APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

On September 6, 2002, Melody Lynn Michael ("Wife") filed suit against her husband, John William Michael, Jr. ("Husband"), seeking a divorce, custody of the couple's minor child, and ancillary relief. The complaint reflects that Husband is an active-duty member of the United States Air Force. Service of process on Husband was attempted through the Secretary of State "by certified or registered mail" directed to Husband at his acknowledged address in Waldorf, Maryland. The Secretary of State notified the clerk of the trial court that his correspondence to Husband was returned by the United States Postal Service with the notation that it was "refused." When there was no response filed by Husband to Wife's complaint, Wife, on November 25, 2002, filed a motion for default judgment. The motion was heard and granted on January 6, 2003, and subsequently memorialized in a default judgment and judgment of divorce entered January 24, 2003. A motion to set aside the default judgment and judgment of divorce was filed by Husband on February 14, 2003. Following a hearing on April 7, 2003, the trial court entered an order on May 6, 2003, denying the motion. Husband appeals. We affirm.

The defendant pled guilty to possession of marijuana with intent to sell or deliver, a Class E felony, and simple possession of cocaine, a Class A misdemeanor. The Rutherford County trial court imposed an effective one-year sentence with ninety days incarceration followed by probation. On appeal, the defendant raises two issues: (1) whether the trial court erred in denying judicial diversion; and (2) whether the trial court erred in denying full probation. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Tanikia Yolanda Boone (“the tenant”) sued Houston Gibson, Jr. (“the landlord”), seeking damages and other relief for wrongful eviction and for the wrongful withholding of her personal possessions, pursuant to the Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (“the URLTA”), Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-28-101, et seq. (1993 & Supp. 2003). The tenant attempted service on the landlord by having the landlord’s process served on Donna Gibson, the landlord’s former wife. After the landlord failed to respond to the complaint, the tenant filed a motion for default judgment. The trial court granted the motion and awarded the tenant damages of $20,000 and attorney’s fees and costs totaling $3,500. Approximately two years later, in response to the tenant’s efforts to execute on her judgment, the landlord filed a motion to dismiss the default judgment on the ground that the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over him. Following a hearing on the landlord’s motion, the trial court held that the landlord’s former wife had authority as his agent to accept service of process on his behalf. We affirm.
 

After nineteen years of marriage, Myrtle Marie Stagner (“Wife”) sued Lloyd Otis Stagner (“Husband”) for divorce. After trial, the Trial Court ordered, inter alia, the marital home sold and awarded Wife sixty percent of the proceeds with ten percent being alimony in solido in lieu of any other alimony. The Trial Court also characterized as Husband’s separate property the appreciation of Husband’s separate pre-marital property. Wife appeals as to both the alimony and the property division. We affirm, in part, and vacate, in part, and remand.

The petitioner was indicted on three counts of rape of a child, a Class A felony, and pled guilty to one count of incest, a Class C felony, in exchange for an eight-year sentence as a Range II, multiple offender. Following his conviction, he filed a timely motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to Rule 35 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure. After conducting a hearing, the trial court denied the motion, and the petitioner appealed to this court. We agree that the petitioner should be allowed to withdraw his plea of guilty, although for a different reason than he argues. Incest, to which he pled guilty, is not a lesser-included offense of rape of a child, and the record on appeal does not reflect that the indictment was amended to charge incest. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of conviction and remand this matter to the trial court.

Defendants Andrew Thomas and Anthony Bond appeal as of right their convictions for the first degree felony murder of Loomis Fargo employee, James Day, during the perpetration of a robbery. Following a separate sentencing hearing, the jury found, as to each defendant, that the proof supported one aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt, that is, the defendant had been previously convicted of one or more violent felonies. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-204(i)(2). With respect to Defendant Thomas, the jury further determined that the aggravating circumstance outweighed any mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt, and sentenced Defendant Thomas to death. As to Defendant Bond, the jury found that the aggravating circumstance did not outweigh the mitigating circumstances and imposed a sentence of life without the possibility of parole. The trial court approved the sentencing verdicts. In this appeal as of right, Defendant Thomas raises the following issues for this Court’s review: (1) the sufficiency of the evidence; (2) whether the trial court erred by denying various pre-trial motions; (3) whether the trial court erred by failing to continue the case after the events of September 11, 2001; (4) whether the trial court erred by excusing prospective juror Pannell for cause; (5) whether the trial court erred by admitting photographs of the victim; (6) whether the trial court erred by admitting items from Defendant’s prior federal trial arising out of the robbery; (7) whether the trial court erred in restricting the Defendant’s impeachment of Angela Jackson; (8) whether the trial court erred in failing to voir dire a prospective witness regarding her relationship with defense witness Russell Carpenter; (9) whether the trial court erred in sustaining an objection to the testimony of John Hibbler; (10) whether the trial court erred in permitting testimony regarding fingerprints despite stipulation; (11) whether the trial court erred in the admission of expert testimony; (12) whether the trial court erred by failing to charge lesser-included offenses of felony murder; (13) whether the trial court erred by failing to charge the jury with an accomplice instruction; (14) whether it was plain error for the State to refer to Thomas and Bond as “Greed and Evil” in opening statement and closing argument; (15) whether the trial court erred in permitting the State to argue that the jury had a job to find the Defendants guilty; (16) whether the trial court erred by not instructing on specific mitigating factors; (17) whether the trial court erred by permitting the State to cross-examine the Defendant’s mother regarding disciplinary actions taken against the Defendant while in prison; (18) whether the verdict 2 of the jury was against the weight of the evidence; (19) whether the indictment failed to charge a capital offense; (20) whether the death penalty violates international treaties ratified by the United States; (21) whether the Tennessee death penalty scheme is unconstitutional; and (22) whether the sentence is proportionate. Defendant Bond raises the following issues: (1) whether it was error for the trial judge to fail to recuse himself for failure to follow Local Rule 4.01; (2) whether the trial court erred by overruling Bond’s objection to the testimony of Dr. Smith; (3) whether the trial court erred by declaring Dr. Smith an expert in firearms identification; (4) whether the trial court erred by permitting the prosecution to engage in improper argument; (5) whether the trial court erred by permitting the prosecution to elicit testimony from Angela Jackson regarding her attendance at trial; and (6) whether the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury as to lesser-included offenses of felony murder. After review of the record and the applicable law, we find no errors of law requiring reversal as to Defendant Thomas. Accordingly, we affirm the jury’s verdict finding Defendant Thomas guilty of first degree murder. Additionally, we affirm the jury’s imposition of the sentence of death as to Defendant Thomas. However, with respect to Defendant Bond, we are unable to conclude that the failure of the trial court to instruct the jury as to the lesser-included offenses of felony murder was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, we vacate Defendant Bond’s conviction for felony murder and accompanying sentence of life without the possibility of parole. With respect to Defendant Bond, this matter is remanded to the trial court for a new trial.

I concur in the majority opinion. I write separately to further address the majority’s treatment of the Illinois farm. I agree with the majority that the use of the parties’ joint accounts – to which both parties contributed – to pay “real estate taxes, insurance premiums, repairs and maintenance on the farm” during the parties’ 19-year marriage is clear evidence that “each party substantially contributed to [the Illinois farm’s] preservation and appreciation.” See Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-4- 121(b)(1)(B). This means that the entire “increase in value [of the Illinois farm] during the marriage,” see id., is marital property. Obviously this does not end the inquiry, because the trial court on remand must decide how to make an equitable division of the marital property portion of the present value of the farm in the context of an overall division of the total marital property estate. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-4-121(c)(1)-(11).

Pursuant to Rule 9, Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, both the defendant and the State were granted appeals from an interlocutory order of the trial court granting in part, and denying in part, Defendant's motion to exclude Rule 404(b), Tennessee Rules of Evidence, testimony. After a careful review of the evidence, we affirm in part and reverse in part the trial court's order.

The defendant was convicted of DUI, second offense. He contends that 1) the evidence was insufficient, 2) the trial court erred in instructing the jury on reasonable doubt, 3) the trial court erred in instructing the jury as to the inference from refusal to submit to a chemical test, and 4) the trial court erred in failing to grant the motion to strike the enhancement count. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

I concur in the results reached in the majority opinion. However, I question whether a “reasonable certainty” equates to a “moral certainty” relative to the definition of reasonable doubt in Tennessee. Also, I believe that trial courts in this state should not be using varying definitions of reasonable doubt.

This is an appeal by the petitioner from the denial of his post-conviction relief petition. The petitioner was originally convicted of especially aggravated robbery and sentenced to 60 years at 100% service. After careful review, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.

Appellant Dennis Ray Jones was convicted in the Henry County Circuit Court of manufacturing methamphetamine and was sentenced to three years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Appellant Pamela Kay Barker was convicted of criminal responsibility for facilitating the manufacturing of methamphetamine and was sentenced to two years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellants raise numerous issues, including the trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress, the sufficiency of the evidence, and sentencing. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court but remand for a correction of Appellant Barker’s judgment of conviction.

Defendant, Michael David Totty, was indicted on one count of burglary of a building other than a habitation, a Class D felony, and one count of theft of property over $1,000 but less than $10,000, a Class D felony. The jury found Defendant guilty of the lesser-included offense of facilitation of a burglary other than a habitation on count one and guilty on count two, theft of property. The trial court sentenced Defendant as a Range III persistent offender to ten years on the theft conviction and six years on Defendant’s conviction of facilitation of a burglary. The trial court ordered Defendant’s sentences to run concurrently for an effective sentence of ten years. Defendant does not appeal his sentence. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court’s denial of his motion for a continuance prevented Defendant from securing a material witness for trial and denied his counsel an adequate opportunity to evaluate Defendant’s competency to stand trial. Defendant also argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

I concur in affirming defendant Jones’s conviction of manufacturing methamphetamine but respectfully dissent from affirming Barker’s conviction of facilitation of the same offense.

The Homeowners' Association of a residential subdivision organized as a planned unit development assessed maintenance fees against the owner of twenty-two unimproved lots in the subdivision. The owner of those lots filed a suit to obtain a declaration that it was not liable for those fees, alleging that the developer had waived all assessments on vacant lots. The trial court found that the Association was entitled to rescind the waiver, granted summary judgment to the Association, and ordered the lot owners to pay the fees, as well as significant late charges and attorney fees, for a total of over $45,000. We reverse the judgment because there is no evidence in the record that the Board of Directors of the Homeowners' Association ever officially rescinded the waiver, and there is thus a material question of fact as to whether its assessments were valid.

This appeal is from a will contest. The trial court entered judgment according to the terms of a settlement agreement between the parties. Appellants contend they withdrew their agreement to the settlement before approval of the agreement by the trial court. They accordingly submit the agreement is not enforceable. We affirm judgment of the trial court enforcing the terms of the settlement agreement.

This is an employment tax case. The State of Tennessee appeals the determination of the Tennessee Claims Commission that Crew One Productions is not liable for Tennessee employment tax by virtue of a federal safe harbor provision known as section 530. We reverse, holding Tennessee is not bound by the federal safe harbor provision.

Father filed a petition for an initial determination of custody against the Mother. Father alleged that he was the fit and proper person for the custody of the child. Based on the evidence presented at trial, the juvenile court entered a judgment and permanent parenting plan which found that the Mother was more comparatively fit to continue serving as the primary residential caregiver. Father appeals the trial court’s judgment. We affirm.
 

We granted permission to appeal in this case to consider whether the Sixth Amendment entitles the defendant to participate, through counsel, in the determination of the existence of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant to seize a sample of the defendant's blood. Because we find that the defendant has no such entitlement, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

Mark Edward Igou ("Husband") sued Dinah Carol Igou ("Wife) for a divorce. After trial, the Trial Court awarded Wife alimony only to the extent of requiring Husband to "pay all cost of tuition, books, fees, and other charges relating to [Wife's] obtaining a master's degree whether it's in education or any other related field which will increase her compensation" with the restrictions that Wife must complete the course of study within five years from the entry of the Trial Court's order and that Wife must achieve passing grades. Wife appeals the Trial Court's judgment as to alimony and attorney fees. We affirm.

The Petitioner was discharged from her executive position as Director of the Lenoir City Housing Authority for misconduct connected with her employment. The Authority was awarded McKinney Act funds, an audit of which revealed that $156,000.00 of these funds were inappropriately expended, which led to the discharge of the Petitioner.

The Plaintiff was an at-will employee of the Defendant when he was terminated for an asserted cause. In this action he alleges that he was wrongfully terminated because the Oak Ridge National Laboratory Handbook afforded him a contractual right of peer review. The motion of the Defendants for summary judgment was granted upon a finding that the Handbook was not an employment contract. We affirm.