APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

On November 10, 1997, the appellant, Khanh V. Le, was convicted by a jury in the Shelby County Criminal Court of first degree murder. The trial court sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment in the Tennessee Department of Correction.  In this appeal as of right, the appellant presents the following issues for our review:

(I) Whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain the appellant’s conviction of first degree murder;

(II) Whether the trial court erred by refusing to charge any lesser included offenses to first degree murder;

(III) Whether the trial court erred by denying the appellant’s motion to suppress identification testimony.

Following a review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

I concur with Judge Ogle’s opinion concerning the issue of sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction for first degree murder and the issue regarding the suppression of identification testimony. I concur that the trial court did not err by refusing to charge voluntary manslaughter as a lesser-included offense.  I also concur that the trial court erred by failing to charge second degree murder as a lesser-included offense. However, I dissent from the majority opinion’s conclusion that this error was not reversible error.

The appellant, La Southaphanh, appeals his jury convictions for aggravated burglary and theft over $1,000. The trial court imposed, as a Range II offender, a nine year sentence for aggravated burglary and a concurrent seven year sentence for theft. On appeal, the appellant’s sole challenge is the sufficiency of the convicting evidence.  Following review, we affirm.<?xml:namespace prefix = o /?>

The appellant, Samantha Heard, appeals from a judgment of conviction entered by the Davidson County Criminal Court. The appellant pled guilty to one count of sale of cocaine in excess of .5 grams, a class B felony. As a condition of the plea agreement, the appellant reserved the right to appeal, as a certified question of law, the trial court's denial of her motion to suppress.¹ See Tenn. R. App. P. 3(b); Tenn. R. Crim. P. 37(b). Specifically, she asserts that the facts alleged in the affidavit of the search warrant are insufficient to support a finding of probable cause for the search of her person.  After review of the record, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion to suppress and affirm the judgment of conviction.<?xml:namespace prefix = o /?>

This appeal from the Circuit Court of Blount County concerns liability under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, which grants immunity, subject to certain statutory exceptions, to governmental entities pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-20-201. Cynthia Y. Long, the Plaintiff/Appellant, appeals the Trial Court’s judgment on directed verdict in favor of the City of Maryville, the Defendant/Appellee.

The lead opinion of Judge Ogle, the separate concurring opinion of Judge Welles, and the separate opinion of Judge Woodall concurring in part and dissenting in part, filed in this case on March 6, 2000, are withdrawn.

I dissent because I do not find that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint. In fact, there is precious little evidence in the record bearing on the culpability of the City of Maryville (“the City”). In my judgment, the proof shows little more than that the plaintiff slipped and fell on icy pavement in a city park at a place near a functioning water fountain on a day when the temperature was at or below freezing. What the evidence does not show is negligence of an employee of the City; notice to the City of a condition of the type described in T.C.A. § 29-20- 203(a); or the necessary causal connection between actionable conduct on the part of the City and the plaintiff’s fall.

The appellant, David Remus, appeals the jury verdict of the Shelby County Criminal Court finding him guilty of burglary of a building, a Class D felony.. The trial court imposed a sentence of three years and three months in the county workhouse.  On appeal, the appellant challenges (1) the sufficiency of the evidence; (2) the jury’s viewing of the appellant while “shackled;” and (3) the trial court’s application of an enhancement factor in determining the appellant’s sentence.

The defendant, Kermit Maurice Cozart, appeals from a guilty verdict returned against him by a Henry County jury for Aggravated Kidnapping, a Class B felony. The trial court sentenced the defendant to ten years at 100% as a violent offender for the aggravated kidnapping. The defendant contends that the trial court erred in failing to give the defendant’s requested special jury instruction. The defendant had requested that the trial court specifically charge the jury on aggravated kidnapping in the context of a robbery in accordance with the language of State v. Anthony, 817 S.W.2d 299 (Tenn. 1991). The defendant contends that the court’s instruction left the jury without guidance sufficient to decide whether the defendant should stand convicted for the offense of aggravated kidnapping. After careful review, we AFFIRM the instruction, judgment, and sentence from the trial court.

Defendant Nicholas S. Cakmes files a petition requesting that instead of adjudging the value of the remaining interest of Plaintiff Reuben N. Pelot, III, in their dentistry partnership, that the case be remanded for the Trial Court to make that determination.

The appellant, Gregory Austin, appeals his jury conviction for first degree premeditated murder. The appellant was originally indicted for felony murder in the perpetration of attempted robbery and first degree premeditated murder. Because the State did not seek a sentence of death or life without parole, the trial court imposed a life sentence. On appeal, the appellant argues the trial court erred in failing to: (1) suppress the appellant’s statement to the police; (2) permit redaction of portions of appellant’s statement to the police prior to its admission; and (3) contemporaneously instruct the jury regarding prior inconsistent statements.

In this tort action, the defendants appeal from an award of compensatory damages capped by the trial court at $130,000 pursuant to the Governmental Tort Liability Act (“GTLA”). They also seek to reverse the trial court’s decision to assess them with discretionary costs of $3,440.98. We affirm all of the trial court’s judgment except the award of discretionary costs.

I dissent from the majority opinion affirming the judgment of the Trial Court awarding compensatory damages of $130,000. From my review of the record, Plaintiff did not meet her burden of proving that Defendant had notice of the condition of the roadway, and therefore I would reverse the judgment of the Trial Court.

The appellant, James A. Ayers also known as James Harris, appeals the order of the Shelby County Criminal Court summarily dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief. In this appeal, the appellant challenges the trial court’s summary dismissal of his petition as being time-barred. Specifically, he argues that his claim was later arising under Burford and Sands.