APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This workers’ compensation case presents the question of how a “temporary partial disability”
benefits award, as defined in Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-207(2), is calculated. The trial court held that an award is calculated based on the employee’s “average weekly wage,” which is the measure of benefits for the other categories of disability listed in the Workers’ Compensation Law (“temporary total disability,” “permanent total disability,” and “permanent partial disability”). The employer appealed this decision to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel. The case was transferred to the full Supreme Court before the Panel handed down its decision. We now reverse the trial court and hold that the express terms of the statute indicate that a temporary partial disability award has a unique method of calculation, based on “the difference between the wage of the worker at the time of the injury and the wage such worker is able to earn in such worker’s partially disabled condition.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-207(2). This method does not include the average weekly wage definition. Under the correct calculation, the plaintiff in this case is not entitled to any temporary partial disability benefits. The award of $3,258.20 is accordingly reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court. Appeal pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e); Judgment of the Circuit Court Reversed and Remanded.
 

The majority holds that the difference between pre- and post-injury wages for an employee whose weekly wage fell from $1,433.82 to $860.80 is $0. This holding, in my view, contravenes legislative intent, creates the potential for abuse of the benefit scheme, and muddles benefit calculation. In order to more effectively promote the Worker’s Compensation Act’s intended objectives and clarify benefit calculation, I would define “wage” in the temporary partial disability provision to mean “average weekly wage,” not “hourly rate of pay.” Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated § 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court found the plaintiff had sustained an injury to her left shoulder in the course and scope of her employment that resulted in 54 percent permanent partial disability. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

On appeal, the issue is whether a defendant, who pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement that allowed for a request for judicial diversion, may be sentenced by the trial court to additional time over and above the negotiated plea agreement in the event the Defendant violates the terms and conditions of judicial diversion. We hold the answer to be yes. Further, after a careful review we conclude that the trial court properly sentenced the Defendant. The Defendant’s sentence is affirmed.

Respectfully, I must concur only in the results of the majority’s holding that the trial court was authorized to impose two-year sentences upon revocation of the judicial diversion probation, even though the parties’ plea agreement specified one-year sentences.

For purposes of affording guidance to litigants and trial judges who, in the future, may find themselves situated similarly to the parties and the trial court in the present case, I believe this court should have analyzed the prior-crime issue by dichotomizing it into separate parts, namely, (1) the litany of prior crimes set forth within the escape count of the indictment and (2) the state-sponsored testimony about these prior crimes. I believe that both of these different sources of information merit different judicial responses. In an appropriate case, the form of the response to the indictment language may well dictate the response to the testimony.

The Appellant, William Greer, was indicted on one count of theft of property under $500, one count of fraudulent use of a debit card, and one count of misdemeanor assault. Prior to trial, the assault charge was severed. A Coffee County jury found the Appellant guilty of one count of fraudulent use of a debit card, a class A misdemeanor. The Appellant was sentenced to ninety (90) days in the Coffee County jail. Greer appeals his conviction contending that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction and (2) the unsolicited comments of the victim relating to the Appellant's severed charge of assault resulted in reversible error. After review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Appellant, Antonio Dwayne Johnson, appeals, pro se, the sentencing decision of the Montgomery County Circuit Court revoking his Community Corrections sentence and ordering service of the sentence in the Department of Correction. On March 12, 1998, the Appellant entered an "open" guilty plea to the charge of aggravated robbery by use of a deadly weapon, a class B felony. The trial court subsequently ordered that the Appellant serve his eight year sentence in the Community Corrections program. On March 24, 1999, a violation warrant issued. On appeal, the Appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking the Appellant's non-incarcerative status and placing him in the custody of the Department of Correction. We affirm the judgment of the trial court pursuant to Rule 20, Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. R.

The Appellant, Ronald Paul, appeals the dismissal of his pro se petition for post-conviction relief by the Robertson County Circuit Court. Paul, a correctional inmate, timely delivered his petition to the proper prison authorities; however, he inadvertently addressed the envelope containing his petition to the wrong city. The petition was returned to Paul, who, on the same day, corrected his mistake and re-delivered to prison authorities for mailing. These events occurred one day after the one year period for filing had expired. On appeal, Paul argues that the trial court erred in finding his post-conviction petition timed-barred. After review, we hold that Paul's petition was deemed "filed" for purposes of Supreme Court Rule 28 when it was first delivered to prison authorities and, as such, was timely.

The Appellant, an inmate at Riverbend Maximum Security Institution in Nashville, was convicted by a jury of attempted felony escape, aggravated robbery and especially aggravated kidnapping stemming from a failed prison escape. The Appellant was incarcerated at the Riverbend facility as a result of his prior convictions for especially aggravated robbery, especially aggravated kidnapping and second degree murder. The Appellant challenges on appeal his convictions for aggravated robbery and especially aggravated kidnapping, arguing (1) sufficiency of the convicting evidence, (2) systematic removal of African-Americans from the petit jury in violation of Batson v. Kentucky, and (3) the prejudicial admission into evidence of the Appellant's prior convictions for especially aggravated robbery, especially aggravated kidnapping, and second degree murder. The State argues that proof of the Appellant's prior convictions was an essential element of the felony escape charge and, therefore, admissible. After review, we find reversible error in the admission in the instant case of the Appellant's prior convictions for especially aggravated robbery, especially aggravated kidnapping and second degree murder. As such, the judgments of convictions are reversed and remanded for a new trial.

On December 16, 1993, William Singleton, the Defendant and Appellant, was convicted by a Claiborne County jury of first-degree murder. This Court affirmed the Defendant’s conviction following direct appeal. Subsequently, the Defendant filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging, inter alia that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial. Following a hearing, the trial court dismissed the petition. The Defendant appeals here, arguing that the trial court erroneously dismissed the petition. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, William Makransky, appeals his convictions for aggravated sexual battery, sexual battery, and two counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. He contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and that the trial court applied the incorrect standard for the prejudice prong in denying him relief on this issue in his motion for a new trial. Although we determine that the trial court did apply the incorrect standard for prejudice, our de novo review reveals that the defendant's trial attorney was not ineffective. Because of an error in the judgments, the sentences for contributing to the delinquency of a minor are modified.

The defendant appeals two convictions for stalking, contesting the sufficiency of the evidence and the admissibility of photographs. We affirm one of the defendant's convictions for stalking, but we vacate the judgment of conviction for the other because the evidence reflects the existence of only one stalking offense.

Thomas J. Tackett appeals from his Warren County especially aggravated robbery conviction, for which he received a 25-year incarcerative sentence. He urges us to find error based upon insufficiency of the convicting evidence, admission of certain evidence at trial, jury instructions not given, and sentencing. Although there is no merit in the issues advanced by the defendant, we notice as plain error that the defendant's conviction is for a greater crime than that which is charged in the indictment. We therefore modify his especially aggravated robbery conviction to aggravated robbery and remand for sentencing for that crime.

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of theft of property less than $500. He was subsequently sentenced to eleven (11) months and twenty-nine (29) days in the Lauderdale County jail. In this pro se appeal, Defendant argues that the State failed to provide him with discoverable material or information under Rule 16 of Tenn. R. Crim. P. After a review of the record, briefs of the parties and applicable law, we conclude that the State complied with the mandates of Rule 16. Thus, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendants, Joshua Lee Williams and Maurice Miguel Teague, encountered each other on the street where Teague produced a pistol and attempted to shoot Williams. When the gun did not fire, Williams knocked it from Teague's hands, picked it up, and fired in turn at Teague, in the process fatally wounding a neighborhood resident. Williams was indicted for first degree murder for the shooting death of the deceased, and criminal attempt to commit first degree murder of Teague, who was indicted for criminal attempt to commit first degree murder of Williams. At the conclusion of their joint trial, Williams was found guilty of second degree murder and criminal attempt to commit second degree murder, and Teague guilty of criminal attempt to commit second degree murder. Williams received an effective sentence of twenty years at 100% as a violent offender. Teague was sentenced as a standard, Range I offender to ten years. Teague raises essentially three issues on appeal: (1) sufficiency of the evidence; (2) not instructing the jury on aggravated assault as a lesser-included offense; and (3) the propriety of his sentence. Williams challenges the sufficiency of the evidence in support of his conviction for second degree murder. After a careful review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant, Orlando Crayton, was convicted of aggravated assault, reckless endangerment, unlawful carrying or possession of a weapon, and two counts of vandalism under $500.00. The trial court sentenced the defendant to 11 months, 29 days for each vandalism count, six years for aggravated assault, two years for reckless endangerment and 11 months, 29 days for unlawful possession of a weapon. Because the sentences were ordered to be served concurrently, the effective sentence is six years. In this appeal of right, the defendant challenges (1) the admissibility of evidence indicating the defendant's gang affiliation; (2) the admission of an estimate regarding the damage to a vehicle; and (3) the admission of a hearsay statement. The judgment is affirmed.