APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The appellants, Nathaniel Lee Jackson and Kenneth Juqan Jones, both minors, were tried as adults in a non-jury trial and found guilty of aggravated kidnapping, evading arrest and aggravated robbery. Following a sentencing hearing, each received an effective sentence of twelve years. Both appellants argue that the juvenile court erred in transferring the case to circuit court. Appellant Jackson seeks a determination as to whether the judgment is void due to the failure of the trial court to have a detention hearing. Appellant Jones presents the following additional issues: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient on the charges of aggravated kidnapping and aggravated robbery; and (2) whether the trial court failed to adhere to applicable sentencing guidelines. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the decision of the trial court.

This is a proceeding to terminate the parental relationship between father and son. The mother's relationship had been previously terminated at her request. The trial court terminated the father's parental relationship on statutory grounds of non-support, non visitation, and best interests. Father essentially argues that his son, who was born February 12, 1996 in Texas, was hidden from him, thereby frustrating his efforts to support or visit him. The trial court found that the Respondent had little credibility, that he had no permanent address, and that he failed to keep anyone apprised of his address for the last four years. Judgment affirmed.

A Shelby County jury convicted the Appellant, Ronald Dotson, of two counts of aggravated robbery. Following a sentencing hearing, Dotson was found to be a repeat violent offender and sentenced to two consecutive sentences of life without parole. On appeal, Dotson argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for continuance based upon (1) the State’s failure to provide pre-trial discovery and (2) the court’s ruling which permitted impeachment under Tennessee Rules of Evidence 609. As a second issue, Dotson argues that the evidence is legally insufficient to support his convictions. Finding no reversible error, the judgments of conviction are affirmed.

The defendant, Tony Levelle Ford, entered guilty pleas to aggravated burglary and conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery. The Blount County trial court ordered the defendant to serve concurrent five-year sentences in confinement as a Range I standard offender. On appeal, the defendant contends his sentences are excessive. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Wife filed for divorce alleging irreconcilable differences or, in the alternative, that Husband was guilty of inappropriate marital conduct. The trial court granted Wife an absolute divorce on the basis of Husband's stipulated inappropriate marital conduct. The trial court further ordered a distribution of marital property and debt, awarded wife alimony in futuro and attorney's fees, and required Husband to maintain a life insurance policy to secure his alimony obligation. Husband appeals. We affirm the award of alimony in futuro, distribution of marital property and debt, and the award of attorney's fees as alimony in solido. However, we vacate the requirement to provide life insurance and remand.

The appellant, Roy Chisenhall, was convicted by a jury of aggravated sexual battery. After a sentencing hearing, he was sentenced to eight years and nine months and, as recommended by the jury, assessed a $25,000 fine. The trial court denied his motion for new trial. In this direct appeal, the appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, the jury instruction on flight, the jury instruction on aggravated sexual battery, and the absence of a jury instruction on corroboration of accomplice testimony. After a review of the record and applicable authorities, we affirm the decision of the trial court.

Father of minor child appeals the trial court’s order finding him in contempt of court, assessing arrearages of child support and attorney fees on the ground that the court lacked personal jurisdiction in the original divorce action and all subsequent proceedings. We affirm.
 

The appellant, Cornell Marley Hyder, also known as Cornbread, was convicted by a jury of one count of rape of a child, one count of rape, one count of aggravated sexual battery, and one count of sexual battery, for which he received an effective seventeen-year sentence. In this direct appeal, the appellant presents the following issues for review: (1) whether the trial court erred in refusing to allow testimony pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Evidence 412; (2) whether the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress; (3) whether the trial court erred in denying the motion for directed verdict; (4) whether the trial court erred in failing to charge the jury on election of offenses; (5) whether the evidence established the venue of the offense on the charge of rape; and (6) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict. We affirm the convictions and sentences, but remand for correction of the judgment forms.

The defendant, Carter Masters, was convicted by a jury of two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, aggravated burglary, and aggravated assault. The trial court imposed concurrent sentences of twenty years for each kidnapping, four years for the burglary, and three years for the aggravated assault. In this appeal of right, the defendant asserts that he was denied due process because the mental health expert retained by trial counsel was incompetent. In the alternative, he argues that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to select a competent psychologist. The defendant also asserts that his due process rights were offended by the state's cross-examination of the defense psychologist. The judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

The trial court found Plaintiff was the owner of disputed stock, but had failed to prove monetary damages. We affirm in part and remand for further proceedings regarding damages.

This appeal concerns a restaurant's liability for the conduct of an employee who verbally abused and bumped a customer. The customer filed suit against the restaurant in the Circuit Court for Wilson County seeking damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court granted the restaurant a summary judgment and the customer appealed. The sole issue on appeal is whether the employee was acting within the scope of his employment when he harassed and bumped the customer. Because we find as a matter of law the employee was not acting within the scope of his employment, we affirm the summary judgment.

The appellant, Eric T. Armstrong, was convicted by a jury in the Williamson County Circuit Court of aggravated robbery and especially aggravated kidnapping. Following a hearing, the trial court sentenced the appellant to an effective sixteen year sentence in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, the denial of the motion to suppress Lara Carter's identification of the appellant, the constitutionality of the jury venire, and his conviction of especially aggravated kidnapping under State v. Anthony, 817 S.W.2d 299 (Tenn. 1991). Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The petitioner, Robert L. Drew, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The issue is whether he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. The judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed.

Following a revocation hearing, the trial court revoked the probation of Defendant, Jamie Michelle Crawford, and ordered her to serve the remainder of her sentence in confinement. Defendant does not appeal the revocation of her probation but argues that the trial court erred in not imposing a sentence of split confinement. After a thorough review of the record in this matter, we affirm the judgment of the trial court revoking probation and ordering Defendant to serve her sentence in confinement.

Petitioner, Jerry W. Dickerson, appeals from the trial court's dismissal of his pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner alleges that his conviction and sentence are void because the trial record was improperly authenticated and contained inaccuracies. Following a review of the record in this matter, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The defendant, Salvatore Brunetti, was convicted of voluntary manslaughter. The trial court imposed a sentence of five years in the Department of Correction. In this appeal, the defendant asserts that the trial court erred by denying an alternative sentence. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The Appellant, Donald Keel, was convicted in the Gibson County Circuit Court of aggravated
perjury, felon in possession of a handgun, and assault. Keel’s sentence for aggravated perjury was imposed consecutively to his concurrent sentences for unlawful weapon possession and assault. On appeal, he raises two issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to support his conviction for aggravated perjury and (2) whether consecutive sentencing is proper. After review of the record, we affirm the conviction and subsequent sentencing decision.

The petitioner, David Johnson Hartsell, appeals the order of the Circuit Court for Washington County dismissing his post-conviction relief petition. 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. The petition fails to present a cognizable claim for relief. Accordingly, the State's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The Appellant, Billy Gene Rich, was convicted of driving under the influence (DUI), second offense, and was sentenced to serve eleven months and twenty-nine days in jail. On appeal, Rich argues that: (1) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction and (2) his sentence is excessive. After review, the conviction and sentence are affirmed.

The defendant, David Hester, pled guilty to statutory rape. The trial court imposed a one-year sentence to be served on supervised probation and directed community service. In this appeal, he asserts that the trial court erred by denying judicial diversion. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

In this appeal an unsuccessful plaintiff seeks review of a jury verdict approved by the trial court, in favor of the defendant manufacturer. We affirm.

The Appellant, Darrell Sanderlin, appeals from the sentencing decision of the Haywood County Circuit Court. Sanderlin pled guilty to one count of child abuse of his six-year-old son, a class D felony. Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, he was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender, with the length and manner of service to be determined by the trial court. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a sentence of four years incarceration. On appeal, Sanderlin argues that the trial court erred by ordering a sentence of total confinement rather than a less restrictive alternative. After review, the sentencing decision is affirmed.

The plaintiffs bring this appeal from the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of the defendant. We affirm.

The majority has determined that summary judgment was proper because the plaintiff failed to establish that the defendant owed her a duty and that the plaintiff was responsible for no less that 50% of her own injuries. I respectfully disagree.