APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This case arises out of a breach of contract by the Defendant for a roof Defendant installed on Plaintiff's freezer storage facility. The case was tried before a jury, who found the Defendant had materially breached the contract between the parties and awarded Plaintiff damages in the amount of $5,655.00. Subsequently, Plaintiff filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment or, in the alternative, a motion for additur or new trial. The trial court denied the motion to alter or amend the judgment but suggested an additur increasing the award to $30,655.00, which Defendant appealed. For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of the trial court.

The Defendant, Roger V. Alexander, pled guilty to one count of possession of anhydrous ammonia, a Class E felony. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to four years in the Department of Correction. The Defendant now appeals, alleging that the trial court should have sentenced him to Community Corrections. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Shelby County jury convicted the defendant, Cornelius Richmond, of one count of robbery and three counts of forgery. The trial court ordered the defendant to serve an effective sentence of thirtythree years as a career offender. On appeal, the defendant contends: (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his statement to the police; (2) the evidence is insufficient to support his robbery conviction; and (3) the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on facilitation as a lesser-included offense. Upon review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

In 1964, Mr. and Mrs. Woodard executed a Joint Last Will and Testament (the "Joint Will") which provided that the survivor would receive the decedent's entire estate in fee simple. The Joint Will further provided that, upon the death of the survivor, the survivor's estate would be divided in equal one-fourth shares among George D. Woodard ("Plaintiff"), Mr. Woodard's son from a previous marriage, and Mr. and Mrs. Woodard's three daughters. Mrs. Woodard executed a new will in 1998 (the "1998 Will"), approximately twenty years after Mr. Woodard's death. Pursuant to the terms of the 1998 Will, Plaintiff was to receive $10,000, with the remainder of Mrs. Woodard's estate to be divided equally among her three daughters. Mrs. Woodard's three daughters sought to probate the 1998 Will after she passed away. Plaintiff then filed this lawsuit claiming, among other things, that the Joint Will created a contractual obligation on the part of Mrs. Woodard to distribute her estate in accordance with the terms of the Joint Will and, therefore, Plaintiff was entitled to one-fourth of Mrs. Woodard's estate. Plaintiff sued Mrs. Woodard's estate as well as his three half-sisters, Sandra Norton, Martha Scissom, and Barbara Lambert (collectively referred to as "Defendants"). The Trial Court granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment. We conclude there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether there existed a contractual obligation on the part of Mrs. Woodard to distribute her estate according to the terms of the Joint Will. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the Trial Court and remand for further proceedings.

Defendant, Jonathan M. Light, pled guilty to two counts of Class D felony burglary, one count of Class D felony theft, and one count of Class E felony theft. Pursuant to the negotiated plea agreement, he received sentences of two years for each of the Class D felonies, and one year for the Class E felony, all to be served concurrently with each other for an effective sentence of two years. Pursuant to the agreement, the manner of service of the sentence was to be determined by the trial court following a sentencing hearing. Defendant requested to serve his sentence in the Community Corrections program, but the trial court ordered the entire sentence to be served by incarceration. Defendant has now appealed this decision by the trial court. After a thorough review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This appeal involves a state prisoner who desires to change his name for religious reasons. Even though the prisoner's petition was uncontested, the Davidson County Probate Court declined to permit the prisoner to change his name solely because he had been convicted of a felony. While we have determined that the probate court erred by denying the prisoner's petition solely because he had been convicted of a felony, we have determined that the petition was properly dismissed.

The Petitioner, James K. Robbins, appeals the trial court's dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court's denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The petitioner has not established that the challenged judgment is void or that his sentence has expired. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The petitioner, Conley R. Fair, filed for post-conviction relief, alleging the ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court summarily dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing and without the appointment of counsel, finding that the petition was not timely filed. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we reverse the judgment of the post-conviction court and remand for the appointment of counsel and an evidentiary hearing.

Following a jury trial, Defendant, Sedrick Williams, was found guilty of one count of first degree murder and one count of attempt to commit first degree murder. The trial court sentenced Defendant to life imprisonment for the first degree murder conviction. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Defendant to twenty-five years imprisonment for the attempted first degree murder conviction, and ordered his sentence for attempted first degree murder to run concurrently with his sentence for first degree murder. On appeal Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. Specifically, Defendant contends that the jury misapplied the law in rejecting his defense of self-defense, and the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted with premeditation. Defendant also argues that the trial court's charge to the jury on flight, coupled with prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument, denied Defendant a fair trial. Defendant does not appeal his sentences. After a careful review of the record in this matter, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The appellant, Arthur Buford III, was convicted by a jury of two counts of first degree murder. After being sentenced to two consecutive life sentences, the appellant presents the following issues or our review: (1) whether the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the introduction of photographic evidence of the crime scene; (2) whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain the convictions; and (3) whether the trial court properly sentenced the appellant. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

After nineteen years of marriage, Myrtle Marie Stagner (“Wife”) sued Lloyd Otis Stagner (“Husband”) for divorce. After trial, the Trial Court ordered, inter alia, the marital home sold and awarded Wife sixty percent of the proceeds with ten percent being alimony in solido in lieu of any other alimony. The Trial Court also characterized as Husband’s separate property the appreciation of Husband’s separate pre-marital property. Wife appeals as to both the alimony and the property division. We affirm, in part, and vacate, in part, and remand.

The petitioner was indicted on three counts of rape of a child, a Class A felony, and pled guilty to one count of incest, a Class C felony, in exchange for an eight-year sentence as a Range II, multiple offender. Following his conviction, he filed a timely motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to Rule 35 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure. After conducting a hearing, the trial court denied the motion, and the petitioner appealed to this court. We agree that the petitioner should be allowed to withdraw his plea of guilty, although for a different reason than he argues. Incest, to which he pled guilty, is not a lesser-included offense of rape of a child, and the record on appeal does not reflect that the indictment was amended to charge incest. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of conviction and remand this matter to the trial court.

I concur in the majority opinion. I write separately to further address the majority’s treatment of the Illinois farm. I agree with the majority that the use of the parties’ joint accounts – to which both parties contributed – to pay “real estate taxes, insurance premiums, repairs and maintenance on the farm” during the parties’ 19-year marriage is clear evidence that “each party substantially contributed to [the Illinois farm’s] preservation and appreciation.” See Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-4- 121(b)(1)(B). This means that the entire “increase in value [of the Illinois farm] during the marriage,” see id., is marital property. Obviously this does not end the inquiry, because the trial court on remand must decide how to make an equitable division of the marital property portion of the present value of the farm in the context of an overall division of the total marital property estate. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-4-121(c)(1)-(11).

Defendants Andrew Thomas and Anthony Bond appeal as of right their convictions for the first degree felony murder of Loomis Fargo employee, James Day, during the perpetration of a robbery. Following a separate sentencing hearing, the jury found, as to each defendant, that the proof supported one aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt, that is, the defendant had been previously convicted of one or more violent felonies. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-204(i)(2). With respect to Defendant Thomas, the jury further determined that the aggravating circumstance outweighed any mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt, and sentenced Defendant Thomas to death. As to Defendant Bond, the jury found that the aggravating circumstance did not outweigh the mitigating circumstances and imposed a sentence of life without the possibility of parole. The trial court approved the sentencing verdicts. In this appeal as of right, Defendant Thomas raises the following issues for this Court’s review: (1) the sufficiency of the evidence; (2) whether the trial court erred by denying various pre-trial motions; (3) whether the trial court erred by failing to continue the case after the events of September 11, 2001; (4) whether the trial court erred by excusing prospective juror Pannell for cause; (5) whether the trial court erred by admitting photographs of the victim; (6) whether the trial court erred by admitting items from Defendant’s prior federal trial arising out of the robbery; (7) whether the trial court erred in restricting the Defendant’s impeachment of Angela Jackson; (8) whether the trial court erred in failing to voir dire a prospective witness regarding her relationship with defense witness Russell Carpenter; (9) whether the trial court erred in sustaining an objection to the testimony of John Hibbler; (10) whether the trial court erred in permitting testimony regarding fingerprints despite stipulation; (11) whether the trial court erred in the admission of expert testimony; (12) whether the trial court erred by failing to charge lesser-included offenses of felony murder; (13) whether the trial court erred by failing to charge the jury with an accomplice instruction; (14) whether it was plain error for the State to refer to Thomas and Bond as “Greed and Evil” in opening statement and closing argument; (15) whether the trial court erred in permitting the State to argue that the jury had a job to find the Defendants guilty; (16) whether the trial court erred by not instructing on specific mitigating factors; (17) whether the trial court erred by permitting the State to cross-examine the Defendant’s mother regarding disciplinary actions taken against the Defendant while in prison; (18) whether the verdict 2 of the jury was against the weight of the evidence; (19) whether the indictment failed to charge a capital offense; (20) whether the death penalty violates international treaties ratified by the United States; (21) whether the Tennessee death penalty scheme is unconstitutional; and (22) whether the sentence is proportionate. Defendant Bond raises the following issues: (1) whether it was error for the trial judge to fail to recuse himself for failure to follow Local Rule 4.01; (2) whether the trial court erred by overruling Bond’s objection to the testimony of Dr. Smith; (3) whether the trial court erred by declaring Dr. Smith an expert in firearms identification; (4) whether the trial court erred by permitting the prosecution to engage in improper argument; (5) whether the trial court erred by permitting the prosecution to elicit testimony from Angela Jackson regarding her attendance at trial; and (6) whether the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury as to lesser-included offenses of felony murder. After review of the record and the applicable law, we find no errors of law requiring reversal as to Defendant Thomas. Accordingly, we affirm the jury’s verdict finding Defendant Thomas guilty of first degree murder. Additionally, we affirm the jury’s imposition of the sentence of death as to Defendant Thomas. However, with respect to Defendant Bond, we are unable to conclude that the failure of the trial court to instruct the jury as to the lesser-included offenses of felony murder was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, we vacate Defendant Bond’s conviction for felony murder and accompanying sentence of life without the possibility of parole. With respect to Defendant Bond, this matter is remanded to the trial court for a new trial.

The plaintiff filed suit for repayment of $25,000 which he purportedly loaned to the defendant. The defendant contended that the money was not a loan, but was placed with him for a specific investment. Since the investment ultimately failed, the defendant claimed that he did not owe anything to the plaintiff. The trial court noted that the documents evidencing the transactions at issue were “replete with ambiguities,” but found that they were nonetheless sufficient to establish an enforceable loan contract. The court accordingly rendered a plaintiff’s judgment for $25,000 plus interest. We reverse.

The Appellant, Ricky Hill Krantz, appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief by the Davidson County Criminal Court. Krantz is currently incarcerated as a result of his jury convictions for first degree felony murder and aggravated assault. On appeal, Krantz raises the single issue of whether he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. After review of the issue, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed.

On March 23, 1998, The petitioner pled guilty to six (6) counts of attempt to commit incest and six (6) counts of attempt to commit rape. He was sentenced to six (6) years for each count, all to be served concurrently to each other. On March 20, 2002, he filed a Petition for Post-Conviction Relief. He based his petition on two grounds of relief, attorney misrepresentation and DNA analysis under Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-30-403. The trial court dismissed the petition as time-barred on the attorney misrepresentation issue and as not meeting the statutory requirements on the DNA issue. The petitioner appeals the trial court's decision. We affirm the trial court.

I agree with the majority opinion in all respects with one exception. The majority opinion concludes the failure of the trial court to charge the lesser-included offense of facilitation of felony murder as to Defendant Bond was not harmless error. I respectfully disagree with this conclusion.

This case involves Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant committed legal malpractice while representing
Plaintiff in certain bankruptcy proceedings. The Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment,
alleging that the applicable statute of limitations bars the malpractice action, as does the doctrine of res judicata. The trial court granted Defendant’s motion, and Plaintiff filed the instant appeal. For
the following reasons, we affirm the ruling of the lower court.

The Defendant, Donald W. Brymer, Jr., appeals from the Williamson County Circuit Court's revocation of his probation that he received for his guilty plea to one count of statutory rape. The Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his probation and sentencing him to confinement. We affirm the trial court's judgment.

I agree on both counts. The “loan agreements” are poorly drafted, and they do not reflect
sound business judgment on Mr. Caldwell’s part. So what? When competent parties have bargained in good faith and have entered into a written contract, it is not the courts’ prerogative to rewrite the contract or to relieve either party from the burdensome effects of their agreement. Vargo v. Lincoln Brass Works, Inc., 115 S.W.3d 487, 492 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003). Whether considered by themselves or in conjunction with the parties’ separate “consulting agreements,” the fact of the matter is that Mr. Caldwell’s “loan agreements” are precisely that – loan agreements. I would affirm the trial court.

The Petitioner, Roger Lynn Perry, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court's denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Because Petitioner has failed to allege a ground for relief which would render the judgment void, we grant the State's motion and affirm the judgment of the lower court.