APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

The defendant, Scott Benn, who was originally charged with felony murder and aggravated child abuse, was convicted of one count of aggravated child abuse. The trial court imposed a sentence of twenty-five years. In this appeal, the defendant asserts (1) that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offenses of felony murder and aggravated child abuse; (2) that the trial court erred by admitting certain evidence; and (3) that the sentence is excessive. Although the trial court erred by failing to instruct on the lesser included offenses, the error can be classified as harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The judgment is, therefore, affirmed.

The petitioner, Delivetrick Dewon Blocker, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. In this appeal, he contends that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The Appellant, Donald E. Bryant, entered guilty pleas to the offenses of evading arrest, class D felony theft, misdemeanor theft, aggravated burglary, aggravated assault, and two violations of the Motor Vehicle Habitual Offender Act (MVHO). Under the terms of the plea agreement, Bryant received an effective twenty-year sentence as a range II multiple offender for these crimes. The plea agreement provided that the manner of service of the sentences would be submitted to the trial court. Following the sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered the sentences be served in the Department of Correction. On appeal, Bryant argues that the trial court erred in failing to grant him a sentence of community corrections. Finding this argument without merit, the judgment of the Blount County Circuit Court is affirmed.

The defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence after being convicted by a Davidson County jury of premeditated first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Appellant, Roger D. Harrison, was convicted, following a bench trial, of DUI, second offense. On appeal, Harrison challenges his conviction upon grounds that: (1) the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence of driving under the influence because there was insufficient probable cause to stop his vehicle and his pre-arrest period of detention was excessive and unreasonable, and (2) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. Although not raised as an issue on appeal, we find it necessary to address the question of whether a federal law enforcement officer, when acting beyond his assigned federal duties and jurisdiction, may lawfully stop or seize a person who commits a state traffic offense in his presence. After review, we find the federal officer in this case had state authority to stop Harrison's vehicle. Moreover, finding Harrison's issues on appeal without merit, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Upon his plea of guilty, the Defendant was convicted of operating a motor vehicle after having been ordered not to under the terms of the Motor Vehicle Habitual Offenders Act. For this Class E felony, the Defendant was sentenced as a Range II multiple offender to serve four years in the Department of Correction. In this appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred by not allowing his sentence to be served in community corrections. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Stanley Mills, appeals the Hamilton County Criminal Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his conviction for second degree murder and resulting twenty-year sentence. He contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial attorney did not (1) prepare for trial adequately; (2) object to the trial court's erroneous jury instruction regarding his possible sentences; and (3) object to the trial court's amending his judgment of conviction to reflect that he was to serve one hundred percent of his sentence instead of thirty percent. We affirm the trial court's denial of the petition.

This appeal involves a conflict between neighbors over whether the Taylors have a right to use a gravel driveway located on property owned by the Rhoades to access their property. The trial court found that an implied easement was proved. The Rhoades appeal that judgment to this court arguing that the Taylors failed to prove two elements necessary for a finding of an implied easement. We affirm the trial court's judgment.

This case involves an insurance company's appeal of the trial court's decision that the company has a duty to defend its insured under a commercial general liability policy. Applying Texas law, we find that no such duty exists and, accordingly, reverse the decision of the trial court.

This case involves the termination of parental rights. The mother of the two young children at issue had a history of cocaine and marijuana abuse. In September 1999, the state department of children's services obtained custody of the children and placed them in a foster home. While the children were in foster care, the mother participated in drug rehabilitation programs and attempted to obtain permanent employment. The mother made some progress, but repeatedly relapsed back into drug and alcohol use, and failed to procure a permanent job or a permanent residence. In August 2001, the State filed a petition to terminate the mother's parental rights. The trial court granted the State's petition. The mother now appeals. We affirm, finding clear and convincing evidence that the mother had failed to comply with the permanency plan, that conditions that prevented the children's safe return still persisted, and that termination of the mother's parental rights is in the children's best interest.

The defendant was convicted of assault, a Class A misdemeanor, in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-101 and sentenced to eleven months, twenty-nine days, with ninety days to be served in the county jail and the remainder on supervised probation. On appeal, in addition to challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, he argues that the trial court imposed an excessive sentence and erred by ordering that he serve ninety days in confinement. We conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction and the record supports the trial court’s sentencing determinations. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Defendant appeals adverse summary judgment as to diminution in value of a 1995 Jaguar XJ6 automobile based upon alleged undisputed expert testimony. Judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded.

In this appeal from the trial court's award of attorneys fees, Appellant seeks review of the trial court's refusal to award the full amount of fees sought. We modify the trial court's findings and affirm as to the amount of the award.

The appellant, Jared Michael Christein, was convicted by a jury in the Sullivan County Criminal Court of second degree murder, felony murder, and especially aggravated robbery. The appellant's second degree murder conviction was merged into his felony murder conviction and he was sentenced to life imprisonment in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The trial court also sentenced the appellant to twenty-five years incarceration for the especially aggravated robbery conviction. On appeal, the appellant raises the following issues for our review: whether sufficient evidence existed to support his convictions and whether the trial court properly charged the jury on the appropriate lesser-included offenses. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

This appeal involves a dispute between a prisoner and the Tennessee Board of Paroles regarding the revocation of his parole. After exhausting his administrative remedies, the prisoner filed a petition for common-law writ of certiorari in the Chancery Court for Davidson County asserting that he did not commit the crime that triggered the revocation of his parole. The trial court eventually dismissed the petition on the ground that it was not timely filed, and the prisoner has appealed. While his appeal was pending, the prisoner was released from the Department of Correction. Accordingly, because this appeal is now moot, we vacate the trial court's order and remand the case with directions to dismiss the prisoner's petition.

A Maury County jury convicted the defendant, Donnie Thompson, of voluntary manslaughter and attempted voluntary manslaughter. The trial court sentenced him as a Range I standard offender to the maximum sentences of six years for voluntary manslaughter and four years for attempted voluntary manslaughter, with the sentences to run consecutively. On appeal, the defendant contends his sentences are excessive. We reduce the sentence for voluntary manslaughter to five years, affirm the four-year sentence for attempted voluntary manslaughter, and order the sentences to run concurrently.

We granted the plaintiff's application for permission to appeal to determine whether the Chancellor erred in holding that a contractor is unlicensed for purposes of Tennessee Code Annotated section 62-6-103(b), and therefore is limited to a recovery of documented expenses proven by clear and convincing evidence, where the contractor possessed a valid contractor's license when the contract was formed but did not maintain a valid license throughout the entire time contracting services were performed under the contract. After carefully considering the relevant statutes, we conclude that the Chancellor properly held that a contractor who does not maintain a valid license throughout the entire contract period is unlicensed for purposes of Tennessee Code Annotated section 62-6-103(b) and limited to a recovery of documented expenses proven by clear and convincing evidence.

We granted this appeal to determine whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the defendant based on the plaintiff’s failure to join all of the tortfeasors in a single proceeding under Samuelson v. McMurtry, 962 S.W.2d 473 (Tenn. 1998). The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s judgment after concluding that the plaintiff’s settlement with one tortfeasor did not require dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint against a second tortfeasor. After reviewing the record and the applicable authority, we hold that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the defendant based on the plaintiff’s failure to join the tortfeasors in a single proceeding and that Samuelson is not applicable to the facts of this case. We therefore affirm the Court of Appeals’ judgment and remand to the trial court for further proceedings.

We granted review to determine whether Tennessee should adopt a cause of action allowing a child to recover for loss of parental consortium due to an injury to the child's parent. The trial court dismissed the claims for loss of parental consortium after finding that no such cause of action exists. The Court of Appeals affirmed. We hold that this Court should not adopt a common law cause of action for loss of parental consortium in personal injury cases and that the issue of whether to create such a cause of action is a matter of legislative discretion. We therefore affirm the Court of Appeals' judgment.