APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The petitioner challenges the denial of his post-conviction petition, in which he contended, inter alia, that counsel was ineffective in failing to object to the composition of the jury pool. Upon review, we conclude that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the venire was violative of his Sixth Amendment rights. As such, he has likewise failed to prove that counsel’s failure to object to the venire amounted to deficient performance or resulted in prejudice to him. We affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

In 1992, a jury convicted the Petitioner, Leroy Hall, Jr., of first degree premeditated murder and aggravated arson, and it sentenced him to death for the first degree murder conviction. The trial court imposed a consecutive twenty-five year sentence for the aggravated arson conviction. On direct appeal, the Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the Petitioner's convictions and sentences. See State v. Hall, 958 S.W.2d 679 (Tenn. 1997), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 941 (1998). The Petitioner filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief, which was subsequently amended by appointed counsel. After an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court dismissed the petition. The Petitioner appeals that judgment, contending that: (1) his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance at trial; (2) the post-conviction court erroneously denied the Petitioner's request for an expert attorney to establish his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; and (3) the death sentence violates the Petitioner's rights under the federal and State constitutions and international law. After throughly reviewing the record and the applicable law, we conclude that there exists no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The Appellant, Jessie Levent Tharpe, was convicted by a Henry County jury of evading arrest, possession of drug paraphernalia, and Class B felony possession of cocaine. He was subsequently sentenced to an effective eight-year sentence, which was suspended upon conditions of probation. On appeal, Tharpe raises the single issue of sufficiency of the evidence. Specifically, Tharpe challenges his convictions based upon inconsistencies in the testimony of the State’s witnesses.  After review of the evidence presented, we find the evidence sufficient and affirm the judgments of conviction.

The State has appealed to this Court pursuant to Rule 9 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure from an interlocutory order of the trial court suppressing evidence resulting from a search and seizure. The question presented for our review is whether the defendant had standing to contest the search of an outbuilding located on property near his premises. Upon review of the record, we affirm the trial court's findings that the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the outbuilding but not in the area surrounding the outbuilding.

The defendant, Martez Towen Fitts, pled guilty to sale of cocaine over .5 grams and was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to eight years, all suspended except for forty-eight hours and the balance to be served on probation, with the first six months on intensive probation. Additionally, he was ordered to comply with alcohol and drug assessment programs, obtain his GED, and pay a $2000 fine. The trial court subsequently revoked the defendant's probation, and he appealed. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

I agree with the result reached by the majority. I write separately to point out that the applicable statute, Tenn. Code Ann. § 57-5-105, expressly provides that an application for a beer permit “shall disclose” that “no . . . person to be employed . . . has been convicted of any violation of the laws [pertaining to beer or other alcoholic beverages] or any crime involving moral turpitude within the past ten (10) years.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 57-5-105(c)(7). In addition to this requirement pertaining to the contents of the application, Tenn. Code Ann. § 57-5-105(b), dealing with what “an applicant must establish,” contains a proof requirement using the same language. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 57-5-105(b)(4).

This is an appeal of a divorce action in which the Wife argues that the trial court failed to make an equitable distribution of the marital estate and the trial court erred in dismissing her independent lawsuit against Husband, and a corporation owned by Husband, for wages claimed to be earned by Wife and owing by the corporation. We hold that the distribution of marital property should be modified so as to award Wife sole ownership of the marital home, subject to Husband's right of first refusal to purchase the home in the event it is sold, and Husband's right to visit and maintain the gravesite of the parties' daughter, located near the home on part of the marital estate, upon Husband's providing reasonable notice to Wife. We further find that the trial court erred in dismissing Wife's lawsuit against Husband and therefore vacate the trial court's order dismissing with prejudice the Wife's lawsuit against Husband and the corporation. We affirm the trial court's ruling in all other respects.

This case involves the Petitioner’s application for a permit to sell beer both on and off-premises of her proposed business establishment. The trial court affirmed the Appellee McMinn County Commission’s decision to deny the permit, pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 57-5-105, on grounds that Petitioner’s application contained a false statement. Petitioner contends on appeal that she should have been granted the permit because she did not know the statement was false at the time she made it, and because she attempted to amend the application to correct the false statement prior to the hearing before the McMinn County Chancery Court. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We granted this interlocutory appeal to determine whether the trial court erred in awarding the employee temporary total disability benefits in excess of 400 weeks where the employee had not attained maximum medical improvement within the 400-week period. We hold that the statutory "maximum total benefit" of 400 weeks applies to temporary total disability benefits. Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and hold that the employer's liability for temporary total disability benefits is statutorily limited to 400 weeks. We remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The petitioner, Calvin O. Tankesly, appeals the denial of his petition for writ of error coram nobis, arguing that the trial court should have granted him relief on the basis of newly discovered evidence allegedly showing that extraneous prejudicial information was imparted to the jury at his trial. Following our review, we affirm the order of the trial court denying the petition.

The plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment with the trial court. After conducting a hearing on the motion, the trial court entered an order which amounted to a denial of the plaintiff’s motion.  Accordingly, the trial court’s order does not constitute a final judgment which the plaintiff may appeal to this Court. This appeal stands dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

A Greene County jury convicted the Petitioner, Bronzo Gosnell, Jr., of second degree murder, and the trial court sentenced him to twenty-five years in prison. This Court affirmed the Petitioner's conviction on direct appeal, and the Tennessee Supreme Court denied permission to appeal. The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which the post-conviction court summarily dismissed as time-barred. Because we agree that the petition is time-barred, we affirm.

I respectfully disagree with the majority opinion. I believe the judgments of conviction provide illegal sentences and are, therefore, void. I believe the case should be remanded for the trial court to transfer the case to the Marshall County Circuit Court for entry of corrected judgments of conviction.

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 awarded the employee 100 percent permanent disability. The employer contends the trial court was in error in calculating the average weekly wage and in finding the employee was totally disabled.  Judgment is affirmed.

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 case finding plaintiff had not established sufficient evidence to prove notice and causation of injury. Plaintiff insists the court was in error in weighing the evidence. The judgment is affirmed.

The Petitioner, Tyris Lemont Harvey, pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, pled guilty to burglary and theft of property valued over $500. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced the Petitioner to an effective four-year sentence, as a Range II offender, and ordered that the Petitioner's sentences run consecutively to a prior sentence. The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that his guilty plea was involuntary and unknowing. The post-conviction court dismissed the petition, and the Petitioner now appeals. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

The petitioner appeals the denial of his habeas petition, contending that the judgments reflect thirty percent release eligibility rather than the statutorily mandated one hundred percent service required of multiple rapists. Because the petitioner was convicted by a jury, as opposed to pleading guilty, we conclude that the trial court was required to impose the one hundred percent service requirement.  Therefore, the trial court’s failure to properly mark the judgments does not render the judgments void but should be amended as a clerical error, pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.  We affirm the denial of habeas relief.

The Appellant, Yolando Odom, appeals the Knox County Criminal Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. Under the terms of a plea agreement, Odom pled guilty to one count of robbery and accepted an eight-year sentence as a Range II offender, despite only meeting the statutory criteria for a Range I offender. On appeal, Odom contends that his plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered due to trial counsel's ineffectiveness in failing to inform him of possible defenses at trial and in failing to review the proof with respect to the elements of the indicted offense of aggravated robbery. Following review of the record, we affirm the denial of the petition.

The petitioner, Joseph A. Maine, appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that his guilty pleas were not knowing or voluntary and that his trial counsel was ineffective for, among other things, erroneously advising him that he would be eligible for release after serving only twenty-five years of his life sentence.1 Because the record reflects that the petitioner was similarly misinformed by the trial court as to the release eligibility date for his life sentence, we conclude that his pleas were not knowing or voluntary. Accordingly, we reverse the post-conviction court’s dismissal of the petition and remand the case for the petitioner to withdraw his pleas of guilty.

A Shelby County Criminal Court Jury convicted the defendant, Antonio Sanders, of two counts of  first degree felony murder; two counts of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony; one count of  aggravated burglary, a Class C felony; and five counts of attempted aggravated robbery, a Class C felony. The trial court merged the two counts of first degree murder together and the two counts of aggravated robbery together and sentenced the defendant to life imprisonment for the felony murder, eight years for the aggravated robbery, three years for the aggravated burglary, and three years for each count of attempted robbery, all to be served concurrently. The defendant appeals, claiming that the evidence is insufficient, that the trial court improperly approved the use of an interpreter at trial, and that the trial court erred in ordering the sequestration of the jury. We affirm the trial court.

The petitioner, Tony Willis, appeals from the trial court's denial of habeas corpus relief. The single issue presented for review is whether the trial court erred by summarily dismissing the petition. The judgment is affirmed.

This is a breach of contract action wherein the trial court granted summary judgment to Defendant on the grounds that the contract was too uncertain and indefinite to be enforced. The action of the trial court is reversed, and the case remanded for trial on its merits.

The defendant, Morgan Roa, pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement in the Davidson County Criminal Court to aggravated assault, a Class C felony. The defendant was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to six years with the trial court to determine the manner of service of the sentence. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered that the defendant serve his sentence in confinement. The defendant appeals, claiming that the trial court erred in denying him alternative sentencing. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Relying upon a common law rule, the trial court continued the defendant's trial on the charge of accessory after the fact to first degree murder until after the trial and conviction of the principal offender. The defendant sought interlocutory review of the trial court's order, asserting that her Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial has been violated by application of the common law rule. The Court of Criminal Appeals refused to grant the defendant's application for an interlocutory appeal, finding no reason to deviate from the general practice of evaluating speedy trial claims on direct appeal. We granted the defendant permission to appeal to consider the following issues of law: (1) whether the Tennessee Criminal Sentencing Reform Act of 1989, 1989 Tenn. Pub. Acts ch. 591 ("Reform Act"), abrogated the common law rule that a principal must be tried and convicted before an accessory after the fact may be tried; (2) if not, should this Court judicially abrogate the common law rule; and (3) whether a defendant is entitled to interlocutory review of the trial court's order denying her motion to dismiss the indictment because of an alleged violation of her Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. We hold that the common law rule has not been abrogated by the Reform Act, and we decline to judicially abrogate it. We also hold that the defendant is not entitled to seek interlocutory review of the trial court's order rejecting her alleged Sixth Amendment speedy trial violation. Applying these holdings, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals insofar as it denied the defendant interlocutory review of her speedy trial claim, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court which continued the defendant's trial on the charge of accessory after the fact until after the trial of the principal offender. We remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Nursing home brought suit against former resident's daughters seeking to recover amounts owed for resident's care by setting aside alleged fraudulent conveyances to the daughters. We affirm the judgment of the trial court setting aside a portion of the conveyances as fraudulent.