APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

This is a wiretapping case. A husband and a wife were experiencing marital difficulties. During that time, the husband tape recorded a telephone conversation between his wife and her brother without the knowledge of either. When the brother found out, he filed a lawsuit  against the husband, his brother-in-law, seeking damages under the civil damages provision of the Tennessee wiretapping statutes, Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-603. The trial court, sitting without a jury, held that the husband was liable to his brother-in-law, and awarded nominal compensatory damages, litigation expenses, and attorney’s fees. The husband and the brother-in-law both appeal that decision, arguing that the damage award was erroneous. We reverse the trial court’s award of damages, finding that the statute requires that, when a violation is established, the trial court must award either the actual damages or the statutory minimum penalty of $10,000, whichever is greater.

The Defendant, Paul Graham Manning, was convicted by a jury of first degree premeditated murder and felony reckless endangerment. In this direct appeal, the Defendant raises six issues: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to support his convictions; (2) whether the trial court properly instructed the jury on lesser-included offenses; (3) whether the trial court properly instructed the jury on the culpable mental state required for premeditated murder; (4) whether the Defendant was denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial; (5) whether the trial court erred by not reducing his bond; and (6) whether the trial court erred in quashing the Defendant's subpoena for certain witnesses. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Tipton County jury convicted the defendant of the delivery of .5 grams or more of cocaine. On appeal, he argues: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction; (2) the trial court erred in refusing to grant a mistrial after the prosecutor improperly questioned the defendant about prior drug sales; and (3) the trial court erroneously instructed the jury regarding his co-defendant's status as an accomplice. We conclude the trial court erred in refusing to grant a mistrial. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the matter for a new trial.

Following a bench trial, Defendant, Brian Ernest Merriweather, was found guilty of the unlawful sale of more than 0.5 grams of cocaine. He was sentenced to serve fourteen years as a Range II multiple offender. In his sole issue on appeal, Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, and that, at most, the State proved that he was guilty of a casual exchange of cocaine. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The appellant, Richard Warren, pled guilty in the Rutherford County Circuit Court to two counts of aggravated sexual battery. The trial court sentenced the appellant on each offense to eleven years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant contends that the trial court misapplied enhancement and mitigating factors in determining his sentences. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Petitioner, Amin Shabazz, filed a petition for post-conviction relief attacking his conviction for sale of a controlled substance containing more than 0.5 grams of cocaine, following a plea of nolo contendere in the Davidson County Criminal Court. He received a ten-year sentence. The conviction occurred on August 27, 2001, and the petition for post-conviction relief was timely filed on April 22, 2002. The trial court dismissed the petition without appointing counsel, without allowing Petitioner to amend the petition, and without an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the trial court erred by summarily dismissing the petition. The State agrees. Following a review of the record, we reverse the judgment of the trial court, and remand this case for an evidentiary hearing and for the post-conviction trial court to further allow Petitioner to receive all procedural rights granted to him pursuant to the Post-Conviction Relief Act.

A Lauderdale County grand jury indicted the defendants, Jerry Steven Cothran and Lee Theodore Smith, on one count of attempt to manufacture a controlled substance, two counts of possession of controlled substances, and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia. Cothran was also indicted on three counts of unlawful possession of a firearm. The trial court granted the defendants' motion to suppress evidence based upon an illegal search. On appeal, the state contends the trial court erred in granting the defendants' motion to suppress. Upon review of the record and the applicable law, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.

The defendants, Phillip Charles Saindon, Jr. and Jerry Sailors, were each convicted of one count of theft over $10,000 and one count of theft over $60,000. In addition to challenging the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, they argue that there was a fatal variance between the indictment and the proof and that the trial court erred in admitting hearsay evidence. We conclude there was no material or prejudicial variance between the indictment, which alleged theft of United States currency, and the proof as to each was sufficient to sustain the convictions of theft over $60,000. However, as to the convictions for theft over $10,000, we conclude that, although the State presented sufficient evidence to establish that the defendants committed theft of property, the evidence was insufficient to establish the value of the thefts for these convictions. Accordingly, we modify the convictions for theft over $10,000 to theft over $1000 and remand the case to the trial court for appropriate sentencing for this offense. We affirm the judgments of conviction for theft over $60,000.

The defendant, Sherry L. Williams, pleaded guilty to 20 forgery charges and three charges of criminal impersonation, with a recommended effective sentence of seven years. The plea agreement provided that the trial court would determine the manner of service of the sentence. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court denied any form of alternative sentencing and ordered incarceration in the Department of Correction. From this determination, the defendant appeals. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.