APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The defendant, Alex C. Nolan, appeals the sentence of incarceration he received following the revocation of his probation by the Bedford County Circuit Court. He was convicted of possession of cocaine with the intent to sell and sentenced to eleven years of incarceration. However, the defendant was released onto probation by the Department of Correction through the boot camp program. Thereafter, a probation violation warrant was issued, charging the defendant with multiple violations of the terms and conditions of his probation. The defendant pled guilty to violating those terms, but he now contends that the trial erred by ordering the remainder of his sentence be served in incarceration. After review, we conclude that the defendant has not shown that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering the revocation or in imposing a sentence of incarceration. Therefore, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The Petitioner, Fred Allen Owens, appeals as of right from the Knox County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The Petitioner contends that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel because counsel failed to investigate and present a mental health defense. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the postconviction
court.

Appellant, Rabon D. Gibson, pled guilty to three counts of attempted aggravated sexual battery. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court denied all forms of alternative sentencing and sentenced appellant to an eight-year sentence in theTennesseeDepartmentof Correction. On appeal, appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying his request for an alternative sentence. After reviewing the record, the parties’ briefs, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Denny Merrill Phillips, was convicted of one count of solicitation to commit rape in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-528(a)(3), a Class C felony, on the grounds that he followed the victim into a public men’s room and verbally requested that the victim perform fellatio on him. The defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction, arguing that the State failed to present any facts or evidence from which the jury could have reasonably concluded that the sexual penetration solicited by the defendant would have occurred without the victim’s consent. We note that a jury, when determining whether the sexual act being solicited is to be accomplished with or without consent, may consider the totality of a defendant’s conduct - not just the particular words used by the defendant. However, in this case, even viewing the defendant’s conduct in its entirety, we cannot conclude that the evidence presented was sufficient to establish that the sexual act being solicited by the defendant would have been accomplished absent the victim’s consent. A verbal request for sex or an offer to pay for sex, without more, is simply not a solicitation to commit rape as it lacks proof of the non-consent element which is required. We agree that the evidence presented was sufficient to support a conviction for solicitation to commit statutory rape. However, because our supreme court has established that statutory rape is not a lesser included offense of rape, see State v. Stokes, 24 S.W.3d 303, 305-06 (Tenn. 2000), the defendant’s conviction cannot be amended to reflect that charge. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction must be reversed.

The Rutherford County Grand Jury indicted Defendant, Matthew Whitehair, for three counts of rape of a child, two counts of rape, eight counts of incest, three counts of statutory rape by an authority figure, and one count of sexual battery by an authority figure. During the investigation of the case, officers interviewed Defendant at the police station and videotaped the interview. Prior to trial, Defendant filed a motion to suppress the videotaped interview. After a hearing, the trial court granted Defendant’s motion to suppress. The trial court held that the videotape was not relevant because Defendant’s answers were ambiguous. Following the granting of the motion to suppress the State moved the trial court for an interlocutory appeal pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 9. The trial court denied this motion and the State applied in this Court for an extraordinary appeal pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 10. This Court granted the State’s application solely on the basis that the trial court acted arbitrarily in denying the application for a Rule 9 appeal. This Court did not address the merits of the granting of the motion to suppress. On appeal, the State argues that the trial court erred. We have reviewed the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the motion to suppress. Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s decision to grant Defendant’s motion to suppress

We granted the State permission to appeal to determine whether the defendant’s dual convictions for reckless homicide and aggravated child abuse violate either the federal or state constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. Following briefing, oral argument, and a careful study of Tennessee law governing the issue presented, we ordered the parties in this appeal, and two other pending appeals involving related issues, to submit additional briefs addressing certain specific questions concerning the analyses that Tennessee courts apply in single prosecution cases when determining whether separate convictions under different statutes constitute the same offense for purposes of the double jeopardy protection against multiple punishments. We also scheduled consolidated reargument of these three appeals and invited certain prosecutorial and defense organizations to submit amicus curiae briefs. Having thoroughly reviewed relevant federal and state precedent and carefully considered the briefs provided by the parties and by the amici curiae, we have concluded that the four-factor test set forth in State v. Denton, 938 S.W.2d 373 (Tenn. 1996) should be abandoned. Furthermore, we have not found, nor have we been provided with, any textual reason or historical basis for interpreting the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Tennessee Constitution differently from the Double Jeopardy Clause of the United States Constitution. Accordingly, we adopt the same elements test enunciated in Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1932) as the test for determining whether multiple convictions under different statutes constitute the same offense for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Tennessee Constitution. Applying this test, we conclude that reckless homicide and aggravated child abuse are not the same offense because their elements differ. Thus, the defendant’s dual convictions do not violate either the federal or the state constitutional double jeopardy prohibition. Accordingly, we reverse that portion of the Court of Criminal Appeals’ judgment merging the reckless homicide conviction into the aggravated child abuse conviction, and we reinstate the reckless homicide conviction. However, we affirm that portion of the Court of Criminal Appeals’ judgment remanding this matter to the trial court for resentencing.

We have determined that we have no means of reaching the issue of the validity of the Agreed Order itself. I believe that the appropriate procedure to challenge the agreement at this point in time is by petition for post-conviction relief, which Mother is pursuing. Nonetheless, we are troubled by the procedure used herein that resulted in an original punishment of six months incarceration for Mother.
 

After robbing a Clarksville restaurant, the defendant was indicted for burglary, aggravated robbery, and especially aggravated kidnapping. A jury convicted the defendant on all three counts, after which he filed a motion to set aside the conviction for especially aggravated kidnapping as violative of due process, relying on State v. Anthony, 817 S.W.2d 299 (Tenn. 1991). The trial court denied the motion and sentenced the defendant to an effective twenty-five year term. The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed and dismissed the conviction for especially aggravated kidnapping on due process grounds. This Court granted the State’s application for permission to appeal. Following briefing and oral argument, we ordered additional briefing and argument addressing the application of due process principles to dual convictions for kidnapping and an accompanying felony, such as rape or robbery. We hold that the legislature did not intend for the kidnapping statutes to apply to the removal or confinement of a victim that is essentially incidental to an accompanying felony, such as rape or robbery. This inquiry, however, is a question for the jury after appropriate instructions, which appellate courts review under the sufficiency of the evidence standard as the due process safeguard. Because the defendant is entitled to a new trial with specific instructions as to the especially aggravated kidnapping charge, the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
 

The appellant, Brandon Trevon Williams, appeals the revocation of his probation claiming that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his probation and ordering execution of the original sentence. Finding no error, we affirm the order of the trial court.

The issue appealed in this case is the failure of the trial court to grant a continuance requested by the Appellant. After two prior continuances were granted, the Appellant again moved for a continuance, supporting the request with documentation indicating that the Appellant was undergoing diagnostic testing the day before the scheduled trial date. The trial court denied the continuance. When the Appellant failed to proceed with the trial the following day, the trial court dismissed for failure to prosecute. We affirm.

Joshua Caleb Morris (“the Defendant”) pled guilty to two counts of aggravated burglary, three counts of theft, and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia. The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I standard offender to a total effective sentence of six years, to be suspended on twelve years probation under the supervision of the Community Alternative to Prison Program. Upon the filing of a revocation warrant, the Defendant was taken into custody and a probation revocation hearing was held. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court revoked the Defendant’s probation and ordered him to serve the remainder of his sentence in confinement. The Defendant has appealed the trial court’s ruling. Upon our review of the record, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Glenn Davis and Lisa Davis (“Plaintiffs”) sued Charles Bowers and Wilda Bowers (“Defendants”) and Greene County, Tennessee (“Greene County”) seeking, inter alia, a declaratory judgment with regard to whether a passageway of approximately 198 feet in length on the north end of Duncan Lane was a private driveway or a public road. After a trial, the Trial Court entered an order finding and holding, inter alia, that the 198 foot section was not part of the public road. Defendants appeal raising issues regarding the purported dedication of the 198 feet, and the admission of evidence at trial. We affirm.

Defendant, Brandon Trent Patterson, was indicted by the Maury County Grand Jury for attempted first degree murder. By agreement between the parties, Defendant was also charged by criminal information with one count of aggravated assault. Following a jury trial, Defendant was acquitted of attempted first degree murder and convicted of aggravated assault. Defendant was sentenced to eight years of imprisonment. Defendant appeals his conviction, asserting that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction. After a careful review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In February 2005, the Defendant, Benjamin William Riffey, alias, pled guilty to facilitation to commit aggravated robbery. He was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to six years and was placed on probation. Subsequently, the Defendant was transferred to enhanced probation. On February 22, 2011, a violation of probation warrant was filed, the third against the Defendant. Following a hearing, the trial court revoked the Defendant’s sentence of probation and ordered that he serve the remainder of his six-year sentence in the Department of Correction. In this appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred by revoking his probation. After a review of the record, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This appeal arises from the divorce of Sarah C. Jannerbo (“Wife”) and E. Mattias Jannerbo(“Husband”). Wife sued Husband for divorce in the Circuit Court for Hamilton County (“the Trial Court”). The Trial Court granted the parties a divorce. Following a trial, the Trial Court, inter alia, divided the marital estate and awarded Wife periodic alimony. Husband appeals, arguing that the Trial Court erred in awarding both the type and amount of alimony that it did. Husband also argues that the Trial Court erred in its classification and division

Defendant, Anthony Eugene Poole, was indicted by the Davidson County Grand Jury for aggravated assault. Defendant was convicted of the lesser included offense of assault and sentenced by the trial court to 11 months and 29 days to be suspended on probation. Defendant appeals his conviction and sentence and asserts that: 1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction; 2) the trial court erred by not instructing the jury as to the defenses of duress and necessity; 3) the statute of limitations barred his prosecution; 4) his sentence of intensive probation and imposition of a fine was improper; and 5) the trial court erred by ordering Defendant to pay restitution to the victim. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This appeal presents, among other issues, an issue regarding the application of the federal and state constitutional double jeopardy protections to a single prosecution for multiple offenses arising out of a high speed chase involving a motorist who was attempting to avoid arrest for driving on a revoked license. A Bradley County grand jury returned a seven-count indictment against the motorist. Following a jury trial, the motorist was convicted of five of the offenses and received an effective sentence of eight years. On appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals upheld four of the motorist’s convictions but, on its own motion, vacated the remaining conviction after determining that it violated the double jeopardy protections in the federal and state constitutions. State v. Cross, No. E2008-02792-CCA-R3-CD, 2010 WL 2432022, at *12 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 17, 2010). We granted both the State’s and the motorist’s applications for permission to appeal. In accordance with our opinion in State v. Watkins, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Tenn. 2012), released contemporaneously with this opinion, we find that the defendant’s convictions do not run afoul of the double jeopardy protections in the federal and state constitutions. We also find that the motorist’s conviction under count one of the indictment must be vacated because the trial court committed plain error in its instruction regarding the lesser-included offenses of that charge. With regard to the remaining convictions, we find that the evidence supports the motorist’s convictions and that the sentences imposed by the trial court are not excessive. Accordingly, we remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
 

In this post-divorce dispute, the mother of the parties’ children appeals from an August 2010 order wherein the trial court revoked her probation for eighteen counts of criminal contempt and imposed the maximum sentence of 180 days. Pursuant to an April 2010 Agreed Order, Mother pled guilty to eighteen counts of criminal contempt and was sentenced to 180 days in jail; however, the entire sentence was suspended and she was placed on probation subject to revocation should she fail to comply with a plethora of conditions of probation. In July 2010, Father filed a Petition to revoke Mother’s probation. Following a hearing, the trial court found Mother in violation of her probation and ordered her to serve 180 days in jail. Mother appealed alleging that the Agreed Guilty Plea Order is void because the trial judge failed to conducta hearing before accepting the guiltyplea as required byBoykin v.Alabama, 395 U.S. 239 (1969) and Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b). This is not a direct appeal of the Agreed Guilty Plea Order, but a collateral attack of that order and, although this modest record suggests that the trial court may not have engaged Mother with the in-person colloquy required by Boykin and Rule 11(b), the record fails to establish that important fact. Thus, the Agreed Guilty Plea Order is not void on its face. However, the August order, specificallythe reasonableness of the sentence of 180 daysin confinementforviolating terms of probation, is on direct appeal. Considering the unique facts of this case, we find an effective sentence of 180 days is clearly excessive in relation to Mother’s acts and omissions while on probation and modify the sentence to provide for a total period of confinement of thirty (30) days.
 

Plaintiffs appeal from trial court’s finding that their neighbors, the defendants, were not in violation of an Agreed Order, which stated that the neighbors’ land could be used only for residential purposes or for commercial use as a stable and for pasturing of horses, but for no other purpose. Plaintiffs contend that horse shows conducted on the property violated the terms of the Agreed Order. The trial court found that horse shows were an aspect of the commercial stabling business in Sequatchie County and, therefore, did not violate the terms of the Agreed Order. We affirm.
 

The petitioner, Tyrone E. Montgomery, appeals the Davidson County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his pro se petition for the writ of habeas corpus seeking relief from his first degree murder conviction and life sentence. On appeal, the petitioner contends that the trial court erred and that his conviction is void because: (1) the indictments did not allege the “knowingly” and “intentionally” mental states; (2) the trial court improperly instructed the jury on premeditation and felony murder; (3) he was charged with “Murder By Use of A Firearm” but convicted of first degree felony murder, a crime for which he did not have proper notice from the indictment; and (4) his judgment of conviction is facially invalid and void. Following review of the record, we conclude that the trial court properly dismissed the petition and affirm the judgment.

The employee fell at work. He was then diagnosed to have a brain hemorrhage. The evidence showed that the fall occurred in an open area, that it was unlikely that the employee either slipped or tripped, and that he struck his head on the floor but not upon any objects. Employee had no recollection of the fall. The employer denied the employee’s workers’ compensation claim, asserting that the fall did not arise from his employment. The trial court found that the employee did not sustain his burden of proof as to causation. Employee has appealed, arguing that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s finding. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
 

In this workers’ compensation suit, the employee, a truck driver, alleged that he sustained a compensable injury to his back. His employer denied that an injury occurred and further contended that, if an injury did occur, it did not arise from or in the course of his employment. The trial court held that the injury was the result of the employee’s attempted assault on a co-employee and, therefore, did not arise from his employment. The complaint was dismissed, and the employee has appealed, arguing that the trial court’s finding was in error. We affirm the judgment.
 

In this divorce appeal, Husband challenges the trial court’s classification and division of the marital property and debts and its order requiring him to provide wife with his residential address. We find no error in the division of the marital estate, but agree that the trial court acted prematurely by including in the divorce decree a requirementthathusband provide wife with his residential address.
 

The Defendant, Claudia O. Draime, pled guilty to theft over $60,000, a Class B felony, for an agreed Range I sentence of eight years, with the trial court to determine the manner of service of the sentence and restitution. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court denied probation and ordered the Defendant to serve her eight-year sentence in confinement. It is from that judgment that the Defendant now appeals, arguing that the trial court improperly imposed a sentence of full confinement. After a thorough review of the law and relevant authorities, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In this post-divorce dispute, the trial court granted father’s petition to modify the parenting plan and denied mother’s subsequent petition to modify the parenting plan. We affirm the trial court’s decisions.