APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The defendant appeals the denial of probation for the five-year sentence he received for sexual battery by an authority figure, a Class C felony. He asserts that the record fails to support a conclusion that the statutory presumption of his eligibility for alternative sentencing has been rebutted. We modify the term of confinement and order supervised probation forthwith and remand the case to the trial court for imposition of appropriate conditions.

The defendant appeals his premeditated first degree murder and abuse of a corpse convictions for which he received concurrent sentences of life imprisonment and two years, respectively, arguing:
(1) the trial court erred in not enforcing a plea agreement; (2) the evidence was not sufficient to support his convictions; (3) hearsay  evidence of the victim’s statements was erroneously admitted; (4) evidence obtained via wiretaps was erroneously admitted; (5) evidence regarding defendant’s alleged romantic relationship with a woman other than his wife was erroneously admitted; and (6) the trial court should have charged the jury regarding alibi. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

I concur in all respects save one. I seriously question the conclusion that all of the victim’s statements to her mother were admissible as excited utterances. A declarant’s opinion about who caused an event would ordinarily not be admissible even if the declarant appeared and testified at a trial. Here, I do not believe that the victim’s opinion about who started the fire was admissible.  However, given the location and timing of the fire, the inferences drawn by the victim as to the potential cause of it would be obvious to the jury in any event. Thus, I do not believe that the error affected the verdict.

The petitioner appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The petitioner pled guilty to ten counts of rape of a child. On appeal, the petitioner raises the issues of whether the post-conviction court erred in finding that he received the effective assistance of counsel and whether his guilty plea was entered voluntarily and knowingly. After a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The petitioner appeals from the trial court's denial of his petition for writ of error coram nobis. In his petition, he alleged that his conviction should be set aside because the victim had recanted his testimony. Following a hearing, the trial court denied relief and the petitioner appealed. After a thorough review, we affirm the court's order of denial.

This appeal involves a dispute between Warren County, Tennessee and the Town of Morrison, a municipality located within Warren County, regarding the disposition of the revenue generated by the county local option sales tax. On March 21, 1988, plaintiff, Town of Morrison (hereinafter Morrison), filed a complaint for declaratory judgment against defendant, Warren County. The
complaint alleges that under T.C.A. § 67-6-712 (Supp. 1995), a justiciable controversy exists between the parties concerning their respective rights to distribution of the county local option sales tax revenue. The complaint avers that the Warren County local option sales tax was adopted in 1969 and increased in 1976 and 1985. Morrison alleges that since 1969 the tax revenues
have been collected by the Tennessee Department of Revenue and distributed to Warren County, but Warren County has refused to pay Morrison its share of the taxes as required by T.C.A. § 67-6-712 (2)(B). The complaint seeks a declaration of the rights of the parties to the sales tax revenues, and an accounting of, and a judgment for, Morrison's share of the local option sales tax.

In this case, we are presented with the issue of whether a private act is invalid as being in conflict with the general law addressing the same subject.Kentucky-Tennessee Clay Company, v. Joe H

The defendant was convicted of the premeditated first degree murder of his wife and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. In this appeal the defendant contends the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Ned Jackson,¹ was convicted by a jury of aggravated robbery, and the trial court sentenced him to ten years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The Defendant now appeals, arguing the following: (1) that insufficient evidence of the Defendant’s identity as the culprit was presented to convict the Defendant of aggravated robbery and (2) that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offenses of theft and aggravated assault. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant drove up behind a vehicle which had halted because of a driver's license roadblock near Knoxville. He then proceeded onto the right shoulder to get around that vehicle and was stopped by the Tennessee Highway Patrol officer conducting the roadblock. What next occurred was highly disputed, but the events culminated with the defendant's being sprayed with Freeze, some of which was deflected back onto the officer, partially incapacitating him also. The defendant was charged with resisting arrest, reckless driving, and failure to carry and display a driver's license on demand. The reckless driving charge was nolle prosequi and, following a jury trial, the defendant was found not guilty of resisting arrest but was convicted of the driver's license charge, sentenced to ten days confinement, which was suspended, and ordered to pay a $50 fine and court costs. He timely appealed the conviction, arguing that the roadblock was unconstitutional. Based upon our review, we conclude that the roadblock was unconstitutional and that the officers lacked probable cause to stop the defendant's vehicle. Accordingly, we reverse the conviction and dismiss the charge.

The plaintiff counter-defendant, ShoLodge Franchise Systems, Inc. (hereafter "Sholodge") has appealed from a jury verdict of $327,272 in favor of the defendant counterplaintiff McKibbon Brothers, Inc. (hereafter McKibbon) for damages for breach of a franchise contract.

This is an appeal by petitioner, Johnny W. Raines, from the trial court's dismissal of his petition for certiorari from a decision of the Tennessee Board of Paroles (Board).

While I agree with the majority’s conclusion that the evidence adduced at trial is sufficient to support the jury’s verdict of guilt of aggravated robbery, I respectfully disagree with its conclusion that the trial court properly declined to instruct the jury on lesser-included offenses.
Currently, members of this court are divided concerning the correct interpretation of the two-step process set forth by our supreme court in State v. Burns, 6 S.W.3d 453, 469 (Tenn. 1999), for determining if the evidence adduced at trial justifies jury instructions on lesser-included offenses. See, e.g., State v. Linnell Richmond, No. E2000-01545-CCA-R3-CD, 2001 WL 1222247 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Knoxville, October 15, 2001). I am largely in agreement with the position expressed by Judge Smith in his opinion in Richmond, No. E2000-01545-CCA-R3-CD, 2001 WL 1222247, at *21 (concurring in part and dissenting in part)(footnote omitted), that [a] reading of the recent cases of [State v. Bowles, 52 S.W.3d 69, 80 (Tenn. 2001), and State v. Ely, 48 S.W.3d 710, 724-725 (Tenn. 2001),] leads one to the inescapable conclusion that our high court has mandated that lesser-included offense instructions be given anytime the evidence is sufficient to support a conviction for these offenses. This means that anytime the proof is sufficient for a conviction of the indicted offense, the proof will a fortiori be sufficient for a conviction of the lesser-included offenses. . . . As a practical matter, this in turn means that it will almost always be error to fail to instruct the jury as to all lesser-included offenses of the indicted offense. Thus, the only real inquiry, in my opinion, in virtually all of the cases raising the lesser-included offense issue is whether the error in failing to instruct on the lesser offenses can be said to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Defendants James Whitelow and Robert Robertson appeal their convictions for possession of cocaine in an amount over 26 grams with intent to deliver. Both argue the evidence was not sufficient to support their convictions. Whitelow also argues the forensic report was erroneously admitted into evidence, and the jury's verdict was the result of passion and prejudice caused by the prosecutor's statements regarding Whitelow's alias nickname. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.