APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The defendant, Christopher Shane Mahoney, pled guilty to two counts of money laundering, a Class B felony, and one count of conspiracy to engage in money laundering, a Class C felony, receiving a three-year sentence and two eight-year sentences, and to promoting prostitution, a Class E felony, receiving a two-year sentence. All sentences were to be served concurrently for an effective sentence of eight years. He timely appealed, arguing that he was improperly sentenced, both as to the lengths of the sentences and the trial court's not placing him on probation or community corrections. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Following a jury trial, the defendant, Linnell Richmond, was found guilty by a Knox County jury of aggravated robbery, attempted aggravated robbery and two counts of attempted first degree premeditated murder. The trial court sentenced the defendant to an effective sentence of twenty-two years for his convictions, to be served consecutively to a federal sentence arising out of the same criminal episode. The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court upon finding that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on: (1) the "natural and probable consequence rule" in relation to the charges of attempted first degree murder; and (2) robbery as a lesser-included offense of aggravated robbery, and attempted robbery as a lesser-included offense of attempted aggravated robbery. The State appealed to this Court, and we granted the application. We hold that: (1) it was harmless error by the trial court to fail to instruct the jury on the natural and probable consequences rule in relation to the charge of attempted first degree murder; and (2) it was likewise harmless error by the trial court in failing to instruct the jury regarding robbery as a lesser included offense of aggravated robbery, and attempted robbery as a lesser-included offense of attempted aggravated robbery. Therefore, the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is reversed, and the defendant's convictions are reinstated. This case is remanded to the trial court for enforcement of the judgment.

The defendant, Takeita M. Locke, was tried and convicted in the Knox County Criminal Court of felony murder and especially aggravated robbery in the death of Chuck Newman. The Court of Criminal Appeals unanimously affirmed both convictions. We granted this appeal to determine if the trial court committed reversible error by failing to instruct the jury on certain lesser-included offenses of felony murder, namely: second degree murder, reckless homicide, and criminally negligent homicide. Additionally, with respect to her conviction for especially aggravated robbery, the defendant maintains that the trial court committed reversible error by failing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offenses of facilitation of a felony (especially aggravated robbery), aggravated robbery, and robbery. After examining the facts and the law relevant to these issues, we hold that the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offenses of second degree murder, reckless homicide, and criminally negligent homicide was reversible error. We also hold that the trial court's failure to instruct on the lesser-included offenses of facilitation of especially aggravated robbery, aggravated robbery, and robbery was erroneous, but such errors were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant was convicted of aggravated robbery, attempted aggravated rape, both Class B felonies, and theft, which the trial court merged with the aggravated robbery conviction. The trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range II, multiple offender to fifteen years for aggravated robbery and twenty years for attempted aggravated rape. The sentences were imposed consecutively. The defendant argues on appeal that the evidence is insufficient to support a conviction of aggravated robbery because the victim's belief was unreasonable that the defendant was armed; the evidence is insufficient to support a conviction of attempted aggravated rape because the victim learned that the defendant was, in fact, unarmed prior to the rape; and his sentence of thirty-five years is excessive. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This is a direct appeal in a Board of Professional Responsibility case. A hearing committee found that the petitioner violated four disciplinary rules arising out of client representation, imposed a one-year suspension from the practice of law, and ordered the petitioner to complete courses in ethics and civil procedure at an accredited law school before applying for reinstatement. The chancery court upheld the hearing committee's findings and conclusions with respect to the violations, but reduced the suspension to 60 days and vacated the requirement for law school education. After our review of the record and applicable authority, we conclude that the chancery court properly affirmed the hearing committee's findings with regard to the petitioner's violations of the disciplinary rules, but we modify the length of the suspension to four months and the condition for reinstatement by requiring the petitioner to complete six hours of continuing legal education in ethics and twelve hours of continuing legal education in courses related to civil trial practice or civil litigation, in addition to the three hours of ethics and twelve hours of general credit required annually of attorneys in this State. The judgment is, therefore, affirmed as modified.

The defendant, Takeita M. Locke, was tried and convicted in the Knox County Criminal Court of felony murder and especially aggravated robbery in the death of Chuck Newman. The Court of Criminal Appeals unanimously affirmed both convictions. We granted this appeal to determine if the trial court committed reversible error by failing to instruct the jury on certain lesser-included offenses of felony murder, namely: second degree murder, reckless homicide, and criminally negligent homicide. Additionally, with respect to her conviction for especially aggravated robbery, the defendant maintains that the trial court committed reversible error by failing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offenses of facilitation of a felony (especially aggravated robbery), aggravated robbery, and robbery. After examining the facts and the law relevant to these issues, we hold that the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offenses of second degree murder, reckless homicide, and criminally negligent homicide was reversible error. We also hold that the trial court's failure to instruct on the lesser-included offenses of facilitation of especially aggravated robbery, aggravated robbery, and robbery was erroneous, but such errors were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

This is a post-divorce case regarding alimony and child support. The husband was ordered to pay alimony in futuro, and child support for the parties' minor child. Later, the husband was terminated from his job, and his income dropped substantially. The husband fell behind in his support payments. Consequently, he sought a reduction in alimony and child support. Noting that the husband retained substantial assets, the trial court found that the husband was able to fulfill his obligations, denied his request for reduction in alimony, ordered him to pay his arrearage in alimony and child support, and awarded the wife reasonable attorney's fees. Child support was terminated because the minor child had graduated from high school by the time of the trial. The husband now appeals. We affirm, finding no abuse of the trial court's discretion, in of the termination of the husband's child support obligation, the wife's continued need for alimony, and the husband's retention of significant assets.

Petitioner was denied habeas corpus relief by the trial court. He now appeals, claiming the trial court erred in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing and in failing to appoint counsel to assist him with his habeas corpus claim. We affirm the denial of habeas corpus relief.

The defendant, Woodson Carter Criner, was convicted in the Lauderdale County Circuit Court of driving under the influence (DUI) and received a sentence of eleven months, twenty-nine days to be suspended after serving one hundred twenty days in jail and a fine of one thousand one hundred dollars. The state appeals, claiming that the defendant's DUI sentence is illegal because the defendant was convicted of felony DUI. Although we hold that the trial court could sentence the defendant to less than one year for a Class E felony, we remand the case to the trial court to clarify whether the defendant was convicted of felony or misdemeanor DUI, review the defendant's sentence, and reenter the judgment.

The Defendant pled guilty to aggravated burglary and assault. The Defendant received a sentence of six years for the aggravated burglary conviction and a sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days for the assault conviction. The trial court ordered that the six-year sentence for aggravated burglary be served concurrently with the sentence for assault, but consecutively to a sentence for evading arrest from another case. The Defendant's effective sentence in this case is six years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the length of his sentence for aggravated burglary and the manner of service of his sentences. Although the trial court misapplied certain enhancement factors, we conclude that the sentences imposed are appropriate and affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant, Lakisha S. Thomas, was convicted by a Davidson County Criminal Court jury of aggravated assault, a Class C felony, and reckless aggravated assault, a Class D felony. The trial court sentenced her as a Range I, standard offender to concurrent sentences of five years for the aggravated assault conviction and three years for the reckless aggravated assault conviction. The defendant appeals, claiming that the evidence is insufficient to support her convictions and that the trial court committed various sentencing errors. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The appellant, Rickie Reed, was convicted by a jury in the Shelby County Criminal Court of one count of second degree murder, one count of attempted second degree murder, and one count of reckless aggravated assault. The trial court merged the reckless aggravated assault conviction into the attempted second degree murder conviction. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a sentence of twenty-three years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction for the second degree murder conviction and a sentence of twelve years incarceration for the attempted second degree murder conviction, with the sentences to be served consecutively. In this appeal of right, the appellant alleges that the evidence was not sufficient to support his convictions of second degree murder and attempted second degree murder. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The petitioner, Reiko Nolen, appeals as of right the Dyer County Circuit Court's denial of his petition for acquittal and removal of his guilty plea. He pled guilty to possession of over .5 grams of cocaine with intent to sell, a Class B felony, and was sentenced to six months in the county jail and eight years on probation. The petitioner contends that (1) the state breached the plea agreement by not allowing him to serve a subsequent twenty-year sentence before his probationary sentence in this case and (2) his sentence is illegal because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to sentence him to a term of probation to be followed by a term of incarceration. We hold that the petitioner's sentence is legal and that he has no basis for an appeal. Therefore, we are constrained to dismiss the appeal because of the lack of jurisdiction.

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 to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this appeal, the employee insists the commission erred in dismissing his claim for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted. As discussed below, the panel has concluded the judgment should be vacated and the cause remanded for further proceedings.