APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Aggrieved of the Davidson County Criminal Court's summary dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief, the petitioner, Mike Settle, appeals. The habeas corpus court dismissed the petition because the petitioner did not pay the court costs due upon filing the petition. The state has filed a response, conceding that the trial court erred in dismissing the petition for failure to pay a filing fee. However, we disagree and affirm the order of dismissal.

This is a direct appeal as of right from convictions on a jury verdict for burglary and theft of property. The Defendant, Jeffrey Lee Scales, was sentenced to concurrent sentences of four years for his Class D felony burglary conviction and two years for his Class E felony theft conviction. On appeal, the Defendant argues only one issue: there is insufficient evidence to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the two offenses for which he was convicted. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant, Young Bok Song, a/k/a Mike, was convicted by a jury of seven counts of rape of a child, a Class A felony, and four counts of aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony, and received an effective sentence of sixty-five years, to be served at 100% in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues the trial court erred by: (1) not appointing an interpreter; (2) not providing the defendant with a copy of a forensic interview tape; (3) allowing the State to ask the defendant numerous argumentative questions; and (4) not granting a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. Following our review, we affirm the trial court.

The appellant, William A. Hawkins, was convicted of first degree premeditated murder, and he received a sentence of life imprisonment. On appeal, the appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, the trial court's evidentiary rulings, and the jury instructions. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court but remand for entry of a corrected judgment to reflect the correct date of the judgment.

The defendant, Catherine May Cooper, pled guilty to one count of attempt to obtain a controlled substance by altered prescription, a Class D felony, and one count of felony failure to appear, a Class E felony. The Sullivan County Criminal Court sentenced her to two years for the Class D felony and one year for the Class E felony to be served concurrently in the Department of Correction as a Range I, standard offender. The defendant appeals, contending that the trial court erred in denying her probation or alternative sentencing. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The petitioner, Stacy Allen Melton, appeals from the Greene County Criminal Court's dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief from his guilty plea to especially aggravated kidnapping, a Class A felony, and attempted second degree murder, a Class B felony. He contends that his guilty plea was involuntary and that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the trial court.

The trial court denied the State’s petition for child support and retroactive child support for Respondent/Father’s two minor children. We reverse.

A Bradley County Criminal Court jury convicted the appellant, Lisa Durbin Howard, of first degree premeditated murder, and the trial court sentenced her to life imprisonment. The appellant appeals her conviction, claiming (1) that the trial court's comments to the jury during deliberations amounted to an improper "dynamite" or Allen charge; (2) that the trial court erred by excluding a defense expert's testimony; (3) that the State impermissibly excluded the only African-American from the jury pool; (4) that juror misconduct denied her the right to a fair and impartial jury; (5) that the State failed to preserve the audiotaped recording of the preliminary hearing as required by Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 5.1(a); and (6) that the trial court erred by not conducting a proper jury poll. We conclude that the appellant has waived these issues because she failed to file a timely motion for new trial. Moreover, we discern no plain error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Alan E. Monday, appeals from the Knox County Criminal Court's dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief from his conviction for reckless homicide, a Class D felony. He contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney advised him not to testify and failed to call a favorable witness. We affirm the trial court.

The petitioner, Wayne Michael Fuller, appeals the Knox County Criminal Court's denial of post-conviction relief. His post-conviction petition attacked his 1998 guilty-pleaded convictions and sentence for seven counts of statutory rape and one count of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. The petitioner received maximum two-year sentences for each statutory rape conviction and 11 months, 29 days for the contributing to the delinquency of a minor conviction. The court ordered five of the statutory rape sentences to be served consecutively, resulting in an effective sentence of ten years. The post-conviction petition, amended on multiple occasions, alleged ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel and violations of Blakely v. Washington and of the petitioner's right against self-incrimination. The post-conviction court denied relief, and we affirm.

The Appellant, Shawn Peele, appeals the sentencing decision of the Shelby County Criminal Court.  Peele pled guilty to facilitating aggravated robbery, a Class C felony, and was sentenced as a Range I offender to three years incarceration. On appeal, Peele argues that the trial court erred in denying a suspended sentence. After review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The trial court awarded summary judgment to Defendant Billy Joe Regel, Individually, and d/b/a/ Bartlett Prescription Shop on the grounds of laches, and Plaintiff Finova Capital Corporation appeals. We affirm.

The appellant, Curtis Emmanuel Lane, pled guilty to simple possession of marijuana and was sentenced to eleven months and twenty-nine days, suspended upon payment of court costs and fines. Pursuant to Rule 37 (b)(2)(i) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure, the appellant attempted to reserve a certified question of law to this Court on the issue of whether the evidence should have been suppressed as the result of an illegal arrest. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the appellant failed to properly reserve a certified question of law. Therefore, the appellant's issue is not properly before this Court, and this appeal is dismissed.

The petitioner pled guilty to second degree murder on November 14, 1997. The trial court sentenced the petitioner on the same day to twenty years to be served as a Range I, standard offender with a release eligibility of thirty percent. On July 27, 1999, the trial court amended the judgment stating that the petitioner’s release eligibility would be one hundred percent with credit given for time served up to fifteen percent of his sentence. The petitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus relief on October 12, 2004. On November 15, 2004, the habeas court summarily dismissed the petitioner’s petition. The petitioner appealed this decision. We affirm the decision of the habeas court.

The petitioner, Darrell Carter, pled guilty to five counts of aggravated sexual battery. As a result, he was sentenced to an effective sentence of twenty-one years in the Tennessee Department of Correction to be served at one hundred percent. The petitioner subsequently sought post-conviction relief on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel and an alleged unknowing and involuntary guilty plea. The post-conviction court denied the petition. For the following reasons, we affirm the post-conviction court's denial of the petition.

The appellant, Stanley Phillip Chapman, was convicted by a jury in the Tipton County Circuit Court of second degree murder. He received a sentence of twenty-two years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant raises several issues for our review, including the trial court’s evidentiary rulings and sentencing. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The City of Memphis appeals from the trial court’s reversal of the Civil Service Commission’s decision to terminate a City employee/Appellee for violation of the substance abuse policy. The trial court found that the positive drug test, which provided the only substantial and material evidence for Appellee’s termination, was inadmissible as evidence for failure of the City failed to comport with 42 U.S.C. §290. We affirm.

The appellant, Jamie Brown, was convicted by a Knox County Jury of simple possession of marijuana. As a result, the trial court sentenced the appellant to eleven months and twenty-nine days, to be served on probation. On appeal, the appellant challenges the trial court's denial of a motion to suppress. Because the trial court properly denied the motion to suppress, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Following a jury trial, Defendant, James D. Black, was found guilty of aggravated perjury, a Class D felony. The trial court sentenced Defendant as a Range I, standard offender, to two years, all suspended but sixty days, and placed Defendant on supervised probation for four years. Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

I concur in the result reached in the majority opinion. However, I do so on the merits, as opposed to the petitioner’s failure to follow procedural requirements for habeas corpus petitions.

The appellant, Homer Alson Maddin, III, was convicted by a jury of four counts of aggravated rape in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-502. As a result, the appellant was sentenced to an effective sentence of twenty-five years at one hundred percent. The appellant appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on the mental state of reckless, and that the trial court erred in applying certain enhancement factors to determine his sentence. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This Court reversed a judgment of dismissal of Plaintiff’s action and remanded the case for further proceedings. On remand, the court entered judgment for Plaintiff, as authorized by the appellate court, and also, on motion of Plaintiff, awarded attorney fees for the appeal. Defendant-Appellants appeal, asserting that the award of attorney fees was not authorized by the appellate court and, therefore, the trial court did not have authority to award same. Appellants also assert that the award of attorney fees was excessive, and Appellee asserts, in a separate issue, that the award of fees was inadequate. Both parties appeal. We affirm and remand.

This is a suit to quiet title to real property. The issue presented is whether the trial court correctly decreed that any legal or equitable interest of Paul Richard Johnson in the real property purchased by Envision Properties, LLC was extinguished by operation of the doctrine of adverse possession. Based on the stipulated proof, we hold that there was not clear and positive proof of adverse possession sufficient to constitute an ouster of a co-tenant. Therefore, Paul Richard Johnson has an undivided one-fifth interest in the property. The judgment of the trial court is reversed.

In this third appeal from a Williamson County divorce, the wife challenges the trial court's valuation and distribution of the marital estate and award of alimony upon remand. Both parties seek an award of attorney's fees. The husband seeks damages for frivolous appeal. We affirm the trial court's valuation and distribution and award of alimony and deny the husband's frivolous appeal damages request.

This appeal involves the division of marital property following the dissolution of a nine-year marriage. The wife filed a complaint for divorce in the Chancery Court for Dickson County. Following a bench trial, the court granted the wife a divorce on the ground of inappropriate marital conduct, divided the parties' marital estate, and denied the wife's requests for spousal support and attorney's fees. The wife takes issue on this appeal with the manner in which the trial court classified, valued, and divided the parties' property. We have determined that the trial court's decision regarding the parties' marital estate must be modified with regard to the division of the increase in the value of the marital home and the increase in the value of the husband's retirement. Accordingly, we modify the judgment and affirm.