APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Defendant was convicted of driving under the influence ("DUI"), fourth or subsequent offense, driving while license revoked, and child endangerment. In this appeal, Defendant challenges all convictions on the ground that the trial court's refusal to bifurcate the trial proceedings violated her right to a fair trial. Defendant also argues that recently amended Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-10-403(a)(1) is unconstitutional and that her sentence is excessive. After a review of the record and applicable law, we reverse Defendant's convictions and remand this case for a new trial.

Defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions of attempted burglary and possession of burglary tools. We affirm the judgments from the trial court.

The petitioner, Javier Soto-Hurtado, appeals from the trial court's denial of habeas corpus relief. In this appeal of right, the petitioner contends that his conviction for sexual battery is void. The judgment is affirmed.

The defendant appeals his convictions for first degree murder, conspiracy to commit first degree murder, tampering with or fabricating evidence and unlawful possession of a weapon. He challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence based on accomplice testimony, the issue whether Brian Morrow was in fact an accomplice, the admission of graphic photographs of the decedent, and the actions of the trial judge as thirteenth juror. We affirm the judgment of trial court.

The petitioner, Thomas T. Cummings, pled guilty in the Shelby County Criminal Court to second degree murder. Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, he was sentenced as a violent offender to twenty-five years incarceration, to be served at one hundred percent (100%), in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The petitioner timely filed for post-conviction relief, alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that his plea was not knowing and voluntary because his attorney erroneously advised him that he would be required to serve only eighty-five percent (85%) of his sentence before becoming eligible for parole and that his sentence could be reduced an additional fifteen percent (15%) for "good behavior." On appeal, the petitioner challenges the post-conviction court's conclusion that he received effective assistance of counsel. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Appellant, Rita Davis, pled guilty to one count of failure to appear, a class E felony, and was sentenced as a career offender to six years confinement. No direct appeal of her sentence was taken. Davis then filed a petition for post-conviction relief, requesting (1) a delayed direct appeal of her sentence; and (2) that her conviction be vacated upon grounds: (a) that her guilty plea was involuntarily entered based upon ineffective assistance of counsel; and (b) that her conviction was obtained in violation of "constitutional due process rights."

After review, we find that the post-conviction court's consolidation of issue (1), granting the direct appeal of her sentence, and issue (2), the collateral review of Davis' challenge to her conviction through post-conviction process, conflicts with our previous holding in Gibson v. State, 7 S.W.3d 47 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998). Thus, consistent with Gibson, we reverse and remand issue (2) with instructions that Davis' collateral attack of her conviction be dismissed without prejudice. With respect to issue (1), we grant review of Davis' six-year sentence. After review, we find this issue is without merit and affirm her sentence as imposed.

A Stewart County grand jury indicted the defendant on one count of first degree murder involving Marilyn June Adkins' death. Following a jury trial, he stood convicted of second degree murder. For this offense he received fifteen years as a Range I, standard offender. Thereafter the defendant elected not to file a new trial motion and waived his right to bring a direct appeal. Nevertheless, he later filed a post-conviction petition alleging five grounds for relief. Finding that trial counsel had provided ineffective assistance in advising the defendant regarding waiving direct appeal, this Court allowed him to file a delayed appeal. See Kenneth Lee Pipkin v. State, No. 01C01-9608-CC-00328, 1997 WL 749441 at *1, 8-9 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville, Dec. 4, 1997.) As no new trial motion had been brought, the defendant was also allowed to file such motion. See id. at *9. Through this motion the defendant unsuccessfully alleged that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction. He now brings the same issue before this Court. However, after reviewing the matter, we find it to lack merit and affirm the action of the lower court.

The defendant, Pamela Sue King, was indicted by a Davidson County Grand Jury on one count of first degree premeditated murder. She was subsequently convicted by a jury of second degree murder, and was sentenced by the trial court to twenty-three years incarceration at 100% as a violent offender. Following the denial of her motion for a new trial, she filed a timely appeal to this court, raising two issues: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support her conviction for second degree murder; and (2) whether the trial court erred in allowing the jury to use a dictionary in its deliberations. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A prisoner who was denied parole filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari, challenging, on constitutional grounds, the procedures followed by the Parole Board. The trial court dismissed the petition. We affirm.

This appeal involves the termination of parental rights. The juvenile court terminated the parental rights of both parents. Appellant/mother challenges the juvenile court’s termination of her rights contending the juvenile court erred by allowing in certain documentary evidence, that the evidence did not clearly and convincingly establish that termination was in the child's best interest, the court failed to state affirmatively that termination was in the best interest of the child, and the petition for termination was defective as it did not explicitly state the statutorily mandated language of Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(d)(3)(C) (Supp. 2000). As discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the juvenile court.
T

A prison disciplinary board found a minimum security prisoner to be guilty of violation of state law. The prisoner filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari, claiming that the board had denied him due process. The trial court dismissed the petition. We affirm.

The sole question in this appeal is whether an obligor’s retirement constitutes a substantial and material change in circumstances so as to permit modification of a spousal support obligation. The trial court held that the obligor’s retirement did constitute a substantial and material change in circumstances, but the Court of Appeals reversed, finding that because the retirement was voluntary and foreseeable, the obligor could not seek modification of the original alimony award. We granted permission to appeal and hold that a bona fide retirement need only be objectively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances to constitute a substantial and material change in circumstances. In so holding, we reject, in the retirement context, the traditional test requiring an involuntary and unforeseeable change in circumstances to modify a support award. We further hold that the retirement in this case was objectively reasonable and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in modifying the support award. We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and reinstate the trial court’s modification of the support award. Tenn. R. App. P. 11 Application for Permission to Appeal; Judgment of the Court of Appeals Reversed

I write separately in this case to address a single issue of paramount significance here: the decision to retire and just how much scrutiny it should receive in the factual context of the case under submission. Assuredly, I concur in the result reached by the majority, which reinstates the trial court’s reduction of Bogan’s support obligation. I disagree, however, with the breadth of the reasoning used to reach that result. In my view, the decision to retire, particularly among workers nearing the ends of their careers, is personal, private, and nearly sacrosanct. Thus, I am compelled to clarify that I would limit the majority analysis to those cases involving obligors who have not yet reached the age for Social Security eligibility, presently age 62. In cases involving obligors who decide to retire after age 62, I would not subject the retirement decision to  analysis embraced by the majority

The majority holds that Mr. Bogan’s ability to provide support has been significantly reduced based solely upon a unilateral, voluntary decision to retire. If Mr. Bogan currently is unable to pay Ms. Bogan the alimony she was awarded at the time of the divorce, it is only because Mr. Bogan became dissatisfied with his job and voluntarily decided to leave. His employment was not terminated or in danger of termination. Mr. Bogan decided to retire despite his existing obligation to his former wife. I therefore cannot agree with the majority’s decision to reduce Ms. Bogan’s alimony and must respectfully dissent.