APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

I write a separate concurring opinion to point out and review certain important facets of the appellate record in this case. The record reflects that the defendant’s guilty pleas were “open”; they did not contain any specified sentences pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(e)(1)(C). See Tenn. R. Crim. P. 11(e)(1)(C) (providing for an agreement between defendant and state “that a specific sentence is the appropriate disposition of the case”). Had the plea agreement contained specific, properly articulated sentencing provisions pursuant to Rule 11(e)(1)(C), they may have survived the revocation of judicial diversion probation, depending upon the terms as accepted by the court. See State v. Hollie D. Campbell, No. E2000-00373-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, July 2, 2001) (Witt, J., concurring), perm. app. denied (Tenn. 2001); see also Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-203(b) (1997) (dispensing with requirement of sentencing hearing when sentence is agreed upon and accepted by trial court); accord id. § 40-35-205(d). However, the trial court, having apparently received and accepted open pleas made in conjunction with the diversion provisions of Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-313(a), was positioned and obliged, after revocation of the judicial diversion probation, to resume the case at the pre-diversion point of departure. This means that, following the revocation, the court’s next task was to conduct a sentencing hearing. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-35-203(a) (1997), -209(a) (Supp. 2002).

A Cocke County jury convicted the Defendant of attempted burglary, and the trial court sentenced the Defendant to three years incarceration. The Defendant now appeals, arguing that insufficient evidence was presented at trial to convict him of attempted burglary. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Pursuant to the judicial diversion statute, the Defendant pled guilty to possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor, and possession for resale of less than .5 grams of a Schedule II controlled substance, a Class C felony. The plea was entered pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 40-35-313, otherwise referred to as judicial diversion, and the trial court placed the Defendant on probation for three years. Approximately six months later, a probation violation warrant was issued against the Defendant, alleging that he had tested positive for marijuana use. An amended probation violation warrant was subsequently filed, alleging that the Defendant had failed to make payments on court costs and had failed to pay child support, the latter being a special condition of probation. The Defendant pled guilty to violating his probation and the trial court revoked the Defendant’s probation. Without conducting a sentencing hearing, the trial court entered judgments sentencing the Defendant to concurrent sentences of eleven months and twenty-nine days to serve in the county jail for the paraphernalia conviction and three years to serve in the Tennessee Department of Correction for the felony drug conviction. After reviewing the record, we reverse the judgments of the trial court and remand for a sentencing hearing.

Frank Gaitor appeals from his Washington County Criminal Court convictions of Class B felony possession of 0.5 grams or more of cocaine with intent to sell and misdemeanor simple possession of marijuana. He is presently serving an effective 22-year sentence as a Persistent Offender for these crimes. In this direct appeal, he raises numerous challenges to the firmity of the conviction proceedings. Upon examination, however, none of these claims warrant relief. Thus, we affirm.

The appellant, Kynaston Scott a.k.a. Kynaston L. Olawumi, was convicted by a jury in the Davidson County Criminal Court of first degree murder and felony murder. The trial court merged the convictions and sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant contends that the evidence was not sufficient to support his convictions, the trial court erred by instructing the jury on flight, and the trial court erred in admitting an inflammatory photograph. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In this interlocutory appeal, the defendant seeks review of the state's denial of pretrial diversion for the offense of sexual battery. We conclude that the prosecutor failed to consider and weigh all relevant factors and, under the circumstances of this case, improperly relied upon the defendant's refusal to take responsibility for his actions. Accordingly, we reverse the order of the trial court and remand this matter to the district attorney general for further consideration of the defendant's request for pretrial diversion in accordance with this opinion.

Glenn D. Gold appeals from the Montgomery County Circuit Court's dismissal of his pro se petition in which he seeks post-conviction, habeas corpus, and coram nobis relief. Because his attempts to receive post-conviction and coram nobis relief are untimely and his attempt for habeas corpus relief does not state a claim cognizable in that type of action, we affirm the lower court.

The petitioner was convicted in 1988 of felony murder and is currently serving a life sentence. After exhausting his direct and post-conviction appeals, the petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which the trial court subsequently denied. The petitioner now appeals the denial of his petition, arguing that the convicting court lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to a defective indictment and that the statute governing first degree murder at the time of his trial was unconstitutionally vague. He contends that for these reasons, his conviction is illegal. Having reviewed the petitioner's claims, we conclude that the original indictment upon which the petitioner's conviction was based was not defective and thus that the convicting court was not without subject matter jurisdiction. We further conclude that the statute governing the petitioner's conviction is not unconstitutionally vague. We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court in denying the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

The defendant, Michael Thomason, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, which the trial court summarily denied. The defendant now appeals as of right. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Eric T. Davis appeals the Montgomery County Circuit Court's revocation of his probationary sentences and order that he serve the sentences as originally imposed in the Department of Correction. He claims that the lower court erred in finding that he committed a criminal offense based upon the uncorroborated testimony of a law enforcement informant. Because we are unpersuaded of error, we affirm.

Jerome D. Manning appeals a certified question of law regarding a police officer's stop of him which resulted in his arrest for illegal possession of narcotics. Because we agree with the trial court that reasonable suspicion supported by specific and articulable facts existed for the stop and that the scope and duration of the detention were not unreasonable, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner appeals from the denial of his writ of error coram nobis. In this appeal, he argues his first degree murder conviction should be set aside because his co-defendant, who testified against the petitioner at trial, recanted his testimony prior to the co-defendant's death. Following a hearing, the trial court denied the petition. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Jerry Burke, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, claiming that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. He contends that his trial attorney was ineffective for (1) failing to request a mental evaluation; (2) failing to investigate his case; and (3) failing to subpoena witnesses and cross-examine witnesses adequately. We affirm the trial court's denial of the petition.

The petitioner appeals the post-conviction court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions in the Shelby County Criminal Court for three counts of felony murder and four counts of robbery with a deadly weapon. On appeal, he contends that: (1) the trial court committed plain error by failing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offenses of facilitation, reckless homicide, and criminally negligent homicide; and (2) his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on direct appeal. We affirm the post-conviction court's denial of the petition for post-conviction relief.

Defendant, Deandre M. Broaden, was indicted by the Shelby County Grand Jury for possession of marijuana and for possession of cocaine with intent to sell. Defendant pled guilty to both offenses, and the trial court sentenced him to four years probated under the Community Corrections Act of 1985. Defendant violated the conditions of his sentence, and the trial court resentenced him to five years confinement, crediting him four months for time served in community corrections until the date of his first violation. On appeal, Defendant argues that he should have received full credit for the amount of time served up until the filing of the petition seeking revocation of his community corrections sentence. We agree. We affirm the judgment of the trial court with respect to the revocation of Defendant's community corrections sentence and the new sentence of five years, but reverse the trial court's order insofar as it provides only four months of credit. We remand this case for entry of an amended judgment consistent with this opinion.

The State appeals from the order of the Maury County Circuit Court reversing the district attorney general's decision to deny the Defendant pretrial diversion for the charge of arson. We reverse the judgment of the trial court.

Glenda Ponder appeals the DeKalb County Criminal Court's revocation of her probationary sentence and ordering into effect her incarcerative sentence in the Department of Correction. Upon review, we are unpersuaded that the lower court abused its discretion and therefore affirm.

We granted review in this case to determine whether a landowner can bring a nuisance action against an adjoining landowner when tree branches and roots from the adjoining landowner's property encroach upon and damage the neighboring landowner's property. The plaintiff asserts that encroaching branches and roots from the defendant's trees constitute a nuisance for which she is entitled to seek damages. The defendant responds that the plaintiff's sole remedy is self-help and, therefore, the plaintiff may not recover for any harm caused by the defendant's trees. The trial court and Court of Appeals agreed with the defendant, and held that an adjoining landowner's only remedy is self-help and that a nuisance action cannot be brought to recover for harm caused by encroaching tree branches and roots. We have determined that self-help is not the sole remedy of an adjoining landowner and that a nuisance action may be brought when tree branches and roots from the adjacent property encroach upon and damage the neighboring landowner's property. Although encroaching trees and plants are not nuisances merely because they cast shade, drop leaves, flowers, or fruit, or just because they encroach upon adjoining property either above or below the ground, they may be regarded as a nuisance when they cause actual harm or pose an imminent danger of actual harm to adjoining property. If so, the owner of the tree or plant may be held responsible for harm caused by it and may also be required to cut back the encroaching branches or roots, assuming the encroaching vegetation constitutes a nuisance. We do not, however, alter existing Tennessee law that the adjoining landowner may, at his own expense, cut away the encroaching vegetation to the property line whether or not the encroaching vegetation constitutes a nuisance or is otherwise causing harm or potential harm to the adjoining property. We further find that the record in this case is sufficient to establish liability for nuisance. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals affirming the trial court's dismissal of the case is reversed. The case is remanded to the trial court for a determination of damages and other appropriate relief.

Davidson County -In this case, we must decide whether a pay telephone sale-leaseback program marketed and sold by the plaintiff constitutes an investment contract, and thus a security under the Tennessee Securities Act of 1980. In finding that the program was a security, the trial court applied the definition of "investment contract" adopted by the Court of Criminal Appeals in State v. Brewer, 932 S.W.2d 1 (Tenn. Crim. App.), perm. app. denied (Tenn. 1996). Under this test, an investment contract exists where (1) An offeree furnishes initial value to an offeror, and (2) a portion of this initial value is subjected to the risks of the enterprise, and (3) the furnishing of the initial value is induced by the offeror's promises or representations which give rise to a reasonable understanding that a valuable benefit of some kind, over and above the initial value, will accrue to the offeree as a result of the operation of the enterprise, and (4) the offeree does not receive the right to exercise practical and actual control over the managerial decisions of the enterprise. Brewer, 932 S.W.2d at 11 (quoting State v. Hawaii Market, 485 P.2d 105, 109 (Haw. 1971)). The Court of Appeals rejected the Brewer test and instead adopted the federal test for determining whether a particular transaction is an investment contract. See United Hous. Found., Inc. v. Forman, 421 U.S. 837 (1975); SEC v. W.J. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293 (1946). Applying this test, the Court of Appeals held that the pay telephone sale-leaseback program at issue in this case is not a security. After careful consideration, we agree with the trial court's finding that the appropriate test for determining the presence of an investment contract is set forth in Brewer. Applying this test, we agree with the trial court that the plaintiff's payphone sale-leaseback program is an investment contract and that the plaintiff was thus marketing and selling unregistered securities in violation of Tennessee law.