APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The Defendant, Robyn Renee Rainer, pled guilty to one count of possession of cocaine with intent to sell and deliver. Her plea agreement included an agreed sentence of eight years as a Range I standard offender, with the manner of service to be imposed by the trial court. After a hearing, the trial court placed the Defendant on community corrections. Following the Defendant's second violation of the terms of her community corrections sentence, the trial court revoked the Defendant's community corrections status and ordered that her sentence be served in the Department of Correction. The Defendant now appeals the trial court's ruling. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, William Brian Belser, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. In this appeal, the petitioner asserts that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The Defendant, Michael Shane Powell, was convicted by a jury of first degree felony murder by aggravated child abuse, and aggravated child abuse. The trial court subsequently sentenced the Defendant to life imprisonment for the murder, and to a concurrent term of twenty years for the aggravated child abuse. In this direct appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence; the admission of proof of a prior alleged instance of child abuse; and the constitutionality of his dual convictions for felony murder by aggravated child abuse, and aggravated child abuse. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Strategic Capital Resources, Inc. and FPE Funding, LLC sued the buyer and seller of the Pirelli tire plant in Nashville and other parties involved in structuring and financing the transaction. The complaint alleged that the buyer and seller breached an agreement with Strategic, and that other parties were guilty of fraud, inducement of breach of contract, conspiracy, and had been unjustly enriched at the expense of Strategic.. The Chancery Court of Davidson County granted the defendants' Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.06 motion to dismiss because Strategic's contract with the buyers did not bind the buyer to deal exclusively with Strategic. We affirm.

We granted this appeal to address the propriety of a trial court's award of child support to a parent who is not the primary residential parent. We hold that the Child Support Guidelines require that child support may be awarded only to the primary residential parent under the parenting plan approved by the trial court. We further hold that the use of a comparative analysis of the parties' earnings is improper under the Child Support Guidelines. We therefore reverse the trial court's judgment, reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remand this case to the trial court for consideration of an award of child support to the primary residential parent, David Wayne Gray.

Plaintiff was discharged from her employment for making a false statement concerning her health in her application for employment to defendant-employer. The false statement was discovered some years after her employment commenced when she sustained an injury at work which had no relation to the false answers in the application. Plaintiff was denied unemployment benefits because of work-related misconduct which was affirmed by the Board of Review. Plaintiff filed a Petition for Judicial Review in the chancery court. The chancery court affirmed the Board of Review, and plaintiff appeals. We affirm.

The jury returned a verdict for the defendant surgeon and hospital in this medical malpractice action. The plaintiff argues on appeal that the trial court committed reversible error at several stages of the trial, including jury selection, witness testimony and jury instructions. We affirm the trial court.

The Petitioner pleaded guilty to one count each of especially aggravated kidnapping and aggravated rape. The trial court sentenced the Petitioner to nineteen years incarceration on each count, to be served concurrently. The Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that his guilty pleas were not entered knowingly and voluntarily. The post-conviction court denied relief, and the Petitioner now appeals. Concluding that the Petitioner received effective assistance of counsel and that the Petitioner entered his guilty pleas voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

This is a declaratory judgment action brought by an insurer seeking to void a property insurance policy for alleged misrepresentation in the application for the policy. The insured filed a counter claim seeking recovery under the policy. The trial court granted the insurance company's motion for summary judgment and declared the policy void ab initio. We reverse and remand.

The Appellant, Christopher Ray Smith, entered “best-interest” pleas of guilty to one count of aggravated rape and one count of aggravated robbery. Following a sentencing hearing, Smith was sentenced to consecutive terms of twenty-five years for aggravated rape and twelve years for aggravated robbery. Additionally, the trial court ordered this effective thirty-seven year sentence to be served consecutively to outstanding aggravated robbery and theft convictions from Humphreys
and Dickson Counties. On appeal, Smith contends the trial court erred in (1) imposing consecutive sentences for his aggravated rape and aggravated robbery convictions and (2) ordering that his Williamson County sentences be served consecutively to his Humphreys County and Dickson County sentences. Finding no error, the judgment of the Williamson County Circuit Court is affirmed.

The Defendant pled guilty to attempt to commit aggravated sexual battery and received a three-year suspended sentence. Approximately nine months later, a probation violation warrant was issued against the Defendant, alleging that the Defendant had violated his probated sentence by failing to report and by failing to attend a sexual perpetrators program. Following a hearing, the trial court revoked the Defendant's probation and ordered him to serve his sentence. This appeal followed. Following a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, James McFall, was found guilty by a jury of violating a motor vehicle habitual offender order. The trial court subsequently sentenced the Defendant as a multiple, Range II offender to three years in the Department of Correction, to be served consecutively to a prior sentence. The Defendant now appeals, challenging the sufficiency of the indictment; the sufficiency of the evidence; the trial court's instructions to the jury; and the efficacy of the State's Notice of Intent to Seek Enhanced Punishment. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Edward Korik, appeals the Anderson County Criminal Court's ordering him to serve forty-five days in jail for his guilty plea to driving under the influence (DUI), second offense, a Class A misdemeanor. He contends that this court should remand his case to the general sessions court, where it originated, with orders that the general sessions court consider his request for work release instead of incarceration. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Petitioner pled guilty in state court to second degree murder and aggravated assault. Petitioner contends he was told by trial counsel that a pending first degree murder charge in state court would result in incarceration for life without parole in federal court on related charges. He asserts that trial counsel's performance was deficient resulting in unknowing and involuntary guilty pleas. We disagree and affirm.

The appellant, Timothy Tyrone Sanders, was convicted in the Bedford County Circuit Court of one count of possession of .5 grams or more of cocaine with intent to sell. On direct appeal, this court reversed the appellant's conviction because the trial court failed to properly charge the jury on the lesser-included offense of simple possession, and we remanded the case for retrial. State v. Timothy Tyrone Sanders, No. M2000-00603-CCA-R3-CD, 2001 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 38, at **13-14 (Nashville, January 18, 2001). Subsequently, the appellant was once again convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to sell. The trial court sentenced the appellant as a Range II offender to seventeen years and six months incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. In the instant appeal, the appellant raises the following issues: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain his conviction, and (2) whether the trial court erred in determining the length of his sentence. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant pled guilty to one count of child abuse, a Class D felony. Following a hearing, the trial court denied judicial diversion. The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I, standard offender to two years to be served on intensive probation. The Defendant now appeals, arguing that the trial court erred by denying him judicial diversion and by imposing as a condition of his probation that he not reside in the same household with children of "tender years." Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

On March 6, 1997, the defendant pled guilty to a two-count indictment for passing worthless checks in an amount over $10,000, a Class C felony, and in an amount over $1,000, a Class D felony. He was granted judicial diversion and placed on probation. The trial court subsequently revoked the defendant's diversion and sentenced him to concurrent sentences of four years and six months for the Class C felony and two years for the Class D felony, all suspended except seven months service in the county jail. In this appeal, the defendant contends he should have received full probation or community corrections upon being revoked from judicial diversion. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Defendant, Don Woody McGowan, was convicted by a Marion County jury of possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class E felony. Defendant appeals his conviction, presenting the following issues for review: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction; (2) whether he was denied a fair trial by the trial court's denial of his motion to sever the cases when the co-defendant failed to appear on the second day of trial; (3) whether the trial judge erred by failing to recuse himself; and (4) whether his sentence was proper. After a review of the record, we find that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction. The judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the case is dismissed.

A Shelby County jury convicted the Petitioner of attempted second degree murder, a Class B felony, and three counts of aggravated assault, a Class C felony. The trial court ordered the Petitioner to serve an effective twenty-six-year sentence in the Tennessee Department of Correction. This Court affirmed the Petitioner's convictions on appeal, and the Tennessee Supreme Court denied permission to appeal. The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief. Following a hearing, the court denied post-conviction relief. The Petitioner now appeals the denial of post-conviction relief. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The defendant was convicted of theft over $500.00, two counts of theft over $1000.00, and driving on a suspended license with prior convictions. He was given an effective sentence of eighteen years in the Department of Correction. The defendant contends that the sentence imposed by the trial court is excessive. The trial court followed the statutory sentencing procedure, imposed a lawful sentence after considering and weighing the proper factors and principles set out under sentencing law, and the trial court's findings of fact are supported by the record. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.The defendant was convicted of theft over $500.00, two counts of theft over $1000.00, and driving on a suspended license with prior convictions. He was given an effective sentence of eighteen years in the Department of Correction. The defendant contends that the sentence imposed by the trial court is excessive. The trial court followed the statutory sentencing procedure, imposed a lawful sentence after considering and weighing the proper factors and principles set out under sentencing law, and the trial court's findings of fact are supported by the record. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.