Donnie Sartain v. Eldeco, Inc., et al
M2000-02634-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Ben H. Cantrell, Sp. J.
Trial Court Judge: Jeffrey F. Stewart, Chancellor
In this case, the employer contends the trial court erred in awarding permanent partial disability in the amount of 75% to the body as a whole and in allowing vocational expert testimony amounting to a legal conclusion. As discussed herein, the panel has concluded that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.

Bobby Smith v. Findlay Industries, Inc., et al
M2000-02327-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Frank G. Clement, Jr., Sp. J.
Trial Court Judge: Charles D. Haston, Chancellor
The employer/appellant contends the trial court erred in 1) awarding 1% permanent partial disability to the right upper extremity, and 2) computing the employee's average weekly wage and benefit rate. As discussed herein, the panel has concluded that the judgment awarding 1% permanent partial disability to the right upper extremity should be affirmed, and that the determination of the average weekly wage and benefit rate is incorrect and should therefore be remanded to the trial court.

Sonnie Gail Phillips Wood v. Porter Cable Corporation,
W2000-01771-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: L. Terry Lafferty, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Joe C. Morris, Chancellor
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers'Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(3) (2) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Defendant/Appellant Van De Kamp's, Inc., and Defendant/Appellee Porter Cable Corporation, appeal the judgment of the Chancery Court of Madison County awarding Plaintiff/ Appellee, Sonnie Gail (Phillips) Wood, thirty percent (3%) permanent partial disability to the right arm and twenty percent (2%) to the left arm. Van De Kamp's, Inc. raises three additional appellate issues: (1) Whether the trial court erred in finding that the "Last Injurious Exposure Rule" applied to the facts in this case; (2) Whether the trial court erred in granting Porter Cable Corporation a directed verdict at the close of Plaintiff's proof; and (3) Whether Porter Cable Corporation's inaction when given notice of Plaintiff's injury estops them from denying liability. Defendant Porter Cable raises three additional appellate questions: (1) Whether the trial court erred in applying the "Last Injurious Exposure Rule"; (2) Whether it was harmless error for the trial court to grant Porter Cable Corporation a directed verdict; and (3) Whether equity was achieved when Plaintiff's injury worsened at Van De Kamp's. From our review of the record, we affirm the trial court's judgment as modified. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e) (1999) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court is Affirmed as Modified. L. TERRY LAFFERTY, SR. J., in which JANICE M. HOLDER, J., and JOE C. LOSER, SP. J., joined. Jeffrey P. Boyd, Jackson, Tennessee, for Defendant/Appellant, Van De Kamp's; and Michael V. Tichenor, Memphis, Tennessee, for Defendant/Appellee, Porter Cable Corporation. Art D. Wells, Jackson, Tennessee, for the Plaintiff/Appellee, Sonnie Gail Phillips Wood. MEMORANDUM OPINION Sonnie Gail Phillips Wood, age 32, a self-employed residential cleaner, testified that at the time of her employment with Porter Cable Corporation ("Porter Cable"), her name was Sonnie Phillips, but she is now married. Plaintiff did not complete the eighth grade, with no further educational attempts. Plaintiff began working for Porter Cable in August 1996 as an assembler and pain commenced in her hands in August 1997. Plaintiff worked both the router line and belt sand line, which required the continuous and repetitive use of her hands with a power screwdriver. When her hands began to "swell like a balloon," she notified Walter Longmire, a shift manager, about her condition. Longmire suggested that she "suck it up." Plaintiff's pain continued and radiated into her shoulders. She told the plant nurse, Connie Leaper, who suggested that it might be tendinitis and that she should take Ibuprofen and use splints. On her own, Plaintiff saw Dr. Timothy Hayden, who suggested that her problems could be from her work. Dr. Hayden referred her to Dr. Keith Nord. Dr. Nord recommended that she wear braces at night and at work, but they did not help. In April 1998, Dr. Nord advised her that she had carpal tunnel syndrome and recommended that she take off work at Porter Cable. In September 1998, Plaintiff decided to leave employment at Porter Cable due to certain problems, her hands were painful and that if she continued to work, her hands might become permanently damaged. Between September and November of 1998, Plaintiff worked for International Paper Company for a very short time. She began working for Van De Kamp's Inc. ("Van De Kamp's") in early November 1998. Plaintiff began working the pancake and waffle line, in which the pancakes and waffles came down a line bunched up, so she had to pick them up and stack them four at a time and put them in bins for packing. Plaintiff worked a twelve-hour shift. On the very first day, Plaintiff felt intense pain but did not tell anybody for about a month because she was new on the job. In December 1998, Plaintiff reported her injury to her employer and was provided a panel of three physicians. Since Dr. Nord was on the list, she returned to see Dr. Nord and he placed her on light duty, but Van De Kamp's did not honor her restrictions and put her back on the waffle line. Since her hands became worse and she could not do the job, she left Van De Kamp's in December 1998. Plaintiff worked at various jobs until she started her own residential cleaning service. As to her daily routine, Plaintiff testified that she has some problems with vacuuming, and house cleaning. She has difficulty in brushing her seven year old daughter's hair and cannot lift her weights since her wrists are weak. Plaintiff conceded that she did not have surgery for her wrist and/or hand problems. Mr. Jason Wood, Plaintiff's husband of one and one-half years, testified that he met Plaintiff while they worked at International Paper in October 1998. He stated that his wife cannot lift a cast iron skillet or heavy pots, and in the mornings he must help her daughter get ready for school. Plaintiff cannot do weeding in the garden or twist off tops of jars and bottles. Mr. Wood did not know Plaintiff when she worked at Porter Cable and is not familiar with her problems at that plant. He stated that when they dated in October 1998, she had no problems with her hands and he never helped her to open jars. -2-

Wayne Wood, Meadowbrook Insurance & Association Self Insurance Services, Inc. v. Sammy Benson
M2001-00107-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Frank G. Clement, Jr., Sp.J.
Trial Court Judge: Jeffrey S. Bivins, Judge
The issue on appeal is whether the trial court erroneously granted a partial lump sum commutation of permanent total disability benefits. This panel has concluded that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed as modified.

Willis Lee Melton v. Butch Bowman , d/b/a Bowman's
M2000-02960-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Frank G. Clement, Jr., Sp.J.
Trial Court Judge: Hon. John J. Maddux Jr., Judge
The issue on appeal presented by employer/appellant is whether the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to grant the appellant's motion pursuant to Rule 6.2(1)(5) of the Tenn. R. Civ. P. The panel has concluded that the judgment of the trial court should be reversed because the notice requirement of due process was not satisfied.

James Morris v. Zurich American Ins. Co., et al.
M2000-02090-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Frank G. Clement, Jr., Sp.J.
Trial Court Judge: Hon. J. O. Bond, Judge
The issues on appeal are (1) whether the trial court erred in determining that the employee suffered a compensable work-related shoulder injury, and (2) whether the vocational disability ratings as awarded were excessive. The panel has concluded that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.

Ronnie Wayne Inman v. Emerson Electric Co.
W1999-02245-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Don R. Ash, Sp. J.
Trial Court Judge: George R. Ellis, Chancellor
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6- 225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court found the plaintiff sustained a twenty-five percent permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. The defendant disputes the finding. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e) (1999) Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed. DON R. ASH, SP. J., in which JANICE M. HOLDER, J., and JOHN K. BYERS, SP. J., joined. P. Allen Phillips and Jennifer K. Craig, Jackson, Tennessee, for the appellant, Emerson Electric Co. John C. Nowell, Jr., Trenton, Tennessee, for the appellee, Ronnie Wayne Inman. MEMORANDUM OPINION History Plaintiff, Ronnie Wayne Inman, filed a Complaint for workers' compensation benefits on April 25, 1997. The trial was heard on August 17, 1999. At the conclusion of the proof the trial court awarded plaintiff 25% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole. Defendant, Emerson Electric Co., appeals the decision of the trial court. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm. Facts On or around May 18, 1996, plaintiff was struck on the back, buttocks and right arm by hot aluminum, which shot from a machine at defendant's plant. The plaintiff was taken to the emergency room at Humboldt General Hospital. His wounds were dressed and treated and he was sent home with oral medication. Theplaintiffreturnedto work thenext day, but was unable to work. Later in the week, plaintiff was transferred to a cooler part of the plant. At his new job the plaintiff had no trouble keeping up with his production quota. Moreover, other than doctor appointments, the plaintiff did not miss work before the trial. Dr. William Hickerson, a plastic surgeon, first examined the plaintiff on February 4, 1997 for scar tissue on his back. At the examination, the plaintiff complained of occasional shooting pain in the area of the scar tissue. Dr. Hickerson diagnosed scar tissue and recommended a re- moisturizing agent. Upon re-examination, Inman was found to have little change to his condition. Dr. Hickerson opined the scar tissue was not such that it would be rated under the AMA Guidelines. He did not place any restrictions based upon the scarring of the skin. Next, Dr. Hickerson recommended that Dr. Cobb, an orthopedic surgeon, examine the plaintiff. Dr. Cobb noted that the problems might be musculoskeletal in nature. He also found the plaintiff had more tenderness with deeper palpation and there could be a mild lumbar strain. Dr. Cobb opined there was no sign of permanent impairment from an orthopedic standpoint and there were no restrictions from an orthopedic standpoint. Next, Dr. Goshorn, a plastic surgeon, examined the plaintiff. Dr. Goshorn's opinion was presented to the trial court through a letter marked as an exhibit to Dr. Schnapp's deposition. Dr. Goshorn opined that the plaintiff had chronic pain secondary to a deep thermal injury. He further stated that the plaintiff had no functional impairment to the area, although he had impairment secondary to pain. Next, Dr. Schnapp, a physician who specializes in pain management, examined the plaintiff. Upon his examination plaintiff described an aching and throbbing pain, which was sensitive, particularly when he was hot and perspired. Dr. Schnapp opined that a significant portion of the plaintiff's pain was mechanical pain related to bones, joints, and ligaments. Further, he did not believe that the plaintiff should be following any restrictions due to the burn injury and that his primary pain was deeper and unrelated to the burn. Finally, Dr. DeMere examined the plaintiff and diagnosed healed scars of arms and back. Dr. DeMere was unable to find any other injury apart from the skin damage. He opined a 1% permanent partial impairment rating to the body as a whole. However, he stated that the AMA Guidelines were not particularly helpful in arriving at the impairment rating. -2-

Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Phillip Goins
M2000-01379-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Ben H.Cantrell, Sp. J.
Trial Court Judge: Walter C. Kurtz, Judge
In this case, the employer contends the trial court erred in (1) finding that the gradual aggravation of a claimant's pre-existing arthritic condition over the course of twenty-one years is a compensable accident under the Workers' Compensation Act and (2) assessing a 75% vocational disability for an injury not wholly attributable to employment. As discussed below, the panel has concluded that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed on both issues.

Deborah Warren vs. James Ferguson
W2000-02027-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: James H. Bradberry
This appeal involves a complaint to establish parentage and set child support. The court below ordered genetic testing, which proved that James R. Ferguson is the natural father of the children at issue. The court also entered a judgment of $8,623.00 for retroactive child support, $280.00 for the cost of genetic testing, and the court reserved the issue of current support until Mr. Ferguson is released from prison. We vacate the trial court's final order based on our conclusion that the trial court erred in failing to rule on Mr. Ferguson's Motion for the Appointment of Counsel, or alternatively, his request that the matter be held in abeyance until he is released from incarceration.

Robert LeeGrand v. Trinity Universal Insurance
W2000-02664-SC-WCM-CV
Trial Court Judge: Joe C. Morris
The appellant presents the following issues for review: (1) Whether the trial court erred in ruling that the plaintiff did not sustain an injury that arose out of his employment; (2) whether the trial court erred in ruling that the plaintiff received no permanent disability from his injuries; (3) whether the trial court erred in failing to make a specific finding as to the benefit rate, and (4) whether the trial court erred in failing to award plaintiff discretionary costs. Although we hold that the plaintiff's injury arose out of the plaintiff's employment, we affirm the trial court's conclusion that the plaintiff received no permanent disability from his injury.

State of Tennessee v. Mark A. Shultz
E2000-02013-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: Judge Rex Henry Ogle

The state appeals the trial court's dismissal of its prosecution of the defendant, Mark A. Shultz, for driving under the influence of an intoxicant (DUI). It contends that the trial court's conclusion that the case had been left unresolved too long could not lawfully justify dismissal. We reverse the trial court and remand the case for further proceedings.

State of Tennessee v. Darrell Presnell
E2000-02544-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Gary R Wade
Trial Court Judge: Judge Ben W. Hooper, II

The defendant, Darrell Presnell, who was indicted for especially aggravated robbery, was convicted of the lesser included offense of aggravated robbery. The trial court imposed a sentence of ten years. In this appeal of right, the defendant contends that (1) there was a fatal variance between the presentment and the proof at trial; (2) the trial court erred by instructing the jury on aggravated robbery as a lesser included offense; and (3) the trial court erred by not instructing the jury on the lesser included offense of robbery. Because the trial court failed to instruct on the lesser offense of robbery, the judgment must be reversed and the case must be remanded for a new trial.

Kevin Taylor v. State of Tennessee
M2000-01414-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Jerry L. Smith
Trial Court Judge: Judge Seth W. Norman

A jury found the petitioner guilty of felony murder and attempted especially aggravated robbery. For these offenses he received sentences of life and ten years respectively, which were set to run concurrently. The petitioner unsuccessfully pursued a direct appeal. See State v. Kevin Taylor, No. 01C01-9707-CR-00263, 1998 WL 849324 at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville, Dec. 9, 1998). Following his unsuccessful direct appeal, the petitioner then filed for post-conviction relief. He was subsequently appointed counsel, and this attorney filed a "Supplemental Petition for Post-Conviction Relief" alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and the deprivation of the petitioner's right to due process. Following an evidentiary hearing on these matters, the trial court found that the petition did not merit relief. The petitioner now appeals this denial maintaining that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to subpoena and introduce alleged telephone records; to interview and/or call certain potential witnesses; and to properly investigate and cross-examine two State witnesses. After reviewing the record and applicable case law, we find that these claims lack merit and, therefore, affirm the trial court's judgment.

Parks Properties, et al vs. Maury County, et al
M1997-00235-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: William B. Cain
Parks Properties and Columbia Warehouses, Inc. have filed a petition pursuant to Tenn. R. App. P. 39 requesting a rehearing of this court's August, 17, 2001 opinion. We requested and have now received an answer to this petition on behalf of Maury County and Judy Langsdon. Parks Properties and Columbia Warehouses insist that our conclusion that they lacked a protectable property interest in constructing the two warehouses without installing the automatic required sprinkler systems is based on our "misunderstanding that the warehouses would have contained tobacco or other combustible products." They assert that "there was never any evidence before the trial court that the warehouses would be used to store tobacco or other combustible products." This argument misses the point. The lynchpin of our opinion is that the record contains no evidence (1) that the Parks family ever told any county official that tobacco and other combustible materials would not be stored in these warehouses and (2) that the Parks family never sought a waiver of the automatic sprinkler requirements under Section 402.4.1 exception

Joe Jones v. Mary McMurray, et al
M2000-01959-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David Michael Swiney
Trial Court Judge: Russell Heldman
In this malicious prosecution action, Joe T. Jones ("Plaintiff") appeals the Trial Court's grant of summary judgment to the defendants after concluding there was no genuine issue of material fact supporting Plaintiff's allegation of fraud surrounding entry of a judgment against Plaintiff in the underlying lawsuit. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court.

State of Tennessee v. Mila Love
W1999-01957-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge John Everett Williams
Trial Court Judge: Judge Jon Kerry Blackwood

The defendant appeals her convictions for first degree felony murder and alleges four errors for our review: (1) insufficient evidence; (2) failing to take judicial notice of the definition of the word "gank;" (3) failing to determine the order of the verdicts; and (4) failing to instruct on the lesser-included offenses of felony murder. After review, we hold that sufficient evidence exists to support the defendant's convictions for first degree felony murder and that the trial court did not err in declining to take judicial notice of the definition of the word "gank." We further hold that the trial court did not err in failing to determine the order of the verdicts and there was no implied acquittal of the felony murder convictions. Finally, we hold, pursuant to the recent Tennessee Supreme Court opinion of State v. Ely, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Tenn. 2001), that the offense of first degree felony murder does have lesser-included offenses of second degree murder, reckless homicide, criminally negligent homicide, and facilitation of felony murder. Therefore, because the trial court failed to instruct on the lesser-included offense of facilitation of felony murder, we reverse the defendant's convictions and remand for a new trial.

State of Tennessee v. James L. Breeden
E2000-02794-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joseph M. Tipton
Trial Court Judge: Judge D. Kelly Thomas, Jr.

The defendant, James L. Breeden, appeals from the one-year sentence to confinement imposed by the trial court for his driving a car in violation of an order under the Habitual Motor Vehicle Offender (HMVO) Act that barred him from driving. He contends that the trial court erred by not imposing a sentence of split confinement with inpatient substance abuse evaluation and treatment. We affirm the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Steve Hilliard
E2000-02819-CCA-R9-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: Judge Douglas A. Meyer

The defendant was indicted for one count of extortion and one count of theft of property over $1000, both Class D felonies. The defendant requested pretrial diversion, which the prosecutor denied. The defendant then filed a writ of certiorari to the trial court alleging an abuse of prosecutorial discretion. The trial court affirmed the prosecutor's decision. The defendant now appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in ruling that the prosecutor did not abuse his discretion in denying pretrial diversion. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Galen Dean Eidson
M2000-02390-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Trial Court Judge: Judge Jane W. Wheatcraft

The appellant, Galen Dean Eidson, was indicted by a Sumner County Grand Jury for second degree murder. Pursuant to the terms of a plea agreement, Eidson pled guilty to the reduced offense of reckless homicide. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Eidson to four years confinement in the Department of Correction. On appeal, Eidson raises the following sentencing issues for our review: (1) Whether the length of the sentence imposed by the trial court was excessive; and (2) whether the trial court erred in sentencing him to total confinement in the Department of Correction. Upon de novo review, we find that a total confinement sentence of four years is justified in this case. Accordingly, the judgment of the Sumner County Criminal Court is affirmed.

Jonathan Davis v. State of Tennessee
M2000-01158-CCA-R3-PC
Authoring Judge: Judge Norma McGee Ogle
Trial Court Judge: Judge Robert L. Jones

The petitioner, Jonathan Davis, was convicted in the Maury County Circuit Court of two counts of felony murder and one count of attempted aggravated robbery. He received consecutive sentences of life imprisonment for the felony murder convictions and three years imprisonment for the attempted aggravated robbery conviction. On direct appeal, this court affirmed the petitioner's convictions and sentences. See William Edward Watkins, No. 01C01-9701-CC-00004, 1997 WL 766462 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville, December 12, 1997), perm.to appeal denied, (Tenn. 1998). Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging the ineffective assistance of both trial and appellate counsel. On appeal, the petitioner contests the post-conviction court's denial of his petition for relief. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

State of Tennessee v. Edwin Milton Socall
M1999-02727-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge David G. Hayes
Trial Court Judge: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer

The appellant, Edwin Milton Socall, was indicted by a Montgomery County Grand Jury for driving under the influence (DUI), reckless driving, violation of the implied consent law, and driving on a revoked license (DORL). Following a bench trial, Socall was found guilty of first offense DUI and second offense DORL. He was sentenced to eleven months, twenty-nine days, with all but thirty days suspended, for DUI, and eleven months, twenty-nine days, all suspended, for DORL, second offense. At the bench trial, Socall was represented by retained counsel; however, no court reporter was employed to transcribe the proceedings.

Following his conviction, Socall requested that he be found indigent for purposes of appeal and requested appointed appellate counsel. The trial court granted his request and appointed the public defender's office. Because the proceedings below were not transcribed, a statement of evidence pursuant to Tenn. R. App. P. 24(c) was prepared. On appeal, three issues are presented for our review: (1) Whether "the failure to preserve evidence through the use of a court reporter or tape recording" deprived Socall of an effective appeal; (2) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions of first offense DUI and second offense DORL; and (3) whether the trial court erred by ordering Socall to serve thirty days in confinement. After review, we find issue (1) is without merit and issue (3) is waived. Moreover, we hold the evidence is sufficient to support Socall's convictions for DUI and DORL, second offense. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

State of Tennessee v. Anthony Carpenter
W2000-01229-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Robert W. Wedemeyer
Trial Court Judge: Judge Chris B. Craft

The defendant, Anthony Carpenter, was convicted by a jury of second degree murder. In this appeal as of right, he asserts that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and that the trial court erred by sentencing him to twenty-three years incarceration. We find no error; thus, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Michael Shane Hyder v. Allen Bargery, Warden
W2000-01533-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Special Judge Cornelia A. Clark
Trial Court Judge: Judge Jon Kerry Blackwood

The state has appealed from the judgment of the Circuit Court of Hardeman County granting the petitioner habeas corpus relief and finding that his two consecutive three-year sentences had expired. The state asserts that the sentences have not expired and that the petitioner is not entitled to be released from prison. Because the state has not filed an adequate record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Richard Wools
W2000-01979-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Judge Joe G. Riley
Trial Court Judge: Judge Mark Agee

Defendant appeals his conviction at a bench trial for the offense of cruelty to animals. The trial court sentenced him to eleven months and twenty-nine days with all but ten days suspended. He raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction; (2) whether the trial court erroneously admitted evidence outside the facts alleged in the charging instrument; (3) whether the trial court erroneously allowed three witnesses to give opinion testimony; and (4) whether the trial court erred in failing to suspend the entire sentence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee v. Jacqueline Hurt
W2000-02193-CCA-R3-CD
Authoring Judge: Special Judge Cornelia A. Clark
Trial Court Judge: Judge W. Otis Higgs, Jr.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, the appellant, Jacqueline Hurt, entered open guilty pleas to two counts of attempted first degree murder, one count of especially aggravated robbery, and one count of especially aggravated kidnaping, all Class A felonies. She received an effective sentence of seventy-five years. The appellant contends that the trial court imposed an excessive sentence because it erred in applying one enhancement factor and because it imposed consecutive sentences. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.