APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The trial court granted the wife a divorce after a marriage of nineteen years, awarded her most of the marital property including the marital home, and made her wholly responsible for the mortgage debt on the residence. The court awarded the wife the husband’s share of the equity in the home in the form of alimony in solido. The husband argues on appeal that the property division was inequitable. He also contends that the trial court should have awarded alimony to him rather than to the wife. We affirm the trial court’s division of marital property and its determination not to award alimony to the husband, but we modify its judgment to include husband’s share of the equity in the marital home in the property division, rather than as a separate award of alimony in solido.

The plaintiff’s employment was terminated by the employer for violation of the company’s drug testing policy. The plaintiff alleged negligence against the defendant, a biotechnology company with independent laboratory facilities providing hair testing for the detection of drugs and providing drug-testing services to the plaintiff’s former employer. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff appeals. We reverse.

A Washington County Criminal Court jury convicted the appellant, Doris Ann Whaley, of first degree premeditated murder, and the trial court sentenced her to life. On appeal, the appellant contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction, (2) the trial court violated Tennessee Rule of Evidence 611(a) by convincing her son to testify against her, (3) the trial court erred by admitting evidence regarding a telephone conversation the appellant had with a witness after the appellant’s son testified, and (4) the trial court erred by refusing to give the jury a flight instruction. Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Steven F. Smith, appeals as of right from the Sullivan County Criminal Court’s revocation of probation and order of incarceration. The Defendant contends that the trial court erred in rejecting his defense of insanity. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

I concur in the majority’s conclusion that the trial court properly revoked the Defendant’s probation. However, I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the defense of insanity does not apply to probation violations. I believe the defense can apply in certain cases.

This case stems from a disciplinary action taken against a prisoner, Andrew J. Braden, III (“Braden”), by the Tennessee Department of Correction (“TDOC”). Braden filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the Chancery Court for Hickman County (“the Trial Court”). The Trial Court denied the requested relief and dismissed the petition for writ of certiorari. Braden appeals, arguing that (1) the disciplinary board denied him his due process rights by appointing him an advisor who was unfamiliar with disciplinary policy and procedures, and (2) that substantial deviations from TDOC policy deprived Braden of a fair hearing. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court.

Petition for declaratory judgment was filed seeking a declaration as to whether petitioner was entitled under Article 1, Section 9 of the Tennessee Constitution to a hearing on his contention that the court from which he was convicted lacked territorial jurisdiction. Trial Court granted motion to dismiss on the ground that the petition failed to state a claim for relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act. We affirm the dismissal of the petition.

The Defendant-Appellant, Albert Dorsey, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of first degree premeditated murder and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. On appeal, Dorsey claims: (1) his conviction was not supported by sufficient evidence; (2) the aggravating circumstance used to impose his sentence of life without the possibility of parole was not supported by sufficient evidence; and (3) the trial court erred by admitting several photographs of the victim. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The appellant, Tracy J. Brooks, pled guilty in the McMinn County Circuit court to driving under the influence (DUI) and received a sentence of eleven months, twenty-nine days to be served as forty-eight hours in jail and the remainder on probation. As a condition of her plea, the appellant reserved a certified question of law, namely whether the police officer had reasonable suspicion to initiate a traffic stop. Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Richard T. Hanke, Sr., appeals the denial of post-conviction relief by the Circuit Court of Madison County. He pled guilty to simple robbery, aggravated burglary, aggravated assault, possession of a weapon with intent to employ during the commission of a felony, retaliation for past action, and two counts of kidnapping. He received an effective sentence of fourteen years. In this appeal, he claims he received ineffective assistance of counsel and requests a delayed appeal in which to challenge his sentence. Upon review, we reverse the judgment of the post-conviction court and grant a delayed appeal.

The defendant, McArthur Bobo, was convicted by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury of second degree murder, a Class A felony, and sentenced by the trial court as a career offender to sixty years in the Department of Correction at 100%. On appeal, he raises the following issues: (1) whether the trial court erred by allowing the State to impeach a defense witness’s testimony by introducing a tape-recorded conversation between himself and the witness that took place during his pretrial incarceration; (2) whether the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress  evidence of a pretrial photographic lineup by which two eyewitnesses identified him as the shooter; and (3) whether the trial court erred by allowing testimony by a witness that the victim’s children were at the victim’s home at the time the victim was killed. Based on our review, we conclude that the defendant has waived consideration of the suppression issue by his failure to include an adequate record on appeal. We further conclude that the defendant has waived the emaining two issues by his failure to raise them in his motion for new trial. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Plaintiff sued Defendants for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident. The trial court struck, from Defendants’ answers, allegations regarding the comparative fault of an unidentified nonparty. However, the trial court allowed references to such nonparty at trial, and the jury assigned no fault to Defendants. Finding no error in the trial court’s allowance, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Appellant, Kenneth D. Kisamore, was indicted by the Warren County Grand Jury for two counts of delivery of more than .5 grams of cocaine, in two separate cases, numbered F-11092 and F11093. The cases were consolidated prior to trial. After a jury trial, Appellant was found not guilty of the offense in case number F-11092 and guilty of the offense, as indicted, in case number F-11093. As a result of the conviction, Appellant was sentenced as a Range III, persistent offender to twenty-five years in incarceration. After the denial of a motion for new trial, Appellant has appealed, presenting the following questions for our review: (1) whether it was plain error for the trial court to allow the prosecutor to comment about the sentence received by a defendant charged along with Appellant thereby violating Appellant’s rights under Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-201(b); (2) whether the trial court erred by refusing to allow the testimony of jurors regarding extraneous prejudicial information; and (3) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. After a review of the record, we conclude that Appellant waived the issue regarding the alleged violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-201(b) for failure to object at trial. Further, we determine that Appellant waived the issue regarding juror testimony for failure to submit an adequate record for review. Finally, after a review of the evidence, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The plaintiff filed this action against her brother alleging that he misused her power of attorney and that he stole some of her property. Following a bench trial, the trial court held that the plaintiff failed to prove her claims, with the exception of her claim for theft of her automobile, and ordered the defendant to pay restitution for the vehicle. Plaintiff appealed; however, she failed to file a transcript of the proceedings or a statement of the evidence for which we must accept the findings of the trial court as correct. Finding no error, we affirm.

The petitioner, Christopher Carter, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. In this appeal, he contends that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial. Discerning no error, we affirm.

A Shelby County Criminal Court jury convicted the defendant, Anthony Boyland, of first degree murder committed in the perpetration of an aggravated burglary, see T.C.A. § 39-13-202(a)(2)(2006); aggravated assault by the use of a deadly weapon, see id. § 39-13-102(a)(1)(B); and aggravated burglary, see id. § 39-14-403(a), and the trial court imposed an effective life sentence in the custody of the Department of Correction. In addition to attacking the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions, the defendant contends that the trial court erred by (1) determining that he was competent to stand trial, (2) excluding evidence of a mental disease or defect that would have negated mens rea, (3) excluding evidence of a victim’s pending criminal charges, (4) denying his special requests for jury instructions concerning imperfect self-defense and passion, and (5) instructing the jury concerning flight. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Defendant, Calvin Austin, was indicted for aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, and employment of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. The trial court dismissed the employment of a firearm charge. Following a jury trial, the trial court declared a mistrial as to the aggravated burglary charge because the jury had failed to reach a verdict on that count. The Defendant was convicted of the lesser-included offense of robbery, a Class C felony, and sentenced as a Range III, persistent offender to 14 years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction of robbery. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Jawaskii Williams, was convicted of second degree murder, a Class A felony, and aggravated assault, a Class C felony, by a Shelby County Criminal Court jury. He was sentenced to twenty-one years for the murder conviction and five years for theaggravated assault conviction, to be served concurrently in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence and the sentences imposed by the trial court. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Williamson County Grand Jury indicted Appellant, John B. Alberts, for eight counts of rape of a child, one count of solicitation of a minor to commit rape of a child, and one count of solicitation of sexual exploitation of a minor. Appellant filed a motion to suppress evidence recovered through the execution of a warrant to search Appellant’s car. At the hearing on the motion to suppress, the trial court granted Appellant’s motion based upon the conclusion that the search warrant was invalid. At the hearing, before the trial court announced its decision, the State argued an alternative theory that the search was valid as a warrantless search through an exception to the warrant requirement i.e., probable cause with exigent circumstances. The trial court declined to rule on the validity of the search based upon this alternative theory. The State asked for and was granted an interlocutory appeal pursuant to Rule 9 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellant Procedure to determine if the trial court can consider the alternative theory to uphold the search. We have concluded that the trial court should consider an alternative theory to determine if the search was valid as a warrantless search based on probable cause and exigent circumstances. We remand the case back to the trial court for proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

The parents of two children were divorced in 2007, and Father was named the primary residential parent. Mother filed a petition in 2008 seeking a modification of the residential parenting schedule and requested that she be named the primary residential parent. The trial court found no material change of circumstance to warrant changing the primary residential parent from Father to Mother, but found it to be in the children’s best interest to modify the parenting schedule so that the children spent alternating weeks with Mother and Father. Father appeals, arguing the trial court had no grounds upon which to modify the residential schedule. We conclude the evidence supports the trial court’s decision that it is in the best interests of the children to spend alternating weeks with each parent. Under the relevant statute, that is sufficient to establish a material change of circumstance. Accordingly, we affirm.

The Petitioner, Devon M. Crawford, pled guilty to first degree felony murder, and the trial court sentenced him to a life sentence in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief requesting DNA analysis of unspecified evidence collected by police in his case, which the post-conviction court denied. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that he is entitled to DNA testing under the Post-Conviction DNA Analysis Act of 2001 and that the post-conviction court erred when it dismissed his petition. After a thorough review of the record  and applicable law, we affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.

In this action the plaintiffs sued the substitute trustee who conducted a foreclosure sale, alleging that notice of foreclosure, as required by the Statute, had to be published in a newspaper located in the county where the land was located. The Knoxville News Sentinel intervened in the case since it had published the foreclosure notice, but the Trial Judge, responding to a motion for summary judgment, held that the Knoxville News Sentinel did not have a nexus to Roane County and that a proper notice would have been required to be placed in the Roane County newspaper. The Knoxville News Sentinel appealed, and on appeal we reverse the Judgment of the Trial Court and hold that the statutorily required notice was properly placed in the Knoxville News Sentinel.

This is a divorce case. The appellant, Derek C. Freels, seeks to appeal from an order of the trial court entered February 22, 2011. That order is not final, and, hence, is not appealable as of right. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

This is an appeal of a dependency and neglect proceeding. We dismiss the appeal for lack of a final judgment.

In the parties' divorce in 2000, they agreed to a joint custody arrangement of their two minor children. This action was triggered in 2008 when the father advised the mother he intended to move to North Carolina and take the children with him. In the action brought by the mother, she asked to be designated the primary caregiver and custody of the children to remain in Hamblen County. Following a protracted evidentiary hearing, the Trial Court denied the father's request to give him custody and take the children to North Carolina, but awarded custody of the children to the mother with visitation to the father. The father has appealed, and we affirm the Judgment of the Trial Court and remand.