APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This case arises out of a will contest filed by Appellants. At trial, Appellants alleged that Appellee
unduly influenced Decedent and that Decedent’s Last Will and Testament is a product of that undue influence rendering the Will invalid. After a hearing, the trial court determined that Decedent’s Will was not the product of undue influence and dismissed the will contest. Appellants now seek review by this Court, and, for the following reasons, we affirm.
 

Following a jury trial, Defendant, Charles O. Emesibe, was convicted in count one of first degree felony murder during the perpetration or attempted perpetration of the kidnapping of Ibiene A. Emesibe; in count two of first degree felony murder during the perpetration or attempted perpetration of the kidnapping of Letitia Abili; in count three of first degree felony murder of Ms. Emesibe during the perpetration or attempted perpetration of a burglary; in count four of first degree felony murder of Ms. Abili during the perpetration or attempted perpetration of a burglary; in count five of first degree premeditated murder of Ms. Emesibe; and in count six of first degree premeditated murder of Ms. Abili. The trial court merged counts one and five with count three, and counts two and six with count four. The trial court imposed life sentences for each felony murder conviction and ordered Defendant's two life sentences to be served consecutively. On appeal, Defendant argues (1) that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions; (2) that the trial court erred in admitting certain photographs into evidence; (3) that the trial court erred in ruling certain statements admissible; (4) that the trial court erred in admitting court documents pertaining to Defendant's divorce into evidence; (5) that the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of Ms. Emesibe's attorney concerning Defendant's divorce proceedings; and (6) that the trial court erred in ordering Defendant's two life sentences to be served consecutively. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the trial court's judgments.

The Appellant, Frankie Donald Releford, appeals the judgment of the Sullivan County Criminal Court denying his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, Releford argues that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial and that the post-conviction court erred in allowing trial counsel to remain in the courtroom during the post-conviction proceeding. After review of the record, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.

The Appellant, Danny Worthington, appeals the judgment of the Scott County Criminal Court denying post-conviction relief. On appeal, Worthington argues that trial counsel was ineffective for providing erroneous advice and, as a result, his guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered. After review, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed.

This is a divorce proceeding in which the parties accused each other of inappropriate marital conduct. The trial court granted both parties a divorce, and custody of the parties' child was awarded to Husband along with child support. Marital property, mostly debts, was allocated in part to Husband and in part to Wife. The trial court declined to assess attorney fees. Wife appealed claiming that she should have been granted the divorce and custody of the child. Wife also claimed that the marital debts were not allocated equitably and that she should have been awarded her attorney fees. We modify in part and affirm.

A Hamblen County Criminal Court Jury convicted the defendant, Miguel Garcia, of possession of more than three hundred grams of cocaine with the intent to deliver, a Class A felony, and the trial court sentenced him as a Range I, standard offender to twenty-two years in the Department of Correction. The defendant appeals, claiming that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress and that his sentence is excessive. We affirm the defendant's judgment of conviction, but we modify his sentence under the rule announced in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. __, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), from twenty-two years to twenty years.

Following a jury trial, Defendant, Steven Nelorn Hampton, Jr., was found guilty in count one of especially aggravated robbery, a Class A felony, and in count two of burglary of an automobile, a Class E felony. The trial court sentenced Defendant to concurrent sentences of twenty years for the especially aggravated robbery conviction and one year for the burglary conviction. Following a hearing on Defendant's motion for new trial, the trial court, acting in its capacity as thirteenth juror, found that the jury's verdict of guilty on the automobile burglary charge was contrary to the weight of the evidence and set aside Defendant's conviction for this offense. The trial court denied Defendant's motion for a new trial on the especially aggravated robbery conviction. On appeal, Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction of especially aggravated robbery and the length of his sentence. After a review of the record in this matter, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The unsuccessful Plaintiff, Kevin Easley, appeals the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Larry G. and Gary H. Baker, d/b/a Legend's Bar and Grill. On appeal, Easley argues that the record presents a genuine issue of fact on the question of whether Defendants provided adequate notice of a dangerous condition. We affirm the trial court.

Monica McPeek and Melinda S. Lockhart ("Defendant") were involved in an automobile accident. Monica McPeek and her husband, Eldridge McPeek, ("Plaintiffs" or "Ms. McPeek" and "Mr. McPeek" respectively) sued Defendant. The case was tried and the jury found Ms. McPeek to be 40% at fault for the accident and Defendant 60% at fault and awarded Ms. McPeek damages of $4,000 and Mr. McPeek zero damages. Plaintiffs appeal claiming the Trial Court erred in refusing to grant an additur or a new trial after the jury refused to award loss of consortium damages to Mr. McPeek and that the Trial Court erred by allowing the introduction of certain of Ms. McPeek's medical records. We affirm.

The petitioner, Robert Ledford, appeals the trial court's denial of post-conviction relief. The single issue presented for review is whether the petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel incident to his guilty pleas for second degree murder, aggravated robbery, especially aggravated kidnaping and theft. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

This appeal arises from the post-conviction court’s dismissal of the Petitioner’s petition for post-conviction relief. The Petitioner, Edward Beard, pled guilty to one count of rape, and the trial court sentenced him to eight years in prison, to be served at 100%. The Petitioner filed a pro se petition
for post-conviction relief. The trial court summarily dismissed the Petitioner’s petition because the Petitioner failed to submit any facts in support of his claims for relief. Finding no error in the judgment of the post-conviction court, we affirm the dismissal of the Petitioner’s petition for post-conviction relief.

The appellants, Kevin Dewitt Ford and Clifford Sylvester Wright, each pled guilty in the Davidson County Criminal Court to multiple counts of aggravated robbery. Appellant Ford received a total effective sentence of fifty years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Appellant Wright received a total effective sentence of forty-five years incarceration. As a condition of their pleas, the appellants attempted to reserve certified questions of law concerning the trial court's ruling on their motions to suppress. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we conclude that Appellant Wright failed to properly reserve a certified question of law. Additionally, we conclude that the trial court properly denied Appellant Ford's motions to suppress. Therefore, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The petitioner appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. Specifically, he contends that the trial court erred (1) in failing to find ineffective assistance of trial counsel, and (2) in denying the petitioner’s motion for a continuance. Following our review, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.

The Petitioner James Beasley appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus ad testificandum. 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. An appeal as of right does not exist from a denial of a petition for habeas corpus ad testificandum. Accordingly, the above-captioned appeal is dismissed.

We granted this appeal to determine whether an unexecuted brokerage agreement incorporated into an executed lease constitutes an enforceable contract, thereby requiring payment of a brokerage fee to one of the real estate brokers who provided services pursuant to the unexecuted agreement. We conclude that all parties to the brokerage agreement assented to its terms and that the brokerage agreement's "occupancy" requirement was satisfied. Accordingly, we hold that the agreement is enforceable, and we affirm the Court of Appeals' award of the unpaid commission to the real estate broker.

The defendant, Dennis Watson, pled guilty to possession with the intent to sell or deliver a controlled substance, Schedule II, cocaine, in an amount over .5 grams, a Class B felony, in exchange for a sentence of twelve years as a standard Range I offender in the Department of Correction. The defendant reserved two certified questions of law for this appeal: (1) whether the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss based upon the right to a speedy trial; and (2) whether the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. After reviewing the issues, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The State appeals the trial court’s decision to dismiss the indictment against the defendant, Casey Austin, without prejudice. For reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The trial court permanently enjoined the City of Memphis from modifying its health care plan to require enrollees to obtain prescription medications through a mail-order pharmacy plan. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

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 reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. In this appeal, the employer contends the trial court’s determination of sixty-five percent permanent partial impairment to the lower right extremity is excessive in light of the evidence. We hold that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s findings. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The petitioner, Luther E. Fowler, appeals from the Johnson County Criminal Court's summary dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief. We affirm.

The appellant, Philander T. Fleming, was convicted by a jury in the Shelby County Criminal Court of voluntary manslaughter. The trial court sentenced the appellant to nine years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant challenges the trial court’s ruling on his motion to suppress and the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction. Upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In the Divorce Decree Decedent was ordered to pay alimony "until remarriage or death of plaintiff". Decedent's estate refused to pay alimony. The Trial Court held the Decree required the payment of alimony after Decedent's death. On appeal, we reverse and dismiss.

The defendant, Doyle Arnel Whitlock, appeals from actions of the Washington County Criminal Court in the aftermath of his multiple, guilty-pleaded convictions, the denial of his motion to reduce his sentences, and his filing of a document titled "Appeal of Conviction," which despite the title raised issues of guilty plea validity and ineffective assistance of counsel. Upon our review, we dismiss the appeal in part and remand for further proceedings in the trial court.

The defendant, Doreen Jones, was convicted of second degree murder. The trial court imposed a Range I sentence of twenty-one years. In this appeal, the defendant asserts (1) that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction; (2) that the trial court erred in its instructions to the jury; (3) that the trial court erred by admitting into evidence certain photographs of the victim; (4) that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury regarding expert testimony provided by a defense witness; (5) that the trial court erred by admitting into evidence a videotape recording; (6) that the trial court erred by permitting the medical examiner to testify that the victim's death resulted from abuse and neglect and by refusing to redact this statement from the autopsy report; (7) that the trial court erred by permitting the state to read certain Social Security regulations; and (8) that the trial court erred by refusing to grant a change of venue. The defendant has also asked this court to review the propriety of the sentence in light of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. ___, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

We granted this appeal to determine whether evidence seized from the defendants’ residence
pursuant to a search warrant should be suppressed. Sheriff’s deputies entered the defendants’
residence without a warrant based upon an informant’s tip and the deputies’ recognition of the smell of anhydrous ammonia and ether. The deputies then detained the defendants while a warrant was obtained. We conclude that the deputies’ warrantless entry into the defendants’ residence was unlawful. However, the unlawful entry and any illegality in the subsequent detention did not taint the evidence seized pursuant to the search warrant, and the affidavit supporting the issuance of the warrant sufficiently established probable cause. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.