APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The appellant/defendant, Marty W. Stanfill, appeals as of right from the judgment of the Davidson County Criminal Court which imposed a sentence of eight (8) years in indictment No. 97-B-1320, for the state offense of unlawful possession of cocaine with the intent to sell or deliver. The trial court ordered this sentence to be served consecutively to a federal conviction, No. 3:97-00087, for conspiracy to distribute cocaine. At the same sentencing hearing, in indictment No. 99-B-865, the trial court imposed, in three separate counts, two (2) eight (8) year sentences for unlawful possession of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver, and one (1) year for the unlawful possession of a weapon. These sentences were to be served concurrently with case No. 97-B-1320 and the federal conviction, No. 3:97-00087, imposed by the U.S. District Court for Middle Tennessee at Nashville. The defendant presents one appellate issue: Whether the trial court erred in imposing an eight (8) year sentence in case No. 97-B-1320, consecutive to federal case No. 3:97-00087? After a complete review of the record, briefs of the parties and applicable law, we vacate the judgment of conviction and remand the case for further proceedings.

The appellant, Calvin Otis Tanksley, was convicted by a Davidson County Jury of one count of rape of a child and one count of attempted rape of a child. Based on his classification as a repeat violent offender, the appellant was sentenced upon each count to two consecutive sentences of life without parole. Upon appeal, the appellant raises the following issues: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the verdicts; (2) whether the court erred in ruling the defendant's prior bad acts could be introduced by the State if the defendant presented an alibi defense; (3) whether the court erred in allowing the State to introduce over four hundred pairs of women's undergarments seized from the defendant in an investigation in another county; (4) whether the trial court erred in not suppressing the photographic array; and (5) whether the appellant qualified for sentencing as a repeat violent offender. Finding no reversible error, the judgments are affirmed.

The defendant was convicted of driving under the influence, second offense, and received a sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days. The defendant was ordered to serve forty-five days in continuous confinement and five days on the weekends, with the remainder of his sentence to be served on probation. In this appeal as of right, the defendant makes the following allegations of error: (1) the trial court used an invalid judgment to elevate his DUI charge to a DUI second; (2) the trial court's initial denial of an appeal bond violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the United States and Tennessee Constitutions; and (3) the trial court incorrectly concluded it was not authorized to grant work release or periodic confinement during the defendant's mandatory minimum period of incarceration for DUI. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude the trial court did not commit the above errors and affirm the defendant's conviction and sentence.

This is a case involving two defendants: O'Connor, the mother's friend, was convicted of Aggravated Child Abuse through injury and Aggravated Child Abuse through neglect. Lekin, the mother, was convicted of Aggravated Child Abuse through neglect. We affirm the conviction of Aggravated Child Abuse through injury, as we hold that a four-year-old who received a skull fracture, epidural bleeding, swelling and bruising around the eyes and face, and the pain associated with said injuries has sustained "serious bodily injury." Further, we find sufficient evidence to support both convictions for Aggravated Child Abuse through neglect. Finally, we reject the arguments that the state was required to elect a specific "serious bodily injury" and that Aggravated Child Abuse through neglect is not an offense in Tennessee.

I must respectfully dissent because, while I agree that the appellant’s confession to the police should have been suppressed, I do not believe that the trial court’s admission of the confession at trial constituted reversible error.

Defendant appeals his jury convictions on two counts of premeditated first degree murder for which he received concurrent life sentences. The following issues are presented for our review: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; (2) whether the trial court erred in disallowing impeachment evidence against a state witness; (3) whether the trial court erroneously admitted evidence of defendant being a beneficiary of life insurance policies on one of the victims; (4) whether the trial court erroneously admitted inflammatory evidence relating to the crime scene; (5) whether the trial court erred in allowing evidence of alleged threats made by the defendant; (6) whether the trial court erred in allowing evidence of a prior argument between the defendant and one of the victims; and (7) whether the trial court erred in disallowing evidence of defendant's failure to flee and avoid arrest. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The appellant, Phillip Shead Jr., appeals from the order of the Madison County Circuit Court revoking his probation and reinstating his original eight year sentence in the Department of Correction. We affirm the judgment of the trial court pursuant to Rule 20, Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. R