APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This appeal involves a dispute between the developers of the site of a former commercial laundry and dry cleaning plant located in a residential neighborhood and a group of neighboring residents and property owners. Following two public hearings, the Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals approved a mixed-use development that included renovating two of the existing structures and constructing a new structure containing underground parking and additional retail and residential space. The neighboring property owners filed a petition for a common-law writ of certiorari and a writ of supersedeas in the Chancery Court for Davidson County challenging the Board’s decision. Following a review of the record of the Board’s proceedings, the trial court upheld the Board’s decision, and the property owners appealed. We have determined that the Board followed the proper procedures and did not act arbitrarily, and that its decision is supported by material evidence.

The defendant, Tim Flood, appeals from his Knox County Criminal Court jury convictions of four counts of rape of a child, for which he received an effective sentence of 40 years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant claims that the convictions are unsupported by the evidence and that the trial court erred in refusing to allow a proposed defense witness to testify. Because the refusal to permit the defendant to call a witness was error, we reverse the convictions and remand the case.

The Petitioner, Charles Dewayne Moore, appeals from the trial court's summary dismissal of his petition seeking 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. The State's motion is granted. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

This appeal arises from the last of many petitions and counter-petitions by both parties to change custody of the parties' only child, to modify child support, to acquire arrearage judgments for non-paid child support, and for contempt of court. The order from which this appeal arose awarded custody of the child to the mother and dismissed the father's petition for contempt. Prior to this order, custody had been awarded to the father; however, he had not provided financial support for the child, and the child had not lived with him since the entry of the order awarding him custody. The dismissal of the father's petition was based upon the trial court's finding the father had failed to comply with the previous order he was seeking to enforce. Finding no error, we affirm.

This is a direct appeal as of right from convictions entered on a jury verdict of guilty of two first degree premeditated murders. The jury sentenced the Defendant to life without the possibility of parole for one conviction, and he received a life sentence for the other. On appeal, the Defendant advances five arguments: (1) the state violated his equal protection rights by striking three African Americans during jury selection; (2) the court erred by admitting into evidence a photograph of one of the victims; (3) the court erred by admitting into evidence a threatening statement made by the Defendant three years prior to the date of the crimes at issue in this case; (4) the court erred by failing to declare a mistrial when the State made a statement during closing argument which was unsupported by the evidence; and (5) the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's guilty verdicts. We affirm the judgments of the court.

The defendant was charged with two counts of vehicular homicide and one count of driving under the influence. He pled nolo contendere to one count of vehicular homicide. The defendant was on probation for prior convictions at the time of his plea and sentencing. A subsequent warrant for violation of probation was issued for his probationary sentence. The trial court sentenced the defendant to six years on his vehicular homicide plea to run consecutively to his probationary terms. On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court should not have ordered the vehicular homicide sentence to be served consecutively to his probationary sentence. We conclude that the trial court did not err, and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This is a consolidation of three appeals involving three tariffs filed by BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. with the Tennessee Regulatory Authority. All three tariffs contained bundled offerings of telecommunications services and non-telecommunications services. The Consumer Advocate Division of the Office of the Attorney General was allowed to intervene in these proceedings in order to address the question of BellSouth’s obligation, under the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, to offer for resale the telecommunications services contained in the bundled offerings. The Tennessee Regulatory Authority entered orders allowing the tariffs to go into effect without the telecommunications service portions thereof being offered for resale. The Consumer Advocate appealed and the cases were consolidated for that purpose. In 2005, during the pendency of this appeal, the Tennessee General Assembly enacted T.C.A.§65-37-103 (Supp. 2005).  This statute specifically exempts retail offerings of combinations or bundles of products or services from the jurisdiction of the Tennessee Regulatory Authority. In addition, all three of the tariffs at issue in this case expired, by their own terms, during the pendency of this appeal, rendering the appeal moot. Because we do not find that these appeals fall within any of the exceptions to the mootness doctrine, we dismiss the appeal as moot.

An inmate incarcerated in a prison operated by Corrections Corporation of America sued the corporation for damages arising from its alleged failure to provide him with proper dental care while he was in its custody. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss for improper venue and/or for untimeliness. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the case with prejudice, but did not state the reason for its decision. We affirm the trial court because the one-year statute of limitations had passed before the plaintiff filed his complaint.

For the reasons stated herein, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion. I further wish to express concerns over a recurring anomaly with which we are faced. An ever-increasing number of incarcerated inmates are filing habeas corpus petitions in reliance upon the holding in McLaney v. Bell, 59 S.W.3d 90 (Tenn. 2001). These petitioners complain that their sentences are illegal, as they were required to be sentenced consecutively rather than concurrently. In the instant case, the petitioner received an effective sentence of twenty years but complains that he should have received a sentence of at least twenty-three years. At the time of his guilty plea, he was facing a sentence of forty-three years minimum, if all sentences ran consecutively. I fail to understand how the petitioner is aggrieved by the agreed sentence.

In this child custody case, Father appeals and argues that the trial court erred in awarding Mother primary residential custody of the parties' twin minor children. Mother also appeals and argues that the trial court erred in setting Father's child support, in failing to assess her attorney's fees against Father, and in changing the children's surname to that of Father. After careful review of the evidence and applicable authorities, we find no error and affirm the judgment of the trial court in all respects.

On appeal, the defendant challenges the trial court's failure to merge his sexual battery and attempted false imprisonment convictions into his rape conviction; the denial of alternative sentencing; and the sufficiency of the evidence. Upon review, we conclude that the acts perpetrated on the victim constituted three discrete offenses and that the trial court did not err in failing to merge them. We further conclude that the trial court appropriately denied alternative sentencing and that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdicts. For these reasons, we affirm.

Thomas David Caldwell ("Father") filed a complaint for divorce from his wife of ten years, Davina Kay Duke Caldwell ("Mother"). The trial court, inter alia, awarded the parties a divorce, named Mother primary residential parent of the parties' minor child, and divided the parties' marital property. Father appeals both the custody determination and the division of marital property. We affirm.

The petitioner, Larry Dotson, appeals from the lower court’s summary dismissal of his pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus. Following our review of the parties’ briefs and applicable law, we reverse the court’s dismissal of the petition and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The wife sued for back child support on the basis that the parties' Marital Dissolution Agreement provided for a percentage of the husband's income which had not been paid. The Trial Court refused to award back support. On appeal, we affirm the Judgment of the Trial Court.

The majority concludes that the trial court committed reversible error by failing to grant a mistrial. I respectfully dissent. The majority opines that trial counsel’s overreaching remarks made during his opening statement, informing the jury that it was the victim who first struck the defendant, so tilted the scales of justice as to require the granting of a mistrial for reasons of manifest necessity.  See generally Millbrooks, 819 S.W.2d at 443; Zimmerman, 823 S.W.2d at 226.

The defendant appeals his conviction for theft of property, contending that the evidence failed to establish that he took the property without the owner's effective consent. However, upon review, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Freddy Lee Parrish, Jr., 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 pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The State’s motion is granted. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The petitioner, Ronnie Finch, was convicted by a jury of facilitation of first degree murder, two counts of attempted first degree murder and two counts of aggravated assault. As a result, the petitioner was sentenced to a total of forty-nine years in incarceration. The petitioner's convictions and sentence were affirmed by this Court on appeal. See State v. Frank E. Huey, et al, No. M2000-02793-CCA-R3-CD, 2002 WL 517132 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville, Apr. 5, 2002), perm. app. denied, (Tenn. Oct. 14, 2002). The petitioner subsequently filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief, alleging inter alia ineffective assistance of counsel. After an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied the petition. On appeal, the petitioner challenges the post-conviction court's denial of the petition. For the following reasons, the judgment on post-conviction petition is reversed; the judgment of acquittal is entered; and verdicts of guilt are vacated and dismissed.

The defendant, Harold Frank Henderson, Jr., pled guilty to aggravated assault in return for a four-year sentence served in a manner to be determined by the trial court. The trial court ordered the defendant to serve his sentence in confinement, and the defendant appealed. Following our review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Kervin Collins, was involved in an altercation with his father, the victim. The defendant hit the victim several times with a shovel. After an indictment for aggravated assault, a Davidson County jury found the defendant guilty as charged. The trial court sentenced the defendant to five years as a Range I standard offender, and the defendant appealed. We reverse the judgment of the trial court with regard to the denial of the defendant’s motion for mistrial and remand for a new trial.

Both parties appeal aspects of the final divorce decree. Husband contends the trial court erred by awarding wife transitional alimony in excess of his ability to pay and in excess of her need. Wife raises six issues, contending she should have been granted the divorce due to his abuse; that child support should be increased; that she should be awarded the tax deductions for all three children; that she should be named trustee of life insurance for the benefit of the children; and that husband should pay her attorney fees at trial and on appeal. We affirm the trial court in all respects but one, finding the transitional alimony was set at an amount greater than husband's ability to pay.

Petitioner, Richard Howell, appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief which alleged that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, Petitioner contends that trial counsel's assistance was ineffective for failure to object to the admission of certain evidence at trial. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that Petitioner has failed to show that he was prejudiced by any deficiencies in his trial counsel's performance and affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

In this appeal, the issue presented is whether a party has standing to pursue a personal injury claim in state court that accrued after the filing of the party’s bankruptcy petition and before the closing of the bankruptcy case. Ms. Headrick filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition. While the bankruptcy case was pending, Ms. Headrick was involved in a single car accident and was treated for her injuries by Dr. Daniel Johnson at Bradley County Memorial Hospital. Subsequently, she converted her Chapter 13 bankruptcy case to a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case. While the Chapter 7 case was still pending, she discovered that she suffered a hip fracture in the car accident which she alleges that Dr. Johnson and the Hospital failed to timely diagnose and treat. Thereafter, Ms. Headrick received a discharge in bankruptcy and the bankruptcy case was closed. Ms. Headrick then filed a medical negligence case against Dr. Johnson and Bradley Memorial Hospital. The Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that Ms. Headrick did not have standing to bring the case. The trial court agreed and dismissed the case. After review of the record and applicable authorities, we hold that Ms. Headrick’s post-bankruptcy cause of action is not part of the bankruptcy estate and therefore, as a matter of law Ms. Headrick did have standing to bring the lawsuit. The trial court’s decision is reversed.

The appellant, Larry Ballentine,¹ was convicted by a jury in the Wayne County Circuit Court of possession of a Schedule III controlled substance with the intent to sell. He received a sentence of six years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant contests the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction and the trial court's evidentiary rulings on impeachment evidence. Upon our review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Rahim Al Zarkani, 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 pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The State’s motion is granted. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.