APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Following a jury trial, Defendant, Darrell Toomes, was convicted of delivery of less than 0.5 grams of cocaine. He was sentenced to seven years in the Department of Correction as a Range II, multiple offender. The trial court denied Defendant’s motion for new trial. On appeal, Defendant argues that
the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Capital Defendant, Robert Hood, appeals as of right his conviction of first degree murder and sentence of death resulting from the 2001 murder of Toni Banks. A Shelby County grand jury charged the defendant by indictment with one count of felony murder, one count of premeditated murder, two counts of misdemeanor theft of property, and two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping. On May 6, 2004, a Shelby County jury found the defendant guilty of both counts of homicide and guilty as to both counts of misdemeanor theft. The jury acquitted the defendant on both counts of aggravated kidnapping. After a separate sentencing hearing, the jury unanimously found the presence of one statutory aggravating circumstance, that the defendant had previously been convicted of a violent felony offense. The jury further determined that this aggravating circumstance outweighed any mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt and imposed a sentence of death. The trial court approved the sentencing verdict. The defendant appeals presenting for our review the following issues: (1) whether the trial court erred by denying the defendant’s request to proceed pro se, (2) whether the trial court erred by refusing to permit defense counsel to withdraw, (3) whether the presence of uniformed detention response team members sitting on either side of the defendant throughout trial was prejudicial error, (4) whether the evidence is sufficient to support a verdict of premeditated murder, (5) whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence involving prior bad acts of the defendant, (6) whether the trial court’s instruction that the defendant’s prior offenses were offenses whose statutory elements involved the use of violence violated the United States Constitution, (7) whether the death penalty imposed in this case violated due process because the indictment failed to allege the aggravators relied upon by the state, and (8) whether Tennessee’s
death penalty scheme is unconstitutional. Finding no error requiring reversal, we affirm the defendant’s conviction and sentence of death.

This is an appeal from a divorce action in which the husband argues that the trial court failed to make an equitable division of the marital estate. Specifically, the husband challenges the trial court’s treatment of certain real property as the wife’s separate property, and he challenges the valuation placed on their vehicles. Finding the appeal meritorious, we reverse and remand for a new division of the marital estate.

A Montgomery County Circuit Court jury convicted the defendant, Christopher Lynn Hoosier, of possession with the intent to sell one-half gram or more of cocaine, a Class B felony, simple possession of marijuana, a Class A misdemeanor, and possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor, and the trial court sentenced him as a Range II, multiple offender to concurrent terms of twenty years for the cocaine conviction and eleven months and twenty-nine days for each of the misdemeanor convictions. The defendant appeals, claiming the trial court erred in sentencing him by finding enhancement factors that were not submitted to a jury or proven beyond a reasonable doubt and by failing to apply a factor in mitigation. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Although I agree with the result reached by the majority, I disagree as to the rights Dr. Russell had with regard to notice of non-renewal.

The juvenile court granted Appellee’s Rule 60.02 Motion to vacate its prior order of legitimation.  We reverse.

Plaintiff, a college professor, appeals the dismissal of her breach of employment contract action upon
summary judgment. She was employed by Meharry Medical College for thirty-three (33) years but was not tenured because the tenure program, adopted in 1984, was never implemented. She is seeking entitlement to formal tenure, or de facto tenure. She also seeks damages, claiming she was entitled to but did not receive twelve (12) months notice her contract of employment would not be renewed. The trial court found plaintiff had not attained de facto tenure and had waived her claim for tenure. It also held plaintiff’s employment contract entitled her to six (6) months notice her employment would not be renewed and she received the requisite notice. We affirm.

This appeal arises from a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. The defendant, a police officer, accidently discharged his gun while standing behind the plaintiff, startling the plaintiff. The trial court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, concluding that the defendant was immune from suit pursuant to the Governmental Tort Liability Act, Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-20-310(b) (2000). The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that section 29-20-205(2), which retained immunity for governmental entities for the "infliction of mental anguish" caused by its employee applied to both negligent, as well as intentional infliction of mental anguish. We reverse the Court of Appeals and reinstate the trial court's order granting the motion to dismiss in favor of the defendant.

The appellant, Jerry Bell, was convicted by a jury in the Shelby County Criminal Court of two counts of aggravated robbery and one count of aggravated burglary. The appellant received a total effective sentence of twenty years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions and the sentences imposed for those convictions. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The defendant, Larry W. Timberlake, appeals his probation revocation and imposition of his original seven-year sentence. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Ronnie Woodall, was convicted of rape of a child by a Shelby County jury and sentenced as a violent offender to twenty-two years in the Tennessee Department of Correction at one-hundred percent. On appeal, the defendant challenges: (1) the sufficiency of the convicting evidence, and (2) the trial court’s application of a sentencing enhancement. Following our review of the record and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

An Obion County jury found the defendant, Shirley Annette Rudd, guilty of facilitating the manufacture of methamphetamine, possession of methamphetamine with intent to sell or deliver, and conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-11-403, -12-103, -17-417 (2003). Pretrial, the defendant had moved to suppress methamphetamine seized from her person. The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing and concluded that the evidence had been legally seized. The defendant challenges that ruling on appeal. After reviewing the record, applicable authorities, and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Appellant, Christopher Jerome Taylor, appeals the Fayette County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, Taylor argues that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel. After review of the record, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.

The petitioner appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition, in which he asserted that trial counsel was ineffective in: (1) failing to secure an independent mental evaluation; and (2) failing to demand a speedy trial. Upon review, we conclude that the evidence does not preponderate against the findings of the post-conviction court; therefore, we affirm.

The petitioner, Anthony Leon Moore, appeals from the post-conviction court’s denial of post-conviction relief. On appeal, he contends that the post-conviction court erred in finding that he received the effective assistance of counsel. Following our review, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.

The parties were divorced based on stipulated grounds. Husband appeals the award of property to Wife. We reverse and remand.

This appeal involves a dispute between a country music songwriter and a music publishing company arising out of an "exclusive co-publishing agreement" relating to the song "Riding with Private Malone" and other works. Because of the parties' dispute, ASCAP declined to release royalties for "Riding with Private Malone" to either the songwriter or the publisher. The songwriter filed suit in the Chancery Court for Davidson County seeking a determination that the publishing company had breached the agreement and that he was entitled to receive the royalties held by ASCAP because all the rights to "Riding with Private Malone" had reverted to him. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. The trial court concluded that the songwriter was not entitled to the withheld royalties. After the trial court denied his motion to amend his complaint to seek money damages, the songwriter appealed. We have concluded that the trial court erred by holding that the songwriter was not entitled to the withheld royalties and that the trial court properly denied the songwriter's motion to amend his complaint.

Robert Hugh Benson ("Father") sued Deborah Watkinson ("Mother") for divorce. The parties have two minor children. The Trial Court granted the parties a divorce and designated Father as the primary residential parent with Mother to have no overnight visitation due to a finding of her alcohol abuse. Mother appeals to this Court. We modify the judgment only to order Father to attend and complete an anger management course, and affirm as so modified.

The Appellant, Karl Blake, was convicted by a Rutherford County jury of three counts of child rape and one count of aggravated sexual battery, resulting in an effective forty-year sentence. On appeal, Blake raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether the trial court erred in excluding a statement made by the victim at an in camera hearing; (2) whether the trial court should have granted a mistrial based on juror misconduct; (3) whether the trial court should have granted a new trial based on newly discovered evidence; and (4) whether his sentence violates Blakely v. Washington. After review of the record, we affirm.

The petitioner, William Patrick Roberson, appeals from the post-conviction court’s denial of post-conviction relief. On appeal, he contends that his statements to police were taken in violation of his constitutional rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the postconviction court denying post-conviction relief.

This appeal involves an alimony award granted by the trial court to Plaintiff Sonya Ausley. While the divorce in this case was pending, the trial court ordered Defendant to pay $17,000 to the Clerk and Master of the court after Defendant willfully refused to pay temporary support and further disposed of a $34,000 social security disability settlement in violation of court order. The trial court later granted Plaintiff $5775 from the funds as temporary support. In the final divorce decree, the trial court awarded Plaintiff the remaining $11,225 balance as lump sum transitional alimony.  Defendant appeals, arguing that 1) the trial court erred in failing to classify Defendant’s social security benefits as marital or separate prior to ordering its division, 2) the trial court’s order that Defendant pay half of his social security benefits into the Clerk and Master constituted in improper presumption that such benefits were marital property, and 3) that Defendant’s social security benefits were exempt from garnishment under Tenn. Code Ann. § 26-2-111. We affirm.

In this divorce case, Husband/Appellant appeals and raises issues involving the division of certain marital property. Finding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in making its division of the marital property, we affirm.

The Defendant, Roosevelt Morris, was convicted by a jury of two counts of attempted first degree premeditated murder. The trial court sentenced the Defendant as a Range I, standard offender to two consecutive terms of twenty-five years in the Department of Correction for an effective sentence of fifty years. In this direct appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and contends that his sentence is excessive. We affirm the Defendant’s convictions. We modify the Defendant’s effective sentence to forty-seven years.

The petitioner appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief in which he asserted various instances of ineffective assistance of counsel. Upon review, we conclude that the evidence does not preponderate against the findings of the post-conviction court. Therefore, we affirm.

This is a parental rights termination case. The father appeals the trial court's decision terminating his parental rights to his three children. The father argues, inter alia, that the evidence preponderates against the trial court's finding that grounds for termination exist and that termination is in the best interest of the children. We conclude that the evidence preponderates against the decision of the trial court and therefore, we reverse.