APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(3) (25) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The employee appeals from a judgment of non- compensability. We affirm.

This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court dismissed the employee's complaint. On appeal, the employee contends that the evidence supports a determination that she suffered a compensable aggravation of her preexisting degenerative disc disease. The employer contends that the trial court properly found that the employee did not sustain a compensable injury and that an award of costs, including discretionary costs, is appropriate. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This is a divorce case involving the classification and division of marital property. The parties signed a prenuptial agreement. After they married, the parties operated a cattle and farming business, which was conducted in the wife’s name only. After three years of marriage, the wife filed a petition for divorce. A trial was held primarily on issues related to property distribution. The husband argued that the cattle and farming equipment was purchased with his separate funds and therefore was his separate property under the prenuptial agreement. The husband also alleged that the wife had discarded or destroyed numerous items of his separate property. The trial court found that the cattle and farming equipment was marital property and divided it equally, and declined to find the wife responsible for the items that had been discarded or destroyed. The husband now appeals. We affirm, concluding that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s decision.

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The only issue presented in this case is whether the trial court erred in finding Terry Blake was an employee of Southside Baptist Church within the meaning of the Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Act at the time of his fatal injury on April 29, 2004. In our view, the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s finding that Blake was an employee, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Shelby County jury convicted the Petitioner, Joseph Jackson, Jr., of two counts of attempted first degree murder, and the trial judge imposed two twenty-year sentences to be served concurrently. The Petitioner filed a pro se petition for habeas corpus relief, which was dismissed by the habeas court without a hearing. On appeal, the Petitioner contends he could not have been convicted for these two criminal attempts under statutory law and the underlying judgment is therefore illegal and void. Finding no reversible error exists, we affirm the judgment of the habeas court.

This is a wrongful death case. On appeal, Ms. Theresa Diane Jones (Ms. Jones) and Ms. Johnnie Mae Hall (Ms. Hall) contend that two erroneous admissions of evidence unfairly influenced the jury’s award of damages for the wrongful death of Mr. Billy Wayne Jones (Mr. Jones). The jury found that Mr. Jones suffered damages in the amount of $100,000 but also found that he was 49% at fault. The jury’s verdict resulted in a net recovery of $51,000. Ms. Jones and Ms. Hall request a new trial of the action they instituted against Fullen Dock & Warehouse, Inc. (Fullen Dock), whose employee ran over Mr. Jones with a bulldozer, resulting in his death. Specifically, Ms. Jones and Ms. Hall argue that the trial judge abused her discretion in admitting evidence of Mr. Jones’s prior medical history during the cross-examination of their own medical expert and of Mr. Jones’s prior guilty plea and conviction for cocaine possession six years prior to his death. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm.

This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers'
Compensation Appeals Panel in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated § 50-6-225 (e)(3) (2005) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Employer appeals an order requiring it to furnish certain medical treatment for a previous injury. We Affirm in part, and Modify in part.

This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers'
Compensation Appeals Panel in accordance to Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-225 (e)(3) (2005) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Employee appeals, claiming he is entitled to permanent, or at least temporary, benefits. We affirm the trial court's finding that the Plaintiff failed to prove a permanent injury, but we remand the case for a determination of whether any temporary total disability benefits are payable.

The appellant, John Patrick Nash, was indicted by a Sumner County grand jury of six counts of sexual contact with a victim under the age of thirteen. On August 23, 2005, he pled no contest to an amended indictment charging two counts of aggravated assault and retiring the other four counts of the original indictment. He received sentences of six and four years respectively, to run consecutively, for a total effective sentence of ten years as a standard offender and placed on community corrections. In October 2005, the appellant failed a drug test after testing positive for cocaine, marijuana, and alcohol, and a violation of community corrections warrant was filed. Following a hearing on January 9, 2006, the community corrections sentence was revoked and the appellant was ordered to serve his underlying sentences in confinement. On appeal, the appellant argues that the trial court erred in finding that he had violated the terms and conditions of his community corrections sentence. After careful review, we find no reversible error exists and affirm the judgments of the trial court.

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s opinion. I would reverse the Trial Court and
remand this matter for entry of judgment as requested and as proven by the plaintiff.

In this suit for breach of contract, the assignee of a loan agreement alleged that the defendant was in default of the agreement and requested judgment for monies advanced, plus interest and attorney’s fees. The defendant denied owing the debt. The trial court found the plaintiff had failed to carry its burden of proof and dismissed the case. Upon our determination that the evidence does not preponderate against the finding of the trial court, judgment in favor of the defendant is affirmed.

B.R.P. (“Father”) was sentenced to serve eighteen years in prison when his daughter was six years old. The trial court terminated his parental rights based on Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-116(g)(6), which provides for the termination of parental rights of a person who is incarcerated under a sentence of ten years or more if that person’s child is under the age of eight at the time of sentencing. In this appeal, Father argues that Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-116(g)(6) is inapplicable because Father might not have to serve his entire sentence if he obtains postconviction relief. He also maintains that termination of his parental rights is not in the best interest of his daughter. After careful review of the evidence and applicable authorities, we hold that the possibility of postconviction relief is irrelevant to a trial court’s determination of whether the requirements of Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-116(g)(6) have been met. We further hold that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s finding by clear and convincing evidence that termination of Father’s parental rights was in the best interest of his daughter. Therefore, we affirm.

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The only issue presented in this case is whether the trial court erred in finding Terry Blake was an employee of Southside Baptist Church within the meaning of the Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Act at the time of his fatal injury on April 29, 2004. In our view, the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s finding that Blake was an employee, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Upon review under common-law writ of certiorari, the trial court affirmed disciplinary actions against Petitioner/Appellant by the Tennessee Department of Correction. We affirm in part and remand.

Plaintiff appeals the trial court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s action immediately following a hearing on Plaintiff’s motion for temporary injunction. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand for further proceedings.

Plaintiff sued her former employer on grounds of breach of contract, retaliatory discharge, and violation of the Tennessee Human Rights Act, as well as the Tennessee Public Protection Act. The Trial Court granted defendant summary judgment. Plaintiff appealed and we affirm the Trial Court.

We granted and consolidated the applications for permission to appeal filed on behalf of Melissa Ann Layman and Jonathan Ray Taylor to determine the scope of a trial court’s discretion to deny a motion to nolle prosequi to which the defendant has consented. Layman’s appeal also presents the issue of whether a victim’s family has a right to be heard at a pretrial hearing concerning a plea agreement or a nolle prosequi. We conclude that when an uncontested motion to nolle prosequi or dismiss a criminal charge is independent of a plea agreement, a trial court’s discretion to deny the motion under Rule 48(a) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure is limited to extraordinary circumstances indicating betrayal of the public interest. Because in each case the prosecutor’s independent, uncontested motion to nolle prosequi the greater charge of the indictment was neither filed in bad faith nor motivated by considerations clearly contrary to manifest public interest, we hold that the trial court abused its discretion in rejecting the nolle prosequi. We also hold in Layman’s case that the victim’s family did not have the right to be heard at the pretrial hearings concerning the plea agreement and nolle prosequi because such pretrial hearings are not critical stages of the criminal justice process as defined by Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-38-302(2). Any error in considering the statements of the family, however, was harmless. Accordingly, we reverse the judgments of the trial court and the Court of Criminal Appeals in each case and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The defendant, Sherry Floyd McAlister, was convicted of attempted first degree murder, a Class A felony, and sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to twenty-five years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, she argues that the trial court erred by imposing an excessive sentence.  Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

I join with the majority in concluding that the State’s special instruction submitted to the jury constituted reversible error. I write separately only to note the following additional reasons for finding the instruction was error. The special instruction, in its entirety, is as follows:

The court instructs you that in a sexual abuse case you may convict the defendant on the basis of the victim’s testimony alone. Corroboration of the victim’s testimony is not necessary.

We accepted this extraordinary appeal in order to (1) determine the effect of a district attorney general’s consideration of an irrelevant factor in deciding whether to grant pretrial diversion and (2) clarify when an interlocutory appeal from a denial of pretrial diversion should be granted. In this case, the defendant was indicted for criminally negligent homicide following the death of his daughter after the defendant left her in his car on a hot summer day. The defendant applied for pretrial diversion. The district attorney general’s office denied diversion, in part on the basis of its judgment that diversion of a negligent homicide “appears to be an aberration of the law.” The trial court refused to overturn the prosecutor’s decision, and the defendant applied for permission to pursue an interlocutory appeal. The trial court denied permission, and the defendant then applied to the Court of Criminal Appeals for permission to pursue an extraordinary appeal. The Court of Criminal Appeals denied the defendant’s application. We granted review and hold that the district attorney general abused his discretion when he relied upon an irrelevant factor in denying pretrial diversion. The trial court’s judgment affirming the denial of the defendant’s application for pretrial diversion is reversed, and this matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The appellant, David Michael Chubb, was convicted by a jury in the Sumner County Criminal Court of four counts of aggravated sexual battery, one count of attempted aggravated sexual battery, one count of possession of marijuana, and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia. The trial court sentenced the petitioner to a total effective sentence of fourteen years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether the trial court erred in failing to inquire into the conflict of interest when it was revealed at trial that the appellant’s trial counsel had previously represented the mother of the minor victim; (2) whether the trial court erred in allowing the State to admit a videotape into evidence; (3) whether the trial court erred in denying the appellant’s motion for a bill of particulars; (4) whether the trial court erred in charging a special jury instruction requested by the State; (5) whether, according to the dictates of Blakely v. Washington, the trial court erred in sentencing the appellant; and (6) whether the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences. Upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we reverse the convictions for aggravated sexual battery and attempted aggravated sexual battery based upon an improper instruction, affirm the drug related convictions, and remand for a new trial on the aggravated sexual battery and attempted aggravated sexual battery charges.

The defendant, Mario L. Smith, was convicted by a Davidson County Criminal Court jury of attempted second degree murder, a Class B felony, and vandalism over $1000, a Class D felony  and was sentenced by the trial court as a Range I, standard offender to concurrent sentences of nine years and two years, respectively, in the Department of Correction. The sole issue the defendant raises on appeal is whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain his attempted second degree murder conviction. We conclude that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction and, accordingly, affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Following a jury trial, Defendant, Jeremy S. Crosby, was convicted of possession of over .5 grams of cocaine with intent to sell and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia. He was sentenced to serve eighteen years in the Department of Correction for the cocaine conviction and eleven months, twenty-nine days for the paraphernalia conviction, for an effective sentence of eighteen years. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in failing to grant his motion to suppress, and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. After a review of the record, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

This case involves a commercial lease. During the lessor’s divorce, his wife brought suit against the tenant to collect its current rent payments. The wife claimed that the underlying realty was marital property and she was entitled to the rent. The husband-lessor filed a motion to intervene in that case, but the trial court never addressed his motion. The husband signed some consent orders in the case and filed a motion on his own behalf, but he was never formally named as a party. After that case had concluded, the husband brought suit against the tenant for past due rent and other damages under the lease. The tenant claimed that his suit was barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel, but the trial court disagreed. After the trial court entered a judgment for the husband-lessor, the tenant appealed to this Court.  For the following reasons, we affirm.