APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The petitioner, Michael Holman, appeals the Marshall County Circuit Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his conviction of possession of one-half gram or more of cocaine with intent to deliver and sentence of twenty years. This court affirmed the judgment of conviction. See State v. Michael Andrae Holman, M2002-01471-CCA-R3-CD, Marshall County (Tenn. Crim. App. July 23, 2003). The petitioner claims that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial attorney failed (1) to interview and subpoena witnesses adequately; (2) to obtain phone records and motel documents; (3) to contact witnesses who could provide the petitioner with an alibi defense; (4) to cross-examine the informant and co-defendant thoroughly; (5) to argue sufficiently that the petitioner could not have been in constructive possession of the drugs found; and (6) to prepare adequately for trial. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Steven Skinner, was convicted by jury of two counts of first degree premeditated murder for which he received consecutive sentences of life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. On appeal, he contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions because there is no proof connecting him to the crimes other than uncorroborated accomplice testimony, and (2) the trial court erred in sentencing the defendant to two consecutive life sentences.  Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Allstate Insurance Company paid a fire loss to the landlord then brought an action against the tenant asserting subrogation rights. The trial court held the tenant to be blameless as to the fire but found him liable under the terms of the lease, which provided that the tenant would be "responsible for all damages to the apartment, intentional or non intentional". Since we find the tenant to be an additional insured under the Allstate policy, no subrogation rights exist, and we reverse the trial court.

Plaintiff sued her employer for misrepresentation relating to health insurance coverage and sought to recover amounts incurred by her husband for medical bills. The trial court found for plaintiff awarding her treble and punitive damages. We reverse the trial court's finding of treble and punitive damages and affirm the trial court's award of a refund to plaintiff for amounts contributed as premiums.

Ronald Joseph Reece pleaded guilty to statutory rape for which he received a two-year probationary sentence. Aggrieved of the trial court’s refusal to grant judicial diversion, he now appeals his sentence. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the sentence imposed by the lower court.

The defendant challenges the imposition of consecutive sentences, based on the Supreme Court’s recent holding in Blakely v. Washington. Our courts have previously held that neither Apprendi nor Blakely affect the trial court’s ability to impose consecutive sentences. Furthermore, upon reviewing the record, we conclude that the trial court properly imposed consecutive sentences based on the defendant’s extensive record, consisting of twenty prior convictions. Therefore, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This appeal involves the termination of a biological father's parental rights with regard to his nine-year-old daughter. After determining that the child had been sexually abused by her father, the Tennessee Department of Children's Services filed a petition in the Circuit Court for Grundy County seeking to terminate the father's parental rights. Following a bench trial, the trial court determined that the father had committed severe child abuse and that his daughter's interests would be best served by terminating his parental rights. The father asserts on this appeal that the Department failed to present clear and convincing evidence that he had committed severe child abuse. We have determined that the record contains clear and convincing evidence that the father committed severe child abuse and that terminating his parental rights is in his daughter's best interests.

This is an appeal as of right from the trial court’s denial of post-conviction relief. Upon entering guilty pleas, the two Defendants were convicted of attempted first degree murder and attempted second degree murder respectively, and received sentences of fifteen and ten years’ incarceration.  The Defendants filed petitions for post-conviction relief, and after a consolidated evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied relief to both Defendants. The Defendants now appeal to this Court raising the issues of ineffective assistance of counsel and involuntary pleas. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

City of Memphis challenges judgment of trial court finding the city liable, under the Governmental Tort Liability Act, for negligence of a police officer that proximately caused injuries to a criminal suspect who was being placed under arrest. City contends that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence the statement of police officer taken during a police department internal investigation; in finding that the officer’s actions were negligent instead of intentional; and in failing to apply properly the correct standard of care. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The trial court terminated the parental rights of both parents of A.R.G., DOB 12-26-2000. Only Mother, C.S., appeals. Grounds for termination were substantial noncompliance with a permanency plan and failure to remedy conditions in her life permitting the child's return in the near future. We affirm the action of the trial court.

On appeal, the petitioner avers that the post-conviction court erred in: (1) failing to rule on post-conviction counsel's motion to withdraw prior to ruling on the post-conviction petition; (2) dismissing the petition summarily; and (3) dismissing the post-conviction petition in an untimely manner. Upon review, we conclude that the post-conviction court properly dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing and that the delay in the disposition of the petition did not prejudice the petitioner. We affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.

This is a termination of parental rights case wherein J.R.R., who is neither the biological father of the twins nor the husband of the mother of the twins, resists the termination of his parental rights. The trial court terminated his parental rights, and we affirm the judgment.

The defendant, Charles Sawyer, was arrested by the police for aggravated sexual battery. Following his arrest, Sawyer made an oral statement to the police after an officer read to Sawyer an affidavit supporting the arrest warrant but before the officer advised Sawyer of his Fifth Amendment rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Sawyer filed a motion to suppress his oral statement. Based upon the nature of the facts contained in the affidavit supporting the issuance of the arrest warrant and the circumstances surrounding his arrest and detention, we conclude the statement resulted from an unconstitutional custodial interrogation and therefore should be suppressed. Accordingly, 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.

Convicted by a Sullivan County Criminal Court jury of possession of .5 grams or more of cocaine with intent to sell, the defendant, Jeremy Sheron Hall, a/k/a Rodney Lee Jones, appeals and challenges the trial court's failure to suppress evidence, the admission of hearsay evidence, the imposition of a $100,000 fine, and the length of the sentence imposed. We affirm the criminal court's judgment.

The appellant, James Robert Davis, was convicted by a jury of felony murder and aggravated robbery. He was sentenced by the jury to life without the possibility of parole on the felony murder conviction and by the trial court to a twenty-year sentence on the aggravated robbery conviction, to be served consecutively to the life sentence. The appellant appeals, arguing that: (1) the trial court erred in admitting statements of the victim as excited utterances; (2) the trial court erred by admitting tape recordings of the appellant’s telephone calls from the jail; (3) the evidence at trial was insufficient to support the convictions; and (4) the evidence at trial did not clearly establish the cause of the victim’s death. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A grandmother, who lost custody of her grandchildren in Juvenile Court proceedings, sued the Department of Children's Services ("DCS") and its employee in Circuit Court alleging defamation. The trial court dismissed the suit based upon immunity. We affirm the dismissal of DCS and affirm the employee's dismissal on alternative grounds.

The appellant, Robbie O. Allen, entered Alford pleas in the Sullivan County Criminal Court to two counts of felony failure to appear. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced the appellant on each count to two years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction, to be served concurrently. On appeal, the appellant challenges the trial court's denial of alternative sentencing. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Glenda Emmit ("the plaintiff") brought a petition seeking to annul her marriage to Richard Emmit. She alleged that, unbeknownst to her, her prior marriage to James Randall Medley had not been dissolved at the time of her attempted marriage to Mr. Emmit. She claims that this prior marriage prevented her from contracting a valid marriage with Mr. Emmit. The trial court held that the co-administrators of Mr. Medley's estate (collectively "the co-administrators") were indispensable parties and ordered the plaintiff to amend her complaint to add them. Following a bench trial, the court below entered a judgment denying the plaintiff's petition for annulment on the ground that she had "unclean hands" and was therefore estopped from averring either that her marriage to Mr. Emmit was invalid or that her marriage to Mr. Medley was not dissolved. The plaintiff appeals. We reverse the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Charles Edward Overby, was convicted by a jury in the Bradley County Criminal Court of second degree murder, theft over $1,000, theft under $500, aggravated assault, and possession of marijuana. He received a total effective sentence of thirty-five years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective. The post-conviction court dismissed the petition, finding that counsel was not ineffective. On appeal, the petitioner challenges this ruling and additionally contends that he should have been evaluated for competency prior to the commencement of the post-conviction hearing. Upon our review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

A Marshall County jury convicted the Defendant, David Hopkins Plemons, Jr., of second degree murder, and the trial court sentenced him to nineteen years in prison. On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction because he acted in self-defense when he killed the victim; and (2) the trial court erred when it sentenced him. After thoroughly reviewing the record and the applicable authorities, we affirm the Defendant's conviction and sentence.

This matter is before the Court upon the State's motion to affirm the judgment of the trial court by memorandum opinion pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The petitioner, Paul Tobias Davis, has appealed the trial court's order summarily dismissing his "Petition for Pretrial Jail Credit And/or Petition for a Writ of Certiorari." In that petition, the petitioner challenges the calculation of his sentencing credits during his incarceration in the Davidson County Jail from July 8, 2001, until April 17, 2002. Upon a review of the record in this case we are persuaded that the trial court was correct in summarily dismissing the petition and that this case meets the criteria for affirmance pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Denise Wassom ("Plaintiff") loaned her car to her ex-boyfriend who then had a single-car accident while making a beer run. Plaintiff's vehicle was a total loss. Fearing that her ex-boyfriend might be arrested for DUI, Plaintiff reported to the police that her car had been stolen. Plaintiff's vehicle was insured through State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ("State Farm"). Plaintiff also reported to State Farm that her car had been stolen. Approximately two weeks into State Farm's investigation, an adjustor for State Farm interviewed the witnesses whom Plaintiff claimed to have been with at the time her vehicle was stolen. Immediately after these interviews, Plaintiff "came clean" and told State Farm the truth. State Farm denied Plaintiff's claim and Plaintiff filed suit claiming State Farm was in breach of contract. State Farm filed a motion for summary judgment claiming the undisputed material facts demonstrated that Plaintiff had made material misrepresentations with the intent to deceive. The Trial Court granted State Farm's motion for summary judgment, and Plaintiff appeals. We affirm.

The appellant, Kendrick Naylor, was convicted by a jury of criminal attempt to commit assault, felony evading arrest, and theft of property over $10,000. The trial court sentenced the appellant to four (4) years as a Range II multiple offender for the evading arrest conviction and six (6) months for the attempt to commit assault conviction, to run concurrently to the sentence for evading arrest.  The trial court sentenced the appellant to eight (8) years for the theft of property conviction, to be served consecutively to the four-year sentence for evading arrest, for a total effective sentence of twelve (12) years. After a motion for new trial was denied by the trial court, a timely notice of appeal was filed. On appeal, the following issues are presented for review: (1) whether the trial court erred in denying the appellant’s motion for a mistrial; (2) whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions; and (3) whether the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences. We affirm the judgment of the trial court and the appellant’s sentence because we determine that the appellant’s history of criminal convictions more than justifies the sentence imposed.

A Sullivan County Criminal Court jury convicted the defendant, Greg Harris, of criminal conspiracy to sell or deliver more than 300 grams of cocaine, a Class A felony; possession of more than 300 grams of cocaine for resale within 1000 feet of a school, a Class A felony; and two counts of possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced him as a Range I, standard offender to consecutive sentences of twenty-five years for each felony conviction, and concurrent sentences of eleven months, twenty-nine days for each misdemeanor conviction, for an effective sentence of fifty years. The jury fined him a total of $1,005,000. The defendant appeals, claiming that (1) the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence; (2) the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions; (3) the trial court erred by admitting irrelevant evidence and allowing prosecutorial misconduct without declaring a mistrial; (4) the jury verdict lacked unanimity because the state failed to elect either sale or delivery in count one of the indictment; (5) his right to a fair trial was violated by the fact he lacked certain materials necessary to prepare for trial, i.e., a map depicting the area surrounding the location of his arrest, a transcript of the suppression hearing, and a list of potential jurors; and (6) the trial court erred by imposing excessive and consecutive sentences. We affirm the defendant's convictions. However, we hold the record is insufficient to justify the trial court's imposition of consecutive sentences and, in light of the rule announced in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. __, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), we modify the defendant's sentences to twenty-four years for each felony conviction.

This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with the Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of the findings of fact and conclusions of law. The issues of this case are as follows: (1) whether the trial court erred in finding medical causation; and (2) whether the trial improperly denied employer's motion in limine to exclude the testimony of George Barnard and Dr. David Bradley Seitzinger. We find no error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.