APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The defendant/appellant, Gary Lamar McBride, appeals as of right from a conviction for murder second degree by a Davidson County jury. The Davidson County Criminal Court imposed a sentence of sixteen (16) years in the Department of Correction. The defendant presents three appellate issues:

1.     Whether the trial court erred in allowing the defendant’s statement to be read to the jury and not suppressing the same.

2.     Whether the trial court erred in not finding that the proof adduced at trial by the State is in conflict with the physical facts rule applicable to criminal cases.

3.     Whether the evidence adduced at trial was sufficient to convict the defendant of murder second degree.

A Davidson County jury convicted the appellant, Steven D. Pittman, of one (1) count of possession with the intent to sell over 0.5 grams of cocaine, one (1) count of felonious possession of a weapon and one (1) count of simple possession of marijuana. The trial court sentenced the appellant as a Range I offender to concurrent terms of eleven (11) years for possession with the intent to sell cocaine, two (2) years for felonious possession of a weapon and eleven (11) months and twenty-nine (29) days for marijuana possession. On appeal, the appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions. After a thorough review of the record before this Court, we conclude that the state presented sufficient evidence to support the appellant’s convictions. We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In June 1998, the appellant, Mell Thomas Bruton,¹ pled guilty to one (1) count of aggravated assault and received a sentence of six (6) years as a Range II offender.² The trial court ordered that the appellant be placed on community corrections after serving six (6) months of his sentence. In July, a warrant was filed against the appellant alleging that he had violated two conditions of his community corrections sentence. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court revoked the appellant’s community corrections sentence and re-sentenced him as a Range II offender to nine (9) years incarceration. On appeal, the appellant claims that the trial court erred in revoking his community corrections sentence and in increasing his sentence to nine (9) years. Because we find that the appellant was not eligible for community corrections in the first instance, and further that, in any event, ample reason exists to revoke the appellant’s community corrections placement and increase his sentence, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This extraordinary appeal involves an automobile collision. The driver of the automobile that was struck from behind and her husband filed a negligence action in the Circuit Court for Davidson
County against the driver and record owner of the automobile that struck her. The trial court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of the driver’s liability. The defendants applied for an extraordinary appeal after the trial court declined to grant them an interlocutory appeal. We have determined this is a proper case for an extraordinary appeal and that the plaintiffs are not entitled to a partial summary judgment because of the existence of material factual disputes regarding liability. Accordingly, pursuant to Tenn. Ct. App. R. 10(b),1 we reverse the partial summary judgment and remand the case for further proceedings. Tenn. R. App. P. 10 Extraordinary Appeal; Judgment of the Circuit Court Reversed.
 

The Defendant was indicted by the Henry County Grand Jury for (1) driving under the influence (fourth offense); (2) driving while license is cancelled, suspended, or revoked; (3) violation of the “light law”; and (4) failure to appear. He pleaded guilty to driving while license is cancelled, suspended, or revoked and to violation of the “light law.”1 He was then tried on the remaining offenses, found guilty of DUI, and acquitted of failure to appear.

The appellant, Arcenta Van Harrison, pled guilty in the Davidson County Criminal Court to three (3) counts of theft of property over $500 and two (2) counts of theft of property over $1,000. The trial court sentenced the appellant to concurrent terms of four (4) years for the theft over $500 counts as a Range II offender and eight (8) years for the theft over $1,000 counts as a Range III offender.  The trial court ordered that the appellant serve his sentence on community corrections. A warrant was subsequently issued alleging that the appellant had violated the terms of his community corrections sentence. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court revoked community corrections and re-sentenced the appellant to an effective term of nine (9) years incarceration. On appeal, the appellant contends that: (1) the trial court erred in revoking his community corrections; (2) the trial court erred in enhancing his sentence to nine (9) years; and (3) the trial court imposed illegal sentences for three (3) of his convictions. After a review of the record before this Court, we conclude that the trial court did not err in revoking the appellant’s community corrections sentence; and we affirm that portion of the trial court’s judgment. However, because the trial court did not conduct an appropriate sentencing hearing, before increasing the appellant’s sentence, we reverse and remand this case to the trial court for re-sentencing.

This appeal involves a suit to recover money advanced by a construction lender to a building supply company to pay for building supplies which the bank mistakenly thought had been delivered to the bank’s debtor. Plaintiff, Farmers & Merchants Bank (Bank) sued defendant, Midway Supply Company, Inc., (Midway) to recover the sums advanced after Midway failed to deliver the supplies and applied the advanced funds to pay other accounts of the Bank’s debtor. From the judgment of the Circuit Court awarding judgment to Bank for the advanced funds less certain credit, Midway has appealed.