APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

On August 4, 2008, a Shelby County jury convicted Petitioner, Charles Williams, of first degree murder and especially aggravated robbery. State v. Charles Williams, No. W2008-02211-CCA-R3-CD, 2010 WL1930965, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, May 13, 2010), perm. app. denied, (Tenn. Apr. 12, 2011). Petitioner was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to consecutive sentences of life and fifteen years. In 2011, Petitioner filed a timely pro se petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. The post-conviction court denied Petitioner relief. On appeal,
Petitioner contends that the trial court erred in denying his petition. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the trial court’s denial of post-conviction relief.

This appeal arises from Defendant’s erection of barricades between Plaintiff’s property and Johnson Street in Benton County, Tennessee in order to block Plaintiff’s access to the street from her property. Defendant contends that Johnson Street does not extend to Plaintiff’s property and that he owns the land between the two. Plaintiff contends that Johnson Street does extend to her property and that she has a right of unimpeded access to it. Plaintiff filed a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment establishing Plaintiff’s right of access to Johnson Street, compensatory relief for damage caused to her land as a result of Defendant’s barricades, and that punitive damages be assessed against Defendant. Following a bench trial, the trial court granted Plaintiff unimpeded access to Johnson Street, awarded her $5,100 in compensatory damages, and assessed punitive damages of $10,000 against Defendant. Defendant appealed. On appeal, we are unable to effectively review the record and must remand for further findings of fact and conclusions of law under Rule 52.01 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure.

The petitioner, Kelvin Collins, petitioned the Shelby County Criminal Court for postconviction relief from his 2011 guilty-pleaded convictions of facilitation to commit robbery and aggravated robbery, arising out of two separate incidents. The convictions resulted in a total effective sentence of eight years to serve in the Department of Correction. Following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief, and following our review, we affirm the order of the post-conviction court.

This is an appeal from orders entered by the Circuit Court in an appeal from a juvenile court’s judgment finding a child dependent and neglected and establishing custody and visitation. These proceedings are part of a custody struggle between the biological father of the child, who lives in California, and her maternal grandparents, who live in Tennessee. Both parties have participated in proceedings in the courts of Tennessee and California. Although the substantive orders of the two courts were very similar, each of the parties decided at some point not to follow the orders of the court in the state of the other party’s residence, resulting in conflicting orders of custody and a jurisdictional battle in which both parties have invoked the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act. We have determined that the only type of subject matter jurisdiction at issue here is the temporary, emergency jurisdiction that the juvenile court exercised to determine Grandparents’ petition for dependency and neglect.

A Greene County Criminal Court Jury convicted the appellant, William Franklin Robinette, of two counts of soliciting first degree premeditated murder. For each conviction, the trial court sentenced the appellant to twenty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction, with the sentences to be served consecutively to each other and to a previously imposed sentence for a total effective sentence of fifty years. On appeal, the appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions, the admission of a recording and transcript of the solicitation, the trial court’s failure to dismiss count two because of a violation of the Confrontation Clause, and the sentence imposed by the trial court. Upon review, we affirm the appellant’s convictions. However, the record reflects that no presentence report was prepared prior to the appellant’s sentencing hearing. Therefore, the case must be remanded for a new sentencing hearing.

The petitioner, Christopher A. Williams, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus that challenged his 1997 Shelby County Criminal Court jury conviction of felony murder. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Appellant/Mother appeals the trial court’s post-divorce modification of Appellee/Father’s child support obligation, and its finding that Appellant was guilty of various acts of criminal contempt. Appellant/Mother also appeals the trial court’s admission of certain evidence. We conclude that the trial court erred in addressing, sua sponte, the issue of modification of Appellee/Father’s child support obligation in the absence of a petition for modification as required by Tennessee Code Annotated Section 36-5-101(f)(1). Accordingly, we reverse the modification of child support. The order of the trial court is otherwise affirmed. Father’s request for attorney’s fees incurred in defense of this appeal is granted based upon provisions in the parenting plan and marital dissolution agreement. Affirmed in part; reversed in part; and remanded.

Matthew W. Wambles ("the Petitioner") pleaded nolo contendere to one count of aggravated sexual battery and one count of sexual exploitation of a minor. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced the Petitioner to concurrent terms of eight years’ incarceration. The Petitioner subsequently filed for post-conviction relief, alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that his pleas are constitutionally infirm. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief, and this appeal followed. Upon our thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

This appeal is from an order of the trial court denying the appellant’s motion to waive all fines and costs related to the nolle prosequi of all charges in Hamblen County Criminal Court case number 03CR212. Because it is clear from the record that no court costs or fines were assessed against the appellant as a result of the nolle prosequi entered in the proceedings below, there appears to be no judgment of the trial court adverse to the appellant’s interests and, therefore, we lack jurisdiction to entertain this appeal.

Appellant, Billy Tate, was convicted of burglary of a business and theft over $1,000, and the trial court sentenced him to twelve years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. After filing a petition for post-conviction relief, he was granted a delayed appeal of his convictions. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred by: (1) denying his motion to suppress a showup identification and the subsequent in-court identification by the same witness; (2) not declaring a mistrial when a witness testified that appellant had refused to give a statement; (3) allowing the State to introduce lay testimony regarding scientific evidence; and (4) denying his motion to suppress based on an illegal seizure. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant, Phillip Pack, appeals from his Campbell County Criminal Court jury conviction of second degree murder, claiming that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, that newly discovered evidence established his innocence, that the trial court erred by admitting certain evidence, and that the prosecutor made inappropriate remarks during closing argument. Because the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to support the defendant’s conviction of second degree murder, the conviction is reversed, and the charge is dismissed.

The Petitioner, Erika Cienfuegos, appeals from the post-conviction court’s denial of her petition for post-conviction relief, contending that she received the ineffective assistance of counsel which, given that she was unmedicated for her mental illnesses during the plea submission hearing, led to her unknowingly entering a guilty plea.  Upon consideration of the applicable authorities and the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The defendant, Jessica M. Myers, was indicted on one count of first degree (premeditated) murder of Jimmy Cutshall, three alternative counts of first degree (felony) murder of Jimmy Cutshall, and one count of attempt to commit first degree murder of Rhonda Cutshall. A jury found her guilty of the first four counts as charged and of the lesser-included offense of reckless endangerment on the fifth count. The trial court merged the felony murder convictions. The defendant was sentenced to life in prison for counts one and two, and she was sentenced to serve eleven months and twenty-nine days on count five, with all sentences to be served concurrently. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, an alleged defect in the indictment in count one, and the admission of certain post-mortem photographs as cumulative evidence at trial. Having reviewed the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Troy Douglas Bartley, appeals the Sullivan County Criminal Court’s denial of post-conviction relief from his convictions of two counts of aggravated assault, Class C felonies, one count of delivery of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school zone, a Class B felony, one count of possession of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver within 1,000 feet of a school zone, a Class A felony, one count of attempted first degree murder, a Class A felony, one count of retaliation for past action, a Class E felony, and two additional counts of aggravated assault, Class C felonies. Based on the guilty plea hearing transcript, the Petitioner pleaded guilty in case number S57,639, to two counts of aggravated assault, both of which were merged by the trial court, and received a three-year-sentence. In case number S58,333, the Petitioner pleaded guilty to delivery of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school zone, count one, which merged with count two, possession of less than five-tenths of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver within 1,000 feet of a school zone, and received an eight-year sentence. In case number S58,374, the Petitioner pleaded guilty to attempted first degree murder, count one, retaliation for past action, count two, and two additional counts of aggravated assault, counts three and four, which the trial court merged with count two. In regard to case number S58,374, the Petitioner was sentenced to fifteen and four years, respectively. The trial court ordered “all counts in each case [to be served] concurrent[ly] but each of the cases [were] consecutive[,]”for an effective sentence of twenty-six years’ imprisonment. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that he entered involuntary and unknowing guilty pleas. 1 Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The defendant, Jeremy Wendell Thorpe, appeals his Davidson County Criminal Court jury conviction of attempted sexual battery by an authority figure, claiming that the trial court erred by providing a jury instruction on attempted sexual battery by an authority figure as a lesser included offense of sexual battery by an authority figure and that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction.  Discerning no error, we affirm.

I concur with the majority opinion, except I respectfully disagree with its affirming the imposition of forty-five days’ confinement. I do not believe the trial court justified confinement as opposed to full probation under the circumstances in this case. My view results from the trial court’s findings and the law that guides its determinations.

The issues in this divorce case are whether the trial court correctly ordered husband to pay wife $600 per month in transitional alimony for 36 months, child support in the amount of $253 per month, and $4,000 of the wife's attorneys fees, the latter as alimony in solido. At the time of trial, husband had been unemployed and actively seeking work for about one year. The trial court found that his income was zero. Wife did not argue that husband was voluntarily unemployed or underemployed, and the trial court made no such findings. The proof at trial establishes that many of the statutory factors supporting an award of alimony in futuro - including the need of the wife, duration of the marriage, i.e., 20 years, the parties' relative earning capacities, wife's contributions to the marriage as homemaker and parent, and wife's health - were demonstrated. Husband's current ability to pay, however, is quite limited because of his involuntary unemployment and zero income. Consequently, we modify the transitional alimony award to $50 per month, but designate it as alimony in futuro. The difference in husband's income, i.e., $1,191.66 per month, at the time his child support obligation was set and his income, i.e., zero, at time of trial likely supports a finding that there is a significant variance between the current support order of $253 and the amount of the proposed presumptive modified support order. Accordingly, we vacate the trial court's order refusing to modify his child support obligation and remand for a recalculation of child support. We affirm the judgment of the trial court in all other respects.

A Maury County jury convicted the Defendant, Christopher Michael Hooten, of first degree premeditated murder, first degree felony murder, aggravated robbery, and tampering with evidence.  The trial court imposed a life sentence for the merged murder convictions and concurrent sentences of eight years for the aggravated robbery conviction and three years for the tampering with evidence conviction.  On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress evidence found during the search of his vehicle; (2) the trial court erred when it excluded a videotaped confession from a co-defendant; and (3) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions.  After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

A professor denied tenure at Vanderbilt University brought suit against the university asserting causes of action for breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation. We affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the university.

The defendant, Reginald Lamont Graham, appeals his Davidson County Criminal Court jury convictions of the attempted sale of cocaine, claiming that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions.  Discerning no error, we affirm.

A Hamilton County Criminal Court Jury found the appellant, Tony Eric Pickett, Jr., guilty of evading arrest, a Class E felony. The trial court sentenced the appellant as a career offender to six years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction and the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury on misdemeanor evading arrest. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Petitioner, Richard Trehern, appeals from the post-conviction court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred in denying the petition because trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel. More specifically, Petitioner contends that trial counsel was ineffective (1) by failing to adequately communicate and meet with him to prepare for the case; (2) by failing to attack the credibility of Petitioner’s wife on cross-examination; (3) by failing to advise him that the crime for which he was charged had no release eligibility date; (4) by failing to adequately advise him of the consequences of Momon; and (5) by failing to obtain an expert witness to rebut the State’s theory of shaken baby syndrome. Following our review of the record, we affirm the denial of relief.

A Rutherford County jury convicted the Defendant, Freeman Ray Harrison, Jr., of two counts of aggravated sexual battery and one count of reckless endangerment, and the trial court sentenced the Defendant to a total effective sentence of twenty years, to be served at 100%.  On appeal, the Defendant contends: (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction for reckless endangerment and one of the counts of aggravated sexual battery; (2) the trial court erred when it allowed the victim’s grandmother’s testimony about the victim’s initial “complaint”; (3) Rutherford County was not the appropriate venue; (4) the State’s loss of a GPS device about which there was testimony rendered his trial fundamentally unfair; and (5) the trial court erred when it imposed consecutive sentences.  After a thorough review of the record and applicable authorities, we conclude there exists no error in the judgments of the trial court.  As such, the trial court’s judgments are affirmed.

This case involves a man and a woman who formed a limited liability company under the Tennessee Revised Limited Liability Company Act, Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 48-249-101 et seq, with the ostensible purpose of investing in real estate. The only investment it made, however, was the purchase of a house for the man and his children to live in. The woman supplied all the money to buy the house, as well as all the capital that was invested in the company. After personal differences arose between the parties, the woman petitioned the court to dissolve the company and to distribute its assets. The man asked the court to divide the assets of the company equally between the parties in accordance with the provisions of Tenn. Code Ann. § 48-249-305(b). The woman asked the court to order that she be repaid her entire financial contribution to the company. The trial court dissolved the company. After hearing proof and argument, it ordered that the house be sold, with the net proceeds of the sale to be applied first to the return of the woman’s capital contributions, with any profits beyond those contributions to be divided equally between the parties. We affirm the trial court.

After a trial by jury, the defendant was convicted of first degree (felony) murder as well as one count of especially aggravated robbery, a Class A felony. Prior to trial, the defendant also pled guilty to one count of burglary of an automobile, a Class E felony. The defendant was automatically sentenced to life in prison for the felony murder, and he received concurrent sentences as a Range I, standard offender of eighteen years for the especially aggravated robbery and one year for the burglary of the automobile. On appeal, the defendant claims that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions and that the trial court erred by instructing the jury that they could not consider lesser-included offenses until after they reached a unanimous decision with respect to the first degree murder charge. We find these claims to lack merit. In addition, the defendant claims that the trial judge’s ex parte contact with the jury during its deliberations exerted an improper influence on jury’s verdict. Upon review, we conclude that on the unique facts of this case public confidence in jury’s verdict has been so undermined as to necessitate reversal of the defendant’s first degree (felony) murder conviction. We affirm the defendant’s remaining convictions and sentences and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.