APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

We granted this appeal to determine whether the common law "procuring agent defense" has been abolished by statute. We hold that the procuring agent defense was abolished by Tenn. Code Ann. §39-11-203 (e)(2) which expressly states that "[d]efenses available under common law are here by abolished." The trial court appropriately declined to instruct the jury on the procuring agent defense, and the defendant's conviction for selling a controlled substance was supported by the evidence.

This case involves a dispute between neighbors over a sewer line. The Defendant, Marilyn Hill, appeals the trial court’s finding of an easement by  implication in favor of the Plaintiff, Joanne Barrett, across Ms. Hill’s property for the purpose of connecting Ms. Barrett’s property to the city sewer line. We affirm the trial court.

This is an appeal of the trial court’s affirmance, in a writ of certiorari action, of a decision of the Williamson County Board of Zoning Appeals interpreting and applying provisions of the Williamson County Zoning Ordinance. The Appellant, Mr. Brunetti, is a neighbor of Mr. Brian Sanders, and objects to the operation of two grain bins (sometimes referred to as silos) on Mr. Sanders’s 5-acre parcel in Williamson County, which is zoned “Estate.” The Board of Zoning Appeals interpreted state statute and local  ordinance to allow this “agricultural” use. We affirm.

Plaintiff William Jones appeals the trial court’s order granting the motion for summary judgment filed by the Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Correction in this dispute over the Department’s calculation of Jones’ sentence reduction credits. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

The defendant, Ruth Stanford, stands convicted of sale of a Schedule III controlled substance and delivery of a Schedule III controlled substance. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-417 (1991) (amended 1996, 1997) (proscriptive statute); § 39-17-410 (1991) (amended 1996) (scheduled drugs). Stanford received her convictions at a jury trial in the Henderson County Circuit Court. She was sentenced to serve concurrent two-year sentences1 for these Class D felonies, with the first 90 days to be served in the county facility and the balance to be served on probation. In this  appeal, she raises three issues for our consideration:

1. Whether the trial court erred in allowing the testimony of the
witness who purchased drugs from Stanford without qualifying
the basis of knowledge and reliability of the witness's
testimony.
2. Whether the trial court erred in denying a continuance of the
hearing on the motion for new trial and ruling on the merits of
the motion.
3. Whether the trial court properly sentenced the defendant.
Upon review of the record, the briefs of the parties, and the law, we find no
reversible error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant was found guilty by a jury of delivery of one-half ounce or more of marijuana. The trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range I standard offender to a term of two years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. This sentence was suspended and the defendant was to serve four years on supervised probation and a term of ninety days in the county jail. The defendant’s subsequent motion for a new trial was denied by the trial court. The defendant now appeals and contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and that his sentence is excessive. After a review of the record and applicable law, we find no merit to the defendant’s contentions and thus affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Steven Cobb appeals from the dismissal of his pro se complaint against Charles Wilson, Evelyn Scallions, and Steve Vaughn. The complaint, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleged violations of Cobb’s rights under the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

The defendant, James Tyrone Harbison, was convicted in 1997 of aggravated assault and sentenced as a Range III persistent offender to fourteen years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-102. In this appeal, the defendant presents the following issues: (1) Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s finding of “serious bodily injury” as an aggravating factor of the defendant’s convicted offense; (2) whether the trial court abused its discretion in permitting testimony that the defendant had been released from prison immediately preceeding the instant offense; (3) whether the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on reckless endangerment as a lesser offense; (4) whether the defendant’s sentence is excessive; and (5) whether the trial court erred in sentencing the defendant as a Range III persistent offender. We AFFIRM the judgment from the trial court.

Defendant Vanderbilt Industrial Contracting Corporation (VICC) appeals the trial court’s judgments which awarded attorney’s fees to two of VICC’s co-defendants in this lawsuit, Kajima International, Inc., and Titan Contracting and Leasing Company. We reverse the trial court’s judgments based upon our conclusion that the relief awarded exceeds the scope of the relief requested by the parties’ pleadings.