APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The defendant, Colico Walls, was convicted of attempted aggravated robbery. The trial court imposed a Range III sentence of 15 years. In this appeal of right, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence as to identity. The judgment is affirmed.

The Defendant, Michael Hill, pled guilty to driving under the influence of an intoxicant, and submitted sentencing for determination by the trial court. Included within the sentencing was a determination by the trial court as to whether or not Defendant's prior convictions for DUI could be used to sentence him as a multiple DUI offender pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-10-403. The trial court determined that at least two of the prior DUI convictions could be used to sentence Defendant as a multiple third DUI offender. Defendant was sentenced to 11 months and 29 days, with all but 180 days suspended, and he was fined $3,500.00. On appeal, Defendant argues that all of the prior convictions for DUI were imposed more than ten years prior to his conviction for DUI in this case, and that he should be sentenced as a first offender. We agree, and reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this case for a sentencing hearing as a DUI first offender.

The Petitioner/Appellee, Danny W. Hobbs, filed a petition for post conviction relief in the Criminal Court of Sullivan County. The petition was filed after expiration of the applicable statute of limitations. The trial court granted post-conviction relief and the State appeals. After review, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.

The Appellant, Nicholas J. Johnson, presents for review a certified question of law. Johnson pled guilty to two counts of possession of Schedule I drugs for resale, one count of possession of Schedule IV drugs for resale, and simple possession. Johnson received an effective ten (10)-year Community Corrections sentence, and was ordered to serve one hundred and fifty (150) days, day for day, in the Williamson County Workhouse. As part of his plea, Johnson explicitly reserved, with the consent of the trial court and the State, a certified question of law challenging the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress. After review, we find that the question was not properly certified because it fails to clearly identify the scope and limits of the legal issue reserved. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

The defendant, Daniel O. Connelly, appeals from his conviction of driving under the influence of an intoxicant (DUI) imposed after a bench trial in the Dickson County Circuit Court. He claims on appeal that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction and that the trial court erred in overruling a pretrial motion to suppress any evidence that the state garnered following the defendant's warrantless arrest. After hearing oral arguments and reviewing the record, the parties' briefs, and the applicable law, we affirm the conviction.

The Appellant, Richard W. Herrell, a.k.a. Ricky Herrell, was indicted by a Dickson County Grand Jury for vandalism resulting in personal property damage of $500 to $1,000. Following a bench trial, Herrell was found guilty of the indicted charge and received a two-year suspended sentence. On appeal, Herrell raises one issue for our review: Whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support his conviction. After review, we find no error and affirm the judgment.

This case involves whether Mike and Bonnie Graves d/b/a/ GRESCO ("Defendants" or "Lessees") breached a commercial lease with Sue S. Plemmons ("Plaintiff" or "Lessor"). The lease was entered into in 1983 and permitted the installation of a billboard on Plaintiff's property. Plaintiff claims Lessees breached the lease when they paid the rent for 1999 late and when they refused to pay an increase from $250 to $1,500 in the annual rent. The Trial Court held that Lessees did not breach the lease and dismissed the case. We affirm.

This appeal arises from the third effort of the plaintiffs to obtain compensation and other employment benefits from their former employer. The same claims were first filed in Chancery Court against the doctor and his management company, and the complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and failure to join an indispensable party. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed suit in Chancery Court against the company which supplied the employee handbook and other services to the doctor. That case was dismissed on a motion for summary judgment. The plaintiffs then again filed suit against the doctor-employer in Circuit Court. The Circuit Court dismissed the case by converting the doctor-employer's motion for Rule 11 sanctions into a motion to dismiss on the basis of res judicata. The plaintiffs now appeal that dismissal to this court. We affirm the trial court's dismissal.

A state prisoner appeals the trial court's dismissal of his petition for writ of certiorari seeking judicial review of sanctions imposed in prison disciplinary proceedings. He asserts the proceedings denied him due process and that the board's failure to follow Department of Correction policies and procedures constituted an illegality under state law grounds for common law writ of certiorari. We affirm the trial court and hold (1) the sanctions imposed did not trigger due process protections, (2) the alleged failure to follow specific procedures did not amount to failure to follow the essential requirements of the law in the context of prison disciplinary proceedings, and (3) there was evidence to support the board's finding.

The appellant, Charles E. Jones, was convicted by a jury in the Shelby County Criminal Court of first degree murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant contends that the evidence is not sufficient for a jury to find him guilty of first degree murder. Following a review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This appeal involves a dispute between a decedent’s estranged husband and brother over the proceeds of a $12,000 life insurance policy. When he discovered that his deceased wife had removed him as the beneficiary of her policy, the husband filed suit in the Circuit Court for Davidson County seeking to invalidate the change of beneficiary form. Following a bench trial, the trial court found that the decedent lacked the capacity to change the beneficiary on her life insurance policy and that the decedent’s brother had procured the change through undue influence. Accordingly, the trial court awarded the decedent’s husband the proceeds of her life insurance policy as well as $350 that his brother-in-law had removed from a joint account using a power of attorney he obtained from the decedent. We have determined that the evidence does not support the trial court’s conclusion that the decedent lacked capacity to change the beneficiary of her life insurance policy and that the decedent’s husband never asserted an undue influence claim in the trial court. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment and remand the case with directions to award the proceeds of the life insurance policy to the decedent’s brother.

This appeal involves the custody of a child born out of wedlock to a mother who was at all times married to another man. The trial court awarded the mother custody. The father of the child now appeals. We have determined that the trial judge did not err in failing to recuse himself and properly awarded custody to the mother. Accordingly, we affirm.

In this action to collect the purchase price for the sale of nursery stock, the buyer alleged that the goods did not conform to the contract and that the number of units delivered was significantly short of the number specified in the invoice. The buyer also filed a counterclaim for the damage to its professional reputation resulting from the seller's breach. The Circuit Court of Franklin County resolved all the issues in favor of the seller and rendered judgment for the balance of the purchase price. Because we find that the buyer had accepted the goods and failed to carry his burden of proving that they were defective, we affirm.

The petitioner, Lucious Allen,¹ pled guilty in the Shelby County Criminal Court to four felony offenses and was sentenced to a total effective sentence of eight years with the sentence running concurrently to a previously imposed federal sentence. Subsequently, the petitioner filed for post-conviction relief, alleging involuntary guilty pleas and that the trial court was without jurisdiction to impose concurrent sentencing. On appeal, the petitioner disputes the summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief without the appointment of counsel and without an evidentiary hearing. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we reverse the judgment of the post-conviction court and remand this case to the post-conviction court for appointment of counsel and further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The defendant was convicted of aggravated robbery and sentenced to eight years imprisonment. In this appeal, the defendant alleges (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain her conviction, and (2) the trial court erroneously failed to charge simple robbery as a lesser-included offense of aggravated robbery. We conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, and the defendant affirmatively acquiesced in the trial court's failure to charge simple robbery. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The appellant, Stephen E. Cline, pled guilty in the Overton County Criminal Court to four counts of obtaining a controlled substance by forgery, and the trial court imposed concurrent sentences of four years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The trial court granted the appellant judicial diversion and placed him on probation for four years. Subsequently, the appellant was arrested for driving under the influence (DUI) and failing to comply with the implied consent law. A warrant for revocation of probation and judicial diversion was issued alleging the foregoing offenses and contending that the appellant had fraudulently obtained a controlled substance. Pursuant to a hearing, the trial court revoked the appellant's probation and entered judgments of conviction for all four counts of obtaining a controlled substance by forgery. On appeal, the appellant raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether there was sufficient evidence for the trial court to find that the appellant violated his probation and judicial diversion; (2) whether the trial court violated the appellant's right to confrontation in admitting hearsay statements during the hearing; (3) whether the trial court violated the appellant's due process rights by failing to bifurcate the probation revocation proceedings; and (4) whether the trial court erred in failing to consider all of the proof before forming an opinion on the case. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, David Glenn Ayers, was convicted of driving under the influence, second offense. The trial court imposed a sentence of 11 months and 29 days with release eligibility after service of 75%. In this appeal of right, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, argues that the trial court should have set aside the verdict as thirteenth juror, and contends that the sentence is excessive. The judgment is affirmed.

The defendant, Patrick D. Paris, appeals from his convictions for attempted first degree murder and especially aggravated robbery, contending that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions and that the trial court erred by allowing hearsay testimony into evidence as an excited utterance. We affirm the judgments of conviction.

The Petitioner was convicted of especially aggravated kidnapping and sentenced to twenty-five years incarceration. The conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. Subsequently, the Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that his attorney at trial was ineffective. The post-conviction court denied relief. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.