. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant, Antonio T. Seay, pled guilty in the Wilson County Criminal Court to possession of a weapon by a convicted felon, a Class E felony, and the trial court sentenced him as a Range I, standard offender to one year in the Department of Correction. He appeals upon certified questions of law from the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence that was seized pursuant to a stop and frisk. See T.R.A.P. 3(b); Tenn. R. Crim. P. 37(b). He claims that the trial court should have granted his motion because (1) a federal district court had granted his motion to suppress in an earlier federal proceeding and (2) the police lacked reasonable suspicion to stop him. We hold that the trial court was not bound by the federal district court's ruling and affirm the trial court's denial of the motion to suppress.

The petitioner appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for six counts of sexual battery and one count of aggravated sexual battery, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in finding he received the effective assistance of counsel and in failing to address as plain error the trial court's erroneous jury instructions on aggravated sexual battery. Following our review, we affirm the post-conviction court's denial of the petition for post-conviction relief.

The petitioner, Earl Dewayne Holloway, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, alleging numerous instances of ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. We conclude that the evidence does not preponderate against the findings of the post-conviction court and affirm the dismissal of the petition.

The defendant, Duane Brian Brooks, was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. In this appeal, the defendant asserts that the trial court erroneously instructed the jury as to the culpable mental states for first and second degree murder and failed to provide an instruction on causation. Because it is our view that any error with regard to the jury instructions can be classified as harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The petitioner, Robert I. Gwin, appeals the trial court's denial of habeas corpus relief. The single issue presented for review is whether the trial court erred by denying an evidentiary hearing on the petition. The judgment is affirmed.

The Appellant, James C. Breer, appeals the summary dismissal of his  pro se petition for postconviction relief. The Henry County Circuit Court dismissed Breer’s petition upon the ground that it failed to state a colorable claim. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-206(f) (1997). After review, we conclude that a colorable claim is presented and the postconviction   court erred in dismissing Breer’s petition without conducting an evidentiary hearing and without appointing counsel. Accordingly, we remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The Defendant, Eric James Taylor, Alias, was convicted by a jury of first degree premeditated murder and aggravated assault. The Defendant now appeals as of right from his murder conviction, alleging seven errors: (1) the trial court should have allowed him to cross-examine a prosecution witness about pending theft charges; (2) the trial court should have instructed the jury about the State's duty to preserve evidence; (3) the prosecutor impermissibly shifted the burden of proof to the Defendant during closing argument; (4) the trial court should have instructed the jury on the lesser-included offense of vehicular homicide; (5) the trial court should have allowed him to cross-examine a prosecution witness about the victim's pre-offense surgery; (6) the evidence is not sufficient to support his murder conviction; and (7) a police officer testifying for the State improperly referred to prior contacts with the Defendant. Finding no merit to the Defendant's contentions, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Appellant, Felix Bartolo Jose, was convicted of one count of aggravated sexual battery, a class B felony, following a jury trial. The trial court sentenced Jose to an eight-year sentence in the Department of Correction. On appeal, Jose raises the single issue of whether the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict. After review of the record, we affirm the conviction.

Charles Scarlett, in the middle of a domestic dispute with his wife, flagged down a postal worker, Cindy Lourcey, and asked for help. Without warning, and in the presence of Mrs. Lourcey, Mr. Scarlett shot his wife in the head and then killed himself. Mrs. Lourcey sued Mr. Scarlett's estate alleging negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Mr. Lourcey also sued for loss of consortium. The estate filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12.02(6) of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state a cause of action. The trial court granted the Motion to Dismiss. We hold that the Lourceys did in fact state a cause of action. Therefore, we reverse the decision of the trial court and remand for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

The defendant, Joseph Harold Rucker, appeals the Roane County Criminal Court's imposition of a 23-year Department of Correction sentence for the second-degree murder of his girlfriend, Tommy Jean Trinkle. Because we determine that the length of the Class A, Range I sentence is supported in the record, we affirm.

This case is before the Court for the second time on a post-divorce Petition to reduce alimony. The trial judge denied the Petition, and we affirm the action of the trial court.

The Chancery Court of Wilson County invalidated the City of Lebanon's ordinance governing the demolition of unsafe structures, reasoning that it was inconsistent with state law and that it denied property owners the right to be heard before a demolition order issues. We hold that the ordinance is not inconsistent with the general law and that the post-order hearing provisions of the ordinance comply with the property owner's rights to due process. Therefore, we reverse and remand the cause for further proceedings.

The Appellant was convicted of aggravated robbery by a jury in the Criminal Court for Shelby County, and the trial court sentenced him to sixteen years of confinement as a Range II Multiple Offender. The Appellant raises the following issues on appeal: (1) whether sufficient evidence was presented at trial to convict the Appellant of the charged offense, and (2) whether the trial court erred in failing to charge the jury on the lesser-included offenses of robbery and theft. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.