APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Following a jury trial, the defendant, Randy Boxley, was convicted of robbery, a Class C felony, and sentenced as a multiple offender to eight years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues that the identification evidence was faulty, and without this, the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant-Appellant, Jeffrey O. Short a.k.a. Jeffery O’Neal Short a.k.a. Jeffrey Oneal Short, pleaded guilty in the Hamilton County Criminal Court to two counts of burglary of a business, a Class D felony. The sole issue presented for our review is whether the trial court erred in ordering Short to serve the sentences consecutively. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Joseph Alfonso Sigala (“the Defendant”) pleaded guiltyto two counts of aggravated burglary and two counts of theft between $1,000 and $10,000, but the plea left open the issue of sentencing. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered the Defendant to serve an effective five-and-a-half-year sentence in confinement. The Defendant appeals, arguing that the trial court erred by: (1) admitting the Defendant’s social networking web page as an exhibit; (2) denying judicial diversion; (3) improperly applying the statutory enhancing and mitigating factors; (4) finding that the Defendant lacked credibility; and (5) denying the Defendant probation. Upon a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Rhonda Medley (“the petitioner” or “the defendant”) was convicted by a jury of five counts of rape of a child. Her convictions were affirmed on appeal. She filed the instant petition for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court denied relief following an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, she asserts that her trial counsel performed ineffectively by failing to advise her properly regarding her right to testify at trial and by failing to call certain witnesses. After a careful review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Gary Allen Carlton (“the Defendant”) was convicted after a bench trial of one count of impersonating a licenced professional and one count of violating the Home Improvement Contractors Licensing Act. After a hearing, the trial court sentenced the Defendant to an effective term of two years, with 120 days to be served and the remainder on probation. The Defendant has appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and his sentence. Upon our thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant-Appellant, Nicholas Larsen, entered a guilty plea to driving under the influence of an intoxicant (DUI), a Class A misdemeanor, after the trial court denied his motion to dismiss the indictment. The transcript from the guilty plea hearing indicates that Larsen attempted to reserve a certified question of law on appeal pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37. Although the judgment form references an attachment setting out Larsen’s certified question of law, no such attachment appears in the appellate record. Moreover, the record contains no corrective order filed prior to the filing of the notice of appeal in this case. Because Larsen failed to properly reserve a certified question, the appeal is dismissed.

This appeal arises from a dispute over the settlement of a lawsuit. Teresa Larkin died in 2003, with her life insurance proceeds and her estate passing to her husband, Dale Larkin (“Larkin”). Teresa Larkin’s minor daughter, Tia Gentry (“Gentry”), sued Larkin, her stepfather, alleging that he caused the death of her mother and that, as a result, he should not receive any life insurance proceeds or inheritance because of the “Slayer’s Statute.” Gentry and Larkin settled the lawsuit and split the life insurance proceeds and the estate of Teresa Larkin. Later, Larkin was convicted of first degree murder in the death of Teresa Larkin. Gentry filed this suit in the Circuit Court for Washington County (“the Trial Court”), seeking to overturn the agreement based upon fraud in the inducement as Larkin had represented that he did not kill Teresa Larkin. Larkin filed a motion to dismiss. The Trial Court held that the issues in this lawsuit already had been, or could have been, litigated, and, as inequitable as the result might seem in light of Larkin’s conviction for first degree murder in the death of Teresa Larkin, Gentry’s lawsuit must be dismissed. Gentry appeals. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court.

The petitioner, James W. Gann, Jr., was convicted of first degree murder, arson, and setting fire to personal property, and he received an effective sentence of life imprisonment plus eight years. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging the ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court denied the petition, and the petitioner now appeals. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Defendant, Billy McFarland, pled guilty to one count of failure to timely report as a violent sexual offender, a Class E felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-39-204(b), -208. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a two-year sentence to be served in confinement. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred by denying his request for an alternative sentence. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Anthony Laren Tweedy, II (“the Defendant”) was convicted of initiation of a process to manufacture methamphetamine, manufacture of methamphetamine, felony possession of drug paraphernalia, and possession of marijuana. On appeal, the Defendant requests that this Court, under a plain error review, dismiss his conviction for manufacture of methamphetamine. He also asserts that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his convictions for initiation of a process to manufacture methamphetamine, manufacture of methamphetamine, and felony possession of drug paraphernalia. The Defendant does not appeal his conviction for possession of marijuana. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the Defendant’s conviction for initiation of a process to manufacture methamphetamine. We also reduce his conviction from felony to misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia and affirm as modified. However, we reverse and dismiss the Defendant’s conviction for manufacture of methamphetamine.

A Knox County Criminal Court jury found the appellant, Jerry Rommell Gray, guilty of first degree felony murder, attempted especially aggravated robbery, and attempted aggravated robbery. The trial court imposed a total effective sentence of imprisonment for life plus fifteen years. On appeal, the appellant argues that the trial court erroneously allowed the State to present fingerprint evidence in violation of Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004). The appellant also argues that the trial court erred in allowing the State to take additional fingerprints of the appellant during trial. Finally, the appellant contends that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury regarding accomplice testimony. Upon review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Dwayne Jabbar Seales,appeals from the summary dismissal of his March 30, 2011 petition for post-conviction relief as time-barred. On December 19, 2002, the Petitioner pled guilty to aggravated assault and domestic assault, and following his 2011 arrest on an unrelated charge, immigration removal proceedings have been initiated against the Petitioner based upon his 2002 guilty plea convictions. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that due process requires tolling of the post-conviction limitations period because of trial counsel’s failure to inform him of the deportation consequences of his plea. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable authorities, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.

On February 23, 2012, M. Shane Mills (“Defendant”) filed a notice of appeal of an order entered by the Trial Court on January 24, 2012. On June 12, 2012, this Court entered an order directing Defendant to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed as premature. Defendant did not respond to the show cause order. We dismiss this appeal for lack of a final judgment.

The Defendant, James W. Rembert, entered an open plea to offenses alleged in two separate indictments: a four-count indictment for burglary, theft, vandalism, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and an additional indictment for aggravated perjury.On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentencing was error because the trial court “erroneously presumed” that the Defendant was on bond for offenses in the four-count indictment when the offense of aggravated perjury was committed. Because no error of law requiring a reversal of the judgment is apparent on the record, and the evidence in the record does not preponderate against the findings of the trial court, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee.

David Wayne Phillips (“the Defendant”) pleaded guilty to twenty-six counts of sexual exploitation of a minor after a computer that he gave someone was discovered to contain child pornography. Nineteen of the counts were for possessing in excess of one hundred images of a minor, all Class B felonies, and the remaining seven counts were for possessing images of a minor, all Class D felonies. The guilty plea agreement did not include an agreement with the State as to sentencing. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered the Defendant to serve an effective thirty-five year sentence and ordered the sentence to run consecutively to the Defendant’s prior twenty-five year sentence. The Defendant appeals, arguing that the trial court erred by: (1) failing to merge the Defendant’s twenty-six convictions into a single Class B felony; and (2) imposing an excessive sentence. After a careful review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

A Davidson County Criminal Court jury convicted the defendant, Brandon Ackerman, of four counts of soliciting sexual exploitation of a minor,see T.C.A. § 39-13-529(b)(1) (2006); two counts of child abuse, see id. § 39-15-401; and one count of rape of a child, see id. § 39-13-522, and the trial court imposed a total effective sentence of 27 and one half years’ incarceration, 20 years of which was to be served at 100 percent by operation of law, see id. § 39-13-523(b). In this appeal, the defendant asserts that the trial court erred by excluding the testimony of his expert witness, by admitting into evidence a video recording of the victim’s forensic interview, by permitting three State’s witnesses to testify regarding the hearsay statements of the victim, and by denying his motion to suppress his pretrial statements to his ex-wife and to police. Because the trial court erroneously admitted into evidence the video recording of the forensic interview and the victim’s hearsay statements to three witnesses and because those errors cannot be classified as harmless, the judgments of the trial court are reversed, and the case is remanded for a new trial.

Lawrence Brown (“the Defendant”) was convicted of two counts of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony. The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I standard offender to twelve years’ incarceration. In doing so, the trial court enhanced the Defendant’s sentence based upon the following factors: (1) the Defendant has a previous history of criminal convictions or criminal behavior; (2) the offense involved more than one victim; and (3) the Defendant had no hesitation about committing a crime when the risk to human life was high. The Defendant argues on appeal that the trial court erred when it enhanced his sentence based upon his prior convictions, which were misdemeanor traffic offenses. Because we are not permitted to assess the weight given by the trial court to enhancement factors, we conclude that the Defendant is not entitled to relief on this issue. However, because we also determine that the trial court erred in its application of the other two enhancement factors, under the particular facts of this case, we conclude that it is necessary to vacate the judgments of the trial court and remand for resentencing.

The Defendant, Jerome Sidney Barrett, was found guilty by a Davidson County Criminal Court jury of second degree murder, a Class A felony, for a 1975 homicide. See T.C.A. § 39-2403 (1975) (amended 1979, 1985) (renumbered at § 39-2-211) (repealed 1989). He was sentenced to forty-four years, to be served consecutively to a life sentence for a previous conviction. On appeal, he contends that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction; (2) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress; (3) the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the prosecution due to excessive pre-indictment delay; (4) the trial court erred in admitting evidence that the Defendant stated he “had killed before”; (5) the trial court erred in allowing the State to ask a defense witness whether he was arrested, suspended, and had resigned from the police force in 1978; (6) the trial court erred in allowing the forensic pathologist who performed the victim’s autopsy to testify as an expert in DNA analysis; (7) the trial court erred in permitting impeachment of a defense witness with evidence of a misdemeanor conviction; (8) the trial court erred in imposing a forty-four year sentence; and (9) the trial court erred in ordering the sentence to be served consecutively to the Defendant’s life sentence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In this case, we are asked to address the question of whether the Municipal Gas System Tax Equivalent Law of 1987, Tennessee Code Annotated Section 7-39-401 through 406, or the Revenue Bond Law, Tennessee Code Annotated Section 7-34-101, et seq., negate the provisions of ordinances passed by Appellees, the Town of Middleton, Tennessee and the Town of Whiteville, Tennessee, which granted Appellant, the City of Bolivar and its municipal utility, the right to franchise in the Appellee towns. We conclude that: (1) Appellants may be liable for both franchise fees under the ordinances, and for payments in lieu of taxes under the Municipal Gas System Tax Equivalent Law because franchise fees are not in the nature of taxes on the valuation of property and are “operating expenses” for the privilege of doing business; (2) although the ordinances initially granted Bolivar’s utility exemption from payments in lieu of taxes to Appellees, by resolution, Bolivar waived its exemption and is now obligated to make payments in lieu of taxes to Appellees under the Municipal Gas System Tax Equivalent Law; (3) to the extent that the Whiteville ordinance conflicts with Bolivar’s statutory right to charge consumers for the actual costs of its services (which would include the franchise fee expenses), it is void; (4) the trial court’s award of pendente lite payments to Appellees was not reversible error in light of our holding that Appellees were (and are) entitled to the franchise fees. Reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded.

David M. Jones (“the Defendant”) pled guilty to one count of attempted second degree murder, with no agreement as to sentence. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the Defendant to twelve years’ incarceration, consecutive to a prior conviction. The Defendant has appealed the length of his sentence. Upon our thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A prisoner filed a pro se petition for writ of certiorari, which the trial court dismissed sua sponte for failure to prosecute due to the prisoner’s failure to file the necessary summonses. The prisoner appeals. We affirm.
 

This appeal involves the foreclosure of real property owned by the Appellants. The Appellants filed a request for a temporary and permanent injunction, alleging that the Appellee bank that held the mortgage on the property had violated the Appellants’ rights. After the Appellants testified at the temporary injunction hearing, the Bank moved for involuntary dismissal and the trial court dismissed the case. Both parties filed post-trial motions regarding possession of the subject property. The appellate record contains no record that either of these motions was adjudicated by the trial court. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is not final, and this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this appeal. Dismissed and remanded.

This is a termination of parental rights case. Father/Appellant appeals the trial court's termination of his parental rights to the minor child at issue. By clear and convincing evidence, the trial court found two grounds for termination of Father’s parental rights: (1) abandonment by an incarcerated parent, and (2) prison sentence of more than ten years, imposed when the child was under the age of eight. The trial court also found, by clear and convincing evidence, that termination of Father’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. Discerning no error, we affirm.

This appeal concerns the requirements for a petition for certiorari. This case is on remand from the Tennessee Supreme Court for reconsideration in light of Board of Professional Responsibility v. Cawood, 330 S.W.3d 608 (Tenn. 2010). After reviewing the petition for certiorari in light of the requirements set forth in Cawood, we find that the trial court was without subject matter jurisdiction to hear this case. Therefore, we vacate the trial court’s decision and dismiss the case.

The Defendant, Shirea Barber, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of driving under the influence, a Class A misdemeanor. See T.C.A. § 55-10-401 (2010). The trial court sentenced the Defendant to eleven months and twenty-nine days, with ten days’ confinement and the remainder on probation. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support her conviction. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.