APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This case involves the termination of parental rights of the mother of four children who were removed from the mother's home by the Department of Children's Services in 1998 and placed in foster care. DCS devised a Plan of Care for the mother, which, among other things, required her to address her drug and alcohol addictions. During the two and one-half years between the removal of the children from the home and the hearing on the petition to terminate parental rights, the mother made token efforts to improve her situation, but her substance abuse continued. The trial court terminated the mother's parental rights on multiple grounds, including the ground that the conditions that led to the children's removal continued to persist with little likelihood of remedy. Because DCS has established grounds for termination and has established that termination is in the best interest of the children, we affirm.

As the result of an altercation with the manager of a fast food restaurant, the defendant was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault, a Class C felony; assault, a Class A misdemeanor; unlawful possession of a handgun while under the influence, a Class A misdemeanor; and the unlawful possession of a weapon with the intent to go armed, as a Class C misdemeanor. He was sentenced by the trial court to an effective sentence of four and one-half years, with 150 days in confinement, and the remainder of his time on intensive probation. Following the denial of his motion for a new trial, the defendant filed a timely appeal to this court, raising the issues of whether the evidence was sufficient to support his convictions of possession of a weapon with the intent to go armed and possession of a handgun while under the influence, and whether the trial court erred in enhancing his aggravated assault sentence to four and one-half years and sentencing him to intensive probation. Based on a careful review, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support the defendant's convictions, and that the trial court did not err in enhancing the defendant's sentence for aggravated assault. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This appeal involves a dispute among neighbors arising out of a couple's decision to place a double-wide mobile home on their property. After one of their neighbors blocked the access road to their property to prevent them from setting up their mobile home, the couple who owned the mobile home filed suit in the Chancery Court for Perry County seeking injunctive relief and damages. In response, two of the neighboring property owners requested the trial court to establish the boundary lines, to enjoin the couple from encroaching on their property, and to award actual and punitive damages for the damage that the couple's encroachment had caused to their property. Following a bench trial that continued past midnight and a series of post-trial motions requesting various corrections in the judgment, the trial court eventually established the disputed boundary line and awarded the couple a $6,110.50 judgment against one of their neighbors to compensate them for the damages stemming from the delay in setting up their mobile home. The two neighboring property owners have appealed. They take issue with (1) the trial court's decision to hold court past midnight, (2) the manner in which the trial court considered and disposed of their post-judgment motions, (3) the trial court's decision regarding the location of the southern boundary line of the couple's property, and (4) the trial court's failure to reduce the $6,110.50 judgment by the amount of the damages the couple's encroachment had caused. We have concluded that the trial court did not commit reversible error during either the trial or the post-trial proceedings and that the trial court's decision to award the couple $6,110.50 is supported by the evidence. However, we have also concluded that the evidence preponderates against the trial court's decision regarding a portion of the couple's southern boundary line. Accordingly, we remand the case for the sole purpose of correcting the error regarding a portion of this boundary line.

Petitioner, John Clark Garrison, filed a petition for post-conviction relief attacking his two convictions for theft of property over the value of $10,000.00 but less than $60,000.00. Petitioner was represented by counsel who filed the petition for post-conviction relief on his behalf. The State filed a response to the petition. The trial court dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing, finding that all of the issues were either previously determined, waived, insufficient to assert specific allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel, or presented no question of constitutional deprivation. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner appeals from the post-conviction court's summary dismissal of his post-conviction relief petition for failing to be properly verified under oath. The issue is whether a petition for post-conviction relief must be verified under oath and whether the petitioner's "affidavit and sworn statement" was sufficient to satisfy that requirement. We conclude that the post-conviction court was correct in summarily dismissing the petition for failing to be properly verified under oath.

The Davidson County Grand Jury indicted the Petitioner for one count of rape and one count of assault. The Petitioner's first trial ended with a hung jury. Following a second trial, the Petitioner was convicted of rape and assault, and sentenced to an effective thirty years of incarceration. His convictions and sentences were upheld on direct appeal. See State v. George D. Fitzpatrick, No. 01C01-9709-CR-00398, 1998 WL 775665 at *1, Davidson County (Tenn. Crim. App., Nashville, Nov. 4, 1998), perm. to appeal denied (Tenn. 1999). Subsequently, the Petitioner filed a timely petition for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel at his trial. After a hearing the court below dismissed the petition, from which ruling the Petitioner now appeals. Upon our review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Defendant was convicted by a jury of first degree premeditated murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. His conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. See State v. Richard Burt McKee, No. 01C01-9606-CC-00278, 1998 WL 155558, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., Nashville, Mar. 31, 1998). The Defendant filed for post-conviction relief in December 1998 alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal and that juror misconduct during deliberations entitles him to a new trial. The post-conviction court denied relief after an evidentiary hearing. The Defendant now appeals as of right. Finding no merit in the Defendant's contentions, we affirm the post-conviction court's judgment.

The petitioner, Larry Wade, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief by the Criminal Court for Davidson County. He asserts that the ineffective assistance of counsel and the unknowing and involuntary nature of his guilty pleas entitle him to relief from his convictions of attempted second degree murder and possession of one-half gram or more of cocaine with intent to sell. Following a review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The appellant, Melvin E. Beard, was convicted in the Williamson County Circuit Court of one count of the sale and delivery of less than .5 grams of crack cocaine, a class C felony. The trial court sentenced the appellant to ten years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction and imposed a fine of two thousand dollars ($2000). On appeal, the appellant raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence at trial was sufficient to sustain the appellant's conviction; (2) whether the trial court erred in allowing the State to introduce the portion of an audio tape recording of the drug transaction that occurred outside the presence of the appellant; (3) whether the trial court erred in refusing to grant the appellant's motion for mistrial; and (4) whether the trial court erred in sentencing the appellant. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Deborah Louise Reese, pled guilty in the Rutherford County Circuit Court to one count of felony murder, one count of especially aggravated robbery, and one count of conspiracy to commit especially aggravated robbery. The trial court sentenced the petitioner to a total effective sentence of life imprisonment. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging that she received ineffective assistance of counsel and that her guilty pleas were neither voluntarily nor knowingly made. Following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court dismissed the petition. The petitioner now appeals this ruling. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

On September 25, 1998, the petitioner entered best interest pleas to four counts of child rape. For these offenses he received concurrent sixteen year sentences. According to the announced plea the convictions arising out of Pickett and Overton Counties were set to be served at thirty percent while the Putnam County convictions were at one hundred percent with the potential to be reduced to eighty-five percent. Within the statute of limitations the petitioner filed a post-conviction petition alleging that his plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered concerning the consequences thereof. Subsequently, the trial court conducted a hearing and later denied the relief sought in the petition. It is from that denial that the petitioner brings the present appeal continuing to maintain that his plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered. After reviewing the record and applicable caselaw, we find that the sentences imposed are illegal and, therefore, reverse and remand the matter.