APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This is an appeal from a divorce action in which the Appellee, Sheila Darlene Campbell (Ms. Campbell), was awarded 73.6 percent of the parties marital property together with alimony in solido in the amount of $500.00 per month for a period of five years. The Appellant, John Wesley Campbell (Mr. Campbell) has appealed both the division of the marital assets and awarding of alimony. Ms. Campbell appeals the refusal of the trial court to require that Mr. Campbell pay her attorneys' fees and alleges the trial court erred in equally dividing the court costs. We modify the judgment of the trial court to delete the requirement that Mr. Campbell pay alimony in solido and affirm the trial court in all other respects.

The defendants, Jose Rodriguez and Eladio Caballero Sanchez, were convicted of conspiracy to possess marijuana with intent to sell or deliver, a Class A felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-417(j)(13) (2003). The trial court sentenced each defendant to twenty years in the Department of Correction. In this appeal, the defendant Rodriguez asserts (1) that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction; (2) that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of his alleged prior bad acts in violation of Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b); (3) that the trial court erred by permitting a state witness to give improper opinion testimony; and (4) that the trial court erred by admitting into evidence a map created by a state witness. The defendant Sanchez asserts (1) that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction; (2) that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of his alleged prior bad acts in violation of Rule 404(b); (3) that the trial court erred by admitting into evidence a document that was not provided to the defense prior to trial; (4) that the trial court erred by permitting a state witness to give improper opinion testimony; and (5) that the trial court erred by admitting irrelevant evidence regarding his ownership of property in Mexico. The judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation
Appeals Panel of the Tennessee Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated
section 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and
conclusions of law. In this appeal, the appellants contend that the trial court erred in finding that the employee is permanently and totally disabled and in refusing to limit the employee’s aware to 400 weeks. We conclude that the record supports the trial court finding of permanent and total disability. Therefore, under the provisions of Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-207(4)(A)(I) (Supp. 1996), total disability benefits are payable to age sixty-five without regard to the monetary cap imposed by the 400-week maximum total benefit provisions of Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-102(a)(6) (Supp. 1997). We further conclude that the trial court’s allocation of the
responsibility for the payment of these benefits between the employer and the Second Injury Fund
was proper. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This is a direct appeal as of right upon a certified question of law. See Tenn. R. Crim. P. 37(b)(2).  The Defendants, Ricky Shackles and Carrie Anderson, were both convicted of simple possession of a controlled substance, a Class A misdemeanor, following their entry of a guilty plea. Defendant Shackles received eleven months and twenty-nine days on probation, and Defendant Anderson received eleven months and twenty-nine days on judicial diversion. On appeal, the Defendants claim, pursuant to their reserved certified question, that as occupants of a parked car in a privately owned parking lot, they had a reasonable expectation of privacy which rendered the warrantless search of their car unconstitutional. Because the certified question of law is not dispositive of the Defendants’ case, we dismiss this appeal.

This is a post-divorce change of custody case. The trial court changed custody of the parties’ two minor children from the mother to the father. We hold that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s finding that there had been a material change of circumstances to justify a change in
custody in the absence of proof that the mother’s sexual indiscretions and other alleged misconduct had affected or would affect the children in an adverse way. We therefore reverse the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Donnie Joe Hensley, appeals from his Greene County Criminal Court jury conviction of first degree murder. He claims on appeal that the trial court erred (1) in failing to dismiss the indictment because the juvenile court had transferred his case to criminal court without appointing a guardian ad litem, (2) in refusing to remand to juvenile court because a prosecution witness had lied in the juvenile court transfer hearing, and (3) in refusing to extend the plea cut-off date until the defendant attained his 18th birthday. The defendant also claims that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction of premeditated first degree murder. We find no reversible error and affirm the judgment of the criminal court.

The defendant, Jarvis Taylor, was convicted of first degree felony murder and especially aggravated robbery. He received a sentence of life imprisonment for his felony murder conviction and a concurrent twenty year sentence for his especially aggravated robbery conviction. On appeal, the defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. Following our review of the parties’ briefs and the applicable law, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant, Larry J. Noel, was convicted by a Lauderdale County jury of attempted first-degree murder, aggravated assault, retaliation for past action, unlawful possession of a weapon, and driving on a revoked license. On appeal, he argues that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of attempted first-degree murder. After our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Charles Lee White, pled guilty to one count of aggravated burglary and three counts of sexual battery. He was sentenced to an effective eight-year sentence, suspended, and placed on intensive probation. Thereafter, the trial court revoked the defendant’s probation and placed his sentence into effect. On appeal, the defendant challenges the trial court’s revocation of his probation. Upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A McNairy County jury found the defendant, Cedric P. Golden, guilty of possession of more than ten pounds of marijuana with intent to deliver and possession of drug paraphernalia. The trial court sentenced the defendant to an effective sentence of five years and imposed a fine of $5,150.00. On appeal, the defendant argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions. After review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Joe Anthony Ivy, appeals the lower court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner has failed to establish his entitlement to relief from an unconstitutional or invalid sentence. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal.

This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Tennessee Supreme Court in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated Section 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this appeal, the employer insists the trial court erred in finding that the claimant gave proper notice of his injury, in finding the claimant suffered an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with the defendant and in awarding permanent partial disability benefits based on thirty percent to the body as a whole. The Panel has concluded the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.

The Appellant, Christopher Nicholas Orlando, was convicted by a DeKalb County jury of facilitation of first degree murder, a Class A felony, and sentenced as a Range II, multiple offender to thirty-five years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, Orlando raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether he was denied his fundamental right to a fair trial because the State failed to (a) disclose the terms of a plea agreement with a key witness and (b) preserve exculpatory evidence; and (2) whether he was sentenced in violation of Blakely v. Washington. After a review of the record, we affirm.

The appellant, Lonna K. Brewer, pled nolo contendere in the Williamson County Circuit Court to two counts of obtaining a controlled substance by fraud, a Class D felony. She received concurrent two-year sentences to be served as one day in jail and the remainder on supervised probation. On appeal, she contends that the trial court erred by denying her request for judicial diversion. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This case involves a statute of limitations. The plaintiffs’ decedent died in April 2000 at a nursing home. In February 2002, the plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against the nursing home in state court, alleging negligent care by the nursing home. The nursing home removed the action to federal court. Subsequently, the nursing home asserted fault against the hospital that treated the decedent prior to her death. The plaintiffs then amended their complaint to name the hospital as a defendant. Later, the federal court entered an order of dismissal as to the nursing home and remanded the remaining proceedings to state court. After that, the defendant hospital filed a motion to dismiss. The state court granted the motion to dismiss, ruling that the plaintiffs’ action was a medical malpractice action and was not timely under the applicable statute of limitations. We affirm. 

The Appellant, Ricky R. Bryan, appeals the judgment of the Rutherford County Circuit Court denying post-conviction relief. Bryan was convicted of first degree murder and subsequently sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. On appeal, Bryan argues that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel, specifically arguing that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to introduce evidence of third party guilt in the homicide. After review, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed.

Aggrieved of his aggravated kidnapping and aggravated rape convictions, the petitioner, Scott M. Craig, sought post-conviction relief, which was denied by the Criminal Court of Bradley County after an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, the petitioner presents several issues of the ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.

The defendant, Cory Lyn Clark, was convicted of second degree murder (Class A Felony) and sentenced to twenty years in the Tennessee Department of Correction as a violent offender. The defendant contends on appeal that: 1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction because he claimed self-defense; 2) the trial court improperly admitted his second statement to police because a tape recording of the statement was no longer available; and 3) the sentence was improper. We conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction, that the defendant failed to preserve his appeal of the lost evidence by failing to object at trial, and that the sentence was proper.  We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Appellant, Johnny C. Menifee, was convicted by a Maury County jury of Class D felony evading arrest with risk of injury, misdemeanor theft, Class E felony reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon, and resisting arrest following his involvement in a car theft and resulting police high-speed chase. Menifee was subsequently sentenced to an effective eighteen-year Department of Correction sentence. On appeal, Menifee raises two issues for review: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to support his convictions; and (2) whether his dual convictions for felony evading arrest and felony reckless endangerment violate double jeopardy. Following review, we affirm the convictions.

A businessman purchased a house in Jackson, Tennessee for the use of his employees. While he did not live at the residence, the businessman allowed the employees to park the equipment used in the furtherance of his business at the residence. The equipment consisted of parking lot sweepers, pickup trucks, and trailers holding lawn-care equipment. The house is located in an area of the city zoned for residential use only. After receiving complaints from the neighbors, the city discussed the situation with the businessman in an effort to have him remove the equipment. When he failed to do so, the city sent him a letter asking that he remove the equipment or face further action. When this did not produce results, the city issued the businessman a citation for violation of the applicable residential zoning ordinance. The city court ruled that the businessman’s conduct violated the ordinance. The businessman appealed to the circuit court, which likewise entered a ruling in favor of the city. The businessman has appealed to this Court arguing that the applicable ordinance is impermissibly vague and that the citation failed to notify him that storing business equipment at the residence constituted a violation of the ordinance. We affirm.

In this case, the unsuccessful Plaintiff appeals the grant of summary judgment in favor of a will offered for probate by the defendants, Judith Ann Beardsley as executrix and Cavalry Bank Trust Department as Administrator ad litem for the estate of Olalee McClaran. Plaintiff challenges the will as a product of fraud in the inducement and undue influence. The proponents filed a Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative for Summary Judgment. From the summary judgment grant against him, Mr. McClaran now appeals. We affirm the trial court.

The Defendant, Latonya Yvonne Taylor, was convicted by a Davidson County jury of aggravated  robbery, especially aggravated kidnapping, and two counts of kidnapping. For these convictions, the Defendant received an effective twenty-three-year sentence in the Department of Correction. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant presents the following issues for our review: (1) whether the trial court erred in denying her motion to suppress her statement given to the police; (2) whether the trial court improperly limited the scope of the Defendant’s mother’s testimony; (3) whether theevidence is sufficient to support her conviction for especially aggravated kidnapping; and (4) whether the trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences. After review, we find no error and affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The majority opinion and some of the participants in this matter have placed significant emphasis on the best interests of the child prong of the modification analysis. In my opinion, a more rigorous analysis of the first prong, i.e., whether there was a material change in circumstances, is in order since that finding is a pre-requisite to consideration of best interest.

The Appellant, Darryl Ford, proceeding pro se, appeals the Wayne County Circuit Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Because the petition fails to raise a cognizable claim for habeas corpus relief, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

This appeal stems from criminal and civil contempt charges brought by a father of two minor children because of the mother’s failure to pay child support. The father brought his criminal contempt charge based on section 36-5-104 of the Tennessee Code. In this appeal, we are asked to determine whether the chancery court violated the mother’s due process rights during the criminal contempt hearing. The mother asserts on appeal that the chancery court violated her due process rights by (1) allowing the father’s attorney to try the case against her for criminal contempt; (2) failing to provide proper notice to her pursuant to Rule 42 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure; (3) failing to provide her with a right to a jury trial; and (4) applying the wrong legal standard when it found her guilty of criminal contempt. Also, we are asked to determine whether the chancery court properly terminated the mother’s visitation rights with her children based on the chancery court’s findings that the mother committed perjury, that the mother was in criminal contempt for violating section 36-5-104 of the Tennessee Code, and that the mother was in civil contempt. We vacate the portions of the chancery court order (1) finding Appellant in criminal
contempt, (2) sentencing Appellant to serve six months in jail for criminal contempt, and (3) terminating Appellant’s visitation with her children until they attain the age of eighteen years, and we remand this case to the chancery court for further proceedings.