APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The petitioner appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. Having been indicted by a Davidson County Grand Jury on three counts of rape of a child and one count of aggravated sexual battery, the petitioner pled guilty to two counts of rape of a child, a Class A felony, and the remaining counts were dismissed. In this appeal, petitioner raises three issues: (1) whether he received effective assistance of counsel; (2) whether the State and the trial court should have requested forensic psychological evaluation of the petitioner and a competency hearing; and (3) whether his plea was constitutionally valid. The judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed.

The co-defendants, Leonard Edward Baugh, Jr., Damian Lamar Owes, and Marquez Donnell Crenshaw, were indicted by the Davidson County Grand Jury on one count of especially aggravated robbery, five counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, one count of aggravated burglary, and one count of aggravated assault. Baugh was additionally indicted on one count of resisting arrest and one count of unlawful possession of a weapon by a convicted felon. The counts of aggravated assault were later dismissed. Following their joint trial, all co-defendants were found guilty of especially aggravated robbery, five counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, and aggravated burglary. Baugh was also convicted of unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon. On appeal, each of the co-defendants challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence, arguing that the State failed to offer sufficient proof of identity. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. The matter is remanded to the trial court for correction of clerical errors in the judgments.

This case presents the issue of whether the administrator of an estate breached his fiduciary duty, under the circumstances herein presented, when he failed to see that an asset of the estate worth in excess of $10,000 was properly insured. We find that Defendant breached his duty when, after he was informed by Plaintiff that she had paid off the bank note on the mobile home after attempting to sell it, he failed to make any inquiries into who would pay the insurance, how the insurance would be paid, when the insurance was due, or whether any insurance was in effect. This breach of duty caused loss to the estate when the mobile home was destroyed by a tornado while uninsured. As a result, we find Defendant liable to the estate in the amount of $11,415, as this is the amount the proof showed would have been paid by insurance.

This consolidated appeal concerns a multiple vehicle automobile collision which occurred during interstate rush hour traffic in Nashville. Lamesia A. Simmons' vehicle came into contact with the rear portion of Paula C. Bencriscutto's vehicle during an attempted lane change. This impact then caused the Bencriscutto vehicle to come into contact with Brooke A. Lucas' vehicle. Lawsuits were instituted in the Circuit Court of Davidson County by both Lucas and Bencriscutto against Simmons to recover damages associated with the collision. These suits were consolidated for trial and this subsequent appeal. At the close of the Plaintiffs' proof the court directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs and against Simmons. The issue of damages was then submitted to the jury with a verdict of $9,947.69 being returned in favor of Bencriscutto and in the amount of $5,482.50 for Lucus. Ms. Simmons appeals insisting that the trial court erred in granting the directed verdict. We affirm the action of the trial court in directing the verdict and the damage award.

This appeal stems from a divorced couple's decision to modify the terms of an agreed order regarding the payment of their marital debt. Almost six years after the parties were divorced in the Chancery Court for Maury County, the husband agreed to release the wife from her obligation to pay a portion of the marital debt in return for her agreement to use her credit to help him purchase a new truck. After the wife repossessed the husband's new truck, the husband requested the trial court to enforce the original agreed order. The trial court determined that the original agreed order remained valid and awarded the husband $18,944 representing the payments the wife should have made under the agreed order. The wife asserts on this appeal that the parties' agreement to modify the agreed order was valid and that she had performed her obligations under the agreement. We agree and, accordingly, reverse the judgment for the husband and direct the trial court to enter an order releasing the wife from her obligation under the agreed order.

The petitioner filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief, later amended by appointed counsel, claiming that his 1999 pleas of guilty in the Shelby County Criminal Court were involuntary and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Following a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief, and the petitioner timely appealed, raising the same two issues. We affirm the judgments of the trial court dismissing the petition.

The Defendant, Kenneth Anderson, appeals as of right from the revocation of his probation by the trial court. On appeal, he asserts that the trial court erred by ordering him to serve the balance of his sentence in incarceration after finding that he had violated his probation. We find no error; thus, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, Frankie L. Richardson, appeals as of right from the revocation of his probation. He argues that the trial judge abused his discretion by revoking probation. We find no abuse of discretion; thus, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This is an interlocutory appeal by the State pursuant to Rule 9 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. The Defendant, Alkita M. Odom, was indicted for the offenses of forgery and criminal simulation, each in the amount of $250,000. The indictment reflected that each offense was a Class B felony. Upon the Defendant's motion, the trial court dismissed the indictment to the extent that it reflected Class B felonies because the court found that for the crime to be anything other than Class E felonies, the Defendant would have had to have actually obtained goods or services. The court then granted the State's motion to amend the indictment to reflect Class E felonies for the purposes of appeal. The State argues on appeal that the trial court improperly dismissed the indictment based on the grade of the offense charged. We agree. Accordingly, we reverse the dismissal of the indictment and reinstate it as originally returned by the Grand Jury.

The defendant pled guilty in Davidson County Criminal Court to one count of arson, a Class C felony, based on his setting fire to a rental house. According to a plea agreement with the State, he received a four-year sentence as a Range I, standard offender. A sentencing hearing was held to determine the manner of service of his sentence and the amount and manner of payment of any restitution. The trial court ordered that the defendant serve his entire sentence in confinement in the workhouse and that he pay $10,000 in restitution to the victim. In this appeal as of right, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying any alternative sentence and in ordering restitution in the amount of $10,000. Having reviewed the record on appeal, we affirm the judgment of the trial court as to the manner of service. As to restitution, we reverse and remand to the trial court.

The defendant was convicted in the Shelby County Criminal Court of two counts of aggravated robbery, one count of attempted aggravated robbery, and one count of aggravated assault. He appealed the aggravated robbery convictions, arguing that the proof was insufficient to sustain the convictions. We affirm the judgments of the trial court but remand for resentencing as to the conviction for attempted aggravated robbery.

Paul Dennis Reid, Jr. was found guilty by a jury of two counts of first-degree murder and one count of especially aggravated robbery. Reid’s convictions stem from the execution style murders of two Captain D’s employees and the especially aggravated robbery of one of the employees. The jury returned a sentence of death for each of the homicides based upon its finding of three aggravating factors, i.e., (i)(2), prior violent felony; (i)(6), murder committed for the purpose of avoiding prosecution; and (i)(7), murder committed during commission of robbery. The Davidson County Criminal Court subsequently imposed a twenty-five-year sentence for the especially aggravated robbery conviction and ordered this sentence to be served consecutively to the two death sentences.  In this appeal as of right, Reid presents numerous issues for our review, including (1) issues arising from suppressed evidence; (2) challenges to the selection of jurors; (3) the sufficiency of the convicting evidence; (4) the admission and exclusion of evidence at both the guilt and penalty phases; (5) the propriety of the prosecution’s closing argument during the guilt phase; (6) the failure to instruct on lesser-included offenses; (7) the trial court’s act of holding court into late hours of the evening without cause; (8) the admissibility in general and the introduction of specific victim impact evidence; (9) prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument; (10) the propriety of the jury instructions; (11) whether application of the (i)(7) aggravator violates State v. Middlebrooks; (12)
the propriety of a twenty-five-year sentence for especially aggravated robbery; (13) the constitutionality of Tennessee’s death penalty statutes; and (14) whether the sentences of death imposed by the jury are proportionate sentences. After a careful review of the record, we affirm Reid’s convictions for two counts of first-degree murder and one count of especially aggravated robbery. Additionally, we affirm the imposition of the sentences of death and the accompanying sentence for especially aggravated robbery.

Defendant, Joseph Darryl Taylor, was convicted of attempt to commit sexual battery, attempt to commit rape, and aggravated kidnapping. In this appeal as of right, Defendant contends that the evidence adduced at trial concerning all three offenses was insufficient to find him guilty and that the trial court erred when it sentenced Defendant. Following a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court in part and reverse in part.

I fully concur in Judge Hayes’s thorough, incisive opinion. With respect to a portion of the analysis of the especially aggravated robbery sentencing issues, I concur merely in the results.

After a jury trial, the Defendant, Michael Pittman, was convicted of aggravated robbery. He was subsequently sentenced to twenty years incarceration as a Range II, multiple offender. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and that the trial court abused its discretion by ruling that his prior convictions for robbery and theft were admissible to impeach his credibility should he elect to testify. We conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by ruling that the Defendant's prior convictions were admissible. Thus, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In his original trial, the Petitioner, Richard Lee Franklin, was convicted of first degree murder by a Cumberland County jury for the death of David Kirkland. Due to procedural errors at Petitioner's first trial, the trial court granted Petitioner's motion for a new trial. Petitioner was retried and the jury convicted him of second degree murder. The trial court sentenced the Petitioner to twenty-two years of incarceration. State v. Richard Lee Franklin, No. 03C01-9706-CR-00219, 1998 WL 458580, at *1, Cumberland County (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, August 10, 1998), perm. to appeal denied (Tenn. 1999). Subsequently, Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief which was denied. In this appeal as of right, he asserts that the post-conviction court erred in finding his trial counsel's performance to be effective. Specifically, the appellant contends that trial counsel was ineffective for (1) failing to investigate and present witnesses that would support a defense of self-defense; (2) for failing to discuss trial strategies and defenses with the Petitioner; and (3) for failing to request an instruction on self-defense. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Defendant, William R. Stevens, was convicted of two counts of first degree premeditated murder and one count of especially aggravated robbery, arising out of the deaths of his wife and mother-in-law. For each of his murder convictions, he was sentenced to death. He now appeals as of right, raising the following eleven issues for our review: (1) whether it was error to limit the testimony of crime-scene expert Gregg McCrary; (2) whether it was error to exclude evidence which tended to show that Corey Milliken had an independent motive to commit the murders; (3) whether it was error to admit a redacted version of Sandi Stevens' diary; (4) whether the trial court failed to apply the hearsay and other evidentiary rules in an evenhanded manner; (5) whether the hearsay statements of Corey Milliken to Sarah Suttle should have been excluded as not being "in furtherance of the conspiracy"; (6) whether the cumulative effect of all errors at trial violated the Defendant's right to due process of law; (7) whether instructing the jury that it must agree unanimously in order to impose a life sentence and prohibiting it from being told the effect of a non-unanimous verdict violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments; (8) whether the Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-204(i)(4) aggravating circumstance fails to narrow the class of death-eligible defendants in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments; (9) whether the failure to articulate meaningful standards for proportionality review mandated by Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-206 violates the Defendant's right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment; (10) whether the unlimited discretion vested in the prosecutor as to whether or not to seek the death penalty violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments; and (11) whether the death penalty is imposed in a discriminatory manner in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. After a thorough review of the record and the relevant legal authorities, we find no reversible error on the part of the trial court. Accordingly, we affirm the Defendant's convictions and his sentences of death.